AG Schnozz wrote:
> Moose wrote:
>
>
>> Goodness! Are your standards so high? Or mine so low? :-)
>>
>
> Neither. I realize...... <snip>
We work differently. If I take too many shots of a subject, it's almost
a sure sign the results aren't going to be particularly good. Sometimes,
I seem to just shoot out of boredom and/or because I can't find anything
really worth a shot when I want to be taking shots. At least with
digital, it doesn't cost anything, except for storage for stuff that's
neither really good or quite crap.....
It was partly the evanescence of the subject, but I took only the four
shots of the Sierra sunset I just posted. At other times on that trip,
especially on the way out, I took endless shots that all look the same
now. And some weren't worth taking in the first place.
>> something that will make a gallery goer say with positive
>> intonation "That's a Schnozz!" without seeing the credit tag.
>>
>
> BINGO! That's exactly what I've been seeking. I want the image
> to have en eye-flow, contrast, and emotional statement which
> immediately connects with the viewer and the viewer knows
> without hesitation who the artist is. In the last several years
> there has been such a proliferation of "landscape" images
> (everybody with a digital camera fancies themself a landscape
> photographer), that I'm needing to break clean from the masses.
> I believe that I've achieved that with my B&W work, but the
> color work needs a kick in the shorts.
>
Best of luck with that. Some artists don't get that kind of recognition
until they are dead, and almost all the rest never get it. I hope you
are one of the exceptions. I'll be the old fart at the gallery saying
"Oh yes, I knew him before he was anybody."
>
>> On the other hand, we seem alike in another way. Although I
>> appreciate it when others like or even occasionally praise my
>> images, my primary source of evaluation is internal.
>>
>
> Somewhat true with me. But I'll admit that I'm insecure enough
> that I need the "stroking" from others.
Well, sure, I'm appreciative of feedback, and desire positive feedback.
But it has little effect on my own opinions of the relative merits of my
images.
> It's tough when I put up some new images and there's nary a word said about
> them.
I'm with you there! I too have been frustrated when I've posted images
that I like and get little response - sometimes none at all. maybe
that's why most folks don't mind my alternate versions of images they
post; any attention is better than none at all.
Of course, it's a busy list, not everyone has time to look at all the
posted pics, think about it and write something. And many of us are gear
hounds to whom the artistic aspects are secondary to technical aspects.
> I probably hide it well, but it really bothers me when I don't get positive
> feedback on my work or my writings. However, I know that I'm horrible at
> praising others.
>
I try to do my part by responding to images posted by others, but
sometimes I miss, either through oversight or feeling I don't really
have anything to say, positive or constructive. I know there are certain
types of images that don't do anything for me, but do for others. For
example, I just don't "get" most concert pictures, so those mostly go by
without comment.
And I have to admit there is a certain genre of fuzzy, crooked, often
washed out with no shadows and blown highlights shots of scenes that are
completely pedestrian to me that I don't comment on. I know many people
enjoy such images and some pros make a living from them. I was at the
DeYoung Museum a bit ago for another show and wandered through a gallery
of photographs. Something like 80% of them I would have simply dumped if
I happened to take them. So I know my taste is suspect! :-)
> And it really grouses me to no end when a personal favorite
> hangs in the gallery for years without budging, but what I
> consider to be a "pedestrian" photo sells the day after getting
> hung. I think my biggest seller (quantity) in the past two
> years is a rather lame picture of a wagon in front of a barn
> buried in weeds.
>
So you weren't telling the whole story above; you do have a strong inner
sense of what's good and not so good in your work. And praise, in the
form of sales, isn't enough. You want them to agree with you, and praise
the 'right' ones. An age old drama.
> The only area where I see film being absolutely superior to
> digital is in B&W where the tonalities are unattainable in
> digital.
>
I wonder if that is inherently true, or is it's just a matter of getting
the curves right. I'll have to admit I don't much care, as B&W isn't of
much interest to me. Speaking of offering feedback for posted images,
I've had to bite my tongue a couple of times lately, being tempted to
ask when certain areas of the world will be able to afford to live in
color. Oh dear, such a bad Moose....
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|