What is Digg?61 Comments
- GhostWithToast, on 12/03/2007, -12/+33If thoses photos were any good, this article would have more credence.
- SinNickel, on 12/03/2007, -0/+16Composition...much more composition...
- CraigJ, on 12/03/2007, -5/+17Buried, because the portraits on this site are not that good.
- earther, on 12/03/2007, -1/+10Ya, no doubt. The boob shot is especially hilarious. As if anyone cares about the negative space around it.
I tend to photograph compelling subjects and that in itself makes for a quite decent portrait. Composition and lighting are secondary for me... it really is all about timing and content. But then again, all my photos are candid and i usually take what i can get.
http://earthsworld.com - pmuse, on 12/03/2007, -1/+9Haha, after reading that article I was prepared to come in here and make this same comment -- but I guess I was beat to the punch.
- jlj1958, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7Typical of these lame "how-to's" is that it tells you what you have to do, but doesn't tell you HOW. The photos are less than impressive.
- TomRemixed, on 12/03/2007, -1/+7What's with the hookah?
- CraigJ, on 12/03/2007, -3/+8I was prepared to digg you down, but you are right, only a couple of the photos are any good...
- TrevorBelmont, on 12/04/2007, -0/+5Tell yourself whatever you have to dude.
- GirSaysDoom13, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5*boob picture*
"One key difference between an amateur shot, and a professional shot is composition. A great portrait photographer considers shapes, lines, framing, angles, negative space, where to place the point of focus in the frame for maximum impact, and so on."
I'd lke to show them some 'maximum impact' !
Anyone? - ez12a, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4certainly not great pictures...the hookah one is just like any other point and shoot picture..
- bossm4n, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4"Maybe in the article, I should have mentioned that art is subjective."
And that is exactly your problem. If art is purely subjective than there can be no criteria in order to make decisions. You obviously have no background in art and I would venture to guess your background or education in photography is lacking. You act like 500 diggs is some notable feat. The majority of those were more than likely blind diggs. Congrats on milking your 15 minutes and driving people to your crappy blog. - TrevorBelmont, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4What?
- sohosid, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4"Photography isn't art, it's a technical skill"
You sir, are a blithering idiot. Someone with a camera is not an artist, in the same way as anyone with a brush and some paint isn't an artist. Some photographers though can create art with their camera. - CraigJ, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3Then you should learn to take criticism professionally.
- Peavey, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Wrong.
- bossm4n, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4Obviously the author does not make a living as a photographer, if so he's probably holding up a sign on a street corner right now.
- TrevorBelmont, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3The author overlooks the most important aspect of portraiture. He seems to focus on the technical precesses that make a pleasant aesthetic. A good portrait isn't one where the subject looks nice, it's one where we see the subject for the person that they are. One that presents them as a fully fleshed human being and reflects their personality. Granted, you can't learn this through a bulleted list quite so readily but it trumps every item on this list and can even be achieved with a disposable camera. If you can capture the essence of your subject then damn the technical quality.
- onestyle, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Photography can be both emotional and thought-provoking. How is that not art?
- andergriff, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2Those were not good photographs.
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2well, granted they are not the best, its an article about how to take pictures as a piece of art. do as I say and not as I do? possibly, that's fine though. I need a refresher every so often.
- MattS, on 12/03/2007, -2/+4Terrible? There not that bad. Certainly, the author comes off as a little arrogant because of the 'less than the best I've seen' quality of the pictures. However, they are a far sight better than the snapshots I take....
- funkytaco, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I like your shot of the ladies' cankle's. http://earthsworld.com/2006/060722/source/crw_0309 ...
Some of my work can be found at http://www.avidphoto.net - inajeep, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I perfer candid shots as opposed to setup studio shots as well. More real. So of course I'm liking your photos on your site too. :-)
- dilvie, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Cool! I was not previously familiar with her work. It's nice!
- TrevorBelmont, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Is that boob shot even a portrait in the loosest sense of the word?
- bollander, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2The difference between snapshots and "art"is 100% subjective, but the author does make some good points.
- CraigJ, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2I thought that was a dildo...
- CraigJ, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2The second one (runny mascara, not my favorite look, but a good photo nonetheless) and the last one (red dress)
- TrevorBelmont, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1To Earther:
1300 views on Flicker? That's pretty meaningless. Bragging about that ***** around here isn't going to help you. Have you noticed that all the comments that are critical (or even insulting) of your work are getting Dugg?
Ugly shots of ugly people? So good portraits start with good looking people? This is exactly what's wrong with all the "portraits" you have presented. No heart, no character, moderate gloss. You sir, have presented yourself as an ego maniacal jerk with passable technical ability and no eye. - darfvader, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3The boobies one? What else?
- NekoIan, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2http://www.agallery.com/Pages/photographers/karsh. ...
- fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I think the difference between snapshot and "art" is whether or not any thought went into the creation of the image. You can make art with a Kodak Instamatic. Likewise, you can also make snapshots with a Nikon D300.
- therearenorules, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1http://monakuhn.com/
most are nsfw, but, imo, mona kuhn is one of the greatest portrait photographers - fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I know a guy... just down the hall from me actually and he has all the technological skill one could want when it comes to photography. Unfortunately, he's also the first to admit that his images lack artistry. He doesn't know how to use the camera that way.
- skyteria, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Best there ever was.
- dilvie, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1You can have all the technical painting skills in the world and create crappy images. The art in photography isn't about setting dials and pushing buttons -- it's about seeing well. Painters use brushes and paint. Photographers use light.
- blueishraptor, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0I didn't like the mascara one (2nd photo).
- blueishraptor, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0These are some of the basic techniques for photography but don't forget that photos from a different point of view (i.e. bird's eye) sometimes work.
- fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Likewise, some photographers create art with their camera AND photoshop.
- onestyle, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1NSFW: http://www.flickr.com/photos/markjsebastian/sets/7 ...
- blueshock, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0Good idea for an article, but it isn't as clear as it could be, and the examples leave something to be desired.
I agree with the basic premise. The difference between a snapshot and a professional portrait is not in the equipment, but rather, the composition, and the ability to do things on purpose, and repeat them consistently. - earther, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1That you see ugly shots of ugly people is one reason why i take these photographs in the first place; they are a window into the soul of the viewer. And that you are unable to connect with the people in them also speaks volumes about your character. I have no interest in having people to pay me to take their photo... there are thousands of horrible, uncreative portrait photographers in this country. You happen to be one of them. Taking a good portrait isn't rocket science. Get over yourself.
- dilvie, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0I'd say that's a good call. I didn't ask for this much scrutiny, and I certainly wasn't prepared for an onslaught of negative comments. Honestly, I expected only a few friends and some clients to see the article. I was blindsided by both the extra traffic to my site, and the negative comments about my photos (I'm accustomed to the opposite). I'm afraid I could have handled the whole situation much better -- particularly considering that some of the negative criticism was spot-on.
- fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1In other words, the photographer put some thought into the creation of the image. A typical snapshot has one subject of interest, but absolutely no regard for composition, lighting, foreground, background, etc.
- dilvie, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0You left off two zeroes. Not 1300. 130,000. I have noticed that almost all of the critical and/or insulting comments are getting dug, but I've also noticed that the comments on my blog are 100% positive. Quite a few people added me as a friend, and as I mentioned before, for every ten digs, somebody added one of the photos to their flickr favorites. Art is subjective, and your opinion is just one of many, and your opinion is the overwhelming minority.
What you're seeing here on digg isn't telling the whole story -- not by a longshot. - jimmycheng, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0Pretty good tips for portraiture.
- mhmdkhamis, on 03/03/2008, -0/+0Good idea for an article, but it isn't as clear as it could be, and the examples leave something to be desired.
I agree with the basic premise. The difference between a snapshot and a professional portrait is not in the equipment, but rather, the composition, and the ability to do things on purpose, and repeat them consistently.
http://game.paramegsoft.com/
http://dir.paramegsoft.com/ - dilvie, on 12/04/2007, -1/+0I'm a huge fan of several street photographers who do much the same thing you do. The reason I like them is that they seem to connect the subject and viewer in a way that shows us something interesting about the characters in the photos. Your photos just look voyeuristic -- like watching white trash on the Jerry Springer show. Taking ugly snapshots of strange looking people from a distance seems cheap and exploitive to me.
- Lennox24, on 12/03/2007, -1/+0Dugg for girl who looks like Alicia Silverstone in the 7th picture.
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is