Topic 'Re: Excellent photo?' in forum 'Digital Imaging' - dslreports.com

Re: Excellent photo?

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:52:21 EDT

EGeezer posted : I'm sorry you have taken such little pleasure and endured so such frustration and negative feelings from the submissions I and others make to the gallery and forums.

Perhaps if you ever choose to provide encouragement and specific constructive, helpful comments and suggestions, it might make your future viewing experience more palatable and even raise the level of excellence you consistently decry.

In the meantime, I'll continue to post those images I feel are enjoyable and helpful. If I have criticisms of others' images, I will attempt to provide it in the form of suggestions I feel may be encouraging and help to those who participate in this wonderful community.

We wish all of you a prosperous and happy new year, and hope you all continue to enjoy photography and sharing your images and stories.
--
Buckle Up. It makes it harder for the aliens to suck you out of your car.

Re: Excellent photo?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:06:33 EDT

rcroning posted : I haven't missed any point marti. The whole purpose behind shooting RAW is to be able to make changes, then convert to an out like jpg or tiff. I have several photographs that don't need changes, just plain old conversion.

Anyway, this is my last response to you as it's like trying to have a discussion with a log.

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:06:30 EDT

mhhack posted : One has a right to one's personal preferences, as in I'd never pick that color, but to each his own. Versions of this maxim appeared in the late 1500s but the modern wording was first recorded in 1713.

I'm happy to see that the maxim lives on, but it has nothing to do with excellence.

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:52:45 EDT

caffeinator posted :

said by EGeezer:

said by caffeinator:

Whether anyone likes them or not, I'm proud of 'em. That's what matters to me. I've never owned a DSLR or shot in RAW and probably never will, but that is ok. I can still shoot things that I like. :)

Caff, that sums it up perfectly. I also REALLY enjoy your photos of the wonderful eats you conjure up(recipes and instructions too). What self-appointed judges think people you, me or anyone else should or should not be posted here is of no real consequence to me.

said by SueS:

Good to hear! Unless you are making a living with a camera, I think this is what photography is to most people. Have fun!

Thanks guys!

Food photography can be pretty hard...but I enjoy it as much as I love cooking and eating the subject. It's like inviting the whole world to your kitchen. :D

I wish I had the funds for good camera gear like my father had back in the day, but I still have his sense of wonder about the world, and the desire to capture it.

I've not ever made any money from photos, but I recently had the fun of being asked if one of my images could be used on the product's website as their stock pics are not correct.

This one: »/showpic/dimag···folder=0

It's just nice to be acknowledged sometimes.. :)
--

My 9/11 Tribute..online since 9/14/01
Need an Avatar? Check out Wafen's Avatar Pages

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:01:46 EDT

SueS posted :

said by caffeinator:

Whether anyone likes them or not, I'm proud of 'em. That's what matters to me. I can still shoot things that I like. :)

Good to hear! Unless you are making a living with a camera, I think this is what photography is to most people. Have fun!

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:00:21 EDT

EGeezer posted :

said by caffeinator:

Whether anyone likes them or not, I'm proud of 'em. That's what matters to me. I've never owned a DSLR or shot in RAW and probably never will, but that is ok. I can still shoot things that I like. :)

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:39:10 EDT

caffeinator posted : IDK if they are excellent, but here a couple of photos I took awhile ago with my cheap old Samsung S630. No tripod, no fancy processing (other than a bit of color correction on the fly image) or lighting. Just fun pics.

The first two pics. I'd just found them and decided to post 'em.
»/pics/dimaging···0&sort=d

Whether anyone likes them or not, I'm proud of 'em. That's what matters to me. I've never owned a DSLR or shot in RAW and probably never will, but that is ok. I can still shoot things that I like. :)

--

My 9/11 Tribute..online since 9/14/01
Need an Avatar? Check out Wafen's Avatar Pages

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:55:57 EDT

mhhack posted :

said by Jodokast96:

If you stated that about my photography, I'd probably agree with you. If you said it was shit, I may even agree with that. Or not, doesn't really matter. Truthfully, the things I've posted there, were at the time of posting, the best I had ever produced. But that's not why I put them there, nor why I leave them there. I put them there for me because I liked them, and thought that maybe some of the others here might enjoy them as well. If not, I really didn't care. I keep them there for me as well. As I've said many times, I like seeing how far I've come (or haven't).

You've many points here that I agree with, but basically you're ambivalent about some of them, while I'm less so.

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:42:59 EDT

rcroning posted : marti old chap, I shoot RAW all the time. And there are some which I convert straight from RAW to jpg without the need for any post work. Maybe that's something you can't achieve. Others can and do.

Re: Excellent photo?

Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:24:22 EDT

vaxvms posted :

said by mhhack:

It doesn't ever get to the viewing stage without processing, and there just might be a reason for all the photo editing software out there.

Sounds like you're starting with less than stellar photos and using software to cover over the flaws in the photos. Reminds me of Tammy Faye Baker.

Re: Excellent photo?

Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:30:51 EDT

Jodokast96 posted : If you stated that about my photography, I'd probably agree with you. If you said it was shit, I may even agree with that. Or not, doesn't really matter. Truthfully, the things I've posted there, were at the time of posting, the best I had ever produced. But that's not why I put them there, nor why I leave them there. I put them there for me because I liked them, and thought that maybe some of the others here might enjoy them as well. If not, I really didn't care. I keep them there for me as well. As I've said many times, I like seeing how far I've come (or haven't).

Re: Excellent photo?

Tue, 25 Dec 2012 12:32:17 EDT

Coma posted :

said by rcroning:

I have several that have never seen post processing and are nice enough to view.

That is what I strive for but those are rare.

--
December is National Fruit Cake Month

Re: Excellent photo?

Tue, 25 Dec 2012 11:59:09 EDT

rcroning posted : "It doesn't ever get to the viewing stage without processing, and there just might be a reason for all the photo editing software out there."

That's goose poop. I have several that have never seen post processing and are nice enough to view.

Re: Excellent photo?

Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:38:32 EDT

mhhack posted : Let me pose a hypothetical for you: Suppose I've just visited your Gallery, and stated openly for others to see "that your photography is mediocre at best". I would understand that you considered your images from your own point of view as good work, otherwise why post them? I wouldn't consider it amiss for you to make others understand that the opinion was just that, an opinion, and there were others far more positive. An attack is an attack, as a rose is a rose.
I wouldn't that consider self loathing and snobbery had anything to do with it.

Re: Excellent photo?

Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:21:40 EDT

mhhack posted : About the only thing I can get from you that I understand is that all opinions are valid. Just so. Let me assure you that when I see a curated show, photographs, paintings or whatever, I make my own judgments, and give a bit more than lip service to the curators. I often see stuff I wouldn't hang on my walls, but then again art is in a sense a moving target, and some people may understand it a bit better than I do. Doesn't mean I like it any better.
It strikes me that in some ways I actually agree with you!

Re: Excellent photo?

Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:10:59 EDT

mhhack posted :

said by vaxvms:

Why does an excellent photo need to be processed?

It doesn't ever get to the viewing stage without processing, and there just might be a reason for all the photo editing software out there.

Re: Excellent photo?

Tue, 25 Dec 2012 05:35:41 EDT

Jodokast96 posted :

said by mhhack:

If you think my " photography is mediocre at best" I'll certainly accept your evaluation, but I believe that I can quote the opinions of some others, far better photographers than you, who've come to the opposite conclusion.

That just reeks of self loathing and snobbery, somehow all at the same time. You are far too caught up in the opinions of those with "titles". As I noted in another thread, those with such "titles" that you so desire recognition from, have deemed one of the blandest photos in history as "extraordinary". Their opinions are just that, opinions. Just like yours, just like mine. None is more valid than the next, nor invalid for that matter. What is important is the reasoning behind those opinions. It's a bit sad that you subject yourself to such narrow views to gain acceptance.

Re: Excellent photo?

Tue, 25 Dec 2012 05:19:47 EDT

Jodokast96 posted :

said by mhhack:

Who decides if a photograph is 'good' enough to hang in a museum? I think that if enough people with technical and artistic experience decide that a photograph is excellent it most likely is.

I call BS. A prime example: [att=1]
»news.yahoo.com/record-photo-sold···446.html

said by mhhack:

In this sense excellent might be defined as a collective decision, and not a mix of disparate opinions.

Except it really is both.

said by mhhack:

I disagree that we all have different ideas of excellence - then nothing would hang in galleries.

Again, BS. See example above.

said by mhhack:

There has to be some common acceptance of what excellence means, or else it means nothing.

See my second comment above.

said by mhhack:

I also think that your statement that the bar for excellence is continually rising is also not quite true; there may be more people using better equipment, but for some time now equipment can be ruled out as a determining factor, while the human element remains the same.

She never mentioned equipment, nor that it was the reason the bar is continually rising. But since you brought it up, the fact that equipment has gotten so cheap means that everybody now has some type of more than decent camera with them at all times. This has not only given people who previously may not have had any equipment at all to now enter the world of photography. And given the ubiquity of cameras out there, any and everyone can now truly "f/8 and be there".

Re: Excellent photo?

Tue, 25 Dec 2012 00:27:13 EDT

EGeezer posted :

said by mhhack :

... I can quote the opinions of some others, far better photographers than you, ..

The judge of photographers has spoken. We are indeed humbled.

Well, maybe not.
--
Buckle Up. It makes it harder for the aliens to suck you out of your car.

Re: Excellent photo?

Mon, 24 Dec 2012 23:58:32 EDT

vaxvms posted : Why does an excellent photo need to be processed?

Re: Excellent photo?

Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:47:13 EDT

mhhack posted : A Bit more on Excellence, Exceptional and Extraordinary

What might characterize the images posted in the Gallery? I can speak only for myself, but I suspect that everyone who works hard on their photographs will understand what I'm saying.

In the first place, we take our images with the notion that they will, after processing, let others see what we saw, views that we considered interesting.

In the second place, during processing we strive to produce an image that is not simply out of the camera, but touches on excellence, that is, it accurately portrays what we want it to, and if we're lucky, it may be an excellent photo, both technically and artistically, and will be seen as such. Since some posters here have a notion that excellence is whatever you decide about your own photographs, there is the further question of how your image is seen by others. I suppose that if more than a few independent viewers think the image is excellent, then it is. In addition, there may be those whose standards are so high that no posted images meet their criteria for excellence.

In the third place, every now and then we may be astonished that some of the images we're working on go beyond excellence, and occasionally are exceptional. If you have had this experience, you will recognize the feeling. Those of you who are artistically inclined will know exactly what I mean.

Rarely, you might produce an extraordinary image, but maybe this might be a once in a lifetime proposition. In any event, it will be the posted image that defines the photographer. I'm happy to be defined this way, and you might be as well.

Re: Excellent photo?

Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:49:48 EDT

mhhack posted :

said by SueS:

I was under the impression that we had a Gallery here, and that possibly we had some excellent photos posted here.

Re: Excellent photo?

Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:34:13 EDT

mhhack posted : Who decides if a photograph is 'good' enough to hang in a museum? I think that if enough people with technical and artistic experience decide that a photograph is excellent it most likely is. In this sense excellent might be defined as a collective decision, and not a mix of disparate opinions.
I disagree that we all have different ideas of excellence - then nothing would hang in galleries. There has to be some common acceptance of what excellence means, or else it means nothing.
I also think that your statement that the bar for excellence is continually rising is also not quite true; there may be more people using better equipment, but for some time now equipment can be ruled out as a determining factor, while the human element remains the same.

Re: Excellent photo?

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:12:23 EDT

SueS posted :

said by richdelb:

Reading this tread made me look at my photos in the gallery and ask "Are any of mine excellent?"

JKK thought this one was "excellent". Does it make it so? I don't know.. I like it (or I would not have posted it, I guess)

I think "excellent" is subjective.

I guess you can use technical indicators to see judge if a picture is properly exposed, in focus, composed correctly (rule of thirds being one "example" but not a DEMAND). If a person or subject is half way cut off the frame, that would be a demerit, etc. But an overall evaluation of "excellent"??? It's too subjective and individualized to be painted with a broad stroke.

The answer, in my opinion, is "It depends"

»/showpic/dimag···folder=0

Is this shot "excellent"? I don't know, but I thought it was good enough to share with you all, so I thought it was "up there"......

This was my reason for asking, I was sure we all had different ideas for the word. I like to reserve the word for the best of the best. If we were all making excellent images, wouldn't they be hanging in galleries?

I see wonderful photos everyday and enjoy them, but I don't necessarily think they are all excellent. The word means of a very high quality or standard. I also think that because so many folks are doing photography today that the bar is continually rising.

Re: Excellent photo?

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:00:02 EDT

SueS posted :

said by mhhack:

You still haven't listed a single excellent photo that exists on this site. Hard to believe.

I am not one to point fingers, so I will not pick out any photos from our gallery.

Re: Excellent photo?

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:03:14 EDT

krazyboi posted :

said by richdelb:

I think "excellent" is subjective.

I guess you can use technical indicators to see judge if a picture is properly exposed, in focus, composed correctly (rule of thirds being one "example" but not a DEMAND). If a person or subject is half way cut off the frame, that would be a demerit, etc. But an overall evaluation of "excellent"??? It's too subjective and individualized to be painted with a broad stroke.

The answer, in my opinion, is "It depends"

I agree....

Re: Excellent photo?

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:02:48 EDT

mhhack posted : You're obviously (perhaps obliviously) avoiding my response to your statement that "All art tells a story"; perhaps you don't really believe it.

Re: Excellent photo?

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:36:01 EDT

richdelb posted : Reading this tread made me look at my photos in the gallery and ask "Are any of mine excellent?"

JKK thought this one was "excellent". Does it make it so? I don't know.. I like it (or I would not have posted it, I guess)

I think "excellent" is subjective.

I guess you can use technical indicators to see judge if a picture is properly exposed, in focus, composed correctly (rule of thirds being one "example" but not a DEMAND). If a person or subject is half way cut off the frame, that would be a demerit, etc. But an overall evaluation of "excellent"??? It's too subjective and individualized to be painted with a broad stroke.

The answer, in my opinion, is "It depends"

»/showpic/dimag···folder=0

Is this shot "excellent"? I don't know, but I thought it was good enough to share with you all, so I thought it was "up there"......

Re: Excellent photo?

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:36:25 EDT

krazyboi posted :

said by SueS:

said by krazyboi:

I overall tend to like pictures with:

good composition
good lighting
clean backgrounds

I also like candids over posed portaits, unless it's 'creative' posed portraits.
I like HDR but not overused HDR on landscapes.
list goes on....

Are all those photos with those criteria excellent in your opinion or do you just like them?

IMO, kinda Both. I enjoy art/photography and feel it is subjective... so with that, I like seeing people 'progress' and get better. I'm not going to knock someone for trying or seizing the moment. Hard to learn if you're not trying or experimenting. As a photographer we sorta know what goes into making an 'excellent' picture. The 'criteria' are mainly for those who will post the same type of picture over & over and ask what is wrong with it. I'm on Instagram and majority of the photos there are from smartphones and I still enjoy looking at those pictures as much as browsing through Flickr or 500px.

Re: Excellent photo?

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:30:51 EDT

rcroning posted : Horny flower!!! Absolutely!! Just waiting to "bee" had!!! ;-) ;-)

Like I said, the oblivious won't get it ;-) ;-)

Re: Excellent photo?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:54:25 EDT

Coma posted :
A horny flower ?

Re: Excellent photo?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:50:12 EDT

mhhack posted : Nonsense. What's the story here: »/showpic/dimag···316&p=3?

Quoting from your post: :"If one is oblivious, one will not get it."

Why the personal attack mode; my comment simply said that art may or may not tell a story.

Re: Excellent photo?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:15:02 EDT

rcroning posted : All art tells a story. If one is oblivious, one will not get it.

Re: Excellent photo?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:02:28 EDT

mhhack posted : You still haven't listed a single excellent photo that exists on this site. Hard to believe.
The NYTimes images are basically photojournalism, and as such have those elements that appeal to our basic humanity, and have as well a terrifying reality. They are sui generis.

Re: Excellent photo?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:45:47 EDT

mhhack posted : You are setting up photography as a special art form; museums are full of fine art that tells no story at all. Fine photography may or may not tell a 'story'.

Re: Excellent photo?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:23:46 EDT

rcroning posted : All things aside, a really good photograph will have a story to tell.

Ralph.

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:58:43 EDT

SueS posted : The NYTimes photos of the year are excellent photos in my opinion. Look at the photo of the year for 2012

»lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/1···-winner/

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:20:26 EDT

vaxvms posted : If any should exist Can you post links to a few photos that are excellent?
--
CMKRNL

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:13:21 EDT

SueS posted : I never mentioned that a photo needed to be technically great to be excellent. :)

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:03:28 EDT

EGeezer posted : this and this is excellent.

Blurry? yep. Blown out sky? Yep. Excellent? Convince me otherwise.
--
Buckle Up. It makes it harder for the aliens to suck you out of your car.

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:04:07 EDT

SueS posted :

said by vaxvms:

Help me to understand what, in your opinion, differentiates an excellent photo from a mediocre one and why.
I consider this to be an excellent photo »/pics/resize/140011
This photo
wasn't very hard to get,
doesn't contain a unique subject,
doesn't have exceptional light,
has nothing to make it stand out from the rest
anyone here could make it
there's nothing to make it stand out from the rest
What could have been done to make this photo excellent or is there no way this photo could ever be excellent?

Perhaps a bear standing there eating those berries. :)

How can an image that anyone can make be excellent, wouldn't that be giving a whole new meaning to the word?

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:37:27 EDT

pkalona posted : I think the elements of an excellent image cannot be easily articulated. This is particularly true due to the fact that there are different types of photography such as portrait, landscape, architecture, abstract, etc.. Each with its own technical and stylistic attributes for excellence. For example, great bokeh is important to many portraits but not necessarily for a landscape.

Re: Excellent photo?

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:12:20 EDT

Jodokast96 posted :

said by vaxvms:

said by SueS:

I don't see anything in any of these images that is hard to do

I don't understand. Are you saying that an excellent photo must be a challenge to capture? Simple photos cannot be excellent?

I think I understand what she is getting at. She doesn't seem to verbalize it well, but I think in essence it's the same as my idea of excellence. She knows it when she sees it.