Thoughts on the work of others.

[dazedgonebye]

At a museum recently, looking over the photos on display, something occurred to me. When I see a photo I like, I tend to put it in one of three categories.

Photos I would have taken if I'd been there. These are images I have the skill and vision to have captured. My only limitation for this group is the ability to get myself in front of the subject.
Photos I might have taken if I'd been there. These are the images I believe I have the skill to have captured, but I'm unsure if I have the vision. Only getting in front of these subjects will settle the question of my vision.
Photos I may never take. These are the must frustrating. These are images of places and things that I have been in front of, but failed to capture in a meaningful way.

That third group is a killer. I don't mean that I should have captured exactly what the museum master captured, only that I have stood in front of these same places and things and failed to capture anything meaningful.

Over the years, the first group is getting larger and the second group is getting smaller, but I don't seem to be making any progress at all on the third group.

Anyway...really no point to this and I've probably managed not to say it well…just something on my mind that I've been meaning to toss out.

[FrankS]

Interesting analysis Steve. Something to think about, thanks.

[Athena]

Yes! I know what you mean about the "third category.

It's like those "weird shots" that everyone raves about but seem to me like poorly taken family snaps.

They were big in the late 20th C.

You know, slightly askew, sometimes OOF pics of fat people on porch swings or banal shots of tossed over tricycles near a bland suburban street intersection.

What a bunch of pretentious crap!!

[Chris101]

Originally Posted by Athena

Yes! I know what you mean about the "third category.

It's like those "weird shots" that everyone raves about but seem to me like poorly taken family snaps.

They were big in the late 20th C.

You know, slightly askew, sometimes OOF pics of fat people on porch swings or banal shots of tossed over tricycles near a bland suburban street intersection.

What a bunch of pretentious crap!!

Got some post-modern issues?

[Chris101]

Steve, interesting thoughts. I usually just put museum art into two categories, 'I like it' and 'I'll pass'. I'm gonna look for your category 3 photos from now on. It seems sad if one cannot expand one's vision to find new ways of seeing, which is what your conclusion seemed to be to me.

Did you check out the Adams - Mortenson exhibit at the PAM?

[waileong]

A related issue. Now that I'm deep into photography, I find a fourth category-- photos that don't impress me at all. Technically they could be ok-- good exposure, nice contrast, even gorgeous tones, etc. But the subject matter fails to excite me. Most street photos, for example. I wouldn't have paid a dime for them-- I wonder why others did.

Something related:

Now that I know what to look, I often find so many flaws with photos, esp. those people put up on Flickr and other online sharing sites. Blown highlights, washed out skies, no shadow detail, lack of foreground interest, tilted horizon, etc. Admittedly it could be because the people who put up these pictures are amateurs. But the curse of learning about what makes a good photo is that it makes me much more critical and quick to spot flaws.

[maddoc]

It is very hard to take photos, falling into category three IMHO. Most of the photos, which impress me, are usually taken by somebody with an artistic educational background (painting, design). At some point some of these artist have extended their set of tools, which they already master to express their vision, by the tool "photography" and create stunning results. I am no artist, have no art-related educational background at all, but like the "tool" photography ...

[retnull]

How about one more category: photos that left me unimpressed, the first time I saw them, that later I realized were brilliant.

Sometimes it takes time to appreciate certain attitudes about art. Taste shouldn't be instinctive, it should grow out of experience and knowledge. So it's only natural and healthy for taste to change.

The first time I heard John Coltrane I hated it. Now I can't imagine life without John Coltrane.

[varjag]

Steve, it just shows you becoming more critical about your work as time goes by.

Did you ever think if there's a 4th category, brilliant photos that you took but others failed to capture?

[oscroft]

There's at least one other category for me - photos that I think are great, but which I would never even want to take myself. Some of Robert Mapplethorpe's fall into that category, for example.

[nksyoon]

Originally Posted by oscroft

There's at least one other category for me - photos that I think are great, but which I would never even want to take myself. Some of Robert Mapplethorpe's fall into that category, for example.

You don't like taking photos of flowers?

[oscroft]

You don't like taking photos of flowers?

Er, flowers, er - yeah, that's it

[csaunders]

Yes; I know exactly what you mean!

The only thing that is a salve for this problem is to reflect on your work when you first started photographing and rate your progress from that, and not from the work of others.

[dazedgonebye]

Guys,

There are certainly more than three categories, even for me, these are the ones that affect me most.
An additional category would be shots I love and don't think I could technically pull off. I don't see many of those, not necessarily because I'm the greatest technician, but because I seldom love a shot primarily for technical merit.
Also, the largest group must be the shots I don't like at all that someone mentioned. They're interesting as well. You can learn a lot from what you don't like.

I'm thinking about the idea of shots I took myself that are brilliant and no one else would have taken (mentioned by varjag).
Sometimes I think that is possible. After all, no one sees exactly what I see and I am sometimes sucessful in capturing my vision of a thing.