Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-04-2008, 06:30 AM   #31
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,574
I had a similar argument with a co-worker a few years ago. She knew of my interest in photography and that I'm primarily a landscape/nature type of shooter. One day, she came in with a book by William Albert Allard that she'd found in the discount bin at a bookstore. It was sort of a "best of" book. She plopped the book down on my desk and said, "THIS is what photography is all about! I couldn't care less about landscapes and pictures with no people in them. For a picture to have meaning, it HAS to have people. It's what most people care about." I agreed that Mr. Allard was a tremendous photographer, but he was simply among the best at what he does...not the best photographer, period. My co-worker kept insisting that I was in the minority and that most people prefer people pictures. I finally said, "Look...where did you find this book? In the discount bin, right? Why do you think it was there? It's because it's not selling and it's being closed out. If it were selling well, wouldn't it still be out on the regular shelves? So here we have some of the best work from the career of one of the top photojournalists ever...and it's not selling. Did you also find any Ansel Adams books in the discount bin? No? Why do you think that is?"


Uh....I DID go by the next day and pick up a copy of that Allard book for myself and also to give as a gift to a friend. It was a heck of a deal. lol


Last edited by TaoMaas; 07-04-2008 at 06:31 AM. Reason: Edited to comment:
07-04-2008, 07:29 AM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,828
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
I had a similar argument with a co-worker a few years ago. She knew of my interest in photography and that I'm primarily a landscape/nature type of shooter. One day, she came in with a book by William Albert Allard that she'd found in the discount bin at a bookstore. It was sort of a "best of" book. She plopped the book down on my desk and said, "THIS is what photography is all about! I couldn't care less about landscapes and pictures with no people in them. For a picture to have meaning, it HAS to have people. It's what most people care about." I agreed that Mr. Allard was a tremendous photographer, but he was simply among the best at what he does...not the best photographer, period. My co-worker kept insisting that I was in the minority and that most people prefer people pictures. I finally said, "Look...where did you find this book? In the discount bin, right? Why do you think it was there? It's because it's not selling and it's being closed out. If it were selling well, wouldn't it still be out on the regular shelves? So here we have some of the best work from the career of one of the top photojournalists ever...and it's not selling. Did you also find any Ansel Adams books in the discount bin? No? Why do you think that is?"


Uh....I DID go by the next day and pick up a copy of that Allard book for myself and also to give as a gift to a friend. It was a heck of a deal. lol
Not to say I told you so, but you really point out my previous observation.
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I think the question is not what makes a photograph, but the fact that there are several types of people who appreciate photographs.

some people, myself included like just about anything, others, reflect the comment of the OP, they just like photos, but believe they should have people, AND the other subject (place, object or what ever) included as a complete memory. I am sure there are others that simply hate people photos also.

It is not a question of the quality of the photograph, but the taste of the viewer.
07-04-2008, 11:03 AM   #33
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
LeoTaylor's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Connecticut
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 679
Years ago a co-worker asked me why my vacation photos taken with a 35mm Point and Shoot were always better than his. I said, "Wally, your photos are always your wife in front of this building, your daughter in front of that scene, etc. I just take the building or scene. People who don't know your family don't want them blocking the view!"

I'm, dare I say it, 60 years old and still photograph things.

Last edited by LeoTaylor; 07-04-2008 at 11:09 AM. Reason: added age
07-04-2008, 11:52 AM   #34
Veteran Member
cardinal43's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,412
QuoteOriginally posted by LeoTaylor Quote
Years ago a co-worker asked me why my vacation photos taken with a 35mm Point and Shoot were always better than his. I said, "Wally, your photos are always your wife in front of this building, your daughter in front of that scene, etc. I just take the building or scene. People who don't know your family don't want them blocking the view!"

I'm, dare I say it, 60 years old and still photograph things.
Only 60 years old??? You're just a youngster. I'm 65 and still photograph people and things. Sometimes, well most times, I don't do well at photographing either.

07-05-2008, 12:29 PM   #35
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,699
QuoteOriginally posted by BPT Quote
He contends for a photograph to be a good photograph it has to have a person in it somewhere.

The ONLY time I think this is true is when you are talking about passport photos.

Hard "rules" like this are a waste of mental energy.

Some time ago I found a website where the photographer deliberatly broke the number one rule of portraight photograpy. "have your subject visable"

He had his subject hide some where, in front of the camera, still in the frame, but not visable in the final photo. Then with each photo he let let you know the name of the person in the photo.

It was a great concept. I found myself looking close at the details in the photo, looking for shadows, or reflections that might give the game away. It gave the photo an odd feel. You knew that somewere in the frame was a human soul, but you did not know where. Some of the photos actually felt haunted. I wish I had book marked the site, I would like to have the link again.

Here is a rule:

"rules are made to be broken"

your friend by following his rule is breaking the above rule. Did you know you co-worker was such a rebal?
07-06-2008, 02:02 AM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 812
QuoteOriginally posted by BPT Quote
...snip. My opinion on the matter is no people are not necessary in photographs, I do think some photos may be better with people in them but in many cases people just get in the way.

But what is everyone else's thoughts on this?
I agree with you on this.
07-06-2008, 02:40 AM   #37
Veteran Member
KrisK10D's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,274
The vast majority of, what I think is, the best images I've seen do not have people in them. Which isn't to say I haven't seen a wonderful image of a person. How's that for fence sitting?

