Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Art Theory: Idea workshop.

Art Theory: Idea workshop. Warning, not the truth here, just a venture. Examining what makes an image worthy of saving and what it does for us.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 18th, 2016, 11:51 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,769
Default If "The 3rd Element in Photography" renders it "exceptional" how is this achieved?

The term "Third Element" was used in early Soviet Revolutionary Russia to cover those trained artists, economists, mathematicians and technocrats who together with appointed and elected officials allowed the system to flourish and expand.

In photography first Use of such a "3rd element" concept addressed "ISO" or sensitivity to light of film emulsion. Then, for others it was conceived to be the "realization of the forms and composition of the photograph to a final print with an artfull and dynamically distributed set of tonalities and texture. That time has passed. Sometimes the photograph is not printed but may be shown on a screen. Still the "realization" is a stage of production, but often done in software.

Une the 21st century, we now still refer, (see post #5) to a "3rd element" in photography. It seems to represent some essential nuance or motif that has to be present to transform a well-crafted composition to one that transcends "what it is" to be super-magnetic, worthy and worth calling attention to.

So do you have any individual images or sets by any photographer you can post here to explain what this 3rd element might be?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old September 18th, 2016, 12:08 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,769
Default

For example, in this successful picture by Dr. Klaus Schmitt, is the ladybug on the petal the "3rd element" that makes the pictures so special to us?

Does this in fact being in social parameters we can identify with, such as "community"?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old September 18th, 2016, 02:31 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,789
Default

I checked the cited threads. Basically, your question boils down to "what makes a seemingly abstract composition interesting and another one a simple juxtaposition of shapes and colours?". Do you really expect an answer?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old September 18th, 2016, 04:21 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I checked the cited threads. Basically, your question boils down to "what makes a seemingly abstract composition interesting and another one a simple juxtaposition of shapes and colours?". Do you really expect an answer?
Well not just abstract compositions, Jerome!

How does one transform a picture of a bowl of fruit to be more than a technically well arranged and exposed composition? How do we make a portrait to be more than that particular person?

Why is the Vietnam "naplam girl" picture so epic, or was the obvious horror and pain of an innocent child sufficient to enshrine its iconic status?

Perhaps then we ought to exclude such obviously searingly memorable pictures from our discussion, as the inhumanity is itself unforgettable.

But say just a picture of an abandoned child's red scooter by a post war housing complex, what makes it transcend the simple composition it really is?

Is there a "3rd factor" present?

It would be good to hear various ideas on going from "ordinary" and merely competent and pretty to exceptional. There's not going to be a universal answer, but hearing concrete examples, we may approach a more universal understanding or even a set of suggestions.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old September 19th, 2016, 12:08 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,789
Default

My take on this question, which I think I have explained before, is that a photograph needs to cause the viewer to experience feelings.

For portraits or any picture involving human beings, "causing feelings" is something which comes naturally, because we naturally experience empathy as social animals. Basically, the photographer needs to be linked emotionally to the model for this to work.

For abstract pictures, the feelings come from a kind of resonance between the patterns and colours and the way the human brain operates. Think how abstract music (e.g. J.S. Bach fugues) operates. And as there are theories for music (harmony and counterpoint), there are theories for colour and composition. The theories have been applied for centuries and generally work, but for music and for pictures, the theories are not complete in the sense of applying them will not directly produce a masterpiece. Of course.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old September 19th, 2016, 12:35 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
My take on this question, which I think I have explained before, is that a photograph needs to cause the viewer to experience feelings.

For portraits or any picture involving human beings, "causing feelings" is something which comes naturally, because we naturally experience empathy as social animals. Basically, the photographer needs to be linked emotionally to the model for this to work.

For abstract pictures, the feelings come from a kind of resonance between the patterns and colours and the way the human brain operates. Think how abstract music (e.g. J.S. Bach fugues) operates. And as there are theories for music (harmony and counterpoint), there are theories for colour and composition. The theories have been applied for centuries and generally work, but for music and for pictures, the theories are not complete in the sense of applying them will not directly produce a masterpiece. Of course.
Thanks Jerome for your angle on this. It's complex as you describe it, but quite logical. I appreciate very much your attempt eat identifying some of the factors.

