Photo Club Cliches
Caroline Knight
The last talk at my photo club was by a guy who was trying to point out
just how cliched most, it not all, the photographs that get submitted
for judging / exhibition in camera clubs are.
So I thought it would be fun to compile a list of the cliches. After
all if some many people have had fun doing that sort of picture then its
probably worth having attempted it oneself too! Also there is a small
chance that what is a cliche in one place is novel somewhere else - if
only because cliches are cyclic...
* Waterfalls that look all white and silky
* Sunsets, especially with water reflecting the colours and some
objects of interest thrown into silhouette
* Steam engines
* Cars and bikes panned to show speed
* Swans, especially with reflections
There are also some cliches in what the judges demand:
* Portraits to be 3/4 view or perfect profiles - face-on seems
to be out
* Single subjects to be on one of the thirds - though the interpretation
of thirds is somewhat arbitrary, as too which point one picks...
* Must have clouds in sky - pure blue is almost always criticised, even
when it seems to be a good simplification - pure white is never liked.
* Must be understandable - few judges seem prepared to look at an ambiguous
or abstracted image.
* Anything which could be considered a "nature" picture must also have
subject sharpness before composition. They guess if it was in such a
category by the title.
I'm sure there are loads more subjects and criteria - what are prevelant in
your club?
Caroline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Knight HPLabs Filton Rd Stoke Gifford Bristol BS12 6QZ
FAX: 0272 228796 cdfk%hplb...@ukc.ac.uk
Tel: 0272 228040 cd...@hplb.lb.hp.co.uk
Switchboard: 0272 799910 cd...@hplb.hpl.hp.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
)
Some more:
* Three of something. If you ask a judge why 3 is better, most don't know why. They just know you're supposed to get 3 of them in your picture. And if you only have 2, it's a good opportunity for a critique.
* Great Blue Herons, or for that matter, any photo taken at Ding Darling Refuge.
* Hot Air Balloons.
Then there are photos of certain locations, which score high because they're
of that location. Waits River Jct VT........ Motif #1, Rockport, Mass....
Jenne Farm, VT.... etc. Certain compositions of these locations, if done
correctly, make excellent photos. But the problem is that judges see a photo
of these places and score them high just because of where they were taken,
figuring that if it's a photo of Waits River Jct or the Jenne Farm,
it must be good.
mark.e.fohl
>
> The last talk at my photo club was by a guy who was trying to point out
> just how cliched most, it not all, the photographs that get submitted
> for judging / exhibition in camera clubs are.
> your club?
>
> Caroline
A friend of mine teaches photography at one of the local state universities.
He distributes a list of pictures he doesn't want to see. He does this
primarily because of the "cliche" nature. This particular list has a
collegiate flavor, but many of these items have clearly been beaten to
death. The list:
Cute babies
Cute kids on the playground
Booze bottles
Pretty girlfriends smiling at the camera
Handsome boyfriends smiling at the camera
Drunk friends at a party taken with flash on camera
Railroad tracks converging in the distance
Closeups of pretty flowers or leaves
Closeups of branches covered with snow
Closeups of bugs, especially if they are mating
Sunsets
Cute puppies or kittens
Half hearted attempts at product photography
Stairs and railing shadows
Oblique angle pictures of buildings taken with upwardly pointed camera
Streaked car headlights at night
Graffiti
Trash cans in alleys
Telephoto shots of flying birds
Sports pictures made from too far away and with too short a lens
Looking down at your feet
Looking up at your hands
Almost any picture made with a star filter
A roommate gazing longingly out a dorm window
Nudes wrapped in gauze, saran wrap, or translucent plastic
Stuffed animals
Grab shots of bums on the street
Zoom-during-exposure shots
Doorknobs
Ordinary pedestrians and bicyclists
A row of bicycles
Landscapes made at noon on a clear day
Old weathered barns
Peeling paint
Upside down reflections of trees in puddles
Overlook views of campus made on hazy days
Most long distance telephoto shots made on hazy days
Hot air balloons
Portraits of old men with beards and pipes.
