location, location
09-17-2009, 04:30 PM
#1
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
location, location
Such a huge thing in photo, obviously. But sometimes I wonder... is it sometimes MORE important than the actual shot? More important than even the photographer?
Let's say, for instance, the top architectural photo agency in Chicago does a shot of the skyline. A day shot, composed well, good exposure, good day with interesting sky. Flawless shot, easily suitable for framing. One of the best skyline shots you'll ever see. Ok, great.
Next, send a random Joe to the Great Wall and have them take a shot from up there with a simple modern P&S, composed well, and there is some fog so it gives the shot an exotic eeriness. Just one example.
Which shot do you think would get more oohs and ahhs? Probably the Great Wall. Which shot do you think people would say is "better"? Probably the Great Wall. Now, does that make the random Joe a better photographer than the agency?
I have been relatively confined to the Chicago area over the past few years and therefore that is my primary subject. Would I like to travel more? Well sure. But it doesn't fit in with my budget and schedule atm. If I traveled more I am sure I would get some good pictures from wherever I went to - be it castles, ruins, European cities, gardens in Asia, the Taj Mahal, whatever. But, I just don't have that opportunity, atm. But I feel like I would be considered a "better" photographer if I traveled more, because I would get shots of worldly locations. And I just wonder what effect location has on such an assessment thereof; I feel like its much more important than might be apparent. But, I don't feel like just where you happen to be should determine whether or not you are a good photographer. I guess that's my point. And I feel like at the root level, it comes down to resources - if I have all the money in the world, sure I would travel the world and get shots from all over. But since I don't, I can't. I don't feel that the difference between two shots should come down to money and/or general situational proximity.
I think a similar thing applies to photographs of wars or riots or other real emotion-provoking types of events that people get just because they happened to be working there. I mean, you take a picture of a kid holding a rifle in a warzone with the grim look of hunger and helplessness on his face, it doesnt even have to be a good picture technically, yet its probably something that would end up on the cover of TIME just because of the subject matter.
This is not based on any specific personal experience or anything, it's just something I wonder from time-to-time, based on looking at shots from around the world. And, I'm curious to hear what others have to say about it.
Let's say, for instance, the top architectural photo agency in Chicago does a shot of the skyline. A day shot, composed well, good exposure, good day with interesting sky. Flawless shot, easily suitable for framing. One of the best skyline shots you'll ever see. Ok, great.
Next, send a random Joe to the Great Wall and have them take a shot from up there with a simple modern P&S, composed well, and there is some fog so it gives the shot an exotic eeriness. Just one example.
Which shot do you think would get more oohs and ahhs? Probably the Great Wall. Which shot do you think people would say is "better"? Probably the Great Wall. Now, does that make the random Joe a better photographer than the agency?
I have been relatively confined to the Chicago area over the past few years and therefore that is my primary subject. Would I like to travel more? Well sure. But it doesn't fit in with my budget and schedule atm. If I traveled more I am sure I would get some good pictures from wherever I went to - be it castles, ruins, European cities, gardens in Asia, the Taj Mahal, whatever. But, I just don't have that opportunity, atm. But I feel like I would be considered a "better" photographer if I traveled more, because I would get shots of worldly locations. And I just wonder what effect location has on such an assessment thereof; I feel like its much more important than might be apparent. But, I don't feel like just where you happen to be should determine whether or not you are a good photographer. I guess that's my point. And I feel like at the root level, it comes down to resources - if I have all the money in the world, sure I would travel the world and get shots from all over. But since I don't, I can't. I don't feel that the difference between two shots should come down to money and/or general situational proximity.
I think a similar thing applies to photographs of wars or riots or other real emotion-provoking types of events that people get just because they happened to be working there. I mean, you take a picture of a kid holding a rifle in a warzone with the grim look of hunger and helplessness on his face, it doesnt even have to be a good picture technically, yet its probably something that would end up on the cover of TIME just because of the subject matter.
This is not based on any specific personal experience or anything, it's just something I wonder from time-to-time, based on looking at shots from around the world. And, I'm curious to hear what others have to say about it.
09-17-2009, 04:48 PM
#2
Needs more Lemon Pledge
Interesting topic.
I think we all probably have an idea in our heads of what we want our body of work to include, and then there may be a more realistic expectation of what we will probably be able to show in a portfolio of our work.
I have certain criteria I want to be able to include. They include things like a working mastery of landscape and portrait work. Also, the ability to effectively present work in both color and B&W. I would also like to have at least one image published. Finally, I would really like to have a good grasp of photojournalism, and have this reflected in my body of photographs.
I think everyone probably has different criteria that they use to determine whether they are a "good" photographer. Yours may include travel photography.
There is certainly a distinction (in my mind) between what makes someone a good photographer and what makes someone a "better" photographer. I always strive to be better, and often new locations, conditions and subjects force the learning crurve down upon me.
Is Annie Leibovitz not good because she never took pictures of the Taj Mahal? Maybe Ansel Adams was was only a so-so photographer because he didn't do much product work.
In my mind, being good is being good at what you HAVE done, and getting better is trying to be good at what you have not.
For what you HAVE done (I know this thread is only partly about you in particular), I think your work is excellent. If you expanded your subject matter would you be even better? Probably, through exposure to new circumstances and techniques.
I think we all probably have an idea in our heads of what we want our body of work to include, and then there may be a more realistic expectation of what we will probably be able to show in a portfolio of our work.
I have certain criteria I want to be able to include. They include things like a working mastery of landscape and portrait work. Also, the ability to effectively present work in both color and B&W. I would also like to have at least one image published. Finally, I would really like to have a good grasp of photojournalism, and have this reflected in my body of photographs.
I think everyone probably has different criteria that they use to determine whether they are a "good" photographer. Yours may include travel photography.
There is certainly a distinction (in my mind) between what makes someone a good photographer and what makes someone a "better" photographer. I always strive to be better, and often new locations, conditions and subjects force the learning crurve down upon me.
Is Annie Leibovitz not good because she never took pictures of the Taj Mahal? Maybe Ansel Adams was was only a so-so photographer because he didn't do much product work.
In my mind, being good is being good at what you HAVE done, and getting better is trying to be good at what you have not.
For what you HAVE done (I know this thread is only partly about you in particular), I think your work is excellent. If you expanded your subject matter would you be even better? Probably, through exposure to new circumstances and techniques.
09-17-2009, 04:57 PM
#3
is learning to moonwalk i
I know exactly what you mean. Many times your subject plays a big role in how an image is received. On POTN, people definitely get more comments and oohs and aahs when the subject is inherently more interesting/attactive. This goes for both people and locations.
In some respects I know this applies to me. I've traveled to a few places and got some (IMHO) nice shots. However, considering how many shots I actually took and subsequently trashed, I don't really consider myself a "good photographer." I've just been lucky to photograph some cool places.
On the other hand, there are people who seem to photograph just about anyone/anything and make a compelling image. I don't have that kind of eye or vision and accept that.
You have some amazing cityscapes that were captured from unique perspectiives. I'm sure if you went to New York, San Francisco or London you would do at least as well. Having new locations to shoot help expand your portfolio, it doesn't necessarily make you a better or worse photographer.
just my
worth of meaningless ramblings
In some respects I know this applies to me. I've traveled to a few places and got some (IMHO) nice shots. However, considering how many shots I actually took and subsequently trashed, I don't really consider myself a "good photographer." I've just been lucky to photograph some cool places.
On the other hand, there are people who seem to photograph just about anyone/anything and make a compelling image. I don't have that kind of eye or vision and accept that.
You have some amazing cityscapes that were captured from unique perspectiives. I'm sure if you went to New York, San Francisco or London you would do at least as well. Having new locations to shoot help expand your portfolio, it doesn't necessarily make you a better or worse photographer.
just my
worth of meaningless ramblings
09-17-2009, 05:06 PM
#4
POTN has little cliks, I've seen people go absolute gaga over stuff that just isn't that interesting or good or should a I say, they're just snapshots.
Last edited by jupitersolo; 09-17-2009 at 05:08 PM.
09-17-2009, 08:06 PM
#5
Big Block go VROOOM!
Great editorial post R. although I think you’ve raised a lot more issues than just location. 
For me, these questions and issues all all boil down to one thing. It’s an expression that you’ve likely seen used over and over again but one that I feel is very true. Photography -as a whole- is a craft. We don’t make images for the purpose of storing the files on our computer or storing the prints in a file. We make images for people to look at and have a reaction to. People are an integral component of a photograph’s end result. When you have people involved in anything, you will always have variation and will always be dealing with intangibles.
Let’s roll back the clock to the 16th century and consider two wheelwrights. Both enjoy what they do and both make what they consider a satisfactory living at it. One wheelwright makes lavishly ornate wheels out of the finest woods which end up on carriages carrying nobility but they need to be replaced every year. The other wheelwright makes strong plain looking farm wagon wheels from wood taken just outside his village and they last five years. Who is the “better” wheelwright and which one makes a “better” wheel? The answer obviously depends on whether you’re asking the farmer or whether you’re asking the gentleman. Does it matter if the farmer is standing next to his wagon outside the nobleman’s estate looking at the ornate carriage inside? Or if the nobleman is in his carriage rolling down a road next to the farmer’s field looking at the wagon? No. Ask the same two people in those circumstances and you’d get the same two answers. My point in all this? The two wheelwrights are practicing a craft. Neither of them make better wheels and neither of them are better wheelwrights.
OK, so now that we’ve pounded the “...in the eye of the beholder...” thing into the dirt, let’s talk about what “better” may actually mean in relation to photography. Are you a making a living selling stock? Which ever images sell are the ones that are “better”. Are making fine art prints? Which ever images satisfy you, the artist, as being art are “better”. Are you a photojournalist? Whichever images your editor chooses as best conveying the story are “better.” Better has somewhat of a unique meaning when applied to photography.
So what’s my point after all this? It goes back to my original statement. Photography at its core is not art, it is a craft. Photography can of course be practiced as art. The fine art photographer is the nobleman’s wheelwright. The photojournalist is the wheelwright for the farmers. Neither are better or produce better work. It’s the nature of a craft.
BTW Rubin, I think the fact that these issue bother or upset you is a good thing. It shows that you’re passionate about photography and that your creativity hasn’t stagnated and you’re looking to continue expanding it.
For me, these questions and issues all all boil down to one thing. It’s an expression that you’ve likely seen used over and over again but one that I feel is very true. Photography -as a whole- is a craft. We don’t make images for the purpose of storing the files on our computer or storing the prints in a file. We make images for people to look at and have a reaction to. People are an integral component of a photograph’s end result. When you have people involved in anything, you will always have variation and will always be dealing with intangibles.
Let’s roll back the clock to the 16th century and consider two wheelwrights. Both enjoy what they do and both make what they consider a satisfactory living at it. One wheelwright makes lavishly ornate wheels out of the finest woods which end up on carriages carrying nobility but they need to be replaced every year. The other wheelwright makes strong plain looking farm wagon wheels from wood taken just outside his village and they last five years. Who is the “better” wheelwright and which one makes a “better” wheel? The answer obviously depends on whether you’re asking the farmer or whether you’re asking the gentleman. Does it matter if the farmer is standing next to his wagon outside the nobleman’s estate looking at the ornate carriage inside? Or if the nobleman is in his carriage rolling down a road next to the farmer’s field looking at the wagon? No. Ask the same two people in those circumstances and you’d get the same two answers. My point in all this? The two wheelwrights are practicing a craft. Neither of them make better wheels and neither of them are better wheelwrights.
OK, so now that we’ve pounded the “...in the eye of the beholder...” thing into the dirt, let’s talk about what “better” may actually mean in relation to photography. Are you a making a living selling stock? Which ever images sell are the ones that are “better”. Are making fine art prints? Which ever images satisfy you, the artist, as being art are “better”. Are you a photojournalist? Whichever images your editor chooses as best conveying the story are “better.” Better has somewhat of a unique meaning when applied to photography.
So what’s my point after all this? It goes back to my original statement. Photography at its core is not art, it is a craft. Photography can of course be practiced as art. The fine art photographer is the nobleman’s wheelwright. The photojournalist is the wheelwright for the farmers. Neither are better or produce better work. It’s the nature of a craft.
BTW Rubin, I think the fact that these issue bother or upset you is a good thing. It shows that you’re passionate about photography and that your creativity hasn’t stagnated and you’re looking to continue expanding it.
09-18-2009, 02:52 AM
#6
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
I didn't really mean this thread in reference to me, I was just using myself as an example (thanks for the comments in my direction, though) - but it was nice to hear your personal input on the matter, as it relates to your own work. I guess it's a bit difficult to discuss photo stuff without some reference to your own work and your experiences. Also, reading it again, it kind of has some "discrediting" tones - and I totally don't mean it in that way. It was just the best way I could describe it. Such as, the journalist in the warzone getting "that" picture. What price do they pay to get emotional shots like that? Well, at the extreme, they could be killed. Putting yourself in harm's way just to get that shot is a feat and trade in itself and I respect it very much. I mean, it's not like they just "go there" and start snapping, and then leave, like butter.
Stogie I agree with what you said - I think the concept "good photographer" is considerably more complex than the way I was using it in my post.
Moe I agree with what you said too - I think there is the potential to make any shot into something compelling - the trick is to figure out how. btw I think you should give yourself a little more credit there. I've seen some great stuff from you.
