why does /p/ have such bad taste in photography?

because this is 4chan

Well, primarily, /p/ is made up of enthusiasts. Amateurs either proficient or otherwise. They generally dont have a great depth of knowledge about the history of photography or how certain technical principles underlie the production of an appreciable photograph.

Secondarily, I would question how you know they have poor taste in photography? People on this board have shown interest in all manner of photography - From Koudelka to the Bechers, from Tillmans to Terry Richardson and beyond. Many of them simply dont have the means to replicate the work of their heros - they cant afford to clear streets for single photos or get a famous pop stars to pose for a flash photo in exchange for a BJ. They are often still teens - with a borrowed camera. Or a phone camera. Or a shitty camera off Ebay. But they are trying. And you dont get great lasting success without great effort. You dont get maximum pleasure without pain. Let them find their way as their heros did before them.

You douchebag.

>>3050227
Yeah this guy

if /p/ has taste how come its all le modern snapshits of suburb shit?

>>3050247
Because most people live in the suburbs and its easy. Figure it out.

>>3050208
So wait, is your photo supposed to be an example of GOOD taste in photography or BAD?

>>3050453
I think it's supposed to be bad, just like one of the photos you'd find in the rpt

>>3050227
I agree with everything except
>Many of them simply dont have the means to replicate the work of their heros - they cant afford to clear streets for single photos
This is stupid. You don't need the best gear in the world to take a good photo, get a t3i and use it till it breaks

>>3050457
He didn't say anything about gear. He was talking about having access to celebrities etc

Like I personally would love to do what Burtnsky does but unlike him I can't bring my whole fucking setup into a secure industrial site.

Its 4chan, so majority of people on this board are autists with ant-like mindset and the photos posted here are usually:

>shitty, out of focus street snapshots because /p/ autists are too scared to talk to and take photos of people so they just take quick photos without subject knowing
>random boring shit like garbage cans, cropped house door, windows, rooftops or a lone tree

Worst of all is they don't even know how shit their photos are because the autists just praise each other photos while bashing actual good photos as "normie shit", leading to a delusion that this board is a collective of people with """"refined taste"""" no one else could appreciate.

People taking pictures of buildings is cringe tier bad

>>3050526
why?

>>3050549
does this have to be explained? its just easy tier

>>3050679
then landscape photography is easy tier too isn't it? Not to mention streetphotography

>>3050684
landscape and street at least have changing variables. what does a building have? its easy "i live in burbs and am to fucked to think of anything else to do" tier

>>3050691
buildings have the same variables landscapes have senpai. Unlike a landscape, a building offers many different angles you can approach it from however. I generally agree that a lot of architecture photography is just this "nice building, let's snap" mindset, but if done right, architecture photography can be as pleasant to the eye as any other type imo

>>3050693
also we aren't talking about real arch photo (which is still meh) but typical /p/ style cringe.

>>3050694
you might want to word it differently than "People taking pictures of buildings is cringe tier bad" then

>>3050700
so youre not dissagreeing?

>>3050702
I don't really know if /p/ really has a certain style desu. I've seen some good, some bad and everything in between on this board

>>3050703
thats funny

>>3050227
Guys I found the Mr.Regular of /p/

>>3050691
Some people shoot buildings because they find the actual buildings interesting. Strange right? There's people out there who find architecture, construction or the whole built environment interesting, and they photograph what they find interesting, not only what others want to see.

>>3050731
I fucking hate Mr. Regular

File: Home-Depot-1000101-Edit.jpg (553KB, 1307x938px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1307x938px

Trust me, it gets worse than only taking photos of your shitty suburban neighborhood.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Leica Camera AG
Camera Model	LEICA M (Typ 240)
Camera Software	2.0.3.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016-07-24T23:45:30+20:00
Exposure Time	1/45 sec
F-Number	f/3.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Image Width	1307
Image Height	938
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	00000000000000000000000000072190
Altitude	0.00 m
Time (UTC)	00:00:00
GPS Status	Measurement Interoperability
Date (UTC)	2000:00:00

>>3050814
I love you too sweety.

File: enhanced-buzz-wide-10417-1449718426-7.jpg (60KB, 990x557px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 990x557px

>>3050227

/p/ doesn't suck, most of photos are just average or fine. people like OP needs to suck more dick and learn how not to be a cunt.

>>3052093
t. roofgrapher

>>3050691
Really?
If you want to see shit tier then food photography shots are the floaters in that realm.
Cityscapes, and buildings have a lot of variation. Well if you have an actual eye. I personally love shooting abandoned ones, and good Ghosttowns when I come across them.

>>3050702
Pee is like any other board online. There are tons of good, and bad photos. It is merely a small reflection of the interwebs as a whole, where cringe tier is the norm. I mean go to instascram sometime, the cringe is strong there.

>>3050227
I'm pretty new here, but you're the first namefag on 4chan I don't hate

good job friend

>>3052093
>/p/ doesn't suck

It absolutely does. There is only 1 decent photo thread per month AT MOST. Years ago things were better.

>>3054836
>Years ago things were better.
Years ago you were worse.
Think about it

>>3054836
years ago you were an impressionable little turd. now youre a seasoned piece of shit, of course you are more picky nowadays.

years ago you could post a lame landscape bordering hdr and people would praise it like the goat. proof: /p/ book.

File: AuPVzI9.gif (1024KB, 225x169px) Image search: [Google]

1024KB, 225x169px

>>3054834
>you're the first namefag on 4chan I don't hate
>BurtGummer

>>3050208
>literally everything is the same tone
>foreground and background objects have the same fucking grey value

kys op

>>3054980
>technical aspects only
toppest kek. never change

>>3055091
that's visual you retard, it's not technical at all.

>being this brain dead
either change or kill yourself.

>>3050526
I have a rule of not photographing anything permanent. I try to mainly capture fleeting moments I find interesting and would like to remember. Photographing a building or statue no matter from what crazy angle just seems boring as fuck to me but I don't if that's what other people want to do that's fine I guess.

>>3050457
>can't immediately recognize a good photograph

That's a relatively well known Bruce Gilden pic your dismissing right there.

>>3050526
There are some great architecture photographers out there. But none of them are here.

>>3051818
This could be nice in a series. Alone it needs a little more.

>>3050227
I don't think it's that they don't have the means to replicate the work, but that they haven't actually developed an artistic eye. Most people here operate on some watered down Ansel Adams-type rigid philosophy, without actually having the critical knowledge to back it up. Because of this, some will get some very technically clean and well set up shots, but for the most part here, everything lacks punctum.

>>3055168
The weather is fleeting. The time of day is fleeting. The exact way a building looks at a moment in time, in history, is an unrepeatable event.

The question isn't whether something is fleeting. Everything is fleeting. And the camera only captures a fraction of a second. It does not capture the essence of a thing, or the truth of a thing, or even the stillness of a thing. It captures the momentary lie of a thing. It is your job as a photography to capture just the right collection of lies that some greater truth is uncovered, either revealing the essence of an event or person (as a photojournalist would) or to speak of some value or question or problem (as an artist would). It can be a small truth, or a big one, easily said, or completely mysterious. But the object of a photograph, rendered "objectively", cannot be the sole purpose of a photograph.

>>3055168
Nothing is permanent though. I have photographed buildings that were gone a week later because of fire or bulldozing.

>>3054980
>Only the technical
>Wrong

>>3055343
>>3055091
>technical stuff doesn't matter
Oh, yes it does.

>>3055333
>It's taken by a famous photographer therefore it's good
Hahahaha, no.

>>3055372
>Being this dumb

>>3055541
If this image was posted on /p/ by anon people would tear it apart exactly because of the lackluster composition, lighting and processing. But since it's taken by Mr. Magnum it's supposed to be good?

Nope, sorry, not buying it.

>>3055574

I think the fact that /p/ would hate it should tell you that it's a good photo.

>>3055579
It leaves so much to be desired imo.

I might just be biased because of how I was taught early on but I am not crazy about the flat light or dull composition. The people themselves look interesting but that alone doesn't carry the photo IMO.

>>3055669
You were either taught shit, or don't know much about street. That's a good photo. Not my favorites from Gilden or anything, but I'd give it an 8/10.

I really don't understand what you don't like about the composition here. It's very well laid out and has no purposeless stuff anywhere.

>>3055695
>I don't understand what you don't like about the composition
Their heads are too "attached" to the background. Too much interaction there. If their heads at least weren't merging with the houses in back (which is anon pointed out has an identical shade of grey to the subject) I would like it more.

That still doesn't address the flat lighting which is starting to look more like something that happened in the exposure or in the darkroom.

>>3055782
are you on a bad screen m8? the heads don't seem to be attached to anything. your head however...

>>3055835
My screen's fine m8

I don't like the way the subjects are interacting with the environment, let's put it that way. Too much going on back there, not a shallow enough depth of field for proper separation.

>>3055848
One of the shallowest possible readings of a photograph. These are strange people doing something strange and fleeting. They're wearing ridiculously amateur costumes, and taking it fairly serious. The way the photo is taken is what makes this photo.

There is no such thing as "proper' separation. They're not a fucking landscape in 1930's yosemite. You have developed a destructive set of arbitrary rules that prevent you from seeing the actual artistry of a photo. It's like you're looking at a Picasso from the blue period and complaining that there's not enough variety of color.

>>3055574
Exactly my point. people on /p/ are generally shit photographers and even worse at understanding art. That's a general population thing, very much a chan thing, and almost a pre-requisite of posting on /p/. You're like ants bickering about the purpose of a highway, and complaining it's not like what you know, which is nothing.

>>3055915
>one of the shallowest possible readings
It's weird people doing weird stuff. Great. So show me it in a way that demonstrates you can actually operate a camera and not just point and snap. An interesting subject shot from an OK angle. And you're the one saying other people here are easily impressed yada yada...give me a break.

Looking at Gilden's other photographs, he clearly has an eye and knows how to shoot in a variety of environments while demonstrating his own talent. I'm not even saying he's a bad photog. You for some reason want to defend one of his weakest images ever.

I'm not saying you can only light a subject one way, that you can only take photos one way. I'm saying I don't like the OP photo, and telling me that it's taken by Gilden and that if I don't like it's because I "don't get art" isn't going to change my mind.

>>3055943
Your photos don't get ripped a new one because /p/ doesn't get art. Your photos get ripped a new one because you're new and you don't know any better.

>It's weird people doing weird stuff. Great. So show me it in a way that demonstrates you can actually operate a camera and not just point and snap.
You don't even realize you're just projecting your own insecurities onto working professionals.

>>3055975
No, I just don't think the photo is that great. Is it a crime to not find something great because other people do?

Gilden isn't really hot shit aside from his in your face series desu.

>>3055949
And I'm saying "I don't like it because it's not what I like" is one of the shallowest possible ways of interpreting art. This is a very strong image. I'm not defending it because it's Gilden. I don't care who it is. I clicked on this thread because I'd never seen the photo before and it was startlingly good, especially for this board. So far the only things you have discussed are the technical details of the picture. It's like saying you don't like Watteau because you don't like the way he mixed his greens.