07-06-2008, 03:45 AM   #38
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
Perhaps it should be said that the first "rule" of photography (and indeed of most "artsy" or creative human activities) is...

"THERE ARE NO RULES!!!"

Now, there are many "suggestions" and "norms" but there are NO RULES! Some of the suggestions and norms are indeed, very common. Some make sense for deep physiological reasons (such as the "rule-of-thirds" or the "rule-of-not-cutting-off-people's-heads").

However, just think how boring the art world would be if the "rules" were always followed. Very soon there would be no need to take another photo or paint another canvas. All paintings would look like Da Vinci's (I'm not knocking Da Vinci) and all portrait photos would look like they were shot at Olan Mills (I AM knocking OM).

No, art is about pushing the boundaries and being creative and original. To achieve this, you have to break a few fules... or better yet, chuck out the damned rulebook altogether!

As for your friend... I'd have to ask him where in the world he ever heard such a ludicrous rule as applied to all photography. Then tell him to chuck it!

Last edited by MRRiley; 07-06-2008 at 07:35 AM.
07-06-2008, 09:17 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,631
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
is he an old guy or something?

a picture is a picture is a picture

a picture without a person in it is just not a portrait... LOL

what about landscape shots? marketing shots (of food, or furniture), architectural photographs of buildings, of physical designs, statues.

id roll my eyes at him for making such a strong statement that not having a person in your photo somehow strips you of the right to call yourself a photographer.
Gooshin, why do you think that only "more mature" people can have weird ideas regarding artistic endeavor?
I would have asked "What, is he some sort of young kid or something?"

NaCl(the more experienced set don't have a lock on weird ideas)H2O
07-06-2008, 09:27 AM   #40
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,631
Yep and many others

QuoteOriginally posted by Talisker Quote
Ansel Adams must have been a terrible photographer...
Benjamin Mendlowitz
Stanley Rosenfeld
Morris Rosenfeld
Just to name three marine photographers. Plus all the amazing photographers at Nat Geo, Nature, Sierra Club etc etc etc.

NaCl(the old adage about opinions applies here)H2O
07-07-2008, 07:59 AM   #41
Veteran Member
volosong's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 696
I've told this story before, but not here.

A few years ago, after getting into digital photography in a big way, I decided to scan all of my old slides. There were a bunch...a whole bunch. I've been shooting Pentax since the mid 70s, and used to do my own developing.

At first, I scanned everything, but it is a tedious task. The pictures were good, sure, but I found that the ones I really cherished and spent extra time getting just right were pictures with people in them. Especially family members. The others, even though they were good pictures and some even excellent, just didn't evoke the emotions like those with my growing family in them. I eventually stopped scanning those that didn't have family in them.

So...can one take a "good" picture without people in them? Sure! But will they have meaning and be cherished ten, twenty, or more years from now? Only you can decide that.
07-07-2008, 08:21 AM   #42
Veteran Member
ftpaddict's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yurp
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,666
Aw maaan, now I'll never be a photographer.


07-07-2008, 10:16 AM   #43
Veteran Member
fearview's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jakarta
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,067
this thread is so entertaining to read.


i cannot even imagine there is such argument like this even exist.

--


thank you TS
07-07-2008, 10:28 AM   #44
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 53
Why not just accept the answer is NO?
07-07-2008, 11:29 AM   #45
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,610
QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
Gooshin, why do you think that only "more mature" people can have weird ideas regarding artistic endeavor?
I would have asked "What, is he some sort of young kid or something?"

NaCl(the more experienced set don't have a lock on weird ideas)H2O
growing up i did not have many friends who were peers, always older. Even when i got into University because i was taking night classes my fellow students were 10-15 years older than me, with families and kids.

various projects have also put me in contact with older individuals, individuals that have seen much less of the world than me even though they are twice or thrice my age.

my overall conclusion based purely from my own life experience (and a know-it-all grandfather), is that old people dont like change, less educated people dont like change, people that grind away at their life dont like change. They fear change more than they fear death, because to them it might as well be the same thing.

these people grow up on RULES and these rules are burned forever into their blood and genes, their speech, their thought process solidfies around these ideas.

eventually this fear of change morphs something into even more sinister, a genuine inability to think outside the box.


if a person could think outside the box, the original argument would have never taken place.


having said that i will not defend my current generation, we have as many screwed up idiots as any other generation, the only difference is that through use of proper lexicon and structuring your argument in an interesting way (assuming you have validity), todays youth will be more than happy to follow along with your point of view.


logic and argumentative structure, no matter how refined, is completely lost on old people however, they refuse to process the words that you are telling them, in the end all you get is frustration.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dont, people, photograph, photographer, photographs, photography, pictures, rules
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I need drapes and back drops. ( Sears/Picture People style) troglodyte Photographic Technique 13 11-18-2010 01:13 PM
How to make this picture more clearer jbrowning Photographic Technique 6 09-16-2010 09:45 PM
Light Tripod Can Actually Make Picture Blurrier! HermanLee Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 28 05-22-2009 07:50 PM
How can I make the colors look better in this picture? jbrowning Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 14 03-21-2009 07:46 AM
Go and make a premium picture. Matjazz Photographic Technique 14 04-13-2008 10:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:39 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top