Do's and Don'ts of Photography.
August 23, 2004 3:27 PM Subscribe
Do's and Don'ts of Photography. According to Viceland your photos are cliche. Some NSFW language and images.
The photography in Us Weekly is like a cheap, super hot whore who rubs your feet and swallows your load. It perfectly serves its purpose: to be entertaining, informative, and disposable.
Pure gold.
posted by gottabefunky at 3:46 PM on August 23, 2004
Pure gold.
posted by gottabefunky at 3:46 PM on August 23, 2004
What are you guys, Nazis?
posted by bob sarabia at 3:48 PM on August 23, 2004
posted by bob sarabia at 3:48 PM on August 23, 2004
See also 100 Extra Dos & Don'ts.
88. Do be good at giving massages, but not creepily, complicatedly, I-read-books-about-this-in-high-school good. If you've already read those books, just conceal that knowledge.
posted by gottabefunky at 3:55 PM on August 23, 2004
88. Do be good at giving massages, but not creepily, complicatedly, I-read-books-about-this-in-high-school good. If you've already read those books, just conceal that knowledge.
posted by gottabefunky at 3:55 PM on August 23, 2004
The advice about not cross-processing is just wrong. With a little control, you can start to predict what color/light combinations will produce good (/interesting) results.
Why are double exposures so cool but fish-eye lenses a big no-no?
And why is David Hamilton a-ok, but "Homoeroticism = bad?"
Finally, anyone who says "Tripods = Don't" is an idiot who needs help getting back on the short bus.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:06 PM on August 23, 2004
Why are double exposures so cool but fish-eye lenses a big no-no?
And why is David Hamilton a-ok, but "Homoeroticism = bad?"
Finally, anyone who says "Tripods = Don't" is an idiot who needs help getting back on the short bus.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:06 PM on August 23, 2004
Don'ts: Always taking photos
Dos: Always taking photos
pricks.
posted by nylon at 4:09 PM on August 23, 2004
Dos: Always taking photos
pricks.
posted by nylon at 4:09 PM on August 23, 2004
No wide-angles, fish-eyes, zooms, or tripods? Uh.... no. It should be possible to be funny and trenchant, without giving ass advice.
posted by stonerose at 4:14 PM on August 23, 2004
posted by stonerose at 4:14 PM on August 23, 2004
Dos: the Zone system
ANSEL EGGLEFRANK
I bet his parents named him after the inventor of the Zone system.
posted by lagado at 4:21 PM on August 23, 2004
ANSEL EGGLEFRANK
I bet his parents named him after the inventor of the Zone system.
posted by lagado at 4:21 PM on August 23, 2004
Here's my don't: Just because it's macro doesn't mean it's art.
posted by smackfu at 6:57 PM on August 23, 2004
posted by smackfu at 6:57 PM on August 23, 2004
lagado: Umm, Ansel Adams, William Eggleston, Robert Frank.
posted by DaShiv at 6:59 PM on August 23, 2004
posted by DaShiv at 6:59 PM on August 23, 2004
I coincidentally read Vice's Guid to Everything on my commute home. Witty, sarcastic aphorisms and guidelines to dating, drugs, sex, music, and etiquette that would make Ms. Manners blush:
Number 9: Don't talk about astrology: If someone says, "What sign are you?" you should hear "Get the fuck out of here. I'm crazy."
posted by naxosaxur at 7:02 PM on August 23, 2004
Number 9: Don't talk about astrology: If someone says, "What sign are you?" you should hear "Get the fuck out of here. I'm crazy."
posted by naxosaxur at 7:02 PM on August 23, 2004
Pretty comprehensive, and a lot of it useful. While we'll all disagree with at least one of the individual items, it does present a coherent, and consistent, aesthetic attitude. Except for that "Always taking photos" stuff.
posted by soyjoy at 7:14 PM on August 23, 2004
posted by soyjoy at 7:14 PM on August 23, 2004
Don'ts:. . .Pushing and Pulling
Dos: the Zone system
??
posted by Feisty at 7:26 PM on August 23, 2004
Dos: the Zone system
??
posted by Feisty at 7:26 PM on August 23, 2004
don't: pay attention to dumb lists in hipster magazines.
posted by Hackworth at 7:56 PM on August 23, 2004
posted by Hackworth at 7:56 PM on August 23, 2004
I wouldn't take the "advice" competely at face value, since a lot of it is curmudgeonly poking at certain types of photographers. But it's a fun read if you can take a joke. Another article along this line is: Uses and Applications of 35mm Lenses.
stonerose: I think the "advice" against fisheyes is spoofing equipment freaks for whom "the most X is the best lens/body/etc" (for example, the most frame-per-second body is the "best", the fastest lens is the "best", etc). In the case of fisheyes, many amateurs use them because they offer the widest field-of-view compared to rectilinear lenses (and everyone knows wider=better when it comes to landscapes, yep), especially after using powerful software tools to remove the fisheye distortion. Michael Johnston said in the article linked above that fisheyes "have no known uses", which is a tongue-in-cheek commentary on how they've largely fallen out of fashion decades ago. There are many more people who own fisheyes today than those who actually know how and when to use them.
In my reading, the injunction against wides (especially ultrawides) and tripods echoes the sentiments against banal scenics mentioned here: Scenic Fatigue. It's not so much that wide angle shots are inherently bad, but that many aspiring "art" photographers are stuck in this rut of wide-angle-and-tripod "pretty pictures" without pursuing a vision like, say, the drama in St. Ansel's work (somewhat tongue-in-cheek canonization here). Also, while many beginners forgo tripods in situation that clearly call for them, others (especially the "my lens is sharper than yours" types) refuse to trip the shutter unless their camera is tripod-mounted, sacrificing vitality and spontaneity for sharpness. I think every photographer should own a tripod but, at the same time, often a tripod can do more harm than good. I know of a number of people on certain forums who could learn a lot from ditching their tripods for a day.
Here's my don't: Just because it's macro doesn't mean it's art.
The first article I've linked above describes macro lenses as "great hobby lenses, as macro photographers are among the only happy photo enthusiasts" and I largely agree: these photographers tend to have few pretensions about their craft (rarely do they refer to it as "art"), and yet they manage to turn out aesthetically arresting images more consistently than most of the art school type photogs I've seen. Same with sports photographers--tons of enthusiastic (and fun-loving) amateurs and blue-collar types sweating under the sun day in and day out to bring home great shots that get taken for granted, especially by other photographers.
Is it art? I don't know, but I think macros and sports make for good photography more often than not. I've had people tell me point-blank that they didn't think there can be such a thing as an artistic photograph, so obviously there are many answers to the "art" question. I do know for sure that for many photographers, the "art" question is immaterial compared to the joy they derive from the process and the results, and I rarely begrude them for sharing.
Now, pictures of cats, on the other hand...
posted by DaShiv at 9:05 PM on August 23, 2004
stonerose: I think the "advice" against fisheyes is spoofing equipment freaks for whom "the most X is the best lens/body/etc" (for example, the most frame-per-second body is the "best", the fastest lens is the "best", etc). In the case of fisheyes, many amateurs use them because they offer the widest field-of-view compared to rectilinear lenses (and everyone knows wider=better when it comes to landscapes, yep), especially after using powerful software tools to remove the fisheye distortion. Michael Johnston said in the article linked above that fisheyes "have no known uses", which is a tongue-in-cheek commentary on how they've largely fallen out of fashion decades ago. There are many more people who own fisheyes today than those who actually know how and when to use them.
In my reading, the injunction against wides (especially ultrawides) and tripods echoes the sentiments against banal scenics mentioned here: Scenic Fatigue. It's not so much that wide angle shots are inherently bad, but that many aspiring "art" photographers are stuck in this rut of wide-angle-and-tripod "pretty pictures" without pursuing a vision like, say, the drama in St. Ansel's work (somewhat tongue-in-cheek canonization here). Also, while many beginners forgo tripods in situation that clearly call for them, others (especially the "my lens is sharper than yours" types) refuse to trip the shutter unless their camera is tripod-mounted, sacrificing vitality and spontaneity for sharpness. I think every photographer should own a tripod but, at the same time, often a tripod can do more harm than good. I know of a number of people on certain forums who could learn a lot from ditching their tripods for a day.
Here's my don't: Just because it's macro doesn't mean it's art.
The first article I've linked above describes macro lenses as "great hobby lenses, as macro photographers are among the only happy photo enthusiasts" and I largely agree: these photographers tend to have few pretensions about their craft (rarely do they refer to it as "art"), and yet they manage to turn out aesthetically arresting images more consistently than most of the art school type photogs I've seen. Same with sports photographers--tons of enthusiastic (and fun-loving) amateurs and blue-collar types sweating under the sun day in and day out to bring home great shots that get taken for granted, especially by other photographers.
Is it art? I don't know, but I think macros and sports make for good photography more often than not. I've had people tell me point-blank that they didn't think there can be such a thing as an artistic photograph, so obviously there are many answers to the "art" question. I do know for sure that for many photographers, the "art" question is immaterial compared to the joy they derive from the process and the results, and I rarely begrude them for sharing.
Now, pictures of cats, on the other hand...
posted by DaShiv at 9:05 PM on August 23, 2004
As humor it is mildly entertaining, as advice.... about as good as the horoscope section
posted by edgeways at 9:11 PM on August 23, 2004
posted by edgeways at 9:11 PM on August 23, 2004
DOs & DON'Ts—Babies: After college, girls have to decide if they want babies or a career. If you think you're going to be a graphic designer and then stop everything at 36, find the right guy, have the baby, and then go back to your career when the kid starts pre-school, you are sadly mistaken. Your eggs are shit at 36. Don't get mad at us, it's God's fault. . . . P.S. Careers aren't that great anyways; it's not all golf and strip clubs, it's mostly putting out fires and worrying about lawyers.
That one hurts.
posted by iffley at 10:49 PM on August 23, 2004
That one hurts.
posted by iffley at 10:49 PM on August 23, 2004
I take it that this Vice magazine is new to some of you?
It's entire raison d'etre is to be contentious, not informative.
posted by asok at 9:16 AM on August 24, 2004
It's entire raison d'etre is to be contentious, not informative.
posted by asok at 9:16 AM on August 24, 2004
a lot of it's pompus, but at the core of it there's some good advice here
posted by bradknapp at 10:09 AM on August 24, 2004
posted by bradknapp at 10:09 AM on August 24, 2004
as advice.... about as good as the horoscope section
... which may actually be better than previously thought.
posted by soyjoy at 10:35 AM on August 24, 2004
... which may actually be better than previously thought.
posted by soyjoy at 10:35 AM on August 24, 2004
It's entire raison d'etre is to be contentious, not informative
Ha, ...and Metafilter is _____?
posted by Peter H at 2:28 PM on August 24, 2004
Ha, ...and Metafilter is _____?
posted by Peter H at 2:28 PM on August 24, 2004
« Older DCist | 'In the penthouse of the Ivory Tower' Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jon_kill at 3:30 PM on August 23, 2004