Wow... I pen a 25-word response... and I've started World War III...
It's the middle of the night. I shouldn't even be up and about right now, but it's hard to sleep. I live in a wooden shack in the woods, and it's blowing a gale outside. The wind is reverberating round the valley like an Old Testament prophet. One day a tree is going to fall and reduce the shack to matchwood - maybe with me in it - and, hell, maybe tonight's the night. I was going to put a smiley face there... but it seems like they're getting me into as much trouble as the words I write.
First up, I want to apologise unreservedly to Carl. It was not my intention to belittle his pictures, or his 'philosophy' of photography, or his way of working. In fact, it's not my intention to belittle the work of anyone on the forum. If I see a picture I really like, I say so. If I see a pic I like, but there's something that hits a 'wrong note' with me, I may mention that too. I know what it's like to take pictures that are 'nearly good'. After a certain amount of time and experience, the quality of our photos rises in just small increments. That is: we learn a lot when we start out, 'cos we know nothing about photography. So, with each passing year, we have to 'refine' our vision if we are to make any improvements.
Years ago I took my little 'portfolio' of 5x7" prints to the only professional photographer I'd heard of: a guy called Martin Parr (now with the Magnum agency), who was just starting to make a name for himself. He was good enough to take a look. My pix, he said, were "snapshots".
I was a bit shocked. My friends and family thought my pix were great, and here was a guy telling me they were snapshots. He said a few other things too, no doubt vaguely complimentary, but "snapshots" is all I remember. And, you know what... he was right. They were snapshots.
I decided I maybe wasn't quite as good as I thought I was, and that I'd better learn the basics of photography. I looked at the work of good photographers - people like Franco Fontana, Brett Weston, Bill Brandt, etc, and, if I didn't exactly copy them, I wanted to tap into their way of seeing. And I've been trying to see more clearly ever since.
Someone's just said my opinions on other peoples' photos are "helpful"; someone else posted that they are "hurtful". Sorry, I don't want to check who said what; hey, it's the middle of the night! Well, I haven't written a single post on this forum that I consider to be hurtful, but, hell, hurtfulness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
I earn most of my income from writing comedy, so I'm accustomed to a 'robust' kind of humour, which maybe plays better in conversation than in an internet forum. My flippant remark about Carl's pix was just that, and was never intended to be "hurtful", or "condescending" or "mean-spirited" (there were other adjectives too, but it's still the middle of the night. I could be flattened by a tree at any moment).
"Waving the camera about"... Hmmm, this is the kind of way I talk about my own photography. People say to me "Hey, that was lucky. The sun peeped out from behind that cloud, just at the right moment", not realising that I'd waited a couple of hours, with my camera on a tripod, to see if the light would get 'interesting'. I also shoot abstract pix of ripples and reflections, which is basically just "pointing my camera at water".
Anyway I call my pix 'snaps', say "I got lucky", etc, because I hope my passion comes out in the pictures. I can joke about my photography precisely because it means so much to me.
But Carl, yes I DO stand on a hill and take a picture of another hill. It IS as simple as that. When I'm in the mood, the camera simply disappears, and I'm 'in' the landscape. And the only reason I mention getting things right 'in the camera' is because this is, IMO, the best way to get an original RAW file that can then (according to each photographer's taste) be tweaked slightly... or given a thorough workover in Photoshop. The moment I realised that, was the moment I started taking better pix. I believe this 100%.
Anyway, I've rattled on a bit. The storm seems to be subsiding. My shack may yet survive the night.
I feel as if I've opened up the proverbial can of worms, though it was not my intention to be dismissive about other photographers' work. I'd like to think my comments are positive and relevant (hey, the pix I really don't like, I don't mention at all), but I can see, from some of the recent posts, that I may have 'ruffled a few feathers'.
Apparently I've even mocked a kid's name: Skyler. Well, no, it's a great name (I called my own kids Chas & Casey; never had a girl, fortunately, 'cos I had a name ready. Corinna Corinna, after the folk song. But, like Carl, I digress...).
I've tended to assume that pix are posted here for people to comment on. As I've explained, having a 'non-partisan' critique is more constructive that getting undiluted praise from your doting family. But I certainly don't want to upset anyone, so I think I may keep my opinions to myself in future.
I may post an old picture of me in my frock coat. They were quite the fashion when me and Carl were kids.
There, one little smiley, and back to bed...
