[Mike.P®]

Try submitting a macro of a flower or an insect or maybe your dog looking straight at the camera...


Steve

Well my dog looking straight at the camera got in ok LINK

[MRRiley]

I beg to differ with you on that one. Your view seems a bit narrow minded IMO.

Just because I didn't paint it, does not mean I cannot shoot it at an interesting angle and present it in a photo. I recently had a mural accepted into the PPG and not only did I shoot it from a very low angle, I also converted it to BW which made it more interesting in my eyes and obviously others enough to get it into the gallery. I think I can still capture a mural and present it in a way that is different and creative to my interpretation of it .
Further, I do not think it is stealing or copyright infringement if it posted larger than life publicly, is on a wall out in the open for all to enjoy.

The shots I am referring to are the ones where the photographer takes a photo of the mural straight on, with no attempt at adding something to the scene. Most of these are little more than zerox copies of another person's work IMO. And FYI, puplic display does not negate copyright...

I for one always always approach a picture with a completely open mind. I start with a blank sheet, a clean slate. Preconceived notions and stereotyping can easily cause unwarranted biases, which is to me is far worse than taking bad photographs. It can also lead to not so constructive criticisms.

Rules are boundaries set arbitrarily by the observers, nothing more. If you really need to see the truth, you need to be willing to go far far beyond that. If unwilling, you just might miss it. Life is way too short for that.

[MRRiley]

I for one always always approach a picture with a completely open mind. I start with a blank sheet, a clean slate. Preconceived notions and stereotyping can easily cause unwarranted biases, which is to me is far worse than taking bad photographs. It can also lead to not so constructive criticisms.

Rules are boundaries set arbitrarily by the observers, nothing more. If you really need to see the truth, you need to be willing to go far far beyond that. If unwilling, you just might miss it. Life is way too short for that.

And yet, once you begin viewing that picture with an open slate, you immediately start making judgements about it, whether these be based on asthetics or craftmanship or even the phase of the moon. At some point you will either reach a personal "notion" that causes you to reject the image or you will decide that the image, having sufficiently satisfied your requirements is to be endorsed.

My "pet peeves" are no different. they just occur very quickly and at the outset of my evaluation. If my "pet peeves" are not violated then I go on to a deeper evaluation of the image.

Mike

[Oscar1]

And yet, once you begin viewing that picture with an open slate, you immediately start making judgements about it, whether these be based on asthetics or craftmanship or even the phase of the moon. At some point you will either reach a personal "notion" that causes you to reject the image or you will decide that the image, having sufficiently satisfied your requirements is to be endorsed.


Mike

And, as I said in my earlier post, we all tend to judge based on what "we" would have done with the photo. Or, if we would have even taken the shot.

Occassionally, we all see photos that just jump off the page and illicit an immediate "thumbs up" without regard to "How we would have done it."

BTW Mike, I agree with you about murals. Show me your own artwork, not someone elses.

And, as I said in my earlier post, we all tend to judge based on what "we" would have done with the photo.

I don't quite agree. I personally shoot certainly worse than average photos, but that doesn't make somebody's average picture into a great one. And while I'd be happy if I could achieve a picture as technically good as many bug or flower macros are (or motorsports pictures, sorry Mike), that doesn't automatically make the approach, idea or composition something interesting or emotion provoking.

And yet, once you begin viewing that picture with an open slate, you immediately start making judgements about it, whether these be based on asthetics or craftmanship or even the phase of the moon. At some point you will either reach a personal "notion" that causes you to reject the image or you will decide that the image, having sufficiently satisfied your requirements is to be endorsed.

My "pet peeves" are no different. they just occur very quickly and at the outset of my evaluation. If my "pet peeves" are not violated then I go on to a deeper evaluation of the image.

Mike

Mike, I do have to wholeheartedly agree with your pet peeves though, except that they are not quite up to the level of pet peeves for me. It does send off warning in my head, that is for sure.

What I have to respectfully disagree (not with you) are specific genre or subjects that people have mentioned i.e HDR, bird shots, flowers, girl friends, kids etc. I really don't think you can go there. Pretty soon you will run out of things to shoot at. As for murals, and artwork of others, you certainly have a point. BUT, I do think that murals can certainly be a very very interesting subject, especially if one was trying to take it out of its context to demonstrate his own view. But I take it that you wouldn't have a problem at all with presentation like that.

Because I can have such a shitty day at work, sometimes looking at a simple, unassuming picture of a flower can really really appeal to my senses. A picture of a child can bring tears to my eyes.

