|
Verman posted:Yeah I would love to see both. I know it's been all over the internet with the "me as a child and me as an adult recreating the photo later in life" theme but this is a different take and the back story really makes it I wasn't quite going for that (the recreation photos) although that is a neat idea as a slight twist on those. This was more keeping it thematically the same - it seems like most kids portraits nowadays are high-key lighting, with them playing naturally on seamless or colorful backgrounds rather than the generic forced pose/generic two lights/doodoo colored muslin that most of my childhood portraits are. It's possible I got one of her in the same pose though - I will grab a snap of the original next time I'm at my folks house. Getting a three year old to sit and pose like that is a pita - I don't know what my folks used to bribe me with.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:It may be that I don't understand your Art, but from my plebe, uneducated standpoint it appears that you got seduced by shallow depth of field and so only got the edge of his glasses in focus. Nah I'm just new and like you said I used too shallow DoF. Don't know about that whole plebe complex you've got going on there though... A few more portraits from walking around yesterday. It's been fun dinking around on my T2i https://500px.com/photo/101938803/sunglasses-and-a-smile-by-matt-keel?from=user_library Buddha. fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Read back a page or so. Or don't, actually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Chitin posted:I'll let you into the circle: if someone who is poo poo posts poo poo work it is poo poo work. If someone who is extremely competent posts work that looks poo poo on first blush probably there is a Thing that they're doing. This is a pretty common Art. See, this is why I can't understand whether people are joke posting or not because this is clearly a dumb thing to say if you are serious. poo poo made my an extremely competent person is still poo poo. It's fallacious to say, "well that photo looks terrible but <really good photographer> took it so it MUST be good on some level that I don't understand..." Subyng fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Been a while since I've posted anything. Had a fun shoot today. Not sure if I'm sold on the edit style yet, but here's a preliminary. I like version 1's colours with version 2's exposure level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Subyng posted:See, this is why I can't understand whether people are joke posting or not because this is clearly a dumb thing to say if you are serious. poo poo made my an extremely competent person is still poo poo. It's fallacious to say, "well that photo looks terrible but <really good photographer> took it so it MUST be good on some level that I don't understand..." Or maybe, just maybe, you think it's poo poo because you don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Or maybe, just maybe, you think it's poo poo because you don't understand. yeah, but then we get into the "it's art maaaaaaaaaaaaaan" territory. Competent people put out poo poo too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:yeah, but then we get into the "it's art maaaaaaaaaaaaaan" territory. Competent people put out poo poo too. Of course, but isn't it a bit presumptive to jump straight to "it's poo poo," as Subyng did?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Subyng posted:It's fallacious to say, "well that photo looks terrible but <really good photographer> took it so it MUST be good on some level that I don't understand..." No it isn't. Context really matters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
you guys are forgetting the big picture here, and that's that all photos are poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:you guys are forgetting the big picture here, and that's that all photos are poo poo proof:  Untitled by Paul Frederiksen, on Flickr Untitled by Paul Frederiksen, on Flickr
vxsarin fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
deaders posted:No it isn't. Context really matters. If your photo can't stand on its own merit and requires additional context like k owledge of the author that took the photo, then it's not good. Context helps me appreciate those photos more (oh cool, they were taken with a silly camera) but that doesn't increase the objective merit of the photo. If a monkey took those portraits I'd think, "wow, smart monkey" not, "GOOD ART" Subyng fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Subyng posted:If your photo can't stand on its own merit and requires additional context like k owledge of the author that took the photo, then it's not good. The point isn't whether the photo requires context, but whether deeper thought regarding the photo may be in order.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Subyng posted:If your photo can't stand on its own merit and requires additional context like k owledge of the author that took the photo, then it's not good. Can you please give me the objective score for my photos? Deeply concerned about how they rank on the Subyng Scale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Subyng posted:If your photo can't stand on its own merit and requires additional context like k owledge of the author that took the photo, then it's not good. There's no such thing as "on its own merit." There's always such a thing as context. Why are you so mad about not getting it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Can you please give me the objective score for my photos? Deeply concerned about how they rank on the Subyng Scale. Are you purposely being obtuse for the sake of sarcasm or do you not understand that some measure of objectivity is needed if you want to be able to give and receive any sort of meaningful criticism? MrBlandAverage posted:There's no such thing as "on its own merit." There's always such a thing as context. Sure there is. Post a photo without a title or description or knowing/caring who the author is and all you have is the photo. And are you seriously trying to play the "u mad" card? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
And just to illuminate this discussion with some ~context~, I don't have a strong opinion about either argument, this is mainly about Ansel Autisms being a hypocrite because he likes to respond to bad photos with harsh one liners but when someone critiques his, he says the equivalent of "it's art maaan". So what, he is above any critique now because of any real or imagined context that elevates his photos to such a status? Subyng fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
