p.6 #1 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
Thanks so much Paul. I'll try not to bore you to tears again with my meaningless, boring crap. I'm sure your own work is outstanding and on the covers of magazines.
Ian Boys wrote:
There is something annoying though about someone with next to no posted photos and a single like on the FM forums telling one of the most successful photographers we have that her stuff is boring.
Boring has come up in this thread. But don’t I believe I ever said it was boring. Who said it was boring?
p.6 #2 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
I'm sure your own work is outstanding and on the covers of magazines.
I understand this strike may be related to your recent appearance in publications. Whether or not I am published photog. Who has run workshops and taught I’ll leave for you to discover.
Paul Mo wrote:
Lisa, I like your work. Please ask yourself if you are able to handle critique. And then whether or not you should continue to post here. It would be a poorer place if you chose not to.
‘I like your work. It would be a poorer place’, is positive reinforcement.
p.6 #3 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
musingclouds wrote:
Hell, I would hate to have images everyone said was great all the time. I want to become the best photographer I can because I really value my artistic eye. If I don't let that develop and grow by making mistakes and taking in feedback, then it's just going to languish.
Dialogue is crucial.
airfrogusmc wrote:
"No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and build confidence in the creative spirit"-Ansel Adams
Yes, and nowhere was I dictatorial. But let’s talk. Let’s praise and critique. And let’s not confuse critique with abjectly criticizing.
p.6 #4 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
friscoron wrote:
When a commenter says your work always looks the same and thus is boring, their opinion is biased and ignorant, in my opinion.
Who here is biased and ignorant? I think we are quite a diverse, educated lot.
airfrogusmc wrote:
But then again who is posting the opinions and are those opinions actually valid crit of the work. In a formal situation like a college class you usually have people that are about on the same visual level as you are and those critiques especially with a professor as a moderator can be very helpful.
Moderation can be helpful. And of course we try our best to communicate well on the Internet, but it isn’t easy.
People are often dismissive of some Internet ‘random’. And yet more than willing to fawn over someone ‘known’ or a someone ‘famous’ within the photographic community. But online you may never know quite who you are dealing with, and mostly you have no idea of the depth and breadth of experience of members. I would say critique from most people here would be completely valid.
jeraldcook wrote:
Lisa, your work is incredible so keep posting and ignore the critics.
You do understand the purpose of critique, don’t you?
Sorry for the multiple posts, but it was an effort to preserve quotes.
p.6 #5 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
I can usually tell about the depth and breadth of experience by the critique itself. Many reach a level and only continue to grow in a horizontal fashion. They stop growing vertically. Most are trapped by the PPA/Monty Zucker rule factory and comment from that perspective. Which for the most part s only valid to others with that mindset.
Some words by some of the greats....
There are no shortcuts, no rules." - Paul Strand
"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams
"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals
"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt
"I came from the outside, the rules of photography didn't interest me."- William Klein
"Somehow 'purists' have confused photography with some sort of a bizarre competition that comes with an undefined set of rules...." - Bill Frakes
"The enemy of photography is the convention, the fixed rules of 'how to do'. The salvation of photography comes from the experiment." - Laszlo Moholy-Nagy
"...there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs."-Garry Winogrand
"When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches." - Edward Weston
And maybe my favorite
"Then so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston
A lot of the criticism I read is related to what they would do or how they would shot it instead of excepting it for what it is. Or they are using a pre-concieved map of rules to help guide them and usually it's the images that are not complex, deep or have complex compositions and deeper meaning but the ones that give immediate gratification that get the most attention.
"A good photograph, like a good painting, speaks with a loud voice and demands time and attention if it is to be fully perceived. An art lover is perfectly willing to hang a painting on a wall for years on end, but ask him to study a single photograph for ten unbroken minutes and he’ll think it’s a waste of time. Staying power is difficult to build into a photograph. Mostly, it takes content. A good photograph can penetrate the subconscious – but only if it is allowed to speak for however much time it needs to get there." - Ralph Gibson
Unfortunately many want to look, get it and move on and that attitude comes through in the critiques. Rarely do I read anything that is deeper than RoT and if that rule is really not really valid which I and all of the photographers I mentioned early didn't believe then how valid is the critique where that is one of the major guidelines.