Good stuff B. and good analogy with the wheel. So I think the better way of looking at it is similar to how you have a different resume for different jobs - you portray yourself depending on what application you need. And, I think I got kinda wound up on the whole "better photographer" thing - I think it's difficult to quantify such a thing and maybe even a waste to try. Would be better to keep your sights on making your images the best you think they can be - the best portrayal of your personal vision.
These factors don't bother or upset me - they just make me wonder about what makes a shot a really good shot - in a positive way. I mean things which are outside of the direct control of the photographer. And, it does motivate me to try new things - go to new places - get new vantage points. I am definitely interested in continuing to expand my experiences and output in photo.
One thing I've learned from taking a good number of Chicago shots (and sharing them) is how important it is to do unique angles and views - everyone's seen pictures of the Bean, the Sears Tower, etc. At this point if you can find a view at any location that looks really good to your eye, it's most likely been photographed to death - especially in touristy areas. So the challenge is portraying those things in unique ways which people do not usually see. Or, if you do a regularly taken shot, do some different exposure on it or other technique that sets it apart and makes it interesting.
As an example, I posted this shot on a Chicago photo forum (just yesterday) and was surprised at the feedback - I said how I thought the shot was "OK" and asked what was so good about it - they said it's the vantage point that makes it unique and interesting shot - it's not a view of that building you usually see. The only reason I could get this shot is because of where I work - so there again is some "special" conditional situation that is attributing to the quality of a shot. I guess it's always going to be like that. Maybe another challenge of photography is finding ways of getting yourself to places from which you can take photos that are usually not seen. It's certainly happened for me in the past -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/3927167594/
Stogie I agree with what you said - I think the concept "good photographer" is considerably more complex than the way I was using it in my post.
Moe I agree with what you said too - I think there is the potential to make any shot into something compelling - the trick is to figure out how. btw I think you should give yourself a little more credit there.
I've seen some great stuff from you.Good stuff B. and good analogy with the wheel. So I think the better way of looking at it is similar to how you have a different resume for different jobs - you portray yourself depending on what application you need. And, I think I got kinda wound up on the whole "better photographer" thing - I think it's difficult to quantify such a thing and maybe even a waste to try. Would be better to keep your sights on making your images the best you think they can be - the best portrayal of your personal vision.
These factors don't bother or upset me - they just make me wonder about what makes a shot a really good shot - in a positive way. I mean things which are outside of the direct control of the photographer. And, it does motivate me to try new things - go to new places - get new vantage points. I am definitely interested in continuing to expand my experiences and output in photo.
One thing I've learned from taking a good number of Chicago shots (and sharing them) is how important it is to do unique angles and views - everyone's seen pictures of the Bean, the Sears Tower, etc. At this point if you can find a view at any location that looks really good to your eye, it's most likely been photographed to death - especially in touristy areas. So the challenge is portraying those things in unique ways which people do not usually see. Or, if you do a regularly taken shot, do some different exposure on it or other technique that sets it apart and makes it interesting.
As an example, I posted this shot on a Chicago photo forum (just yesterday) and was surprised at the feedback - I said how I thought the shot was "OK" and asked what was so good about it - they said it's the vantage point that makes it unique and interesting shot - it's not a view of that building you usually see. The only reason I could get this shot is because of where I work - so there again is some "special" conditional situation that is attributing to the quality of a shot. I guess it's always going to be like that. Maybe another challenge of photography is finding ways of getting yourself to places from which you can take photos that are usually not seen. It's certainly happened for me in the past -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/3927167594/
09-18-2009, 09:13 AM
#7
Not Registered
I've seen so many good shots on just this forum alone, and most are just local rural/city shots. I feel it's in the eye of the photographer in getting the right shot, not where your at. Your location does make for great shots, but you still have to eye know a little on what your doing. Most people on srika's shot above would have centered the building and it would just be a normal building, but the exact pic is done very well. I also think a "photographer" will critique a pic differently than an ordinary person.
Everybody loves this pic I took the other week, but I think it sucks as it was freehand and out of focus.
An average person may not have thought in taking a pic of an old guy walking up a set of steps in central China, but I saw the children cheering (actually at us as we left the school) and thought it was a good subject. It still may suck as a photo, but I like it.
Where the location helps is taking a picture of a specific place. I took this on top of the Great Wall, but against a pic of a local mountain range, mine may be nothing special... but then someone else can come along and I'd be blow away with their Great Wall pic
I don't feel it's the equipment or location as much, but the persons view behind the lens that creates a great shot.
Everybody loves this pic I took the other week, but I think it sucks as it was freehand and out of focus.
An average person may not have thought in taking a pic of an old guy walking up a set of steps in central China, but I saw the children cheering (actually at us as we left the school) and thought it was a good subject. It still may suck as a photo, but I like it.
Where the location helps is taking a picture of a specific place. I took this on top of the Great Wall, but against a pic of a local mountain range, mine may be nothing special... but then someone else can come along and I'd be blow away with their Great Wall pic
I don't feel it's the equipment or location as much, but the persons view behind the lens that creates a great shot.
Trending Topics
09-18-2009, 12:25 PM
#8
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
A Great Wall shot! very nice.
you bring up a good point about your own eye versus the eyes of others - something you think is just OK may be spectacular to others - conversely something you think is spectacular may look OK to others - and you may be surprised by the outcome on both cases.
you bring up a good point about your own eye versus the eyes of others - something you think is just OK may be spectacular to others - conversely something you think is spectacular may look OK to others - and you may be surprised by the outcome on both cases.
09-18-2009, 02:27 PM
#9
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 39
Posts: 63,169
Received 2,773 Likes
on
1,976 Posts
A Great Wall shot! very nice.
you bring up a good point about your own eye versus the eyes of others - something you think is just OK may be spectacular to others - conversely something you think is spectacular may look OK to others - and you may be surprised by the outcome on both cases.
you bring up a good point about your own eye versus the eyes of others - something you think is just OK may be spectacular to others - conversely something you think is spectacular may look OK to others - and you may be surprised by the outcome on both cases.
09-18-2009, 03:06 PM
#10
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
oh I liked the old man going up the stairs too, and I can see how ppl would like the Niagara shot too.
anyone else wanna show us shots that have surprised you?
anyone else wanna show us shots that have surprised you?
09-18-2009, 03:07 PM
#11
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
09-18-2009, 03:21 PM
#12
Not Registered
Also post processing can take an average shot, crop, highlighten, and add effects to create a great shot. The two China pics I did a quick desaturate to post in this thread and with a little more effort make them more eye catching.
Only example that I can find of a location specific shot, while also being there at a specific time to get the shot. I took a bunch of the sunset, but at the exact time I need to sailboat to come by it did, exactly as the sun was behind the sail.
Last edited by Bdog; 09-18-2009 at 03:25 PM.
09-18-2009, 03:25 PM
#13
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
totally. it quite frankly surprises me how much (it seems) PP is still frowned upon, because it can be the difference between a "meh" shot and a publishable one.
hell, it can even be the difference between a downright BAD shot and a publishable one. I don't think it should be anyone's goal to do such a thing, but it's nice to have that option for when you do get a shot which gets blown out or something (color or light-wise) and could be "saved" with PP.
hell, it can even be the difference between a downright BAD shot and a publishable one. I don't think it should be anyone's goal to do such a thing, but it's nice to have that option for when you do get a shot which gets blown out or something (color or light-wise) and could be "saved" with PP.
09-18-2009, 03:33 PM
#14
Big Block go VROOOM!
People are sorely mistaken if they think the likes of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and Elliot Porter printed their images "straight off of the negative."
09-18-2009, 03:39 PM
#15
Not Registered
Back in the day developing my own film, I'd print a pic from the negative, then create a template hiding specific parts of the photo and holding the template over this area and adjusting the amount of light and time of development. There was ways back in the day to process while being developed.
09-19-2009, 08:02 AM
#16
I've been Canonized ;)
As far as locations...I think it is a yearning for the photographer itself that locations become important. Using your example, many people have never been to Chicago and might see a photo of the skyline there as awe inspiring, while someone else who has lived there their whole life might think of it as just another photo of the Chicago skyline. I don't believe locations can make a photographer better, but that new locations can inspire a photographer, because it is new and fresh to them. Sometimes we can feel stagnated locally.
09-23-2009, 01:52 AM
#17
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
since we're talking about creative things in here I wanted to share this video here - first 2 minutes are applicable to any line of creative work - I thought it was excellent advice and honestly I feel like that's where I'm at right now - I think I do some good work but its just not where I want it to be. His advice: keep doing it. Its motivating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hidv...layer_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hidv...layer_embedded
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rp_guy
Member Cars for Sale
9
07-16-2017 07:33 AM
MetalGearTypeS
3G TL Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
6
08-29-2016 08:28 PM
08_UA7_Gr33k
Member Cars for Sale
13
02-11-2016 02:17 PM