He basically qualified the entire list by saying that creative photographers
can handle these items in ways that transcend the cliche; that is, the
subjects can be presented creatively. Also, as an instructor, he is
not inflexible, and he doesn't believe that there is any subject matter that
one must or must not shoot in order to be a good photographer.
In other words, his list (or any list) should not be considered dogma.
Enjoy,
-- Mark
Mike McDonald
For the last several years, pictures of doors taken at a 45 degree angle have
placed well in our local contest. Beats me why. Church interiors also do well.
Mike McDonald Advanced Technology Dept.
Harris Corp.
Email: m...@trantor.harris-atd.com M.S. 16-1912
Voice: (407) 727-5060 P.O. Box 37
Fax: (407) 729-3363 Melbourne, Florida 32902
Harry Bloomberg
>
>I'm sure there are loads more subjects and criteria - what are prevelant in
>your club?
>
camera clubs.
Yesterday's New York Times Book Review contained a lenghty article
describing cliched photographs of authors. Male authors are often posed
supporting their heads in their hands like "The Thinker", women appear with
trees or bodies of water in the background, writers of sleazy romance authors
are photographed with a lot of backlight that emphasizes "big hair", and all
kinds of authors are photographed in their studies surrounded by books
and typewriters.
This was a most entertaining article, illustrated with many author
photos.
Harry Bloomberg
hp...@pitt.edu
Frank Kolwicz
for... FILM!
With an etymology like that, how can we avoid cliches? Given the current
world population and communications and the age of art, it is
extraordinarily difficult to avoid repeating subjects and styles and thus
becomming cliched. The alternative is found in modernism, post-modernism,
post-post modernism, etc. ad nauseam - novelty for its own sake and
photography of itself.
John Shaw has pointed out that it is no sin to photograph something that
has been photographed before. Nor should you restrain yourself because
"its been done before", just try to do it better. If you succed, it is good
for all of us, if you fail, well, that's what editing is for. In the
process you probably have learned something.
Frank
k.d.tentarelli
would have done with your subject. They always begin with the phrase,
"If I had taken this picture I would have....." What follows then is
some absurd statement about how a rearrangement of the subject would
have increased the impact of the photo...as though it would be in your
power to do that. Perhaps Moses was an early camera club judge, "If I
had taken that picture of the Red Sea I would have parted the waters."
Ken
William M Barnick x73638
>
> For the last several years, pictures of doors taken at a 45 degree angle have
>placed well in our local contest. Beats me why. Church interiors also do well.
>
>
> Mike McDonald Advanced Technology Dept.
Now we are finally on a subject I enjoy. I never really understood how
the pictures get selected until I decided to actually go to the judging.
It turns out that in most well run contest there are usually several
up front guidelines for the judges to immediately eliminate many entries,
then focus on the remaining ones. Then they usually give scores in
several categories. The one with the highest score wins. Also there
is sometimes a "tie-breaker" category if necessary. Due to this process
of having a formal method to decide you can get frustrated in seeing
a "great-shot" get eliminated because it got a low score on some
category as "technical difficulty". This is just an example( so no
email, please ). However, this is how a logical decision is often made
in a contest.
I once got first place in a contest for a scene of a weather station on
top of Mount Washington. The scene made it look like the weather was
just plain nasty. In reality small puffy clouds often collide into
Mount Washington on a perfectly normal day. My point being that the
judges may have weighted the "difficulty" as a factor, when infact there
was very little difficulty involved in the shot. So luck is a factor.
Anyone else ever go to a judging? Any comments? What would you consider
a fair way to narrow down several hundred or even thousand entries in a
contest?
Thankx in advance ...