Love or hate Lisa work, it looks like Lisa's work. Many never get to that level.
p.6 #6 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
You really think that we, as artists, owe it to ANYONE to share behind the scenes info as to how we came to a finished product?
When the finished product isn't actually a photographic capture but actually a composite, then yes, I believe we do. Because to do otherwise is to imply that we made something we did not.
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
Honestly, that is just ridiculous.
This is not exactly a strong argument.
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
But rest assured, the before and afters will be a thing of the past from me here. I will leave people wondering from now on.
Well, that too is a lesson, as I said. In your case the lesson you've learned is to hide what really happens when you make your images, rather than being open about them. That's your choice, and you certainly aren't alone.
If you feel comfortable receiving accolades over these "magical photographs" when you know they are Photoshop collages, that's up to you.
What it has done for me, however, is make me second-guess every image you post entirely, because I now have no idea which of them actually were finely-lit, well-composed photographs where something special occurred, and which are fabrications.
For example, the picture of the child reaching up to leaves falling down. If that actually happened, it would be a magical moment captured. Instead, it was just a child holding his arm up, and you pasted in some leaves -- nothing magical at all. But you'll post these images and everyone will go "wow, what an amazing scene you captured!" and revel in the glory (and possibly get financial benefit).
Whatever lets you sleep at night -- I couldn't do it.
p.6 #8 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
airfrogusmc wrote:
Most are trapped by the PPA/Monty Zucker rule factory and comment from that perspective. Which for the most part is only valid to others with that mindset.
I'm sitting here chuckling. Allen, we are kindred spirits in our thinking towards PPA/Zucker. Don't forget Zeltsman, Vann Moore and others of their ilk. Also say a little prayer for all of those who feel that portraiture can be reduced to a series of formulas of lighting ratios and posing rules (masculine/ feminine, hand pose, head tilt, weight distribution, etc.).
I enjoy your AA quotes. I graduated from the school where (long before my time) he and Fred Archer codified the Zone System. I was never taught the PPA type rules of portraiture and lighting there. We were not assigned to do a portrait with a 3:2 lighting ratio, we were assigned to go out and create a portrait full of emotion that conveyed something of the subject's essence. We picked up technique, of which the school was well known, as a means to an end, not an end of itself.
p.6 #9 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
Didn't she start this thread with a before and after shot? Am i missing something?
All photographs are fabrications of reality period....
Again John Szarkowski:
"What the photographer taking the picture and the historian viewing it must understand is that while the camera deals with recording factual things and events that form the subject of the photograph, it only produces a perceived reality that is remembered after the thing or event has passed. While people believe that photographs do not lie, this is an illusion caused by the mistaken belief that the subject and the picture of the subject is the same thing."-John Szarkowski
"Because we see reality in different ways, we must understand that we are looking at different truths rather than the truth and that, therefore, all photographs lie in one way or another."-John Szarkowski
For my personal work, I also like to work in the moment. In my personal work I like to see when the elements come together in a fraction of a second. I like the challenge of seeing it in real time and capturing it. To give some kind of visual meaning to chaos.
But I also respect and like the work from Uelsmann, John Paul Caponigro and Lisa that see it and put it together from several images. That also takes vision and imagination. That is working more like a painter. Even Adams worked in a similar fashion. Yosemite never looked in reality the way Adams captured it. He used his vision and the zone system to control his final image which usually never looked like the way he captured it in real life.
And it did actually happen and there a photograph to prove it LoL..
My advice is let go of the illusion that in some way photographs are showing you the truth and just enjoy the final images. There is an entire world of images created and are fantasy composites that are amazing and it started in the very early days of photography and many in the day did believe that the photograph Henry Peach Robinson (Fading Away) was an actual event. So it should have been dismissed because it is a composite and it fooled people? I don't think so...
p.6 #10 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
Thank you! And quite honestly, my composite work is few and far between - the VAST majority of my images are single shot images. Now - I'm off to see if I can dredge up any of Charles' work seeing as I don't recall him ever posting any and he's blowing hot air all over my thread.
p.6 #12 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
Ahhh so he's a landscape photog - spewing all over a thread in the people forum. Everything makes much more sense now.
I do a considerable amount of people photography. But it is nearly all for friends and family and so I do not generally post it here for privacy reasons.