And you are absolutely right, that eventually I will have to reach that "notion" as you say. But I am trying to get there for the sake of that picture I am looking at. Not so much for the sake of my own agenda. I really really want to try to see if I can see what the shooter intended with that picture.


Another issue I have with PPG is that fact that pics are being evaluated based on how it is projected in the monitor of the beholder. I have a big problem with that. I for one strongly feel that until you have printed a picture, you really have not completed the process, so to speak. Not everybody have EIZO coloredge. Even then, I think judging photos on a monitor is to me a bit questionable.


Very interesting and penetrating discussion though

---

Last edited by Nubi; 06-20-2010 at 04:35 PM.

And, as I said in my earlier post, we all tend to judge based on what "we" would have done with the photo. Or, if we would have even taken the shot.

Occassionally, we all see photos that just jump off the page and illicit an immediate "thumbs up" without regard to "How we would have done it."

BTW Mike, I agree with you about murals. Show me your own artwork, not someone elses.

As with emr, I have to respectfully disagree with that one. I try to focus on what the artist tried to do with that particular pic.

"Ah, this is what he wanted to do, and did he, or did not pull it off?"

To me, that is the most important question.

If I were to inject what I would have done with it, then it will almost always come to the matter of personal preferences. I think that evaluating photos should go a little deeper than that.

Just an opinion . . . . .

[SpecialK]

I try to focus on what the artist tried to do with that particular pic.

Unless he tells you what that was, it is just a guess or assumption. And it reads too much into it.

Unless he tells you what that was, it is just a guess or assumption. And it reads too much into it.

That is why titles are so very important. To me the whole point of taking a picture is to convey a message without verbalizing. I would rather read too much into it than simply dismissing it without a thorough eval process. First impressions are to me overrated. The photographs deserve more than that. Again, I want to emphasize that it is different for everybody. This is exactly the reason why I am not very fond of PPG.

[stevebrot]

...I recently had a mural accepted into the PPG...

Ha! Ha!

I was thinking about your mural shot when I read Mike's comment.

I agree with him to a certain extent, though I am in the same camp as you in that I often shoot public art, particularly sculpture.


Steve

[stevebrot]

That is why titles are so very important...

I ignore the titles


Steve

[arpaagent]

That is why titles are so very important. To me the whole point of taking a picture is to convey a message without verbalizing. I would rather read too much into it than simply dismissing it without a thorough eval process. First impressions are to me overrated. The photographs deserve more than that. Again, I want to emphasize that it is different for everybody. This is exactly the reason why I am not very fond of PPG.

If you are submitting a photo into a gallery, then I'm guessing you are trying to elicit an emotional response (or some type of response) in the viewer. If there is no response without a title, then I don't think the photo does what it needs to. And sometimes the viewer has an emotional reaction that wasn't intended by the photographer, which is fine IMO because you never know what an image may mean to an outside viewer. That's what's great about art...it can mean something different to each viewer...and trying to push emotional responses onto a viewer using titles can ruin that experience for the viewer. Better to leave it a mystery with some generic title (ala "Spiral Staircase") rather than something specific ("Lonely Staircase waiting for a Friend")...

If you are submitting a photo into a gallery, then I'm guessing you are trying to elicit an emotional response (or some type of response) in the viewer. If there is no response without a title, then I don't think the photo does what it needs to. And sometimes the viewer has an emotional reaction that wasn't intended by the photographer, which is fine IMO because you never know what an image may mean to an outside viewer. That's what's great about art...it can mean something different to each viewer...and trying to push emotional responses onto a viewer using titles can ruin that experience for the viewer. Better to leave it a mystery with some generic title (ala "Spiral Staircase") rather than something specific ("Lonely Staircase waiting for a Friend")...

Very valid point there. But, then we need to get further with the definition of art in itself. If a piece of work elicited unintended emotional reaction, then to me that work has failed. We used to talk our heart out about this until our faces were blue during creative writing classes way back in college. The artist should go for a certain effect(s), and through the medium of his or her choice a message, or a theme is conveyed. If unintended emotional response was such that it convinced the observer that it is indeed a success, to me that is nothing more than just an accident. In photography, I think that this can happen more frequently. Sometimes having the camera on P mode and shooting until either your batteries or SD card memory run out can accidentally put out a "good" picture. Again, to me I need to go deeper than that.

[wildman]

Supersaturated Images....ugh! you can make any image pop with overly saturated colors and contrast, but that doesn't make it a good image! But apparently not everyone understands that...

Ditto