Is there a reason for images on forums?

[marfa boomboom tx]

Simple. Why post images on the forums?
Is it possible for any commentary beyond aperture, GPS coordinates, etc?

(I left teaching about thirty years ago, because I couldn't get over the 19 year olds problems.)

[Jody_S]

The images are why I come here. No, there usually isn't a critique or discussion of images based on their artistic merit, because such a discussion could easily devolve into 20+ pages of increasingly strident opinions. But the images either speak for themselves or they don't, and as a bonus most are happy to discuss how and why they produced their image.

I have noticed a rapid improvement in my own photos once I started coming here, much more than I ever got from participating in other photo-related sites which usually revolved around gear, not images.

[Michael Alpert]

Simple. Why post images on the forums?
Is it possible for any commentary beyond aperture, GPS coordinates, etc?

(I left teaching about thirty years ago, because I couldn't get over the 19 year olds problems.)

I've contributed to this forum, off and on, for about a decade, without posting an image or commenting on another forum-member's image. I feel that photographic images on the Internet are very poor shadows of well-made original prints. Any meaningful aesthetic consideration is obliterated by the distortions and inadequacies of the Little Screen. But I suppose there are reasons for posting images here and on other forums. The alleviation of loneliness is a good reason that I can respect. Even though we are all strangers to each other, the forum seems to maintain a sense of community that is, in spite of its limitations, worthwhile. And there are practical reasons for posting images that make sense: presenting the way a technical problem has ruined a negative or print, for instance.

[Gem Singer]

Why post an image? Because a picture is worth a thousand words.

[Mark Sawyer]

Simple. Why post images on the forums?

Simple. Because pixies are so darned cute.

[Heroique]

How about an image sub-forum that forbids image posting, but requires detailed descriptions of them instead?

Sure, it might take 1,000 words or more, but the effort would improve our writing (and reading) skills.

Plus it would force us to think more about the details of our photographs.

[Drew Bedo]

If you have to ask that question, I don't think it can be explained so that you will understand.

[bobwysiwyg]

Why post an image? Because a picture is worth a thousand words.

Ditto. And I like them. No more reason necessary as far as I'm concerned.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Simple. Why post images on the forums?

Turn it around - why post text in a photographic image forum?

Just where are you coming from?
.

[welly]

Strangest question I've ever read about a visual art.

[BrianShaw]

Why post an image? Because a picture is worth a thousand words.

I'd like to chime in with my two-cents worth: I agree.

[Leigh]

Simple. Why post images on the forums?
When people are proud of their work, they like to share same with their peers.
In this case that involves photos.

In other cases it could be paintings or sculpture or poetry or flowers or whatever.
The pride of accomplishment is there in every genre.

- Leigh

[Frank_E]

Simple. Why post images on the forums?
Is it possible for any commentary beyond aperture, GPS coordinates, etc?

(I left teaching about thirty years ago, because I couldn't get over the 19 year olds problems.)

I am perplexed by both your question and your comment
my sentiments has been captured by the individuals who have already responded (I personally get a lot of out of seeing images others produce)
the onus is really on you to clarify why you think otherwise

with regards to your comment about "19 year olds problems" should that be taken as a reflection on what the comments other posters make on this forum?

your post definitely leaves the impression you are simply trolling….

[Mark Stahlke]

i have noticed a rapid improvement in my own photos once i started coming here, much more than i ever got from participating in other photo-related sites which usually revolved around gear, not images.bang!

[C_Remington]

I can't believe I'm even posting to such a stupid post.

[C_Remington]

Simple. Because pixies are so darned cute.


Yes, if you're an eleven year old girl.

[Vaughn]

Yes, if you're an eleven year old girl.

You tempt forces you do not understand...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?77116-Post-your-Pixies!-%29&p=1036171&viewfull=1#post1036171

[Michael Alpert]

I can't believe I'm even posting to such a stupid post.

