[pxt]

Green style photo has simplicity and use two from tree basic nature colors. It is nice, but patato photo is for me only name who take it. I don't see any purpose of this photo and anything special. On the first I can see harmony, classic landscape style. Photographers now are in two groups - "press button and take thousand selfies on instagram" and "thinking before press button". It is a good lesson read about trends in culture and how they affect our taste. Editing technique before Instagram and in-app filters was called "artistic". Now is avoided as too much used. Interesting that in 60th of twenties start trend to above natural photo (now is evolved fx in HDR technique) and cold photos. Artistic means a lot of times blue tints what color sociology connected with bad, winter, sadness etc.

At the beggining stage photography is only press the button. Fx. my photo attached here is not spectacular, but I want that my growing kids will be find star in flowers. I know where I make mistakes - wrong lights, not very contrast background, no dynamic changing colors, but I take it for one reason. When you understand basic triangle shutter speed, F, ISO you start think. Maybe is why sometimes best effect make simple auto, because photographers thinks about what shoot and why not how. After few years shooting I start learning how do it. Some my early photos is only crap without sense. I attached few of them here. Few years before I was proud of them. Now I see how many I can improve.

First I start from seeing only technique, exposure balance, shutter speed etc. and don't ask for what is this photo. Interesting, when you know deeper someone you can understand what picture he will get from his DSLR.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

     

[Fenwoodian]

.
A good photo is in the eyes of the beholder. For example, my wife and I often completely disagree on the merits of an individual photograph.

I often wonder, do I really know what's a good photo? After many decades of photography, you'd think I'd know, but I really don't.

For example, the below photo I almost deleted in camera. I hated just about everything about it. No drama, no highlights, little contrast, under exposed, so very very vanilla - ick! However, when I uploaded it at my wife's insistance to my Flickr page, I was surprised by the number of viewers who actually liked the image.

[IMG][/IMG]
.

I don't know if one can develop the eye of an artist. Maybe it's something you're born with - a gift. Some of us have it, and others don't and likely never will.

[pxt]

From other hand photographic eyes is weakness. You go throught valey, street around you and you have esthetic feeling about world around you. Typical man from Navy Seal propably can take some part of photos, but not flowers. Character determining what part of phootgraphy is for you. I'm writing here about hobbyst photography. Work from kitchen is make standard photos fx. the same composition for photo. When Great Mean speaks on political event more value gets an photo. On local newspapers photos a lot of times look like amateurs fast snapshots. Commercial photography is how create lighting to gets result with Hasselblad or another large format. It is only merchandise make for specification.

The are theories about geniuses what part of population they are. I found few YouTube channels from people who after few years make nice commercial photo for wedding, portrait etc. It is only practise. Base can achive anyone, but with afford of time. One make them slower, other make fasters. Basic rules are simple: Clean unwanted part of images, good exposure, compose before shoot. Look at gallery Elio Locardi here: Portfolio - Elia Locardi


A lot of his picture was made by the same technique of long exposure. When you take a look and clean with lighting effect some are his photos are typical. Only difference is in that he takes photos on specific time of day. A lot of people can reproduce this in home. Only real difference is that a lot of people don't have a lot of money to travel around world. Real deal is take photos in boring location. Elio Locardi is for me good ilustration which good photography is. His work makes pleausure of seeing and people get exotic location in home. It is a Good photography.

I seperate some specific people call them photography genius. They can make new look from old staff, but I always prefers ethic judgment of photo to avoid fx. photography exploiting people. Genius can takes unique shot of asiatic satrape who killing people and except documentation and award police papers is worth anything? Typical person can make fantastic photos when make them above 10 thousand hours as wrote Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers: The Story of Success. Just do it by practise.

[clackers]

@johnmflores


These photos need a *huge* amount of forethought, gear, execution and post-processing, you can't just get off your motorbike with your little Panny G85 and take a snap.