I'd been involved in this subforum for years before you and your noxious attitude even showed up.
However, even if I had never taken a single picture of a human being ever, that would have no bearing whatsoever on the matter I am discussing. As I already said, the passing off of collages as photographs takes place in many different areas, including landscapes. (People pasting rainbows into shots, etc.)
Your ad hominem attack, in lieu of any actual substantive response to my comments, is duly noted. Certainly a lot easier than taking an honest look at your own behavior.
p.6 #13 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
Attack? Are you kidding me? You're in here crying about my Photoshop use - which is a null and void point because it's MY work and I'll process/create it however I see fit. Since when do YOU get to dictate how someone else creates their art or whether or not it is valid? Quite frankly, I do not care even a tiny bit what you think. Quit harassing me.
p.6 #14 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
I don't care how long you've been posting here either. It means absolutely nothing to me. If you don't like my work or my use of Photoshop in said work, you are always welcome to not look at it. As for me, I will continue to photograph and edit in the manner that I enjoy, with or without your approval. You are a joke.
p.6 #15 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
Attack? Are you kidding me?
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the term I used. It is explained here, should you choose to read about it. To summarize:
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.
In this case, you responded to my points about passing collages off as photographs with sniping about what subjects I shoot, when that has zero relevance. (And is, furthermore, inaccurate. I took my first digital people photos in 2000, how about you?)
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
You're in here crying about my Photoshop use - which is a null and void point because it's MY work and I'll process/create it however I see fit.
If you actually read my previous post you would have noticed that I said specifically that you have every right to make whatever you want in Photoshop. But you do tend to do more reacting than reading.
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
Since when do YOU get to dictate how someone else creates their art or whether or not it is valid?
Since I learned how to see, read, and speak. Like everyone else.
And there's a strawman here, since I never said your art was "invalid". I said passing off collages as if they were captures is deceptive. Collages are art, and I've said that from the very beginning.
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
Quite frankly, I do not care even a tiny bit what you think. Quit harassing me.
Yes, I can see how much you don't care by the frequency and vehemence of your replies.
I have not called you names and have been perfectly polite. You just don't like my viewpoint, but that doesn't constitute "harrassment". If you don't want to see my posts, you know what to do. Hiding from those who have different views is certainly a lot easier than responding to them coherently.
p.6 #18 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
I would rather prefer some (very) critical views of my work than the kiss-ups who constantly tell me how great I am. The latter might be good for the ego, but limit your ability to grow.
p.6 #19 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
charlesk wrote:
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the term I used. It is explained here, should you choose to read about it. To summarize:
In this case, you responded to my points about passing collages off as photographs with sniping about what subjects I shoot, when that has zero relevance. (And is, furthermore, inaccurate. I took my first digital people photos in 2000, how about you?)
If you actually read my previous post you would have noticed that I said specifically that you have every right to make whatever you want in Photoshop. But you do tend to do more reacting than reading.
Since I learned how to see, read, and speak. Like everyone else.
And there's a strawman here, since I never said your art was "invalid". I said passing off collages as if they were captures is deceptive. Collages are art, and I've said that from the very beginning.
Yes, I can see how much you don't care by the frequency and vehemence of your replies.
I have not called you names and have been perfectly polite. You just don't like my viewpoint, but that doesn't constitute "harrassment". If you don't want to see my posts, you know what to do. Hiding from those who have different views is certainly a lot easier than responding to them coherently....Show more →
So you are saying that a photograph that is a collage is not longer a photograph? You couldn't be more wrong and I have history on my side of the debate...
You can see and write and think but as Adams said you do not have the right to dictate what others should create. Oh I guess you can if you burn all the work that you deem degenerate and you can even have a big exhibit and call it the Degenerate Art Exhibit to show everyone what is not expectable. Oh that's right someone else beat you to it...
p.6 #20 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
I agree Phil - and as long as the critique is CONSTRUCTIVE, I am all for it! But simply saying 'it's deceptive that you Photoshop a pic and call it a photograph' or 'your stuff is boring and all looks the same' is NOT constructive nor helpful in the least. It's just being a dick.
Archive 2014 · Apparently, I need to dust off my camera and go shooting again...
I honestly don't even know what to say to you. I think you are completely ridiculous though. COMPLETELY.