Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,002   Posts: 1,524,448   Online: 1034
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    918
    This isn't photography, it's a nervous breakdown with a camera.

    You know that feeling of blissful ignorance you have about the great photography when you start out? I feel that way about crap photography now.
    'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    699
    All I can say is: What a bad photographer!

  3. #23
    pstake's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    704
    Images
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    I enjoyed most of the shots. If the photographer thought it was worth such a marathon then it was worth it.

    pentaxuser
    No offense but this comment smacks of reflexive optimism. The marathon itself is not at all the problem. As a personal exercise, it's a swell idea and one from which we could probably all learn (about ourselves.) What I don't agree with, is the passing off of mediocre photos with the flashy "24 hour" banner as a novelty — as a means of convincing the audience that arming one's self with an arsenal of fancy gadgets and soldiering through 24 hours, one is guaranteed to capture humanity in its essence.

    A legion of "photographers" will pass this blogpost around and convince each other that the photos it contains are at the center of truth in the human condition. Then they will all start posting the junk they themselves capture during their own 24-hour photo hunts.

    This is the kind of thing that dilutes the canon. Someone said that $500 and an internet connection has made everyone a photographer and this kind of thing is the vehicle for that. It's fine as an exercise. It's even a noble exercise when treated as such. But to give it more credence than that only diminishes the standard of what defines a truly great photograph or great photographer. It subverts the craft that great photographers strategize to hone with neither need nor want for novelties.

    As an aside, Vivian Maier's work is amazing, inspiring.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,060
    Michael 1974 says it's another anti-digital thread. I see his point. At the same time, since the photographer of the series in question had no intrinsic value in any of the shots, they were bound to be mundane. A piece of film costs money, and making a print takes time and money. Clicking a digital camera and posting it with no other mechanics or expense whatsoever is a recipe for pointless "images", which is all they are--just "images". Our lives are pelted with this now. Ho hum.
    When you get in the darkroom and start printing, you naturally cull your negatives to make a print that looks like something. This stuff looks like somebody who just shot everything and called it "street photography". I bet he didn't actually print any of it onto a piece of paper..

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,559
    Is the subject matter mundane, or is the photographic technique mundane? Not the same thing at all.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    115
    Images
    2
    I've never personally been a fan of "24-hour" series (or what I would consider other gimmicky series like "The Red Couch"). However, great genre work by definition is work that expands the genre's boundaries. Anyone can write bad science fiction, but some very thought provoking work has been written by Ursula LeGuin, Phillip Dick, William Gibson, and others that expanded what science fiction can be and do. Still life images that included vegetables were around for hundreds of years before Edward Weston...

    So I think the issues here are that 1) these are crappy snapshots (IMHO), 2) they do nothing to improve the "24-hour" genre and 3) that they are being publicized as though they were something more precious than they are. I think this reflects more on the photographer's ego than anything.

    That said, while digital reduces the cost-per-frame, I've seen plenty of crappy "street photography" images on film, too, and some by very famous photographers.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    918
    Quote Originally Posted by pstake View Post
    No offense but this comment smacks of reflexive optimism. The marathon itself is not at all the problem. As a personal exercise, it's a swell idea and one from which we could probably all learn (about ourselves.) What I don't agree with, is the passing off of mediocre photos with the flashy "24 hour" banner as a novelty — as a means of convincing the audience that arming one's self with an arsenal of fancy gadgets and soldiering through 24 hours, one is guaranteed to capture humanity in its essence.

    A legion of "photographers" will pass this blogpost around and convince each other that the photos it contains are at the center of truth in the human condition. Then they will all start posting the junk they themselves capture during their own 24-hour photo hunts.

    This is the kind of thing that dilutes the canon. Someone said that $500 and an internet connection has made everyone a photographer and this kind of thing is the vehicle for that. It's fine as an exercise. It's even a noble exercise when treated as such. But to give it more credence than that only diminishes the standard of what defines a truly great photograph or great photographer. It subverts the craft that great photographers strategize to hone with neither need nor want for novelties.

