"Candid" (actually some random girl who I thought was hot)

To each their own. I personally don't spend alot of time looking in the people category but give it a cursory review every now and then. If I find something I like, I comment. If something is not my bag, then I move on and don't go back.

No one is forcing me to accept or comment on what their view of art is. To them perhaps these so called "snapshots" are a form of photography that they personally enjoy and to them it is satisfying. I think the key here is that most of us on this board are into photography for the pure enjoyement of it. If this type of imagery fulfills their requirements to this end, then good for them.

My thing is really wildlife and nature (peppered with the odd elk hugging person). I have tried the so called street photography and I suck at it, but it was enjoyable nonetheless. To me that is all that matters, if I enjoy what I am taking and you don't share that same sense of passion then it is no skin off my back.

dobova please don't think my comments were aimed at you, they we're aimed at the thread starter and others like him who think you can define art and put it in a nice little square box with a label on it.
Your comments have been very helpful, not only to candit bandit Im sure, but also to anyone who has read them, myself included. I found your comments positive, informative, and clearly based on lots of personal experiance, please keep sharing your ideas and experiance


wintoid said it best with "Some people are motivated by pixel-peeping
Some people are motivated by trying to become professional
Some people are motivated by recording memories (which is what I am)
Some people are motivated by a love of nature
Some people are motivated by the pleasure they can bring to others through portraits
Some people are motivated by taking candids of hot girls
Some people are motivated by taking studio nudes
Some people are motivated by taking shiny/filthy/accident shots of hot cars"


A photo dosn't have to be artistic, at its most basic forum it is an analouge or digital recording media. A mechanical device is used to capture a pattern of reflected light in a digital or chemical format.
The same is true for painting or sculpture, at thier most basic definitions there is nothing artisitic about them. One is the covering of surface with a liquid media and the other is the shaping of raw materials into a new form.

Anything artisitic only occurs with higher level subjective human interaction. At some point, undefinable because its differnt for everyone, the covering of a surface with liquid media becomes art. It could be useing 3 differnt colours to paint my bedroom wall, it could be a painted representation of a can of soup, or it could be a painted representation of a man reaching out to touch the finger of a god.
All 3 are very different from each other, yet all 3 may produce a similar reaction from a human mind, causing that mind to call them art. At the same time somewhere out there will be a human mind that finds them quire boring, and wonders what the fuss is about.


The artistic interpretation is purely subjective, what is art to you maybe wall paper to someone else.


A satalite photo of a cloud formation may hold lots of infomation important for scientific inquiry, but it might also contain some contrasts between light and dark and patterns or textures that the mind finds pleasing to look at, causing the scientist to stop his examination and simply enjoy the photo on a differnt level.

A photo of a man walking down the street may hold similar values, someone from another country unfamiliar with that part of the world may find it interesting as in insight into a differnt culture, giving the photo no artistic merit. Then they may become aware of elements that make it interesting to they eye, and so redefine it, from a social recording, to a work of art.

This made me think of the photos You took of a couple of lovely ladies last year

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=30194

You are correct of course about the forum this was posted for but I tend to look through new post and use the Title to decide what to look at and this Title was misleading was it not? I am sure you read all that I said and relize I am not here cruseing for chicks or posting those kinds of photos. I am sorry if I gave that impression.

My definition on candid street photos is anything "I,myself" find interesting, contrast, ugly, pretty, anything out of the ordinary. The art itself is capturing the subject and the timing of the shots. People going around shooting girls butts are not getting the point of this at all imo. Its tooooooo easy. Anybody can come up with shots like that with no problem. So I agree with the shiningstdv and a few others on that point.

But I would have to disagree with the things said about what is art and what isin't art or have artistic styles. Its really in the eye of the photographer if you ask me. Like how I see alot of painting of just blobs of paint selling for thousands of dallor. Its crap to me but the painting might have taken hours and hours to complete. Who am I to say its not art..? It is, but just not what I like.

I love to hear opinion by others photogs but not judgement. When I go out shooting photos, I shoot like I'm crazy.. I go home and look at each picture and come up with a story of what it looks like even if it isin't in reality. I've even have candids of cops in uniform checking out chicks while on the job!! It might not be anything to you, but when I see how nice the shots came out for that moment I feel very happy and want to share with everyone here to maybe brighten up your day a little bit. Not to piss you off so you could publicly write some rant about how you feel my style of photography isin't suited to your taste. You are probably not pointing this rant at me personally, I hope I didn't come out sounding too harsh also. All I really want to do is capture interesting moments in the streets on my little corner of the world. I hope you know that a candid smile always always always beats a posed smile.

OK, I would like to say a few things regarding my original post.

First of all, I want to say this post wasn't directed at anyone, it was directed at specific posts. I want you to know that I think every single person has the capability for art in them. I think it's just that some people are just trying to misuse the idea of "candid" shots, giving it a bad name, and also polluting the environment. I myself take many a candid shot and think it's a wonderful way to capture a person.

This is so true, and this is what makes it an art form--taking a "snapshot" (as I said in my original post) of some random girl on the street (or her ass) does not constitute any form of true art in my mind.

Candid Bandit, this post was not IN THE SLIGHTEST directed at you, as I said above, it was not directed at anyone. In fact, I have been watching your posts and find your work to have great potential.

Another thing, I am not trying to flame anyone here, as I said originally, I didn't want to sound too harsh. Apparently some members here think I was trying personally attack other members of the forum, and in response have attacked me back. This not the case. You may not agree with my opinion, but I am not trying to hurt anyone. You are entitled to your opinion--there is no need to violently attack me for voicing my opinion, which also seems to be the opinion of several other members.

And lastly, I would like to make a more general comment about this forum. I LOVE this forum because we can have a thread like this one where people can discuss their opinions and not have their posts deleted. In many other forums I lurk in on the net, this kind of intellectual freedom is not allowed. This forum ROCKS!

shiningstardv it is pretty clear that your orginal post has been somewhat missunderstood, and I aplogise if I offended you in anyway.

Unforunatly when you direct something at a post, or a thread you are directing it at the person who made that post, or started that thread.
So despite your intentions otherwise, it was taken as a somewhat personal commentary on a spefic style of photography.

One of the things that makes this forum so great is the very wide range of differnt people who are members. The whole range of photographic pursuits are represented here, from photo journalists to proffesional glammer photographers, from hobbiests with the latest and greatest equipment, to well paid pros useing equipment that is several years out of date.
A whole range of styles is covered, some of it is artistic, and some of it isnt, so when people see a post that is trying to say that some photos, or style of photos are not artistic they tend to get a bit defensive, and in may case's offended.
Makeing a post to that effect in a thread will simply be taken as your own personal opion, and prehaps any advice in it may be taken on bourd, but a new thread on the subject begins to sound very quickly like selfrigthous preaching, hence the nature of the replys you recieved

Your opinion on the nature of candid photography is infact quite valid, CDS and Candit Bandit both pointed that out, but since it, and the themes behind it are such touchy subjects it needs to be expressed in a more diplomatic manner if you are expecting a rational discussion

Moppie wrote:
shiningstardvMakeing a post to that effect in a thread will simply be taken as your own personal opion, and prehaps any advice in it may be taken on bourd, but a new thread on the subject begins to sound very quickly like selfrigthous preaching, hence the nature of the replys you recieved

Your opinion on the nature of candid photography is infact quite valid, CDS and Candit Bandit both pointed that out, but since it, and the themes behind it are such touchy subjects it needs to be expressed in a more diplomatic manner if you are expecting a rational discussion

"Hence the nature of the replys you recieved" Actually, in my mind, your reply was the only one that i found to be a bit over the line. (And once, again this is MY opinion, so please don't take it too personally.) I just think that you labeling my post as "selfrightous preaching" is a little narrow minded. Are you so arrogant that you can't even listen to someone who has an opinion which differs from yours, without attacking their opinion? By all means post your own opinion, but don't label mine falsely.

I feel that the manner is which I expressed my opinion was very "diplomatic" as you say. In fact, I spent about 30 minutes writing that post in an attempt to avoid a reaction such as yours. I think that we have a "rational discussion" here, and you preaching to me about how I should voice my opinion is the only thing that is selfrightous preaching.

