Amusing

[pecunium]

So, I went to join a critique group at flickr. They tout themselves as being for the working, or dedicated, photographer, who, "wants to move to the next level" (which is really ugly wording, but sadly typical).

This is one of those groups which wants (nay, demands) that one give comments on specific other photos; when posting a photo, and leave that photo up for a week so anyone else who wants to may comment. This doesn't prevent anyone else from looking, or commenting, but it does give a focus.

I was rejected. Apparently my photos didn't meet the standards of the group. I will take them at their editorial word and assume that "we reviewed your photostream" and not a single guy.

I wonder what the criteria are? I have guesses (based on the rest of the pool). It's not really my ability. I have photos at least as technically competent as most of the photos.

It's that I am not shooting the sorts of things they like. Perhaps it's that my stream isn't nothing but that. They are afraid; because of just how I've combined the various things I shoot, that rahter than this:



Or this:



Which are both very much in keeping with the photos being offered up.

I'll offer up somthing like this:



Which isn't.

But, since they managed to be as dismissive as they were, not so much the rejection, but rather the, "you aren't good enough to even try to help/benefit from our critique," tone of the letter, I don't think I'll repetition for membership.

Comments

[txanne.livejournal.com]

Their loss.

At first glance, the telephone pole was the one that made me go "ooh." But the surfer one made me look at it again, harder--and that's what I want art to do to me. In fact I think I may go favorite it right now.

[athenais.livejournal.com]

I'm baffled. What kind of photos do they like if they don't like yours?

[bodandra.livejournal.com]

They only like their own?

Terry, you are a very good photographer. They could not handle it?

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I think (hope, salve my ego) that it's not they don't like my photos (there was a stock bit of praise, but it did feel like something of a boilerplate rejection), but that I am not "pure" enough in my choice of things to offer.

If you like I'll send you some flickr mail with the group, so you can decide. There is a sense (as I looked after the rejection) of school of photography; a stylistic consistency, and while I do have some photos in their vein, it's not a plurality of my work, much less the majority.

So I might dilute the "purity" of their vision.

If that's the case, well it's really not for me after all.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

They could handle it (the group small), but I think you've hit much of it. As I said to athenais I think I don't have, "enough" photos in the styles they want to work with.

[clownburner.livejournal.com]

Have you checked out the Strobist group? While their focus is on flash work, they're a helpful bunch, and some of them are doing quite amazing stuff.

[athenais.livejournal.com]

Sure, I'm curious. Purity of vision? That's not a critique group, that's a circle jerk.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

Don't get me wrong: I love Flickr. I've uploaded more than 4,000 photos, and I love some Flickr groups, especially the ones that stimulate my photographic imagination (Free Association, for instance, and some of the camera model-specific groups).

But I steer clear of the rating and critique communities, because I've found them full of pretentious gits. They all seem to be aiming for the kinds of images that fill Flickr's "Explore" pages. Granted, there are a lot of striking photographs there, but they're very much ... of a sort, if you know what I mean.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

There are some I can reccomend. It's hard; critique takes trust, and a bit of risk. Building the first enough to allow the latter is hard.

I've tried to make one (here, but flickr doesn't tell me when someone adds to it, so things end up sort of neglected ( I refuse to make a "Code" and use a scrubber to get comments made).

I do think Hit, Miss, Maybe: Why is a pretty good group.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

http://www.flickr.com/groups/ngproinvitation/

Looking at them more and the associated groups... they do seem to more than a trifle a bunch of wankers

They also have a website http://www.theportfoliopro.org/.

If I'd seen that, I'd never have tried to join the flickr group. The group's splash page is much less pretntious/self absorbed than the website.

[athenais.livejournal.com]

Their website's FAQ is password-protected. Duuuuuude.

I'm not very impressed with the Flickr group. In fact, there's a couple of photos on the very first page that are amateurish as hell, and yet they are being lavished with praise. Some of it is very nice, of course.

I still don't know why your work doesn't pass muster, because it doesn't seem profoundly different from what they've accepted. But no great loss to you.

[athenais.livejournal.com]

I really like Hit, Miss or Maybe. They aren't out for blood and they're not pretentious.

[feonixrift.livejournal.com]

I don't get it. That pole in the middle photo says nothing to me other than "Hey! I can find the middle of my viewfinder!" Yours is much more dynamic.

[glaucon.livejournal.com]

I think the middle one is his too.

[glaucon.livejournal.com]

I'm not really much of a photography connoisseur, but I find most of the stuff you post on LJ really striking.

so fuck those guys.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I prefer Hit, Miss or Maybe: Why, because they expect some real comment to go with the verdict. There are some bullshit responses like this one's first comment, but, by and large, it's pretty good.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

They are all mine.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The pole is mine too.

To border on the patronising... it's of a class/school/style of photography about line, and shape.

That photo is about the way the line, and the curves, and the edges, and the empty space all relate to each other.

It's a lot more, "inside baseball" sort of photo than most of mine; but more in keeping with the things that group really cares about.

[feonixrift.livejournal.com]

Ah, that makes sense. I'm not sufficiently 'into' photography to have a sense for concepts like that.

[stillnotbored.livejournal.com]

I almost never comment here, though I've read your posts since Bear pointed me at you a couple of years ago. I came for the politics, but I've stayed for the photography.

I only see a few of the pictures you post, having my head buried in novel writing most of the time, so I just added you to my Flickr contact list. And I find it odd that these people didn't think you worthy to join their group. I look at your photos and think, Damn, I wish I'd taken that picture. Or I find myself yearning to have equipment half the quality of yours, but poor writers make do with what they've got.

Not that you need your ego stroked, but those people are a bit full of themselves. Your photos are not only equal to any of the quality I see in the links you posted, your photos are more interesting.

Give me a photo that makes me think or that unfold more each time I look at it everytime.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Well, that answers that question (who the recent add from nowhere is).

I wouldn't say you almost never comment, but perhaps my memory for names is better than I give it credit. Thank you, no I don't think I need my ego stroked. I have a pretty good idea of my talents/skills with the camera.

For ego stroking... I am working on setting up a show in Ottawa. The person whom I was recruiting (with the help of a conspirator) was looking at my photos (the set, coffee shop is the proposed group of photos for the show) and said, "I hate him."

She said it for one of the versions of this picture.

That's some serious ego boo.

There will be more politics again, and food.

[stillnotbored.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I could hate you for that picture too. *g* I do try to keep it to raw, seething jealousy though.

[athenais.livejournal.com]

It's funny, I don't ever hate people for being better photographers than I am. It'd be like hating someone for writing a really great book just because I can't. I admire talent and artistic competence and moxie.

But man, I hate everyone who has a better camera than I do but can't take a decent photo and doesn't seem to care. It's so unfair.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

What's funny... that's one of the few pictures I have for which the complaint, "If I had your equipment I could take pictures like yours," has some merit.

Because, if you knew a butterfly was going to emerge (as I did), and managed to find her at the right time (which I was lucky enough to do), the right equiment probably makes up about 70 percent of that shot.

The other 30 percent, is something anyone who has a modicum of serious intent will manage to get; if they were willing to spend the money on the equipment. I could teach you all the technique you need to do that, in an afternoon workshop.

If I were to hate me for one of my pictures... this one would be in the running.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

For me that's not hate. It's anger.

The people who say, "well, if I had your camera, I could take pictures as good as yours,", they get my extreme disgust, which can edge to hate.

That's insulting, as if there were no art, craft, talent, skill and practice to what I do; no, it's just having a good camera.

Ghah!

Esp. since these says, I have a second rate camera.

[stillnotbored.livejournal.com]

I have a small Konica/Minolta digital with both optical and digital zoom. I've just started learning how to use the macro setting. Mostly I experiment and end up amazed and sometimes delighted with what I get.

Here's hoping I did the links right, because they look like gibberish in the preview window.

This (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/1795311014_14ccf937d7.jpg) was one of the first tries I made. I was happy with it.

This one (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2103/2460275018_af77d43962.jpg) and this as well (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2171/2460270180_0b1931a85e.jpg) made me happy for beginner attempts. My camera seems to focus not in the center of the lens, but more on surrounding or background images. The focus isn't as sharp as I'd like at times, alas.

Back in the day I had a Minolta SLR with manual focus and interchangeable lens, which in reality was my ex-husband's camera. I loved shooting black and white. I was actually better at shooting people than flowers and 'things' back then.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Links are ok, but to standalone images. I just go to the image's page and use that link... so people can hit the rest of my stream if they like.

The pink leaf is quite nice.

[stillnotbored.livejournal.com]

Crap, grabbed the wrong links. That's what I get for doing this at midnight. Plus I'm not used to sharing pictures this way. I do get the links right when I torture my friends list with pictures.

And thank you. I'm doing what I can to improve in the time I have to spend on pictures.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Maybe I was wrong, and they are afraid of me (not likely).

This thread is amazing for wankery.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/ngproinvitation/discuss/72157605647794376/

[athenais.livejournal.com]

I think we do damn well with the equipment we've got.

[songblaze.livejournal.com]

*rolls her eyes* I hate that kind of thought.

I mean, I look at your photographs and what I think to myself is 'I wish I had enjoyed photography enough to keep learning'. I think I expected to pick it up with the ease I usually pick stuff up, and when I didn't, it was just too much work. Ditto why I quit playing clarinet as a child, I suppose. One of the few pitfalls of being naturally good at a lot of things is that you don't have to learn much patience for those you aren't.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

One of the things digital has done is make it a lot easier to learn photography (and I am being a tad disingenous when I say, correctly, I have a second rate camera these days, but it's still a lot better; in a lot of ways, then most dSLRs on the market).

Because the ongoing costs are, practically speaking, nil, if you get a camera, you can take a huge number of pictures. Twenty some years ago, when I started, it was 20 bucks a roll for color, and about 6 bucks (because I could develop the film for free at school) for B&W.

Given the cost of digital cameras of decent quality, it's a lot cheaper these days..

So, there's nothing stopping you from trying your hand again. I'd be glad to answer questions.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Oh... I forgot to mention that it's not real hate... it's a turn of phrase for... Damn... I wish I could do that.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

As I said to athenais I failed to mention that it's not real hate, but rather a turn of phrase, with a large kernal of respect in it; for something one wishes one could do, but knows not yet how.

[athenais.livejournal.com]

These guys are priceless.

[athenais.livejournal.com]

Well, I really do hate people who...no, I'm using it to mean resent. I should say what I mean. I resent people who have great equipment and play with it for a couple of months, then put it away. Or who get it and use it on auto-everything.

I understand your hate/envy/respect phrase very well.