I wish I could take pictures like this!!

[Skylark]

With due respect to the good lady, being a professional photographer does not guarantee that they know what they are about. If you have watched the photographic competition on Sky Arts you will know what I mean, with some entrants amateur and some pros. We only watch it to have a laugh. I'm not saying I would do any better, but they are very much aiming for the magazine style and virtually all look like the example above.

Thread drift alert.

My wife and I have watched the recent series and now see that BBC is about to screen something similar. Quite entertaining.

As a (retired) engineer, “The Arts” are a complete mystery to me. My wife regularly makes submissions to her camera club competitions. The feedback she receives seems pretty random, subjective and inconsistent, just like the Sky Arts series. There’s just no pleasing the American judge, the Italian bloke will make a comment and then contradict it. The British woman, given that she is said to be picture editor of a magazine, just speaks waffle. When she gives feedback I generally have to ask my wife for a translation ?

 

[Stemar]

Being devoid of artistic talent, I would say that all judgement of art is subjective. That photo does nothing for me, but I've seem plenty here that I do like, most of them taken by amateurs. However, while acknowledging its limitations and many exceptions, I tend to subscribe to the view that a good amateur is usually better than a professional, because the amateur can take the time to get it right. If the professional wants to make a living, he only has the time to get it good enough.

 

[claymore]

Well - that's the last time I will be posting anything similar. What a stuffy, opinionated bunch of buggers you all are - and such experts on art to boot.
Better get back to safe ground methinks
Has anyone used an oversized rocna with 100mm chain to tie down one's sweetpeas when the neighbour's cat seems intent on digging the fekkers up?

Anyway - I still wish I could take pictures like it.

 

[GHA]

The feedback she receives seems pretty random, subjective and inconsistent, just like the Sky Arts series. There’s just no pleasing the American judge, the Italian bloke will make a comment and then contradict it. The British woman, given that she is said to be picture editor of a magazine, just speaks waffle. When she gives feedback I generally have to ask my wife for a translation ?

Same as the self appointed guardians of visual art on here then
Not a single IMHO.
Press the button and the image is manipulated straight away...

Nice pic, ta for sharing.

 

[johnalison]

Well - that's the last time I will be posting anything similar. What a stuffy, opinionated bunch of buggers you all are - and such experts on art to boot.
Better get back to safe ground methinks
Has anyone used an oversized rocna with 100mm chain to tie down one's sweetpeas when the neighbour's cat seems intent on digging the fekkers up?

Anyway - I still wish I could take pictures like it.

I’m sorry to have offended but I only said that it was not to my taste. This is a forum where robust opinions are expressed and have to be expected. As it happens, I like looking at all pictures, photos and art, however good or bad and however much or little I like them, so do keep posting them, though I can’t promise to hold my tongue.

 

[Caraway]

Press the button and the image is manipulated straight away...

As a wet processor for most of my life I can assure you that manipulation has always been the name of the game. Your choice of emulsion, the type, time and temp of your developer. Your choice of printing paper. Your manual dexterity in printing. The choice of print developer and possible post development toning process.
Yes digital manipulation works in the camera straight away as the recording medium is not analogue. The manufacturer causes light to become digital information. You can still render a scene just as you saw it using either film of digital. Or you can alter it to what you want it to be.
It's just that the choices in the digital world are wider and more confusing, so that people end up processing whatever their image is to a level that they think is good .... but others may not.

Judges are expressing their own opinions, bounded by some conventions that have very much slipped out of the window.
Judging is a strange thing. Try going on sites which use the popular vote to choose winners and see how the popular vernacular wins out, despite the often poor execution.
I stopped commenting on pictures because, in line with modern thinking, it seems you can't point out what people have done badly.

 

[claymore]

As a wet processor for most of my life I can assure you that manipulation has always been the name of the game. Your choice of emulsion, the type, time and temp of your developer. Your choice of printing paper. Your manual dexterity in printing. The choice of print developer and possible post development toning process.
Yes digital manipulation works in the camera straight away as the recording medium is not analogue. The manufacturer causes light to become digital information. You can still render a scene just as you saw it using either film of digital. Or you can alter it to what you want it to be.
It's just that the choices in the digital world are wider and more confusing, so that people end up processing whatever their image is to a level that they think is good .... but others may not.

Judges are expressing their own opinions, bounded by some conventions that have very much slipped out of the window.
Judging is a strange thing. Try going on sites which use the popular vote to choose winners and see how the popular vernacular wins out, despite the often poor execution.
I stopped commenting on pictures because, in line with modern thinking, it seems you can't point out what people have done badly.

Your ready wit, banter and badinage have developed within me an opinion that you are anything but wet. Indeed, I regard you as one of the driest of seeds. ?

 

[claymore]

I’m sorry to have offended but I only said that it was not to my taste. This is a forum where robust opinions are expressed and have to be expected. As it happens, I like looking at all pictures, photos and art, however good or bad and however much or little I like them, so do keep posting them, though I can’t promise to hold my tongue.

I am not offended - biskwit features.?

 

[johnalison]

Thread drift alert.

My wife and I have watched the recent series and now see that BBC is about to screen something similar. Quite entertaining.

As a (retired) engineer, “The Arts” are a complete mystery to me. My wife regularly makes submissions to her camera club competitions. The feedback she receives seems pretty random, subjective and inconsistent, just like the Sky Arts series. There’s just no pleasing the American judge, the Italian bloke will make a comment and then contradict it. The British woman, given that she is said to be picture editor of a magazine, just speaks waffle. When she gives feedback I generally have to ask my wife for a translation ?

I belonged to a very good camera club before I moved 20 yrs ago. Camera club photography promotes a particular kind of photography, derived from the work of photographers 100 yrs ago who aspired to photography as 'art'. I had some success at their intermediate level in competitions by playing their game, but I always thought there was something a bit precious about their approach. Most judges were blind, of course, but one or two were helpful. An aphorism which I remember from one judge stated that a landscape picture is only as good as the amount of effort needed to achieve it. In other words, a picture taken when your tourist bus stops at a beauty spot will always appear facile, while a less perfect picture taken after a climb or voyage will show something special. However, subjecting your pictures to criticism is very worthwhile, especially as a way of learning to avoid technical faults and clichés.

 

[mjcoon]

My interest in photography is mostly in wildlife. I have a book by Charlie Hamilton James dedicated to the kingfisher in which he details the discussions he had with National Geographic about what they wanted in shots to be published, particularly regarding his lighting set-ups. But I also like the postings by amateurs on local Facebook groups of their shots that pleased them. Rarely anything fancy and "artistic"...

 

[Buck Turgidson]

A very good friend of mine is a professional travel photographer
Quick plug for a friend.

 

[oldharry]

Just bin them. Take better pics.

Disagree. part of the fun of digital photography is seeing whether you CAN retrieve a pic that has gone wrong. Claymore, if you put up a pic you like, great, but dont expect everyone to agree with you. Thats the whole point of art in any form. For me, photorealism is my personal turn on, so that an obviously 'doctored' picture falls short of what I personally regard as 'good'. For you, a pic that has been enhanced to empohasise mood or a specific aspect of the subject makes yours a 'better' picture than mine.

But its all entirely subjective. Some people will pay ridiculous money to own a painting by Van Gogh, for example. I cant live with Van Gogh's style, and am not afraid to say so. so what?

Ask people if they like a picture, expect a fair number to say no! I used to enter the Chi harbour annual photo comp. I gave up when a hideously enhanced composite photoshopped pic which in my view looked terrible won 1st prize. If thats what the judges were looking for, then I am in the wrong place!

 

[lustyd]

Well - that's the last time I will be posting anything similar. What a stuffy, opinionated bunch of buggers you all are - and such experts on art to boot.
Better get back to safe ground methinks
Has anyone used an oversized rocna with 100mm chain to tie down one's sweetpeas when the neighbour's cat seems intent on digging the fekkers up?

Anyway - I still wish I could take pictures like it.

You can't please everyone all the time. But on YBW you generally can't please anyone any of the time. Here's another boaty pic from my trip last year for you

 

[johnalison]

Disagree. part of the fun of digital photography is seeing whether you CAN retrieve a pic that has gone wrong. Claymore, if you put up a pic you like, great, but dont expect everyone to agree with you. Thats the whole point of art in any form. For me, photorealism is my personal turn on, so that an obviously 'doctored' picture falls short of what I personally regard as 'good'. For you, a pic that has been enhanced to empohasise mood or a specific aspect of the subject makes yours a 'better' picture than mine.

But its all entirely subjective. Some people will pay ridiculous money to own a painting by Van Gogh, for example. I cant live with Van Gogh's style, and am not afraid to say so. so what?

Ask people if they like a picture, expect a fair number to say no! I used to enter the Chi harbour annual photo comp. I gave up when a hideously enhanced composite photoshopped pic which in my view looked terrible won 1st prize. If thats what the judges were looking for, then I am in the wrong place!

Philistine! OK, if you don't like van Gogh that is your loss. I think that some of his paintings are a bit gross, and the brushwork can spoil them. Monet painted some specatacularly ugly ones too, especially some of the Etretat cliff scenes. However, if you see some of van Gogh's drawings and the way he makes the marks grow out of the subject, they can appear miraculous.

I agree about over-photoshopped photos though. I enhance mine to the point of making them appear as I saw the scene, which often involves increasing the tonal range, correcting colour casts and as often as not straightening them. I underexpose most pictures in order not to burn out the highlights on clouds and white boats, a particular anathema of mine when viewing others' pictures. Some selective correction brightens them up again.

 

[oldharry]

Exceptiosn to every rule Johanilson! Monet is either amazing or a hopeless mess in my view. having visited his home near Rouen, I see better where his style developed.

Agree with you, I hate burnt out skies....

 

[Dutch01527]

Not of the standard above by a long way but I took this a couple of weeks ago off the Mull of Kintrye on the way to Falmouth.

iPhone with no enhancement which shows how good modern phones are.

iCloud

 

[johnalison]

Not of the standard above by a long way but I took this a couple of weeks ago off the Mull of Kintrye on the way to Falmouth.

iPhone with no enhancement which shows how good modern phones are.

iCloud

That’s what I call a picture. Nothing pretentious but full of atmosphere. It won’t win any prizes, but that’s not the point.

 

[Caraway]

You can't please everyone all the time. But on YBW you generally can't please anyone any of the time. Here's another boaty pic from my trip last year for you

I think you have overdone the dynamic range adjustments on the highlights.
.

 

[Caraway]

OK Two examples of dull pics enhanced by manipulation. Whether you like them or not is up to you.

and another.

one a bit OTT

and one without manipulation (except levels and saturation)

 

[johnalison]

OK Two examples of dull pics enhanced by manipulation. Whether you like them or not is up to you.

Fairly. The Itala one is clearly a rescue. I think that I would have left less saturation in the sky. The Flying Scotsman looks a bit static to me. I would probably have added some motion blur to the background. I'd have cropped some of the left and bottom of the bunny to offset it, but I'm only an amateur. I can count, though.