ku # 537 ~ why "photographers" suck
Monday, October 20, 2008 at 08:38AM 
Standing water • click to embiggenOK, OK ... an explanation is in order regarding yesterday's unqualified proclamation that "photographers suck". Especially so since one of The Landscapist regulars suspected that my statement might have been caused by him.
Not so. In fact, my statement stems from not a single iota of disgruntlement with Landscapist visitors. Nope. Not at all.
That said, let me start with this:
What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it .... Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both. ~ Garry Winogrand
I.M. not so humble O., I think that is a pretty damn good description of what I have come to understand about photography and I know that I am not alone in that understanding. It also seems that the overwhelming majority of those who use cameras - to include the zillion or so people who are snapshooters and the relative handful of artists who use photography - also understand that idea, consciously or not.
With the exclusion of professional photographers, the only group of picture makers who don't seem to get it are those would label themselves photo-hobbyists - those who I would label, "serious" amateur "photographers".
To get right to the heart of my agitation / annoyance with this group, all they really seem to care about (and talk about) when viewing a picture is all of the usual suspects - sharpness, dynamic range, composition )to include leading lines, rule of thirds, etc.), noise, what they might change in the picture, to name just a few examples of their techno/technique-obsessions. They seem to be emotionally and intellectually incapable of seeing and feeling anything at all about what the picture maker may have been trying to express with their creation.
Consider this in understanding why this may be so:
Most photographers seem to operate with a pane of glass between themselves and their subjects. They just can't get inside and know the subject. ~ W. Eugene Smith
While Smith was referring to the act of picture making, I would opine that that "pane of glass" is also between them and whatever picture they may be viewing.
A case in point regarding the "pane of glass" as it applies to picture making - a few years back, 2 very nice gentlemen "photographers" were passing through my area. We hooked up and they requested that I show them a few locations that might be good for picture making. Leaving aside the idea that I think every square inch of this region (if not the entire planet) is a good location for picture making, I dutifully headed out to a few "iconic" spots.
Much to my total amazement, upon arriving at the first location, they stood there looking for "diagonals", "leading lines", "S curves", and "compositional elements". I know this because that's exactly and exclusively what they were talking about. It was as if the scene all around them was nothing more than a stage set for making what they had been conditioned to believe were "good" pictures.
They exhibited absolutely no inclination to "get inside and know the subject". None. Nada. Zip. Because I liked these guys as people, I resisted the urge to grab all of their gear and hurl it into the small body of water on the shore of which we were standing.
That, of course, would have been an impetuous and stupid thing to do. After all, they were really enjoying themselves as they worked diligently at being "serious" amateur "photographers". That being the case, who am I to mess with their hobby?
However, that being the case, I just don't want to hear it anymore. I swear, if I hear/read one more comment (regarding my photos or those of others) about sharpness, composition, noise ... I think my head is going to explode. I swear, if see one more "photographer" putting his nose on a picture (mine or those of others) to see sharpness / noise / resolution, I'm gonna go postal. I swear, if I read one more camera review wherein the reviewer states that the "quality" of the images are not the "equal" of some "class-leading" dslr, I am going to totally lose it.
Don't these chowderheads know that, since the inception of the medium, tons and tons of great pictures have been made using all manner of equipment and techniques? Pictures that absolutely transcend whatever equipment and techniques where employed in their making because they speak to us about life and living?
Don't they understand that, long after their swell techno / technique laden pictures have been consigned to the dustbin of things that simply don't matter anymore, those pictures that speak to us about things that do matter, no matter the manner or tools used in their making, are ones that will remain?
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: the wife wrote: "IMO, your adherence of the rule of thirds in this photo is novel in this instance, using the stream to separate the photo into thirds both on a horizontal plane and a vertical plane. I would have used a velvia film, tho."
my response: isn't she just delightful in her continuing efforts to remind me of my nugalis, lest I get to wrapped up in my gravitas?
Reader Comments (14)
I think the point is well made. There's nobody worse to ask for an opinion on an image than other photographers. Because they won't talk about the subject, they'll talk about the rendition of the image.
Or things that 'bother' them. Any time I hear someone tell me that some obscure element of an image 'bothers' them, my brain stops listening to their opinion.
Non-photographers look at images to look at the subject, or at least how it communicates with them. Photographers of a certain ability, tend to do that too.