This is not exactly what I was hoping for...
By posting " butt" image, I wanted to spark discussion on different subject.
It didn't come to my mind it would focus on candid photography.
The idea was to open some mouths on the forum on something I find amazing.
Did you notice how much attention and comments almost ANY female thread finds on the forum? Replays like "I'm drooling..." make me think about author's real drive to see these images. Seems to proof the theory (picture below) .
Difference in number of views on thread suggesting "hot" subject is huge!
I tested it with my yesterdays thread ( white sheets and shoolgirl ).
I'm sorry for offending you with " butt" photo- at least now you know my intensions.

the main reason why I would joke around in posts like Paul buceta's or frank or Charles is that thy've alreay achieved their skills as photographers. we can't really critique people who've taken steps to go to the "higher level". their works to us now, we can only judge subjectively because technically they are "sound".
its the difference between just getting lights and shooting AND getting lights and thinking of the ideal setup for the moment, model's clothing, depth of field, etc... and shooting.

am saying WE should try a little harder. give it some kind of thought before we post. what's so nice about taking a picture of a guy just standing there? at least wait for him to pick his nose or something or scratch his butt.

my .02 as usual

May I recommend a book by the recently deceased Susan Sontag called On Photography. She really takes hold of these issues surrounding photography. These are not easy questions. Its interesting how quickly questions of ethics and morality rise to the surface when discussing issues of merit and intention. I remember how shocked I was by a fellow art student many years ago, while on my first trip to NYC, who brashly photographed down and out street people. It troubled me at the time, and still does, but Im still not entirely sure why....it just seemed so rude and invasive. I think photos tell way more about the person taking the pic, than the actual content of the pic a lot of the time. Where am I going with this...............dun​no.

As do most forms of art, infact Iv seen complete pschological works up done based entirly on peoples art work, and analyising drawings is an accepted practice in child psychology.
Most art involves some form of self expression, if you see enough work from the same artist you soon begin to recognise thier style, which is nothing more than thier own personality showing through in thier work.




shiningstardv you mentioned a "rational discussion", this generaly involves stateing some form of fact or opinion then providing reasoning to back it up. Please feel free to jump in at any time, it is your thread after all.

Do people on this forum go looking for a photographic styles they do not like so they may then go off on one? I dont particularly like looking at other peoples baby pics (I have a million of my own) so pass them by. Most of the candids are labelled as such and as I dont care much for most of those either I do likewise. I dont like rap music so I dont listen to radio stations that play it, I dont suggest it shouldnt be played.

The great thing about this forum is its breadth (cultural, taste, geographical etc) and fairly relaxed forum rules so lets not spoil that by getting all narrow minded. If you dont like it dont look at it and if you dont like the replys, dont read them.

Eheheh...

Yeee right, this is the point. Same is for discussion.
I don't think this is a foolish thread.
One of the important advance with Internet is exactly the possibility to disscuss with so many people like this forum. Once upon the time photography was just a club of passionate people, always the same, making same things; it was difficult the confrontation with different point of view.
I'm really engaged in candids discussion becouse I was fond of that. Really I spent lot of films and compact flash. But few years ago I felt that there was more behind the faces I continued to shoot with my tele. Looking through the thousands of images in my stock, no one of them told me any more the feeling of the moment. Some of them are good pictures, good color or good moments, oh yes..but empty and old.
I was needing more.
I was really against nude, model and studio photography. I love natural light, not fiction.
But few years ago I met Andreas Bitesnich and took me in a stage of female shooting for a calendar in 2003. It was amazing and so interesting, that I had to change my mind about the creativity and the difficulties of this apparently edonistic and vacuum photography. It's not my "style". But never close the mind "a priori".

Just to conclude, the probem is marketshare : a nude nice girl is always more attractive (in terms of statistics) that a beautiful mushroom or flower. Advertisement teach to us without any possibility to discuss.

Ciao

I suspect that hormones have something to do with this as well.

Good thread. Maybe there is room in the "images" part of this forum for those of us who strive merely for the perfect railroad image.