Photography less about skill

[RockyNH_RIP]

Of course considering your lack of comprehension you would say that, the "dumpster" comment was not meant to be taken literally, it was just a figure of speech. The meaning was to take a photo of something not spectacular and still make the photo eye catching and a good photo. I'm a bit disappointed how a "Senior Member" like yourself has little comprehension skill--I thought you may have developed those skills after 900 posts.

Umarpk,

I am NOT a moderator but this is also NOT the first time ... Maybe it is just the words you choose sometimes, but I find this post offensive towards Don... things like "lack of compreshension", "disappointed how a Senior Member .... has so little comprehension skill" and "thought you may have developed those skills after 900 posts"

There was no reason (in my opinion0 for you to attack him in that manner, if you felt he did not comprehend something you said, a clearer explanation would have been in order.... not this.. As I said, not the 1st time and I would hope in the future you would give an extra thought about using a skill that would result in not such a confrontational response...

Thanks for listening,

Regards,

Pat in NH

ps: moderators, if I am out of line, feel free to remove this...

 

[TedG954]

UmarPk..... please post some of your own photos. The ones that you believe are exceptional, but not spectacular as a subject.

I would like to see how a mundane subject is converted into a visual piece of art.

Have you ever driven a car with mechanical brakes, or without power steering? I had to "learn" how to drive with those antiquated fixtures. Just like older style cameras are antiquated. Thank God we have more "automated" equipment today. This gives us the ability to concentrate on the subject matter and not the mechanics. That is how art is created. This is 2013, not 1913. Join an antique photography club and find folks with the same antique attitudes. I believe they found cameras like that in Afghanistani caves.

Again, where's your personal work to back up your statements?

 

[UmarPk]

Well here is another - ~ Happy-Happy ~ | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

That cat appears to have ringworms in it's eyes, although doesn't matter people like the uncommon features of the cat, the very bright green eyes (possibly enhanced), see it's all about subject for the masses.

Subject is like 75% of a photo's worth, 25% are the photographic elements used to take that photo.

 

[UmarPk]

UmarPk..... please post some of your own photos. The ones that you believe are exceptional, but not spectacular as a subject.

I would like to see how a mundane subject is converted into a visual piece of art.

Have you ever driven a car with mechanical brakes, or without power steering? I had to "learn" how to drive with those antiquated fixtures. Just like older style cameras are antiquated. Thank God we have more "automated" equipment today. This is 2013, not 1913.

Again, where's your personal work to back up your statements?

My statements don't need "backing up" because the evidence is all there, everyone can see for themselves what wins big photo awards, well I guess most people except you.


As for my photos here are photos I took of every day simple things, nothing special, nothing spectacular, just every day things that are photographic quality.

A photo of a sunset near my family home, nothing special but the photographic elements are there, composition, exposure, appropriate f-stop, appropriate shutter speed, a nice foreground and background, etc.


Sunset Blue by UmarPK, on Flickr

Here's a photo of a common construction crane, nothing special about this crane, just an ordinary crane, but the photographic elements are incorporated in this photo.


The Flag, The Crane (2) by UmarPK, on Flickr

 

[Scott Murray]

Bare in mind the people who would buy a photo do not know anything about photography, all they know is what "they" like. If they do not like my stuff so be it, if they like lesser quality stuff so be it. Does it really matter? I think all that matters is that "you" are happy in the photos you produce, unless of course you have a client base then you have more people to please and criteria to meet. Flickr is flickr and anyone with a camera is on Flickr, even me LOL

 

[RockyNH_RIP]

What matters more is the subject, the subject defines the photo and overwhelms all the photographic factors and elements you mentioned. This is what people look at most and first. Also about your point that you need to "learn" the camera, well I already mentioned that you need to "learn" the camera, that's it you just need to learn it and adjust to the camera, the cameras have many automated features built right into them that even on manual mode you just need to adjust a few settings, that's about it and you can capture a photo of a spectacular scene and completely negate most of the photographic elements and you will still have a great photo by most people's perspective.

It's more about subject than photographic quality. Photographic quality is second.

I understand what you are saying... and depending on the audience can see you point. Again, if photos are judged by Photo Pro's they will look at the subject and Photographic Quality.. and if a the subject is Great and the Quality is lacking it will NOT be top rated... look at some of the contests/challenges here.

Sure, if I submit photo's to my co-workers they will look at subject and what they like...

I think we need to be clear on our audience.. To say that normal population who do not understand Photo Skills prefer subject over skills, I could agree with that to an extent.

Pat in NH

 

[TedG954]

That cat appears to have ringworms in it's eyes, although doesn't matter people like the uncommon features of the cat, the very bright green eyes (possibly enhanced), see it's all about subject for the masses.

Subject is like 75% of a photo's worth, 25% are the photographic elements used to take that photo.

This is an ignorant statement. "Possibly enhanced"? Possibly not enhanced. Where did you get your percentages from? Are you making all this up as you go along?

Troll.

 

[UmarPk]

Bare in mind the people who would buy a photo do not know anything about photography, all they know is what "they" like. If they do not like my stuff so be it, if they like lesser quality stuff so be it. Does it really matter? I think all that matters is that "you" are happy in the photos you produce, unless of course you have a client base then you have more people to please and criteria to meet. Flickr is flickr and anyone with a camera is on Flickr, even me LOL

So you agree, that the subject is what matters post and that's where photography is today.

 

[UmarPk]

This is an ignorant statement. "Possibly enhanced"? Possibly not enhanced. Where did you get your percentages from? Are you making all this up as you go along?

Troll.

The figures are my conjecture, my observation, this entire thread is my conjecture that's why I started it if you don't like it you can visit a different thread.


UmarPK

 

[TedG954]

My statements don't need "backing up" because the evidence is all there, everyone can see for themselves what wins big photo awards, well I guess most people except you.


As for my photos here are photos I took of every day simple things, nothing special, nothing spectacular, just every day things that are photographic quality.

A photo of a sunset near my family home, nothing special but the photographic elements are there, composition, exposure, appropriate f-stop, appropriate shutter speed, a nice foreground and background, etc.


Sunset Blue by UmarPK, on Flickr

Here's a photo of a common construction crane, nothing special about this crane, just an ordinary crane, but the photographic elements are incorporated in this photo.


The Flag, The Crane (2) by UmarPK, on Flickr

What about the sun flares and all the distortion? These are far from mechanically acceptable. Why did you pick these subjects? Don't tell me you thought they were appealing or attractive.

 

[Scott Murray]

So you agree, that the subject is what matters post and that's where photography is today.

The subject matter is very important in a photo.
What is the aim for you as a Photographer?

 

[UmarPk]

What about the sun flares and all the distortion? These are far from mechanically acceptable. Why did you pick these subjects? Don't tell me you thought they were appealing or attractive.

I picked these subjects as they are common things I see. I walk past the construction crane regularly so decided to take a photo of it to show something so common in a different way--that's something photography can achieve.

PS First photo has very little editing just part of the bottom was darken to blend it in, second photo was edited.

 

[UmarPk]

The subject matter is very important in a photo.
What is the aim for you as a Photographer?

Exactly, subject is very important it's less about skill, you can have little skill and take a great photo because you took a photo of a special subject, which means expert photography skills can be overvalued.

The whole point of this thread is photography is less about skill, and so far I've proven that and several members hesitantly agreed with me.

 

[KWJams]

My statements don't need "backing up" because the evidence is all there, everyone can see for themselves what wins big photo awards, well I guess most people except you.


As for my photos here are photos I took of every day simple things, nothing special, nothing spectacular, just every day things that are photographic quality.

A photo of a sunset near my family home, nothing special but the photographic elements are there, composition, exposure, appropriate f-stop, appropriate shutter speed, a nice foreground and background, etc.


Sunset Blue by UmarPK, on Flickr

Here's a photo of a common construction crane, nothing special about this crane, just an ordinary crane, but the photographic elements are incorporated in this photo.


The Flag, The Crane (2) by UmarPK, on Flickr

Boring <yawn> subject. Grainy and littered with lens flares. Is that a sewer vent on the roof?

 

[TedG954]

I picked these subjects as they are common things I see. I walk past the construction crane regularly so decided to take a photo of it to show something so common in a different way--that's something photography can achieve.

PS First photo has very little editing just the dark bottom park, second photo was edited.

Common photos of common subjects. Very common. Not appealing, subject-wise, or mechanically. You need to "learn" far more before you try to rattle cages.

Whatever you say........

 

[STM]

I agree for the most part with your assertions. I am a dinosaur and proud of it. I have only been doing digital photography for about 2 1/2 years believe it or not and I did resist it with some tenacity. I did not get a digital camera until I found one I could use all of my dozen or so AIS Nikkors with and was not so expensive that I would have to take out a second mortgage on the house to afford. Before that, and to this day. it was all 35mm and 2 1/4 (Hasselblad) film. I still shoot film almost exclusively for black and white work, mostly with the Hasselblad. I very rarely use the automated functions on my cameras, film or digital and meter with either a Sekonic indicent/flash meter of my 30+ year old Pentax Spotmeter V. In fact I don't even know what most of the buttons on my D700 even do, or what a most of the the menu items are for because I have never used them. My D700, for me, is nothing but a digital Nikon F2. All of my lenses are manual focus, AIS Nikkors. I have swapped out focusing screens in both my F4S and D700 to split image/microprism types because the screens on autofocus cameras for the most part are inadequate for critical manual focusing. I agree that auto-everything has taken the need for more skill and understanding on the part of the photographer when it comes to the photographic process. It is just a personal opinion, no offense intended to anyone, but I think today's cameras have made most photographers lazy. In many cases I have seen, the photographer is pretty much along for the ride in the image making process and many don't seem to mind. I, on the other hand, simply will not relinquish all but the most basic recording functions to a machine. But then again I am a control freak in many other facets of my life as well!


However, programs like Photoshop have given photographers and graphic artists the ability to improve or create images that we could never have achieved in the darkroom and I have been doing both color and black and white darkroom work for 40 years. Even when it comes to black and white using Ansel Adams' Zone System, which I use to this day for both film and digital. Granted, I have yet to produce a grayscale converted image printed even with a really outstanding printer like my Canon Pixma 9000 that can hold a candle to that of a print I have done on Oriental Seagull photographic paper. With color chemicals and paper getting harder and harder to find and more and more expensive, I find myself using the Canon printer to do pretty much all of my color work. I don't like it, but reality bites sometimes. So technology is not all bad, it just has to be applied appropriately.

Now, all of the techical aspects of photography aside, the key to any successful image far transcends the nuts and bolts of exposure. It is all about composition, appropriate use of depth of field, choice of subject and what the vision the photographer has for the image. What are they trying to say with it and whether or not they are successful at pulling it off. A great idea is useless unless the photographer possesses both the techical and aesthetic skills to make it work. That for me is the difference between a real photographer and just a picture taker. Anyone can take a picture, but it takes a good photographer to make an memorable image.

 

[Scott Murray]

I have a suggestion for you, why dont you enter some photo competitions? Then let us know if you still feel the same way as you do now!
Photography is not about browny points or how many likes you get, its about capturing something that not many people get to see. For instance I am heading to Africa next month, my mum cant come and never will although she would love to. My aim for Africa is to bring Africa to her. If I get some good photos great, but honestly I do not care about if anyone else likes them. All that matters is that its a reflection of what I saw and something I can pass on to others that appreciate similar things.

Its like art, I cannot stand abstract as I am a photorealist painter. But its a form of art and I appreciate that.

 

[UmarPk]

I have a suggestion for you, why dont you enter some photo competitions? Then let us know if you still feel the same way as you do now!
Photography is not about browny points or how many likes you get, its about capturing something that not many people get to see. For instance I am heading to Africa next month, my mum cant come and never will although she would love to. My aim for Africa is to bring Africa to her. If I get some good photos great, but honestly I do not care about if anyone else likes them. All that matters is that its a reflection of what I saw and something I can pass on to others that appreciate similar things.

Its like art, I cannot stand abstract as I am a photorealist painter. But its a form of art and I appreciate that.

I already know dude, drop me off in some rare exotic corner of the Earth and I'll snap a photo of a rare exotic animal and I'll win the prize hands down lol...

 

[TedG954]

I already know dude, drop me off in some rare exotic corner of the Earth and I'll snap a photo of a rare exotic animal and I'll win the prize hands down lol...

For some reason, maybe it's the work you posted, I seriously doubt that.

 

[Scott Murray]

I already know dude, drop me off in some rare exotic corner of the Earth and I'll snap a photo of a rare exotic animal and I'll win the prize hands down lol...

Here is one for you - The Shutterbug Award | Photography Competition & Festival