There's a couple of classes of people with cameras in between that have a harder time seeing what's there.
I see two groups (with obviously lots of overlap). There are the camera fetishists, who love cameras and technology. They haunt dpreview and luminous-landscape and talk about technical stuff because that's what they enjoy. They also collect cameras and shoot resolution charts and inspect the noise at resolutions they'll never print.
The second group are those who are trying to learn (like all of us to one degree or another) There's a point where enough teaching, education and reading about photography pollutes the mind. This pollution stops you being able to see an image for what it is and you start breaking it apart into technical aspects and things that bother you. It is tough I think to learn to see again through that fog.
A few months ago I dabbled in book design and learned a bit about typography. Learned about features of fonts and text layout that I'd never known before. Em-dashes, twiddly bits, punctuation hanging into gutters and all. For a few weeks after, I could hardly read anything. I kept being distracted by the tiwddly typographic stuff that I could suddenly see. Reading the actual content of what I was looking at was a struggle. I think your photographers that you are railing against have a similar attention deficit. They can't see the subject for all the technical and compositional twiddly bits they'be been exposed to and it bothers them.
The cure? Time and practice. Working over and around and through all those lessons that may or may not be corrupting your chance to take pictures that are actually your own. I'm sure many never make it. Many maybe don't want to and that's okay too, I think. Though I wish they'd stop being bothered about things in perfectly good photos.
As you say, they were having fun and enjoying themselves, so why let it bother you so much? Their minds may work differently than yours, and they may get their sense of "flow" by fiddling with gadgets more than developing an artistic style. And give them time, they'll learn more and perhaps raise their own bar of expectation in their work.
But we need to keep in mind that folks like this are probably not inherently artistic in the way traditional photographers are/were. They don't have vision in their minds eye. They don't see the gestalt of the picture, only the component parts.
However, I have felt the same as you at times, and not just about photographers. I can be impatient with those who don't think creatively.
I agree upon everything except that they contribute to keep the price lower for an already expensive hardware.
Not sure I understand the ruffled feathers. As hobbyists, the only obligation any photographer has is to have fun. Enjoy the pursuit. There is no mandate to either properly appreciate nor to fully contemplate the aesthetic. If looking for shapes or forms, be they intrinsic or obvious, more power to 'em.
It's all a matter of purpose. A hobbyist's purpose is to have fun, no matter what their skill level or their priorities. If they want to transcend that level and be recognized in the artistic/photographic communities then, sure, an appreciation for aesthetics and message over technique is crucial. That would be their choice, however.
But, if someone is happy with photography as a recreational pursuit, then who are we to push upon them our individual sense of artistic appreciation?
Hmmm, had to give this one some thought. I see the original point: photography is not the sum of a set of rules, and don't go critiquing photographs based on a set of rules, or assumptions about what a "good" photo is. Fine, go enjoy your photography, but don't foist your idea of what it should be on me & my vision.
I can see where Gordon is coming from but I'm not sure I agree entirely.
Surely discussion of a photographer's work starts with some assumptions/analysis of the message. If I have a particular message in mind, and observers aren't getting it, then I appreciate their view as to why they aren't. Sometimes that can be things that "bother" them. If something is distracting, the main point may be lost. I've certainly tried to discuss others' work in this way: offering what I get from it, and if told I'm getting a different point than that intended, offering my view as to why that may be.
I can't say I've ever worried about any sort of rules for constructing photographs, when making or viewing.
I've always been of the opinion that photography is all about the subject photographed rather than the photograph itself. As such I find most photography by other photographers boring. Why? Because I know so very little about the things they photograph and it all seems too distant and abstract for me to emotionally respond. I live in a rahter large city in the Arctic (the only place I could find decent work), but do 99% of my photography in my home vilalge further north. Why? It's the place I love and cherish - the only place on earth where I feel at ease. So when I view other peoples work I more often than not look for technical things, usually to find inspiration and new angles to my own work. As for the subject material I rarely know what to make of it since so many photographers lean on the "a picture is worth a thousand words" myth. If there is now text to compliment the picture I am not going to waste my time looking for hidden measseges - life's too short! If there is one skill I would like every photographer to have it is the ability to write well. Of course, there are photographs that are just photographs (absolute photography like absolute music), but that's too big a subject to dive into here and now.
