Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: develop ones own style...  (Read 22053 times)
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #80 on: September 26, 2013, 12:25:14 PM »
ReplyReply

That, of course, ignores your own posts of, lo, these many years.
Au contraire.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2326


« Reply #81 on: September 26, 2013, 02:20:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Isaac, go shoot some pictures and post 'em so we can see your "style."

"The Ad Hominem Fallacy... the argument is ignored and the person responsible for the argument is deliberately attacked. ... The intention of the perpetrator of this fallacy is to divert an audience's attention from the argument, usually because the perpetrator is getting the worst of it."

Being Logical p115
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #82 on: September 26, 2013, 03:51:41 PM »
ReplyReply

So Issac, so you even take photographs?

And no this is not an ad hominen attack and nor was RSL's, this is a photography forum, where we unsurprisingly talk about photography and it's a bit odd when someone does not show their work. Despite being as prolific a poster as yourself.

And yes RSL was talking gibberish about style, but at least we can see his work and know where he is coming from photographically.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #83 on: September 26, 2013, 04:19:52 PM »
ReplyReply

So Issac, so you even take photographs?

And no this is not an ad hominen attack and nor was RSL's, this is a photography forum, where we unsurprisingly talk about photography and it's a bit odd when someone does not show their work. Despite being as prolific a poster as yourself.

And yes RSL was talking gibberish about style, but at least we can see his work and know where he is coming from photographically.

Actually Ad Hominem is any attempt at avoiding logical discussion and replacing it with emotionally distracting commentary.  Commonly that is done with gratuitous attacks on a person, but not necessarily.

Interupting a logical discussion to ask for a poster's images, and in particular with a reference to an objective so see their style, is 1) illogical, 2) emotional and therefore 3) an Ad Hominem.

Your comments may not be particularly significant or accurate, but they aren't gratuitous (they do follow from what was previously posted) and are at least an attempt at logic rather than emotional appeal.  Ergo, not Ad Hominem, but not well founded either...

I personally don't care if someone ever posts a picture.  I enjoy looking at pictures, so I do appreciate it if people either post images or at least have a web page.  But I absolutely do not judge comments made in forums by the images of the author.  There is no relationship, and the comments stand on their own.

I'll give you a classic example.  I do a good bit of Street Photography (an odd sort, because virtually none of it is urban), and of course like to study historically great Street work.  Garry Winogrand's work is an example.  But I generally ignore almost everything posted about Winogrand in forums, and can't think of many photographers who's critiques of Winogrand are worth reading.  The late John Szarkowki is, on the other hand, the best source of information about Winogrand.  I have never seen a photograph taken by Szarkowski!  He originally was a photographer, but I've never tried to find examples of his work.  He of course was the Director of Photography at New York's Museum of Modern Art for three decades, and took on the job of editing the infamous unprocessed film after Winogrand died.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2326


« Reply #84 on: September 26, 2013, 05:12:56 PM »
ReplyReply

But I absolutely do not judge comments made in forums by the images of the author.  There is no relationship, and the comments stand on their own.

iirc You are only the 3rd person to express that understanding in this forum.
Logged
GrantLB
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #85 on: September 26, 2013, 10:37:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I completely agree. I look a stuff I shot a long time ago and see it very differently. I have printed scans of negatives I've never printed and now I'm baffled as to why I never had. So yes, don't only keep your "best" shots because some others could actually be better. Time changes us and the way we see, so keep them all unless they are so badly over/under exposed.

Winogrand's stuff is amazing and more amazing is all the stuff he never saw after he took the picture. There's an example of never throwing anything out in spades. I wonder how many great shots are waiting to be discovered from the negs he had developed but never printed! And then the 2500 rolls he never developed and astoundingly 6500 rolls developed and never proofed. Mind boggling.
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2390


« Reply #86 on: September 27, 2013, 03:31:08 AM »
ReplyReply

"The Ad Hominem Fallacy... the argument is ignored and the person responsible for the argument is deliberately attacked. ... The intention of the perpetrator of this fallacy is to divert an audience's attention from the argument, usually because the perpetrator is getting the worst of it."

Being Logical p115

Isaac you have just done what you are accusing Russ of doing....attacking the person. Rather ironic? Having credentials or a CV to back what one says is imo the norm if somebody is to be taken seriously?
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #87 on: September 27, 2013, 04:50:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually Ad Hominem is any attempt at avoiding logical discussion and replacing it with emotionally distracting commentary.  Commonly that is done with gratuitous attacks on a person, but not necessarily.