WMB
--
** William M Barnick ** Eastman Kodak ** bar...@Kodak.COM ******************
** Electronic Imaging Platform Center * Color Scanning Systems Lab *
** B/65-1 D/847 mc01801 Rochester NY 14650-1801 *
*************************** (716) 477-3638 ***********************************
Ty Monson
William M Barnick x73638 <bar...@ultra.Kodak.COM> wrote:
>Now we are finally on a subject I enjoy. I never really understood how
>the pictures get selected until I decided to actually go to the judging.
>It turns out that in most well run contest there are usually several
>up front guidelines for the judges to immediately eliminate many entries,
>then focus on the remaining ones. Then they usually give scores in
>several categories. The one with the highest score wins. Also there
>is sometimes a "tie-breaker" category if necessary. Due to this process
>of having a formal method to decide you can get frustrated in seeing
>a "great-shot" get eliminated because it got a low score on some
>category as "technical difficulty". This is just an example( so no
>email, please ). However, this is how a logical decision is often made
>in a contest.
(delete)
>Anyone else ever go to a judging? Any comments? What would you consider
>a fair way to narrow down several hundred or even thousand entries in a
>contest?
Narrowing down is usually easy. In most photo contests there
will be photos that are obviously not as sharp as they could
be (in areas where they should be) there will be photos that
don't have good exposure, or color is off, or compositions
that are flagrant yawners. But after cutting out the clunk
photos, picking a winner is genuinely tough.
In any photo contest with stiff competition, the choice of
first, second and third place may be expected to be a controversial
decision. What grabs the judges at one contest may not even
get honorable mention in a different contest with a different
set of judges. It is a game with a strong element of chance.
Participate, enjoy and don't get too hung up on the outcome.
Thomas R. Karlo
the 19th of January and I was wondering if anyone could help me out
on how to present the stuff (i.e. Matted, Framed, Matted just to edge,
double matted or some other clever systems) Thanks
- Thomas R. Karlo
tomk...@mit.edu
Massachussets Institute of Technology
Mike McDonald
I've gotten stuck running our camera club's photo contest the last two years.
In both cases, we had three judges. Each judge picked out three or four photos
that he liked. Then the judges discussed the ones picked out trying to arrive at
a concensus of some sort. Both years there was a lot of discussion about which
should be given first and third. All the judges just seemed to think that door
pictures should be given second place. No discusion or anything, just "How about
this one for second? OK. OK." End of story. Must be some artsy thing. :-)
Mike McDonald Advanced Technology Dept.
Thomas R. Karlo
kol...@badlands.NoDak.edu (Frank Kolwicz) writes:
>
> *** Didn't they tell you what they expected? They should have, so check
> with the organizer.
>
> In absence of any guidelines on submission, may I suggest that you simply
> mat your prints in white in any neat and plain way. DON'T use colored
> mats, DON'T use fancy mat cuts. You want the judges' eyes to be on your
> photo and not to be distracted by the mat. Unless they asked for frames
> specifically, assume that they don't want them - they are a pain to handle
> and could be broken or damaged
>
> Frank
No they didn't, and I know why. It's a show in which I will be
competing
not only with other photographers but with other 2-D and 3-D artists.
It's for cash prizes (1st, 2nd and 3rd) but the real objective is
to get to display your work in the gallery on campus during the
spring term. I think that the fact that it's being done in several
medias has prevented the directors from thinking more about the
presentation.
I worry somewhat that the photos will get brushed off because of
the majority of the competition being dominated by more "traditional"
art forms such as sculpture and painting. (No I'm not going to get
back into that discussion - It has its own thread.) I think I
am going to go with either single mats or double mats, in white.
I'm still trying to decide on a size for the presentation. I
have some B&W shots that I know I will present in 11x14, with 16x20
mats, but I have some color shots that may just get kinda blaring
if I make them large. I might stay as small as 5x7 with one, as it
is a really tight shot. I'm only allowed to enter 3 pieces, so I
have decided to enter pieces that are as widely seperated in content
and style as possible (of course while remebering they also have to
be good) rather than entering a series, which I could also do.
--
Ty Monson
Thomas R. Karlo <tomk...@mit.edu> wrote:
> I intent to enter a photo competition here at my University on
>the 19th of January and I was wondering if anyone could help me out
>on how to present the stuff (i.e. Matted, Framed, Matted just to edge,
>double matted or some other clever systems) Thanks
The organizers should have established the ground rules.
(for example, evidently they are judging prints, not slides.)
You need to determine the accepted form for display.
On one occasion, I heard a photo contest judge expressly
commend competitors who displayed their prints with
double matting. You may want to consider it.
Unless rules specify the matting required,
I advise you to pick a form of display which, in your judgement,
shows your print(s) to its best advantage. If you are showing
color prints, careful selection of color matting might give
you the edge you need.
A person could get philosophical
and say that the judges should evaluate images only on the
merits of the image alone. I assure you that this is an
attitude for losers.
Good luck.
Thomas R. Karlo
I replied to another post in the Re: Photo Club Cliches section and
described the conditions surrounding the contest. It is a very
loosely formatted one in relative terms.
Frank Kolwicz
: I intent to enter a photo competition here at my University on
*** Didn't they tell you what they expected? They should have, so check
Jeff Schwartz
>Path: lcpd2!ncr-sd!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!news.dtc.hp.com!hplextra!hplb!cdfk
>From: cd...@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Caroline Knight)
>Subject: Photo Club Cliches
>Summary: List of cliched subjects and approaches
>Sender: ne...@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator)
>Message-ID: <CHzC5...@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 15:24:49 GMT
>Nntp-Posting-Host: cknight.hpl.hp.com
>Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, England
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0.7]
>Keywords: cliches, camera clubs, judges
>Lines: 51
>* Steam engines
I'm told that these are more local but they qualify as cliche IMHO.
Delicate Arch (Arches Nat'l Park) with one's companion under the arch.
Glassware setup with a decanter/pitcher and 2 glasses.
As far as judging cliches:
Any picture of an animal must have absolutely no sign of humanity (ie a zoo
photo is a bad photo).
Flower portraits must show one set of leaves and the stem must enter the frame
at an angle but not from the corner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Schwartz
NCR - San Diego Porting Center jeff.s...@sandiegoca.NCR.COM
16550 W. Bernardo Dr ms5990 (619) 485-2052
San Diego, CA 92127 NCR Voice Plus 440-2052
============================================================================
What if there were no hypothetical situations?
GO CHARGERS
David J. Nixon
>The last talk at my photo club was by a guy who was trying to point out
>just how cliched most, it not all, the photographs that get submitted
>for judging / exhibition in camera clubs are.
>So I thought it would be fun to compile a list of the cliches.
Sorry, but it's already been done!!!---))) Kodak publish a book of
"100 Creative Techniques" or some similar title, with a picture
illustrating each technique. There are several sections: design,
humo(u)r, landscapes, lighting, animals, people, etc., with 10 or 15
pictures in each section.
From the design section (I carefully wrote down each technique -
even though the book is now back at the library!):
eye-catching shapes
dramatic viewpoints
fleeting subjects
architectural details
line patterns
bits and pieces
tonal contrasts
color contrasts
abstracts
natural frames
etc.
Not easy to take something that can't be traced back to one of these 100
techniques. One idea is to make a matrix of the 10,000 combinations
(less duplicates), of two techniques. Should take a while to cover all those.
Cliches are a stage in artistic development. Somewhere between
incompetence and developing your own original style.
Me? I'm still happy to produce a good solid cliche,
maybe more than one a roll if I'm lucky.
Of course the ad world thrives on cliches - just check
out any stock catalog. Full of $1000+ cliches.
Dave Nixon
n...@uts.amdahl.com
--
Dave Dave Dave Dave Dave Dave Dave
Nixon Nixon Nixon Nixon Nixon Nixon
Gerry Palo
aspect of photography as art. As a rule, photographs in order
to be really outstanding have to have some striking feature to
them, whereas a painting can be of a completely mundane subject
and yet be a masterpiece. The portraits of Rembrandt for example,
or the still life paintings of the French impressionists.