Does this then cover what propels one haystack to distinction, (putting aside the famous name of the artist).

When we add a factor such as time of day, angle of the sun, wind blown grass and plants and the like are these all working on the same circuits of color and form patterns our brains react to innately?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old September 19th, 2016, 01:34 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Humans don't 'have' feelings in the same way we have legs and arms. Feelings are a reaction, chemical and psychological, to an event, external and internal.

Viewing a photo is an external stimulus that can be internalised by association with thoughts and memories of the viewer. There is no physical or telepathic connection between the photographer and the viewer. (Unless you believe in that sort of thing).

Any '3rd' whatever is a consequence of the viewer's reaction. This reaction may be weak to strong depending on the experiences and associations the viewer places on the viewing at the time of viewing.

This awarding of some special feature to an image is incredibly subjective and variable.
The images of the vietnam war had a huge impact on those who experienced it and were conscious of the politics, devastation and inhumanity on both sides of the conflict. Some view with disgust, others with pride, even some might see this as justice. Raising the image to iconic levels is fraught with ideology.

The example of the Doc's flower is one that does nothing for me but a passing comment I'll keep to myself.

I often refer to images that result in a collective sigh of admiration as 'chimp pictures'; ie, people make the sound of a chimp at their first glance.

Perhaps that's what photography is brought down to: a bunch of chimps all reacting at once.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old September 19th, 2016, 02:09 AM
Paul Abbott Paul Abbott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: W. Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
Default

It's a big subject...In my view, Bresson used it in his street photography, there are always third elements in his photographs, it's not just about his subject but what is going on around him/her/ it and the characteristics involved too. He must have had his fair share of serendipitous moments too.

In regard to a still life photograph, for instance a vase on a table, the vase in itself is boring no matter how highly decorated, but if a third element was included, something that contrasted, related or juxtaposed etc., then then the scene/ study becomes more interesting.
Third elements can be absolutely anything, light, shadows, colour, objects etc. like you say, things that add a certain power and influence to a scene. Things that make a photograph unique and great and is set apart from the rest.
Another thing...adding a third element to your photographs shows that you are thinking and trying to frame and create something more important, and looking to elicit a response and providing more food for thought for the viewer. This is what shows a unique eye and studying viewpoint and it is what allows us to relate and get across what we are trying to communicate in a photograph.
To me, it represents showing a more proactive approach to photography too...

Anyway, for me it's a massive subject and all depends on the scene photographed...And then of course there is 'analogy'.
__________________
http://paulyrichard.wordpress.com/ "In fact I don't believe there is such a thing as a definitive picture of something. The land is a living, breathing thing and light changes its character every second of every day." - Fay Godwin "All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt

Last edited by Paul Abbott; September 19th, 2016 at 05:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old September 19th, 2016, 07:42 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,558
Default

Hi, Tom,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
Humans don't 'have' feelings in the same way we have legs and arms. Feelings are a reaction, chemical and psychological, to an event, external and internal.

Viewing a photo is an external stimulus that can be internalised by association with thoughts and memories of the viewer. There is no physical or telepathic connection between the photographer and the viewer. (Unless you believe in that sort of thing).

Any '3rd' whatever is a consequence of the viewer's reaction. This reaction may be weak to strong depending on the experiences and associations the viewer places on the viewing at the time of viewing.

This awarding of some special feature to an image is incredibly subjective and variable.
The images of the vietnam war had a huge impact on those who experienced it and were conscious of the politics, devastation and inhumanity on both sides of the conflict. Some view with disgust, others with pride, even some might see this as justice. Raising the image to iconic levels is fraught with ideology.

The example of the Doc's flower is one that does nothing for me but a passing comment I'll keep to myself.

I often refer to images that result in a collective sigh of admiration as 'chimp pictures'; ie, people make the sound of a chimp at their first glance.

Perhaps that's what photography is brought down to: a bunch of chimps all reacting at once.
Thank you.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old September 19th, 2016, 10:09 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Does this then cover what propels one haystack to distinction, (putting aside the famous name of the artist).

