serious, or ridiculous?
is analog / chemical photography in such a state ( and this website too ? )
that there is only a place for serious photographers, people who talk, act and look serious all the time
and no room for humor at all because we are all so seriously full of ourselves that we cant see the forest through
the trees and see how utterly ridiculous we all can be.
endless gear thread
endless ideal dev threads
endless film threads
and after these endless threads
endless whining and moaning
because all we are so seriously unhappy with stuff.
( cheap cobbled together gear ( that we never cla'd never worked )
state of industry, being looked at while photographing
being asked if your plastic TLR is a hassleblad the list is too long to write ... )
the ideal is whats in your hands and between your ears.
people seem to avoid the obvious, hone in on the ridiculous
to me at least, it seems seriously ridiculous
Last edited by jnanian; 08-10-2014 at 05:41 AM. Click to view previous post history.
edit:- my strike-through, not the OP's
Originally Posted by jnanian
Doesn't matter, seems all photography is the same - people do it for a variety of reasons - gear, technical, process, art, record, science - that's what makes it great!
A while ago I decided - Do what you do for yourself, read as much as you need to and f@ck the rest
go and make pictures John - I miss your stuff in the gallery!
Last edited by ajmiller; 08-10-2014 at 05:39 AM. Click to view previous post history.
There are I expect, many people using film and not on internet forums moaning about their ring adaptors. Thousands, probably tens of thousands, hopefully millions getting on with it.
I was having a chat recently with a lot of film users in Norway where I was doing workshops. One point that came up a few times, which I'm sure many here are part of, is that a lot of enthusiasts are connecting and forming groups on Facebook to share work and communicate, especially on a regional basis. Given the nature of FB, this leads to lots of 'liking' and maybe a bit less bitching. Sure it still happens though!
I'm of the opinion that there's a big difference between the internet and "real life". The web is great for information, no doubt about it. And it's peculiarly addictive. But after all the technical stuff is sorted out, which actually doesn't take long if one is even halfway adept, it's about image making, which by it's very nature is a solitary pursuit. Not everyone here, or on any photography website, is a photographer. Many people are more gear and technical orientated. Some don't even care if the cameras make images, they just collect them, which to me is the equivalent of collecting paint brushes. I'm a lover of ingenious mechanical objects, but could never keep a camera for that reason alone. For the photographers (or image makers), the technical and gear issues are small potatoes. They're only the means to an end, which is how someone w/ a good eye can make beautiful images w/ a piece of junk camera.
The internet has also, by and large, destroyed photography. Before internet, or B.I., if someone wished to see some good photography, they had to buy or borrow an expensive book or go to art exhibits. Now, millions and millions of images are available w/ the click of a finger, and not all of those images are great. With the ready availability of images, and today's auto everything cameras, people quite rightly think it's something everyone can do, and they can (to a point).
The most untalented person can now take tens of thousands of shots w/ their digital camera "for free", edit them down to some good keepers by force of sheer numbers, send them to an online printer, and self publish themselves a nice coffee table book of photography, show them in a gallery, or simply "present" them on a website. You don't see this happening in the arts that require the images to be hand made from start to finish like drawing and painting. Plate photography is also what I would term hand made, but most people don't mean that when they think of photos. It's also relevant that while looking at photographic imagery in a book is pretty close to what hangs on a gallery wall (except for size and scale of course), looking at printed photos of paintings or other hand made art is not the same as looking at the actual work. You obviously get a good idea of the color and design, but the work on the wall is the "real" image, and it's force and power, if any, cannot be captured by a print in a book or an online image.
Sorry for the rant. The first paragraph probably is the answer.
Last edited by momus; 08-10-2014 at 05:59 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
There are forums that are good at promoting and discussing art. This is not really one of them, but that's kind of what you get for it being a technology-centric website. Different places for different purposes.
(I thought your question was going to be about your recent posting history. Is it all trolling or just some of it?)
I would love to know some of the better ones although I have to say, if I find them what I wish this site had more of, I am likely not to be seen here much. Have any links?
Originally Posted by polyglot
Originally Posted by polyglot
my recent posting history and is it trolling?
this site is too friggin serious as i alluded to earlier.
my previous post ( few weeks ago ) was to inject a little bit of humor
into a place that is 99% the same posts of magic bullet chasers over and over again
and unfortunately we are unable to see the comedy in our own posts.
i am not quite sure how asking if levity is permitted at a site filled
with so many people bantering on about if a millipoint of basefog or
incessant tradeoffs between the exact same lens and if the lens coating
will render zone 7 differently or of 700 cameras and lenses are enough
because i still havent used one yet. if you think its just trolling, im not sure what to say
because my question is valid and it seems that someplace that is all serious becomes pretty ridiculous.
thanks tony. great advice.
Last edited by jnanian; 08-10-2014 at 07:37 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Can only agree. Over time I've become weary with the tunnel vision of a lot of photographers.
Originally Posted by jnanian
By way of an example I've many friends who are artists in a range of disciplines: printmakers (woodcuts, screen printers), writers, sculptors, painters and I'm always struck by the difference between their artistic outlook and my photographer friends. The others are more interested in challenging themselves, their ideas, their skills and trying to 'say something' through their art. My photography friends are much more interested in equipment and all that that involves rather than why they photograph in the first place. Maybe it's not a typical example for others but it does illustrate a point.
As for artistic growth, I know who I learn more from. Their art is as serious as your life, but part of that means looking critically at it, testing it, and yes, being irreverent. A dedication to developing skills and craft doesn't exclude laughing...