I don't see where you provided any critique beyond questioning the intent of my posting. Please correct me if I'm wrongSubyng posted:ansel autism is going to infect every thread with his 'is he posting ironically or not I don't even what's serious anymore" poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
I didn't, but at least one other person did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
I don't see any.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Are you purposely being obtuse for the sake of sarcasm or do you not understand that some measure of objectivity is needed if you want to be able to give and receive any sort of meaningful criticism? You're not mad, you just don't like what ansel autisms posts because you don't understand it and you're too much of a pussy to admit it directly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Subyng posted:If your photo can't stand on its own merit and requires additional context like k owledge of the author that took the photo, then it's not good. http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Dummies-Jesse-Bryant-Wilder/dp/0470099100/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426629550&sr=8-1&keywords=art+for+dummies C'mon man, creating art is all about context. I find it hard to elaborate on this but I'll try, the photos that any of us making are heavily dependant on our personal state of mind, our physical surroundings, our political surroundings, our personal taste in the medium, who we admire in the medium, and reactions to current or past movements in the medium, as well as technical limitations in the tools we use, whether self-imposed or not. I'm probably talking out my arse, but thats how I feel on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Subyng posted:And just to illuminate this discussion with some ~context~, I don't have a strong opinion about either argument, this is mainly about Ansel Autisms being a hypocrite because he likes to respond to bad photos with harsh one liners but when someone critiques his, he says the equivalent of "it's art maaan". A harsh one-liner can have way more content than anything you've posted in response to ansel autisms' photos. His photos aren't above critique, either; if you have actual critique I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
It was the one you responded to with "I don't take photos for your enjoyment". A poster was asking you why you posted those photos and what you liked about them that made you want to share them. I'll give you my Official Critique (I am a very well known photo critic so please know that my opinions are very important and carry a lot of weight) The way you posted your photos (as is, without any explanation), I didn't see what is visually appealing about those photos. I place an importance on visual appeal since photography is a visual medium. They are noisy as hell and the subjects have the most awkward expressions. They look like something you GIS'd from the 1990's. It seems like you only posted them in an effort to be shocking/nontraditional. This is why I compared them to the portrait equivalent of toilet-nachos in a previous post. Was this your intent and if not, why do you think they were worth posting? With additional context: Oh, that's interesting, I actually had to look up what a Mavica is. Cool camera, interesting results, and I think your choice of shooting a bunch of hairy dudes with a dumb plastic thing from the 1980's is contextually appropriate. Still, I find no desire to continue looking at those photos. MrBlandAverage posted:Context is way more than just title, description, and author. No, I didn't understand it at first because there was no context and Ansel wouldn't/couldn't explain it without a sarcastic non-answer. I get it, but that doesn't make me want to keep looking at the photo any more than my initial reaction to it. So you got "u mad" and "u just don't understand art". Any other dumb memes you want to throw at me while you're at it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Subyng posted:It was the one you responded to with "I don't take photos for your enjoyment". A poster was asking you why you posted those photos and what you liked about them that made you want to share them. I'll give you my Official Critique (I am a very well known photo critic so please know that my opinions are very important and carry a lot of weight) Do you have so little imagination that you can't conceive of a reason to post a photo other than "visual appeal?" Yeah, man, you just don't understand art. You're just as bad as the gear masturbators.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Context and intent mean a gently caress ton, I mean come on. Especially in Ansel's case where a good amount of his work are these beautiful, meticulously made, large format images. I look at these Mavica portraits almost like how I look at something like when Todd Hido went from making medium format night images to shooting portraits in dingy motels on a lovely point and shoot. Ansel is doing the same thing but using a format/camera that is now all but forgotten and embracing the "flaws" that come along with the camera, which I personally love as it shows experimentation. It's unique and a fresh take on a genre of photography that can be pretty loving stale. At least that's my opinion on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Do you have so little imagination that you can't conceive of a reason to post a photo other than "visual appeal?" Yeah, man, you just don't understand art. Maybe, but that's why I asked. Okay, I didn't ask, but someone else did, and instead of illuminating us art-not-getting individuals, we got "you don't get art lol". That's what I initially took issue with. Maybe you should consider the context of these posts more when responding to others. Also, visual appeal is a pretty broad term. It doesn't necessarily mean "pretty". If it's something you want to continue looking at, I'd call it a good photo. Just like good music is something you want to keep listening to. If it's something that evokes a strong reaction and makes you think, but you don't necessarily enjoy looking at the photo, then I'd call it "art'. I guess this here is proof that Ansel made good art, but they aren't good photos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Subyng posted:It was the one you responded to with "I don't take photos for your enjoyment". A poster was asking you why you posted those photos and what you liked about them that made you want to share them. I'll give you my Official Critique (I am a very well known photo critic so please know that my opinions are very important and carry a lot of weight) I did not intend "I don't take photos for your enjoyment" to be a dismissal of iSheep's opinion; I don't feel particularly inclined to respond to someone asking me to justify my posting. That's