When we add a factor such as time of day, angle of the sun, wind blown grass and plants and the like are these all working on the same circuits of color and form patterns our brains react to innately?

I don't understand your question. Can you please rephrase it?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old September 20th, 2016, 11:17 PM
Andy brown Andy brown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
I often refer to images that result in a collective sigh of admiration as 'chimp pictures'; ie, people make the sound of a chimp at their first glance.
I'm fantastic at making chimp noises Tom (I also do a good version of Michael Cain, the queen a pirate etc.).

Turns out I have lots of variations of chimp noises and do make them involuntarily when looking at photos.

With yours, I sometimes make a soft scraping sound as I scratch my 3 day growth and try to work out why they 'work'.

I think chimp noises are a great thing, they mean the image has created a reaction of some kind and that's always a good starting point.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old September 20th, 2016, 11:41 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I don't understand your question. Can you please rephrase it?
Jerome,

I wonder whether our reactions are innate or are based on some hierarchy of combinations of innate reactions or whether our responses are merely cultural responses to social fashion learned as part of a particular set of esthetics.

So for a very Orthodox Jew, a home ordered around being kosher would be more "beautiful" and impressive or a picture of an "haystack" in France at the time of Monet, would be deemed valuable and demanding of attention since it was the fashion to admire the countryside.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old September 21st, 2016, 12:46 AM
Paul Abbott Paul Abbott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: W. Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy brown View Post

I think chimp noises are a great thing, they mean the image has created a reaction of some kind and that's always a good starting point.



I tend to make human sounds with a feeling of being thrilled and inspired deep down inside, all at the same time...and then comes the analysis and the thinking on how the photograph works with all it's elements...and to submit these things to my subconscious.
__________________
http://paulyrichard.wordpress.com/ "In fact I don't believe there is such a thing as a definitive picture of something. The land is a living, breathing thing and light changes its character every second of every day." - Fay Godwin "All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old September 21st, 2016, 03:56 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy brown View Post
I'm fantastic at making chimp noises Tom (I also do a good version of Michael Cain, the queen a pirate etc.).

Turns out I have lots of variations of chimp noises and do make them involuntarily when looking at photos.

With yours, I sometimes make a soft scraping sound as I scratch my 3 day growth and try to work out why they 'work'.

I think chimp noises are a great thing, they mean the image has created a reaction of some kind and that's always a good starting point.
Why, thank you, Andy.
Do you do a Michael Cain better than Michael Cain? That's the true test.
When I view your photos I sigh in despair at your ability to capture the one part of Australia that I do not have access to. You do it with grace. Only the true love of another holds me at a distance. Yours are porn for my coastal eyes.
Of course, my chimp reference was a corollary to the " monkeys typing Shakespeare' reference.
In addition, my observation of chimps is that when one starts rooting, so do the rest.

I declare I'm going to turn up at your doorstep one day. I need a therapeutic walk on the sand.

Xx
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old September 21st, 2016, 05:48 PM
Andy brown Andy brown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
Why, thank you, Andy.
Do you do a Michael Cain better than Michael Cain? That's the true test.
When I view your photos I sigh in despair at your ability to capture the one part of Australia that I do not have access to. You do it with grace. Only the true love of another holds me at a distance. Yours are porn for my coastal eyes.
Of course, my chimp reference was a corollary to the " monkeys typing Shakespeare' reference.
In addition, my observation of chimps is that when one starts rooting, so do the rest.

I declare I'm going to turn up at your doorstep one day. I need a therapeutic walk on the sand.

Xx

Of course, Michael Cain does a sh!t Michael Cain.
At a party recently one of my idiot mates was trying to get me to sing along to Stairway to friggin' heaven for god's sake. I did but did the whole song in the voice of Michael Cain. I actually enlisted another half a dozen to join me, all in their Michael Cain voices...best stairway to heaven has ever sounded.

Tom, you're welcome anytime. I'll make the same threat, one day I'll turn up. I love Darwin (even though it didn't love me).
I'm actually venturing North next week (bring on the warmth, Spring started beautifully and has gone cool and shitty...yeah, yeah, we need the rain). I'm in Brisvegas for a few nights then points north culminating with a week on Heron Island, smack bang in the middle of the reef, I'm drooling already.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 12:10 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
I wonder whether our reactions are innate or are based on some hierarchy of combinations of innate reactions or whether our responses are merely cultural responses to social fashion learned as part of a particular set of esthetics.
Our reactions appear to be based to a combination of both, since there are elements of aesthetics which are common across all cultures yet a range of variations between cultures.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 01:03 AM
Paul Abbott Paul Abbott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: W. Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
Default

I think our reactions are innate only up to a certain extent. Initially they're geared up to spot and notice a certain simplistic beauty and to loath a certain ugliness in all it's forms. Anything in between requires a certain understanding and once that happens it can therefore attune and develop our minds, and open us up to seeing a more or different quintessential and fundamental design.
__________________
http://paulyrichard.wordpress.com/ "In fact I don't believe there is such a thing as a definitive picture of something. The land is a living, breathing thing and light changes its character every second of every day." - Fay Godwin "All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 01:45 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

I'm not sure where to reply here.

The link to Robert Watcher's 'Doors' (http://www.openphotographyforums.com...ad.php?t=20776) struck a nerve or chord somewhere (or it might be the remnants of Man Flu).

Firstly, its possible that the Third Element is a metaphor for something quite indistinguishable and undefinable. Like God, it requires a level of faith in a number of things before it can be 'verified', although, at this stage, I would consider it non-existent in reality but worthy of a short discussion on what some 'see' in a photo and others just see.

As with Andy and the Doors (not the musical group. They had fock -all in regard to any special features), I'm inclined to take any photograph at face value on first look and work my way up from there.
In this way I'm more confident in recognising the photo for what it is worth to ME. Since the rest of the planet has no taste at all, that's all I can rely on and maintain any sanity.

Looking for a Third Element might be compared to looking for fairies in the garden: we can talk about them, even describe them, but don't rely too much on them mowing the lawn.

Paul's approach is much more concrete. He's looking for a thing, a structure, a component that makes a difference. But that is deceptive because what he considers important for a metaphysical reaction from himself may not and probably won't apply to others who seek higher ground.

What I would encourage for all of us is to examine those photographs that WE as individuals consider worthy of a second and third look, worthy of being talked about ot thought about, worthy of our notice, not as a society but as individuals. In this way we can directly relate the image to our own thoughts.

Then and only then do we share those thoughts with others and not judge or criticise but listen. This is the Third Element. The unseen layer is the story behind the image, the context in which it was recorded, the political impact, the drama recorded, the pathos and despair we might relate to or feel, the hunger we have seen, the delight we have been part of, the memories it might carry or bring to the surface. When there is enough of this and there are enough people to recognise this, the image becomes just a little more than a print on paper. But its not something you can 'see' and often it is not something that is always included purposefully.
Nor is it anything that is missing because the Third Element is brought in from outside the parameters of the image. It is beyond the frame, not within it. It may even be why we find photography so interesting. Visual stimuli are powerful enough but when they trigger emotions within us that power is magnified.
Have you ever felt a tear welling or a lump in your throat or the goose-bumps rise on the back of your neck at the sight of an image? I'm sure you have (or you're dead from the shoulders up). And have you ever been the only person in the room who feels that emotion so strongly? If you haven't you need to get a life.
Thats the Third Element! Its the indefinable quality within yourself that allows you to react they way you do. There are some things we probably all have in common. Although I'm missing a few of the common reactions I often find myself choking up at an image, especially my own. That doesnt imply 'good' or 'better than the rest'; its just me being a sook.

Some Days I'm like that.

Paul likes things his way. He wants to feel the reaction that come to him easily and regularly. Trouble is, Pau, we ain't all Paul Abbott.

And, no, youre not being constructive; you're being focking annoying.

xxx
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 03:50 AM
Paul Abbott Paul Abbott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: W. Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post

Paul's approach is much more concrete. He's looking for a thing, a structure, a component that makes a difference. But that is deceptive because what he considers important for a metaphysical reaction from himself may not and probably won't apply to others who seek higher ground.