Plus, what really demonstrates how terrible /P/ is, is not what they tear apart (though it says plenty); it's what they praise. The entire way they categorize and talk about art in general, and picture making specifically.

>It's weird people doing weird stuff.
>Show me that you can operate a camera

I mean, what the fuck?! Photography is not about being able to operate a camera. Anybody can operate a camera. That's the point of cameras! They are democratic. This is the democratic forest! I don't care if someone can operate a camera, I only care if the picture is interesting. This picture is interesting. It makes me feel and it makes me think. It is art. You don't have to like it, but if you're going to say it's bad you need to say why. Taste is enough reason for you to dismiss a work independently. It is not enough reason to get other people to think less of it too. You have demonstrated time and again that you only care about the least important elements of being a photographer. And you sound like everyone else on this board.

>>3056002
I already said why I don't like it. I don't like the lighting and I don't like the composition. I don't need something different because that is, in fact, my opinion.

>you only talk about the technical
So you noticed.

>how terrible /p/ is
/p/ is not a singular hive mind built so you can draw upon a scapegoat to get angry at every time you're not happy that people disagree with you.

I'm not even saying feelings and emotions aren't important. What I meant by my comments about operating a camera is that since everyone has one in their phone etc., I like seeing that someone actually went through the trouble of going beyond impulsively reacting to things, because that IMO is what makes an image truly great. Combining feelings and moods with great composition, light or other techniques, rather than having simply one or the other.

>>3056030
do you not understand this genre? i think your artistic sense (and /p/'s) is very limited. there is no perfect lighting or posing people for "great composition" only reacting and working with what you have. also you keep fucking saying shit like "lighting and other techiniques" aka technical bullshittery.

>>3056056
Ok first of all /p/ is not a hive mind so stop trying to use it as some singular being that you can rail against for the sake of your own argument. I suggest you spend more time here and get to know the board you're hating on so you can realize we are not all the same.

Second of all just because I don't like that one photo doesn't mean I'm too strict. I have standards and discipline for myself that keep me sane and I use similar standards judging other work. Not to say I know everything but I know what I like and don't like and I know why that is. I do like street photos but this isn't one of them. In the end for me it's pretty binary, I like a photo or I don't and the reasoning behind it is not always the exact same.

You can't just tell me I'm supposed to like something just like I can't tell you not to. I don't like the light in that photo, the subject is interesting and the composition is OK. That is my opinion alone, this board has nothing to do with it.

>>3056085
your perspective on this photo betrays your lack of experience in the real world taking photographs
you have a video game achievement perfection mentality that is not grounded in reality and most likely actively holds you back from your full potential

File: 1383315361422.jpg (198KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 640x427px

>>3056090
>lack of experience
You know nothing of my experience. You sure like to talk a lot of shit though. For someone desperate to convince me I'm wrong and too close minded, you really cannot even fathom why somebody wouldn't like the shot posted in the OP? You have some serious growing up to do.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi

>>3056099
I'm not the anon you're arguing with, but still. It's fine to not like a photo. However trying to explain why and by that only showing it's because you don't understand what street photography is about is why people are arguing with you. It's like you went to a noise show and said afterwards that you didn't like it because they played loud and there was no clear song structure and melody, and besides they couldn't operate their gear properly.

>>3056143
I'll say it again, I know what street photo is and like some of it but not all of it.

Just because it prioritizes certain considerations over others doesn't mean any regard for technical things goes out the window. I don't think even Bruce himself would argue that light of all things is not important to photography, a visual arts subgenre that literally translates to "painting with the light", so why you're trying to say otherwise is really beyond me.

>>3056099
>carlos
haha fuck off you faggot

>>3056099
Doing the same thing 1000 times isn't 1000 experiences, it's one experience. You only focus on the technical elements of the photograph, but you get these wrong, and can't even follow them yourself. Anyone can point a camera anywhere. Anyone, with a little bit of focused practice, can get the exposure pretty solid. But you literally have no understanding of art. Once you can take a photo, you are responsible for all of its contents. Photos are visual communication, so compare it to writing, to poetry. You're demanding people follow some random collection of parameters, and not caring how good the poem actually is, in terms of what is being expressed. It's really shallow. As in, you are only caring about the surface level of the communication. The flatness of an image is part of what it communicates, just as what's in focus is part of what is communicated. In the OP photo, The deep depth of field and relatively flat range are critical to what the photo is communication. The strangeness of these two people in this moment is transferred to the entire place, which has enough detail to feel like a particular place, but few enough details to feel alien, made more alien by the two men and their costumes. But the flow works both ways. The surroundings are transferred onto the men. The obvious quotidian and suburban nature of this place seems to suggest that these men are of this place, not just from there, but created and molded by it. And the formal qualities of the photo are perfectly sympathetic to this off-kilter, carnival strangeness of suburban living. Mostly of a very light, and calming tone, the frame feels sparse and quiet. But the dark horizontal lines create a rigidity the mirrors the concept of the place, and then a few small bursts of shadow in the tree, guns, eyes, and capes help draw focus back and forth across the image, working again with those rigid horizontal lines. And that's just the beginning of an analysis.

>>3056099
>>3056354
Meanwhile, the photo you posted is simply a nice technical grab. It doesn't say anything about anything. Maybe if you didn't have that intruding structure in the top left corner, you'd have achieved a sense of space that highlights the isolation of the man, and non-existant but seemingly there connection between him and the woman on the other side. But the pieces of the photo do not come together. The high contrast, the vignetting, the complete lack of detail in the two human forms, the drawstring bag of the woman, whatever object it is that's right next to the train and seems to be growing out of the man's leg--these all pull in different directions, and never tie back together. That might be fine, if there were some broader point about chaos and disorder, but that doesn't really seem to be there. All we get is a formal recognition that tires in a matter of seconds.