The photographer is constrained by his medium to the instant of
time in which he takes his picture. The painter, however, can
paint an infinite number of moments into his painting. A portrait
is not great because it faithfully renders the way the subject
looked at some moment when he was posing for the picture, but
rather the painter's inner picture of the character of the subject,
composed inwardly before his mind's eye, and then rendered on to
canvas. The outward rendering may be something that no camera
would have caught at any given instant, but nevertheless one
looks at the painting and says, this reveals the essential being
of the subject in a true way -- it is a true likeness.
The photographer has to do the same thing that the painter does,
but he is constrained in that he cannot photograph the picture he
has composed in his mind but has to wait for the moment that the
subject's expression comes close to what that mind's eye portrait
should be. There are, IMO, few photographers with both the eye
and the ability to work with posing subjects to do this well. That
is why, I think, whether it is portrait or still life or landscape,
most photographers look for something striking or out of the ordinary
to make their pictures stand out. And amateurs do the same thing,
only with less imagination and poorer technique than the good artist
photographers. This is the reason why so many camera club pictures are
cliches. I mean, who wants to look at a picture of, say, a middle
class merchant you never heard of, or a bowl of fruit?
Gregory Pease
>A friend of mine teaches photography at one of the local state universities.
>He distributes a list of pictures he doesn't want to see. He does this
>primarily because of the "cliche" nature. This particular list has a
>collegiate flavor, but many of these items have clearly been beaten to
>death. The list:
>Cute babies
>[...billions and billions of cliches deleted...]
>Portraits of old men with beards and pipes.
Eek! I think I have taken all of these pictures! I'm so ashamed.
>He basically qualified the entire list by saying that creative photographers
>can handle these items in ways that transcend the cliche; that is, the
>subjects can be presented creatively.
Whoosh. I thought I was doomed there for a moment. I'd like to *think*
that I transceded these clearly dreadful cliches...but, who's to say?
Hmmm...
>Also, as an instructor, he is
>not inflexible, and he doesn't believe that there is any subject matter that
>one must or must not shoot in order to be a good photographer.
>In other words, his list (or any list) should not be considered dogma.
Still my beating heart. I was a hair's breadth away from a coronary
for a moment. Cliche is a funny idea, in a sense. I'd guess that
just about everything that can be photographed has been photographed,
and likely more than once. Just as there are only so many notes in the
musical scale, there are similarly just so many subjects. Working from
the cliche into the creative is an amazing way to challenge yourself!
Try it! Take a creative picture of a cute baby or an old, wizened man
smoking a pipe, nude, wrapped in gauze or saran wrap, illuminated by
the sunset with streaked automotive headlamps reflected in the water
below a majestic bridge covered with snow, while a blue heron flies,
silhouetted, through the scene, and a swan pecks at the nose of a
curious little puppy, who is devistatingly cute, as your {girl,boy}friend
smiles at the camera.
In a recent issue of Camera and Darkroom, the winners of the "Motion"
contest were published. (Speaking of hackneyed cliches..."Motion!" That's
a tough one, isn't it?) One of the winners intrigued me, because I knew
I'd seen that very photograph before. Quick as a wink, I went through
all the useless books in my library about "How to Make Photographs that
Look Like Someone (Everyone) Else's," and found, on the cover of "Winning
Photo Contests" a VERY similar photograph. Not EXACTLY the same, mind,
but so similar, that the casual observer wouldn't think twice if told they
were one and the same. (I believe the copycat stood a few centimetres to
the right of the position of the maker of the original, and the people
in the photos are different, as are the fashions.) The one on the book
cover was a Picture of the Year in London some years back. I was
appalled.
Could this be a case of "simultaneous invention" taking place over the
course of a few years? Is this such a wonderful spot that Everyone (TM)
who enters photo contests photographs it? I suppose I can almost believe
that the maker of the second photograph was unaware of the existence of
the first, after all, who reads these books? But, it strikes me as
incredible that no one on the jury of a photo contest has ever seen the
cover of the aforementioned book!
