I thought you'd be glad there were fewer of these landscape shots you don't like?
and the site receives a small commission
It's official... digital is crap...
- Thread starter Pookeyhead
- Start date
I thought you'd be glad there were fewer of these landscape shots you don't like?
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There's certainly no requirement to post, but I think it's a fairly common thing with any area like photography to be curious to know what kind of work those with the loudest opinions produce. After hearing way too many people in music 'talk the talk' and then go on to make an absolute balls of it, I'm very much into people backing their views up with at least some actual results.
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Another reason landscape photographs all looks the same (to some people) is that there is a certain number of honey-pot locations which everyone goes to. They appear over and over again in magazines and on here and I've no doubt on Flickr too (although I have no evidence for the latter). It saves people the trouble of finding their own locations. I remember a post on here asking
"I've just moved to .........., where should I go to get good photographs?" . D'oh!
Another thought; if you are endlessly fascinated by the landscape get out there and photograph it . If you're not don't be surprised if you find the photographs boring. If you're endlessly fascinated by the human face, get out there and photograph them. Ditto.
"I've just moved to .........., where should I go to get good photographs?" . D'oh!
Another thought; if you are endlessly fascinated by the landscape get out there and photograph it . If you're not don't be surprised if you find the photographs boring. If you're endlessly fascinated by the human face, get out there and photograph them. Ditto.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
LOL @ 99%
Digital capture isn't the problem I'm discussing any way unless you hadn't noticed, it's digital post processing that is. That's what is making all these landscapes look the same. Then there's also the other part of the digital equation - the dissemination of the images. So not only is work over processed, but is everywhere you look. The camera is the least important part of the problem. It is most definitely digital that has killed landscape.
That's probably because you think "a great picture speaks a thousand words, and a bad one needs a thousand words", right? So in recent threads you've managed to let us know that you judge the worth of things by their commercial success, and now you obtain your wisdom from old sayings and psuedo-axioms? Do you also forecast the weather by "Red sky at night....."? I know you've trotted out "Emperor's new clothes" a fair few times, and the old, "Those that can do, and those that can't teach" too.
If great images need no words, how come Cornish and Ward managed to sit there for an hour talking about their pictures?.... and why did you watch it? All pictures need words Pete. If the author provides none, the viewer does. Perhaps you'd understand that more if you actually took any photographs
I don't judge the images by their commercial worth - I judge the value of the photographers opinion by how succesful and well regarded they are in their field ... and I stand by the view that folk like cornish and ward know a sight more about photography than you do based on your/their respective acheivements
Oh and this year i've taken several thousand photographs ... I didnt need to write a ton of pretentious waffle to justfy them , as the phrase 'here's your wedding shots' does nicely - in fact I've probably taken nearly as many for personal ammusement , both landscapes and nature , but again I don't feel the need to write a load of crap about their meaning.
I also don't share many on here , for reasons that have already been discussed, but i'd note that we don't see many crit threads from you (david) either ... I know you have shots in galleries but its pretty rare for you to actively seek critique.
Also i freely admit that 'my work' isnt saying anything much - I've never claimed to be an art photographer , I tend to see it like it is, so if its a landscape its just saying 'look at this landscape' - if its wildlife its showing whatever behaviour its exhibiting. if its a wedding its documenting the day for the client - it doesnt have to have deeper meaning. Which i nf act is my whole thesis - that photography doesnt have to have a meaning to be worthy , and that creating for example a beautiful image of roseberry topping to be sold to the yorks tourist board (Cornish, not me for clarity) is itself a worthwhile goal.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cheers, I can now ignore everything you say without feeling bad about it.
Seriously though, that's just bizarre logic.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
not really - obviously on the forum most of us are posting at a relatively equal level though various people have specific expertise in various fields , but my point was that Joe Cornish (see also Noton, Ward, Waite, Edwardes etc) is an acknowledged expert in his field as evidenced by the extensive collection of books , magazine articles, talks, workshops, commisions, and the opinions of similarly acknowledged peers and an honorary fellowship from the RPS in '08.
David with the best will in the world is not anywhere near the same level of expertise and acknowledgement (and I freely admit nor am I, I have no pretence otherwise) so to state as though it's a fact that Cornish's work is without merit , is itself not a credible position to take , as he simply doesnt have the credentials to say that with any authority. If for example Charlie Waite were to state the same thing, i'd still be surprised and might not agree , but it wouldnt make him look anywhere near as foolish.