>>3056354
>>3056361
Honestly, I don't consider what you're posting here any more or less an "arbitrary consideration" than anything else I've talked about it. Going into great depth to analyze a photo like this was never something I cared about or why I really got interested in photography at all. You're not the first and probably not the last person to tell me I'm "supposed" to look deeper into photographs and stop looking at surface level things. In fact a couple years ago I got into it with a professor at school because I wanted to focus on better technique when he was all about the "depth" of a photo, emotionally. As expected I didn't think much of his photos and vice versa, but that's life in a nutshell isn't it.

You appear to think you have it all figured out - and so would I, it seems. The problem is, I would still have people on the other side telling me that the main focus is supposed to be masterful technique in the camera and darkroom/photoshop, and that anything less is excusable, and if I'm honest I always did gravitate more toward honing skills, techniques and et cetera for the sake of a hobby than attempting to establish something deeper. Going in to depth with photos always felt forced and contrived when I attempted it, so I stopped. It's not why I take photos and it's not why I pick up a camera, it's literally just something I do for fun because I like to tinker and look at stuff I find interesting. I don't *need* anything more than that, no matter what you say.

I don't like the OP photo for the reasons I've stated multiple times. Call me shallow if that makes you feel better about it, but I'm not obligated to like something you like just because you say it's good.

>>3050227
you da man

>>3056397
You don't have anything figured out. You're not obligated to like this photo, as I've already said. But if you engage in criticism, you are obligated justify your opinion.

It feels forced and contrived when you go into a photo, because you don't actually understand visual language. You don't get to shit talk photos and then say "Oh, I don't really care about all that criticism stuff, I just like taking photos for the fun of it and stuff." As I already stated, if that's all you want to take photos for, that's fine. I even said you're allowed to say this photo's not to your taste. But you're making objective statements about what is good and what is bad. That is intellectually dishonest of you. You are a hypocrite and a fraud. You don't get to act like you're better than other people just because you haven't bothered to do the work to understand higher levels of thinking about a thing. Your professor was right, because technique and communication are not mutually exclusive. So saying you're not interested in the communication means you're not interested in the art of it. Fine if that's true. Nothing wrong with it. But then what are you doing in an Art class? Think about that for a little bit. A professor, someone with vastly more experience than you, explained to you how you could make better photos, and you dismissed him because you thought you had a superior way of analyzing the technical aspects of the photo, of which you've already demonstrated in this threat that you don't have a strong grasp.

We're not talking here about why you pick up a camera. We're talking about the evaluative criteria and criticism as photography as an art. Cameras as tools, not toys.

You have a preconceived notion about what photography is that isn't based on any real thought. Your argument is for mastery of technique. Why should I argue that for you? And i don't dismiss it, I simply question how you can possibly limit technique to only the technical qualities of the medium.

>>3056354
>quotidian
Yeah, a very flowery explanation straight out of art school text books or the kind of prattle a gallery owner might come out with trying to make a sale.

>The deep depth of field and relatively flat range are critical to what the photo is communication.

>And the formal qualities of the photo are perfectly sympathetic to this off-kilter, carnival strangeness of suburban living

Nope. Until the fundamental questions of who, what, why, where and when are answered it is just two dudes playing Mr Dressup. A simple caption would do the trick

>>3056474
>Until the fundamental questions of who, what, why, where and when are answered it is just two dudes playing Mr Dressup
If you're not socially autistic you can infer most of this to a degree from the photo. They appear to be in a suburb, probably in the US based on housing materials, and probably in decades long-past given the material elements of their costumes as well as aesthetic accouterments to their idea of what an alien would look like.

>>3056479
You can infer anything you like really. How about:

Jack and Dick had too much beer and pizza while watching the ball game so afterwards they went outside to make a B-Movie.

or

Mayor gets into the space-age spirit and entertains children and adults alike at the town carnival.

But inferring shit isn't an answer it's guessing.

>>3056539
This is photography, not painting. If you want to control every element of the photo, maybe get some talent with a pencil or paintbrush and stop being a faggot.

The fusion of real and surreal is what makes photography unique. Stop trying to hamfist painters pretense onto the subject to deal with your own inability to create art.

>>3056567
Who said anything about controlling every element? You should get your nanny to read it to you again. I said:

>Until the fundamental questions of who, what, why, where and when are answered it is just two dudes playing Mr Dressup. A simple caption would do the trick

Guessing is not good enough and blathering on about:
> The strangeness of these two people in this moment is transferred to the entire place, which has enough detail to feel like a particular place, but few enough details to feel alien

Just demonstrates that anon/you are just making up shit to try and fill in the blanks. Photos usually need captions. Magnum knows this and so does Bruce Gilden. That is why this [articular photo is supplied with:

Two Coneheads at the Mardi Gras Street Carnival in New Orleans, 1975 © Bruce Gilden / Magnum Photos

No agency will ever accept a photo from you, no matter how good, without an explanatory caption.

>>3056616
>1975
I lied, it's 1982

>>3056099
Shit photo

>>3055336
It is, in fact, part of an aggresively boring series.

>>3056472
>you have a preconceived notion

No, I don't...but you clearly do. Or you wouldn't be so hell bent on changing my opinion.

>you need to justify
I don't have to justify it more just because you don't like the answers. If I say I don't like a photo because I don't like the light then that's why I don't like the photo.
I don't have to explore it more and be forced to enjoy it Just because you say so.

>your professor was right
He had an agenda and was biased against beautiful pictures even if people had a reason for taking them.

Depth in photos doesn't bother me. People trying to justify bad technique with shit like "that's not the point of [genre]" is what doesn't wash with me.

>you don't understand visual language
If you can't intrigue me with the visual execution alone, no amount of text is going to change my mind. Its really that simple.

OP photo is neato but considering it's primary strength is character I wouldn't expect general /p/ folk to appreciate it.

>>3055334
>>3050526

First of all, fuck you.

>who is Alphon??

And you faggots ran him off. He was legit one of the best posters pee had, he would shit all over your work and tell you why it was bad, then show you how to fix it. Anon couldn't handle the bantz and whined like a bitch and SJW mods ran him off, fuck you. Fucking hang yourself.

>>3054893

t. butt-furious faggot who didn't get in the p book cry moar

tl;dr: go take fucking pictures and enjoy yourself, stop worrying about what a bunch of bedwetting autists who still live with mommy and daddy think, it's rare anyone gets an actual decent critique here, it's usually one or both of the following

>kys
>>3056633

wanna make pee better? post more photo threads.

>>3057050
You need to see a psychologist or better yet tie a plastic bag over your own face.

>>3056616
>No agency will ever accept a photo from you, no matter how good, without an explanatory caption.
The editor traditionally handles captions. The photographer simply needs to provide context for their submissions, often just the file name

>>3056472
>But then what are you doing in an Art class?
It wasn't an art class. It was a pretty vague "photo" course and nothing more. Even in the description it said nothing about art. The professor in question hijacked it and made us think that the whole point of photography is being a Deep Artist or some shit. Completely wasted my time experimenting on shit that didn't resonate with me at all, all for the sake of "trying something new". I actually hate just thinking about it because I really should've focused on what I wanted to do and stuck with it. This is precisely why I tell people to take things with a grain of salt and generally advise not to shoot for anyone but yourself.

Also nobody is acting better than anyone, get a grip. I was explaining why I personally don't like the photo. I shouldn't have to put IMO or "just my two cents" every single time I'm denoting what is in fact my own opinion. I seriously think you're wasting too much energy trying to convince somebody to like a photo and being mad that they don't agree on the rating of a shot that you didn't even take. You keep bringing up this /p/ boogieman as if /p/ is all against you and your way of thinking, in reality you just can't seem to handle the fact that not everyone likes what you like, and not everyone is going to spoonfeed you an exact answer as to why, that you personally are satisfied with.

>>3057045
its complete trash

>>3057476
The sub-editor writes the caption that will appear jn print, the photographer has to provide enough information to make that possible.

>>3056474
This is the worst expression of the photojournalistic mindset. If you want to know those things, don't take a photo, take notes.

God. It literally makes me sick to my stomach that there really are people out there who want to put a caption on art photography.

You're not supposed to know who these people are, or where they are! That's the point. They could be anywhere. They could be anyone. They could be someone you know! If you can't deal with abstraction or poetic distance, get the fuck away from art.

>>3057043
Bad technique is technique that does not serve the purpose of the photo.

Under your definition, Warhol had bad technique. His work is still better than anything you will make.

It's not my words that should convince you. You've literally blinded yourself to visual communication. You don't know how to read a photo. You should be able to analyze pictures in the same way I did. A technical reading is only meaningful as it relates to the entire visual expression. It's like you're demanding everyone write like Dickens, but you don't even know what makes Dickens good. Your professor didn't have an agenda, you're just an ego-centric shit head who wants everyone to call you a genius, Mr. Dunning-Kruger.

>>3057503
What is the point of photography beyond art? Anybody can take a photo now. The world gets documented more and more every day. Why do you take photographs?

>>3059129
>If you want to know those things, don't take a photo, take notes.

What an incredibly naive thing to say. I invite you to go to any agency website you can think of and count how many pictures you can find without information about what the picture is of.

There's more to photography than just being arty farty. I suggest you get your head out your ass and look around you.

>>3059141
What kind of agency are talking about? There are different uses of photography. It is a medium. The photograph above is presented as art, meaning it should be analyzed as art, not as photojournalism. Sure, sometimes writing can affect the meaning of an image, but photo as evidence is simply not enough for art. It's never been enough. You don't need to know anything about Yosemite or the half dome to appreciate Adams photographs of them. Joan Fontcuberta's work is interesting even without his writing, but his writing makes them even more fascinating. If an image can't work at all by itself, then it really isn't photograph as art, even if it is part of a conceptual work that is art. There can be an artistry to photojournalism, but it isn't inherently art. If you only care about documentation, then art isn't really the best medium, despite looking that way to the untrained mind.

>>3059141
>There's more to photography than just being arty farty.
Don't you realize I can just turn this around to "theres more to photography than documenting reality concisely"

Your own naivete is incredible.

>>3056099
you don't know shit

>>3059135
There are plenty of reasons to do photography and none of them are really wrong.

Here's a thought: stop blaming an entire board of anons for not liking the same photos you do. Stop acting like the board is wrong for not universally siding with you. Stop preaching that we should all get on board with your ideas for photography and art - insisting that anyone who doesn't is bad and wrong.

People are within their right to use cameras however they please and like whatever images they choose. They are not obligated to do what you say.

>>3059135
>Anybody can take a photo now.
Anyone can also draw or paint if they take the time to learn it. This argument doesn't really appeal to anything substantial at all. Try again.

