Quality of Photography in OPF improving or not?

[Asher Kelman]

Hi everyone, what do you think of how we are moving as a forum with respect to quality and diversity of the work shown?

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

Hi everyone, what do you think of how we are moving as a forum with respect to quality and diversity of the work shown?

I think both the quality and diversity are stunning, and the overall level has absolutely moved forward in recent months.

There are of course some genres I just "don't get". But then, I'm just a telephone engineer!

Seeing the work shown here makes me very spoiled. I will see published somewhere a prize-winning photo, and I think "Well, I see better stuff than that every day on OPF".

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks Doug for your feedback!

I wonder if we intimidate newbies or others with better work appearing? How can we prevent doing that? We don't want to ever become elitist or closed to photographers with new ideas that are not fully worked out. Could be technique or else ideas needing work; we don't want to be inhibiting folk as we attract better work!

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

..I wonder if we intimidate newbies or others with better work appearing? How can we prevent doing that? ..

Hi Asher,

Have you considered the possibility that some "oldies" might have been "intimidated" as well? I think that this happens more often than we think. Although there is an increase in the number of pictures being posted, most of it seems to come from the newer members (disclaimer: in my not so scientific opinion as I did not consult any statistics).

 

[Cedric MASSOULIER]

I am too newbie to say if level growed on OPF, but i can say that level of both pictures and comments is really high here, and that's fantastic. Don't change anything.

 

[Alain Briot]

The quality of the comments is just as important as the quality of the images. Personally I think that what people say is what will motivate or prevent someone from posting images.

For example, I personally don't like to get a barrage of questions after I post an image. I am interested in what people have to say, not in explaining everything.

I also prefer to get comments on the artistic rather than the technical aspects of the work.

 

[Asher Kelman]

The quality of the comments is just as important as the quality of the images. Personally I think that what people say is what will motivate or prevent someone from posting images.

For example, I personally don't like to get a barrage of questions after I post an image. I am interested in what people have to say, not in explaining everything.

I also prefer to get comments on the artistic rather than the technical aspects of the work.

Technical is not context! The latter is what is requested. In OPF we are interested in the beauty, yes, but also the context and intent of the artist since that's the frame of reference that is unique to us here!

Also for using a MF camera, one expects to learn something of what that camera can do differently than a $200 digicam. Beautiful things are easy to image for an educated and skilled person who's done the correct preparation, after all we are programmed to react to attractive scenes. However your thoughts are unique and make the picture more compelling and memorable! If we pay a price for that, then that's the cost of trying to do better than show off websites. Ours is a place for journeys. Better photographers who share ideas with impressive pictures teach us so much more!

Mike Spinak and Nicolas Claris, for example, give us the approach to the picture and that helps us get the most in appreciating the image. It also has a practical use. In OPF we want to avoid mere "Wow!" and go beyond that. The idea is that if we get such a camera, have a vision, arrive at the right time we might make out own wonderful images expressing our own wonderful thoughts.

So if the better photographers present such pictures with more context, questions are not needed. That's not "technical"! When the art's context and the artist's thoughts on a picture are shared, that's a kindness. I personally only request that for the best photographs. That has steered OPF away from the usual show and tell.

So your idea of a "barrage" is a misinterpretation, and as such, under-uses experience of our fine accomplished photographers. These are a potentially valuable resource from which everyone else might be inspired to do better work. We will, however have straightforward galleries for each person here so that beautiful pictures can be just displayed for everyone's pleasure.

When David LaChapelle posts here, I promise I will not barrage him with questions, LOL!

Asher

 

[Michael Fontana]

The quality of the comments is just as important as the quality of the images.

I agree fully on that. OPF isn't a forum for showing pictures only, but rather a way to discuss images, their meanings, etc or to look for some photographic or tecnical advise. Then, obviuosly, not necessairly the masterpieces are shown, but some intermediate images as well.

Alain, the artistic side has become more important recently, I think.

 

[Rachel Foster]

It is extremely intimidating. However, since I make no pretense to attempting to compete with the photographers here, I post anyway. If I were trying to claim being on par with the others, I would not post.

I am here to learn. I appreciate the time and comments I receive. Hopefully, as I learn, I can begin to return that favor. I've recently begun to attempt critiquing. Of course, critiquing is also a skill, so my critiques are also fair game for critique.