Here's a fun 'review' of some classic photos. Hopefully the link will work.
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html
I am not a pro, (although I did get paid for doing two weddings in the 70's), I think the wife and I are past amatuer, now thank God we not a photographers. The high tech is to much for me, the wife and I just like making images.
If the wife and I were still working I guess it would be called an avocation because of our true passion in life for photography.
After my 26 years in law enforcement and my wifes years as a teaching assistant, making images and getting out together is very relaxing, we have our style and don't worry about the critics.
And to Mark, thanks for the last year it has been fun and I look forward to the rest of the ride.
IMO, your adherence of the rule of thirds in this photo is novel in this instance, using the stream to separate the photo into thirds both on a horizontal plane and a vertical plane. I would have used a velvia film, tho.
"IMO, your adherence of the rule of thirds in this photo is novel in this instance, using the stream to separate the photo into thirds both on a horizontal plane and a vertical plane. I would have used a velvia film, tho.
the wife "
HaHa! yes, don't forget the harsh ( bad) light. Come back and try again under more favorable coditions, perhaps during the golden hours. Nice use of a diagonal ( the stream) in the scene though. The bright light in the upper right corner kinda draws my eye.
Anyways, these are all valid point to improve. So, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen I say. HaHa!
The only other thing I can say is: I can see why you fell in love with that woman in the first place!
:-) Tim
Can't agree more. I found the photo crit sites very helpful early on, when I was trying to learn certain techniques. However, the crits never left basic ideas.
Indeed, what strikes me about almost ALL "nature photography" today is the stultifying "sameness" of EVERY SINGLE IMAGE. It's gotten to the point where images from African wildlife/nature look exactly the same as images from North America, Asia, Europe, and Australia, etc...
Photography for some means only sharpness, composition, tonality, color. You see pictures of a lion on the Serengeti, and it's pixel-for-pixel the same image as a photograph of a Polar Bear on the Arctic Tundra. There is no "subject." There is only "execution" of an image.
Well, perhaps there is "subject" in these images, but it lacks anything else. A picture of a sunrise is all about the sunrise. A picture of an eagle is all about the eagle. There is the thing itself and only the thing. There are two things I've learned from these online sites. 1) Technical mastery of the equipment and 2) removing any and all meaning from an image.
This has been touched on before, but the more photos I see on photo-phorums, the less I "see." It's "nature porn" or, less provocatively, "NATURE PORTRAITURE" of the simplest kind. A portrait is about the subject. No other connotation. Eye candy.
I want more than empty visual calories. I want something more than eye candy. And I want to be able to talk about something other than sharpness and exposure. Which is why I like hearing what you have to say. There is less sugar, and more complex carbohydrate. Something to chew on...
Hi Mark and Matt,
I have a very dear friend who has, over the course of the last four years become a guru / mentor of mine of sorts. His name is Issac Heyward and if you go to my blog here
http://craigtannercreative.com/lightdiary/?s=heyward
you can see a picture of Heyward and read a little more about him. Heyward went blind when he was 47. He is now 82 and lives the fullest life in terms of being happiness and joy of anyone I have ever known. He sells M&Ms on the street which leads many people to believe he is homeless but nothing could be further from the truth.
After getting to know Heyward I found out that he sells the M&Ms everyday so that he can be as socially visible as possible as a blind person. Heyward does not need to "work". His presence on the streets of Savannah is a service he performs for blind people everywhere. One of the biggest issues with people who have gone blind is social isolation. Many blind people will remove themselves from social scenarios altogether. Everyday that it is not raining (he takes Sundays off) Heyward catches a city bus and rides downtown from his home and starts his day at the coffee shop and then spends a few hours making the rounds with his M&Ms. Heyward has been a past board member of the regional chapter of the National Federation of the Blind and has spent countless hours on the phone talking to people who have recently gone blind helping them to accept and cope.
He lives in Savannah, Ga. and for almost 20 years now has had coffee at that same coffee shop just off of the southeast corner of Jonhson Square, a very famous square in the beautiful historic district of Savannah. That is where I met Heyward while doing some street photography after teaching a workshop. As I got to know Heyward I wanted to spend more time with him. And so I did. I started to have coffee with Heyward whenever it was possible on my trips to Savannah. We became good friends (still are). On many mornings when I would sit with Heyward I started to become aware of a street preacher who seemed to follow a schedule that would bring him right by our outside table at the coffee shop. I always dreaded this man's presence. First of all he carried a large sign that had the word "Satan" in huge red letters. He carried the sign like a shield with the "Satan" side pointed towards the oncoming foot traffic. I thought to myself on many occasions how completely obnoxious just the sign was. But the biggest dread came from what this man would say and the voice he used to say it. The words were mostly about condemnation and the timbre of his voice could only be described as an angry, booming, growl. When he came by it was so loud it was like waiting for a jet to pass to be able to continue with the conversation. I hated the sound of that voice and along with the hate came many, many assumptions about who this street preacher was. I harshly judged him to say the least. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church and after being "indoctrinated" into that belief system, I later rejected it and came to basically despise most of the things that I felt that belief system represented.
So one morning when I was sitting with Heyward, the street preacher came by with the grotesque sign, his horrible words and peace destroying barking and growling. I watched a couple of tourists practically running away from him. I was disgusted by the whole scene on every level. For the first time I decided to tell Heyward what I thought about the street preacher and so I did. I unloaded all of my judgment. I thought I would find a sympathetic ear. After all my dramatic ranting I asked Heyward what he thought and he simply said "Craig - maybe he enjoys it" and smiled and changed the subject. In all of my time spent with Heyward he has never once mentioned being blind much less mentioned the difficulty of it. I have never heard him judge anyone or complain about anything. The end of the story is that without any direct prompting from Heyward I finally decided to introduce myself to Charles the street preacher. And by then it didn't surprise me to find out that most of the assumptions I had made about this man were simply wrong. They were mostly things I had made up in my head that said a lot more about me than they did about Charles. I was amazed to find out that I had never even actually correctly heard the words he repeats when he walks and preaches. Now when I see Charles we say hello and talk for a few minutes - almost like friends :).
As for Heyward he just keeps patiently reminding me by the way he lives that ultimately we are all the same - we just want to be free to pursue our happiness and to be understood for who we really are.... at this time.
So - thank you Mark for your undeniable and irrepressible passion and for the focus of your vision with your photography and your writing about the art of photography. At this point in time we have different approaches and it does my soul some good to come here every once in a while and be challenged to look at the world in a different way. And Matt thank you for reminding me about the path and progression of the soul...Craig
Although I feel that I'm getting to point in my work where I'm focused more on what my photographs mean and say to viewers, my recent history does include being obsessed with the gear and the technical aspects of photography. I think it's a natural learning path for a lot of people who are interested in photography.
At first, the gear is cool and exciting. Then you become obsessed with making technically perfect images (the best sharpness, lowest noise, etc.). And then you get bored and quit (you get such a bad case of gear-itis that you measurebate yourself to photographic death), or you move on to a higher plane of meaning.
I used to think that making a great photograph was a matter of following a recipe. For example: get a VERY good camera and lens, go to iconic location X, find some random compositional element (leading lines, diagonals, etc.), wait for (or stalk ;-) the "right" light, then use the gear in a prescribed manner to get the highest quality (technically speaking) image. Do ALL of those and you'd crank out a masterpiece. People would then come breaking down your front door wanting to buy prints and usage rights.
As silly as that sounds, that's what I believed in the past.
I can empathize with you as I desire greatly to improve my photography in a meaningful way. Typical photo forums are overrun by gear-heads, pixel-peepers, light stalkers, etc. I.e. they're not much help anymore.
I guess what I mean to say with all this, using my experience as an example, is that a lot of folks are in different stages with their photography and are possibly pursuing the making of, ultimately, quality photography by getting obsessed with the gear and technical aspects of photos first. Maybe some transcend that stage, maybe some get bored and quit, maybe some find happiness and are forever confined to making pretty, perfect snapshots.
your post here puts a smile on my face, thank you.
The camera club I used to belong to had a policy of seperating photographers depending on what equipment they used, it was the first question asked when you joined.
Every workshop night was about technique, nearly every judge commented on how sharp a picture was. My favourite comment was on one of my pictures, "there is no excuse for off level horizons in digital photography".
Considering how much I like Winogrand it made my night.