>the world gets documented more and more every day
Again there is no appeal here. "Stop doing this thing because it's popular/other people are doing it". You could argue the same shit for aspiring musicians, writers, or entrepreneurs. Most people find enjoyment in things that they enjoy, regardless of whether or not others are doing the same thing.

Why do you think we all should only make art? You seem to have this weird entitlement issue where you think everyone on this board owes you something, and it's made apparent when you bitch about "what the board praises". For fuck's sake man if you really want to talk about art, go ahead and do it, literally nobody is stopping you. Your whining about not every single last poster here agreeing with you is cringe as fuck though.

>>3059174
Gah, get out of here with your moral relativism. I'm not saying people have to like this photo. I'm saying that if you can't recognize the quality and skill of this photo, then you have no grounds to be discussing the merits of any photo beyond your own undeveloped tastes.

And most of the people on this board are wrong, most of the time. Their arguments are illogical, their criteria - arbitrary, their eye - untrained. Of course people are free to use their cameras however they please, and I am free to disagree with them. Just because you are free to do something, does not mean you are right to do something. And when it comes to art, yes there is obligation. Not to do what I say, but to either think critically or face the consequences. If you decide to present no argument, no defense of your opinion, then you are obligated to step aside. You may say you don't care about someone's opinion, but then you are obligated not to care.

Just because someone took a photo, and they like it, doesn't make it good. The criteria I have presented are the closest you can really get to objective review, because it allows the critical analysis of a work relative to its purpose. Any other basis for analysis relies on axiomatic reasoning. But the axiom of "the technical is paramount" has already been destroyed, proven to be self-defeating.

I wasn't asking a rhetorical, defeatist question. I was asking for something specific. What you are doing--defending shitty opinions by vague pseudo-pluralism--is bad and wrong. Imposing a strict technical criteria on photography without justification is bad and wrong.

It's not about what you like, but about why. If you don't know why, and can't even begin to figure it out, then don't get involved in criticism.

>>3059190
>Just because you are free to do something, does not mean you are right to do something.
When it comes to photography you can do whatever you want.

>just because someone took a photo, and they like it, does not make it good
And just because you like it, and tell everyone they're supposed to like it or "face the consequences" does not make it good either. See? We can do this until the end of time if you'd like.

>Imposing a strict technical criteria on photography without justification is bad and wrong.
And imposing strict "artistic" criteria is somehow right? Jesus you are so oblivious.

>it's not about what you like, it's about why
People give reasons for liking photos all the time, they just use less words than you or different vocabulary, and this bothers you for some reason. You dismiss it as being "shallow" when they don't write two paragraphs and just say "the light is meh and the composition doesn't sell to me".

>>3059180
See, you prove my point. One must take the time to learn to draw or paint. You don't have to learn anything other than how to press a button to take a photograph that is technically sound. It might take a lot of tries, but it can be accomplished through chance, no matter the level of ignorance. And the world is getting documented every day, so there is nothing special about "just" documenting the world. If you want to document it well, as opposed to arbitrarily as is done by people at large, you must define "well". If it is just to take a technically sound image of the world, then you might walk away with photographs that are easy to look at, but you probably won't come away with anything more than that. If that's all you care about, that's fine. But to suppose that you are somehow skilled or knowledgeable about photography as a medium because of it is insulting to photographers everywhere. This supposes that the working of a camera is the job of a photographer. It's like saying a typist is a writer. There is nothing more cringe-inducing than amateurs with swagger, than an arrogant hobbyist.

I don't think the board owes me anything other than what it owes everyone else--the decency of self-reflection. When you post a photo for other people to review, you are asking them to do you a favor. When you make a reply that's dogmatic, you are asking people to take the time to think about what you're saying. If you are going to do that, than yes, you do owe people a modicum of thought. That's the tradeoff. This isn't rhetorical--if you aren't making art with your photographs, what are you doing? Be honest about it, and contemplate what, exactly, it is you're doing. Is it documentary? Is it photojournalism? Valid reasons. But then critique it under that lens. Even these modes ask similar questions and are almost as open in style. So ask yourself, is what you've done interesting? Why should anyone bother with it? You owe more to your audience than they to you.

>>3059194
>painting and drawing take skill
So does photography. Unless you consider any photo good regardless of the light, composition, color balance or anything else. Its a picture, so it'll do. Right?

>supposing that you are somehow skilled or knowledgable
As opposed to having such an ego that you have to "call out" an entire board on 4Chan with a thread like this, because you can type up some pseudo-intellectual analysis of a random photo. Right...

>>3059192
The criteria I have presented are anything but strict, in regards to the content of the frame, or even the context provided. And that's the point. The reason you can almost objectively say OP photo is good is because it has an intent and it follows through on that intent,strongly and completely. You may say what it's trying to do is bad, or not worth while, or not beautiful, but you cannot say it failed. It might be that it does not resonate with you, but that is not the image itself, but the idea it communicates that does not resonate. It is a successful image because the idea and the picture are intensely unified. I've said multiple times, you don't have to like it.

Saying "the light is meh and the composition doesn't sell to me" is not a valid criticism. As in, it is not logical. It has not basis. It supposes there is some objective way of understanding these qualities (quality-->qualitative-->qualities). What does it mean to say the lighting is meh. Meh compared to what? For what purpose? What makes it meh? It's flat? But certainly there are times when flat lighting is correct. Do you really suggest that all photos should have the same high contrast lighting with the same kind of composition? Even Ansel Adams, who had very strict and personal criteria for composition, made photographs that are mostly of only one or two tones. If you shoot in winter, it is difficult to avoid. So then what makes it right in one instance and wrong in another? And to say that the lighting is uniform is different than saying the image is flat, in the traditional sense. You may certainly say it's not to your taste, but then you cede any kind of critical ground you were trying to occupy. Falling back on taste is not criticism. So then what do you mean when you say the composition doesn't sell to you? Doesn't sell what? What do you mean?

You can do what you want. But when you speak of shoulds, and oughts, more is asked of you than "because".

>>3059198
I get paid. I am salaried for my creative insight. I make a living off creating and analysing others creativity. I do this every day. I wasn't mentioning this, because this is an appeal to authority. But since you appealed to it, I have answered it. I'm walking circles around you, and you don't realize it. Yes, I'm calling out "an entire board". Obviously there are decent photographers who post here. But they are the minority. As is to be expected of any place that has no barrier to entry.

There is no one set of light, composition, color, or anything else that makes a photo good. Please actually take the time to read my posts and reflect on them. I'm giving you advice on how to advance your understanding, not just of photography, but of all arts and related fields. The technical aspects of a photograph are not the photograph; they are just one of many lenses used to analyze a piece. For anyone to challenge this at this point in our society without thorough argumentative support is either lunacy or ignorance. The art world has moved so far beyond this point, it would take a herculean effort to bring things back. And given the broad history of all art making, going all the way back to pre-history, I find it unlikely for anyone to ever agree with a technical only appreciation of photography ever again. It's obviously critical to one's valuation of photography, but it is not a sufficient criteria.

If you actually want to get a better grasp, start doing some reading on basic art criticism. Get yourself up to speed, or stop moralizing.

>>3059200
You just made an appeal to authority. For all I know you're a weekend budget wedding photographer. You're biased here so I'm still taking what you say with grains of salt. You sound like sugar bragging about how much money he makes driving trucks. Please stop, it's just pathetic.

>the technical aspects are not the photograph
Ok, but that doesn't mean they go out the window and we just ignore them even when they bother us.

oh ahhahhah this remember me at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTaPg_lQa_Y

>>3056099
>>3056397
>>3057043
>>3057503

I'm not the same guy you're arguing with but I've been following this discussion back and forth since it's the most interesting thing in this thread and on /p/ front page right now.

Look, I really don't want to sound like an ass, but I think you're being overly defensive about your stance. I get that it feels like the guy replying to you about the artistry of photography is acting like "he knows better," and that you're being stubborn in his mind(while you feel that he's being stubborn), but why don't you just listen to what he's saying? Instead of trying to reply back with an equally long response where you try to negate or shoot down every one of his questions, why don't you just think about what he's saying a little bit. No one will think you "lost" the argument. You're putting up barriers right now to protect your pride and stance on what photography means to you. You can, or should, concede at least in what he's saying about art criticism and analysis, honestly, he's making a good point. If you see what he's saying that doesn't mean that after this is all done you have to change who you are or what you believe in about photography.

>>3059250
(continued)

But right now it seems like you're going to eventually step away from this conversation and all you're going to get from this is that people were trying to aggressively change your mind about photography. It's completely understandable that you just enjoy photography for the technical side of it and as a hobby. All the other guy is trying to tell you is that maybe when you take photos in the future, you can keep in mind the other school of thought about making art that you seem to purposely ignore. As I said in the beginning, you're just being overly defensive. The guy talking with you is granting that you don't have to like OP's photo and you don't have to make art in every shot. But you are missing a piece of the puzzle, or rather, you are blatantly avoiding that piece of the puzzle because you don't care for it when doing your own photography.

>>3059251
>>3059250
(continued)

>You're not the first and probably not the last person to tell me I'm "supposed" to look deeper into photographs and stop looking at surface level things

Your point summarizes what I'm trying to tell you (poorly, probably). Are you challenging the world to convince you otherwise? That statement just came off as immature, as if you don't need any more lessons in photography, you're all "filled up," and actively won't take any more advice than the knowledge you hold onto.

All the other guy is saying is, "think more about your photography beyond the technical aspect." The technical aspect is important and I agree with you there. I disagree with the other guy, not everyone can just pick up a camera and shoot WELL. But you can plateau eventually with the technical stuff. The artful side of photography, the aspect where you're trying to communicate something beyond technical craftsmanship, is an infinite chasm and you can always improve on it forever and forever.

Sorry for the long text. I was just really interested in this thread.

TL;DR: You're being too defensive/stubborn. The guy just wants you to be a little more open minded and thoughtful with photography and is not making an appeal to authority. Learn about art criticism a bit, it can only help your craft as you learn.

File: picasso.jpg (153KB, 1101x501px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1101x501px

>>3059148
>What kind of agency are talking about?
Magnum is the agency, it has a caption.

I believe it was originally presented as a book called "Hey Mister, Throw Me Some Beads" in which there is an explanation of what that phrase means for all his fans who have never been to Mardi Gras.


>>3059149
>Don't you realize I can just turn this around
Yes, of course you can you stupid fuckwit, you can turn anything round if you want to. It doesn't make you right. Do you know what this picture is? You wouldn't have done if you hadn't been told so maybe it isn't art. You decide for yourself.

>>3059252
Eh, I don't disagree that looking beyond technical stuff is important but at the same time, not even trying to get it right strikes me as odd.

Like, people all say that photography is easy, anyone can do it you just push a button etc but left right and center I also see mismanaged light, sloppy composition, lazy editing etc. If it's so damn easy why are people making mistakes only to defend them with "you're missing the point"?

>>3059329
people who say its easy dont know anything about capturing slivers of real life to gelatin or silicon

its easy to take a landscape

>>3059356
>what I do is difficult, what others do is easy

>>3059329

I definitely agree with that sentiment.

