Hat mein Kollege keine Ahnung von Fotografie?
Eine Frage an Fotografen und Hobbyfotografen (keine Handyfotografen)
Er fotografiert seit so 1 Jahr und man muss sagen, dass er viel gelesen hat zur Fotografie, vor allem wissenschaftliche Dinge, auf die er auch immer pocht. Aus Spaß habe ich ihm das Foto hier privat geschickt, ihn verarscht und erst behauptet ich hätte es gemacht. Ist übrigens eines der teuersten Fotografien überhaupt und von einem anerkannten Fotografen gemacht.
https://media.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/P/P78/P78372_10.jpg
Seine Kommentare:
- wirkt zu unruhig (sagt er fast immer, sofern mal mehr Leerraum ist oder ein deutlicher Schwerpunkt da ist)
- hohe Stellen im Gras ziehen Auge auf sich (lenken ab)
- Treppen am Deich stechen so heraus
- Wasser ist ein Gewusel aus kleinen Wellen
Im Grunde also alles negativ 😉 Dabei gehts mir nicht darum ob einem das Bild gefällt…das ist ja Geschmackssache, sondern um die “Meckerpunkte”, die er anführt.
Als ich ihm dann die Wahrheit sagte meinte er das Bild ist Schrott und gefällt nicht. Ich sagte ihm das Bild lebt sehr von Linien und reduzierten Farben. Für mich ist da auch nichts wirklich unruhig, weil es so geordnet und reduziert ist (ich denk sowas ist keine Geschmackssache). So ganz mein Geschmack ist es auch nicht, wobei ich es nicht schlecht finde und ich sehe, was der Fotograf vorhatte.
Wie seht ihr das?
(1 votes)
Loading...
Technical knowledge of photography does not really help anyone to take good photos or understand art.
He wants to impress you with his criticism. But this does not go without your own good photos and there counts picture composition, sense for harmonies and the like more and not the blasphemy of other people photos. I’m glad you put him in the picture.
He doesn’t have his own good photos, where one is ok (for me – for him not) and he’s really always…
He’s imaginary and selfish. Just let him talk and don’t react.
Beauty lies in the eye of the viewer. Anyone who doesn’t like it doesn’t like it, others do.
In addition, an extreme example of art, the fat corner: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fettecke A well-known artist has positioned about 5 kg of butter in a corner. For some, it was an artwork for others…
Anyway, there is no measuring instrument for beauty or attractive images, so what?
If he thinks exactly as he says:
then this is so bad. Did he say that exactly or rather in the direction “in my opinion the picture is scrap and doesn’t like it”? Then that would be an expression of opinion that is not to be objected.
He said it was scrap, because of the listed features. I wasn’t interested in my own taste.
It’s exactly wrong with that. Even a pure white surface can represent and please an artwork. Derlei is of course a great photographic challenge. 😉
Find the picture too terrible!
… but I have been photographing for 30 years or so!
As a “art” the photo could go through! So if it is “so desired”, then respect! ^^+gg
Yes now… but very high value 😀
If someone is ready to pay the “value”… from me!
Did you write what I find uneasy before, but that I don’t find the overall impression uneasy? And now I gave you an example of what I consider to be restless. I don’t know where the problem is. But no matter… we don’t come together anyway.
Aha, aha, now you put it in relation and say suddenly of “not totally restless”. ;
Case closed. Good night.
That would be quieter than the motive here, at least as I imagine. But that doesn’t make the picture shown completely restless.
I’d call this uneasy.
https://previews.123rf.com/images/romasph/romasph1511/romasph151101070/47715625-park-im-herbst-mit-birkenb%C3%A4umen-landschaftfoto-der-herbstlichen-natur-bild-f%C3%BCr-hintergr%Cnde-und-hinj
I think there’s a difference.
Oh, I’ve met a professional who photographed every year in Tuscany… there’s someone going over…
The line guide must also allow the eye to migrate into the middle of the picture or around it. At the Rhine-Ding is nothing that holds, the main motif is cut off and runs from the picture on both sides. Sure, that’s art, that’s supposed to wind up, stimulate thought, not calm.
And then this fog, which bulges out of valleys… while the morning sun stripes the hills and kisses the landscape… Hill chains that are getting blue and pastoser to the back and give depth… Conifers that are almost only Shillouhettes and form a motif shown in multiple variance, a pattern… a rising triangle… delicate color transitions, even the shadows are not hard, but flowing…
The opinion can have. Others have a different opinion on this. However, if you see these unevennesses etc. as uneasy(?), then almost every landscape photograph is restless. There’s something everywhere and if there’s only a small branch, a leaf, etc. that doesn’t fit so completely and you notice. Bzw… how would it be if it were to be quiet?
Art or not art that wanted to represent the Rhine as a historical identification area of Germany or something.
It is definitely uneasy!
This was not done to be aesthetically or calm, and in my opinion it’s just what your friend said.
I don’t care what you think. Let everyone think what he wants. 2 was just a real job. I never said the picture was good.
Well, Andy Warhol would have laughed at the price. :
But as long as others believe, the picture must be worth it because expensive, it actually has a value for the owner.
By the way, I give zero to 2.
And I stay absolutely with my opinion on the picture. Who bought this is an idiot or sells it better later in the knowledge that the other is an idiot.
If the picture has been auctioned for 4.3 million, it is “art”. Doesn’t change the fact that the picture is bad.
Just because he put a price on it doesn’t mean somebody’s buying it.
Or as someone like you who believes it must be good because the photographer is known and the image is expensive.
If it’s a well-known photographer, it’s just a bonus…you could have bought any other photo of it, so to speak. Something must have the picture, which is why you decided exactly to do it. But I just find it okay….
Good photos need a good eye, technique is helpful but not a good picture (as you can see) – you can’t learn from books, you have to have it or learn through a lot of practice.
I don’t agree with your colleague, but I still don’t like the picture.
The design selection is boring and the image composition is without any climax.
There are people who also sell a bunch of Ka… as art, is it really worth something? Art should like, I don’t like it and it’s not impressive either. I’m sorry, I’m just saying.
Your colleague does not refer to the technique (which is good) of the motive with his points of criticism. If he had said he had chosen another motive because he or she would not like it better.
But so it’s just talk to pretend he knows
I find funny that your colleague has come up with the picture.
The price doesn’t make a good picture! I don’t like it, especially as it tilts. But not for free there is the phrase: beauty lies in the eye of the viewer. This also applies to art.
A small note:
The stairs at the opposite dike also bother me.
It doesn’t bother me that she’s even present.
It bothers me that it is arranged so asymmetrically.
If it wasn’t possible to keep the stairs out of the picture, I would have tried a symmetrical arrangement.
So either stairs in the middle or 2 stairs evenly distributed at the edges of the picture..
Art is often in the eye of the viewer.
I wouldn’t have paid 3,1 million for Rhein II. I didn’t even buy it as a postcard for 50 cents, because I just find the picture boring.
Did your colleague learn anything about photography or is he one of these self-proclaimed professionals?
Here is the opinion of a learned media designer and sometimes quite apart from the motive:
It’s bullshit. The photo is in no way restless.
Huh? Where are high places? These are normal ground unevennesses. What do you think you should do? Drive over with a steam roll?
No. The detail only falls on someone looking for the hair in the soup.
It’s water. It would not improve the image in any way if the water were a long-term exposure. You wouldn’t recognize that there is water, and the image is a large part because of the textures.
So conclusion for me: Your colleague has no idea. The picture itself is too minimalist to me, but his criticisms are bullshit. I like minimalism, but here is not a minimalism, but an insolent monotony.
My colleague is a student, believe chemistry or something, and has a lecturer who has studied art and who tells him all this. And he reads scientific things about photography;)
Look like you.
Without writing it into a separate answer here my opinion: Just because a lecturer has studied art or anything else, and so it is true and beautiful, that doesn’t mean that the lecturer and consequently he is right. It’s just one opinion.
Photography is art, and all untechnically taking photos has nothing to do with science (until perhaps on psychology). Art is very much of its own opinion and as much of its opinion. Art has no fixed rules, such as chemistry the period system.
Greetings,
Felix
You say it yourself… what the photographer did and didn’t make…
It’s ugly and really doesn’t shine.
With the dents in grass and dike, he is also absolutely right.
Clearly there are dents… nature just;) But it is not worth mentioning. Well and the water is uneasy yes, but the rest or overall picture is not
This isn’t about the natural occurrence of dents, but how the picture works…
Oh, my God, you’re jealous. Leave him alone, he has a good eye.
Because you don’t want to realize that he’s right and others are on “his” side.
He’s right, why I’m on his side.
If I am honest, I thought this was a little 😀 But the likelihood would be quite small that he would sign up here 😉
Hello Photon, would it be possible that “Mirarmor” is your colleague? He sounds like that for me.
I don’t answer to the picture anymore, as I agree with “Uneteral”.
The picture is quiet and boring.
You are not alone with this, but you have found two others, one of which has already annoyed in the past about “Besserwisser” and projected into the situation of you and your acquaintance.
It doesn’t change anything in my opinion about the photo, it stays bad.
It’s about my statement on nature photography. I don’t seem to be alone with this;) I bet I’ll find a lot of what you’re trying to do with your pictures. Otherwise the attack came more from you;) But that’s enough in place.
I don’t give anything out on this platform, not at all to asympathetic as you. There’s nothing you can get me to do with that, can punch on the floor.
By the way, how good or bad my pictures are, what does this change in the ugly initial picture?
Let’s see.
So I’ve done better than that.
But even if I’m not a professional, I can see that the photo you post is ugly and truly restless.
Then you’ll have a perfect landscape photo to show?
That’s bullshit.
What should I be jealous of? And in nature photography there is something different weighting, because you cannot put such perfection on nature or expect it to be something in the studio.