Suddenly our moderators are allowing this sort of uncalled-for insult to be included here. Where is Kirk when we need him? The original post was not stupid. In fact, I responded to it because I found it refreshing to have someone question one of the unexamined assumptions here. Furthermore, I really don't think that the statement "a picture is worth a thousand words" means anything. Photographers endlessly repeat this old advertisement for Life magazine without asking how the worth of "a picture" and "words" can be compared. There are many ways to answer the original question without insulting the questioner. (Would it be possible for the author of an insult to apologize? Now, that would also be refreshing.)

[C_Remington]

Suddenly, some people have lost their freakin minds. ITS A PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you REALLY have to ask WHY we would post photographs???

And I"m not apologizing. It's a very stupid post.

[Light Guru]

Suddenly, some people have lost their freakin minds. ITS A PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you REALLY have to ask WHY we would post photographs???

And I"m not apologizing. It's a very stupid post.

You realize that this tread was most likely created as a joke right?

[Mark Sawyer]

Ok. I'll be the contrarian. I think this is stupid. It's like a thread for 14 year old girls.


Yes, if you're an eleven year old girl.

Either your different forum personas can't agree, or I'm getting worse... :confused:

[Jim Jones]

If you are a writer who must publish or perish, you (or at least Susan Sontag) doesn't need photographs to enhance an entire book about photography. However, Sontag's On Photography says more about society and Sontag's limitations than about photography. We can do better here with photos.

[jnantz]

Simple. Why post images on the forums?
Is it possible for any commentary beyond aperture, GPS coordinates, etc?

(I left teaching about thirty years ago, because I couldn't get over the 19 year olds problems.)


hi marfa

not sure why .. i guess maybe why not?
for probably the first maybe 16 years of this forum's life there were no images, it was a text only website ..
( http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Large+format+photography )
unless you were web savvy enough to host an image and hot link to it ...

its kind of funny really because i would imagine that the actual images people post
here or anywhere else don't look exactly like what they post ...
they aren't the same size, the same tones the same sharpness or diffuseness or anything.

but i guess i should add ( in addition to why not ) because it is nice for someone to be able
to see what someone else is up to seeing on the internet the neighbor's dog could be suggesting
he has an ebony 8x10 camera, a schneider xxl550 and a darkroom with $100,000 worth of
equipment.

[Jim Noel]

I've contributed to this forum, off and on, for about a decade, without posting an image or commenting on another forum-member's image. I feel that photographic images on the Internet are very poor shadows of well-made original prints. Any meaningful aesthetic consideration is obliterated by the distortions and inadequacies of the Little Screen. But I suppose there are reasons for posting images here and on other forums. The alleviation of loneliness is a good reason that I can respect. Even though we are all strangers to each other, the forum seems to maintain a sense of community that is, in spite of its limitations, worthwhile. And there are practical reasons for posting images that make sense: presenting the way a technical problem has ruined a negative or print, for instance.

I'm with Michael on this.

[redrockcoulee]

Not all of us live near large galleries or musuems where we have access to seeing other works. There are books and magazines but there too unless you subscribe you do not have access to. Just before reading this thread I looked at the infrared thread and say Mat's latest posted image. It says something about what one can do with infrared film that unless you see an image you can only guess at what the poster is meaning. To drive to Ohio to see it would take close to a week round trip and to fly perhaps $1500. Maybe if you are in or near major cities it is easy to pop into galleries or good bookstore otherwise how does one actually see what a particular artist is doing or what infrared or xray film results can be.

Images seen on a computer pale compared to the real live version however not seeing them at all is very much paler. How many words would be needed to see what Jim means with his old lenses. If Jim participates in a print exchange I might be lucky enough to see an example of what his lenses and style is like but otherwise it is 1500 km each way trip, or one could look at images on line. To me not seeing something is much less of an experience than seeing it posted here or another on line means. I invite all those on this forum in the Eastern Unitied State or Europe to drop by to see this neat pinhole paper negative I made, between 9 and 10 would be the best. By the way I do not have a scanner for large format and do not think I have posted an image here however I have learnt from those images that have been posted and got impressions of techiniques and equipment that I would most likely not be able to otherwise. The closet LF group to me is the one in Calgary and to make their meeting and see actual work would mean 6 hours of driving after work plus the meeting time and to get up with only 3 to 4 hours sleep. And for much of the year it is driving that distance in the dark and with snow and blowing snow. Me I would perfer on line images to that drive.

[goamules]

Why? For the same reason there are magazines about sailing, astronaut camps on earth, computer games on growing vegetables.

Wait....why am I answering the OP? He's moved on, after starting another cryptic, inane post. Has anyone looked at his other posts? Try it, click the user profile then View Forum Posts! You will be rewarded by many that also make no sense. Here's an example: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?98917-I-built-a-Lamborghini-in-my-basement&p=977543#post977543

[welly]

Why? For the same reason there are magazines about sailing, astronaut camps on earth, computer games on growing vegetables.

Wait....why am I answering the OP? He's moved on, after starting another cryptic, inane post. Has anyone looked at his other posts? Try it, click the user profile then View Forum Posts! You will be rewarded by many that also make no sense. Here's an example: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?98917-I-built-a-Lamborghini-in-my-basement&p=977543#post977543

His link to the ebay film sales was brilliant though. But the rest..

[Michael Alpert]

Why? For the same reason there are magazines about sailing, astronaut camps on earth, computer games on growing vegetables.

Wait....why am I answering the OP? He's moved on, after starting another cryptic, inane post. Has anyone looked at his other posts? Try it, click the user profile then View Forum Posts! You will be rewarded by many that also make no sense. Here's an example: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?98917-I-built-a-Lamborghini-in-my-basement&p=977543#post977543

Garrett, The OP's other posts suggest that English is not the poster's first language. I think he is asking why people post images here. It's not an outrageous question. It's like asking why we go to so much trouble to make photographs the way we do. I am sure there are many sensible, varied reasons for posting images. I don't post images, but that doesn't mean that I am not interested in reading other perspectives on this subject.

[Vaughn]

Nudes?

[soeren]

Well How would you descripe the rendering of a Voigtländer XXX lens? or the result from a given process, type of film or or or. This is after all a photography forum we are supposed to discuss large format photography, Inspire and motivate each other here. Sometimes that is done best by posting pics.
Maybe its just me but I think I detect some not so polite posts in this thread. Could people please be positive and constructive in their feedback. You don't have to agree or think that something is a good idea/question but please say so in a positive and constructive way instead of calling people stupid.
Best regards

[Brian Ellis]

Of course it's "possible" to add any commentary you want including a critique. But almost all the comments I see on the threads I visit consist of meaningless variations on "I like it" or "great picture Jack." It's rare to see any meaningful critiques which IMHO is unfortunate because there are a few people here who are really qualified to provide useful critiques if they were willing to take the time to do it.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have found that meaningful critiques were oftentimes not appreciated. It seems to me that people generally only want a casual "like".

[Sean Chilibeck]

There should be more of a drift towards meaningful critique, this forum has a lot of experience, and people who know a good picture and how to improve, or refine one. If someone posts a picture here I think that they should expect critique, I know I would.

The people looking for casual "like" should go to Facebook and Flickr, and for the most part I think that they do. I have noticed that images that I don't find particularly interesting often don't get acknowledgment.

[David R Munson]

I feel that photographic images on the Internet are very poor shadows of well-made original prints. Any meaningful aesthetic consideration is obliterated by the distortions and inadequacies of the Little Screen.

Sounds like you need a better monitor. There's a lot of very good work online now that displays very, very well.

[ROL]

I have found that meaningful critiques were oftentimes not appreciated. It seems to me that people generally only want a casual "like".

:D.


I've contributed to this forum, off and on, for about a decade, without posting an image or commenting on another forum-member's image. I feel that photographic images on the Internet are very poor shadows of well-made original prints. Any meaningful aesthetic consideration is obliterated by the distortions and inadequacies of the Little Screen. But I suppose there are reasons for posting images here and on other forums. The alleviation of loneliness is a good reason that I can respect. Even though we are all strangers to each other, the forum seems to maintain a sense of community that is, in spite of its limitations, worthwhile. And there are practical reasons for posting images that make sense: presenting the way a technical problem has ruined a negative or print, for instance.

While I agree with your overall sentiments, suggesting that "photographic images on the Internet are very poor shadows of well-made original prints" is somewhat of a copout. The internet is now the primary way nearly everyone consumes images. That is not likely to change despite the fact there are a few Luddites like us still fanning a dying flame. Like it or not, the only efficacious way of communicating the work you're doing these days is through the web. Not recognizing that scanning and PS are now your allies in communicating your skilled work is as burying your head in the sand.


Simple. Why post images on the forums?
Is it possible for any commentary beyond aperture, GPS coordinates, etc?

(I left teaching about thirty years ago, because I couldn't get over the 19 year olds problems.)

Your parenthetical completely explains your post, for me. I suspect your questions may have been aimed more at critique forums than referential images in the other forums, but who knows since you haven't been back since stirring the pot.

[mandoman7]

I've posted this opinion before, but I can't understand how someone can post suggestions that suggest a level of expertise, and then refuse to show any work here or on a personal website. Its the cart before the horse in a certain sense. We all know of the compromises involved in getting work on the web. Whatever. I say, show us what you got or sit back down.

Personally, I've found it very instructive to show work in different settings; this place, other forums, galleries, commercial environments, shop windows. You might say I've taken the opportunity to bore people wherever I go. But what I've found is that its tricky to learn to differentiate between work that resonates for me, or work that resonates for a viewing public in general, or for a certain type of photographers. I've had work that people really liked in a gallery, but fell flat when posted here, and vice versa. This place is just one of many opportunities to find out how a certain interest group feels about a given image.

We all have shots that we really like but we're not sure why, nor if someone else will feel the same way. There needs to be public interaction of some kind to sort that out, and not just with family or mentors who care for your feelings. I don't think critique is the issue. I agree with Kirk that nobody really wants it without knowing the perspective of that person. The benefit comes from simply putting something out there and seeing what happens. The responses can be very reassuring, but also discouraging when no one says anything and you thought it was pretty good. However, those experiences are invaluable for an artist who wants to develop their craft, IMO.

[Brian C. Miller]

Garrett, The OP's other posts suggest that English is not the poster's first language. I think he is asking why people post images here.

For reference:
Simple. Why post images on the forums?
Is it possible for any commentary beyond aperture, GPS coordinates, etc?

(I left teaching about thirty years ago, because I couldn't get over the 19 year olds problems.)

Based on the theory that "marfa boomboom tx" is actually in Texas, I don't find much out of the ordinary comparing what was written and conversations with Texans I've known. I also lived in Alpine, TX, for a while back in the late 1970s. (1978?) Anyways, many times American English has wandered far off the mainstream track, and a person may be hard pressed to understand a local variant. Maine comes to mind.

As for the original question: We photograph, and photography is an exercise in psychosis unless it is shared with others. Then it becomes a contagious psychosis.

[jnantz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=bIaUfBjHjpI&NR=1

[Michael Alpert]

I've posted this opinion before, but I can't understand how someone can post suggestions that suggest a level of expertise, and then refuse to show any work here or on a personal website. Its the cart before the horse in a certain sense. We all know of the compromises involved in getting work on the web. Whatever. I say, show us what you got or sit back down. .

I take you at your word when you say that you "can't understand how someone can post suggestions that suggest a level of expertise, and then refuse to show any work here or on a personal website." Right now, you truly don't (I won't say 'can't') understand. I enjoy discussing photographs as much as anyone. But not on the web. I really don't think everyone needs to ride on the same train. I happen to value this forum highly, but I don't even know what you real name is. Given your complete anonymity, your comments on my photographs would be coming from a place that I simply would not trust.

The rest of your statement makes complete sense to me. I understand the reasons you want to post images here. That's great. But, as I've already stated, it's not for me. And, to continue your metaphor, I'll stand up for my position.

[mandoman7]

I take you at your word when you say that you "can't understand how someone can post suggestions that suggest a level of expertise, and then refuse to show any work here or on a personal website." Right now, you truly don't (I won't say 'can't') understand. I enjoy discussing photographs as much as anyone. But not on the web. I really don't think everyone needs to ride on the same train.

I should've said "I don't agree with" not posting, rather than not understanding. Not everyone needs to ride the same train, but if we're talking about a certain train, those that have ridden it would be more informed. Seeing someone's work gives a reference point to their comments.


I happen to value this forum highly, but I don't even know what you real name is. Given your complete anonymity, your comments on my photographs would be coming from a place that I simply would not trust.

Really? My website's given on the profile which is easily checked in every post, where there's more info than anyone would possibly want to know about my activities. I don't know how to change the pseudonym, but would make an effort to do so if it really made any difference. I can't believe you didn't even bother to check the website...:)

[Andrew O'Neill]

Some very fine work on your website, John.

[Brian Ellis]

I have found that meaningful critiques were oftentimes not appreciated. It seems to me that people generally only want a casual "like".

You were one of the people I had in mind when I mentioned people here who could provide a meaningful critique if they had the time, which I'm sure you don't.

But you're probably right that most people just want a little praise. I was looking at another forum recently and somebody showed some photos from the Palouse that were wildly over-saturated - I mean so over-saturated that they made the Palouse look like it was lit with neon lights. When a couple people mentioned the over-saturation he got all huffy and accused the critics of being "elitist."

To the person above who said that nobody should post a critique here unless they themselves posted their own images here or on their web site- Walter Kerr never wrote a play that I know of, AFAIK Siskel and Ebert never produced a movie, Peter G. Davis never composed a symphony, etc. etc. Yet they and many others similarly situated were highly respected critics. I see no connection between posting here or on a web site, which I seldom do for a variety of reasons sufficient for me, and being able to provide a meaningful critique. And I don't mean that I'm such an expert that I could provide meaningful critiques, I'm thinking of people like Kirk and some others here.

[welly]

I have found that meaningful critiques were oftentimes not appreciated. It seems to me that people generally only want a casual "like".

I'd rather, at this stage in my large format photographic life, to get proper critiques rather than a casual "like". For me, it's essential to get proper feedback about my photography if I'm going to improve. But obviously that's me being reliant on other people giving up their time to critique my images.

[Peter Lewin]

Perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but the Post Your Images thread says right at the top, "Critiques should only be offered if requested by the original poster." Some of us (for example, me) do add a comment at the bottom of images we post, saying "critiques always welcome" or something to that effect, but most people who post do not. Therefore it should not be a surprise that few critiques, beyond a simple "I like that" (which hardly qualifies as a critique) are offered. Every once in a while someone starts a thread specifically requesting critiques for an image, and then there are more responses. There have even been cases where someone takes the posted image, crops or modifies it in some way, and re-posts it to show how they would have worked with the image.

[gth]

To answer the original question, I find that I can learn a lot from web posted image, even if they imperfect and not even close to their print presentation in tonality.

Namely

- Composition
- Lighting
- Posing of models
- Camera angles (view point)
- Different processing alternatives
- Different film stock
- Scanning alternatives
etc.

All of which can be best shown by an image.

Not to speak of superior artistic impact which can and does shine through an even mediocre web display.

So... OBVIOUSLY YES.

[Brian Ellis]

Perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but the Post Your Images thread says right at the top, "Critiques should only be offered if requested by the original poster." Some of us (for example, me) do add a comment at the bottom of images we post, saying "critiques always welcome" or something to that effect, but most people who post do not. Therefore it should not be a surprise that few critiques, beyond a simple "I like that" (which hardly qualifies as a critique) are offered. Every once in a while someone starts a thread specifically requesting critiques for an image, and then there are more responses. There have even been cases where someone takes the posted image, crops or modifies it in some way, and re-posts it to show how they would have worked with the image.

If you're missing the obvious it's that some of us do only critique when requested or in my case sometimes when the OP asks a specific question about something in the photograph, which I take to mean she or he wants some advice. But I almost never give any serious critique unless asked for and even then I've pretty much stopped for the reason Kirk and I discuss above.