GOTHICHANGMAN STUDIOS wrote:
Well I think we find distinct differences among peoples work and skill level or even preference here. Some peopls are just Point & Click Shutterbugs with little planning but good models and as I've said it's like fishing in a stocked pond...your bound to catch something.
 
Now I have Classical Art Training and spent the better part of the last 17 years learning techniques to enhance my imagination and representational skills.For years I also worked in Theater as an award winning set and prop designer and as a stylist.
  After working with a Photgrapher for 4 years I began in the last 1 1/2  years taking my own pictures but all that skill behind me set it off with a bang,so training is helpfull and yes not always everything!

To quote Lenardo da Vinci "Talent does what it can while genius does what it must." I still belive one must continue always to seek self improvement, he also stated "It is a sorry master who's ability out weighs his judement.' so then talent is not everything.

  I have always sought to make the strongest images possible my sense of beauty is not commercialized or sanitized for the masses.My attitude has always been Rock & Roll about everything so it's full of the Lust for Life! To close, the Poet Maya Angelou said " For Every word you write you should read a thousand."

Hold this up to the photographer lens I have found I can view thousands of images some days when time allows,about faking it till you make it that's one strategy but when we copy someone else we are only watered down version of ourselves!

I wish I knew how to insert responses int the middle of the paragraph.

As to the "point and shoots with little planning"; you seem to completely ignore those that have internal vision regardless of the medium and give all the credit to a good model and/or shooting fish in a barrel.  What about those great shots where the model was less than attractive and the camera was less than professional?
I would guess that if twenty shots were lined up and you had to identify both the camera and the skill level of the photographer you would be incorrect more times than not.
My background is in Forensic Accounting where we are trained to observe the less than obvious and I for one can appreciate the photo that has a snapshot appearance as well as one that has more of a polished finish.

Tim Hammond wrote:
...I've got plenty of ideas, and a variety of possibilities for shooting any one of them, but no basis for choosing one over the other and deciding which will make a stronger image.

Suggestions?

Try all of them, or as many as it takes to get an idea what's working and what isn't.  Then narrow them down and eliminate what you know won't work - or try them anyway, you never know what might happen.

Tim Hammond wrote:
Where/how did you learn how to make a photograph?  And just to be clear, I'm not inerested in where you learned photography. I'm interested in where you learned what makes a strong visual composition, how to pull together the elements of a scene to create feeling and/or make a statement, how to wrap that into your own style and produce images that make a viewer stop and think.  When you have a shot in mind, how do you build the image to present that idea?  Maybe another way of asking the question is did you choose a style and develop it or did it just evolve?

I've heard some elitists (not you, Don) say that it's talent, that those who have it have it and those who don't shouldn't bother.  Even if you believe that about yourself, though, you've surely built on that, refined your talent, and increased the sophistocation of your images over time, so who or what did you learn from?

I've heard others say it's all about imitation, "fake it 'til you make it," that anyone can pick it up by trial and error.  Not sure I buy that either, but if you took that approach, who/what did you imitate?  How did you know what was error and what to keep?

I've also heard some say that you have to study art and/or design before you can consistently produce planned, thoughtful imagery. I don't buy that either, but I do wonder if it would be easier if I had some formal art education.

I want more from my imagery, but I'm struggling with where to go with it, what to do to improve. I've got plenty of ideas, and a variety of possibilities for shooting any one of them, but no basis for choosing one over the other and deciding which will make a stronger image.

Suggestions?

When I was training to be a tennis player (yep...training) I heard a great statement from one of Jimmy Connors trainers and that is that he'd rather spend 3/4 of an hour training correctly rather than spend 3+ hrs training incorrectly.  Keep that in mind as you can spend all day learning bad composition and technique which will give you really great versions of hard to comprehend and poorly lit pictures. (mind you this is not a dig of your work, instead it's merely using the word you as in people in general) I'd say one of the best possible things is to pick the brains of some of the shooters whose work you feel is in the direction you want to go.

Assisting some really good photogs is a great way to learn what the pros do. After all, if they're doing it, there's a reason. Also, taking a class or two can/will definitely help. But instead of a "photography class, try a design class.
2 dimensional design did wonders for me. Of course I took that class before I started photography, but somewhere in the back of my brain, I reference back to it every time I shoot.

Tim Hammond wrote:
Where/how did you learn how to make a photograph? 

I want more from my imagery, but I'm struggling with where to go with it

Suggestions?

Study Art
https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=26326

Tim Hammond wrote:
how did you learn how to make a photograph? 
what makes a strong visual composition,
how to pull together the elements
how to wrap that into your own style
produce images that make a viewer stop and think. 
how do you build the image to present that idea? 
did you choose a style or did it just evolve?

it's talent, that those who have it have it and those who don't shouldn't bother.
refined your talent, and increased the sophistocation of your images over time

I've heard others say it's all about imitation, "fake it 'til you make it," that anyone can pick it up by trial and error. 

Learn by observation and exploring. Yes, you can replicate work you like if you want, because in the process you will gain knowledge and tools, and in the end your work will probably look totally different from the first piece you took for inspiration.

Inborn or not, who knows and who cares. Follow your heart. Practice and exploration will build your skills faster than anything. Don't worry too much about what anyone else does or says. Find yourself.

I've also heard some say that you have to study art and/or design before you can consistently produce planned, thoughtful imagery.

I don't buy that either, but I do wonder if it would be easier if I had some formal art education.

I want more from my imagery, but I'm struggling with where to go with it, what to do to improve.

Suggestions?

OK, now I'll be serious. You ask all the right questions. The fact that you are driven and frustrated is a good sign that you have the talent and the right kind of energy.

What moves people, stops them, or provokes them to an action? This is Advertising 101. Go to the bookstore and get one of those Schaum's outline guides or go to a library and look through some meat & potatoes text books. When we learn marketing and advertising, everything is tested and measured by statistical feedback. If your ad produces less than it cost you to make, then it's a failure as an ad, but still good experience. There is no short cut here. You have to do it yourself and measure the reaction. By going through this elusive learning curve, you will get a grip on it, then all the "book experts" will look like fools to you.

These are the same motivations that cause someone to respond to your art.

You can take formal education, if you find a teacher you like. I think you will find better teachers here, and in real life than at schools. All the formal education you need can be easily found surfing around on Internet. Don't waste time with school. Go directly to the knowledge and practice your skills. Develop your talents.

Most inner oriented people don't choose styles in advance. They throw everything on the wall to see what sticks for them, then the style evolves from there. More importantly, we are vulnerable to typecasting ourselves. It's important to continually try to break your style as it evolves, so you don't get into a rut.

Successful artists usually have one thing in common: success. The path that took them there varies widely.

People who ape the styles of someone else are obvious, and they are a dime a dozen.

You have all the capability of answering your own questions. We all get frustrated and we all want to reach forward and improve ourselves. It's a personal and relative thing, unto ourselves.

Create your environment, give yourself the tools and explore. Jump in head first and don't stop. Have fun.

Bluemoon Photography wrote:
I create because I HAVE TO. I have no choice. there are ten million things bouncing around in my head, I need an outlet. It's my experience that most artists are like me in this.

You sound like the people who go to Monday night ADHD meetings for adults. They are like a room full of ping pong balls.

Tim Hammond wrote:
Where/how did you learn how to make a photograph?  And just to be clear, I'm not inerested in where you learned photography. I'm interested in where you learned what makes a strong visual composition, how to pull together the elements of a scene to create feeling and/or make a statement,

Not sure I have it yet.  Shoot with your instinct, it'll get better all the time if you keep looking (REALLY LOOKING) at your work, and seek advice from people who really know.

There is a saying in creative writing: "The best way to kill an emotion for your reader is to name it".  Applies to images.  Formula is bad.  The past is gone.

Ron

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Once I'd learned how to use a camera, I got beaten up severely in portfolio reviews.  "Too commercial," they all said (photo instructors, museum directors and staff, gallery owners).

What exactly does "too commercial" mean, though? Too understandable by the masses? I hear it occasionally, and I don't understand it.  (Not emotional enough? That's what your example kind of implies.)

GOTHICHANGMAN STUDIOS wrote:
FOR MARKCOMP!


For you information Mark I happen to not shoot with and expensive camera myself! I use a Nikon Cool Pics 5200 that is 5 mega pixels so in essecence it's what some families might use as a snapshoot camera. My feeling is you seem defensive and believe you fall into the the shutterbug catagory for some reason, You miss quote me I said "fishing in a stocked pond" and not "shooting fish in a barrel." Some of this to me seems to stem from a grudge you may have developed from a comment I left on one of your shots,can't take any criticsm I see.

For the record I happen to like that shot of yours being quite fond of commode shots but the part of it that makes it is the headline on the magazine. Now I doubt my own personal ability to gauge what camera is used for forensic purposes certainly,but as far as skill level that is not outside my relm.

Fortunately I work as Restorer and in addition trained as a Photoshop expert,so I have little need to defend any of my skills. Note I'm not just work with models either,many of my shots are with Actors and Rock Musicians that are at best certainly Hams and completely Un-Kosher!

Even my family thinks I am being harsh just saying "good morning" so no, I was not being defensive I was just making an attempt to converse.
I don't know that I fall into any particular catagory at least not a self imposed one.
Fishing in a stocked pond and shooting fish in a barrel although misquoted has the same meaning. Same as say, "even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then".
No one has asked you to defend your shots and as for my opinion on your work, you need go no farther than the tag I left you.

Kevin Connery wrote:
What exactly does "too commercial" mean, though? Too understandable by the masses? I hear it occasionally, and I don't understand it.  (Not emotional enough? That's what your example kind of implies.)