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ahh, changing the goal posts again I see. That old trick.
Make your mind up, you can't have it both ways.
simon ess
Just call me Roxanne.
- Messages
- 9,604
- Edit My Images
- No
Aah, all those sales and awards.
Clearly an expert in his field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Justin_Bieber
You do make me smile sometimes Pete.
But in a nice way.
Clearly an expert in his field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Justin_Bieber
You do make me smile sometimes Pete.
But in a nice way.
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Sure you have.
I openly seek crit on everything I've posted in the projects and themes section, which is pretty much the only section I post in now, as it's the only place in these forums where any decent crit is to be found.
We wouldn't know... you never post any.. ever.
You've no idea what my credentials are Pete
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It would be nice to see the work of those who have so much to say.. including YOU actually... you're another one who never bloody shoots anything, yet has so much to say in threads of this type.
Besides... I've no idea what Pete shoots.. or you either. Your work could be amazing, or it could be pants.. who knows, you never show anything.
Last edited:
It's more you that has to measure up to the people you don't like rather than me. What have you done compared to Joe Cornish etc?
MWHCVT
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 28,467
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh it's nice to come back to a thread to find the same willy waving as was going on 200 posts previously, look lads can you all not just get a room, lob out your johnsons and measure them once and for all and decide who has the biggest so we can stop all the pathetic posturing each and every time
Aah, all those sales and awards.
Clearly an expert in his field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Justin_Bieber
You do make me smile sometimes Pete.
But in a nice way.
Look at the people behind Bieber and all their awards and expertise. It's not like the top fashion photographers will turn up and do the model's make-up and hair and style them with the latest trends. Those are all talents that come together to create the finished article. A bit like Bieber.
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Original work.
Anyhow.. I'm dismissing you as an irrelevance unless you actually post some work.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
I must say that I find it difficult to believe that no-one's opinion is of any value at all UNLESS they are willing to post some of their own work on here, and be prepared to have it dissected by people who obviously have an axe to grind. That is why I did not post up any of my work when requested. If anyone wants to know more about what I do they can go and look at my website. If they would then like to enter a discussion about it in private I'd be quite happy.
So I fully understand why Pete and Laudrup are unwilling to post anything right now.
And for what it's worth, I pretty much agree with what they've said in this thread.
And surely no-one is seriously comparing Justin Bieber with Joe Cornish, are they. That's just bonkers.
So I fully understand why Pete and Laudrup are unwilling to post anything right now.
And for what it's worth, I pretty much agree with what they've said in this thread.
And surely no-one is seriously comparing Justin Bieber with Joe Cornish, are they. That's just bonkers.
Last edited:
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 1,140
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- No
But I bet Justin has a lot more followers on Instagram...
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As I explained, from my point of view I like being able to see if those with the loudest voices can actually put into practice what they're preaching, especially when they seem to have an opinion on absolutely everything. Going further from Pete mentioning the value of people's opinions earlier, I'd be lying through my keyboard if I said I thought everyone's opinions are equal. People talking the talk but having absolutely no work to demonstrate they actually do know what they're talking about get very little attention from me, even less if the work is nowhere near the level their talk would imply they're at. I'm far more likely to pay attention to people throwing their opinions around who are clearly actually very talented and able photographers. This opinion does stem from a 20 year career in music where I've heard far too many people big themselves up and then proceed to make an absolute balls of it when they get on stage or behind a mixing desk, but I don't really see photography as being any different. I understand people will disagree and that's fine, but I'm a huge believer not all opinions are created equal.
Of course they're not, it was merely an analogy.
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 1,140
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- No
I totally understand where you are coming from Paul, as I have also come across similar people in my limited experience in the music industry. And I am sure we have all come across that type of person in the workplace. However, I do not equate these people to critics, You do not necessarily have to be able to do something to be able to criticise it. There are two very different types of skill in use.
One of the main reasons for going to university is not to learn the subject you are studying, it is to learn critical thinking. Most people choose a subject they like as that is the best way they are going to learn those skills and apply them to an area they enjoy (or want to work in).
And it works both ways. Being good at something does not mean you would be a good critic. There are many people in all areas that are excellent at what they do, but it does not make them someone you would necessarily listen to. How many great artists are also great critics? How many great footballers are great pundits? Being one doesn't mean the other follows.
The trick is being able to tell those who understand something well (without necessarily being able to do it) from those who are full of BS.
One of the main reasons for going to university is not to learn the subject you are studying, it is to learn critical thinking. Most people choose a subject they like as that is the best way they are going to learn those skills and apply them to an area they enjoy (or want to work in).
And it works both ways. Being good at something does not mean you would be a good critic. There are many people in all areas that are excellent at what they do, but it does not make them someone you would necessarily listen to. How many great artists are also great critics? How many great footballers are great pundits? Being one doesn't mean the other follows.
The trick is being able to tell those who understand something well (without necessarily being able to do it) from those who are full of BS.
- Messages
- 1,140
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- No
To many people Instagram is photography - and the pictures Justin Bieber has taken have probably been seen by more people than those of Joe Cornish. In the PR world that would probably make him the more successful photographer (and I did not say the better photographer).
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As I say, some will disagree and that's perfectly fine but in my experience the best people can actually do it as well, not just talk about it. And I value my experience more than someone's 3 years in university to form that opinion.
- Messages
- 3,252
- Name
- stuart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Couldn't agree more, plenty of great Photography Judges who know a great image or not so great, who can dissect an image and make great points about it but their own portfolio may come as a surprise to us.
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You just described most art critics to perfection
Yup, and unsurprisingly I'm rather cynical about the whole concept of art critics!
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry, I still disagree. In my opinion it is perfectly acceptable to have strong views on a photographer. or a style of photography, or whatever, without having the ability to produce something of equal value themselves. The same must surely go for fans and critics of other art forms, like music, for instance.
And if we're on the subject of whose opinions are valid (and whose aren't) , might I float the following? If someone has no feeling for (or interest in ) a photographic style - like landscape - how well is one able to make subtle and valid distinctions between one photographers work and another?
What is the point of sending a punk fan to a prog rock concert and expecting to get a reasoned review? They're more than likely going to come back and say "It was crap."
I can understand if work is being discussed amongst equals then it is only fair to expect everybody to front up with their own . But in this thread we've been talking at great length about one or two photographers whose work is known world-wide for its quality. Why shouldn't us lesser mortals have opinions on it?
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The majority of music critics I've encountered in my career have been utterly clueless. Just so you know.
I've already said it's fine if you disagree with what I'm saying, it would be an extremely boring world if we all agreed on everything but my view on this remains unchanged. I'm not by any means saying you can't have an opinion unless you're one of the world's most respected photographers, I'm just saying I believe some opinions are more valid than others and the ones I tend to respect the most are from people who can prove they understand what they're talking about rather than having nothing to show but words.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Grumpy old man syndrome......
- Messages
- 7,902
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
As in all walks of life I'd expect there to be more crap music critics than good ones. Just like there are more crap musicians than good ones.
In both cases you have to be able to discern which is which. If you know your subject you can usually pick up on the bulls***ters pretty quickly and discount their opinions. Or in the case of this forum stick them on your ignore list.
In both cases you have to be able to discern which is which. If you know your subject you can usually pick up on the bulls***ters pretty quickly and discount their opinions. Or in the case of this forum stick them on your ignore list.
- Messages
- 1,140
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- No
There is a difference between being able to explain how you think something might be improved technically, to how it might be improved artistically. I would guess that the vast majority of what is called criticism on this site is technical criticism, and to be fair that is what most people are looking for. In that case it is usually better when it comes from someone who does understand the subject and has the relevant knowledge. Artistic criticism however does not necessarily need that technical knowledge, and it is that which causes a lot of people with the technical knowledge to feel that those critics must be making it up as they go along. Very occasionally (and it is rare) there is someone who has both of those attributes. And I'm not one of them...
- Messages
- 888
- Name
- Steve Bennett
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 3,163
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the main difference is "genuine critics" are usually upfront about not being able to produce very good work themselves. Love them or hate them, at least they don't claim to have a tonne of good work, which they created, hidden away somewhere for mysterious reasons.
Anyone can have an opinion, that's fine, but to try and justify an opinion on the basis of your own skills or experience, without offering examples of either, is pushing your luck a bit too far.