I think it might be helpful on the intimidation factor if it were very, very clear that one forum (perhaps entry) is open to all, and that poor images are ok to post if they are the best that photographer can currently produce.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Nicolas and I have made a decision a long time ago for OPF to be more than show and tell. For better photographers we demand more on context and the artist’s thoughts. Otherwise, according to our philosophy, there is often nothing rich enough to be really worthwhile much beyond "Wow!"

Read Timothy Ashley's response here, explaining the background on how he is driven to photograph one particular place again and again.

His response was generous and we are enriched. We feel in tune with his mind. The same with Cedric's work. It's a privilege, fun and a help for everyone!

Yes, we might lose some people on the way, but unless OPF is about the path not just the product, we could just deal with beauty and marketing. Those are so important but for OPF with so many different levels of work, the nurturing we need can only come from sharing and openness!

We will try to make it less intimidating Rachel, but for you, we have already put in a huge effort once you braved the world and stated your purpose. We're devoted to the success of your efforts and to everyone else here. You have improved and come to a new level and you feel good for it! You still search and we are here to offer our best. So it does work! We can, of course do better.

What we look for is getting people engaging in the first place. OPF is a work in progress. So we are happy to have feedback!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

I've been very aware and appreciative of the kindness and direction I've received. You, particularly, Asher have been very generous with your time and encouragement. I know I've said it before, but lest anyone not realize how appreciative I am, I once again want to say a heartfelt "thank you" to all who have given of their time and expertise.

 

[Michael Fontana]

......
I am here to learn. I appreciate the time and comments I receive. .....

We all learn here, some to a bigger, some to a smaller extend.
So, I don't really understand the intimidation factor.

Heck, this is a forum, where photographers, artists and some rather tecnical orientated photographers from all over the world have a exchange. Off course, I don't mind the absence of the °wow° and go to he next-pict- threads.

 

[Rachel Foster]

The intimidation factor comes into play because expectations are high. Good photographers want good images. The mundane, the mediocre, the snapshots tend to clutter a forum. So, those of us who are still taking snapshots may feel hesitant and reluctant.

My photographs are not going to get a "wow" at this point. That's ok. But I don't want to clutter the forum either.

Does this make any sense? I'm not expressing this well at all.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Asher,

I think that range and the quality of work presented here is remarkable. Yes it can be intimdating, but this is the only place I expect to receive criticism that is in any way meaningful - so I risk posting. I also try to give something back, although I accept, as Rachel says, there are many people here with far more to offer.

Apart from the images, my understanding is that the culture we seek to nurture is one of journeying towards (more?) excellence. I listen in and and participate in conversation with likeminded photographers, who take their, and others, work seriously and share their experience and values freely.

I find this exhilarating. Not having any need to apologise because I care about what I do.

Thanks

Mike

 

[Rachel Foster]

Well said, Mike. I think what frustrates me, though, are the great numbers who visit but don't post. I know many of them would make some very helpful, interesting contributions. I'd love to see them begin to post.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks everyone for your taking responsibility for making OPF what it is. We do have a great technical depth and breadth but that's secondary to our wish to excel promoting what talents we have to good use.

In being really critical from time to time, as opposed to praise all the time, we do risk confrontations but since we are always courteous and considerate, so far, we have managed to avoid bad feelings.

We always need to do things better. At least we have a goal and that is to understand each other's intentions and frames of reference so we can give each other feedback related to each photographer's unique project needs and values, not to some common standard or only our own take on what's good or not.

Asher

We can't be accepting rubbish as art. However, things can be complex today! We do seem to have to be open that rubbish might be art!

 

[Ken Tanaka]

I am a relatively infrequent visitor to OPF and do not often visit the sections most populated by image postings. So I cannot reliably answer the better/worse/same question posed by Asher.

But I strongly agree with Alain and Michael that image postings, in themselves, are not the sole, or best, metric of a quality venue. The Internet is overstuffed with amateur oooh-aaah photo forums and photo sharing sites. The standard, "Awesome capture, dude!" and, "This is a great image!" responses offered at such venues are probably quite sufficient, and ego-smoothing, for the vast majority of camera owners who strive for nothing more than to get "good" photos of their children.

Sites that deal with the art of photography at a deeper intellectual level are very scarce. Yes, there's a place for oooh-aaah here at OPF; it is, after all, a public forum. But OPF has a far more substantial opportunity to foster high-quality discourse regarding such topics as photographic art in general, members' photographic projects, etc. After all, there are only so many photos one can take of even the "cutest" kids. Beyond that, the camera either sits in the closet or its owner begins to ponder other subjects and possibilities.

 

[Alain Briot]

The Internet is overstuffed with amateur oooh-aaah photo forums and photo sharing sites. The standard, "Awesome capture, dude!" and, "This is a great image!" responses ( . . . )

Another one I remember seeing is "what planet do you live on? I don't remember seeing such beauty!" Or, "We must live on a different planet. Mine's nowhere close to the beauty of yours!"

Similar comments show up about one's camera, but I won't go there. We all know that the camera takes the photograph, not the photographer ;-)

That's why I use a P45. It takes way better photographs than a G9.

I'm so thankful I can afford a P45. If I couldn't, average photography would be my lot!

 

[Alain Briot]

Alain, the artistic side has become more important recently, I think.

Hi Michael,

I totally agree with you. My research in the past year has been almost exclusively focused on the artistic side. I'm now able to post again to this forum regularly because I just completed a 1 year project on composition that culminates in the release on my new Composition Mastery Workshop on DVD this week.

This project is I would say 95% about the artistic aspect of photography. At this point I have resolved the technical issues that I faced in my work and so have many photographers. My focus is now on the artistic aspects of photography. My next project will continue down the same path, except further. I won't start on it until later this year because I want to take a break (and move to my new house).

Photography is both an art and a science. To do it well, the spread should be 50/50 for both sides. Now there's nothing wrong having a 60/40 spread or close to that, but there's definitely a problem if you have a 100/0 spread in either direction!

 

[Ken Tanaka]

<...>
I'm so thankful I can afford a P45. If I couldn't, average photography would be my lot!

I seriously doubt it, Alain. As the former bicyclist Lance Armstrong noted in his book title, "It's Not About the Bike".

Personal, very current, anecdote. I have just finished a large suite of images for an art book that goes to final press in a week. A final review of the manifest revealed that I captured the images over four years with four different cameras with a variety of resolutions and prices. Looking at the PDF proofs, and I'm sure also at the final book, it will be impossible for a reader to distinguish between cameras.

 

[Alain Briot]

Ken,

I know and I love Lance Armstrong's point (and cycling. I used to do cycling competitions in France. I had a great bike which made me way more competitive).

Now I wish this fact was shared by a majority of photographers. Unfortunately, it is not.

But it is in music, cooking, painting, sculpture, you name it. Photography is an exception in that respect.

Which makes me remember that Bocuse upgraded his pots and pans recently to the latest models. I'll have to have dinner there again.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ah, me.....fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and also amongst debates among photographers far better than themselves. From the neophyte's perspective: It's the photographer (including her/his eye, expertise, and technical ability) and her/his equipment. I just got my first "nice" lens and hey....it DOES make a difference. However, the best equipment in the world won't produce diddly squat (technical term that) without a decent photographer.

I think that's what makes photography so challenging: It takes all those factors.

 

[Alain Briot]

It's the photographer (including her/his eye, expertise, and technical ability) and her/his equipment. I just got my first "nice" lens and hey....it DOES make a difference. However, the best equipment in the world won't produce diddly squat (technical term that) without a decent photographer.

I think that's what makes photography so challenging: It takes all those factors.

Now, now, would you also say that the best pots don't make the best stew? That would be going a little too far wouldn't it ;-)

Let's examine our beliefs for a second, not just about cameras vs. photographers but about other aspects of art.

I for one believe that the only reason to purchase art is because I have space on my walls.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Alain, let's put it this way. Give me the best pot in the world and the stew would still be barely edible. (I don't cook.) Give that pot (and best ingredients) to someone who has the skill, and now you have stew!

The trouble with the metaphor is that give that same person a bad pot and it will still come out heavenly (but perhaps less so than with the good pot). Not so much with photography, I think. Equipment makes a much greater impact on the final image in photography than in cooking.

I'm enjoying this discussion a great deal and am looking forward to exploring the equipment + eye + expertise interaction more.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

I for one believe that the only reason to purchase art is because I have space on my walls.

But not the only reason to make it


Slightly more seriously (although there is a serious point in the above comment) I think your earlier comment about many photographers having solved the tehnical issues is likely true. Yes many of us are learning, but actually given time, ability/interest and appropriate application the technical skills are available. The much more difficult area (for me at least) is how to express my response to or comment on the world around me in a meaningful way.

As to the best pans - surely they are the ones that, once you have mastered the necessary skills, allow one to make the best stew with the least effort in overcoming their limitations. Camera's are the same, the best tool is the one that you've learnt and can use to acheive what you need with the least resistance. Clearly some things are just not viable - you can't make stew on a griddle and Alain would struggle with a Holga (for his current work...), but there is a range of available pans for stew and for frying all of which can be used with some effort.

Mike

 

[Rachel Foster]

This thread has veered from its original purpose, but I think some interesting questions have been raised. Forgive my presumptuousness, but I'd like to summarize the questions I see addressed here.

1) What is OPF's mission statement? (Again, this has been stated elsewhere, but as fora evolve, so does the mission statement. Has it changed?)

2) Are we coming closer to achieving that?

3) What does or does not aid in that endeavor?

4) Are the current sub-fora both sufficient and necessary?

5) What comprises artistic photography? Or, what is involved in creating art?

6) How much of the mixture is talent (eye), expertise, and equipment?

Have I missed anything?

ETA: Kudos to Asher and the team for being willing to raise the question and open it for discussion. This can be especially difficult as highly talented, capable, accomplished people have definite ideas about how things should be done and whenever you gather such people, conflict will almost inevitably result. This shows a willingness to face such conflict in the pursuit of excellence.

Now everyone, agree with me! Immediately! (Just a joke to add a bit of leavening to my pedantic post.)

 

[Asher Kelman]

Another one I remember seeing is "what planet do you live on? I don't remember seeing such beauty!" Or, "We must live on a different planet. Mine's nowhere close to the beauty of yours!"

Similar comments show up about one's camera, but I won't go there. We all know that the camera takes the photograph, not the photographer ;-)

That's why I use a P45. It takes way better photographs than a G9.

I'm so thankful I can afford a P45. If I couldn't, average photography would be my lot!

Alain,

Here some balance is required to counter your hopefully humorous boast! I's important the less experienced photographers here be no sent astray by ideas that the camera really limits creative expression. It could be that one tools saves time, but hardly limits arising above ordinary or mediocre as you suggest.

Today, there are millions of photographs from technically wonderful cameras. These work perfectly for those already invested the scenes that will be treasured memories as well as the mundane use such as ebay re cycling of unwanted stuff. Light comes into the camera and the lens sensor and electronic make some record. That's it. If the camera is pointed at a girl with a teddy bear, it will be beautiful, but not necessarily art. If one aims it at a Canyon, however famous, it will be a nice post card, but uncommonly more than that. Beauty, attractiveness and esthetics alone do not make art! These are merely exploiting the superficially obvious, the surface of things. They may seem to be art and be sold as art, but they will all the best art. But why not?

Art is an expression. That can only come from the mind. Cameras don't make art! Cameras today record myriads of pictures, hardly ever worthy as art. The latter requires vision and talent, perseverance, and work.

Art can only be recognized if it is shared in a physical form that can be sensed. So showing someone a score of a symphony is usually met with a blank puzzled expression. The form needs to be the physical sounds engraved on the page. Similarly, a tiny image of a massive image can't be expected to convey much if any of the worth of that work. So a large image is needed one way or another. Art in the public arena to be appreciated must be physically sensed in dimensions that arouse ones feelings. Music that is too quiet, cannot be heard!

What have we seen so far with the Phase One Back? Thus is so far from what I observe with the results of the P45, Bresson, Adams and their class would still trump anyone's work with the P45 using a G9! It could be that the work is awesome! No doubt it will win prizes. However, that idea is really not available to us to consider seriously.

What Examples do We Have To Emulate? And just look here, in this modest forum, who has made a photograph like Tim Ashley's with the modest Sony Digicam? This is art that's original and impressive and worthy of attention.

Pursuant to my recent purchase of the tiny and rather good Sony W300 I realised that the optional underwater housing, at £139, might be fun for exploring those marginal areas between sky and sea. Easy, for sure. Fun - lots (if a little cold in Cornwall at this time of year).

Highly recommended for those with an experimental bent!

Tim

source.

Then look at a still life by jim Galli with an ancient lens and film:

Perhaps not for everyone here as this is about as analog an approach as is possible.

oil decanters #1​

This is done with an antique Pinkham and Smith Series V Synthetic lens of 9" focal length on 8X10 film. There is a short blog and a few more images here.

Source.

These and a few others here are exceptional pictures, the likes we need to emulate. This is the standard we seek. These are artistic and generous. We do not really need to ask questions. We can just be enthralled. That's what art does! It does not really require courses or special digital cameras, just vision and enough skill to do what the mind wants to externalize. That work completes the artists arc of intent, bringing to us something of their own creative imagination and evoking something of the artists mind and even feelings, values and imperstives. These two pictures are of exemplary of such fine work to be admired. Not only that, Tim and Jim go out of their way to share what they know. The pictures are large enough to appreciate and examine. We can easily identify with the path to that great result.

It could very well be that the commercial modern digital backs can do better. For sure there are enough pixels. For fashion and commercial architecture pictures, they surpass the needs of the editors! So far, however, for art from the Phase One back we've only seen what a 5 years old Canon G3 digicam could more readily produce. We have no indication of any special advantage above mediocre.

I personally think that any Magnum photographer could still win prizes with the G9 or most other digicams.

Whether or not one's work is mediocre has little to do with owning a P45. If one asked a Professional Photographer for any of the greatest agencies, they would most likely laugh at such suggestions. The competent talented and gifted photographer could still rise above any limits you might imagine by not having the plethora of pixels. Besides, you use your lens at F32! That defeats the value of extra pixels with bleeding from one part to another.

Asher

 

[Alain Briot]

Alain,
Here some balance is required to counter your hopefully humorous boast!
Asher

Yes, definitely intended to be humorous and tongue in cheek Playing devil's advocate is something I enjoy from time to time.

 

[Alain Briot]

Now everyone, agree with me! Immediately! (Just a joke to add a bit of leavening to my pedantic post.)

Good for you. Humor is an art. The Navajos believe that someone without a sense of humor is not a complete person.

 

[Asher Kelman]

As far as diversity, some photographer's have invested in a used gem rather than spending money in the megapixel madness race. One of the remarkable photographers sharing his work here makes his own albumin paper and the mosr delicate prints one can imagine. As a small taster of his work, but not an albumin print, AFAIK, is this:

Voigtlander Perkeo II--a folding 6x6 camera that's smaller than many 35mm rangefinders. I experimented with a few different folders and settled on this one as the best balance of size, film flatness, lens quality, and ergonomics.

© David A. Goldfarb 200Source.

If Fuji manufactures their 6x7 folder, though, I may switch.

David, being an academic is devoted to students and is so helpful. I joined him on a shoot in New york last winter and had a great experience. Nothing he has would break your bank account. The images in his way of doing things would lift your photography to a new level.

So for me, at least, David's arrival added strength. I do not want anyone not mentioned to feel left out. I just want to demonstrate both the quality of some of the best work here and that it does not require a new camera or even a digital sensor. Even in the latter case, the affordable Sony Digicam embraced by Tim Ashley and some others, shows where we are today.

Nicolas, myself, all the moderators and so many photographers support the individual paths of each member of this community, regardlless of level.

To achieve this,

We need openness by the poster of a photograph: Simply put the photographers ideas and the pictures context and purpose.

So think of providing at least some indication of the initial ideas, circumstances, end use and so forth. This allows us to prepare our mind for the photographer's frame of reference. We want to approach as close as possible to that. Further, we'd like shot details and if the image illustrates any device (a lens, camera, flash or a diary of any of these) we must have a 100% cut out to look at the quality of the image in terms of contrast, shading, color and so forth. Why? without that we cannot always learn the capabilities of any system.

Casual pics belong in Layback café. Even here and certainly a picture shown for serious commercial or artistic value, post a 100% cutout if you think it's helpful or if it's requested. Why, without that, we may not be able to appreciate the beautiful rendering of anything, from a smile, a flower or other detail, key to the pictures artistc value.

In a gallery, however, all that counts is whether or not we like and can afford the print enough. We can go up close and examine it for an hour if that's our fancy.

A Promise: Post and you will be treated well! further if you are stuck wondering about your work, many of our moderators will look at your work privately if you don't overload them. If you are not sure of something send it to us. In any case jump in even if you have doubts and your image will end up in the right forum to get the most helpful response. If you have a long term project where you are not expert or selling enough of, it belongs in Riskit! You are invited to start a thread devoted to your own work!

To the lurkers and those who don't post often: We need very much for more participation. If you are one of those, post or let us know here or by PM how we can make this easy for you.

Asher