As Marina Glebova often writes, "IT'S NOT WHAT THAT MATTERS, BUT HOW." I respect Marina's views; she's a reasonable person, but I don't understand why it's NOT WHAT THAT MATTERS. Aren't we talking about something when we post a photo? Of course, HOW is also important, but only secondary. That is, a photograph, in my opinion, should express WHAT through HOW. After all, if HOW is absent from WHAT, the artist is showing only themselves, without any interest in the subject itself. And when there's only HOW, that's probably a reason for a solo exhibition, where the artist talks about themselves and their search for self-identity. I'm more interested in talking about something other than myself, trying to express the theme as clearly as possible using any HOW. What do you think about this?
As Marina Glebova often writes, "IT'S NOT IMPORTANT WHAT, BUT IMPORTANT HOW." I respect Marina's views; she's a reasonable person, but I don't understand why it's NOT IMPORTANT WHAT? Aren't we communicating something when we post a photo? Of course, HOW is also important, but secondarily. That is, a photograph, in my opinion, should express WHAT through HOW. After all, if HOW is without WHAT, then the author is showing only themselves, without any interest in the subject itself. And when there is only HOW, this is probably the reason for a solo exhibition, where the author talks about themselves and their search for self-identity. I'm more interested in communicating about something other than myself, trying to express the theme as clearly as possible using any HOW. What do you think about this?
Aida, The meaning of this expression (not What is important, but How is important) is as follows. To photograph What, the author's participation is not required. You just need to study your camera's instructions and click left and right. "What" will always work. But "How" requires the author's participation, their individuality, their vision of the world. In fact, that's the only interesting thing about photography. I think so.
For me, too, the "HOW" is what truly demonstrates a photographer's skill. "WHAT" isn't the photographer's artistic merit, but rather their talent as an organizer and marketer of the photographic product. A ton of photographers exploit the work of famous media personalities or distinctive characters (like yours), while merely serving as a photo-fixer.
Reflex already mentioned this while I was writing.
Aida, The meaning of this expression (not What is important, but How) is this. To shoot What, no authorial involvement is required. Just study the camera manual and click away. The "What" will always work. But How requires the author's involvement, their individuality, so to speak, their vision of the world. In fact, that's the only interesting thing in photography. I think so.
Reflex, So, in your opinion, WHAT IS UNIMPORTANT after all? That's what I'm asking. Your expression "VISION OF THE WORLD" still presupposes that a certain WORLD exists! Or are you a solipsist?
Reflex, So, in your opinion, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT? That's what I'm asking. Your expression "VISION OF THE WORLD" still presupposes that some WORLD exists! Or are you a solipsist?
Aida, You're still taking the wrong turn by not using logic. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT doesn't presuppose the absence of that WHAT, but quite the opposite! VISION OF THE WORLD is precisely HOW you see that WHATEVER!
For me, too, it's primarily "HOW" that demonstrates a photographer's level. "WHAT" isn't the photographer's merit as an artist, but rather the talent of an organizer and marketer of the photographic product. A ton of photographers exploit the photo-taking of famous media personalities or distinctive characters (like yours), while merely serving as a photo-fixer.
While I was writing, Reflex already mentioned this.
Viktor Kirillov, A photographer is not an artist. The result of a photographer's work is a photograph. The result of an artist's work is a painting or drawing. And one shouldn't confuse and conflate "miller" and "miner."
[quote]For me, too, the "HOW" is what first and foremost demonstrates a photographer's skill. "WHAT" isn't the photographer's artistic merit, but rather their talent as an organizer and marketer of photo products.
Viktor Kirillov, A photographer is precisely a marketer of photo products. And the better they do this, the greater their skill.
Aida, You're still taking a wrong turn, not using logic. "UNMATTER WHAT" doesn't imply the absence of that "WHAT," quite the opposite! A VISION of the world is precisely HOW you see that "WHAT!"
Reflex, Why am I taking a wrong turn? I'm using logic. The expression "UNMATTER WHAT" implies the insignificance or even absence of that "WHAT." To put it more simply, I suspect that the author of the expression and others who believe in this postulate don't care about the subject of the photograph! And I'm upset! Personally, I'm extremely interested in the subject of the photograph. And this general disdain for titles most often speaks not to the fact that a photograph should be understandable even without a title, but to the fact that the author himself doesn't know what he was photographing! It's true that it also happens that the author will film some nonsense, say a tree stump in a clearing, and call it very pompously, say, "The Tragedy of the Sixties Generation"... This, of course, is also an exaggeration, only in the other direction...