I've done an overnight astrophotography workshop hours drive away from Melbourne down the coast, and my conclusion was nothing is left to chance.

We have plenty of Pentax photographers who do dazzling shots, like Pinholecam on his tour of New Zealand:



https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/364329-travel-alps-o...ml#post4411281

---

Last edited by clackers; 08-25-2018 at 04:26 PM.

[clackers]

Photography is a recording medium. No more, no less.

That's just reductionism, Dsmithhfx, if you think photography is just to record and not to draw emotions from the viewer or make them think, you should just give up the hobby, IMHO. We're here to create images, not capture photons.

Luckily, this forum is full of people who believe otherwise, and I love the pictures they take.

[clackers]

If I thought it would help my photography I might, but, it would only effect the way I think about photgraphy.
Anyone familiar with my spelling knows what chore writing a book would be for me. # typos in every sentence.
To me, learning about photography is preparation. But in that moment, when you are shooting it's like sport. You have to transcend all those things going on in your head, trust your training and practice and be completely engaged with your shutter and your subject. In that moment it's a sum that's more than it's parts. It's like the game winning 3 point shot that you knew was in the second it left your hand because you were "feeling it." Photography is a physical endeavour and relies on the same skills, so preparation counts, but if you aren't here where you need to be in your head in the moment, it's all for nothing. You shoot, but the ball rims out and the buzzer goes. That makes for a long week of practice, but, a short memory and focussing on what went wrong makes you better prepared the next week. You think until it's time to react, and then you react. In that moment it's all about how well you've prepared yourself and your execution.

You see the picture coming, you know you have the settings you want. You press the shutter. Preparation, practice and opportunity leads to success. Same as a 3 point shot.

And I have to say having done both, taking the winning shot as the clock winds down and taking a winning image feels about the same. Except for the part where there are no team mates to mob you after the picture.

You even think the same thing.
"YES. I nailed it.! :

If you put together key things in your style, Norm, these days you can send it to an out of work creative writer over the Internet by AirTasker or Fiverr who'll liberate you from the tedious manuscript, and you'll just do final edits/rewrites.

I'd buy that.

[dsmithhfx]

That's just reductionism, Dsmithhfx, if you think photography is just to record and not to draw emotions from the viewer or make them think, you should just give up the hobby, IMHO. We're here to create images, not capture photons.

Luckily, this forum is full of people who believe otherwise, and I love the pictures they take.

It is your quotation that is literally reductive, for you do not ask what is photography a record of.

[normhead]

It is your quotation that is literally reductive, for you do not ask what is photography a record of.

That's because photography is not primarily record keeping. Photography is primarily art.

There are many sidelines to photography where it goes off into strange directions, but primarily photographs are judged on their artistic value. If you take 50 images on your kids birthday, you treasure them as a record, but the one you hang on your wall is probably the one that appeals to you artisitcally.

[aaacb]

These photos need a *huge* amount of forethought, gear, execution and post-processing, you can't just get off your motorbike with your little Panny G85 and take a snap.

That's one way to put it, the photo of the pillars of creation nebula is takes by the Hubble telescope Pillars of Creation - Wikipedia

[clackers]

That's one way to put it, the photo of the pillars of creation nebula is takes by the Hubble telescope Pillars of Creation - Wikipedia

Absolutely.

Great tech results in great art, too, extreme macro by the likes of forum member Nass shows that, to go in the other direction.

From his http://extreme-macro.co.uk/ website :

[Dartmoor Dave]

I hate to have to say this, but when we start offering examples from here on PF as representative of great photography then really we're deluding ourselves. The guys who seem like big fish in this little pond are just teensy tiny minnows in comparison with the really big beasts out there in the world of modern photography.

We need to be wary of the internet echo chamber effect. Somebody measuring themselves only against the better stuff on this site could end up with a misleading sense of where their own level really is. And in fact somebody comparing themselves only against internet hobbyist sites in general, such as Flickr, could also end up getting some false impressions about their own abilities. The really great photography that's being done nowadays doesn't usually appear in the sort of places that amateur hobbyists go to for inspiration.


(Also, since we've got an NSFW filter for nudes, couldn't we also have a filter for those of who want to barf at the sight of an extreme bug close-up?)

[clackers]

I hate to have to say this, but when we start offering examples from here on PF as representative of great photography then really we're deluding ourselves. The guys who seem like big fish in this little pond are just teensy tiny minnows in comparison with the really big beasts out there in the world of modern photography.

IMHO, such a negative attitude, full of self loathing and typical Pentaxian pessimism, really beneath your usual standard of posting, Dave.

And not true.

Nass' work has appeared on: "BBC, La Republica, The South China Morning Post, outdoorphotographer.com, F Stoppers, Lightstalking, The Photography Blogger, Photography Vox, Cognysis, Wertn.com, PM.net, The Smithsonian Magazine"

[ffking]

After many decades of photography, you'd think I'd know, but I really don't.

I've never yet worked out if the photographer is the best or worst judge of their own work - but I have decided that if I'd not be proud to see my name under a picture I won't try to sell it of enter it for a competition, whatever anyone else says.

[ffking]

I hate to have to say this, but when we start offering examples from here on PF as representative of great photography then really we're deluding ourselves. The guys who seem like big fish in this little pond are just teensy tiny minnows in comparison with the really big beasts out there in the world of modern photography.

We need to be wary of the internet echo chamber effect. Somebody measuring themselves only against the better stuff on this site could end up with a misleading sense of where their own level really is. And in fact somebody comparing themselves only against internet hobbyist sites in general, such as Flickr, could also end up getting some false impressions about their own abilities. The really great photography that's being done nowadays doesn't usually appear in the sort of places that amateur hobbyists go to for inspiration.

Yes and no. Yes, we shouldn't be in any way complacent if we're serious about our photography - but there are a hell of a lot of published and commercially successful photographers whose work is, to put it kindly, a matter of taste. And, as this thread has suggested, there are photos that are great technical achievements - sometimes the type where the photographer gets an underling to to the mundane bit of pressing the shutter release - and there probably aren't many working with Pentax kit - but there also photographs that are great in the way they communicate emotions or feelings: that's harder to teach, but I think we have people here who can do it. I am, in line with the thread, talking about exceptional photographs, and the unfortunate thing is that there are a lot of examples of photographs that have little intrinsic merit commanding high prices because of the name on them and good photographers finding that there is no market for their most personal work and doing what the market demands. It's complicated

[normhead]

I hate to have to say this, but when we start offering examples from here on PF as representative of great photography then really we're deluding ourselves.

Because everyone on PF sucks?
Get outta town Charlie Brown.

There's been some great work posted here. Are you sure you're the guy to recognize great photography? What are your qualifications in that regard?

Ansel Adams said one good image a month was all you could hope for. What happens here is we share a lot more than just our best images. It's not a competition. Its not a juried show.

I'm sorry no one here meets your obviously extremely high standards of what constitutes photographic excellence.

Maybe you should go hang with Cindy Sherman or Andreas Gursky. (like they'd give you 5 minutes of their time.)
Honestly, dude if it's about great photography for you, find someone who's photography you think is great where you don't feel the need to offer your negative opinions of their work, and hang with them. There's no benefit to you coming here and telling everyone how little you think of them.

But I'll warn you, no one with an ounce of self esteem will tolerate you for more than a minute. No one got to be an excellent photographer by giving an ear to the negative nellies of the world.

Everyone makes up their own mind what an excellent photograph is to them, and you don't get to decide for anyone but yourself. Learn to live with that a little more gracefully.

And trust me, everyone here (except may be the teenagers and young guns) recognizes their insignificance in the world of photgrpahy. They should be able to make a comment without you rubbing it in their faces.

There's some excellent work posted here. Don't let your negativity stop you from seeing it.