Paul likes things his way. He wants to feel the reaction that come to him easily and regularly. Trouble is, Pau, we ain't all Paul Abbott.

And, no, youre not being constructive; you're being focking annoying.

I think on the whole i'm in a far better place and not suffering like you which clearly you look like you are most of the time with your comments. It would be right and proper if you asked a question or two about others ideals, perspectives and viewpoints, instead of this lambasting and inimical approach.

I hardly see any positive comments from you on anyone else's work. Your just too ill-disposed it seems to me. If you think i'm annoying, you need to take a look in the mirror, mate!
__________________
http://paulyrichard.wordpress.com/ "In fact I don't believe there is such a thing as a definitive picture of something. The land is a living, breathing thing and light changes its character every second of every day." - Fay Godwin "All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 04:53 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Abbott View Post
I think on the whole i'm in a far better place and not suffering like you which clearly you look like you are most of the time with your comments. It would be right and proper if you asked a question or two about others ideals, perspectives and viewpoints, instead of this lambasting and inimical approach.

I hardly see any positive comments from you on anyone else's work. Your just too ill-disposed it seems to me. If you think i'm annoying, you need to take a look in the mirror, mate!
Don't make an assumption that I am your mate, Paul

I suffer little. The arthritis gets me down from time to time. Beyond that I'm OK. Thanks for asking.

Like you, I state what comes to mind. You like to tell others what they should include in their photos so that you are pleased with the results.

II'm more inclined to tell you to mind your ways so I can enjoy the pictures.

I'm content with criticising you than the images I see here.

So, what's the difference?

If you stand by your comments, then allow others to stand by theirs.

Disagree, by all means, but don't get snotty about it because I disagree with you.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 05:00 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Abbott View Post
I think on the whole i'm in a far better place and not suffering like you which clearly you look like you are most of the time with your comments. It would be right and proper if you asked a question or two about others ideals, perspectives and viewpoints, instead of this lambasting and inimical approach.

I hardly see any positive comments from you on anyone else's work. Your just too ill-disposed it seems to me. If you think i'm annoying, you need to take a look in the mirror, mate!
On a positive note, Paul, I do enjoy looking at your photos, especially those of the English landscape. I have walked many of those paths and your images bring back many fond memories.

Don't change a thing. I can enjoy them just the way they are\, even if they are not as I might have taken them.

XXX
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 05:46 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Abbott View Post
I think on the whole i'm in a far better place and not suffering like you which clearly you look like you are most of the time with your comments. It would be right and proper if you asked a question or two about others ideals, perspectives and viewpoints, instead of this lambasting and inimical approach.

I hardly see any positive comments from you on anyone else's work. Your just too ill-disposed it seems to me. If you think i'm annoying, you need to take a look in the mirror, mate!
On another note, I went to all that trouble of discussing the topic, whatever it was, I don't remember now, and all you can do is pick out the bits that relate to you.

What's that about, Paul?

I was being serious. I don't often get serious. Its hard work for me to be serious. I have to think of big words and stuff. I even have to pull back on my sarcasm, although that doesn't work all that well.

Every day I'm pissed off at how good people are at taking pictures. It annoys me immensely.
I'd love to be able to take pictures like other people. But I can't. So I cry into my pillow each night and think terrible thoughts about those who can do better than me. There are so many out there who can.

I even think I'm wasting my time taking pictures in the first place. What's the point, I ask myself.
Maybe I should ask you.
C'mon, PAul. Tell me what i need to do to be a better photographer.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 07:10 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
Every day I'm pissed off at how good people are at taking pictures. It annoys me immensely.
Fortunately, that is easily solved by a quick trip to 500pix, flickr or any Internet photo site, since the average poster rarely produces anything beyond clichés in garish colours with saturation and contrast upped to the max.

Yes, I am being facetious. You need to cheer up.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 07:28 AM
Paul Abbott Paul Abbott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: W. Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
Default

I'm easy, mate! I don't enforce anything onto others, I am just trying to give an idea on what might be needed to make a photograph more interesting. I'm looking at photographs day in and day out and I know what is interesting and what is not. We all work towards what we know and are let down by what we don't know.

This thread has gone mad. Everyone seems to only be talking about people's reactions to photographs. I'm on the side of the photographer and the importance in creating interesting photography by way of including these 3rd elements.

Anyway, it's all kind of moot really. There's those that do and those that don't, it all sets us apart, for good or ill.

If you want to be a better photographer, fart before each picture you take, close one eye when viewing a scene, if it still looks as good as using both your eyes then cool, fire the shutter. Being in the right place at the right time and having a little luck on your side will work a treat too. Oh, and don't forget those third elements also.
__________________
http://paulyrichard.wordpress.com/ "In fact I don't believe there is such a thing as a definitive picture of something. The land is a living, breathing thing and light changes its character every second of every day." - Fay Godwin "All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 05:50 PM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
Fortunately, that is easily solved by a quick trip to 500pix, flickr or any Internet photo site, since the average poster rarely produces anything beyond clichés in garish colours with saturation and contrast upped to the max.

Yes, I am being facetious. You need to cheer up.
I am cheery, Jerome.
You should hear me when I'm miserable!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 05:55 PM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Abbott View Post
I'm easy, mate! I don't enforce anything onto others, I am just trying to give an idea on what might be needed to make a photograph more interesting. I'm looking at photographs day in and day out and I know what is interesting and what is not. We all work towards what we know and are let down by what we don't know.

This thread has gone mad. Everyone seems to only be talking about people's reactions to photographs. I'm on the side of the photographer and the importance in creating interesting photography by way of including these 3rd elements.

Anyway, it's all kind of moot really. There's those that do and those that don't, it all sets us apart, for good or ill.

If you want to be a better photographer, fart before each picture you take, close one eye when viewing a scene, if it still looks as good as using both your eyes then cool, fire the shutter. Being in the right place at the right time and having a little luck on your side will work a treat too. Oh, and don't forget those third elements also.
He, he , Jerome!

All in good natured discourse.

We do see things differently and we do take different pictures. I have great satisfaction looking at yours.

I couldn't improve on them if I wanted to., although ..........
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 06:56 PM
Robert Watcher Robert Watcher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: El Salvador / Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,174
Default

This post is hilarious.

I'm just so glad that all I worry about is taking photographs each and every day, that satisfy me - that are purchased by the very few who value my work enough to pay quite good money for it (so that I can continue to live and enjoy my exotic lifestyle) - and ones that have been requested on the odd occasion by Universities around the world for inclusion in their curriculums because of their unique content.

All this silly banter back and forth is one of the reasons that I never joined "Professional Associations" when I was in the prime of my business 30 plus years ago. I don't want to be involved in something that can't be won. I don't want to be jaded by someones opinion. Who are they!

On the subject of this thread - whether I use a 1'st Element or a 21'st Element in my images - if they look good and are compelling visually, I have satisfied my desire to use my camera as a creative tool. I am a realist though and fully recognize that what I create will not be appreciated by everyone.

But I do recognize that some people just like to talk and try and convince people of how intelligent or important they are. I am fine with that also. Peace to you all. Thanks for the humour today. LOL

PS: only got involved because it appears that this thread is a residuum of one of my recent posts.

--------
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old September 23rd, 2016, 09:37 PM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Watcher View Post
This post is hilarious.

I'm just so glad that all I worry about is taking photographs each and every day, that satisfy me - that are purchased by the very few who value my work enough to pay quite good money for it (so that I can continue to live and enjoy my exotic lifestyle) - and ones that have been requested on the odd occasion by Universities around the world for inclusion in their curriculums because of their unique content.

All this silly banter back and forth is one of the reasons that I never joined "Professional Associations" when I was in the prime of my business 30 plus years ago. I don't want to be involved in something that can't be won. I don't want to be jaded by someones opinion. Who are they!