NMV and I'm almost certain it would be better in black and white with muted brightness and added contrast. And since there are too many unnecessary scattered objects/spots, I would change the format. Here's an example: https://transfiles.ru/qup4y
Why am I going the wrong way? I'm using logic. The expression "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT" implies the insignificance or even absence of that "WHAT." To put it more simply, I suspect that the author of the expression and others who believe in this postulate don't care about the subject of the photo!
Aida, you're misunderstanding this expression. It only means that ANY object can be photographed poorly, or well. And personally, in this context, it doesn't matter to me WHAT exactly the author is photographing: landscapes, still lifes, courtyards, portraits, cats, or nudes. What matters is HOW he photographs it all. Otherwise, we would have to reason something like this: this is a bad photo because the author photographed a shabby courtyard, and I don't care HOW he photographed it, since it's a courtyard, that means it's bad. This is a good photo because the author captured a sweet child, and it doesn't matter that the photo was bad, banal, or uninteresting. What's more important is WHAT he photographed—if it was a child, then it was good. But I hope that for you, the main criterion for evaluation is not the subject, but something else, something expressed through the word HOW.
Aida, you're misunderstanding this expression. It simply means that ANY object can be photographed poorly, or well. And personally, in this context, I don't care WHAT exactly the author is photographing: landscapes, still lifes, courtyards, portraits, cats, or nudes. What matters is HOW they photograph it. Otherwise, we would have to reason something like this: this is a bad photo because the author photographed a shabby courtyard, and I don't care HOW they photographed it; if it's a courtyard, it's bad. But this is a good photo because the author photographed a cute child, and it doesn't matter that it's bad, banal, or uninteresting; what matters is WHAT they photographed; if it's a child, it's good. But I hope that for you, the main criterion for evaluation is not the subject, but something else, which is expressed through the word HOW.
Monoclone, Well, we can settle for that, since it's convincing. So, it turns out you and I attached different meanings to the concept of WHAT. You thought WHAT was a genre, and I thought WHAT was an object. Oh well. I'd also like to point out something funny about this conversation. Both sides are at war—it's no secret that there are two factions battling on this site: the so-called amateurs and the metaphysicians (now "homeless graphers"). Well, both sides consider HOW to be the main question... They simply attach different, even opposing, meanings to HOW. There's no talk of WHAT.
NMV, and I'm almost certain it would have been better in black and white with muted brightness and added contrast, and since there are too many unnecessary scattered objects/spots here, I would have changed the format. Here's an example: https://transfiles.ru/qup4y
Nikolay Semenov, You did a great job! I liked it. But you ended up with a classic portrait. I wanted to show that this guy was caught off guard in a completely inappropriate setting. A slightly comical effect... Another example of a difference of opinion...
Monoclon, Well, we can settle this, since it's convincing. It turns out you and I attached different meanings to the concept of WHAT. You considered WHAT to be a genre, and I believed WHAT to be an object. Well, okay. I'd also like to point out something funny in the course of this conversation. Both warring sides—and it's no secret that there are two parties battling on this site: the so-called amateurs and the metaphysicians (now "homeless graphers"). Well, both consider HOW to be the main question... They simply attach different, even opposing, meanings to the concept of HOW. We're not talking about WHAT.
Aida, nothing of the sort. We're also talking about WHAT. Some are drawn to flowers, girls, people, animals, and nature, while others photograph stinking porches, garbage dumps, foot wraps on a rope, and abstract gibberish. Calling them metaphysicians... well, that's a stretch. "Bum photographers" is a more accurate description. While for the former, the technical aspect of photography is an integral, essential part, for the latter, it's secondary, even tertiary, often nonexistent, due to their sheer inability to do so. Admitting this would be an admission of their own worthlessness, so they've cobbled together a flock of such incompetent and untalented individuals, all under the guise of metaphysicians.
The subject's gaze is full of opposites = bewilderment, indignation, and fear... Are these the feelings you want to convey to the viewer, Fearless and amoral "photographer," Aida!? Have you buried your inner censor long ago?
Author works, The ideal place to shoot this kind of portrait is in front of the door at the exit of a toilet stall.
Anatoly Fomin, Anyone can take a picture like that – at the exit... but with a "gifted" photographer, almost all people are caught off guard, doing something awkward...