Interupting a logical discussion to ask for a poster's images, and in particular with a reference to an objective so see their style, is 1) illogical, 2) emotional and therefore 3) an Ad Hominem.

Your comments may not be particularly significant or accurate, but they aren't gratuitous (they do follow from what was previously posted) and are at least an attempt at logic rather than emotional appeal.  Ergo, not Ad Hominem, but not well founded either...

I personally don't care if someone ever posts a picture.  I enjoy looking at pictures, so I do appreciate it if people either post images or at least have a web page.  But I absolutely do not judge comments made in forums by the images of the author.  There is no relationship, and the comments stand on their own.
Except there is a relationship.
Firstly and most importantly, anonymity online tends to favoured by those who like to stir/talk gibberish.
Secondly, showing one's work gives context - either by showing the poster is talking out of their posterior or more usefully backing up a point of view. There are a lot of keyboard warriors out there and having something to show you do know what you are talking about means a great deal online. Take a professional like bcooter saying that resolution/camera isn't necessarily that important because the clients don't care how many megapixels there are and it's the final picture that counts, has a lot more credence than some amateurs arguing over the benefit of 2 more megapixels in a new camera.
Now imagine someone came to your local camera club, joined in all the discussions and yet in 15 years never showed a single photograph and not only that, they wore a mask so you  didn't even know what they looked like. That would be seen as being a bit odd. LuLa is simply an online camera club and it's just as strange to behave like that.

As an example of context - some years back I posted some things about DJing on a Modern Jive forum I had just joined. I was quickly attacked by a bunch of the regular posters, quite vehemently at times - typical stranger danger attitude. They didn't like a 'foreigner' telling them there were other ways of doing things. Then someone realised who I was in the real world [I had used a variation of my name, so not that hard] and pointed out some influential things I had done within that scene and suddenly I had some respect. Though a couple of morons attacked me even more as they now looked even more stupid.


Quote
I'll give you a classic example.  I do a good bit of Street Photography (an odd sort, because virtually none of it is urban), and of course like to study historically great Street work.  Garry Winogrand's work is an example.  But I generally ignore almost everything posted about Winogrand in forums, and can't think of many photographers who's critiques of Winogrand are worth reading.  The late John Szarkowki is, on the other hand, the best source of information about Winogrand.  I have never seen a photograph taken by Szarkowski!  He originally was a photographer, but I've never tried to find examples of his work.  He of course was the Director of Photography at New York's Museum of Modern Art for three decades, and took on the job of editing the infamous unprocessed film after Winogrand died.
Except you knew who he was and could check up on his work if you so desired. Plus his position showed he had some considerable status in Photography.
Online you can use a pseudonym and no-one will know who you are and behave how you like. Many people [like myself] may not use their actual names on here for various reasons but have links to their work and actual identity, so are not anonymous.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 04:56:31 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #88 on: September 27, 2013, 04:54:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I personally don't care if someone ever posts a picture.  I enjoy looking at pictures, so I do appreciate it if people either post images or at least have a web page.  But I absolutely do not judge comments made in forums by the images of the author.  There is no relationship, and the comments stand on their own.


iirc You are only the 3rd person to express that understanding in this forum.
That would be mis-understanding. See my previous post for why.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #89 on: September 27, 2013, 06:49:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm outta here, but I understand the dream every photographer has of being able to develop a recognizable "style," so I quite understand the frenetic arguments in this thread to the effect that such a thing is possible. Unfortunately, folks, it's a dream not supported by the evidence.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #90 on: September 27, 2013, 06:57:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm outta here, but I understand the dream every photographer has of being able to develop a recognizable "style," so I quite understand the frenetic arguments in this thread to the effect that such a thing is possible. Unfortunately, folks, it's a dream not supported by the evidence.
So by your curious 'logic' all photographers work must look the same. Except studio photographers, who for some inexplicable reason according to you can have a style.  Roll Eyes

Maybe it's just that you cannot differentiate between photographers, so erroneously assume there is no difference.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #91 on: September 27, 2013, 07:08:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Interupting a logical discussion to ask for a poster's images, and in particular with a reference to an objective so see their style, is 1) illogical, 2) emotional and therefore 3) an Ad Hominem.
Actually when a discussion is about style in photography, evidence to back a particular point of view is a very logical thing to ask for. And if Isaac has a style of his own, then his photographs would back up his assertions against RSL's. So nothing ad hominen about that.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #92 on: September 27, 2013, 07:22:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm outta here, but I understand the dream every photographer has of being able to develop a recognizable "style," so I quite understand the frenetic arguments in this thread to the effect that such a thing is possible. Unfortunately, folks, it's a dream not supported by the evidence.
You ignore a great deal of very good evidence, and provide nothing valid to support your opinion.