fine, if you don't like them, you don't have to enjoy them. I don't enjoy the vast majority of the photos in this thread - "pretty" alone is not my preferred aesthetic - but I don't expect anyone to justify to me why I don't like them. A critique isn't "I don't like these, why did you post them," it's "I don't like these for these reasons, why did you post them?" Why is it my responsibility to justify and take photos that you find personally appealing? If you don't like them, give critique with substance - however minor - or move on. I'm also failing to find where I threw "u mad" or "u just don't understand my art" at you or anyone during the context of this discussion. Subyng posted:Maybe, but that's why I asked. Okay, I didn't ask, but someone else did, and instead of illuminating us art-not-getting individuals, we got "you don't get art lol". That's what I initially took issue with. Maybe you should consider the context of these posts more when responding to others. It seems more that you took issue with me posting photos that aren't in lockstep with the aesthetic of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Maybe, but that's why I asked. Okay, I didn't ask, but someone else did, and instead of illuminating us art-not-getting individuals, we got "you don't get art lol". That's what I initially took issue with. Maybe you should consider the context of these posts more when responding to others. Plenty of illumination further up in this thread. You seem to be pretty dense so I can't blame you for not seeing it. Haven't you ever heard music that's clearly well made that just wasn't your style?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:I did not intend "I don't take photos for your enjoyment" to be a dismissal of iSheep's opinion; I don't feel particularly inclined to respond to someone asking me to justify my posting. That's fine, if you don't like them, you don't have to enjoy them. I don't enjoy the vast majority of the photos in this thread - "pretty" alone is not my preferred aesthetic - but I don't expect anyone to justify to me why I don't like them. A critique isn't "I don't like these, why did you post them," it's "I don't like these for these reasons, why did you post them?" I'm not saying it's your responsibility to post photos that align with the aesthetic tastes of others. I'm saying it seems hypocritical that you don't feel inclined to justify your posting yet you question others' posting of bad photos. Or do you post those without any expectation of justifications either? That's fine if you do, but strange in a forum where the point is for people to discuss things, not to leave one liners that go unanswered. quote:
That was directed at MrBlandAverage, not you. quote:It seems more that you took issue with me posting photos that aren't in lockstep with the aesthetic of this thread. I don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I'm not saying it's your responsibility to post photos that align with the aesthetic tastes of others. I'm saying it seems hypocritical that you don't feel inclined to justify your posting yet you question others' posting of bad photos. Or do you post those without any expectation of justifications either? That's fine if you do, but strange in a forum where the point is for people to discuss things, not to leave one liners that go unanswered. Subyng posted:That was directed at MrBlandAverage, not you.  Subyng posted:I don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
edit: ^^^ See, you're completely conflating posts that were intended for two different audiences (you and autisms) discussing two different tangential topics. You totally lost context of what is being said here, as well as referencing posts when you have no memory of who said what. MrBlandAverage posted:Plenty of illumination further up in this thread. You seem to be pretty dense so I can't blame you for not seeing it. Ironic that you're arguing about how context matters in photos, but you can't see context when it comes to posting. I "get" what he is doing. I still don't enjoy the photos. It's that simple. Get it? edit 2: Anyways, I'm completely satisfied with this train of thought and have no outstanding issues with ansel autisms or his posting. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Ironic that you're arguing about how context matters in photos, but you can't see context when it comes to posting. I "get" what he is doing. I still don't enjoy the photos. It's that simple. Get it? That's not context, that's something you said explicitly, and it's still dumb because you've been asking ansel autisms to justify posting photos you personally don't enjoy (even if you "get" them). edit: the one topic here is your bad posting MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Ok considering we're all posting pretty badly can we ideally just move on and never speak of this again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Oh man, I really hate it when someone gets probated like this - it cuts and ends the discussion. I think the opposing view that he has is a good one to have, without the being obtuse part. I get sybung's point of view, and I agree with Mr bland that he just doesn't get what autisms posted. Listen, sybung, if you're still reading this - it's okay if you don't get or understand or like autisms photos, I'm pretty sure you weren't his intended audience. No big deal. No one can teach you to "get it", it comes from experience and lots of submersive research, and seeing trends and recognising them and seeing what your peers are doing and why they're doing it. Do you like high fashion? Do you understand it? Does that mean that it's not any good? There's more to photos than pixel perfect resolution, complementary colours, and interesting subjects. There's emotion, context, experimentation, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
OK some portraits for the portrait thread. This is the first time I've used the 50mm in public. Yeah bokeh and all that jazz   
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
All three of those missed focus on the eyes and got the nose. Unless you have some reason for missing the eyes- and you're able to communicate it clearly in your photo- you should always make sure they're in focus, it's incredibly distracting otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
This recent thread has made me realise I quite like my some of my photos and critique would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
Shooting wide open is fun at first, but looking back on all my shots where I did that, I missed focus a LOT. If you want to continue shooting wide open, rock back and forth *slightly* and snap a few shots. At least that is what I've been told to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:27
|
|
