|
hmm, he teaches a few miles from me. maybe i should enroll?
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:A good teacher will not tell you what to see though. He or she should acknowledge your achievements and tell you what isn't good but to expect a teacher form vision for you(the most important thing for a photographer) isn't good. Telling a student how to do something the right way is also the hallmark of a lovely teacher. A great teacher is someone who leads the student through the process that leads them to coming to these conclusions themselves by getting the student to think for themselves rather than memorize bullshit from textbooks. People who take crappy pictures are probably trying to emulate something they think is considered good, rather than trying to see anything in a scene themselves, and they end up completely missing the point of photography.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
I think everyone reacts differently to different teaching styles. I see what McMadCow is saying about working your rear end off for every bit of praise you get. I don't think there's much a teacher can say if a photo is just boring. Students should know that the standard suggestions for a boring photo are along the lines of add a dynamic subject or look at it in a unique way.. something like that. I think when there is a right and wrong answer, then the teacher should be able to recommend possible ways of fixing a bad submission, but when it comes to artistic critique beyond the basics of exposure, I think it is very difficult to make useful recommendations for every boring photo/painting/sculpture/whatever. I guess the teacher's job should be to get the most out of his/her students and each teacher will have a different way of going about it. Some will be nice and offer suggestions and some students will respond to that, others will be harsh about it and maybe that will work for some others. I agree with ZoCrowes that the teacher should help students along when they are stuck or in a rut but I don't really have a problem with the guy saying that this photo is boring and that photo doesn't work without necessarily offering ways of making each one better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 22:59
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I don't really have a problem with the guy saying that this photo is boring and that photo doesn't work without necessarily offering ways of making each one better. Yeah, that's pretty much my thought on the matter. It's easy to correct a technical error with a suggestion for improvement. When it comes to critiquing the artist's vision, however, I don't think a specific direction is always the best way of going about it. I've given crits in the PAD thread that involved challenging the photographer to go beyond just pointing the camera at the subject. Often the response is "well, how would you have done it differently?". I don't think that responsibility falls on the reviewer. I really do think the prof in the video was giving valid critiques when he asks, "is that all you got?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:A good teacher will not tell you what to see though. He or she should acknowledge your achievements and tell you what isn't good but to expect a teacher form vision for you(the most important thing for a photographer) isn't good. That's not what I said at all. A good teacher will help you to find your own vision (holy god that sounds cliche.) That's their job as someone who teaches photography. Tell the student why exactly the work is boring. Don't tell them exactly what to shoot. You find out what they were trying to convey and then help them find a way to convey that. If you can't do that you have no business teaching. The Mexican food critique is the one that stood out to me the most and the guy did nothing but say the photos were boring and ask the student how long it took. If he halfassed it call the student out on it. He hit on the point of "What were you trying to say with these about Mexico" for all of two seconds. That was what the whole thrust of what his critique should have been. Now only seeing 5 mins of this guys teaching it's hard to judge him. That's just what I picked up from the little bit I watched. One of the best art teachers I know is a glass blowing professor. He can be pretty drat brutal but he always gives ways to improve and he makes you think. I know a lot of people who have gone through his program and they all absolutely love him even if he called their work trash at some point. ZoCrowes fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Nov 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
subx posted:That was pretty much my exact reasons for getting into DSLRs, I hated how they always looked like noisy terrible photos. I didn't know anything about ISO/Aperture at the time (I knew what shutter speed did, that was about it) so that might have helped a bit, but still. Yeah, I went through the same thing too. When my family first got a digital camera, I was really excited about the instant feedback and that I could delete anything I didn't like. Eventually, I just reached the limitations of that tiny p&s, and decided to jump right into a dlsr freshman year of college. It was pretty smooth going after that, just switching up equipment as it began to limit what I wanted to do, though I think it was pretty interesting that digital becoming available to the mainstream is really what piqued my interest, before that I had no interest in film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 23:12
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:That's not what I said at all. You can't tell someone how to make a good photo out of a boring or thoughtless premise. If they have nothing to say, they have nothing to say. You can encourage them to find things they are interested in, and to develop genuine and interesting opinions on them, and go from there. But the time for that is not during critique. If you bring a technically 'well executed' photo with nothing to say, there is nothing constructive that can come of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You can't tell someone how to make a good photo out of a boring or thoughtless premise. If they have nothing to say, they have nothing to say. The job of a teacher is to give an assignment or concept. Whether that's based around a single premise that the teacher chooses or one the student comes up with. Either way it should be established before critique ever begins. The concept in this example is Mexico apparently. The question to ask is "What are you trying to say about Mexico" and whether or not the student succeeded. The prof asked that once. My problem is not calling the photos boring. They were. My problem was he harped on that for 3 minutes without offering any real critique of how the student approached the concept he was assigned. Maybe the dude is a great teacher and that student is particularly lazy and has been doing lovely work all semester. There are better ways to call a student out on bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 00:30