There is a lesson to be learned from this, contestants. Copy the work
of those who win contests, and you, too, can be a prizewinner! Should
the next chapter in "Winning Photo Contests" be, "When in Doubt,
Plagiarise?"
I digress.
Cliche serves a valuable purpose to the creative soul. When you are
tempted to use cliched device, mutate it. Cut it up into tiny bits,
and throw them at the project, noticing which bits stick. There is a
reason things become cliche; cliches are often borne of great subjects!
(How many bloody pictures of Half Dome under a dramatic sky will I have
to endure over the years, just because one or two of them are great?)
Recognise the cliche, and play it to the hilt, making a visual joke
out of it. I think we are too busy analysing, these days, and not
busy enough creating. Take it to the limit. Photo contests, obviously,
mean next to nothing with respect to artistic merit, or *gasp* value.
If we would *all* start making pictures for our own souls, pictures which
*truly* satisfy ourselves, disregarding the judgements of our peers and
the folly of technology, I think we would, as a community, begin to make
better photographs.
--
| Gregory Pease | email: g...@ossi.com |
| Fujitsu Open Systems Solutions Inc. | phone: 510/652.6200 x146 |
| 6121 Hollis Street | fax: 510/652.5532 |
| Emeryville, CA 94608-2092 | |
mark.e.fohl
> This whole photographic cliche thread points to an interesting
> aspect of photography as art. As a rule, photographs in order
> to be really outstanding have to have some striking feature to
> them, whereas a painting can be of a completely mundane subject
> and yet be a masterpiece. The portraits of Rembrandt for example,
> or the still life paintings of the French impressionists.
Only when done by outstanding painters. I have seen some pretty crappy
paintings, and I have seen some excellent photographs of mundane objects.
The key is the ability of the "artist". Rembrandt probably qualifies as
an artist.
>
> The photographer is constrained by his medium to the instant of
> time in which he takes his picture. The painter, however, can
> paint an infinite number of moments into his painting.
Maybe that makes great photography a little more challenging?
> cliches. I mean, who wants to look at a picture of, say, a middle
> class merchant you never heard of, or a bowl of fruit?
Maybe you haven't seen enough photographs. I've sen some pretty good ones
of each of these subjects.
Neither painting nor photography is "better" or more difficult or more
easy. Good artists use their media to produce great works.
-- Mark
dfa...@vnet.ibm.com
>
> This whole photographic cliche thread points to an interesting
> aspect of photography as art. As a rule, photographs in order
> to be really outstanding have to have some striking feature to
> them, whereas a painting can be of a completely mundane subject
> and yet be a masterpiece. The portraits of Rembrandt for example,
> or the still life paintings of the French impressionists.
Where did that "rule" ever come from ? I'm not into "fine art"
photography, and landscape photographers generally photograph
"outstanding" subjects, but have you ever looked at some of
Eliot (Elliot?) Porters photographs ? There's nothing particularly
outstanding in some of the weeds or birch trees he's photographed,
except the way he photographed them.
Actually, that "rule" makes sense in an odd way, it's just not
complete. Photographs *and* paintings can both be made of mundane
subjects, and both need to have some striking feature to them. Why
are those still life paintings great ? I hope they're not simply
mundane subjects portrayed on canvas with no striking features
(although that's part of my gripe with much of what's called art ;-)
>
> The photographer is constrained by his medium to the instant of
> time in which he takes his picture. The painter, however, can
> paint an infinite number of moments into his painting. A portrait
> is not great because it faithfully renders the way the subject
> looked at some moment when he was posing for the picture, but
> rather the painter's inner picture of the character of the subject,
> composed inwardly before his mind's eye, and then rendered on to
> canvas. The outward rendering may be something that no camera
> would have caught at any given instant, but nevertheless one
> looks at the painting and says, this reveals the essential being
> of the subject in a true way -- it is a true likeness.
