SI Mandate suggestion

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Tony Cooper, Mar 16, 2013.

  1. Tony Cooper

    PeterN Guest

    You must have seen the same vaudevillians as I.--
    PeterN, Mar 24, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    We both know, as demonstrated in the two links below, that getting
    detail in fine white fur of animals like cats is extremely difficult. I'll call your cat's whiskers and raise you:

    No, I feel quite the opposite. I would like to see more participation
    in the SI comments including participation by those who don't submit.
    The whole thing of submitting images in forums and competitions, to
    me, is to know what other people see in my images. I don't care if
    the person commenting has a submission or even if they do decent work
    themselves. Other people see things good and bad in my photos that I
    don't notice, and I learn from it.

    The only thing I ask in comments is that they include the "Why". Don't
    tell me my image is crap or my image is great without saying why you
    see it that way...What is wrong about it, or what is right about it.
    It try to include the "Why" in my SI comments.

    I also ask for an understanding of timing. I do a lot of candid
    shots, and "street" stuff, and that's usually shot on a grab-it basis.
    You don't wait for the sun to be right or something in or out of the
    scene. That's fair with some shots, but not all.

    I do think that the regular posters here should be willing to post
    links to their images - even if not in the SI - so we have a feeling
    of their capabilities. Otherwise, it's "all hat, no cattle".
    Tony Cooper, Mar 29, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I don't see how this pertains to this discussion, but it's OK if you
    just want to get it off your chest. It seems like you're talking
    about "documentary" photography, and I don't really do that. I did
    just do a series of a mock disaster drill at a local hospital, but
    that's an exception for me.
    That expression is usually used when the "means" used are somehow
    suspect or dubious or illicit and the "end" is obtaining a particular
    desired result. I don't see how that pertains to this discussion.

    If the "means" are simply some trick to obtain a particular "end",
    then it doesn't seem to fall under the "end justifies the means"
    heading. If I photograph a dog by having someone hold a treat or make
    a sound in order to get the dog to perk up and look a particular way,
    there's nothing (that I see) illicit about it. Baby photographers do
    it all the time.

    When you go to photograph a furniture grouping, but end up including
    something unexpected in the shot, that's initiative in that the
    photographer initiates a new plan and carries through with it.
    The point is more that what was seen was the presence of the cat added
    to the scene, or, at least added in my estimation. More contrasting
    objects in the scene. My use of "initiative" was making an on-the-fly
    change to a new plan and composing the image with the new element.
    Certainly I do use old shots. I have below. What I don't do is use
    old shots for mandates where "fresh" is more appropriate. The idea of
    a mandate should be both a challenge to find something that fits *and*
    make a good photograph from it.

    I participate in some forums where there is no mandate, and I'll
    submit archive shots there.
    Tony Cooper, Mar 29, 2013
  4. Tony Cooper

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Stevens, Mar 29, 2013
  5. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Tony Cooper, Mar 30, 2013
  6. Tony Cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    More and more I have come to hate the "pussy cat portrait". I loathe
    the thousands of images of loved kittens, and broody, moody, and
    indifferent domestic cats, including the handful I have snapped because
    the cunning, ruthless animal made me believe that it might be an
    unusual capture, but it is just another cat snap along with all those
    other cat snaps.

    We all love the idea of capturing the totality of the loved feline pets
    in an image. Most every time they defy us, and and we are left to
    appear to be fawning fools confounding the World with the cat captures
    which are no better than the pussy pix with which others bore us.
    Everybody thinks their cat must be seen by the universe.

    Personally I preferred my opinionated dog over cats. Alas, she is gone now.
    < >
    Savageduck, Mar 30, 2013
  7. [/QUOTE]
    It's a question of the camera's dynamic range, the usual
    methods to limit the dynamic range of the scene where needed,
    choosing the right settings and producing a print (which has
    less dynamic range) from the negative (respective JPEG/RAW).

    I guess the "black tux and white wedding dress" is the same
    problem type.
    The white parts of the fur are plain 255-255-255 white.
    Was that your point, using too strong a graduation and too
    much exposure?

    "All hat, no cattle" ... is that different from "only cows"?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 31, 2013
  8. So where's the difference in all the landscapes, all the
    wedding shots, all the car portraits, all the architecture shots?

    Never mind all the hobby astronomers who can never even get
    close to what large telescopes or space based telescopes manage
    Oh, I'm happy with capturing a fragment of their personality
    in one image. Same with people.
    This is true for most any type of picture. (Or posting. Or
    book. Or webpage. Or recipe. Or program. Or show. Or
    film. Or song. Or building. ...)

    There is very little new under the sun, after all.[1]
    So why should pets be any different?

    Yet people keep *their* pets, talk about *their* pets, think
    oh-how-so-clever *their* pets are, photograph *their* pets
    and show *their* pet photographys.

    And how about "This is my rifle. There are many like it, but
    this one is mine. ..." --- is that about something unique?


    [1] There are some things. First DSLR, for example. First
    photo of the earth as a sphere. First colour photography.
    First photo of the Empire State building. etc.
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 31, 2013
  9. [/QUOTE]
    "staging an event and claiming it represents news" was yours,
    wasn't it? "the difference between capturing a unexpected
    scene and Photoshopping a news shot" was yours, wasn't it?
    I'm talking about arbitrary rules for shooting, be they
    competitions ("only shots made for this competition"), news
    ("no photoshopping except for basic X, Y and Z") or e.g. "only
    planned scenes".

    Arbitrary rules mean people sidestepping them (even if they don't
    break them), and that means you don't get what you made the
    rules for. And you get unintended side effects.

    "Desired result": the shot. You got the shot. Doesn't
    matter how you did it -> the means.

    Depending on the arbitrary rules this is not allowed.

    OTOH, composite photographs are not necessarily bad either.

    Then an intervall timer can show initiative. Place the camera
    on a tripod, point it at a furniture grouping and set the timer
    to shoot every N seconds. If something walks/flies/creeps in
    and the timer fires the trigger ... whee! Initiative!

    That doesn't really jive with how I understand initiative.

    Congratulations, you have won a new irony meter. Your old
    one seems completely broken anyway.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 31, 2013
  10. Tony Cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, Apr 2, 2013
  11. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Wolfgang is an odd duck, but not your kind of duck. Sometimes he
    posts informative and interesting comments, and sometimes he just
    babbles. The day this post appeared, he was in one his rambling
    babble phases.
    Tony Cooper, Apr 3, 2013
  12. A masterpiece! A whole essay condensed to 4 letters and one
    exclamation mark.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 3, 2013
  13. It could be worse, I could be an even duck.
    There is some truth to that observation, however I offer
    an alternative explanation: the "babbling" and "rambling"
    is a bad impedance mismatch between sender and receiver; the
    problem is not utterances without sense but that the utterances
    are not understood by the recipient. Which is undoubtedly the
    fault of the speaker as he hasn't found a common language with
    the receiver.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 3, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.