Two Blue Buckets

Harlequin565 said:
Great thread @sirch :)
Click to expand...


Thanks, over in the other thread I suggested a "Talk Photographs" section, you never know, if we pester the management enough we may get a permanent home for things like this...

Each of us has a camera in our hand, but ...

I think the advantage of a dedicated section is that there could be stickies with guidelines, etc. and if there was enough traffic then the trolls would get bored of it fairly quickly.
 
sirch said:
if we pester the management enough we may get a permanent home for things like this...
Click to expand...
Its under discussion Chris, but its highly unlikely, we get lots of requests for new sub forums. and the usual answer is there are far too many sub forums already.

But as always feel free to start a dedicated thread withing "talk photography"
Even use the word "official" if you like :D
 
droj said:
...his attention and his subsequent exposure and framing...
Click to expand...

You're assuming that I can see that? Or that it does actually exist? Indeed - if I could see it, I would probably feel differently - as I do with the glowing car. This is why art critics are divided. And why art is so awesome to discuss. (y)
 
Mr Badger said:
That's easily solved, just delete one of the Nikon ones, I'm sure no one will mind! :D ;)
Click to expand...
How about we merge all the Canon and Nikon specific threads?
After all they are both camera's :D
 
Cobra said:
How about we merge all the Canon and Nikon specific threads?
After all they are both camera's :D
Click to expand...
They generally end up merging anyway, as one faction taunts the other about dynamic range or colour pallet!

Actually, how about deleting the Nature - Birds thread, think how much time that would save you Mods? ;) :exit: Quick getaway there to avoid being beaten to death by a battery of Sigma 150-600s! ;)
 
Last edited:
droj said:
You feel that the nature of his attention and his subsequent exposure and framing show a lack of care?
Click to expand...

In the case of the blue buckets, the main subject is almost dead central. One could say that that was deliberate and the intention of the artist. But the extraneous elements top rhs and top lhs....? nope; it just looks careless to me.
 
Mr Badger said:
how about deleting the Nature - Birds thread, think how much time that would save you Mods?
Click to expand...
Actually its very pleasant in there now, and has been for some time (y)
 
Cobra said:
Its under discussion Chris, but its highly unlikely, we get lots of requests for new sub forums. and the usual answer is there are far too many sub forums already.

But as always feel free to start a dedicated thread withing "talk photography"
Even use the word "official" if you like :D
Click to expand...

I think any single thread is going to turn to sh!t pretty quickly, I'm still all for a forum. How about putting it under Ideas and Inspiration? I mean if MPB can have it's own forum, FAQs and Guides for Business Starters hasn't had a post since September 2014 ...
 
sirch said:
I think any single thread is going to turn to sh!t pretty quickly, I'm still all for a forum. How about putting it under Ideas and Inspiration? I mean if MPB can have it's own forum, FAQs and Guides for Business Starters hasn't had a post since September 2014 ...
Click to expand...

In that case, perhaps the FAQs and guide sub forum could be put in the business section as a header sticky instead, thus freeing up enough space for 'Talk Photographs'? :)

If we do get a new sub-forum perhaps we could have a thread entitled 'But is it Art?' where people can post their own photos for 'the audience' to (politely and constructively) debate and critique and decide whether or not they think it's art? Could be fun if it's done in good spirit?
 
sirch said:
I think any single thread is going to turn to sh!t pretty quickly,
Click to expand...
I doubt that a separate sub forum would stop any thread going to hell

sirch said:
I mean if MPB can have it's own forum,
Click to expand...
They pay for the privileged do you have deep pockets? :D

Mr Badger said:
where people can post their own photos for 'the audience' to (politely and constructively)
Click to expand...
You have more faith in human nature than I do :D

Mr Badger said:
perhaps the FAQs and guide sub forum could be put in the business section as a header sticky instead,
Click to expand...
I'm not sure quite what the reasoning is ( I forget it was explained to me once)
That sticky's are not to be encouraged....
 
Never mind, the novelty will probably have worn off soon and we'll be mithering you for something else then! :D
 
In respect to the 'blue buckets' photograph - sorry to be rude but i think it is utter crap!

It's a poorly framed picture of two plastic buckets on the floor with no technical skill involved - there is nothing surely more to discuss?