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Yes? Lowtax posted:A forum member who registered over 50 forum accounts back when they were free. I would ban him for trolling / spamming and he would immediately come back with another forum account under a new email address. He did this over and over until I closed registration, and was one of the main reasons why I decided to start charging money to register a forum account (to keep the trolls out). He eventually went even more insane and posted a suicide note saying that he "just wanted to bbe a moderator..." You can find that note here:
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
Yes, I remember that. It was also in like 1999 or 2000 when the idea that Something Awful could be Lowtax's sole source of income wasn't even a glimmer in his eye. Similarly National Geographic in the past has held and sponsored contests that were free to enter and had big prizes. Do you actually think that Nat Geo is concerned that they would get too many low quality submissions? They have that reader photo page at the beginning of their issues and as far as I know there is no fee to submit to that. It's a no-brainer that less people are going to submit crappy photos if there is an entrance fee but $15 is not going to stop anybody with more money than sense (a common breed on photo forums) from submitting a whole stack of bullshit. In any case, even if the registration fee on Something Awful was still meant to be a mechanism for keeping out trolls and undesirables it's certainly not doing a good job. GBS and every other big forum is pretty much indistinguishable from 4chan or whatever excepting that there are rules here about typing with proper punctuation. You don't have to look long in this forum until you see a dumb meme or someone making GBS threads on a thread for no good reason or someone talking about their anal lining falling out or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 04:39
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:GBS and every other big forum is pretty much indistinguishable from 4chan You've never been to GBS or 4chan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 05:06
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:You've never been to GBS or 4chan. Well then I'll err to your expert opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Maybe the guy wanted it as a trade in for the Canon loyalty program? $140 seems pretty high for that, but perhaps he was desperate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Well then I'll err to your expert opinion. Hah! ZoCrowes posted:
As someone who has taught art classes at the university level, sorry, you are wrong. Every art school out there has slipped their entry requirements so loose that each and every class has totally irredeemable people that *need* to be discouraged from pursuing this career, ESPECIALLY if the school is expensive. I cannot count the number of people with 3d degrees, culinary diplomas, photography degrees, fashion, etc who are complete poo poo and will never ever work in their chosen field because the schools function as for-profit businesses and the professors are encouraged through policy to churn through the students with passing grades if they show up and don't drool on themselves too much. Not everyone can be taught to communicate well, and even if they could, not everyone has something worthwhile to say. While I agree that critiques for good students should be focused, if Johny Pothead shows up with with poor snaps of his disgusting apartment, he doesn't deserve the time from the class to properly tell him why his lack of effort led to lovely photos/designs/artwork. My best professors were the ones that insulted quickly and then totally ignored the people who put in no effort, then moved on to the ones that were trying and got into the meat and potatoes of what was working in their imagery and what wasn't. My worst professors were the ones that gave everyone equal time and found something good to say about every image, because it was so formulaic and stale, and the poor students heard only the praise and disregarded the critiques, making the effort a total waste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 10:37
|
|
|
There is a photography school in town here and I find that many of the people who graduate are awful at photography.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 18:35
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Pretty much this. As stated before, I come from a different field, but the same holds true no matter what you're doing. At the start of our first year, everyone had a giant ego either because they were the best person at drawing in their high school or their family and friends would give them nothing but praise. It's counter intuitive to learn when you think you're infallible. Egos need to be broken. Our instructor did this. He loosened up a lot in our second year after everyone who wasn't willing to put forth an genuine effort had either quit or been failed. He was still a hardass, but we lived to impress him. Of the 10-20% of that made it through our three years, we all knew who our favourite teachers were. They weren't the fun ones who hung out with us and told us cool stories, they were the ones that made us want to be better artists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:There is a photography school in town here and I find that many of the people who graduate are awful at photography. Same here. The guys at one of the local camera stores claim they can always tell the students from this particular diploma mill by the stupid questions they ask. Apparently you don't need to know what an f stop is to get an MFA in photography!  In case it wasn't obvious, that school is also the most expensive one in the area as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
Those for profit art institutes are ridiculous. They are so expensive, how can anyone be convinced that its actually worth the money, when you can get a real state college degree for a whole lot less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 19:47
|
|
|
I have a friend on facebook who majored in photography from a state school. Below is some of her work: Click here for the full 608x819 image.  Click here for the full 1134x755 image.  Click here for the full 1136x756 image.  Click here for the full 1142x756 image. I guess during the course of her 4 year degree they skipped the basic lessons on focus and exposure and jumped straight to !*SeLeCtIvE CoLoRiNg*! I'm not shocked to learn that she is now a secretary and charges about $50 for senior sessions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 20:22
|
|
|
quote:majored in photography Sheesh. She spent money to learn to take photos like this  I mean they aren't terrible from a artistic standpoint I guess, but technically all of those are horrible. Edit - well except for the alien eye selective color look in the last one. The first one I can't imagine there wasn't a more flattering angle than a door, but it's forgivable. subx fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Dec 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
subx posted:Sheesh. She spent money to learn to take photos like this I fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 20:33
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:
Hate this one the most.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
ease posted:Hate this one the most. I thought it was kinda cute. That said, it's poorly executed and not something you'd want for a wedding photo/portfolio piece.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Same here. The guys at one of the local camera stores claim they can always tell the students from this particular diploma mill by the stupid questions they ask. Apparently you don't need to know what an f stop is to get an MFA in photography! I actually had thought about going to the school, I had even gone and had a tour and met some of the teachers etc but didn't seem worth it. I later actually purchased a lens from a teacher that used to work there. I have seen some really good work come out of the school but I am not sure how good they where before they went in. Like anything you will get good stuff and not so good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:I have seen some really good work come out of the school but I am not sure how good they where before they went in. Like anything you will get good stuff and not so good stuff. Yeah, I think the huge disparity comes from the fact that the instructors at these for-profit schools have no motivation whatsoever to cull the poor students from the ranks. Hell, even at the JC I attend I've seen many students dropped for absence or for missing assignments. Fun Fact: The diploma mill here is the private institution with the most real estate assets in San Francisco. They have gobs of money. It's unreal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I have a friend on facebook who majored in photography from a state school. Below is some of her work: Christ on a cracker those are terrible. My girlfriend and most of my very good friends go to art school for photography or glass. All of their work is pretty good though. I may not be as jaded because I usually only deal with people who want to be in art school, take it seriously and are talented. I can only think of one person I know who is doing a photo degree but is not really passionate about it. Even then the work in her BFA orals that I saw was not too bad. Nowhere near as bad as those are. Some of their work   She does glass and photography. This is from a project where she took photos of friends through their window at night without interacting with them. She then printed them at about negative size and put them in a glass installation where you had to look through a peephole cut in drywall to see each one.  From a series my best friend did. It's about how everyone has a dark side and what how we try to deny it but can't deny that it's there. It's meant to be more cheeky than brooding.  This is my only friend that does weddings and senior portraits and such on a regular basis.   My girlfriend's work  I wish he would put his work up on something besides facebook  One more from another friend because I quite like this one So yeah, most of the people I hang out with who are in art school tend to produce pretty solid work. The first three all go to public university art school and the last three all go to private art colleges (but started at public uni.) I've got a degree an anthropology and have never taken a photo class in my life. I just hang around a lot of people that do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
Sooo, my camera bag got nicked at the pub, gutting, but could have been a lot more expensive than it was. The police said when they looked at the CCTV I was practically looking at the thieves when they took it, I may not be the most observant person in the world... I was shooting an analogue college project, but I am mainly a digital photographer. In the bag I had an Canon EOS 300 analogue body, with 90-300mm lens an Olympus OM-10 with 28mm f2.8 an old analogue light meter some other odds and ends. So yeah, had I had my digital stuff in there I would have lost a lot, but as it was its about £400 of stuff. Now here's the thing, I'm insured, I have a 'new for old' policy, so they have to give me new gear. They equated what I had lost, body wise, to a Canon EOS 500D and an Olympus E-620 I couldn't believe it, I chatted it out a bit and moved some stuff around. Thus to replace my gear, currently being shipped: Canon 7D w 18-135 lens Sekonic l308s flash meter Fancy CF card Lowepro bag I do not understand. There was no deception on my part, I described perfectly my stuff to them and checked that they understood what I had when they first said how they were going to replace it... Its difficult to get non photo people to appreciate just how ridiculous this is, so I hope you don't mind me sharing. I'm ecstatic!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:Sooo, my camera bag got nicked at the pub, gutting, but could have been a lot more expensive than it was. The police said when they looked at the CCTV I was practically looking at the thieves when they took it, I may not be the most observant person in the world... They probably only have the new prices (on the stuff you had stolen) to go on. I doubt they really knew where to look for current values (eBay isn't really a viable source). Anyhow good to hear you came out of it ok. I'm not particularly fond of insurance companies but it's nice to hear about them doing what they should on occasion without making it a huge amount of trouble.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
Sometimes you just gotta believe in the actuarial sciences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
subx posted:They probably only have the new prices (on the stuff you had stolen) to go on. I doubt they really knew where to look for current values (eBay isn't really a viable source). At first my adjuster (the person who says whether you claim is legit) made me feel like I was trying something dodgy, but she was really nice when she realized I wasn't, and she did a lot to help me prove my ownership. She said her husband was a photographer so I imagine that helped. AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Sometimes you just gotta believe in the actuarial sciences.  I can't really believe it to be honest. I def need to do some random kindnesses to balance out the karma
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:21
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:I can't really believe it to be honest. Send me the 7D
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:39
|
|
|
I find, more and more often, that when I don't understand a lengthy explanation after reading it five times, and one time out loud, and recording it and playing it back to myself, and then transcribing it into little single syllable words, and reading that over and over, and pumping it through babelfish and back for a while, then writing it out short-hand, eating it, and then vomiting it up past my mouth and out my nose, pulling it gently, wet with acid, from my right nostril and unfolding it and photographing it under black light for that shred of illumination... When I still don't understand it, maybe there just isn't much more to get than what I got initially. Vince Farnsworth posted:Concerning astrophotography and the recording of stars, there seems to be some confusion about f-ratios, aperture, focal lengths, etc. For point sources such as stars, it is the focal length, not the physical aperture, that determines the limits of what will be recorded on film. This is because the amount of background sky included in the picture varies with focal length and thus the amount of magnitude-limiting sky fog goes up as the focal length decreases. Longer lenses include less of the sky and therefore less of the sky fog. Since the stars are points, their light is not spread out as focal length (magnification) increases. This effect results in an increase in the ratio of starlight (point source) to skylight (non-point source) as focal length increases, and fainter stars are recorded before being limited by the sky fog. This light-source ratio is not affected by the f-ratio or physical aperture of the lens. For example, a 50mm lens at a dark site has a limiting photographic magnitude of about 11.5. A 500mm lens has a limiting magnitude of about 16. The magnitude scale is a way of estimating the brightness of an object, with each successive magnitude number being about 2.5 times brighter than the next one (magnitude 1 is 2.5X brighter than magnitude 2). The f-ratio does determine how fast the sky fog limit is reached. Exposures longer than that needed to reach the sky fog limit will not record fainter stars. Is he really just saying you get less of the sky and therefore, less ambient light, when you go up in focal length? IS THERE NOTHING MORE TO IT? I've seen two people link this post in star trail threads, referencing that what you need for star trails is larger glass, ie, diameter of glass on the front element, rather than focal length and he just doesn't seem to be saying that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:They equated what I had lost, body wise, to a Canon EOS 500D and an Olympus E-620 I don't know what you said to go from a 500D to a 7D, but nice work. That's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I don't know what you said to go from a 500D to a 7D, but nice work. That's awesome. Added together the value of the 500d body, the other body they offered (Olympus E-620) and the two lenses they were offering (75-300mm f4.5 and 28mm f2.8) If their suppliers sold body only 5DmkIIs I would have gone for that but I think we're talking dreamland there. Oprah Haza posted:Send me the 7D
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:
Is it bad that I immediately recognized whose girlfriend this is from SAD?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Is it bad that I immediately recognized whose girlfriend this is from SAD? I did too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Is it bad that I immediately recognized whose girlfriend this is from SAD? Hahaha what can I say she is usually willing to let me take photos of her and be patient with me while I am figuring out what the hell I am doing. I need to find some new models.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 23:03
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Is he really just saying you get less of the sky and therefore, less ambient light, when you go up in focal length? IS THERE NOTHING MORE TO IT? Personally, I think he's full of poo poo. Although, I have no clue what the gently caress 'sky fog' is, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 23:06
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:Hahaha what can I say she is usually willing to let me take photos of her and be patient with me while I am figuring out what the hell I am doing. I need to find some new models. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Those for profit art institutes are ridiculous. They are so expensive, how can anyone be convinced that its actually worth the money, when you can get a real state college degree for a whole lot less. Were you honestly on top of things enough at 17/18/19 to be able to tell a scam that well run? They show you amazing work (from 1-2 randomly good people that happened to move through their doors) huge labs, impressive buildings, and know exactly how to psychologically pull in kids who want to be a photog/game designer/architect. One college I have lectured at actually hired a marketing firm to make all their promotional material sent out to high schools, complete with paid model shoots of random non students pretending to game design in tron-esque studio sets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 23:39
|
|