On the subject of this thread - whether I use a 1'st Element or a 21'st Element in my images - if they look good and are compelling visually, I have satisfied my desire to use my camera as a creative tool. I am a realist though and fully recognize that what I create will not be appreciated by everyone.

But I do recognize that some people just like to talk and try and convince people of how intelligent or important they are. I am fine with that also. Peace to you all. Thanks for the humour today. LOL

PS: only got involved because it appears that this thread is a residuum of one of my recent posts.

--------
Glad you find it funny, Robert. At least one person gets the purpose of my sarcasm.
I'm with you on those "professional associations". What would they know? At least you can recognize a good photo when you see one, especially when it's one of your own photos.
I'm not one of the few who purchase your pictures although I might if I had enough money and valued supporting your exotic lifestyle. Then again, I'm too busy supporting my own.

I'm not sure how thin your "odd photos" can spread to "universities around the world" perhaps it was part of a franchise. Obviously I wasn't impressed enough to include any of your photos in the curricula I wrote for the universities and schools I worked in. Never mind. Maybe next time.

So, you continue to take your compelling pictures and I'll keep dreaming up things to talk about that don't interest you. That way we have something in common.

Cheers
Xx
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old September 24th, 2016, 12:59 AM
Paul Abbott Paul Abbott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: W. Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Watcher View Post

But I do recognize that some people just like to talk and try and convince people of how intelligent or important they are.

PS: only got involved because it appears that this thread is a residuum of one of my recent posts.

--------
I hope you don't tar me with that brush, Robert. I'm not saying anything that is other than what I consider to be a normal and practical approach. Me, important? If talking about these things make me sound important, then so be it. But I ain't, and certainly don't feel like it.
The only importance I find in people on photography forums is through they're images. And I will always want to give praise and criticism where it's due, and to always comment on someone else's imagery, after all that's what they're seeking or willing to suffer when posting images on here, no?
Sometimes it might offer a surprising 'head's up', and offer some objectivism through breaking that emotional attachment that we all have upon/ for taking a photograph.

With respect, I sometimes find that you seem to appear too self important with the posting up of your imagery. You post your own on here but give no feedback to others' work, if at all. Why not?
Talking about photographs and commenting on others work is what is important too, and implies a shared knowledge.

Best regards, and as ever I know you have taken some great images because I have commented on them.
__________________
http://paulyrichard.wordpress.com/ "In fact I don't believe there is such a thing as a definitive picture of something. The land is a living, breathing thing and light changes its character every second of every day." - Fay Godwin "All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old September 24th, 2016, 05:53 AM
Robert Watcher Robert Watcher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: El Salvador / Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
I'm not one of the few who purchase your pictures although I might if I had enough money and valued supporting your exotic lifestyle. Then again, I'm too busy supporting my own.

I'm not sure how thin your "odd photos" can spread to "universities around the world" perhaps it was part of a franchise. Obviously I wasn't impressed enough to include any of your photos in the curricula I wrote for the universities and schools I worked in. Never mind. Maybe next time.

Cheers
Xx

Exotic - meaning an alien living in a foreign country. Exciting and somewhat unusual - yes. A choice my wife and I made 8-1/2 years ago that demands a simple life presented with many challenges and sacrifices - one supported by a very small income derived from my abilities. If you were hiring me as a plumber or a gardener or to take out the trash during the months I am back home, you would be supporting my exotic lifestyle.


Perhaps you don't write curricula for Biology departments (such as a University in Hawaii) or other life sciences and so would probably find little need for my images. The few times that I have been contacted was a result of my spreading images liberally around the web for many years now - where pics of birds photographed in unique natural environments in Central America - or indigenous people carrying on their unique traditions - added value to their textbooks. I was quite pleased for my images to have been recognized and put into an educational use in that way. There was no monetary gain for me in those instances.



----------
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
News: "The Media of Photography": A Scholarly Look at Aesthetics! Bargain Special Edition! Asher Kelman Breaking News 2 March 1st, 2012 11:56 AM
News: "The Media of Photography": A Scholarly Look at Aesthetics! Bargain Special Edition! Asher Kelman Breaking News 0 February 28th, 2012 11:55 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 AM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!