That's the hard part.  The easiest way to figure it out is to get a few magazines then go to the art photo books section of the bookstore and compare for a few hours.  Why is one commercial and the other art?  Nasty tough question.  And even so I haven't clicked my work over yet.  I still leave room for copy and still believe that sharpness is very important.  To make the comparison even harder, compare Helmut Newton's advertising work to his personal work.  To make it easier, compare Cartier-Bresson's work to d'Orazio's or to typical fashion advertising.

"Too commercial" means it appears to have been made to sell something.  That's the core definition.  Something being products, services, whatever.  The arts establishment (whom I loathe) have decreed that if it appears commercial it isn't art.  And after all that work and study, I do have to agree with them. 

"All art is useless." ~ Oscar Wilde.

-Don

Kevin Connery wrote:
[What exactly does "too commercial" mean, though? Too understandable by the masses? I hear it occasionally, and I don't understand it.

I've heard it too.

It sounds like a snobby and condescending derogatory insult from someone who thinks they are an "art-eest"

"too commercial" sounds like it means "too uncouth" or too mundane from someone who spends too much time greasing themselves with delusions of grandeur.

Sounds like some coctail party chit-chat by self proclaimed art critics who are neither artists, nor useful critics.

That's the way fake rich people talk who think they are important because they spend money that someone else earned the hard way.

People who talk like that might be perfect targets to sell a booger on a canvas for a few thousand dollars, if you can appeal to their higher intellect.

Yours truly,
Click Hamilton

Tim Hammond wrote:
...
I want more from my imagery, but I'm struggling with where to go with it, what to do to improve. I've got plenty of ideas, and a variety of possibilities for shooting any one of them, but no basis for choosing one over the other and deciding which will make a stronger image.

Suggestions?

Have you ever wondered why most legendary Artists have led somewhat of a secluded and private life?

Can you picture Da Vinci monitoring sites like MM so he can bite off of Donatello's work and use that as inspiration for his own works? Can you picture him sending his girlfriends to model for Donatello and report back with a laundry list of what brushes and oils and other materials Donatello uses? I can't. Can you? What would Ansel do? Take the opportunity to wander into a mountainside with a mule and a box camera, or sit his fat ass behind a computer monitoring MM for inspiration?

Wild Horse Photography wrote:
Can you picture Da Vinci monitoring sites like MM so he can bite off of Donatello's work and use that as inspiration for his own works? ...

No, but I can see him going to MM to find models easily.  That's what this place is about.

-Don

D. Brian Nelson wrote:

No, but I can see him going to MM to find models easily.  That's what this place is about.

-Don

Of course, they would all be male models...(love the way he and michaelangelo made women look...)

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
No, but I can see him going to MM to find models easily.  That's what this place is about.

-Don

So then, what are you and I doing here in discussion? We should be joining them in the easy search for models, but I suspect they'd be joining us in the forums, commenting about no-shows and itemizing their costs for labor and materials so that models would understand some things. Agree?

Hugh  Jorgen wrote:
It has nothing to do with monitoring sites like this

"Can you picture Da Vinci  monitoring sites like MM"

Didnt Da Vinci invent the first computer?????

Well i bet he would!.....

(:-------

Hj

Lol. Sure.

da Vinci, brief excerpt from http://www.mos.org/sln/Leonardo/
- he worked as a military engineer to invent advanced and deadly weapons
- one of the greatest painters of the Italian Renaissance

Do you really think a guy who helps to invent weapons would have the time to be on MM today looking for models? How did they find their models back then? The old fashion way. Approach a stranger on the street when the need arises. Besides, artists don't need a model in order to draw, or paint a pretty face they see in their mind, but photographers do. I draw and can conjure up a face in my renderings fusing bits and pieces of facial information I store in my head of people I see every day.

Making pictures with a camera isn't the same way when it comes to people. Learning how to, involves being unconventional. Traditional photographers and artists typically start with the model sitting on a chair and the artist standing behind and operating the gear. Unconventional...you sit and the model stands. To answer the OP's question, unconventional and experimental are two important ingredients for the learning process.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
"Too commercial" means it appears to have been made to sell something.  That's the core definition.  Something being products, services, whatever.  The arts establishment (whom I loathe) have decreed that if it appears commercial it isn't art.  And after all that work and study, I do have to agree with them. 

"All art is useless." ~ Oscar Wilde.

Weird.

Most of Leonardo's work was "commercial"; it was created on commission for a specific patron. Same for Michelangeo, Dürer, Holbein (younger and older), etc. More recently, Alphonse Mucha, Maxfield Parrish, Norman Rockwell (a highly underrated artist in my opinion, even though he usually is considered "too commercial")...the list goes on.

I've spent weeks in the stacks at libraries and viewed any number of original artworks (mostly non-modern), and still can't figure out how one falls into one category and one into another. It feels like a label put on something done with a clean technique and/or aiming for reality--the majority of things created in the last 50 years that I've seen listed as art usually have a lack of clarity and gloss, but even that's not universal. (Mapplethorpe's flowers were technically pristine, and got called art--but he's more well known for his later work, which is not crisp or clear.)

"I jus' don' geddit"