Things change?

[StreetShooter]

OK Coming back on topic, ie commenting on photos which have been posted.

I'll be brutally honest. Photographers are a pretty egoistic bunch (and I base that observation on myself). And they know where to go to get what they want.

If you're fishing for compliments and ratings to puff up your ego, you go to photosig.

If you want honest, useful critiques and comments, you go to Lance Lee's forum, or maybe photo.net.

If you've got a banal picture to post, you do it (close your eyes, open your mouth, take your medicine, it's good for you) right here in clubsnap. OK maybe pbase as well. And photosig is very quickly filling up with lots of banal photos as well.

See, I would compliment a shot which I like.

I would critique a shot which had potential, but could be improved in my opinion.

I would want to learn from someone who shot something I found stunning, what the settings were, how it was done, or just get creative ideas.

But with a banal photo, I'm usually at a loss. There's really nothing constructive to say, except "Could you please take more interesting photos?" And you quickly find out that some people are pretty sensitive about "constructive criticism". So you just keep quiet lor.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Bluestrike


Hmmm...
what abt things like these?http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=112038

Abstract?

That's something totally different anyway. I tend to prefer to keep photography as photography (a record of a slice of time), and digital art/abstracts as it is.

Regards
CK

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Bluestrike

oh no....
This is actually a plot set up by Jed to have us flaming each other!!!!!

We've fallen into his trap!!!!;p

Nah, there's a better way to do that. Guarantee 100% working or your post(s) back.

Simply post one of the following:
"[insert camera brand here] sucks."
"[insert camera brand here A] is better than [insert camera brand B] here]
"Digital is better than film"
"Film is better than digital"

etc.

Regards
CK

 

[anonymous]

Originally posted by ckiang


Nah, there's a better way to do that. Guarantee 100% working or your post(s) back.

Simply post one of the following:
"[insert camera brand here] sucks."
"[insert camera brand here A] is better than [insert camera brand B] here]
"Digital is better than film"
"Film is better than digital"

etc.

Regards
CK

and also " Do you believe in God" .

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by Darren
Anyway, this thing is getting OT - at least Jed can't say that there is no one posting replies anymore ... ;p

Haha what would you guys do without me to generate conversation/traffic?

 

[Jed]

BTW, the original post of mine was not to criticise in any way, I just feel that it's a disturbing trend. If CS wants to grow as a community then we need to learn to contribute both ways, photos as well as responses. I must admit I don't usually browse the photos because half I can't load at all, and it takes far too much time. But this time around it was particularly stark because I had 3742 or whatever posts and SO many were in a chain, by the same person, with 80+ views and no comments.

 

[Shadus]

To be frank, sometimes, poster just stick one of their pic there. As a reviewer, I've no idea why he wanna stick that pic there. Does he/she wants comments? or just wanna me look @ it or what???

Prefer if at least put of remarks like where he/she took the pic, why, how etc.

 

[Darren]

Originally posted by Jed
by the same person, with 80+ views and no comments.

hmmm.... doesn't that sort of imply something?

 

[Jed]

Not necessarily. Sometimes it's just an overdose rather than anything else. Perhaps, as was suggested by someone wiser than myself, it might be a suggestion for people not to post 10 or 20 pics at the same time?

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

Maybe, its better for ppl to ask themselves why is this pic worth posting (interesting? punchline? graphic? Artistic value etc?) before posting. I see lots of ppl posting pictures of their window views and other common shots.

No offence to all, myself included try to pull some unintesting shots and later try to find a selling point to it but alas, at least do some reflecting.

I still feel its good to go out and shoot and please study your frame to make it worth while to press the shutter.

I hope posters would put up more details on the settings of the shot if he/she/it wants to improve or show his/her/it techniques.

 

[Shadus]

This is one very excellent example of how a 'normal' pic becomes very interesting when the author explains it

Roses with special meaning

 

[OpenLens]

Originally posted by StreetShooter
Well, if you want to pick a discussion, I could give you one on that. What's wrong with a picture being photoshopped? Isn't it the final image that counts? Why should the quality of the actual shot be that important? Is skillfulness at making an exposure or using an expensive film somehow superior to skillfulness in using photoshop? The critique can be aimed at how to further improve the shot in photoshop, whether by cropping or cloning or changing colour balance. I sometimes show my originals to demonstrate what has been done, so I have nothing to be ashamed of.

:rbounce: :rbounce: :rbounce:

With a nick like StreetShooter, I thought you might know better. The point of photo-documantary photography (aka "street shooting") is to best capture reality. Taking a photograph in and of itself is altering reality simply by freezing it, but in documentary photography it shouldn't go that much further than what is required to show the "reality" of the subject in their environment. So when I look at the "street" photos you take, I guess I should always question the reality of the material? :dunno:

I use PS to crop, perform color balancing, sharpen, and adjust contrast and brightness levels. A lot of this is just to give the image a real printed look rather than a crappy scanned look. When you print of a 35mm neg there is cropping (more than an inch for a 8x10). When you scan you lose detail and sharpness that need to be "made up".

Honestly, I don't mind people who perform heavy photochopping at all...like the addition/removal of physical elements, heavy color balancing or replacements (like so many fake sunsets), etc.... What pisses me off are:

1) People who try and portray their finished digital art as being "real"
2) People who think that PS can replace the need for a good initial/source image.

On point 2...why use PS to turn a crappy initial image into an okay finished digiart pic when you can take a well composed, exposed, and formed initial image and use PS to create a spectacular digiart pic. PS is not a solution for those too lazy to take a good picture in the first place but can take a good initial picture and use it as the base for a wonderful piece of digiart.

Yes, the finial image is what counts. Just represent it for what it is and remember the saying "garbage in, garbage out". With a good initial image you will produce a great finial image.

*whew*

 

[rueyloon]

Originally posted by OpenLens


Honestly, I don't mind people who perform heavy photochopping at all...like the addition/removal of physical elements, heavy color balancing or replacements (like so many fake sunsets), etc.... What pisses me off are:

1) People who try and portray their finished digital art as being "real"
2) People who think that PS can replace the need for a good initial/source image.

I'm a "street shooter" as well, but after talking with other photographers I found out many famous photos are "staged".

like they may ask their model to walk the path many many times until they get all the elements correct. This particular's photographer's name eludes me now... (Ian, may be you can help here.... ) it is about the girls carring stuff on their head and there's a dog in the background. The photographer made the girls walk many times to get all the elements in the perfect placement.

The historic flag raising at iwo jima... that was taken 1 DAY AFTER !!! the photographer's tot it would made a good picture, hence he got the solders to "redo" the flag raising.... although the flag was already up the day before !!

miko's portriat (was it ?), the minimata photo. That was in a way "staged" as well, there were lights.

Hence what's an "original untouched" photo ? if I go back to a place day after day, week after week just waiting for the right moment.... am I still a "proper" street photographer ?

If I stood at a place for 5 mins, 10 mins waiting for the correct subjects to compliment the background, isn't that "staging" in a way ?

so aren't this photos taken using a primitive form of "photo shop", where you can prepare stuff, add in things, "redo" and "undo" ?

 

[OpenLens]

Originally posted by rueyloon


The historic flag raising at iwo jima... that was taken 1 DAY AFTER !!! the photographer's tot it would made a good picture, hence he got the solders to "redo" the flag raising.... although the flag was already up the day before !!

Actually, it wasn't staged for the benefit of the photographer, who was lucky in that he was there. A new, larger flag was put in place of the originally raised smaller one...which was taken by a captain as a memento...the day after. The photographer has never represented that it was anything other and was shocked that the image was selected after he sent the unexposed roll back to the States for development. The "big modification" with that image is that it was shot horizontally and heavily cropped into a vertical format to suit the subject.

 

[OpenLens]

Originally posted by rueyloon


I'm a "street shooter" as well, but after talking with other photographers I found out many famous photos are "staged".

like they may ask their model to walk the path many many times until they get all the elements correct. This particular's photographer's name eludes me now... (Ian, may be you can help here.... ) it is about the girls carring stuff on their head and there's a dog in the background. The photographer made the girls walk many times to get all the elements in the perfect placement.

The historic flag raising at iwo jima... that was taken 1 DAY AFTER !!! the photographer's tot it would made a good picture, hence he got the solders to "redo" the flag raising.... although the flag was already up the day before !!

miko's portriat (was it ?), the minimata photo. That was in a way "staged" as well, there were lights.

Hence what's an "original untouched" photo ? if I go back to a place day after day, week after week just waiting for the right moment.... am I still a "proper" street photographer ?

If I stood at a place for 5 mins, 10 mins waiting for the correct subjects to compliment the background, isn't that "staging" in a way ?

so aren't this photos taken using a primitive form of "photo shop", where you can prepare stuff, add in things, "redo" and "undo" ?

I don't know...in my heart there is still a difference between asking people to pose for a photograph or taking an object from the immediate environment and placing it within your composition and digitally placing an object within an image. There is a cool image from the 50's I saw awhile back in which 2 men on strike are sitting on the stairs of a courhouse. Lying in front of them at their feet is a sign stating "On Strike" and their local union number. Obviously, it is the sign that they were carrying while marching and, just as obviously, it was moved into that position by the photog to improve its visibility and the overall composition. Knowing this does not change the imapct of the shot for me. However, if I knew that the sign and text were placed there digitally, the image would no longer hold any imact for me at all.