>>3059366
Name a single skill that applies to landscape photographers that isn't also present in high-level photojournalists to a higher degree

>>3057050
shut up you spaz

>>3059305
Captions are an artifact of photojournalism, which is a subcategory of documentary photography. Hey Mister, Throw Me Some Beads is documentary (Street Photography), but not photojournalism. The photos are not presented with captions. You've defeated your own argument.

Of course art is often accompanied by writings. People interested in art are often interested in essays and other writing about art, from the philosophy and theory to the mechanical and explanatory. These are not the measure of the work.

Guernica is a profound piece. That you think it's important only because others have said it's important demonstrates your complete lack of artistic understanding, and your outright reactionary contrarianism. You don't know why you don't like it. You just don't like that other people understand it, and you don't. You haven't developed your eye. You are artistically illiterate, and you're screaming at other people that reading art is stupid and anyone who does it is ignorant.

>>3059329
Taking a photograph is easy. Taking a good photograph is hard. Made harder by needing to first define what is good in a photograph. Since the technical element is continually advancing, and since cameras are such a commercial product, the technical attributes of a photo are made easier and easier to achieve every day. If you're doing collodion wet plate, simply capturing a pleasing image is a bit of an accomplishment. If you have a modern mirrorless digital camera, and you are in a well lit place, the technical elements simply cannot be the metric for measuring the quality of a photograph. And once you look beyond the technical for quality, you are open to the fact that a technically poor photograph could have immense quality under the right circumstances. Then one's skill as a photographer is not determined simply by one's technical capabilities, but by one's ability to create a good image, whose artistic communication as a signifier is present in every element of the image, from concept and philosophy to received impression.

In this sense, taking a landscape is exceptionally difficult. The ease of the physical picture taking opens up the number of choices the artist must make to such a degree, that all the possibilites cannot be considered. It is the artists skill, then, that must navigate from the broadest conceptual abstractions to the intensely specific expression and still deliver a meaningful and impactful image.
In this way, Ansel Adams photographs of Yosemite are incredible. It's true that his worldview is considered obsolete, but his work can be easily appreciated in the context of his time, like almost all historic art work. But someone who takes the same photo now has done nothing commendable. For one, it's already been done. For another, the artistic conversation has moved on. It would be like telling a joke at a party that someone else with more standing than you said an hour ago, and everybody already heard. Can't be haughty about that.

>>3059437
You're right. What's the difference between skinning a cat, and making a fur coat?

I looked for a photobook thread, found none, so decided to post ITT instead. Yeah.

Got my copy of Provoke, on /p/ recommendation a few weeks back. At first glance it appears to be a great big pile of blurry monochrome (not greyscale) with very little to tell that the images are even from japan, let alone what they're of. The first bit of english text I found in there was some postmodernist weeaboo wanking himself silly about "eruptivity" in the context of sixties extraparliamentary movements of Japan.

If it doesn't get any better from here, I'll be glad it's out of print soon enough -- a weeb will at least buy it offa me in a few years' time, so it's not like money down the drain.

>>3060601
nigga wtf are you even talking about? this isnt a thread for you to showcase how fucking stupid you are for not getting it.

>>3060561

>The photos are not presented with captions. You've defeated your own argument
The photos are not presented with individual captions but it is explained within the covers of the book what and where the event was.

>Guernica is a profound piece. That you think it's important only because others have said it's important demonstrates your complete lack of artistic understanding
I said nothing about it's importance, or it's quality. I said you only know it is Guernica because you were told it is Guernica.

>>3060576
Technical stuff isn't just proper exposure though. A camera cannot pose for you. A camera cannot light for you. A camera cannot place a subject or figure out the "best" angle for you. Do you see what I mean? Even just figuring out the "best" composition is a sometimes underrated endeavor. The angle at which it's shot ad exactly what's being shown can all be very important depending on your approach. Same goes for lighting or any other "technical" thing that relies on numerous considerations by the photography.

Simply dismissing all these considerations by anyone and saying "you're missing the point" seems kinda stubborn and close minded. You don't have to listen to everything you are told but I mean, is it really so hard to understand why someone would feel underwhelmed when certain parts of the execution are lacking to them? It's like when people get upset that certain others reject them and don't love them for "what's on the inside". Like they are owed special thought or appreciation and are above criticism because they bring one thing to the table, yet oddly refuse to being another thing to the table. Of course you don't have to care as much about technical/rigid things if you don't want to, but why act like there's something fundamentally wrong with the people who do?

>>3060710
>I only know the title of a work because I was informed of the title of a work
What kind of argument is this?

>>3060862
Please read and try again.

>>3061160
I did, your argument is basically "buy an expensive camera, take technically excellent photos" which is not how it works. At all. In any given daylit scene you can have decent exposure and focus, OK, but that doesn't account for any of the other technical decisions like white balance, composition or even the fact that the light might be too harsh to take a pleasing photo even if it's "well lit" in the sense that, well, everything is lit. Yes, even in 2017 you can have a Sony A9 or some other fancy ass shit and STILL take photos that are technically bland. This isn't even getting into the realm of subject matter or what story is being told and how well that's all executed either.

>>3061281
Please read and try again.

What does it mean for something to be well lit? Why?

>>3060696
>this isnt a thread for you to showcase how fucking stupid you are for not getting it.
That's about how the po-mo shit works, innit.

Judging photography and art in general should mainly be about the impression. If your impression of a photo is good then its good, if its bad and its shit.

If a photograph requires you to analyze every details, coming up with explanations for abstract bullshit or listen to what other people tell you to determine whether a photograph is good or not then the phographer is a fucking failure, simple as that.