then you have to take ownership of that crit in class
speak up, others may feel the same way but are too timid to speak out
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Irrational dislikes?
- Thread starter Doylem
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
then you have to take ownership of that crit in class
speak up, others may feel the same way but are too timid to speak out
To summarize:
To summarize, some people don't like pictures of:
1. People
2. Landscapes
3. Landscapes in HDR
4. Flowers with insects
5. Animals
6. Water or things in water
7. Unfocused pictures
8. Overly sharp pictures
9. Pictures that are similar to pictures they've seen before
10. Pictures from new photographers
11. Shadows
12. Things around the house
To summarize, some people don't like pictures of:
1. People
2. Landscapes
3. Landscapes in HDR
4. Flowers with insects
5. Animals
6. Water or things in water
7. Unfocused pictures
8. Overly sharp pictures
9. Pictures that are similar to pictures they've seen before
10. Pictures from new photographers
11. Shadows
12. Things around the house
Two-in-one.
Why all the Ken Rockwell hate? I assume by "two-in-one" you are expressing your dislike for the image as well as for him/his site. I don't recall him posting that image here--it's on his site because it's the holiday season and this is his online greeting card. Good lord, he's not asking you to buy it nor is he proclaiming it to be high art, he's just posting a generic holiday family pic on his home page. You may not like his site, which is fine. But your post is out-of-line in my opinion. What's up? Did he murder your first born? Sleep with your wife? Give it a rest already. This thread is about generic pet-peeves with certain types of photos, specifically ones posted in the POTD thread that are annoying because of subject, composition, PP techniques, etc. Lashing out at Ken Rockwell doesn't really fit in with this theme. From past posts, you seem to have real issues with him. Whatever. Deal with that on your own time. Snarky posts aimed at people that aren't part of this community don't really sit well with me. Keep your drama to yourself.
Last edited:
some of my photo pet peeves:
overcooked/unnecessary HDR
boring vantage points
tiny subject surrounded by superfluous area
bad color balance
equipment/media dogma
toy cameras (only occasionally does the subject benefit from them)
historic processes used on boring images (the resurgence of wet plate collodion is a prime example)
over saturated colors
needless effects (PS filters used in a straight forward and boring manner, cross processing, etc)
and anyone new or learning photography shouldn't worry about cliches
just go shoot and learn and have fun
overcooked/unnecessary HDR
boring vantage points
tiny subject surrounded by superfluous area
bad color balance
equipment/media dogma
toy cameras (only occasionally does the subject benefit from them)
historic processes used on boring images (the resurgence of wet plate collodion is a prime example)
over saturated colors
needless effects (PS filters used in a straight forward and boring manner, cross processing, etc)
and anyone new or learning photography shouldn't worry about cliches
just go shoot and learn and have fun
Last edited:
I should incorporate this into my previous post, but the tone is so different that I'm not going to do that. Sosumi.
A nihilist might say after reading through this thread (and your list) that the only good photos are ones taken with the lens cap firmly attached
That obviously isn't the case however. Art is extremely subjective. There are some constants though. Some subjects work for most viewers, some don't. Following the "rules" of photography will generally result in images that are more pleasing to *most* people than not following them. The exceptions that work are usually created by people who understand the rules (and are capable of producing "good" images by following them) but decide for creative reasons to break them or make their own rules. Picasso's early work is very traditional and quite skilled. He didn't branch off into the seemingly bizarre because he lacked traditional skills--he did it because he couldn't express himself using traditional techniques. Similarly Duchamp completely changed the art world by offering a urinal as a piece of art. Easy to scoff at this (I mean, it's a urinal), but it was one of the most important "revelations" in 20th century art. He was a talented artist. But he stepped beyond the rules to completely change the rules.
Compelling images can occur by chance from someone who doesn't really know what they are doing. Having a solid grounding in composition, lighting, and exposure increases the chances that what you shoot will be interesting to other people.
But we all shoot for different reasons. Do whatever makes you happy and let the critics be damned, pet-peeves and all.
Two-in-one.
This is bugging the hell out of me, but is it just me or kid's head is Pshopped onto his body?
