This content has been marked as final.
Show 72 replies
-
1. Re: Rules for good photography
(Peter_Figen) Nov 27, 2007 10:15 AM (in response to badchess)Oh Philip, how creative and original. I wish I had thought of those rules. Wow! I'm speechless, or something like that. -
2. Re: Rules for good photography
badchess Nov 27, 2007 10:36 AM (in response to badchess)Hmmmm, Needs work. I like the "or something like that" but the rest is rhetorically weak. To heavy handed to really pass muster.
I give the response one star.
The query was actually engendered by some photo contests Ive seen, where it seems as if many photographers randomly insert a naked women in order to create art.
But to each his own I guess. I suppose a naked women is no more trite and cliched then doing something like showing a perfectly straight road stretching into some Southwest mountains, or a broken down trailer, or other images you see time and time again.
Please note that I am not saying I come up with much in the creativity department. Maybe 1% of the pictures I take I might say actually have some creativity in them.
OK how about this rule:
Any food can be improved by adding either garlic or chocolate to it. -
3. Re: Rules for good photography
Dirk Williams Nov 27, 2007 10:45 AM (in response to badchess)I don't like the rule of thirds. It's okay in some cases but it gives the photographer limitations.
Your Rule 1 and 1b has some problems. What if the female is 400 or 500 pounds and naked?
I'm went to photosig.com and critiqued some images. I critiqued this image of a 400 or 500 pound female that was naked, posing over a tree log. I gave it two thumbs down and 23 agreed with me and 8 did not. The 8 that disagreed with me make me wonder :-\ Bunch of sick bastards... The image got some 1 and 2 thumbs up. The image was technically bad in some many ways. And my concern was why would somebody take a very overweight female outside in the woods and photographer her, not to mention post it on the web. The administrator of the website thought I was picking on the model but I was really picking on the photographer. Some comments from other people were pulled down for being honest. There should be a rule against that type of photography. I would post a link to the image but I think Adobe would not like that.
P.S. I just know I'm going to get a backlash for this post. It's all your fault, Philip :-| -
4. Re: Rules for good photography
badchess Nov 27, 2007 11:03 AM (in response to badchess)I dont know Dirk, photographs dont always have to be pretty.
I personally would prefer to see a beautiful woman then a grossly overweight one, but as far as art ugliness is a valid choice too. -
5. Re: Rules for good photography
John Joslin Nov 27, 2007 11:10 AM (in response to badchess)Rule #1
If it looks good, it's right.
Rule #2
There are no more rules. -
6. Re: Rules for good photography
Dirk Williams Nov 27, 2007 11:11 AM (in response to badchess)"but as far as art ugliness is a valid choice too."
Then I should be able to say it's ugly :-)
-
7. Re: Rules for good photography
Dirk Williams Nov 27, 2007 11:14 AM (in response to badchess)We don't want photography to be like Nascar and football with all these rules. Keep it simple... point and shoot. -
8. Re: Rules for good photography
<shep> Nov 27, 2007 11:31 AM (in response to badchess)I'm not naive enough to think that there aren't certain technical things one must adhere to, but after that, my *first* rule is: Throw out the rules. Learn all the technique to the best of your ability, then forget it all and just take pictures. <br /> <br />Oh...and I don't think the woman here would be characterized as a *classic beauty*, nor is she naked, but it's pretty good picture. (Yep, I'm over-reacting to your original premise, Phillip. <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1O1jBKFFw51H0VVTokt3p0vjgKoTg1" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1O1jBKFFw51H0VVTokt3p0vjgKoTg1_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> -
9. Re: Rules for good photography
badchess Nov 27, 2007 11:47 AM (in response to badchess)My original rule was kind of tongue in cheek, based on a lot of contest entries I've seen.
And beauty is where you find it, be that Playboy (Jimmy Conners wife, POTY 1976, yow) or on the street.
As a couple of you said, learn the rules, then determine when it works to break 'em. -
10. Re: Rules for good photography
(Peter_Figen) Nov 27, 2007 1:37 PM (in response to badchess)I guess I missed your attempt at humor. I really thought it was a serious post by someone who was, at best, maybe 19 years old and thought that adding a little t&a was the only way to spice up his photos. I was wrong there. But then again, I missed your sense of humor in your thinly veiled attempt to critique my own images. Are there clichés? Sure. Is every photographers work derivative? You bet. But here's the thing. Those images that you really seem to not like very much sure sell and sell and sell. They say that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... Funny thing too is that the art buyers who buy them don't have anythiing but compiments. I'm just about to print one of those hackneyed images right now, y'know, the Monument Valley one you think is so ordinary, because it's a great image and so many people want to own it. Oh well... -
11. Re: Rules for good photography
Dirk Williams Nov 27, 2007 2:37 PM (in response to badchess)I must of missed something completely what this thread was all about. Oh' well for me too... -
12. Re: Rules for good photography
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Nov 27, 2007 3:08 PM (in response to badchess)Best rule of all:
"There has never been a photograph made that could not be improved by cropping".
Think that one through! -
13. Re: Rules for good photography
greenjumpyone Nov 27, 2007 3:11 PM (in response to badchess)Hey, I think I live by *that* rule! ;) -
14. Re: Rules for good photography
(Donald_Reese) Nov 27, 2007 4:25 PM (in response to badchess)Peter, for what its worth, i have always admired your work,and really cant understand why the comment was even made in respect to your work. -
15. Re: Rules for good photography
(Peter_Figen) Nov 27, 2007 5:20 PM (in response to badchess)Donald,
Thanks, and I agree. If there had been an explainer or caveat prefacing the "rules" as being what they were later made out to be, it would have saved everyone the trouble. Oh well... -
16. Re: Rules for good photography
Nick Decker Nov 27, 2007 5:29 PM (in response to badchess)>But here's the thing. Those images that you really seem to not like very much sure sell and sell and sell.
Triple ditto, Peter. I don't post much here, because many would think I'm a hack. Know what, though? I've learned to take images that sell.
Why? Because it's how I make a living. Not with art, but with pleasing the client.
Philip, didn't mean to hijack your thread, and yes, the humor is appreciated. -
17. Re: Rules for good photography
LRK 2 Nov 27, 2007 6:50 PM (in response to badchess)This is probably a good topic even though some of us might have misunderstood the original intent.
And I'm kind of glad for this opportunity to express a little gratitude.
I too admire your work Peter. I don't believe I've ever said this but I respect you as a professional, artist, and level headed contributer to the forums. I often miss out on a lot of discussions due to increasing responsibilities with my business, but if I happen to see your name on a post I always try to take the time to read it. Most every thing I read of yours is worthwhile.
So please allow me to say thank you!
Linda -
18. Re: Rules for good photography
Allen Wicks Nov 27, 2007 8:14 PM (in response to badchess)f/8 and wait... <br /> <br />[used to be the rule for wildlife pix shooting <i>film.</i>] <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1KE2uOBJehhZELXlCyaxxmcdnHSOhK0" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1KE2uOBJehhZELXlCyaxxmcdnHSOhK0_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br />:) <br /> <br />Today of course we have much more competent (and complex) tools and (WooHoo!) few rules. The best of our pix are no better, but the number of quality pix we achieve in a day is much higher. -
19. Re: Rules for good photography
Dirk Williams Nov 27, 2007 8:16 PM (in response to badchess)It's f/8 and be there...
photojournalism term -
20. Re: Rules for good photography
Wade S Zimmerman Nov 27, 2007 9:16 PM (in response to badchess)I don't know about rule 1 and 2,
See if you agree with me on what I would do if I had a beautiful woman standing in front of my camera.
First of all I would most likely forget that I am supposed to photograph her and then I would only attempt to photograph her when I was too tired to do anything else provided I still had any strength left.
Since I am 62 it is not likely I would ever get around to the photography, but the good part is I wouldn't care either.
This is just my approach. -
21. Re: Rules for good photography
badchess Nov 28, 2007 4:20 AM (in response to badchess)Yeah, I noticed humor is not Peter's strong point. (Sorry I was too subtle for you Pete.) And I'm glad he sells stuff. I'm all for capitalism.
Did I say I did not like his images? Nope. Do I like some of them? Yep. Do I find many of them cliché? Yep. But then Id say 99% plus percentages of all images are derivative. Does that mean they are necessary bad? Nope. (Trying to not being subtle for the humor impaired).
Do I like looking at nekkid women? Yes. Do I roll my eyes when I see someone randomly putting a naked chick in a picture to tart it up? Yes.
Do I wish I were 19? Yep. Every time I hit a serve in tennis or go hiking I wish I were 19!
Tell you what Pete, here is a (grossly) underused thread concept we should both give a try: If you dont have something nice to say, then dont say anything.
And speaking of thread drift
Here is an interesting idea:
What do you (whoever you are) feel is your most creative or unique image? -
22. Re: Rules for good photography
(PShock) Nov 28, 2007 7:39 AM (in response to badchess)> Do I roll my eyes when I see someone randomly putting a naked chick in a picture to tart it up? Yes.
Is that what this useless thread is supposed to be about? Philip Peterson's opinion of other people's lack of creativity? Uhm, I should care about this ... why?
On a side note, Philip - I think you really need some humor lessons. You seem to possess decent spelling skill - I assume you use "copy
b w
rite" on your site in an attempt to be funny. It isn't - it just makes you appear as a numbskull. Subtle humor is great, but it can't be so subtle that no one gets it.
-phil -
-
24. Re: Rules for good photography
badchess Nov 28, 2007 8:38 AM (in response to badchess)As a one Phil to another:
Threads are about whatever an individual poster posts about...
Care about it or not.
Personally Ive always been interested in other perspectives. Thats why I read both The Nation and National Review.
Heck, I even appreciate your comment about my subtlety. Perhaps you are correct and I was too subtle. Blame Lennon (John not Vladimir) as I was rereading one of his books and into wordplay at the time.
I see a lot of logos where someone intentionally breaks one of the rules and if it is too subtle a breakage it can seem as if it were poor design, rather then cleverness. As a song goes: Theres a fine line between a groove and a rut, a fine line between eccentrics and people who are just plain nuts
If you dont like the thread, ummm, dont read it? My humor tends to run toward either black comedy ( Kind hearts and Coronets, Eating Raoul) or slapsticky (Monty Python). Where can I obtain these humor lessons of which you speak, and how much do they cost?
=================
Nice shot Lawrence! -
25. Re: Rules for good photography
(PShock) Nov 28, 2007 11:19 AM (in response to badchess)> If you dont like the thread, ummm, dont read it?
But how will I know whether or not I like a thread unless I read it? More importantly, how will you know I don't care about it ... unless I make the effort to tell you I don't care about it? I could have simply ignored it but thought you'd like to know.
See? Subtle ...
-phil -
26. Re: Rules for good photography
(P._Boone) Nov 28, 2007 12:07 PM (in response to badchess)The irony of it all...
Philip,
You know that winter trip you have planned to Yellowstone? The one where you'd like more information about the area?
My son happens to live in the area, and my friend Peter, whom you've chosen as your target - of subtle humor???- has a home there too.
Of course, there is a lot of information about Yellowstone out there, like the fact that all the gates save one are closed during winter, but then again, there's nothing like getting it from the folks who happen to have firsthand knowledge, huh?
Paz -
27. Re: Rules for good photography
badchess Nov 28, 2007 2:27 PM (in response to badchess)Indeed, Paz, but getting information out of some people instead of sarcasm can be difficult at times, and oft not worth the effort.
I try not to make people targets unless they paint one on themselves, or are otherwise hostile to me for no particular purpose. I'd say it was Peter who made me the target of his heavy handed sarcasm.
Subtle indeed Phil. Point taken.
As to Peter, I actually like his photos more then I like Phil's, though I find Phil's to be more creative (and his posts too...). -
28. Re: Rules for good photography
(Peter_Figen) Nov 28, 2007 3:33 PM (in response to badchess)Of course I was sarcastic. And a previous post explains exactly why, which is not surprising considering the manner in which you couched your initial post. Deal with it. You are making the mistake of coming to judgement about my personality by a few posts. Your conclusions could not be further from the truth. You probably wouldn't get my brand of humor anyway. -
29. Re: Rules for good photography
(r_harvey) Nov 28, 2007 3:57 PM (in response to badchess)> Your conclusions could not be further from the truth.
Actually, from your interpretation of the conclusions he presented, he appears to not... and so forth. As to knowing his actual conclusions, that's beyond the scope of the post.
> You probably wouldn't get my brand of humor anyway.
You probably wouldn't guess which parts of that statement I find funny.
Face it, this is not a very funny forum. At least not intentionally. And certainly not the intentional parts. -
30. Re: Rules for good photography
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Nov 28, 2007 4:50 PM (in response to badchess)A winter trip to Yellowstone would be an adventure.
Especially if you plan to camp!
So far as humor, the OP is tongue-in-cheek, which can be funny to some and not others. -
31. Re: Rules for good photography
Ramón G Castañeda Nov 29, 2007 1:06 AM (in response to badchess)Heavy handed?
I found the original post puerile and dumb. Yes, I also though the poster was a teenager.
Now, that's heavy handed, but it's also the truth. When one posts publicly, one becomes a fair target for feedback. (Yes, of course I'm including myself too.) -
32. Re: Rules for good photography
John Joslin Nov 29, 2007 3:57 AM (in response to badchess)I hope nobody's arguing with my rules!
(I would put a winking icon there but am assuming the the reader is intelligent enough not to get it wrong.) -
33. Re: Rules for good photography
(halinsalem) Nov 29, 2007 8:42 AM (in response to badchess)Hey John
I thought your post, and rules, was the most intelligent post in this thread. When I got to Number 32, I was wondering why I took the trouble to get this far.
Hal -
34. Re: Rules for good photography
(Peter_Figen) Nov 29, 2007 2:36 PM (in response to badchess)The problem with text is that so often the real meaning is obscured by the words. I usually "get" most humor, whether or not I find it funny. So often it's so hard to communicate clearly here, that often times humor only confuses already too complex issues. That's why I tend to stay away from that here. All you have to do is look elsewhere on the U2U forums to see how many people are still completely confused by something as simple as monitor calibration, gamuts and save for web, or some other "experts" advising people how to screw themselves. Now that's funny. Or is it? -
35. Re: Rules for good photography
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Nov 29, 2007 4:40 PM (in response to badchess)The problem with text is the writer. One doesn't miss what Winston Churchill is saying. "I may be drunk but you are ugly. Tomorrow, I will be sober."
No smileys of any sort necessary. -
36. Re: Rules for good photography
(r_harvey) Nov 30, 2007 10:42 AM (in response to badchess)It was even funnier the first time, when W. C. Fields said it. -
37. Re: Rules for good photography
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Nov 30, 2007 12:54 PM (in response to badchess)Actually, he said this:
Man (to WC): "You're drunk!"
WC: "Yeah, and you're crazy. And I'll be sober tomorrow and you'll be crazy for the rest of your life."
Churchill was much more elegant. -
38. Re: Rules for good photography
R Popham Nov 30, 2007 3:33 PM (in response to badchess)I was behind a car the other day with this bumper sticker:
"I may be fat, but you're ugly. I can lose weight"
Somebody just took that idea and ran with it! -
39. Re: Rules for good photography
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Nov 30, 2007 7:15 PM (in response to badchess)Ah, it was simply an example of writers capability, nothing more. I could have picked any number if Churchill's comments, but that one (abridged, btw) came to mind.
Nothing new under the sun. :-)