I agree with your reason for a painting being great - that's
probably what makes any work of art great - the degree to which
it can faithfully portray what the artist was seeing at the time.
Photography is somewhat more constraining, but photographers don't
see it that way. The reason is, a photographer simply considers
the medium of film to be a good way to show what he wants to show.
>
> The photographer has to do the same thing that the painter does,
> but he is constrained in that he cannot photograph the picture he
> has composed in his mind but has to wait for the moment that the
> subject's expression comes close to what that mind's eye portrait
> should be. There are, IMO, few photographers with both the eye
> and the ability to work with posing subjects to do this well. That
> is why, I think, whether it is portrait or still life or landscape,
> most photographers look for something striking or out of the ordinary
> to make their pictures stand out. And amateurs do the same thing,
> only with less imagination and poorer technique than the good artist
> photographers. This is the reason why so many camera club pictures are
> cliches. I mean, who wants to look at a picture of, say, a middle
> class merchant you never heard of, or a bowl of fruit?
>
I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. You say the
photographer is constrained, but I say that the photographer
creates the picture in his mind, based on (a) what's before him,
and (b) knowing something about photography. I just don't picture
photographers dreaming up impressionistic images and saying "Damn,
I guess I can't get that on film !" And I don't really think
photographers just go out and blindly look for something outstanding
to photograph; rather, we see things that are outstanding, and then
try to photograph them.
A painter has the luxury of being able to put on canvas, anything
he sees in his mind. A skilled photographer has the luxury of
being able to put on paper, anything he sees with his eyes (and
interprets with his mind). Neither the artist nor the photographer
finds his medium of choice constraining, as one wants to record
what's in his mind, while the other wants to record what he sees.
Each chooses the appropriate medium.
- Dennis
)
In article <2eqjf4...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>, mon...@mycroft.ece.orst.edu (Ty Monson) writes:
|>In article <2eq8r5$r...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
|>Thomas R. Karlo <tomk...@mit.edu> wrote:
|>> I intent to enter a photo competition here at my University on
|>>the 19th of January and I was wondering if anyone could help me out
|>>on how to present the stuff (i.e. Matted, Framed, Matted just to edge,
|>>double matted or some other clever systems) Thanks
|>
|>
I disagree with a previous reply which says to mat everything in white, so that
the mat doesn't distract from the photo. I always double mat using colors and
I do very well selling photos at exhibits, and at competitions. The mats
enhance the photo, they aren't a distraction.
The trick is knowing what colors to use.
Dave
Al Goldis
>In article <CHzC5...@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, cd...@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Caroline Knight) writes:
>>
>> The last talk at my photo club was by a guy who was trying to point out
>> just how cliched most, it not all, the photographs that get submitted
>> for judging / exhibition in camera clubs are.
>A friend of mine teaches photography at one of the local state universities.
>He distributes a list of pictures he doesn't want to see. He does this
>primarily because of the "cliche" nature. This particular list has a
>collegiate flavor, but many of these items have clearly been beaten to
>death. The list:
>Cute babies
>Cute kids on the playground
>Booze bottles
>Pretty girlfriends smiling at the camera
>Handsome boyfriends smiling at the camera
>Drunk friends at a party taken with flash on camera
>Railroad tracks converging in the distance
[...and so on...]
>Hot air balloons
>Portraits of old men with beards and pipes.
>He basically qualified the entire list by saying that creative photographers
>can handle these items in ways that transcend the cliche; that is, the
>subjects can be presented creatively. Also, as an instructor, he is
>not inflexible, and he doesn't believe that there is any subject matter that
>one must or must not shoot in order to be a good photographer.
>In other words, his list (or any list) should not be considered dogma.
Good thing, too. If there were a few more categories on his list, he
would be able to save time and space by simply saying he doesn't want
to see *any* pictures! ;-)
--
Al Goldis alan-...@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments of truth, touched by light." --Annie Griffiths-Belt