Aida, nothing of the sort. We're also talking about WHAT. Some are drawn to flowers, girls, people, animals, nature, while others are drawn to stinking entryways, garbage dumps, foot wraps on a rope, and abstract gibberish. Calling them metaphysicians... well, that's a stretch. "Bomzhegraphs" is a more accurate description. And if for the former, the technical component of fogphy is an integral, important part, then for the latter, it's something secondary, even tertiary, often completely non-existent, due to the fact that they simply don't know how. But admitting this would be to confirm their own worthlessness, so they've assembled a flock of such incompetent, untalented individuals, but under the beautiful guise of metaphysicians.
Sergio Borkoni,
The Unicorn fought a mortal battle with the Lion for the crown. The Lion chased the Unicorn along the city roads, Some served them black bread, others pie, And then they were driven out the door to the sound of a drum. (c) "Alice Through the Looking Glass"
For me, too, the "HOW" is what first and foremost demonstrates a photographer's skill. "WHAT" isn't the photographer's artistic merit, but rather his talent as an organizer and marketer of photographic products.
Viktor Kirillov, A photographer is precisely a marketer of photographic products. And the better he does this, the greater his skill.
Anatoly Fomin, PORNOGRAPHY sells best. So, for you, the most important thing is WHAT, whereas I'm talking about the photographer's SKILL, HOW he masters the CRAFT, and where his hands and eyes come from.
Viktor Kirillov, A photographer is not an artist. The result of a photographer's work is a photograph. The result of an artist's work is a painting or drawing. And you shouldn't confuse and conflate "miller" and "miner."
Anatoly Fomin, Well, that's for you, document photography, although there are photo machines for that.
Anatoly Fomin, PORNOGRAPHY sells best, so for you, the most important thing is WHAT. I'm talking about the photographer's SKILL, HOW they master the CRAFT, and where their hands and eyes come from.
Viktor Kirillov, Of course, first and foremost, WHAT they photograph, and then HOW. Why should I waste my time "reading" a romance novel if I'm only interested in historical fiction? Life is finite, and there's no point in wasting time. A profession is how a person receives material compensation. The most important thing is that the client likes the photograph, pays for it in full, and recommends it to other potential clients. If a person photographs not for material profit, but for the soul, then this is amateurism. In other words, it's called a hobby. Therefore, the SKILL of a professional photographer is determined precisely by the material profit resulting from their work.
Viktor Kirillov, Of course, first and foremost, WHAT you photograph, and then HOW. Why should I waste my time "reading" a romance novel if I'm only interested in historical fiction? Life is finite, and there's no point in wasting time. A profession is how a person receives material compensation. The most important thing is that the client likes the photograph, pays for it in full, and recommends it to other potential clients. If a person photographs not for material profit, but for the soul, then this is amateurism. In other words, it's called a hobby. Therefore, the SKILL of a professional photographer is determined precisely by the material profit resulting from their work.
Anatoly Fomin, Come on... I don't want to disappoint you, but those posting photos here (including you) are not professionals... you won't find potential clients here for any genre (including shabby courtyards and puddles with reflections)....
Viktor Kirillov, Of course, first and foremost, WHAT you photograph, and then HOW. Why should I waste my time "reading" a romance novel if I'm only interested in historical fiction? Life is finite, and there's no point in wasting time. A profession is how a person receives material compensation. The most important thing is that the client likes the photograph, pays for it in full, and recommends it to other potential clients. If a person photographs not for material profit, but for the soul, then this is amateurism. That is, it's called a hobby. Therefore, the SKILL of a professional photographer is determined precisely by the material profit resulting from their work.
Anatoly Fomin, I apologize to Aida for somewhat down-to-earth the philosophical pathos of the question WHAT and HOW I just didn't immediately understand what you were talking about, and I was talking about the photographer's craft, not his worldview.
Anatoly, what you're saying is also true for me. I'm an amateur photographer, but there are people for whom photography is little more than just a hobby. Some even have "master" or even "photographer" written in their workbooks under the category "category." I don't remember the exact wording, but it's a completely official salary rate after the 6th category. That is, a craft of such a level that it's no longer considered a shoemaker.
Anatoly Fomin, sir, to read a historical novel or a romance novel, you first need to learn to read and write, master the ABCs, learn to write, expand your vocabulary by reading children's books, and only then decide which novels interest you. And the homeless photographers think that acquiring a digital SLR is the end of their photography schooling. So why bother? A camera will do everything, and where it fails, no big deal. They've seen camera shake, exposure lapses, out-of-focus photos in the greats, and everything. Why bother if even a botched photo can be considered a masterpiece, and there's no way to convince them otherwise. And their penchant for shooting all sorts of crap is also understandable. It's unlikely anyone would trust their portrait to such a conceptualist homeless photographer, so they shoot garbage dumps and other such rubbish.
The subject's gaze is full of opposites = bewilderment, indignation, and fear...
Are these the feelings you want to convey to the viewer, Fearless and amoral "photographer," Aida!? Have you buried your inner censor long ago?
Author works, Sir, why are you asking? You banned me, offended by the most innocent criticism of my photographic work. Taking offense at perfectly polite criticism while pretending to be a guru—that, my dear fellow, is what's called inadequacy.
Author works, Sir, why are you asking? You banned me, offended by the most innocent criticism of my photography. Taking offense at perfectly polite criticism while pretending to be a guru—that, my dear, is what's called inadequacy.
Aida, you've misfired, inadequacy! An adequate response would be
The subject's gaze is full of opposites = bewilderment, indignation, and fear... Are these the feelings you want to convey to the viewer, Fearless and amoral "photographer," Aida!? Have you buried your inner censor long ago?
As Marina Glebova often writes, "IT'S NOT WHAT THAT MATTERS, BUT HOW." I respect Marina's views; she's a reasonable person, but I don't understand why it's NOT WHAT MATTERS? Aren't we communicating something when we share a photo? Of course, HOW is also important, but secondarily. That is, a photograph, in my opinion, should express WHAT through HOW. After all, if HOW is without WHAT, then the artist is showing only themselves, without any interest in the subject itself. And when there's only HOW, that's probably the reason for a solo exhibition, where the artist talks about themselves and their search for self-identity. I'm more interested in communicating about something other than myself, trying to express the theme as clearly as possible using any HOW. What do you think about this?
Aida, It's HOW you photograph WHAT'S important to you that matters. WHAT is something essential that compels you to seek expression within it, revealing it in our case through the HOW—the nonverbal. WHAT could be time, emptiness, a color combination, a loved one, etc.... anything. If it's not important, but just something that comes to hand, it'll most likely be empty formalism or a sketch. Although there are always exceptions, I suppose.
Aida, It's HOW you photograph what's important to you that matters. WHAT is the essential element that compels you to seek expression within it, revealing it, in our case, through the HOW of the nonverbal. WHAT could be time, emptiness, a color combination, a loved one, etc.... anything. If it's not important, but just something that happens to be at hand, then it'll most likely be empty formalism or a sketch. Although there are always exceptions, I suppose.
The meaning of this expression (not What is important, but How is important) is as follows. To photograph What, the author's participation is not required. You just need to study your camera's instructions and click left and right. "What" will always work. But "How" requires the author's participation, their individuality, their vision of the world. In fact, that's the only interesting thing about photography. I think so.
Reflex already mentioned this while I was writing.
You're still taking the wrong turn by not using logic. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT doesn't presuppose the absence of that WHAT, but quite the opposite! VISION OF THE WORLD is precisely HOW you see that WHATEVER!
Viktor Kirillov, A photographer is precisely a marketer of photo products. And the better they do this, the greater their skill.
Are these the feelings you want to convey to the viewer, Fearless and amoral "photographer," Aida!?
Have you buried your inner censor long ago?
Anatoly Fomin, Anyone can take a picture like that – at the exit... but with a "gifted" photographer, almost all people are caught off guard, doing something awkward...
The Unicorn fought a mortal battle with the Lion for the crown.
The Lion chased the Unicorn along the city roads,
Some served them black bread, others pie,
And then they were driven out the door to the sound of a drum.
(c) "Alice Through the Looking Glass"
A profession is how a person receives material compensation. The most important thing is that the client likes the photograph, pays for it in full, and recommends it to other potential clients. If a person photographs not for material profit, but for the soul, then this is amateurism. In other words, it's called a hobby. Therefore, the SKILL of a professional photographer is determined precisely by the material profit resulting from their work.
Anatoly, what you're saying is also true for me. I'm an amateur photographer, but there are people for whom photography is little more than just a hobby. Some even have "master" or even "photographer" written in their workbooks under the category "category." I don't remember the exact wording, but it's a completely official salary rate after the 6th category. That is, a craft of such a level that it's no longer considered a shoemaker.
An adequate response would be Please try again... I believe in you!
It's HOW you photograph WHAT'S important to you that matters. WHAT is something essential that compels you to seek expression within it, revealing it in our case through the HOW—the nonverbal. WHAT could be time, emptiness, a color combination, a loved one, etc.... anything. If it's not important, but just something that comes to hand, it'll most likely be empty formalism or a sketch. Although there are always exceptions, I suppose.