Rog, sorry to pick you out but you 'sort of complained' that People don't 'get art' on a photography forum and there is very little discussion about the 'art' of photography but I note numerous of you replies to people, two of which i have quoted below;

droj said:
You feel that the nature of his attention and his subsequent exposure and framing show a lack of care?
Click to expand...

droj said:
Yes - from the photo in question and his whole oeuvre. It seems quite manifest to me, and that's how the pictures function as communication.
Click to expand...

these replies, to me are 'difficult' to understand and use a language and words that not many could associate with (I am having to look up the meanings of many words you use). I think (maybe wrongly) that you do try to discuss 'art' on a level the majority can not relate to or understand and why a large percentage of the population consider 'art' as elitist' or the creators/critiques have been smoking something they shouldn't have.

I hope nobody sees this as an 'us & them' post or confrontational - it's just my observation.
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
It feels to me (maybe wrongly) that you do try to discuss 'art' on a level the majority can not relate to or understand.
Click to expand...
I just try to tell it as I see it - to explain. The last thing I'd attempt to do is make things unintelligible and that would be the opposite of my aim. I don't position myself as an elitist or anything else - I'm just an ordinary human.

Art is such a big and diffuse subject and many don't seem to have much insight into it. Think of another subject - say studio lighting for photography, about which I know b-all. If I looked at a tutorial on that I would begin by struggling to understand the names of the equipment and the details of their application. That's how it is :).
 
Fraser Euan White said:
In respect to the 'blue buckets' photograph - sorry to be rude but i think it is utter crap!

It's a poorly framed picture of two plastic buckets on the floor with no technical skill involved - there is nothing surely more to discuss?
Click to expand...

Why is it poorly framed?

Back in the mists of time the post impressionists deliberately aped the 'poor framing' of photographs - chopping figures in half at the frame edge for example. e.g. - https://www.myartprints.co.uk/a/edgar-degas/coach-on-the-racecourse.html

Why does no technical skill stop it being a good photograph? I thought we'd put that one to bed a long time ago.
 
Hi Rog,

thanks for the reply - I'll step back from a further reply because i would hate anything to be seen as confrontational and trying to turn something into an argument; which it isn't.
 
Cobra said:
I doubt that a separate sub forum would stop any thread going to hell
Click to expand...
The 52 is in a separate subforum and it very rarely gets visits from anyone in not doing a 52. I really think that a separate area kind of acts as a bit of a barrier to stop people thinking its a free-for-all. It's also possible to watch a subforum so people interested in that subject can get notifications.

However it seems the mod team aren't on side, which is disappointing but kind of what I expected. Back to talking about gear and settings I suppose.
 
droj said:
His framing is exactly what he intended (he has a good 'eye') and it's up to us to read the meaning of it.
Click to expand...

I have read the meaning, and it is of two buckets that almost anybody could have taken and has no more meaning than that.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
In respect to the 'blue buckets' photograph - sorry to be rude but i think it is utter crap!

It's a poorly framed picture of two plastic buckets on the floor with no technical skill involved - there is nothing surely more to discuss?
Click to expand...

I realise that you are stepping back from this and that's fine but clearly a significant number of influential people disagree with you (the Guardian newspaper for one) so for me that makes it something to discuss. Photographically, for me, it's OK and it's been given the stock "art photo" processing but it is just two plastic buckets without enough context to make one wonder why.
 
sirch said:
The 52 is in a separate subforum and it very rarely gets visits from anyone in not doing a 52.
Click to expand...
Its cause I moderate it, and everyone is scared of me :D

sirch said:
It's also possible to watch a subforum so people interested in that subject can get notifications.
Click to expand...
The same applies to threads too though.

sirch said:
However it seems the mod team aren't on side,
Click to expand...
I suggest you run with it as is for a couple of so months, see how active it actually is, and then ask officially ( Contact us ) again :)
 
It's the kind of photo I sometimes take, but I don't yet have quite the eye.

Why.

The point for me is that there are two buckets. This shows that...

A bucket is more than a bucket.
Blue is not just blue.
The splash of orange emphasises the blueness, basic colour theory, and therefore the buckets.
It's not a pretty pretty photo.

That's me done.
 
Cobra said:
I suggest you run with it as is for a couple of so months
Click to expand...
Run with what? I've been posting the occasional thread linking to some collection of images elsewhere and they often attract a few comments but a lot of people who are now engaged in threads like this aren't regular posters and so never see those threads in Talk Photography or where ever they end up.

Cobra said:
see how active it actually is, and then ask officially ( Contact us ) again :)
Click to expand...
There is no "it", it's all getting a bit chicken-and-egg

This issue has been raised by others over the last few years and I know people have split off to facebook groups and the like.

deadhorse.gif
 
munch said:
I have read the meaning, and it is of two buckets that almost anybody could have taken and has no more meaning than that.
Click to expand...
Almost anyone could have taken it. But, almost nobody did.

Now when it comes to a sunset... :D
 
jerry12953 said:
I challenge you to explain what the meaning of this photograph is, and why it was composed in this particular way.:naughty:
Click to expand...
Oh, groan, this is so tedious, Jerry. It's a self-explanatory picture (but see below)!

Ok. The scene he was faced with is larger than what's in the frame. So he's selected where the frame is and what's in it. He's paid attention to the light (and might've modified it but we don't know that). It's title by the way is Cheddar No5, from the series Everyday Icons, 1985 or 6, on film, dammit, but let's concentrate. The background is dark and extends as said beyond the frame - doesn't that make you curious? It is enigmatic! We are suspended, our knowledge is incomplete. So there's a quiet but creative tension. It's all very visual. And the buckets are lit so softly that the plastic almost looks creamy. They are the central counterpoint, not necessarily more important than the background, but probably what most people pick out first. So there's visual dialogue betwen buckets and background. Why are they placed just as they are? Another unknown for the viewer, another part of the quiet enigma. What's the nature of the space, who put the buckets where they are?

Blimey, mate! It's all there in front of you! It's a very unassuming picture, but has integrity, and it's distilled - there's nothing unessential there! What do you want, fireworks?
 
Last edited:
There's an archival pigment inkjet print of this image on paper, 428 x 532 mm, that belongs to the Tate Gallery. The Tate of course as everybody probably knows, is stuffed full of rubbish ... scandalous!
 
Last edited:
munch said:
I have read the meaning, and it is of two buckets that almost anybody could have taken and has no more meaning than that.
Click to expand...
Remarks like that and in that tone belong in a pub, not a forum on photography.
 
droj said:
His framing is exactly what he intended (he has a good 'eye') and it's up to us to read the meaning of it.
Click to expand...

...........but how do you actually Know that? I could say it is crap framing with 'bits' encrouching at the edge of the image - you really really can't say this with any certainty.

droj said:
Oh, groan, this is so tedious, Jerry. It's a self-explanatory picture (but see below)!

Ok. The scene he was faced with is larger than what's in the frame. So he's selected where the frame is and what's in it. He's paid attention to the light (and might've modified it but we don't know that). It's title by the way is Cheddar No5, from the series Everyday Icons, 1985 or 6, on film, dammit, but let's concentrate. The background is dark and extends as said beyond the frame - doesn't that make you curious? It is enigmatic! We are suspended, our knowledge is incomplete. So there's a quiet but creative tension. It's all very visual. And the buckets are lit so softly that the plastic almost looks creamy. They are the central counterpoint, not necessarily more important than the background, but probably what most people pick out first. So there's visual dialogue betwen buckets and background. Why are they placed just as they are? Another unknown for the viewer, another part of the quiet enigma. What's the nature of the space, who put the buckets where they are?

Blimey, mate! It's all there in front of you! It's a very unassuming picture, but has integrity, and it's distilled - there's nothing unessential there! What do you want, fireworks?
Click to expand...

No it's not all there in front of us! To me it is a crap picture - it is your 'own mind' that has decided otherwise - not the photograph itself.

Ed Sutton said:
Why does no technical skill stop it being a good photograph? I thought we'd put that one to bed a long time ago.
Click to expand...

To even be a good photograph it has to be 'technically adept' - photography is a skill as well as an 'art' if you can not take a technically correct picture why not just paint/draw the scene? I accept that in some circumstances a technically correct picture may not be achievable but a still life?
 
Fraser Euan White said:
To even be a good photograph it has to be 'technically adept' - photography is a skill as well as an 'art' if you can not take a technically correct picture why not just paint/draw the scene? I accept that in some circumstances a technically correct picture may not be achievable but a still life?
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. That just makes it a "technically adept" photograph.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
To even be a good photograph it has to be 'technically adept' - photography is a skill as well as an 'art' if you can not take a technically correct picture why not just paint/draw the scene? I accept that in some circumstances a technically correct picture may not be achievable but a still life?
Click to expand...

But why does it HAVE to be technically correct?

I have two photographs of a chicken taken one after the other. In one the chicken is pin sharp, in the other it is slightly out of focus. The out of focus frame is the better picture. Why? Because there is a slight difference in the angle of the chicken's head which makes the picture work.

Skip to 6:50
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-FxGFEq3Ro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top