You forgot "tasteful nudes".
However, no one has yet come out against "tasteless nudes" so from 2011 I will be contributing mainly from my "Home Made Porn"* folder instead of my "Landscapes" folder.
* The one minor snag is my "Home Made Porn" folder is empty as my OH was brought up not to have anything to do with That Sort Of Thing.**
**And quite right too...
No I just think he is a funny looking kid (FLK in medical jargon, yes we actually refer to them this way.)
On a more serious note, it's an artifact from the shooting conditions. Based on his other pics of Ryan, I think this is real. Some kids photograph better than others. He's really a cute kid though, if you take the time to look at his photos on Ken's site. I'm not really seeing why you think he looks strange in this pic. He's just a kid being a kid, posing for a photo.
But I actually like this image. While I'm not a fan of holiday greeting-card family pics, this is as good (and is actually better) than most of the other ones I received in the mail this year.
It's a clichéd form, but that doesn't mean it should be dropped. Not something I'd hang on my wall, but that isn't the intent. This is about "I love my family and wish anyone viewing this the love of my family." For that, it works. Warm, fuzzy, heartfelt holiday cheer.
What pisses me off about this image being posted here is that it wasn't done by Ken Rockwell. He never intended the image to be in this forum and open to criticism. Yes, it's posted on the internet so in some sense it's in the public domain. But someone with an axe to grind posted it here. Very uncool in my opinion. I wish the mods would have caught this and deleted the original post. Would you be comfortable if someone snagged one of your snapshots off of Facebook and posted it in a "pet-peeves" thread here? Didn't think so.
Last edited:
No, making a post that deviates from the topic of the thread is not an action that requires moderator intervention.
But isn't posting an image created by a third-party without their express consent reason for moderator intervention? The image in question is copyrighted. This is an unauthorized use of the image.
Last edited:
I have no idea. PM a moderator and ask them. If the post bothers you to such a degree, then click on the report post button associated with the post that offends you. In the meantime, you're sending this thread WAY off topic.
Eek! I really need to straighten this one out a bit. The Greeks (and the Romans after them) definitely deployed nudity as a kind of ideologically-charged 'costume' in their art, but in real life, with a few exceptions, nudity outside of the bedroom was anathema. 'Public' nudity was only commonplace (at least from the late Archaic period) at athletic events and bathhouses, neither of which were mixed-gender affairs. That Graeco-Roman art is shot through with nude figures, despite its disjunction with real-life practices, is one of the more intriguing reasons for studying it.
Here here! It's tempting to be quiet in a critique for fear of retaliation, but those meetings are the really golden part of being in art school. Speak your mind; you may find out that others have a very good rebuttal and see things quite differently. Or you may find that most agree with you. But either way, someone will learn something.
Ah, yes... just countryside...
It just goes to show that anything done well enough will rise above the level of "just X". Doylem's portfolio is loaded with countryside photos that will take your breath away, whereas countless photos of the very same locations fall utterly flat.
Nor should anyone very accomplished worry about them. Just go out there and make photos that you can be proud of, for whatever reason and on whatever level.
I appreciate the motivational sentiment, but I don't think I would go quite that far. If all that matters is making yourself happy, then keep the photos to yourself. If, on the other hand, you want other people to enjoy them too, then listen to the critics and see if maybe something they say might lead you in a fruitful direction.
I appreciate the motivational sentiment, but I don't think I would go quite that far. If all that matters is making yourself happy, then keep the photos to yourself. If, on the other hand, you want other people to enjoy them too, then listen to the critics and see if maybe something they say might lead you in a fruitful direction.
I think you quoted me out of context. I made it very plain in my post that if you care what other people think (which if you are taking the time to post then you obviously do), then you need to follow the rules.
I included some examples from the art world where people didn't follow the rules--but in both cases it wasn't because they weren't aware of the rules but because they chose to ignore them because the rules didn't fit their creative vision. In both cases the art community eventually agreed with them.
Western aesthetics have largely been reliant on Greek/Roman ideals of art and beauty. Don't get me started about what might have happened if either Greece or Rome had maintained control of European history. The world would be a very different (and most likely better) place today. Aside from the whole slavery issue
If you shoot to make others happy, then you need to follow the rules. The Greeks/Romans knew what they were talking about. They hit upon some very fundamental insights into aesthetics.
