Age Verification

WARNING!

You will see nude photos. Please be discreet.

Do you verify that you are 18 years of age or older?

The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.

Watch HQ Mp4 HOT ♨ Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography Video 15:21 min.

Mature hot steamy ass

Free vintage porn clip. Candid pantyhose teen. Vip brother sister naked nude gallari. Thick big women breast tits. Heather Night and Eva Karera threesome fuck. Hunting birthday party ideas for adults. Photographers love to critique. Or is it criticize? Or comment? We seem to witness quite the gamut of behavior in response to one simple request: It's easy click become annoyed or even disillusioned by the online critique Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography. Much like the rest of the Internet, the relative anonymity seems to be the great enabler of arrogance and vitriol. However, if you can see past the noise, Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography are a lot of dedicated and knowledgeable photographers who will kindly lend you their expertise. There are some really original creative thinkers out there who might not yet have the tools to achieve Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography creative vision. It's important to always critique the artistic aspects of a photograph separately from the technical. Someone's ability to properly expose a shot is not indicative of their creative vision or vice versa. Don't dismiss one by virtue of the other. Teen Cum Squirt Compilation First Time Gina Bikini african girl lick penis outdoor.

Jessica drake brad armstrong

What doees milf mean. The club did sponsor a photojournalism contest where multiple photos up to 7 with a cover produced a story.

Until the final contestant entry, there Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography a three-way tie for first. I won the three-way tie for second place for the contest.

Big brother orlaith nude shower

The camera that I used? I also used Ilford Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography, another Link film, that has a cyan tint to more info photos.

Yea, and I cannot compete with that because of my style, unless I compete as a specialist that is a minimalist in digital editing that would be wonderful! So true, I believe photographers now need to offer more than just photos, video is the future.

It's not how good you are or what you know. But sadly it has always been who you know, your contacts and relationships. The problem I have with this article is that he talks about the profession of photography in the narrow confine of photojournalism and wedding and portrait photography.

The decline in those fields is precisely because there is no barrier to entry in those genres and consequently a profound over-supply of the product. No you can't if you are shooting food or commercial projects. I note that every dipshit wants to shoot sports yet almost no one purchases sports photography and has Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography for Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography yet they still rush headlong into the field and whine that the fish ain't biting.

Matures fucking Watch Video farmgirl nude. Be better than the next guy and change with the times. Most of this is pretty spot on. Plenty of free training online. Good work prevails. As Nathan mentioned below, your best now has to be better. Just have to push harder to make better images that sell. Great points and I agreed with most of it. I would argue that the experiences would take longer than 'a few goddamn months' to learn haha, but that's endlessly debatable and I get where the writer is coming from. The real takeaway for me was the fact that vision and voice were never addressed. Everything he said it right. But the truth is the low end is pushing the high end to get better. The media industry is becoming a lot more independent. The need for content is only going to increase 10 fold. The future will be different then we are use to but pro photography won't go away. He's right in that it's easier than ever now for people to get into photography - but that's a good thing. Now we're seeing photographers like Rosie Hardy, Dani Diamond, Olivia Bee, Petra Collins, Ann He - all young and ridiculously talented and inspirational, and that's a damn good thing for our industry. Photography didn't die with digital, it didn't die with cheaper equipment and advanced technology, it didn't die when Lightroom presets became popular. It changed. As much as it changed for the worse, it also changed for the better - anyone who doesn't realize that has completely taken their eye off the ball. Cars have gotten better, easier to drive, safer, and more affordable over the years. That didn't turn everyone into race car drivers or city planning engineers who design roads. Saying that technology getting better will hurt an industry is the opposite of what usually happens. I visit FS just about every day, have for the last few years The reason I qualify this post is that this article struck a nerve. Not that what was said in the article was wrong, but that the article kinda lends itself to defeatism. Yes, I agree, pretty much, with everything stated, but, and it's a very large but A photographer has been and always will be an entrepreneur. As such, entrepreneurs are notorious for finding solutions. Yes, problems will present themselves in the future for the pro photographer. They have since the birth of professional photography. But the successful photographer entrepreneur will find a way to still be successful, doing what they love to do! Those that will be successful in the future will find solutions. That's what we true entrepreneurs do. Talk about misleading Are you suggesting it's still causing a stir 3 years after posting? Can't be, the newest post was made 2 years ago!!! In all due respect, the stir it is causing on here has made it one the most talked about posts on FS. I think it still has legs: It's easy to say that we are doing bad business because of others, and I think that's why it's so talked. Whiners sell. You know what sell also? Will you start to post porn? No, right? Porn doesn't help photography, same for this rant. Wow, that really tells a lot. Seriously Patrick you're going come on here with the entire argument that "the stir it is causing on here has made it one of [sic] the most talked about posts on FS. This is truly nothing more than Canon sucks and Nikon rules or vise versa diatribe. But hey, it generates heated dialogue and that's all you're basically after in this tired and exhausted SEO game isn't it? Aside from making very good money doing what I already do, I don't want to be bored and have to do senior shoots a year of the same shit over and over. I get to pick and choose what I want. I'm never bored or boring. There is a very good point to 1. When I was in college I had a very low end film camera and lenses. I found myself shooting in such a way that hid the low end qualities of my gear. On the other hand, don't be taken by unfettered praise; it's certainly nice to be lavished in, but it does little for the purpose of growth. Critique is a strange beast. Given properly, it can facilitate both technical and artistic growth, but given improperly, it can derail development, damage self-esteem, and undermine the strong sense of community that makes photography such a group pursuit. Taking time to understand a photograph from all angles: You might find that practicing articulating full critiques also helps you to examine your own images in an increasingly beneficial manner. Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M. He is also an avid equestrian. Dilettantes generally need a light hand in guidance because they are only playing with photography as a leisure activity. They get their feelings hurt easily and don't want to be too bogged down with controversies or what they perceive to be trivial details. These folks tend to want to believe that "everything is relative" and that "there are no rules" so that they don't really have to invest much energy in justifying or defending their own work against criticism. A dilettante is usually an individual with an interest in making friends and joining a group of people that share similar interests. Consequently, he's not competitive and feels most comfortable around people that agree with him or at least "agree to disagree. Artists are in photography because they are driven with a passion to express their own unique vantage point through the medium. Passion is another word for suffering and these people are not making or taking critiques as a leisure activity. On the contrary, their desire to be original inevitably leads to tension with the consensus of the crowd and any attempt to be different is perceived as an attack on group cohesion. Whether he realizes it or not, the artist is always the individual at war with the group. His hidden talents will only be revealed through brutal competition and conflict with convention. In my experience, most photographers don't want to admit to themselves that they are not really serious about it as an art. Many photographers claim to want to be original and develop a unique style, but how many of them are willing to really suffer for it? It's possible that a photographer's view towards criticism is partially revealing of just what kind of photographer he's on the path to becoming. I respectfully disagree. Artists are filled with self doubt, the same as everyone else, but especially if they are in an environment that does not value art. You should always be honest, but be kind. In short, when talking about their work, you are talking about them Artists of all caliber struggle. Kindness goes a lot farther than making them feel they are losing that struggle. Also, calling people who might be more sensitive or insecure a "dilettante" is probably not the best way to approach a critique. In "The Prince," Machiavelli tackles the problem of how a ruler should be able to receive advice without losing his honor in the process. A bad ruler only accepts advice that he wants to hear and surrounds himself with flatterers, or he takes everybody's advice no matter how derogatory it might be and loses the respect of others. A ruler must learn to walk a fine line in order to avoid flatterers while simultaneously keeping his dignity when being advised with honesty. Machiavelli proposes that a prince should always listen to advice no matter how negative it may be as long as he asks for it first. In other words, he should never take unsolicited advice, but once he asks for it then he must respect the honesty of the people that answer. He'd better be ready to hear negativity as well as praise and should be looking for honesty rather than flattery. Anytime a photographer puts his work on display then he is entering it into the public domain. Once it's in the public domain, then the public has a right to form an opinion of it regardless of whether or not he directly asked for it. You're correct to say that artists are often filled with self-doubt. In my previous post, I claimed that their passion drives them into uncomfortable situations. The difference between an artist and a dilettante is that an artist doesn't run away from negativity. An artist, like Machiavelli's prince, values honesty and keeps his dignity by deciding when and how he shows work to the public or asks for advice. It's not about what advice you give or what you find right or wrong with the image. It's about phrasing it in a helpful way. Harsh negativity is off putting and causes even the most serious artist to stop listening to what you have to say. Being kind or nice is not the same as not telling someone what you actually think of it. In the past, before the internet made us equal, your friends, the ones you had actually met in person, would let you know when your pictures didn't quite cut it. Most of the time they wouldn't even have to say anything. Of course, plenty of other times they'd publicly bust your chops, but that was a different time. Before we all became so polite. Back when respect was something earned and not a right of birth. Do you know that feeling? The one when you're showing images to someone perhaps an editor that you were hoping to work with and you get to that picture, the one that looked perfectly acceptable moments before, but as soon as you show it, you're filled with regret. There are plenty of things photography-wise that I'm not very good at. I'm not great at creating images, but I'm pretty good at finding them. I'm terrible at self-promoting, marketing and the business stuff makes me squirm. Yet I'm a decent journalist, travel well and strangers often accept me into their lives. Maybe I've got one of those faces. There's nothing really exceptional or surprising about that evaluation. It's fairly common among photojournalists. So that's me, those are my strengths and weaknesses. I also publish too many pictures on my websites. I'd look better if I kept the numbers down, but this post isn't about me. It's about you and why you suck. There's nothing wrong with not being any good at photography. Everybody started out bad and none of us do all aspects of it well. On Flickr, these differences wouldn't matter: This adds up to a social dynamic that encourages creativity and individuality rather than conformity and uniformity. If there is a "bland trap" at Flickr, it's much less insidious and the forces pushing you into it are much weaker, and there's a really good chance of getting into a virtuous circle where you do your stuff and get the feedback and encouragement you need in order to continue doing it your way. That's why Flickr is better for you than photoSIG. Petteri's Pontifications My musings about photography, mostly. How to. Tripods On Perceiving Brands. Full Frame Or Not. Why I Diss L Lenses. Role of Equipment. Another Kind of Picture. Why Flickr Is Better. Cycling for Fun and Profit. Near misses. Don't Be A Bozo. Choosing lenses. Film vs digital. Selling cameras. Lens Lore for Newbies. Lens prices. Is slide better. Telephoto Is For Cowards. Boring Photographs. Why Most Landscapes Suck. Come to think of it Unloved Watches. Photo Musings. The Bland Trap My main thesis in the posting that started this particular mess was that photoSIG has a social dynamic that exerts strong pressure towards conformity with the "lowest common denominator. Well, maybe. But then again, maybe not. There are times when our animal nature is even more apparent than usual I shot this for photoSIG. It scored me 75 TU, or thereabouts. After this most recent episode, I went back to my account, picked a photo, uploaded it, but couldn't bring myself to save it and send it into the ether. All the miserable feeling of whoring for thumbs came back. I'd picked one that I liked and that I thought didn't conform to the photoSIG aesthetic, but then I couldn't think of any reason why I should bother -- I really don't want to see mindless "great shot 3TU" critiques or "it's out of focus and the highlights are blown but good effort 1TU" critiques, and I don't know what help "it's blurred and ugly 1TD" would be either. Sure, there is a chance of actually getting a useful critique -- but at least in the beginning getting such a critique is left purely to chance: So I didn't. In fact, I requested that my account be terminated, as I really can't see what use I can make of it -- and if I change my mind, I can afford to buy a premium one..

Same for fashion. It seems all you Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography is TFP. No one makes a living that way. There is money to be made and good money too. However it isn't gained overnight but throughout he cultivation of clients who value what you do and NEED what do on a regular basis. In other words a client base that you Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography not need to be constantly replenishing. As for the complaint that you have to shoot what the client wants… WTF?

Shoot what the client wants and then add a few of your dope shots to bowl them over but don't sulk if they don't buy. They here you to give them what they want not what you want. Be an artist by all means but don't confuse art with attitude.

If you want to make just here you want and get paid the art fairs are for you. Bring sunscreen.

Sexcontact gelderland Watch Video Porno Britis. It's fairly common among photojournalists. So that's me, those are my strengths and weaknesses. I also publish too many pictures on my websites. I'd look better if I kept the numbers down, but this post isn't about me. It's about you and why you suck. There's nothing wrong with not being any good at photography. Everybody started out bad and none of us do all aspects of it well. But it's a crying shame to want to be good at it, to spend time and money trying to be good at it, and not getting any better. This isn't like teaching a child to read. Your Facebook friends, your Twitter followers Instead of taking 10 seconds to say, "This doesn't work. You need to do better," they readily push that "like" button because it's easy and they hope to get the same from you. But also because they're cowards. They're afraid of the internet mob. Nobody wants to get on the wrong side of a mob, so it's easier to play nice. Go along to get along seems to be the secret to a happy online life. The first night before a shoot, I never sleep. It could be something easy, a situation that I know will produce a good image, but that doesn't help. Fear of failure is a great motivator. The trick is to use it to get as well prepared as you can possibly be, and then ignore it once the shooting starts. Other artists know that you are trying to make it in the world where art is not as respected as it used to be; they don't want to add your frustrations. The message could be the best in the world but let's not forget we are still people. People with feelings and emotions that extend through their work. Hi Alex. Another great article and from my personal experience of having you critique several of my photos you practice what you preach so to speak. Provide suggestions for improvement. Be encouraging. Maybe you can't be a mentor to them, but provide resources, such as web links, books, and photographers to follow. Read it for your own insight, too. Then THEY get to decide if the image was successful or not. Critique is less about evaluating someone's work as offering outside analysis of it. Not a valuable critique: I like it. The red is very pretty. Valuable critique: The red really stands out. To me, it brings a sense of drama to the image that contrasts well with its setting. Now, about the article, there are a lot of obnoxious people out there on the interwebz, they seem to know it all, and there are some of those people around here too, but then, you check out their folio and "damn Well, some people, even if they can't shoot properly, they actually have a really good taste, and know what works and what doesn't, so yeah, judging someone's opinion based on folio and or technique is not the right way of doing things. Sometimes I feel like teaching more, but people act like bricks and think they don't need to evolve, that's one of the things that keep me from commenting and helping other people who i feel that lack the technique I have and can provide them with let's be clear here, i'm not like the best photogapher on the block, but i know some cool stuff. I spent several years in art school listening to people trash each other's work. Critique day was the one day you couldn't miss but they were the days I dreaded the most. It was rough listening to several hours of people trashing each others work, even when it wasn't mine on the chopping block. We should be a community rather than every man for themselves. I've actually come to the conclusion that it's better to seek out a critique from certain valued individuals than to put work out for anyone to comment on, unless you're trying to master a technique. That doesn't mean send everything to your mother, just find someone who maybe understands your way of thinking. I still communicate with some former professors and even some well known photographers in my area who have similar subject matter. One thing to be careful of is to not try to change the artist into your own vision. I had a professor who wouldn't look at any figure work unless it was abstract and would grade low not to mention rip the pieces to shreds. He ultimately lost his job, then lost another job, because of it. Right here on this website, the last critique I watched told me that a certain person was stroking his own ego and his critique was to change everything to his style. That's basically useless advice. As a rule of thumb: Always begin with what's good in a picture, what strikes you. If you can't find it, then go away. Mind manners: Use tone and language you'd use in a New York subway car telling the other guy his shoes don't go very well with his shirt. Without catching a bloody nose. Don't point out flaws without suggesting an actual improvement. And that can be a downer. Use language like your granny is watching over your shoulder. With a huge kitchen implement in her hand. When giving a personal opinion, stress the fact that it is a personal one Color- key may be dated, but actually some people do like it. A gambit is "a device, action, or opening remark, typically one entailing a degree of risk, that is calculated to gain an advantage". The former is supposed to mean something like "fantastic, unforgettable, unique," and the latter, "disgusting, offensive, should never have been shot let alone shown. By doing this, you will eventually accumulate a "contributor rating. The thing is, we humans are more like lab rats than most of us like to admit. We're social animals. We're built to be extremely sensitive to social pressure: We're also competitors: Sometimes this even takes rather nasty forms, such as trying to cut our competitors down rather than to reach higher ourselves. No big surprise there; back when these instincts evolved, someone who didn't get much approval and got lots of disapproval only got to gnaw on the bones after the rest of the tribe had made off with the meat -- and worse if he wasn't as good as the rest in bringing down the prey to start with. In other words, this sort of thing is really deeply wired into us, and we have to be exceptionally strong-willed to be able to resist it. For example, the system is very effective at forcing people to look at each others photos and at least pretend to think about them. Looking at pictures and discussing them is an extremely effective way of figuring out what it is you really like and what it is you don't, and if this part of the photoSIG ethic is applied as it's intended to be, I'm sure that it can be a great benefit. However, when it comes to what is the main thing for most people, I believe the dynamic can be highly destructive. Photography, that is. This does not necessarily mean photography that's worth a damn creatively speaking. In fact, it simply means photography that's pretty, easily digestible, and has no rough edges to stick in the throat. All theory? It started to happen to me, and I saw it happen to some other photographers I associated with during my time at photoSIG. There was one who evolved from a technically uncertain but creative and individual photographer into a technically competent but highly conventional photographer specializing in soft-focus portraits, especially glamour. The trap is real. The vulnerability may take many forms. I'm not terribly sensitive to being told my pictures suck or that I'm a pompous windbag pseudo-intellectual. If that worked, I would've stopped taking pictures and pontificating ages ago. With me, the character flaw was that I'm a gamer. I love games, and I play them to win. If you've ever been stuck playing Tetris hour after hour, you'll know what I mean -- I started playing photoSIG like I play computer games. For someone else, it could be the need for affirmation and approval, the need to dominate, or something completely different. Of course, the trap isn't inevitable -- there are a quite a few genuinely creative, individual, interesting, and non-conformist photographers active on photoSIG including, I hate to admit, one of the guys who was most vocal in stomping on me , which proves that not everybody falls into it, or that at least some people can climb out again after falling in. Perhaps the ones who really fall in and can't get out again are the ones who don't really have much to contribute creatively anyway, and are most fulfilled in refining their technique in order to shoot ducks, cats, babes, or scenics take your pick , in which case it's no big loss. Who knows, but I tend to think not. The trap is there. So if you sally forth on photoSIG, I advise you to watch out, consume responsibly, and if you find yourself falling into the rule-of-thirds-pretty-tonality-sunset-landscape bland trap, for God's sake do something -- not necessarily get off photoSIG, but do something. One of the things that I believe are absolute necessities in growing as a photographer is looking at other people's photos and thinking about them. Talking or writing about them can help the thinking -- this is the main reason I write all this long-winded stuff. A close second is hearing what other people have to say about your photos. However, except perhaps in the very early phases of the pursuit when you're still trying to figure out stuff like "what does 'good exposure' mean? You benefit most from looking at and critiquing photos you appreciate -- and you benefit most from being critiqued by the same people. In other words, merely getting exposure for your exposures isn't enough: Most people are too lazy, have too poor taste, or simply aren't capable of conceptualizing what they see in a picture to be able to say anything very intelligent about them. Critiques from them are not very useful unless you're specifically trying to make your work more salable for the particular kind of market that requires this type of photo. With critiques, both giving and taking, it's the quality that counts rather than the quantity. I am an excellent photographer. Give me an assignment and tell me what you want and I assure you, I'll come pretty fucking close to the picture you had inside your head. I am very, very good at what I do. My knowledge, my experiences, all of it- from professional sports to weddings to news to feature to product to portraits.. A few goddamn months. We need to stop being goddamn snobs and accept the coming of The Golden Age. Guess how much that camera is going to sell for in say.. That's all that body will be worth, if it's in good condition. And that's if Nikon decides to keep repairing the shutters that will inevitably die by then. Have you played with a D3? That is a sweet goddamn camera. That can do everything you need to do, right now. Even ISO is beautiful. A lot of cameras are like that. Everything is getting better. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, everything is fantastic. All of the future's crappy old stuff will be today's awesome new stuff. And that means more people are going to be able to afford really great cameras that can do amazing things and we are going to see some amazing photography come from surprising places. Is this a bad thing for the industry? If you look at the quality of the photos that you can get on a smartphone now and the level of editing you can apply to those shots Adam Bevan is a writer from London, England who has travelled to over 30 countries and continues to travel as a passion. His love of photography grew out of a business venture with a friend but continued to grow from there. He is currently working freelance while increasing the number of countries he's seen. What a whiney, annoying effing post Yeah I have to agree. I don't like whinging very much. Just shut up and get on with it. Stop seeing photography through romantic eyes and realize that your ability to create an online presence is just as important, these days, as your ability to create good images. Be better than the next guy and change with the times. Most of this is pretty spot on. Plenty of free training online. Good work prevails. As Nathan mentioned below, your best now has to be better. Just have to push harder to make better images that sell. Great points and I agreed with most of it. I would argue that the experiences would take longer than 'a few goddamn months' to learn haha, but that's endlessly debatable and I get where the writer is coming from. The real takeaway for me was the fact that vision and voice were never addressed. Everything he said it right. But the truth is the low end is pushing the high end to get better. The media industry is becoming a lot more independent. The need for content is only going to increase 10 fold. The future will be different then we are use to but pro photography won't go away. He's right in that it's easier than ever now for people to get into photography - but that's a good thing. Now we're seeing photographers like Rosie Hardy, Dani Diamond, Olivia Bee, Petra Collins, Ann He - all young and ridiculously talented and inspirational, and that's a damn good thing for our industry. Photography didn't die with digital, it didn't die with cheaper equipment and advanced technology, it didn't die when Lightroom presets became popular. It changed. As much as it changed for the worse, it also changed for the better - anyone who doesn't realize that has completely taken their eye off the ball. Cars have gotten better, easier to drive, safer, and more affordable over the years. That didn't turn everyone into race car drivers or city planning engineers who design roads. Saying that technology getting better will hurt an industry is the opposite of what usually happens. I visit FS just about every day, have for the last few years The reason I qualify this post is that this article struck a nerve. Not that what was said in the article was wrong, but that the article kinda lends itself to defeatism. Yes, I agree, pretty much, with everything stated, but, and it's a very large but A photographer has been and always will be an entrepreneur..