Anyone can have an opinion, that's fine, but to try and justify an opinion on the basis of your own skills or experience, without offering examples of either, is pushing your luck a bit too far.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not that by itself.. it's just always the most vocal detractors of anything creative, conceptual, art based, project based, or indeed anything other than mainstream, never seem to actually post anything of their own. Pete actually accused me of never putting anything up for crit, when I've got tons of stuff peppered around these forums, and purposely post the latest stuff from any projects I've got going on in the Projects and themes forum... and actually has the cheek to make inaccurate comments like I can't even focus a camera properly, and does it all from the position of never actually qualified whether he can take a decent photo himself. I do think to obtain a certain credibility when giving critique, you need to offer your own work for critique. You need to partake in the critique process to be good at critique, and have your opinions remain credible. Either that, or you come at it from an academic point of view, and then again, you need to demonstrate you're qualified to do that too.
Laudrup is the same... always in these threads having a go at certain genres of imagery.... never seems to actually take an photos. Makes me question whether their opinions actually have any merit.
So you have work to show then. Where's Pete's website, or Laudrup's?
You're clearly not an armchair photographer.They never post anything, ever. It's got nothing to do with this thread, me, or anyone else.
Really?
Yes... the people your agreeing with did. He's a commercial success, so we can't criticise him... that's pretty much the argument, yeah... He sells millions of records, therefore he's good. You're right.. it is bonkers.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's why it's genre is called popular music. Actually beibers new stuff is the best he's ever done.
Same with Cornish, it's popular stuff, pretty, attractive and for most people they think thats all there is to a photograph. Some of the project based stuff makes you think, explore more. Some of it works for me, some of it doesn't, but the story, background adds that extra level which just elevates it from just a technically good, processed image.
I've posted other landscape photographers I think are good, the first time you see Kenna's work, the minimalism, the use of the light and time to create ethereal images is really something different. It stops you, makes you examine what you've known about shooting landscapes. Donovan Wylie, showing the effects of military surveillance on the landscape, with images of the Maze prison, the Irish border watch towers and others in both Canada and Afghanistan. Huge images that work well as a series
Popular music works for the mainstream, as does popular art. There's some other stuff though that's worth seeking out thats elevated to another level.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,800
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Not so. Pete said this -
"........but my point was that Joe Cornish (see also Noton, Ward, Waite, Edwardes etc) is an acknowledged expert in his field as evidenced by the extensive collection of books , magazine articles, talks, workshops, commisions, and the opinions of similarly acknowledged peers and an honorary fellowship from the RPS in '08."
which is inarguable.
Then some one else comes along and says, well Justin Bieber has won all THESE awards so awards and popular acclaim must be meaningless.
It's not that by itself.. it's just always the most vocal detractors of anything creative, conceptual, art based, project based, or indeed anything other than mainstream, never seem to actually post anything of their own. Pete actually accused me of never putting anything up for crit, when I've got tons of stuff peppered around these forums, and purposely post the latest stuff from any projects I've got going on in the Projects and themes forum... and actually has the cheek to make inaccurate comments like I can't even focus a camera properly, and does it all from the position of never actually qualified whether he can take a decent photo himself. I do think to obtain a certain credibility when giving critique, you need to offer your own work for critique. You need to partake in the critique process to be good at critique, and have your opinions remain credible. Either that, or you come at it from an academic point of view, and then again, you need to demonstrate you're qualified to do that too.
Laudrup is the same... always in these threads having a go at certain genres of imagery.... never seems to actually take an photos. Makes me question whether their opinions actually have any merit.
So you have work to show then. Where's Pete's website, or Laudrup's?
They never post anything, ever. It's got nothing to do with this thread, me, or anyone else.
Really?
Yes... the people your agreeing with did. He's a commercial success, so we can't criticise him... that's pretty much the argument, yeah... He sells millions of records, therefore he's good. You're right.. it is bonkers.
You have no commercial or critical success and are unknown in the world of photography, so what is it that makes you better than those who do have that? A few images in a project forum on talk photography?
- Messages
- 7,902
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
He has a website, too.
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
9 shows in 12 months.
I may be unknown in your world... but as that seems to consist of an armchair, no surprise there.
...and it's all exactly like the stuff on Flickr.
Last edited: