Mustard wrote:
thesweetcheat wrote:
Can't disagree with any of that.
One thing I would like to add, hopefully without detracting from your points, is that most of the contributors here are not professional photographers. Most (I imagine) are amateurs and are not going out with expensive DSLR type cameras, but point-and-shoot compacts. The high quality images taken by the serious photographers are always very welcome and very inspiring, but isn't TMA about getting out there and sharing information, knowledge and experiences? Images on here should be telling us something about the site, or its setting (as yours undoubtedly do Robert), rather than about the camera they were taken on.
To my (very amateur, very enthusiast) mind, there are lots of great images on TMA taken with lesser equipment, some of the grainy old scans and early digital images posted in the site's formative years are just as evocative and informative as those taken by a pro or semi-pro with the best equipment.
There is an element of the tone of this thread that suggests TMA should raise its submission bar to be a collection of pictures worthy of entering into competitions, to be judged purely on questions of exposure, or shutter speeds. If this is the case, a lot of enthusiastic but amateur contributors probably wouldn't have the confidence to post pictures here any longer, and I reckon we'd lose more than we gained as a result. I'd like to think that TMA is a broad enough church to accommodate both the fine art and the enthusiast who wants to "show and tell". It's all about the sites, after all.
This site (or at least this forum) really makes me despair. All I saw was a bit of friendly advice - not snobbery or ego or anything else negative. Gladman's images look underexposed. I don't see the problem with that being pointed out in a friendly and courteous fashion. All that's then required is a "cheers, but that's my creative choice" from Gladman, conversation closed, nobody offended, job's a good 'un. It's not like there's a private messaging facility on TMA Gladman doesn't have an email address in his profile. Maybe if everyone was slower to take offence and more inclined to assume the best of people, we'd all get along a bit better? We could be having a nice discussion about the technical and creative aspects of photography rather than bickering (again).
Thanks Mustard.
What makes it bizarre is that my favourite images from here are all to do with feeling rather than 'technical proficiency' and i've always made that clear in my comments on photos.
I loved Bladups photos and I know he won't mind me saying they are all about feeling and moments and very little to do with getting things exact from a technical point of view.
I also really love some of greywethers photos, extremely evocative, perfect for these sites, but, again, not really technical in any way.
I really like a lot of the pre-sets available on software like hipstamatic and instagram etc, which can sometimes give 'instant' atmosphere, and thats something a 7yr old can do. I don't really care where or how it is generated, its just about the image.
Having said that I appreciate Kens lighting skills, and the atmospheres AR Cane seems to generate in his stuff, and I think that is a little more technical, but the reality is I like images for what I feel/think when I look at them and nothing else.
And just to make things very clear, I underexpose shots myself all the time, a good exmaple would be a whole set I did in Caithness a few years back, they were as dark as you like because thats what I wanted them to be.
Having all this stuff 'explained' to me made me laugh to be honest, and some of the comments from "which way is the wind blowing today" board members is just not even worth a reply.
Gladman - I pointed it out to you because it seemed (to me, to me!) that although 'darker' shots are obviously your thing, some (quite a lot) genuinely give me the impression that you must be looking at a brighter image on your monitor when you post them. Thats all.