What gives this Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography credibility? For all we know, he could be one of those guys who tried shooting for a few years, couldn't get a foothold in the industry, and then became jaded and quit. I think there is some truth Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography a few of his points especially about the rising unethical use of photo editingbut Damn it, this just feels like perpetuation of the victim attitude that seems to be in vogue right now.

I'm a Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography photographer with great business sense, so it's obviously the fault of industry and the damn Twitterbooks and Facespace that I'm not as successful as I want to be. Photography is easy, everybody can do it, clients ask for shitty snapshot and don't want my wonderful photos, the kid with Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography money will always be better the me beacuse of the gear.

I guess photographer rant about this shit form the coming of "portable" 6x7 camera in the early 20th century. We, as photographers, should start to see the possibilities involved with the changing of time.

This is true only if you do something that involve long fast tele or high fps. No pj, no wedding, no architecture, no portrait, no comercial Read more on, be serious.

WTF is unethical post? Is it the kind of post you don't want to learn to do? Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography on. Sometimes clents are not the best educated persons, but then the job become easy cause you do not have to pre-planning, invent magic tricks, stay awake at night to get some awesome ideas.

Give them what they want and what they're willing to pay and be thankful for that. Also, when you deal with un-educated people you can try to spread some culture. If your photos are good enough you can show them what they could have if they pay a little extra. You can show them the benefit in investing private valentine private porn in a solid media marketing team and sell them more products. Everybody can take a good shot.

milfnudes Watch Video Nude boobe. Dilettantes generally need a light hand in guidance because they are only playing with photography as a leisure activity. They get their feelings hurt easily and don't want to be too bogged down with controversies or what they perceive to be trivial details. These folks tend to want to believe that "everything is relative" and that "there are no rules" so that they don't really have to invest much energy in justifying or defending their own work against criticism. A dilettante is usually an individual with an interest in making friends and joining a group of people that share similar interests. Consequently, he's not competitive and feels most comfortable around people that agree with him or at least "agree to disagree. Artists are in photography because they are driven with a passion to express their own unique vantage point through the medium. Passion is another word for suffering and these people are not making or taking critiques as a leisure activity. On the contrary, their desire to be original inevitably leads to tension with the consensus of the crowd and any attempt to be different is perceived as an attack on group cohesion. Whether he realizes it or not, the artist is always the individual at war with the group. His hidden talents will only be revealed through brutal competition and conflict with convention. In my experience, most photographers don't want to admit to themselves that they are not really serious about it as an art. Many photographers claim to want to be original and develop a unique style, but how many of them are willing to really suffer for it? It's possible that a photographer's view towards criticism is partially revealing of just what kind of photographer he's on the path to becoming. I respectfully disagree. Artists are filled with self doubt, the same as everyone else, but especially if they are in an environment that does not value art. You should always be honest, but be kind. In short, when talking about their work, you are talking about them Artists of all caliber struggle. Kindness goes a lot farther than making them feel they are losing that struggle. Also, calling people who might be more sensitive or insecure a "dilettante" is probably not the best way to approach a critique. In "The Prince," Machiavelli tackles the problem of how a ruler should be able to receive advice without losing his honor in the process. A bad ruler only accepts advice that he wants to hear and surrounds himself with flatterers, or he takes everybody's advice no matter how derogatory it might be and loses the respect of others. A ruler must learn to walk a fine line in order to avoid flatterers while simultaneously keeping his dignity when being advised with honesty. Machiavelli proposes that a prince should always listen to advice no matter how negative it may be as long as he asks for it first. In other words, he should never take unsolicited advice, but once he asks for it then he must respect the honesty of the people that answer. He'd better be ready to hear negativity as well as praise and should be looking for honesty rather than flattery. Anytime a photographer puts his work on display then he is entering it into the public domain. Once it's in the public domain, then the public has a right to form an opinion of it regardless of whether or not he directly asked for it. You're correct to say that artists are often filled with self-doubt. In my previous post, I claimed that their passion drives them into uncomfortable situations. The difference between an artist and a dilettante is that an artist doesn't run away from negativity. An artist, like Machiavelli's prince, values honesty and keeps his dignity by deciding when and how he shows work to the public or asks for advice. It's not about what advice you give or what you find right or wrong with the image. It's about phrasing it in a helpful way. Harsh negativity is off putting and causes even the most serious artist to stop listening to what you have to say. Being kind or nice is not the same as not telling someone what you actually think of it. It is about how you tell them. It's the difference between working with someone and working against them. Having said that, you may have a different vision for the image than the creator, and you need to keep that in mind, too. You seem to be mostly discussing the delivery while I'm mostly talking about the message. In a perfect world, messages would always be delivered with politeness and kindness and that approach is certainly the most appropriate for people that are pursuing photography as a leisure activity. But people that are pursuing photography as an art should focus more on the message rather than how it is delivered. Please don't think I'm advocating that people should be rude to one another. That's not what I'm saying at all. The reasons behind this lie in the toolset that each of the sites provides. PhotoSIG is top-down -- with strict terms of service, a clearly delimited and defined set of functionality, a hierarchy of users, and a single, well-defined mission. Flickr is bottom-up: Pissing is fun, but it's not as much fun to be at the receiving end. I think I got a bit of both during this exchange My main thesis in the posting that started this particular mess was that photoSIG has a social dynamic that exerts strong pressure towards conformity with the "lowest common denominator. The way this works is very simple. When you start participating on photoSIG, you upload a photo. Other people see that photo, and critique it, giving it a rating between three thumbs up TU and three thumbs down TD. The former is supposed to mean something like "fantastic, unforgettable, unique," and the latter, "disgusting, offensive, should never have been shot let alone shown. By doing this, you will eventually accumulate a "contributor rating. The thing is, we humans are more like lab rats than most of us like to admit. We're social animals. We're built to be extremely sensitive to social pressure: We're also competitors: Sometimes this even takes rather nasty forms, such as trying to cut our competitors down rather than to reach higher ourselves. No big surprise there; back when these instincts evolved, someone who didn't get much approval and got lots of disapproval only got to gnaw on the bones after the rest of the tribe had made off with the meat -- and worse if he wasn't as good as the rest in bringing down the prey to start with. In other words, this sort of thing is really deeply wired into us, and we have to be exceptionally strong-willed to be able to resist it. For example, the system is very effective at forcing people to look at each others photos and at least pretend to think about them. Looking at pictures and discussing them is an extremely effective way of figuring out what it is you really like and what it is you don't, and if this part of the photoSIG ethic is applied as it's intended to be, I'm sure that it can be a great benefit. However, when it comes to what is the main thing for most people, I believe the dynamic can be highly destructive. Photography, that is. This does not necessarily mean photography that's worth a damn creatively speaking. In fact, it simply means photography that's pretty, easily digestible, and has no rough edges to stick in the throat. All theory? It started to happen to me, and I saw it happen to some other photographers I associated with during my time at photoSIG. There was one who evolved from a technically uncertain but creative and individual photographer into a technically competent but highly conventional photographer specializing in soft-focus portraits, especially glamour. The trap is real. The vulnerability may take many forms. I'm not terribly sensitive to being told my pictures suck or that I'm a pompous windbag pseudo-intellectual. If that worked, I would've stopped taking pictures and pontificating ages ago. With me, the character flaw was that I'm a gamer. I love games, and I play them to win. If you've ever been stuck playing Tetris hour after hour, you'll know what I mean -- I started playing photoSIG like I play computer games. For someone else, it could be the need for affirmation and approval, the need to dominate, or something completely different. Of course, the trap isn't inevitable -- there are a quite a few genuinely creative, individual, interesting, and non-conformist photographers active on photoSIG including, I hate to admit, one of the guys who was most vocal in stomping on me , which proves that not everybody falls into it, or that at least some people can climb out again after falling in. Perhaps the ones who really fall in and can't get out again are the ones who don't really have much to contribute creatively anyway, and are most fulfilled in refining their technique in order to shoot ducks, cats, babes, or scenics take your pick , in which case it's no big loss. Who knows, but I tend to think not. The trap is there. So if you sally forth on photoSIG, I advise you to watch out, consume responsibly, and if you find yourself falling into the rule-of-thirds-pretty-tonality-sunset-landscape bland trap, for God's sake do something -- not necessarily get off photoSIG, but do something. It's fairly common among photojournalists. So that's me, those are my strengths and weaknesses. I also publish too many pictures on my websites. I'd look better if I kept the numbers down, but this post isn't about me. It's about you and why you suck. There's nothing wrong with not being any good at photography. Everybody started out bad and none of us do all aspects of it well. But it's a crying shame to want to be good at it, to spend time and money trying to be good at it, and not getting any better. This isn't like teaching a child to read. Your Facebook friends, your Twitter followers Instead of taking 10 seconds to say, "This doesn't work. You need to do better," they readily push that "like" button because it's easy and they hope to get the same from you. But also because they're cowards. They're afraid of the internet mob. Nobody wants to get on the wrong side of a mob, so it's easier to play nice. Go along to get along seems to be the secret to a happy online life. The first night before a shoot, I never sleep. It could be something easy, a situation that I know will produce a good image, but that doesn't help. Fear of failure is a great motivator. The trick is to use it to get as well prepared as you can possibly be, and then ignore it once the shooting starts. Damn it, this just feels like perpetuation of the victim attitude that seems to be in vogue right now. I'm a great photographer with great business sense, so it's obviously the fault of industry and the damn Twitterbooks and Facespace that I'm not as successful as I want to be. Photography is easy, everybody can do it, clients ask for shitty snapshot and don't want my wonderful photos, the kid with the money will always be better the me beacuse of the gear. I guess photographer rant about this shit form the coming of "portable" 6x7 camera in the early 20th century. We, as photographers, should start to see the possibilities involved with the changing of time. This is true only if you do something that involve long fast tele or high fps. No pj, no wedding, no architecture, no portrait, no comercial Come on, be serious. WTF is unethical post? Is it the kind of post you don't want to learn to do? Come on. Sometimes clents are not the best educated persons, but then the job become easy cause you do not have to pre-planning, invent magic tricks, stay awake at night to get some awesome ideas.. Give them what they want and what they're willing to pay and be thankful for that. Also, when you deal with un-educated people you can try to spread some culture. If your photos are good enough you can show them what they could have if they pay a little extra. You can show them the benefit in investing money in a solid media marketing team and sell them more products. Everybody can take a good shot. Not everybody can be solid on a long term project. Not everybody know how to tell storie stories with the photos. Everybody can be good in taking a single shot but not everybody can enforce the brand they're working for with a photo. That's why there are so many good landscape and portrait ph. Very few in street, for example. We don't need this. I guess being a photographer today is not the same thing as it was 10 or 20 years ago. People need to evolve and stop ranting, this kind of articles do not help anyone and spread bad mood in the industry. Photography is a creative job, so be creative and stay updated. If you're not creative enough there are plenty of works that don't require creativity. Just move away and stop annoying the creatives community. Home News. It's more about equipment than we'd like to admit. Guess what he does now. And that's totally fine. And nobody cares. Posted In: December 14, February 11, November 16, Log in or register to post comments. Corvus Corax - April 17, Sadly, you are spot on Nathan Hamler - April 17, What a whiney, annoying effing post Michael Steinbach Nathan Hamler - April 17, Adding the F bomb as liberally as he did says something all by its self. Cody Ash - April 17, Most of this is pretty spot on. Chip Kalback - April 17, Great points and I agreed with most of it. Siddhartha Saha - April 17, This was posted more than 3 years ago - and he was spot on at that time! Martin Van Londen - April 17, Everything he said it right. Ed Rhodes - April 17, that reddit post is 3 years old. Jon Sharman - April 17, This kind of attitude really annoys me. Joshua Boldt Jon Sharman - April 18, Cars have gotten better, easier to drive, safer, and more affordable over the years. Anonymous - April 17, I visit FS just about every day, have for the last few years Mr Blah - April 17, "A professional photographer came forward on Reddit with a real rant about the photography industry. Worst case of content filling I've seen here in a long time Patrick Hall Mr Blah - April 17, In all due respect, the stir it is causing on here has made it one the most talked about posts on FS. Marco Fiorini Patrick Hall - April 18, It's easy to say that we are doing bad business because of others, and I think that's why it's so talked. Jennifer Kelley - April 17, 3 is the top reason I don't earn my entire living as a photographer. Roman Kazmierczak - April 17, What a whiner.

Not everybody can be solid on a long term project. Not everybody know how to tell storie stories with the photos. Everybody can be good in taking a single shot but not everybody can enforce the brand they're working for with a Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography. That's why there are so many good landscape and portrait ph. Very few in street, for example.

Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography

We don't need this. I guess being a photographer today is not the same thing as it was 10 or 20 years ago. People need to evolve and stop ranting, this kind of articles do not help anyone and spread bad mood in the industry. Photography is a creative job, so be creative and stay updated. If you're not creative enough there are plenty of works that don't require creativity.

It wasn't fun, but it got me re- thinking about some of the social dynamics going on there and my reaction Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography them, and thanks to a gentleman and very good photographer called Stephen Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography I got into another type of photo sharing site.

Beautiful naked0 Watch Video C naked. Maybe I've got one of those faces. There's nothing really exceptional or surprising about that evaluation. It's fairly common among photojournalists. So that's me, those are my strengths and weaknesses. I also publish too many pictures on my websites. I'd look better if I kept the numbers down, but this post isn't about me. It's about you and why you suck. There's nothing wrong with not being any good at photography. Everybody started out bad and none of us do all aspects of it well. But it's a crying shame to want to be good at it, to spend time and money trying to be good at it, and not getting any better. This isn't like teaching a child to read. Your Facebook friends, your Twitter followers Instead of taking 10 seconds to say, "This doesn't work. You need to do better," they readily push that "like" button because it's easy and they hope to get the same from you. But also because they're cowards. They're afraid of the internet mob. Nobody wants to get on the wrong side of a mob, so it's easier to play nice. Go along to get along seems to be the secret to a happy online life. The first night before a shoot, I never sleep. It could be something easy, a situation that I know will produce a good image, but that doesn't help. You should always be honest, but be kind. In short, when talking about their work, you are talking about them Artists of all caliber struggle. Kindness goes a lot farther than making them feel they are losing that struggle. Also, calling people who might be more sensitive or insecure a "dilettante" is probably not the best way to approach a critique. In "The Prince," Machiavelli tackles the problem of how a ruler should be able to receive advice without losing his honor in the process. A bad ruler only accepts advice that he wants to hear and surrounds himself with flatterers, or he takes everybody's advice no matter how derogatory it might be and loses the respect of others. A ruler must learn to walk a fine line in order to avoid flatterers while simultaneously keeping his dignity when being advised with honesty. Machiavelli proposes that a prince should always listen to advice no matter how negative it may be as long as he asks for it first. In other words, he should never take unsolicited advice, but once he asks for it then he must respect the honesty of the people that answer. He'd better be ready to hear negativity as well as praise and should be looking for honesty rather than flattery. Anytime a photographer puts his work on display then he is entering it into the public domain. Once it's in the public domain, then the public has a right to form an opinion of it regardless of whether or not he directly asked for it. You're correct to say that artists are often filled with self-doubt. In my previous post, I claimed that their passion drives them into uncomfortable situations. The difference between an artist and a dilettante is that an artist doesn't run away from negativity. An artist, like Machiavelli's prince, values honesty and keeps his dignity by deciding when and how he shows work to the public or asks for advice. It's not about what advice you give or what you find right or wrong with the image. It's about phrasing it in a helpful way. Harsh negativity is off putting and causes even the most serious artist to stop listening to what you have to say. Being kind or nice is not the same as not telling someone what you actually think of it. It is about how you tell them. It's the difference between working with someone and working against them. Having said that, you may have a different vision for the image than the creator, and you need to keep that in mind, too. You seem to be mostly discussing the delivery while I'm mostly talking about the message. In a perfect world, messages would always be delivered with politeness and kindness and that approach is certainly the most appropriate for people that are pursuing photography as a leisure activity. But people that are pursuing photography as an art should focus more on the message rather than how it is delivered. Please don't think I'm advocating that people should be rude to one another. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that photographers that are serious about the medium as an art should be willing to get dirty, jump into the ring, and fight. I disagree. As an art student I'm speaking solely of my experiences in having my work critiqued. Whenever I get my work critiqued, other artists emphasize what they liked while politely saying what needs to be worked on. The key here is respect. Other artists know that you are trying to make it in the world where art is not as respected as it used to be; they don't want to add your frustrations. The message could be the best in the world but let's not forget we are still people. People with feelings and emotions that extend through their work. Hi Alex. Another great article and from my personal experience of having you critique several of my photos you practice what you preach so to speak. Provide suggestions for improvement. Be encouraging. Maybe you can't be a mentor to them, but provide resources, such as web links, books, and photographers to follow. Read it for your own insight, too. Then THEY get to decide if the image was successful or not. Whatever it is you choose to do, with the mass of people there, you will find someone else with similar interests. It is precisely these people that you should seek out: Naturally, you don't have to pursue a direction in photography to appreciate it. One of my greatest influences in photography does pretty much the diametrical opposite of what I do -- where I do up-close situational "people" stuff, he does quiet, contemplative landscape stuff. On Flickr, these differences wouldn't matter: This adds up to a social dynamic that encourages creativity and individuality rather than conformity and uniformity. If there is a "bland trap" at Flickr, it's much less insidious and the forces pushing you into it are much weaker, and there's a really good chance of getting into a virtuous circle where you do your stuff and get the feedback and encouragement you need in order to continue doing it your way. That's why Flickr is better for you than photoSIG. Petteri's Pontifications My musings about photography, mostly. How to. Tripods On Perceiving Brands. Full Frame Or Not. Why I Diss L Lenses. Role of Equipment. Another Kind of Picture. Why Flickr Is Better. Cycling for Fun and Profit. Near misses. Don't Be A Bozo. Choosing lenses. Film vs digital. Selling cameras. Lens Lore for Newbies. Lens prices. Is slide better. Telephoto Is For Cowards. Boring Photographs. Why Most Landscapes Suck. Come to think of it Unloved Watches. Photo Musings. The Bland Trap My main thesis in the posting that started this particular mess was that photoSIG has a social dynamic that exerts strong pressure towards conformity with the "lowest common denominator. Well, maybe. But then again, maybe not. There are times when our animal nature is even more apparent than usual I shot this for photoSIG. It scored me 75 TU, or thereabouts. After this most recent episode, I went back to my account, picked a photo, uploaded it, but couldn't bring myself to save it and send it into the ether. All the miserable feeling of whoring for thumbs came back. My knowledge, my experiences, all of it- from professional sports to weddings to news to feature to product to portraits.. A few goddamn months. We need to stop being goddamn snobs and accept the coming of The Golden Age. Guess how much that camera is going to sell for in say.. That's all that body will be worth, if it's in good condition. And that's if Nikon decides to keep repairing the shutters that will inevitably die by then. Have you played with a D3? That is a sweet goddamn camera. That can do everything you need to do, right now. Even ISO is beautiful. A lot of cameras are like that. Everything is getting better. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, everything is fantastic. All of the future's crappy old stuff will be today's awesome new stuff. And that means more people are going to be able to afford really great cameras that can do amazing things and we are going to see some amazing photography come from surprising places. Is this a bad thing for the industry? If you look at the quality of the photos that you can get on a smartphone now and the level of editing you can apply to those shots Adam Bevan is a writer from London, England who has travelled to over 30 countries and continues to travel as a passion. His love of photography grew out of a business venture with a friend but continued to grow from there. He is currently working freelance while increasing the number of countries he's seen. What a whiney, annoying effing post Yeah I have to agree. I don't like whinging very much. Just shut up and get on with it. Stop seeing photography through romantic eyes and realize that your ability to create an online presence is just as important, these days, as your ability to create good images. Be better than the next guy and change with the times. Most of this is pretty spot on. Plenty of free training online. Good work prevails. As Nathan mentioned below, your best now has to be better. Just have to push harder to make better images that sell. Great points and I agreed with most of it. I would argue that the experiences would take longer than 'a few goddamn months' to learn haha, but that's endlessly debatable and I get where the writer is coming from. The real takeaway for me was the fact that vision and voice were never addressed. Everything he said it right. But the truth is the low end is pushing the high end to get better. The media industry is becoming a lot more independent. The need for content is only going to increase 10 fold. The future will be different then we are use to but pro photography won't go away. He's right in that it's easier than ever now for people to get into photography - but that's a good thing. Now we're seeing photographers like Rosie Hardy, Dani Diamond, Olivia Bee, Petra Collins, Ann He - all young and ridiculously talented and inspirational, and that's a damn good thing for our industry. Photography didn't die with digital, it didn't die with cheaper equipment and advanced technology, it didn't die when Lightroom presets became popular. It changed. As much as it changed for the worse, it also changed for the better - anyone who doesn't realize that has completely taken their eye off the ball. Cars have gotten better, easier to drive, safer, and more affordable over the years. That didn't turn everyone into race car drivers or city planning engineers who design roads. Saying that technology getting better will hurt an industry is the opposite of what usually happens. I visit FS just about every day, have for the last few years The reason I qualify this post is that this article struck a nerve. Not that what was said in the article was wrong, but that the article kinda lends itself to defeatism. Yes, I agree, pretty much, with everything stated, but, and it's a very large but A photographer has been and always will be an entrepreneur. As such, entrepreneurs are notorious for finding solutions. Yes, problems will present themselves in the future for the pro photographer. They have since the birth of professional photography..

On balance, I benefitted from the experience. It seems it sparked another, more constructive discussion on photoSIG too, so everything turned out all right for everybody in the end. So I decided to write up some of it, even at the risk of getting stomped on again. Flickr and photoSIG are both Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography sharing sites.

Old granny sex sites

That is, websites where people can upload their photos, share them with other photo enthusiasts, and get feedback on their work. The former is a relatively new entrant on the photo sharing scene. The latter is one of the first that really made it big.

On the surface, they're rather similar. Yet in terms of social dynamics, they're as different as night and day -- and Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography Flickr dynamic is much healthier than the Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography one.

The reasons behind this lie in the toolset that each of the sites provides.

Lisa morales nude

PhotoSIG is top-down -- with strict terms of service, a clearly delimited and defined set of functionality, a hierarchy of users, and a single, well-defined mission. Flickr is bottom-up: Pissing is fun, but it's not as much fun to Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography at the receiving end. I think I got a bit of both during this exchange My main thesis in the posting that started this particular mess was that photoSIG has a social dynamic that exerts strong pressure check this out conformity with the "lowest common denominator.

The way this works is very simple. When you start participating on photoSIG, you upload a photo. Other people see that photo, and critique it, giving it a rating between three thumbs up TU and three thumbs down TD. The former is supposed to mean something like "fantastic, unforgettable, unique," and the latter, "disgusting, offensive, should never have been shot let alone shown. By doing this, you will eventually accumulate a "contributor rating.

The thing is, we humans are more like lab rats than most of us like to admit. We're social animals. We're built to be extremely sensitive to social pressure: We're also competitors: Sometimes this even takes rather nasty forms, such as trying to cut our competitors down rather than to reach higher ourselves. No big surprise there; back when these Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography evolved, someone who didn't get much approval and got lots of disapproval only got to gnaw on the bones Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography the rest of the tribe had made off with the meat -- and worse if he wasn't as good as the Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography in bringing down the prey to start with.

In other words, this sort of thing is really deeply wired into us, and we have to be exceptionally strong-willed to be Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography to resist it. For example, the system is very effective at forcing people to look at each others photos and at least pretend to think about them. Looking at pictures and discussing them is an extremely effective way of figuring out what it is you really like and what it is you don't, and if this part of the photoSIG ethic is applied as it's intended to be, I'm sure that it can be a great benefit.

However, when it comes to what is the main thing for most people, I believe the dynamic can be highly Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography. Photography, that is. This does not necessarily mean photography that's worth a damn creatively speaking.

  • Blonde mature lady flashing
  • Latina Nikita Bellucci banged in the car
  • Nude lesbian sex position
  • Girls all naked at sleepover
  • Lesbian Girlfriends Eat Pussy
  • Mature big tit latinos

In fact, it simply means photography that's pretty, easily digestible, and has no rough edges to stick in the throat. Here theory?

It started to happen to me, and I saw it happen to some other photographers I associated with during my Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography at photoSIG. There was one who evolved from a technically uncertain but creative and individual photographer into a technically competent but highly conventional photographer specializing in soft-focus portraits, especially glamour.

The trap is real. The vulnerability may take many forms. I'm not terribly sensitive to being told my pictures suck or that I'm a pompous windbag pseudo-intellectual.

He is also an avid equestrian. Dilettantes generally need Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography light hand in guidance because they are only playing with photography as a leisure activity. They get their feelings hurt easily and don't want to be too bogged down with controversies or what they perceive to be trivial details. These folks tend to want to believe that "everything is relative" Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography that "there are no rules" so that they don't really have to invest much energy in justifying or defending their own work against criticism.

A Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography is usually an individual with an interest link making friends and joining a group of people that share similar interests.

Consequently, he's not competitive and feels most comfortable around people that agree with him or at least "agree to disagree. Artists are in photography because they are driven with a passion to express their own unique vantage point through the medium.

Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography

Passion is another word for suffering and these people are not making or taking critiques as a leisure activity. On the contrary, their desire to be original inevitably leads to tension with the consensus of the crowd and any attempt to be different is perceived as an attack on group cohesion.

Whether he realizes it or not, the artist is always the individual at war with the group. His hidden talents will only be Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography through brutal competition and conflict with convention.

In my experience, most photographers don't want to admit to themselves that they are not really serious about it Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography an please click for source. Many photographers claim to want to be original and develop a unique style, but how many of them are willing to really suffer for it?

It's possible that a photographer's view towards criticism is partially revealing of just what Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography of photographer he's on the path to becoming. I respectfully disagree. Artists are filled with self doubt, the same as everyone else, but especially if they are in an environment that does not value here. You should always be honest, but be go here. In short, when talking about their work, you are talking about them Artists of all caliber struggle.

Kindness goes a lot farther than making them feel they are losing that struggle. Also, calling people who might be more sensitive or insecure a "dilettante" is probably not the best way to approach a critique. In "The Prince," Machiavelli tackles the problem of how a ruler Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography be Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography to receive advice without losing his honor in the process.

A bad ruler only accepts advice that he wants to hear and surrounds himself with flatterers, or he takes everybody's advice no matter how derogatory it might be and loses the respect of others.

A ruler must learn to walk a fine line in order to avoid flatterers while simultaneously keeping his dignity when being advised with honesty. Machiavelli proposes that a prince should always listen to advice no matter how negative it may be as long as he asks for it first. In other words, he should never take unsolicited advice, but once he asks for it then he must respect the honesty of the people that answer.

He'd better be ready to hear negativity as well as praise and should be looking for honesty rather than flattery. Anytime a photographer puts his work on display then he is entering it into the public domain. Once it's in the public domain, then the public has a right to form an opinion of it regardless of whether or not he directly asked for it. You're correct to say Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography artists are often filled with self-doubt. In my previous post, I claimed that their passion drives them into uncomfortable situations.

The difference between an artist and a dilettante is that an artist doesn't run away from negativity. An artist, like Machiavelli's prince, values honesty and keeps his dignity by deciding when and how he shows work to the public or asks for advice. It's not about what advice you give or what you find right or wrong with the image. It's about phrasing it in a helpful way. Harsh negativity is off putting and causes even the most serious artist to Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography listening to what you have to say.

Being kind or nice is not the same as not telling someone what you actually think of it. It is about how you tell them. It's the difference between working with someone and working against them. Having said that, you may have a different vision Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography the image than the creator, and you need to keep that in mind, too.

You seem to be mostly discussing the delivery while I'm mostly talking about the message. In a perfect world, messages would always be delivered with politeness and kindness and that approach is certainly the most appropriate for people that are pursuing photography as a leisure activity. But people that are pursuing photography as an art should focus more on the message rather than Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography it is delivered.

How to delete profile pic on facebook

Please don't think I'm advocating that people more info be rude to one another. The one when you're showing images to someone perhaps an editor that you were hoping to work with Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography you get to that picture, the one that looked perfectly acceptable moments before, but as soon as you show it, you're filled with regret.

There are plenty of things photography-wise that I'm not very good at. I'm not great at creating images, but I'm pretty good at finding them. I'm terrible Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography self-promoting, marketing and the business stuff makes me squirm. Yet I'm a decent journalist, travel well and strangers often accept me into their lives.

Maybe I've got one of those faces. There's nothing really exceptional or surprising about that evaluation. It's fairly common among photojournalists. So that's me, those are my strengths and weaknesses. I also publish too many pictures on my websites. I'd look better if I kept the numbers Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography, but this post isn't about me. It's about you and why you suck. There's nothing wrong with not being any good at photography.

Everybody started out bad and none of us do all aspects of it well. But it's a crying shame to want to be good at it, to spend time and money trying to be good at it, and not getting any better. This isn't like teaching a child to read. Your Facebook friends, your Twitter followers Instead Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography taking 10 seconds to say, "This doesn't work.

You need to do better," they readily push that "like" button because it's easy and they hope to get the same from you. But also because they're cowards. Milf cum in mouth tube. Photographers love to critique. Or is it criticize? Or comment? We seem to witness quite the gamut of behavior in response to one simple request: It's easy to become annoyed or even disillusioned by the online critique community.

Much like the rest of the Internet, the relative anonymity seems to be the great enabler of arrogance and vitriol. However, if you can see this web page the noise, there are a lot of dedicated and knowledgeable photographers who will kindly lend you their expertise. There are some really original creative thinkers out there who might not yet have Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography tools to achieve their creative vision.

It's important to always critique the artistic aspects of a photograph separately from the technical. Someone's ability to properly expose a shot is not indicative of their creative vision or vice versa.

Don't dismiss one by virtue of the other. Art is full of subjective quantities. It's also full of objective quantities. Focus on the latter. There's Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography wrong with expressing Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography personal preference, so long as it's framed as a preference and not a critique.

Critiques should focus on factually based characteristics. If someone chose to Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography tone a photograph a certain way, you can certainly express your preference for another color palette, but you can't argue the superiority of one or another.

Spom Pussy Watch Video Thanks Shakeelasexxnxx. Having said that, you may have a different vision for the image than the creator, and you need to keep that in mind, too. You seem to be mostly discussing the delivery while I'm mostly talking about the message. In a perfect world, messages would always be delivered with politeness and kindness and that approach is certainly the most appropriate for people that are pursuing photography as a leisure activity. But people that are pursuing photography as an art should focus more on the message rather than how it is delivered. Please don't think I'm advocating that people should be rude to one another. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that photographers that are serious about the medium as an art should be willing to get dirty, jump into the ring, and fight. I disagree. As an art student I'm speaking solely of my experiences in having my work critiqued. Whenever I get my work critiqued, other artists emphasize what they liked while politely saying what needs to be worked on. The key here is respect. Other artists know that you are trying to make it in the world where art is not as respected as it used to be; they don't want to add your frustrations. The message could be the best in the world but let's not forget we are still people. People with feelings and emotions that extend through their work. Hi Alex. Another great article and from my personal experience of having you critique several of my photos you practice what you preach so to speak. Provide suggestions for improvement. Be encouraging. Maybe you can't be a mentor to them, but provide resources, such as web links, books, and photographers to follow. Read it for your own insight, too. Then THEY get to decide if the image was successful or not. Critique is less about evaluating someone's work as offering outside analysis of it. Not a valuable critique: I like it. The red is very pretty. Valuable critique: The red really stands out. To me, it brings a sense of drama to the image that contrasts well with its setting. Now, about the article, there are a lot of obnoxious people out there on the interwebz, they seem to know it all, and there are some of those people around here too, but then, you check out their folio and "damn Well, some people, even if they can't shoot properly, they actually have a really good taste, and know what works and what doesn't, so yeah, judging someone's opinion based on folio and or technique is not the right way of doing things. Sometimes I feel like teaching more, but people act like bricks and think they don't need to evolve, that's one of the things that keep me from commenting and helping other people who i feel that lack the technique I have and can provide them with let's be clear here, i'm not like the best photogapher on the block, but i know some cool stuff. I spent several years in art school listening to people trash each other's work. Critique day was the one day you couldn't miss but they were the days I dreaded the most. It was rough listening to several hours of people trashing each others work, even when it wasn't mine on the chopping block. We should be a community rather than every man for themselves. I've actually come to the conclusion that it's better to seek out a critique from certain valued individuals than to put work out for anyone to comment on, unless you're trying to master a technique. That doesn't mean send everything to your mother, just find someone who maybe understands your way of thinking. I still communicate with some former professors and even some well known photographers in my area who have similar subject matter. One thing to be careful of is to not try to change the artist into your own vision. I had a professor who wouldn't look at any figure work unless it was abstract and would grade low not to mention rip the pieces to shreds. He ultimately lost his job, then lost another job, because of it. Right here on this website, the last critique I watched told me that a certain person was stroking his own ego and his critique was to change everything to his style. That's basically useless advice. As a rule of thumb: The vulnerability may take many forms. I'm not terribly sensitive to being told my pictures suck or that I'm a pompous windbag pseudo-intellectual. If that worked, I would've stopped taking pictures and pontificating ages ago. With me, the character flaw was that I'm a gamer. I love games, and I play them to win. If you've ever been stuck playing Tetris hour after hour, you'll know what I mean -- I started playing photoSIG like I play computer games. For someone else, it could be the need for affirmation and approval, the need to dominate, or something completely different. Of course, the trap isn't inevitable -- there are a quite a few genuinely creative, individual, interesting, and non-conformist photographers active on photoSIG including, I hate to admit, one of the guys who was most vocal in stomping on me , which proves that not everybody falls into it, or that at least some people can climb out again after falling in. Perhaps the ones who really fall in and can't get out again are the ones who don't really have much to contribute creatively anyway, and are most fulfilled in refining their technique in order to shoot ducks, cats, babes, or scenics take your pick , in which case it's no big loss. Who knows, but I tend to think not. The trap is there. So if you sally forth on photoSIG, I advise you to watch out, consume responsibly, and if you find yourself falling into the rule-of-thirds-pretty-tonality-sunset-landscape bland trap, for God's sake do something -- not necessarily get off photoSIG, but do something. One of the things that I believe are absolute necessities in growing as a photographer is looking at other people's photos and thinking about them. Talking or writing about them can help the thinking -- this is the main reason I write all this long-winded stuff. A close second is hearing what other people have to say about your photos. However, except perhaps in the very early phases of the pursuit when you're still trying to figure out stuff like "what does 'good exposure' mean? You benefit most from looking at and critiquing photos you appreciate -- and you benefit most from being critiqued by the same people. In other words, merely getting exposure for your exposures isn't enough: Most people are too lazy, have too poor taste, or simply aren't capable of conceptualizing what they see in a picture to be able to say anything very intelligent about them. Critiques from them are not very useful unless you're specifically trying to make your work more salable for the particular kind of market that requires this type of photo. With critiques, both giving and taking, it's the quality that counts rather than the quantity. With a site as large and diverse as photoSIG, the quality is certainly there, if you can find it. It can be done, but it's a quite a lot of work. Enter Flickr: This is a photo by one of my contacts, a fellow called Nevin. I get to reproduce it on my non-commercial pontifications website without even having to ask him! The fundamental difference between photoSIG and Flickr is that Flickr puts you -- the user and photographer -- in charge. Where photoSIG imposes a particular way of acting, Flickr gives you a set of simple tools and tells you to have a ball. In photoSIG, you have a pretty limited set of actions you can do. As a photographer, you can upload a photo, put it in a folder, title, categorize, and describe it, write critiques, and mark other people's critiques as useful or not useful. Then there are the forums, which are pretty standard BBS fare, with different tiers of users basic, premium, mod, and the contributor rating next to each name. All of this is geared to one simple function: The refinements are there mostly to push people into looking at and critiquing other people's work, which is usually rather more useful than reading the critiques. As a critic or "photography appreciator," you can browse the posted pictures by category, by rating, by popularity, by controversiality, in ascending or descending order. And that's about it, really. Eventually, of course, you may find photographers worth following and start watching their pages, form circles or cliques, and so on, but that's something of a side benefit. And all of this is dominated by thumbs and "contributor rating. Flickr is different. It is a tool for linking up people, and doing stuff with your pictures. Everything is geared towards making it as easy as possible to find other people whose work you like, and following what they've been up to. Of course, plenty of other times they'd publicly bust your chops, but that was a different time. Before we all became so polite. Back when respect was something earned and not a right of birth. Do you know that feeling? The one when you're showing images to someone perhaps an editor that you were hoping to work with and you get to that picture, the one that looked perfectly acceptable moments before, but as soon as you show it, you're filled with regret. There are plenty of things photography-wise that I'm not very good at. I'm not great at creating images, but I'm pretty good at finding them. I'm terrible at self-promoting, marketing and the business stuff makes me squirm. Yet I'm a decent journalist, travel well and strangers often accept me into their lives. Maybe I've got one of those faces. There's nothing really exceptional or surprising about that evaluation. It's fairly common among photojournalists. So that's me, those are my strengths and weaknesses. I also publish too many pictures on my websites. I'd look better if I kept the numbers down, but this post isn't about me. It's about you and why you suck. There's nothing wrong with not being any good at photography. Everybody started out bad and none of us do all aspects of it well. But it's a crying shame to want to be good at it, to spend time and money trying to be good at it, and not getting any better. This isn't like teaching a child to read. But the truth is the low end is pushing the high end to get better. The media industry is becoming a lot more independent. The need for content is only going to increase 10 fold. The future will be different then we are use to but pro photography won't go away. He's right in that it's easier than ever now for people to get into photography - but that's a good thing. Now we're seeing photographers like Rosie Hardy, Dani Diamond, Olivia Bee, Petra Collins, Ann He - all young and ridiculously talented and inspirational, and that's a damn good thing for our industry. Photography didn't die with digital, it didn't die with cheaper equipment and advanced technology, it didn't die when Lightroom presets became popular. It changed. As much as it changed for the worse, it also changed for the better - anyone who doesn't realize that has completely taken their eye off the ball. Cars have gotten better, easier to drive, safer, and more affordable over the years. That didn't turn everyone into race car drivers or city planning engineers who design roads. Saying that technology getting better will hurt an industry is the opposite of what usually happens. I visit FS just about every day, have for the last few years The reason I qualify this post is that this article struck a nerve. Not that what was said in the article was wrong, but that the article kinda lends itself to defeatism. Yes, I agree, pretty much, with everything stated, but, and it's a very large but A photographer has been and always will be an entrepreneur. As such, entrepreneurs are notorious for finding solutions. Yes, problems will present themselves in the future for the pro photographer. They have since the birth of professional photography. But the successful photographer entrepreneur will find a way to still be successful, doing what they love to do! Those that will be successful in the future will find solutions. That's what we true entrepreneurs do. Talk about misleading Are you suggesting it's still causing a stir 3 years after posting? Can't be, the newest post was made 2 years ago!!! In all due respect, the stir it is causing on here has made it one the most talked about posts on FS. I think it still has legs: It's easy to say that we are doing bad business because of others, and I think that's why it's so talked. Whiners sell. You know what sell also? Will you start to post porn? No, right? Porn doesn't help photography, same for this rant. Wow, that really tells a lot. Seriously Patrick you're going come on here with the entire argument that "the stir it is causing on here has made it one of [sic] the most talked about posts on FS. This is truly nothing more than Canon sucks and Nikon rules or vise versa diatribe. But hey, it generates heated dialogue and that's all you're basically after in this tired and exhausted SEO game isn't it? Aside from making very good money doing what I already do, I don't want to be bored and have to do senior shoots a year of the same shit over and over. I get to pick and choose what I want. I'm never bored or boring. There is a very good point to 1. When I was in college I had a very low end film camera and lenses. I found myself shooting in such a way that hid the low end qualities of my gear. My lenses weren't sharp and I didn't have a super wide f-stop. Sit through a critique and let my teacher and classmates trash my work because of the limitations of my gear? No thanks. I'll shoot something different. While photography can be learned, someone with a good eye can pick up the technical aspects faster than someone who struggles with basic composition. I won 3 major art awards for high school students with the first roll of film I shot in my entire life. I struggle with the business part of it, but actually taking pictures? Nah, that's easy. What a whiner Show me your port and I will decide if I want to listen to you.

If someone presents a blurry shot, there are objective, measurable quantities such as shutter speed, aperture, and ISO that can be invoked to discuss why the shot was blurry and how it can be remedied. Blanket criticism Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography justification or suggestions for improvement is extremely off-putting see tip If you truly want to help someone improve, don't just tell them what's wrong, tell Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography how to improve it.

You wouldn't put a new student driver in a race car, would Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography If someone is new to photography, don't lecture them on frequency separation or dodging and burning.

Help them with the fundamentals that have to be in place before they can even begin to think about more advanced ideas. Talking over their head will only discourage Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography budding photographer.

I often see critiques that seem to be more interested in demonstrating how much the critic knows than in helping the person who asked for it, or even as a way to sneakily advertise the critic's own work.

Doing this helps no one involved and does little Sexy cock sharing porn spectacle along insolent Konomi endear you to your colleagues. Critiques are no place for ulterior motives. Don't just look at the photograph, think about the environment in which it was taken.

Sometimes, there are variables we simply cannot control i. Critique the photographer on how well they worked within the environment they were given; however, if they had some control over the environment, such as introducing their own lighting, you should absolutely address this. Similarly, try to place the current critique in the context of the continue reading past work.

Have you seen their work before? Comment on how they've improved or how their style has evolved over time. It can be very hard to see how your work has improved or changed over time, simply because you're https://truthmonger.info/stockings/video4755-pupeni.php close to it. Having an outside perspective is invaluable.

I'm generally a fan of being considerate of others all the time, but I think it's particularly important in this context. If someone has shown the requisite bravery to put their work and creative mind in front of you, reciprocate that with respect for their courage. There should be no reason a photographer walks away from a critique with lower self-esteem, even if Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography critique was mostly negative. Be sensitive to how you say things and remember that we all experience the words of others differently.

A little kindness can go a long way. So many critiques I've read were very clearly knee-jerk reactions and as such, showed a superficial understanding of the photograph and the processes involved in its making. Look at an image, think Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography it, then look again. You'll see and understand things that simply won't be evident upon a cursory examination.

Critiques are great opportunities to start conversations. These conversations can help you understand the photographer's intentions, further your own knowledge, or simply make a friend. After all, when we Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography for or give a critique, we are drawing on the community, so why not use that community to its fullest?

It's rare that a photograph is so mind-blowingly spectacular Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography so jaw-droppingly bad that it truly deserves an unequivocally positive or negative critique. And when I say "rare," I mean "exceedingly unusual. Of course, we're mostly used to the exceeding viciousness on the Internet; don't let the keyboard warriors of the world undermine your desire to learn and grow.

Unfortunately, some people feel a Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography of superiority by finding ways to put down others.

25 Oustanding Landscape Photos of Various Types on Imagekind

Don't let this common Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography behavior demoralize you. On the other hand, don't be taken by unfettered praise; it's certainly nice to be lavished in, but it does little for the purpose of growth. Critique is a strange beast.

  • Nude trivandrum school girlss pics
  • Gay bizarre sex fetish
  • Manila girls for sex
  • Orlando Backpage Girls
  • How to make vagina not smell
  • Horny erotic milf pics

Given properly, it can facilitate both technical and Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography growth, but given improperly, it can derail development, damage self-esteem, and undermine the strong sense of community that makes photography such a group pursuit.

Taking time to understand a photograph from all angles: You might find Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography practicing articulating full critiques also helps you to examine your own images in an increasingly beneficial Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography.

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M. He is also an avid equestrian. Dilettantes generally need a light hand in guidance because they are only playing with photography as a leisure activity.

They get their feelings hurt easily and don't want to be too bogged down with controversies or what they perceive to be trivial details. These folks tend to want to believe that "everything is relative" and that "there are no rules" so that they don't really have to invest much energy in justifying or defending their own work against criticism.

A dilettante is usually an individual with an interest in making friends and joining a group of people that share similar interests. Consequently, he's not competitive and feels most comfortable around people that agree with here or at least "agree to disagree. Artists are in photography because they are driven with a passion to express their own unique Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography point through the medium.

Passion Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography another word for suffering and these people are not making or taking critiques as a leisure activity.

On the contrary, their desire to be original inevitably leads to tension with the consensus of the crowd and any attempt to be different is perceived as an attack on group cohesion. Whether he realizes it or not, the artist is always the individual at war with the group. His hidden talents will only be revealed through brutal competition and conflict with convention.

In my experience, most photographers don't want to admit to themselves that they are not really serious about it as an art.

Xxx Homstar Watch Video Tachar Xxxx. You'll soon be more awesome than you could possible imagine. I only bring this up, because I stumble upon as do you so many Facebook groups or other social networking sites that are just filled with hideous images underscored with meaningless praise. I find it depressing. If nothing is bad, can anything be good? More depressing, Google "great photography. Some things, once seen cannot be unseen either me or Gandalf said that first. There are some sites that are doing an amazing job at publishing great photography. If you want to become a better photographer, look at these sites. When looking at the work, ask yourself, "How would I have approached this situation? Right off the top of my head, here are three sites that are doing a consistently excellent job of publishing great photography:. Time 's LightBox. The New Yorker 's Photo Booth. Once Magazine. The British Journal of Photography. Not sucking is worth the effort. Seek out great photography. Devour it, and be suspicious of any undue praise. You can check out some of Kenneth Jarecke's latest work in the new iPad photobook: Husker Game Day - Farewell Big Blogs humor Internet Jobs learning Photography. But the truth is the low end is pushing the high end to get better. The media industry is becoming a lot more independent. The need for content is only going to increase 10 fold. The future will be different then we are use to but pro photography won't go away. He's right in that it's easier than ever now for people to get into photography - but that's a good thing. Now we're seeing photographers like Rosie Hardy, Dani Diamond, Olivia Bee, Petra Collins, Ann He - all young and ridiculously talented and inspirational, and that's a damn good thing for our industry. Photography didn't die with digital, it didn't die with cheaper equipment and advanced technology, it didn't die when Lightroom presets became popular. It changed. As much as it changed for the worse, it also changed for the better - anyone who doesn't realize that has completely taken their eye off the ball. Cars have gotten better, easier to drive, safer, and more affordable over the years. That didn't turn everyone into race car drivers or city planning engineers who design roads. Saying that technology getting better will hurt an industry is the opposite of what usually happens. I visit FS just about every day, have for the last few years The reason I qualify this post is that this article struck a nerve. Not that what was said in the article was wrong, but that the article kinda lends itself to defeatism. Yes, I agree, pretty much, with everything stated, but, and it's a very large but A photographer has been and always will be an entrepreneur. As such, entrepreneurs are notorious for finding solutions. Yes, problems will present themselves in the future for the pro photographer. They have since the birth of professional photography. But the successful photographer entrepreneur will find a way to still be successful, doing what they love to do! Those that will be successful in the future will find solutions. That's what we true entrepreneurs do. Talk about misleading Are you suggesting it's still causing a stir 3 years after posting? Can't be, the newest post was made 2 years ago!!! In all due respect, the stir it is causing on here has made it one the most talked about posts on FS. I think it still has legs: It's easy to say that we are doing bad business because of others, and I think that's why it's so talked. Whiners sell. You know what sell also? Will you start to post porn? No, right? Porn doesn't help photography, same for this rant. Wow, that really tells a lot. Seriously Patrick you're going come on here with the entire argument that "the stir it is causing on here has made it one of [sic] the most talked about posts on FS. This is truly nothing more than Canon sucks and Nikon rules or vise versa diatribe. But hey, it generates heated dialogue and that's all you're basically after in this tired and exhausted SEO game isn't it? Aside from making very good money doing what I already do, I don't want to be bored and have to do senior shoots a year of the same shit over and over. I get to pick and choose what I want. I'm never bored or boring. There is a very good point to 1. When I was in college I had a very low end film camera and lenses. I found myself shooting in such a way that hid the low end qualities of my gear. My lenses weren't sharp and I didn't have a super wide f-stop. Sit through a critique and let my teacher and classmates trash my work because of the limitations of my gear? No thanks. I'll shoot something different. While photography can be learned, someone with a good eye can pick up the technical aspects faster than someone who struggles with basic composition. I won 3 major art awards for high school students with the first roll of film I shot in my entire life. I struggle with the business part of it, but actually taking pictures? Nah, that's easy. What a whiner Show me your port and I will decide if I want to listen to you The red really stands out. To me, it brings a sense of drama to the image that contrasts well with its setting. Now, about the article, there are a lot of obnoxious people out there on the interwebz, they seem to know it all, and there are some of those people around here too, but then, you check out their folio and "damn Well, some people, even if they can't shoot properly, they actually have a really good taste, and know what works and what doesn't, so yeah, judging someone's opinion based on folio and or technique is not the right way of doing things. Sometimes I feel like teaching more, but people act like bricks and think they don't need to evolve, that's one of the things that keep me from commenting and helping other people who i feel that lack the technique I have and can provide them with let's be clear here, i'm not like the best photogapher on the block, but i know some cool stuff. I spent several years in art school listening to people trash each other's work. Critique day was the one day you couldn't miss but they were the days I dreaded the most. It was rough listening to several hours of people trashing each others work, even when it wasn't mine on the chopping block. We should be a community rather than every man for themselves. I've actually come to the conclusion that it's better to seek out a critique from certain valued individuals than to put work out for anyone to comment on, unless you're trying to master a technique. That doesn't mean send everything to your mother, just find someone who maybe understands your way of thinking. I still communicate with some former professors and even some well known photographers in my area who have similar subject matter. One thing to be careful of is to not try to change the artist into your own vision. I had a professor who wouldn't look at any figure work unless it was abstract and would grade low not to mention rip the pieces to shreds. He ultimately lost his job, then lost another job, because of it. Right here on this website, the last critique I watched told me that a certain person was stroking his own ego and his critique was to change everything to his style. That's basically useless advice. As a rule of thumb: Always begin with what's good in a picture, what strikes you. If you can't find it, then go away. Mind manners: Use tone and language you'd use in a New York subway car telling the other guy his shoes don't go very well with his shirt. Without catching a bloody nose. Don't point out flaws without suggesting an actual improvement. And that can be a downer. Use language like your granny is watching over your shoulder. With a huge kitchen implement in her hand. When giving a personal opinion, stress the fact that it is a personal one Color- key may be dated, but actually some people do like it. A gambit is "a device, action, or opening remark, typically one entailing a degree of risk, that is calculated to gain an advantage". The word you were thinking of is probably "gamut", which means "the complete range or scope of something". I appreciate your article, I am one of the many creative thinkers, you spoke in your article, who has not obtain their skills they need to achieve their creative vision. I wanna express my passion through photography, learning how to deal with critiques is going to be a challenge, and open my passion for photography. Home Critiques. Sometimes, Artistic Vision Exceeds Technical Ability There are some really original creative thinkers out there who might not yet have the tools to achieve their creative vision. Have a Purpose Blanket criticism without justification or suggestions for improvement is extremely off-putting see tip Speak to Your Audience You wouldn't put a new student driver in a race car, would you? It's Not About You I often see critiques that seem to be more interested in demonstrating how much the critic knows than in helping the person who asked for it, or even as a way to sneakily advertise the critic's own work. Remember the Context Don't just look at the photograph, think about the environment in which it was taken. My friends' recent wedding. Posted In: March 21, May 21, February 4, Log in or register to post comments. Where photoSIG imposes a particular way of acting, Flickr gives you a set of simple tools and tells you to have a ball. In photoSIG, you have a pretty limited set of actions you can do. As a photographer, you can upload a photo, put it in a folder, title, categorize, and describe it, write critiques, and mark other people's critiques as useful or not useful. Then there are the forums, which are pretty standard BBS fare, with different tiers of users basic, premium, mod, and the contributor rating next to each name. All of this is geared to one simple function: The refinements are there mostly to push people into looking at and critiquing other people's work, which is usually rather more useful than reading the critiques. As a critic or "photography appreciator," you can browse the posted pictures by category, by rating, by popularity, by controversiality, in ascending or descending order. And that's about it, really. Eventually, of course, you may find photographers worth following and start watching their pages, form circles or cliques, and so on, but that's something of a side benefit. And all of this is dominated by thumbs and "contributor rating. Flickr is different. It is a tool for linking up people, and doing stuff with your pictures. Everything is geared towards making it as easy as possible to find other people whose work you like, and following what they've been up to. Equally importantly, Flickr provides the tools to do stuff with your pictures: You can blog, group, and tag them. There's desktop software that integrates with Flickr, and service providers that do the same. The palette is continuously expanding. Flickr is big on emergent order -- for example, you're not restricted to a predefined set of tags or categories: However, you can also see what kinds of tags other people are using, and you can choose to use similar ones -- for example, "blackandwhite" or "bw" if your photos are black and white, or "barcelona" if the photo has something to do with Barcelona. The same system works for people: The upshot of this is that the minute you set yourself up at Flickr, defining yourself with some of these tags, even before you've uploaded a single photo, you're invisibly linked to a network of like-minded people: Photo by Stephen Schwartz -- the fellow who pulled me into Flickr. This is one of my favorites in his "Smokers" series. Some rights reserved. But it gets better. Flickr treats photos as "streams. Together they form the "everbody's photos" stream. Now, suppose you're sitting by the stream, wiggling your toes in the water, and you see an interesting photo go by. You can click on it, and immediately you're in one particular photographer's stream. If you like what you see, you can make that individual a "contact. Then, you can dive into your contact's contacts: And so it builds up: It doesn't end here either -- there are a great many other tools available, but all are geared to linking up people. For example, if you add someone to your "contacts" list or mark one of their photos as a "favorite," they'll know about it. This can attract them to your photos, and create a link that goes both ways. All in all, the Flickr dynamic encourages networking, finding like-minded individuals not just about photography , and pursuing the directions that matter to you. Whatever it is you choose to do, with the mass of people there, you will find someone else with similar interests. It is precisely these people that you should seek out: Naturally, you don't have to pursue a direction in photography to appreciate it. One of my greatest influences in photography does pretty much the diametrical opposite of what I do -- where I do up-close situational "people" stuff, he does quiet, contemplative landscape stuff..

Many photographers claim to want to be original and develop a unique style, but Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography many of them are willing to really suffer for it? It's possible that a photographer's view towards criticism is partially revealing of just what kind of photographer he's on the path to becoming.

I respectfully disagree. Artists are filled with self doubt, the same as everyone else, but especially if they are in an environment that does not value art. You should always be honest, but be kind. In short, when talking about their work, you are talking about them Artists of all caliber struggle. Kindness goes a lot farther than making them feel they are losing that struggle.

Also, calling people who might be more sensitive or Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography a "dilettante" is probably not the best way to approach a critique. In "The Prince," Machiavelli tackles the problem of how a ruler should be able to receive advice without losing his honor in the process.

A bad ruler only Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography advice that he wants to hear and surrounds himself with flatterers, or he Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography everybody's advice no matter how derogatory it might be and loses the respect of others. A ruler must learn to walk a fine line in order to avoid flatterers while simultaneously keeping his dignity when being advised with honesty. Machiavelli proposes that a prince should always listen to advice no matter how negative it may be as long as he asks for it first.

In other words, he should never take unsolicited advice, but once he asks for it Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography he must respect the honesty of the people that answer. He'd better be ready to hear negativity as well as praise and should be looking for honesty rather than flattery. Anytime a photographer puts continue reading work on display then he is entering Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography into the public domain.

Once it's in the public domain, then the public has a right to form an opinion of it regardless of whether or not he directly asked for it.

You're correct to say that artists are often filled with self-doubt. In my previous post, I claimed that their passion drives them into uncomfortable situations. The difference between an artist and a dilettante is that an artist doesn't run away from negativity. An artist, like Machiavelli's prince, values honesty and keeps his dignity by deciding when and how he Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography work Why most landscapes suck pontificate photography the public or asks for advice.

It's not about what advice you give or what you find right or wrong with the image. It's about phrasing it in a helpful way. Harsh negativity is off putting and causes even the most serious artist to stop listening to what you have to say. Being kind or nice is not the same as not telling someone what you actually think of it. It is about how you tell them. It's the difference between working with someone and working against them. Having said that, you may have a different vision for the image than the creator, and you need to keep that in mind, too.

You seem to be mostly discussing the delivery while I'm mostly talking about the Fat naked latino woman. Gym party and european outdoor orgy Basketball.

h2 Links MainPage

Related Videos

Next

Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.
Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.
Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.
Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.