This shouldn't stop you from doing your own thing though if that's what floats your boat. Your vision is your vision. I don't have to like your images. If they work for you, then fine.
I have the same reaction to installations that incorporate nude models, e.g. Marina Abramovic at the MOMA.
I think 3 could safely be changed to "Just about anything in HDR"
It was a joke. The "two-in-one" was (1) in reference to my previous post in the thread, where I stated an irrational dislike of photos of people's families, and, of course, (2) a winking reference to my irrational dislike of Ken Rockwell. It wasn't meant to be taken personally.
More from me.
Photos taken with the lens cap on...
Photos that should have been taken with the lens cap on...
Off topic photos just to be a smart ass. Remember the monkey with the suggestive banana?
So far this thread has been fairly civil. We all have our opinions. Imagine what the responses would be if this was in the Community Discussion forum.
Dale
Photos taken with the lens cap on...
Photos that should have been taken with the lens cap on...
Off topic photos just to be a smart ass. Remember the monkey with the suggestive banana?
So far this thread has been fairly civil. We all have our opinions. Imagine what the responses would be if this was in the Community Discussion forum.
Dale
Yes I left it really open ended without the addition or separation of saying in their own homes for nude, certain events or the bath house which was not mixed genders. Just trying to give a quick sum it up as my sausages don't type fast so that reply had taken some time
I would like to add that the feeling of such actions in "bath houses" still exists today as if to imply a so what now back to the conversation, as odd as that sounds. Funny, didn't mean to imply nude was everywhere and tasteful back then just seemed a bit different view point and far from them posting online
I owe you an apology. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I know how much you hate Ken Rockwell from previous posts and I guess I got a little defensive on his behalf. Again, my apologies.
I've derailed this thread on many levels with my posts. This wasn't a discussion of aesthetics and I am sorry for taking it in that direction.
My only real pet-peeve with posts in this forum lies with the large number of landscape shots. This may well alienate some of the best photographers in this forum, but I have to say that I'm not a huge fan of landscapes. The only landscape photographer who "wows" me is Ansel Adams. Everyone else seems kind of "meh" in comparison.
I don't want to offend anyone. I REALLY don't want to offend anyone. But landscapes just don't do much for me (unless they are really, really well done). I'm not saying I could do anything better. I totally appreciate how hard it can be to create landscapes (money for a good body, good lens, good tripod setup; figuring out the proper exposure, waiting (and then waiting more) for just the right light). I totally understand the complexities of shooting landscapes. I would suck at it for various reasons and I couldn't compete with many here who decide to shoot them.
But at the end of the day I have to say that it is rare for me to see a landscape in this forum and say "wow, I would love a print of that to hang on my wall."
I'm not saying that my own images are anything special or that people view them and desire prints. Far from it. But my own personal pet-peeve with images in the POTD thread are the ubiquitous landscapes that don't really seem that compelling, aside from knowing how "challenging" it was to capture the image. I judge images on how they effect me viscerally, not on what was required to obtain them. Maybe I'm just not qualified to offer an opinion though.
OK, but the bit I quoted amounts to a pretty strong stance against criticism, regardless of the context.
Sorry I snipped out a bunch of what you wrote here; I could talk Greeks and Romans all day, but besides veering irretrievably off-topic, that would probably bore the heck out of everyone here.
So on to the last part: To use your own example of Picasso, if he had never advanced beyond his Blue Period, which was rather classical and in line with the 'rules', he never would have secured his towering position in the history books. I think that much was essentially the point you were making when you brought him up, so this latter statement of yours (about following the rules) kind of undermines what you had to say earlier. In other words, you don't need to follow the rules if you want other people to appreciate your work; you just need to do something particularly well.
By the way, I give two thumbs up on your summary of when it's good to break the rules: namely, when you're aware that you're breaking them, and you have a good reason for doing so.
Yeah, OK. I'm the one and only person in recent memory who has said anything about how challenging a particular landscape was to capture. Message received.
