Saturday morning where I go in Gainesville there was a gentleman sitting on the bench under the shelter. I had stopped to check my settings, and I said, "Is it foggy or raining?", and he said it was just fog. He said I should be able to get some good pictures. Then he asked what do I do with my pictures. I said, "Nothing, really, except post them on Facebook for friends and family and on a critique site I belong to called Nature Photographers Network." I explained briefly what NPN is (critique and learning) and isn't ("great shot") about. I said that I've learned everything I know from people on NPN.
He said, "But what does that do to your heart?" He said, "What if Picasso had done that? Then he wouldn't have been Picasso." I said, "True, or maybe he would have been a better Picasso." He laughed and said to have a great day, and I said the same back to him.
What do you think about that? Please note that I'm not advocating what he said, and the only time I've been absent from NPN is when I wasn't doing photography at all for about 3 years (during which time I remained an NPN member), so I'm not presenting an argument of any kind against NPN. But I do consider myself an artist, though still a learning artist, with photography as my medium, and I have kept thinking about what he said, and I wonder how it fits in with photography.
It's not clear what you are asking. Are you asking if we think NPN should be more about "great shot" to make people's hearts feel better?
I don't think people have to capture great images to make their hearts feel better and they certainly shouldn't need people to tell them it is a great shot if it isn't. For me, the very act of being out in nature, seeing things, and occasionally capturing a nice image does make my heart feel better. A good friend of mine says "photograph what you feel".
If the question is about providing more "great shot" comments here, then I'm not interested. Learning is a lifelong process. I've never taken the perfect image, and I'm certain I never will.
There are more than enough photo "critique" sites on the internet that provide a venue for those people who only want to hear the great shot comments. Of course those poor souls are the ones missing out because they either don't want to hear the truth, or they don't want to accept it.
But I do consider myself an artist, though still a learning artist, with photography as my medium, and I have kept thinking about what he said, and I wonder how it fits in with photography.
Barbara, I think your comment says it all. If one looks back on the history of the photogs who began to hone their skills, talents, and personal signatures to their photos here at NPN I think you will indeed make the connection overall. The other day I just took a short bit of time and scrolled through the NPN photographer gallery. Although my recall is excellent for an old guy I was still reminded about the amazing talent that have posted here at this site over the last 15+ years. They too all are much better artists for it IMO....
Keith, no, not at all. I'm not asking for ANY changes to NPN.
I'm asking which you think theoretically is true, that Picasso wouldn't have been Picasso if he had belonged to something like NPN and it changed his point of view about art, or whether Picasso could have been a better Picasso if he had belonged to something like NPN and it changed his point of view about art.
Please let me know if that still isn't clear. This isn't about changing NPN at all. It's really a conceptual question about art and whether all artists might be better, even, for instance, to switch examples, Ansel Adams, if they listened to other people's critique of their work.
Posted by Keith Bauer on April 3, 2017 at 10:24 AM
Barbara: I didn't mean to imply that you meant changes to NPN. Your explanation is clear. I believe all artists have the ability to become better artists if they are willing to listen to input from others. It doesn't mean that they have to accept it, but by not listening to it, I think they are missing a huge source of inspiration. Conversely, those who provide "critiques" that aren't really honest are not doing themselves or the image maker any favors.
Paul and Keith, being "much better artists for it" and "by not listening to it, I think they are missing a huge source of inspiration" really puts it all in perspective, I think. Thank you both.
Even Picasso had to learn his craft before he could produce images that came from his heart. Learning the craft comes from practice and often through the instruction/assistance of others. Through practice and listening to advise the artist develops and perfects a style. I don't see any conflict here. NPN is a great way to get advise and help develop our craft. We all hope to become masters someday. But even then, listening to feed back is a great source of inspiration, as Keith said.
Maybe if Picasso had a resource like NPN tailored for painters, the portrait that you commissioned where you had to sit still and model for 3 weeks wouldn't end up being a cube with eight eyes and a nose on the side....
Maybe if Picasso had a resource like NPN tailored for painters, the portrait that you commissioned where you had to sit still and model for 3 weeks wouldn't end up being a cube with eight eyes and a nose on the side....
Steve Kennedy's comment covers most of my thoughts on this.
I see photography as having two major parts - craft and art. The Craft part covers the mechanics of the gear, handling, exposure, focus, etc. The Art component is the selection of subject, how the light interacts with the subject, and how it is presented. I think it is important to master the craft if a person wants the Art to be effective.
Not every photographer strives to be an Artist, nor needs to be one.
I agree that NPN is a great resource for perfecting the Craft of photography, but there is always the chance that the feedback process can stifle the Art. Many years ago here on NPN there was a lot of pressure from the comments forcing "bird on a stick" images over other styles - such images got lots of positive comments and often were awarded Editors Pick status, while other styles received many fewer comments and/or criticisms for not being BoaS. Thankfully I think NPN has moved beyond that and welcomes diversity of image styles.
I also think this Art/Craft dichotomy is what makes commenting so difficult. I think experienced photographers can see bad craft and make comments that address the issues and recommend ways to improve. But commenting on the Art component is subjective and a lot more difficult. Personally I'm hesitant to criticize style since it is so subjective, and I also have trouble saying exactly why certain images "blow me away" when they connect artistically for me.
Richard, that's so clear and makes so much sense. Thank you.
Posted by Marjie Jones on April 4, 2017 at 1:45 PM
I don't comment much or post a lot of photos because I feel like I am not at the same level as most of the photographers here. I love looking at the photos and reading the comments, and I am inspired by what I see. That being said, my first thought was that the man was asking if it made your heart happy because you had such a limited audience. That we would not have known about Picasso if he had only shared his art with friends and family and a few artist groups. I know that I am happy when I can make my friends and family happy with my photography, but that doesn't mean that I don't like to get recognition from other photographers and people who don't know me, but still appreciate my art.
Marjie, thank you for posting that different viewpoint. I think your last sentence is very true.
Being inspired by what you see depends on whether you have the same types of birds where you go, a long enough lens, etc., to actually do something like what you see, but it's something that's happening to me more now, and I think I need to start keeping track of the things I want to try to get in images. For example, I've always found Wood Storks difficult because they're so big and they just don't look that interesting, in general. But I recently saw a portrait of a Wood Stork preening (posted in a Facebook Florida photography group), and it was the most beautiful Wood Stork shot I've ever seen. I want to get something like that if I can.
On a more practical note, he was the one "sitting there", while you were out walking around, carrying your gear and getting some exercise. Photography is hard work. I think that's only doing good things for your heart.
A great topic, and I think an even greater, quick-witted response by you:
True, or maybe he would have been a better Picasso.
This touches a bit on one of my philosophies, and I think I've shared a few times. Yes, you can make a better Picasso, yes, you can make your images better (more on craft vs. art in a min.) What I think is you can make a fair image better, you can make a very good image great, and you can make a great image fantastic... by improving your "craft." But it's a much bigger stretch to make a fair image fantastic... NPN, and the members here, have helped me make my images better, by learning the craft of photography and continually learning and improving. I still continue to use what I learned from Mr. Kuyper, TK to most of us... ;-) - and that is two things: Make the image the best it can be, and second, letting the "image take you where it wants to go." A novel concept to say the least. Oh, I can't leave out all his tools that are engrained in my work flow.
Many comments so far separate the craft of photography with the artistic side. I agree these certainly can be separate, but they are also linked. You can have the vision and talent of a Picasso, but if you can't put it on canvas.... what's the point? ;-) But I truly believe there is an art to photography, and in our case nature/landscape photography. That's not to disregard the numbers of togs who could care less about being artistic, but simply enjoy the "being out there in nature" aspect of photography. I'm guessing we're all in that same boat of enjoying being out there, regardless of trying to be artistic.
Having said that, if one believes their photography has artistic merit, that's all the matters. It's been said, it's all subjective and just because we think an image is artistic, doesn't mean a viewer of that image thinks it is. Someone else touched on this, I think it was Richard, about 'connecting with an image." What means the most to me, aside from my own enjoyment and passion of both the craft and art of photography is when my image "connects" with a viewer or fellow photographer. Obviously, we all don't connect with every image and there should be no expectation that we do. Personally, I can't connect with Picasso's work either...
I also agree with other comments that it's difficult to critique the artistic merit of images posted. Not only is it difficult, it's just not fair or accurate to place judgment on what someone else might think as being artistic. It's subjective, I think everyone agrees. However, if somehow an image does "connect" with the viewer or critic, then by all means that's important feedback to provide.
So having said all that, it's easier and more understandable that most of us comment on the crafting of the image - color, contrast, crop this, clone that. For me, it gets back to simply offering suggestions to make an image better. If an image really connects with me, I try and make that known too. It's much more difficult to make suggestions on "vision" or any other artistic quality.
What does the heart good? Following your passions. NPN had nothing to do my passion (I found it, oh about 1972....taking too many pictures of the mountains in Glacier NP...) but for certain, NPN helps keep that passion going today, by letting me share my images and improving my craft.
I also agree with other comments that it's difficult to critique the artistic merit of images posted. Not only is it difficult, it's just not fair or accurate to place judgment on what someone else might think as being artistic. It's subjective, I think everyone agrees. However, if somehow an image does "connect" with the viewer or critic, then by all means that's important feedback to provide.
So having said all that, it's easier and more understandable that most of us comment on the crafting of the image - color, contrast, crop this, clone that. For me, it gets back to simply offering suggestions to make an image better. If an image really connects with me, I try and make that known too. It's much more difficult to make suggestions on "vision" or any other artistic quality.
I really like that.
I wonder if letting the "image take you where it wants to go" applies as much to avian and wildlife photography as it does to landscape and flora. In avian and the occasional wildlife I see I usually find myself trying to follow where the subject wants to go. But I understand that the more experience a person has the more mental control he/she might have over even a situation with an avian or wildlife subject, at least some of the time.
But I really, really like the thought of letting the image take you where it wants to go and wonder if I could really implement that in avian and the occasional wildlife photography I do. I say "occasional" because there is, for me, anyway, a limit to how many alligators I'm willing to photograph, and I passed that limit a long time ago unless it's a baby (awww) or an alligator eating something (ewww) or there's something else a little unusual about it.
Posted by Basil Greber on April 17, 2017 at 3:18 AM
An interesting topic. Two things. First, even the greatest artists don't live in a vacuum. Everyone gets feedback from someone, at least some of the time. So, I don't see any harm in participating here. They might not be Picassos, but people like Marc Adamus, and many others who have become inspirations to many, used to post here. I don't think it derailed their careers in a major way. :-) I agree that other sites like 500px, where peer pressure gets everyone in line and basically everyone (at least in landscape) processes in the same style, may be a bit restrictive, but I feel that on this site here, quite a diversity of styles is accepted and finds acclaim. And second - I hope this does not sound patronizing, but many people are probably unaware of this - I suggest googling something like "Picasso early work". You will see that he was an absolute master at very "traditional" styles of painting at an early age. This was the foundation onto which he built his art. It's no different with photography. Picasso wasn't born cubist. Style develops over time, but needs a solid basis to grow.
And second - I hope this does not sound patronizing, but many people are probably unaware of this - I suggest googling something like "Picasso early work". You will see that he was an absolute master at very "traditional" styles of painting at an early age. This was the foundation onto which he built his art. It's no different with photography. Picasso wasn't born cubist. Style develops over time, but needs a solid basis to grow.
Absolutely stunning point. A stunning point to remember and a stunning illustration to share with others with whom we happen to have this discussion. Thank you.
Discussion
19 repliesHe said, "But what does that do to your heart?" He said, "What if Picasso had done that? Then he wouldn't have been Picasso." I said, "True, or maybe he would have been a better Picasso." He laughed and said to have a great day, and I said the same back to him.
What do you think about that? Please note that I'm not advocating what he said, and the only time I've been absent from NPN is when I wasn't doing photography at all for about 3 years (during which time I remained an NPN member), so I'm not presenting an argument of any kind against NPN. But I do consider myself an artist, though still a learning artist, with photography as my medium, and I have kept thinking about what he said, and I wonder how it fits in with photography.
It's not clear what you are asking. Are you asking if we think NPN should be more about "great shot" to make people's hearts feel better?
I don't think people have to capture great images to make their hearts feel better and they certainly shouldn't need people to tell them it is a great shot if it isn't. For me, the very act of being out in nature, seeing things, and occasionally capturing a nice image does make my heart feel better. A good friend of mine says "photograph what you feel".
If the question is about providing more "great shot" comments here, then I'm not interested. Learning is a lifelong process. I've never taken the perfect image, and I'm certain I never will.
There are more than enough photo "critique" sites on the internet that provide a venue for those people who only want to hear the great shot comments. Of course those poor souls are the ones missing out because they either don't want to hear the truth, or they don't want to accept it.
Barbara, I think your comment says it all. If one looks back on the history of the photogs who began to hone their skills, talents, and personal signatures to their photos here at NPN I think you will indeed make the connection overall. The other day I just took a short bit of time and scrolled through the NPN photographer gallery. Although my recall is excellent for an old guy I was still reminded about the amazing talent that have posted here at this site over the last 15+ years. They too all are much better artists for it IMO....
I'm asking which you think theoretically is true, that Picasso wouldn't have been Picasso if he had belonged to something like NPN and it changed his point of view about art, or whether Picasso could have been a better Picasso if he had belonged to something like NPN and it changed his point of view about art.
Please let me know if that still isn't clear. This isn't about changing NPN at all. It's really a conceptual question about art and whether all artists might be better, even, for instance, to switch examples, Ansel Adams, if they listened to other people's critique of their work.
I just laughed out loud. That's great.
I see photography as having two major parts - craft and art. The Craft part covers the mechanics of the gear, handling, exposure, focus, etc. The Art component is the selection of subject, how the light interacts with the subject, and how it is presented. I think it is important to master the craft if a person wants the Art to be effective.
Not every photographer strives to be an Artist, nor needs to be one.
I agree that NPN is a great resource for perfecting the Craft of photography, but there is always the chance that the feedback process can stifle the Art. Many years ago here on NPN there was a lot of pressure from the comments forcing "bird on a stick" images over other styles - such images got lots of positive comments and often were awarded Editors Pick status, while other styles received many fewer comments and/or criticisms for not being BoaS. Thankfully I think NPN has moved beyond that and welcomes diversity of image styles.
I also think this Art/Craft dichotomy is what makes commenting so difficult. I think experienced photographers can see bad craft and make comments that address the issues and recommend ways to improve. But commenting on the Art component is subjective and a lot more difficult. Personally I'm hesitant to criticize style since it is so subjective, and I also have trouble saying exactly why certain images "blow me away" when they connect artistically for me.
Being inspired by what you see depends on whether you have the same types of birds where you go, a long enough lens, etc., to actually do something like what you see, but it's something that's happening to me more now, and I think I need to start keeping track of the things I want to try to get in images. For example, I've always found Wood Storks difficult because they're so big and they just don't look that interesting, in general. But I recently saw a portrait of a Wood Stork preening (posted in a Facebook Florida photography group), and it was the most beautiful Wood Stork shot I've ever seen. I want to get something like that if I can.
Thank you again.
A great topic, and I think an even greater, quick-witted response by you: This touches a bit on one of my philosophies, and I think I've shared a few times. Yes, you can make a better Picasso, yes, you can make your images better (more on craft vs. art in a min.) What I think is you can make a fair image better, you can make a very good image great, and you can make a great image fantastic... by improving your "craft." But it's a much bigger stretch to make a fair image fantastic... NPN, and the members here, have helped me make my images better, by learning the craft of photography and continually learning and improving. I still continue to use what I learned from Mr. Kuyper, TK to most of us... ;-) - and that is two things: Make the image the best it can be, and second, letting the "image take you where it wants to go." A novel concept to say the least. Oh, I can't leave out all his tools that are engrained in my work flow.
Many comments so far separate the craft of photography with the artistic side. I agree these certainly can be separate, but they are also linked. You can have the vision and talent of a Picasso, but if you can't put it on canvas.... what's the point? ;-) But I truly believe there is an art to photography, and in our case nature/landscape photography. That's not to disregard the numbers of togs who could care less about being artistic, but simply enjoy the "being out there in nature" aspect of photography. I'm guessing we're all in that same boat of enjoying being out there, regardless of trying to be artistic.
Having said that, if one believes their photography has artistic merit, that's all the matters. It's been said, it's all subjective and just because we think an image is artistic, doesn't mean a viewer of that image thinks it is. Someone else touched on this, I think it was Richard, about 'connecting with an image." What means the most to me, aside from my own enjoyment and passion of both the craft and art of photography is when my image "connects" with a viewer or fellow photographer. Obviously, we all don't connect with every image and there should be no expectation that we do. Personally, I can't connect with Picasso's work either...
I also agree with other comments that it's difficult to critique the artistic merit of images posted. Not only is it difficult, it's just not fair or accurate to place judgment on what someone else might think as being artistic. It's subjective, I think everyone agrees. However, if somehow an image does "connect" with the viewer or critic, then by all means that's important feedback to provide.
So having said all that, it's easier and more understandable that most of us comment on the crafting of the image - color, contrast, crop this, clone that. For me, it gets back to simply offering suggestions to make an image better. If an image really connects with me, I try and make that known too. It's much more difficult to make suggestions on "vision" or any other artistic quality.
What does the heart good? Following your passions. NPN had nothing to do my passion (I found it, oh about 1972....taking too many pictures of the mountains in Glacier NP...) but for certain, NPN helps keep that passion going today, by letting me share my images and improving my craft.
Whew.
I really like that.
I wonder if letting the "image take you where it wants to go" applies as much to avian and wildlife photography as it does to landscape and flora. In avian and the occasional wildlife I see I usually find myself trying to follow where the subject wants to go. But I understand that the more experience a person has the more mental control he/she might have over even a situation with an avian or wildlife subject, at least some of the time.
But I really, really like the thought of letting the image take you where it wants to go and wonder if I could really implement that in avian and the occasional wildlife photography I do. I say "occasional" because there is, for me, anyway, a limit to how many alligators I'm willing to photograph, and I passed that limit a long time ago unless it's a baby (awww) or an alligator eating something (ewww) or there's something else a little unusual about it.
Absolutely stunning point. A stunning point to remember and a stunning illustration to share with others with whom we happen to have this discussion. Thank you.