Let's be clear, stating that Ansel Adams had no style at all simply removed you from the discussion.
Logged

Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #93 on: September 27, 2013, 08:38:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Except there is a relationship.

That (and your analogies) generalizes specifics and isn't valid.  There can be a relationship, but there is never necessarily a relationship.  For your logic to be valid the specific must always apply in an exclusive manner.

Quote
Firstly and most importantly, anonymity online tends to favoured by those who like to stir/talk gibberish.

But what "tends" to be is, by definition, not necessarily so.  It isn't valid to assume there is always the relationship you state. 

A person's ability to explain the technical issues in photography has virtually nothing at all to do with what their preferences are in art.  Objective technical issues are not a matter of opinion, preferences in art are always a very subjective personal opinion.  A photo gallery just demonstrates a set of preferences...

The fact that any given photographer's choice of genre and/or style happens to be popular or pleasing to many does not relate to that same photographer's knowledge about or ability to explain or even just discuss technical issues.

Examples are many... RSL takes nice photographs, and has a very distinct style, yet claims there is no such thing as his style and supports that by claiming Ansel Adams had no style.   We know exactly who he is, we can look at his images, and yet he is clearly posting gibberish.  Your whole theory is shot down with just one reality check!

The rest of your article has the same logical fallacy embedded in each part of the discussion.  I did write, but then deleted as excessive, a detailed response.  Basically your specific observations are correct, but they don't have the vast general application you assume.

Specifically the analogies don't prove your points.  Analogies are great to help people learn and gain perspective, but they are never evidence to prove a point.  You aren't writing a tutorial and your analogies are virtually all invalid in the context of this thread.

If there is one specific part of that which you believe is both valid and significant enough to warrent a discussion, point it out and I'll go into detail on just that item.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #94 on: September 27, 2013, 01:28:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Let's be clear, stating that Ansel Adams had no style at all simply removed you from the discussion.

Please explain the differences that distinguish Ansel's "style" from Weston's "style" in their west-coast photographs.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2326


« Reply #95 on: September 27, 2013, 01:58:50 PM »
ReplyReply

"The Ad Hominem Fallacy... the argument is ignored and the person responsible for the argument is deliberately attacked. ... The intention of the perpetrator of this fallacy is to divert an audience's attention from the argument, usually because the perpetrator is getting the worst of it."

Being Logical p115

Isaac you have just done what you are accusing Russ of doing....attacking the person. Rather ironic? Having credentials or a CV to back what one says is imo the norm if somebody is to be taken seriously?

Firstly, to identify a fault in an argument is to attack the argument not the person.

Secondly - 

Quote
But it is argument, not just the word of the experts, which should be carrying the authoritative weight, and the argument we are presented with here is far from convincing because it offers us nothing beyond the mere word of the experts. If we are satisfied with only the word of experts, we are essentially being told: "Don't ask any questions, just do as we say."

Being Logical p116 The Uses and Abuses of Expertise
Logged
Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #96 on: September 27, 2013, 02:26:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Please explain the differences that distinguish Ansel's "style" from Weston's "style" in their west-coast photographs.
Why bother with nonsense?  It makes no difference if they are or are not identical. (And they clearly are not.)
Logged

Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #97 on: September 27, 2013, 02:29:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually when a discussion is about style in photography, evidence to back a particular point of view is a very logical thing to ask for. And if Isaac has a style of his own, then his photographs would back up his assertions against RSL's. So nothing ad hominen about that.
The first statement is true, the second one is not.

It's just an appeal to emotions.  If he does or does not provide examples of his photography it will not change the validity of his comments on style.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #98 on: September 27, 2013, 03:13:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Why bother with nonsense?  It makes no difference if they are or are not identical. (And they clearly are not.)

Really? What are the differences if they clearly are not?
Logged

Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #99 on: September 27, 2013, 07:25:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Really? What are the differences if they clearly are not?

Knock off the continued attempt to confuse issues here. It's a Non Sequitur because the answers to your silly questions make no difference at all to the topic of this thread.  You seem intent on posting distractions.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad