Infiltration

hedd location: Ottawa, ON, CA Gender: Male \| \|	Re: On context (RANT) <Reply # 20 on 8/29/2006 4:03 PM >

	I wholeheartedly agree with thelean here - and don't misunderstand that to mean that I despise macro shots - but it seems there's a real glut of them in the work of some individuals. I've looked through half a dozen posts consisting entirely of macros and just not bothered to comment because... well, what can you say? "You did a really good job of standing 8 inches away from everything you saw"? I think a site has to be really bad (or the photographer really unimaginative) for you to come away from it with only macros. Like I said, I think they certainly have their place, but usually only as part of a greater whole. This isn't just the photo-journalistic bias coming out... more that I'm of the mind that when I see a UE photo I want to get just a little piece of that sense of awe you feel when you're in a really interesting abandonment. I'd argue that very, very few close-ups can give you that, unless they're in a set with other shots that provide the context for them. Now that I'm feeling all ranty, let me add something more controversial... And again the "this is MY personal opinion" disclaimer. I'd go as far as to say this: the more you can potentially critique about a photo, the more it can potentially be a truly great photo. This is what puts an upper limit on the "brilliance" of macros in my mind. In a close-up shot there isn't very much to critique, besides maybe their chosen angle and whether they used b&w or colour (I know someone is likely going to chime in here and point out several other factors, but whatever). In a larger composition there are dozens of elements at play. Someone who really knows what they're doing (i.e. not me) can really make the most of a good location with their setup of the shot - their choice of angle, foreground/background subjects, DOF, exposure, colours... even catching the perfect light at the perfect time of day - and create a truly impressive shot. I appreciate these types of compositions more because they're harder to do, and it's evident that one wrong choice somewhere could have ruined it. And that's what the critique forum is all about, isn't it? People saying "you messed up the exposure" or "I would have done this instead." Again, I'm not anti-macro, but they're just not usually as impressive because they're not that difficult to do. tron_2.0 hit it right on the head when he said "some people compensate for their lack of photographic experience by doing macros of some old dials or some panel." But that's just me. Flame away. - BG

Ian

This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
location:
The County of Kings
Gender: Male

"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water, and stupid men."

Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 21 on 8/29/2006 4:24 PM >

Posted by hedd
I think a site has to be really bad (or the photographer really unimaginative) for you to come away from it with only macros.

What about situations in which the photographer has been to the location in question a bazillion times, and is in the mood to do something different?

I'm of the mind that when I see a UE photo I want to get just a little piece of that sense of awe you feel when you're in a really interesting abandonment.

That's exactly the problem with this whole line of thought, in my opinion. What is a "UE photo"? When I go exploring, I take photos... but perhaps they're not "UE photos". Some of 'em are macros, some aren't, some are very concrete, some are not. I don't try to create "UE photos", I try to take photos I like - using "UE locations" as my materials, true, but not particularly to fall into a stereotypical category of photograph.

In a close-up shot there isn't very much to critique, besides maybe their chosen angle and whether they used b&w or colour (I know someone is likely going to chime in here and point out several other factors, but whatever).

If you're talking about people taking snapshots with the flower button on their P&S digital, sure.

However, some macro shots are really hard to pull off correctly; try using an extension bellows on a lens that's already 1:1 and see what I mean. Pushing the camera a hair's length completely blows the composition. Bad macros are among the easiest pictures to take, to be sure - but good macros take just as much work as any photo.

Below, I'll post one of my best macros - this shot took about 5 minutes to set up, and was an 8 minute exposure at dusk. It took forever to get the camera and tripod in position to frame this exactly how I wanted; then I had to diddle with my stops and a bright light to determine the DOF, et cetera. All to take a picture of a tiny little wire.

hedd

location:
Ottawa, ON, CA
Gender: Male

Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 22 on 8/29/2006 4:58 PM >

edit: fixed spacing.

Posted by Leviathan

What about situations in which the photographer has been to the location in question a bazillion times, and is in the mood to do something different?

Well there you go - if you've been there a bazillion times already you probably didn't come away with only macros on every occasion, right?

And that's fine. As I said, I enjoy sets the most when "Some of 'em are macros, some aren't, some are very concrete, some are not." You get a taste of everything. I was only griping about sets made up entirely of macros because I don't come out of it having any "feel" for the place. And if that's the photorapher's intention, fine - it just doesn't do it for me.

If you're talking about people taking snapshots with the flower button on their P&S digital, sure.

I am.

However, some macro shots are really hard to pull off correctly; try using an extension bellows on a lens that's already 1:1 and see what I mean. Pushing the camera a hair's length completely blows the composition. Bad macros are among the easiest pictures to take, to be sure - but good macros take just as much work as any photo.

Below, I'll post one of my best macros - this shot took about 5 minutes to set up, and was an 8 minute exposure at dusk. It took forever to get the camera and tripod in position to frame this exactly how I wanted; then I had to diddle with my stops and a bright light to determine the DOF, et cetera. All to take a picture of a tiny little wire.

See, that's a great photo, and it's apparent even without your description that a lot of effort went into it, and I can appreciate that. But if you posted a set with seven or eight of those, as cool as they might be, I'd be disappointed because I'd still have no idea what the place was like. It could be your backyard for all I know. Does it take away from the photo? No, but it's not as interesting for me viewing a set of "UE" photos.
[last edit 8/29/2006 5:00 PM by hedd - edited 1 times]

- BG

levacas

location:
Hamilton and KW
Gender: Female

Exploring the hidden, secret and forgotten nooks and crannies of society.

Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 23 on 9/2/2006 5:10 PM >

Posted by desmet
I think artists do it whatever way they feel speaks for them. It's up to the viewer to either respond to what they're seeing, or not.

I agree with this. Also, I think that no matter what your shooting at what angle or how close, it has its own feel. But you cant look at them and say they lack 'emotion' or substance. Theres artists out there who paint a canvass a single color and call it art, I could shit on a canvass and someone would probably buy it, but theres going to be someone who is going to be moved by it. And so long as people are being moved by my 'emotionless' pictures. Im going to keep taking them.
[last edit 9/2/2006 5:14 PM by levacas - edited 1 times]

A Steel town girl is not afraid to get dirty

thelean

location:
Philly
Gender: Male

"yeah it looks like two models buts its actually a vegetarian and a girl"

Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 24 on 9/3/2006 7:55 PM >

Posted by levacas

I could shit on a canvass and someone would probably buy it, but theres going to be someone who is going to be moved by it.

What the hell are you saying?!! This statement does not help to prove your point it just further proves the point that most people are fucking stupid.It is also a pretty good reminder that there is bad fucking art!!! To all of you idiots out there that think all art is great- Shitting on a canvas is bad art! I dont care how you look at it, the only person that should be interested at all by shit on a canvas is a fetishist. No real artist would ever feel moved by a shit covered piece of cloth stretched over a wooden frame. Instead of making any critical points what most of you always seem to say is (the typical) "eye of the beholder, opinion opinion, art is subjective, blah blah blah etc"...im so sick of that shitty copout.. you guys are selling yourselves short. Art takes mastery and art is not just some crap you regurgitate out in your spare time. To all of you who made good points (leviathan, hedd, desmet, micro) thanks. To Levacas, Mutanmandias and Drawnaway ...grow up.
[last edit 9/3/2006 8:01 PM by thelean - edited 1 times]

"really must suck to be the grandmother of an MM model, they die over and over" - don reynolds

MutantMandias

Perverse and Often Baffling
location:
Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male

Are you a reporter? Contact me for a UE interview! Also not averse to the the idea of group/anal.

Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 25 on 9/4/2006 7:36 AM >

Posted by thelean
blah blah blah

You said that recent photos "lack any emotion and fail to give a sense of the places they are taken at."

You said that, "It is only when the objects are placed in context that they prove to be interesting."

You said that, "I want to see that object placed in its environment.... This allows the mind to wander and creates a much more vivid picture."

I said that that is your opinion. What I refrained from saying (and shouldn't have) is that your opinion is idiotic. If you want to see pictures that show whole environments and allow your mind to wander, then fine, search out those pictures and appreciate them. Not everyone on earth, and not even everyone on here, is interested in only what you want to see.

Some people like to capture beauty and create art. The set of things that are beautiful and moving and emotive is larger than what you apparently like. It doesn't mean that photographs that don't meet your likes are lacking. It means that you lack an appreciation for them.

I apologize for the insulting things that I said. I have a bad sinus infection and feel crummy. I am still of the opinion that you are a worthless piece of shit who needs a painful ass fucking, but I regret having said so.

mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias

mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being

Ian

This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
location:
The County of Kings
Gender: Male

"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water, and stupid men."

Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 26 on 9/4/2006 1:20 PM >

Posted by MutantMandias

...blah blah blah...

I said that that is your opinion.

...blah blah blah...

Posted by thelean, many responses ago - emphasis mine

I agree with most of what you are saying but it still comes down to a matter of opinion which I obviously was stating when I started this thread.

Now see, in general, when engaging in debate with mature adults, one tends to be more convincing when one makes rational, reasonable, respectfully stated points, as opposed to throwing around phrases like "Fuck you. Painfully in the ass. You piece of shit." Not only does your point stick better, but you come off like an intellegent member of our species.

On the other hand, you come off like a four-year-old who was awakened too early from his mid-day nap. At no point have your arguments resembled rational discourse. And as for...

I apologize for the insulting things that I said. I have a bad sinus infection and feel crummy.

...all I can do is remind you that this defense did not work:

Now kindly go away.

levacas

location:
Hamilton and KW
Gender: Female

Exploring the hidden, secret and forgotten nooks and crannies of society.

Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 27 on 9/4/2006 2:02 PM >

Posted by MutantMandias

Some people like to capture beauty and create art. The set of things that are beautiful and moving and emotive is larger than what you apparently like. It doesn't mean that photographs that don't meet your likes are lacking. It means that you lack an appreciation for them.

I apologize for the insulting things that I said. I have a bad sinus infection and feel crummy. I am still of the opinion that you are a worthless piece of shit who needs a painful ass fucking, but I regret having said so.

Id dont take back anything that I said, just that I should have better expressed myself. I just couldnt quite get my point across very well. The statement that mutant made was more or less in the direction I was TRYING to go in. I think I have an incapability to just say things so they make sense.
As for the insults...I dont care. everyone has an opinion. Mine, as I said, just wasnt, expressed properly. However, I will go fuck myself painfully in the ass, and grow up when everyone else can handle this discussion like mature adults.

A Steel town girl is not afraid to get dirty

MutantMandias

Perverse and Often Baffling
location:
Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male

Are you a reporter? Contact me for a UE interview! Also not averse to the the idea of group/anal.

Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 28 on 9/4/2006 3:12 PM >

Posted by Leviathan
blah blah drivel blah blah

My only interaction in this thread before thelean told me to grow up was pointing out that his post was a matter of opinion, because he had very conspicuously neglected to mention that it was opinion. His phrasing very clearly indicated that if he didn't like a photograph, it was crap.

Posted by thelean, initial post- emphasis mine
Macros, close ups and basically any shot that is focused on one small piece of an instrument or object fail to show us anything about the place that they exist in. It is only when the objects are placed in context that they prove to be interesting. Textures are fun but they get old real quick. I would go as far as to say that (in this type of photography) even great composition cant save a photo that doesnt tell/reveal anything about what you are looking at. I want to see that object placed in its enviroment. So we can wonder how it was left there and why. This allows the mind to wander and creates a much more vivid picture.

I noted that a some of his generic statements which he applied to all living beings and how they interpret art, should be modified to show that they only reflect his opinion.

Then, as you point out, many posts later he agrees with me that it is his opinion.

And then he tells me to grow up.

And by the way,

Posted by Leviathan
At no point have your arguments resembled rational discourse.

You're wrong. The only argument I have made in this thread was the one which you replied to. It was rational, and I was correct. He stated his opinion, implying that it was objective fact. I pointed out that it was his opinion. He later concurred.

Until then, there had been no need for an argument. I was just pointing out the obvious, which he had neglected to do. At first it wasn't apparent if his post came across that way because of a poor ability to communicate, or if he actually believed it as he wrote it. Turns out he does realize that it's just his opinion. That is teh awesome. YAY! Glad to be of service.

Mr.Coffee location: Coming to a theatre near you! Gender: Male Everyone agrees, I'm Rad. \| \| \|	Re: On context (RANT) <Reply # 29 on 9/8/2006 7:02 PM >

	I think you might be confused as to which definition of "flaming" we're using. Coming To a Theatre Near You!

dundertits location: at the beginning Cave Cave Deus Videt \|	Re: On context (RANT) <Reply # 30 on 9/8/2006 9:34 PM >

	goddammitt I love you coffee... Kabbalah is an undramatic tradition that requires great patience and stability. One of the reasons for this tempo is that everyone has to mature his potential gradually and thoroughly at his natural pace. In this way his life's work unfolds at the right moment in his own and the cosmos's time. Z.B.S. Halevi -- Kabbalah

Scaggs Gender: Male \|	Re: On context (RANT) <Reply # 31 on 9/8/2006 11:36 PM >

	I seem to remember Leviathan running out of the Moundsville prison like a screaming bitch because my boy Greg was about 2 seconds from whipping his ass for attempting to steal objects from the prison. Hmm....

dundertits location: at the beginning Cave Cave Deus Videt \|	Re: On context (RANT) <Reply # 32 on 9/8/2006 11:44 PM >

	I didn't see that but I am sure spiderman could take him....... Kabbalah is an undramatic tradition that requires great patience and stability. One of the reasons for this tempo is that everyone has to mature his potential gradually and thoroughly at his natural pace. In this way his life's work unfolds at the right moment in his own and the cosmos's time. Z.B.S. Halevi -- Kabbalah

Scaggs Gender: Male \|	Re: On context (RANT) <Reply # 33 on 9/9/2006 12:31 PM >

	Anybody could take a 98lb emo dude.

Scaggs

Gender: Male

Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 34 on 9/9/2006 12:33 PM >

Posted by thelean
Ok so im sure im gonna get flamed for this one but I have been noticing that a ton of the photos showing up on these photo boards lately lack any emotion and fail to give a sense of the places they are taken at. Macros, close ups and basically any shot that is focused on one small piece of an instrument or object fail to show us anything about the place that they exist in. It is only when the objects are placed in context that they prove to be interesting. Textures are fun but they get old real quick. I would go as far as to say that (in this type of photography) even great composition cant save a photo that doesnt tell/reveal anything about what you are looking at. I want to see that object placed in its enviroment. So we can wonder how it was left there and why. This allows the mind to wander and creates a much more vivid picture.
-JO

Back to the original post.

What if I take pictures for me and me alone?

Isn't art subjective?

And who sets the guidelines for photography?

hydrotherapy Clever Girl location: Circle of Least Confusion RPS is inside all of us \| \|	Re: On context (RANT) <Reply # 35 on 9/9/2006 2:57 PM >

	This thread seems to have been derailed from its destination toward "Intelligent-Thought Land" and changed over toward the ever-popular town of "Shit-Can-Be-Art-ville." You can argue what is or isn't art until the damned cows come home. It won't be resolved, people will always hold (for whatever reasons) often violently divergent opinions, ranging from "art is art" to "crap on a canvas and sell it". Piero Manzoni already canned his crap in honor of Duchamp- so it's been done. Everything has been done. Maybe three years of art school has jaded me, but while I appreciate the conversation this thread was meant to inspire- I don't see a point to it. These discussions always, inevitably, end up going down the same path. No one agrees, people get angry, make stupid comments about color field painting or Jackson Pollock or poop in relation to art, and ad nauseum. Take pictures you enjoy. Look at pictures you enjoy. That's the long and the short of it. Get down, girl, go 'head, get down.

dundertits

location:
at the beginning

Cave Cave Deus Videt

Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 36 on 9/9/2006 3:20 PM >

Posted by hydrotherapy
This thread seems to have been derailed from its destination toward "Intelligent-Thought Land" and changed over toward the ever-popular town of "Shit-Can-Be-Art-ville."

You can argue what is or isn't art until the damned cows come home. It won't be resolved, people will always hold (for whatever reasons) often violently divergent opinions, ranging from "art is art" to "crap on a canvas and sell it". Piero Manzoni already canned his crap in honor of Duchamp- so it's been done. Everything has been done. Maybe three years of art school has jaded me, but while I appreciate the conversation this thread was meant to inspire- I don't see a point to it. These discussions always, inevitably, end up going down the same path.

No one agrees, people get angry, make stupid comments about color field painting or Jackson Pollock or poop in relation to art, and ad nauseum.

Take pictures you enjoy. Look at pictures you enjoy. That's the long and the short of it.

well...thank god you cleared that up mandiasyoumakemehot I was worried there for a minute..

Kabbalah is an undramatic tradition that requires great patience and stability. One of the reasons for this tempo is that everyone has to mature his potential gradually and thoroughly at his natural pace. In this way his life's work unfolds at the right moment in his own and the cosmos's time.
Z.B.S. Halevi -- Kabbalah

Infiltration Forums > Archived UE Photo Critiques > On context (RANT) (Viewed 1177 times)

Page: < 1 2