If Ansel Adams is the only nature photographer that wows you, then you haven't yet come across the work of the late Galen Rowell: http://www.mountainlight.com/ Check the featured artists on that site for even more examples of stunning photos.
I guess I'll jump in however it is to help out and not stir things up
So my background comes from being trained as a fine art painting major and I was blessed by having some great teachers at college to explain a few important lessons, rules and respect for the human body be it a woman or a man posing for you and your painting or a photo. I was taught that tasteful was in the way the body was not "used" but embraced for a composition (I think we all get that here). Most would consider a tasteful nude as pure appreciation of the human body itself and as it's form such as the subtle curves, angles and shadows it casts upon itself or light from the surrounding area which it shares.
This could range from not having most of the focus concentrated between the legs or only on the breasts, suggesting the form as tasteful and the only areas that matter without the reaction of think sex right away. Some will say tasteful would be having cloth of some sort over the private areas because most of the population can not and doesn't see the human form as a form but what we have been exposed to hearing from others. Example of non tasteful, and this is from some of my teachers because of the background of the artist would be some of Freuds work. I like his brush work, but most will scream he degrades, disrespects and demeans a human being and therefor destroys the form so that no one that sees this can get past that to see the techniques applied. Did he do this with everything, no, men, sometimes, women, a lot. Just an example…
I think that a tasteful nude conveys the subject being or showing empowerment at some core level that anyone could see even if they never studied art before. I agree some people feel different about what is tasteful and seem to confuse free will with tasteful and everyone has the right to…argument but over time the term tasteful in it's true sense has been lost as with many terms many times. Also, this is to me the biggest issue with tasteful, how is the photo used? Where, when and why. Take one photo and use it in a certain way, then that same photo that would be tasteful in every sense in the first place is now put in a less than desirable setting and because of only that placement it becomes polluted and is no longer what it started out as, tasteful. I also feel that people just (as you pointed out) do it for the effect of what will happen. We all know those disturbers of the peace a time or two in our life's journey.
Sure, you could have anyone sitting or laying there with clothes, a bed sheet or whatever but the only time I've heard a general consensus about a tasteful nude would be when a baby has a photo or painting taken/made. Is that only because we see them up to a certain point as pure (implying it's tasteful) and after some fictitious arbitrary age a human looses that quality? I think Maximillion had a photo in POTD of a baby that was by far the best I've ever seen. It was in every sense tasteful, beautiful and a human displaying only a form that a human can.
I always think back to the Roman and Greek times when people didn't where much and that in itself was considered tasteful as was laying around nude during those times. Since then as I said before, the word is what has been skewed and disconnected from the actions it was intended for.
You know a phone call would have been much easier for this, lol, but everyone has a different take and in the mean time I'll mutter to myself a "seriously" or "are you kidding me" when I see or hear the tastefully nude statement and it's another display of degrading for the shock value or to make a name for one's self.
Peace
Thanks a lot for taking the time to type up and share this, Artful Dodger.
You've explained, cleared up and drawn attention to some of the issues that were in my mind when originally posting, makes sense, I learnt something new.
While I'm an Adams fan, most of his landscapes needed a lot of post processing if you ever get a chance, the usual Adams exhibit is very eye-opening.
You might want to check out one of his protegés, William Neal at http://www.williamneill.com/ He's been producing technically and aesthetically pleasing work for years. If you have the $10, the digital download of Landscapes of the Spirit is well-worth it in my opinion.
Paul
I have no idea what you are talking about. I must have missed the shot to which you are referring. This wasn't aimed at you in particular at all.
I was merely saying: I understand landscapes can be hard to shoot. Despite that, the vast majority don't do anything for me. While I appreciate the time and effort people put into them, 99% of the time I walk away being underwhelmed. Likely because my artistic sense is underdeveloped or something.
FWIW, I enjoy reading the story behind the photograph, it doesn't change my opinion of the photograph itself but it doesn't need to, they go together hand in hand and provide an interesting (to me anyway, but I'm sure for others as well...) backdrop or context to the image, what was going on in the mind of the photographer?, what it would have been like to be there?, if you know what I mean...