    As an aside, Vivian Maier's work is amazing, inspiring.
    Very well put, but don't agree that it 'diminishes the standard of what defines great photography'. For anyone who has had an eye opening adventure through photography, from rock bottom (Flickr at the start for me) to thoughtful and critically revered contemporary and classical work - i.e. 'the canon' - there is a reasoned perspective gained, which is: there is a huge gulf between this kind of naive work and 'great photography'. Completely different spheres, which, all said and done, do not influence each other. Despite what many contemporary photography commentators say, there really is no need for any reactionary movement against the prolific output of these people, because they attract different audiences, and rightfully so. It really is just a case of live and let live. If you're eating in a restaurant, does it have any baring on you that someone else in the world is at Burger King?

    Back to the sentiment of my last post however, even by the standards of the 'photo sharing sphere', this is terrible photography . The 24 hour thing is like a lure for keeping a certain type of photography enthusiast perpetually ignorant to important conceptual work (which doesn't mean what you think it does, benjiboy). But when we're talking about other people's ignorance, it eventually becomes a political debate. For the sake of the integrity of this community and its newcomers, ignore shit like this and read any number of history of photography books, lend or buy monographs and go to exhibitions if at all possible.

    APUG really needs a reading list sticky thread.
    'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde

  8. #28
    pstake's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    704
    Images
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    Very well put, but don't agree that it 'diminishes the standard of what defines great photography'. For anyone who has had an eye opening adventure through photography, from rock bottom (Flickr at the start for me) to thoughtful and critically revered contemporary and classical work - i.e. 'the canon' - there is a reasoned perspective gained, which is: there is a huge gulf between this kind of naive work and 'great photography'. Completely different spheres, which, all said and done, do not influence each other. Despite what many contemporary photography commentators say, there really is no need for any reactionary movement against the prolific output of these people, because they attract different audiences, and rightfully so. It really is just a case of live and let live. If you're eating in a restaurant, does it have any baring on you that someone else in the world is at Burger King?

    Back to the sentiment of my last post however, even by the standards of the 'photo sharing sphere', this is terrible photography . The 24 hour thing is like a lure for keeping a certain type of photography enthusiast perpetually ignorant to important conceptual work (which doesn't mean what you think it does, benjiboy). But when we're talking about other people's ignorance, it eventually becomes a political debate. For the sake of the integrity of this community and its newcomers, ignore shit like this and read any number of history of photography books, lend or buy monographs and go to exhibitions if at all possible.

    APUG really needs a reading list sticky thread.
    Thanks for pointing out the holes in my argument. You're absolutely right; or at least I agree completely. I think a part of me is indignant because I have to work with / be around so many of the "Burger-Kingers," who are the same ilk as the person who posted this 24 hours in SF business — and I'm afraid of the long-term effect it will have on my own perception. I'm from the same generation and I'm bombarded by the junk images as well as the naive comments that praise them. And so I'm vigilant to point out the gulf between the naive work and the great photography.

    I suppose your point is probably what Pentaxuser was getting at, too, and I'm probably just not quick enough or mature enough to have caught it.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    34
    San Francisco is a great place to live -- and photograph. I shoot the City daily and have been for several years. While I mostly shoot w/ compact 35mm cameras, we've got some LF shooters out here as well!

    I wish the fellow in the Petapixel engaged with the street and people more. Shooting SF with a tele is not necessary. Most street widths work great with a 35mm or 50mm. His "edit" of 301 final images could use a few more edits. Asking someone to look through 300+ photos is a tough request.

  10. #30
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,238
    Images
    73
    Wow! So many attitudes!! Who do you guys think you are anyway? Taken a look at the APUG gallery recently? Talk about tired genres. I'm guilty of it too, but then again I don't get on my high horse and shout down others. Well most of the time anyway Nervous breakdown with a camera, bad photographer?? What is APUG the "cool people table" in high school? Sure sounds like it.
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin