Do you know your level?

elven

I've been doing a good bit of browsing on the Luminous Landscape site, of the various essays there on loads of interesting subjects from technicalities to the theory behind photography as art. But anyway, I came across an article which suggests that we all have our own levels, as photographers, both technically and creatively/articstically.

I can't say whether I agree - obviously it's far easier to account for technical ability than creative success, and it just seems so... simple... to read down the list and place yourself in one of the boxes. Or, maybe, I'm just scared that I'll overestimate myself, or indeed, realise that if I'm brutally honest I come far further down the list than I care to admit. He does take great care to point out before starting that it certainly isn't a linear journey, so maybe it can be taken too literally, but it's really got me thinking about how to evaluate my photography/photographic ability in much more of a definite, and possibly more honest way.

Why? If I'm not producing for a commercial purpose, I'm not striving to win some competition, why do I event want to quantify any talent that I might have? It must be human nature... or at least mine. At the end of the day I could say that I take pictures for my own benefit, but if I never had the opportunity to show them to anyone, would I still bother? I don't think so. It's difficult to deny that you enjoy some kind of response to your stuff.

So, anyway, do you think you can put yourself somewhere on that list, honestly? Does it hurt to admit it? Can you discount the idea entirely on the grounds of the subjectivity of art, and your intent to provoke a viewer's response? Or even, are there more accurate/alternative descriptions of the different levels?

Fenster

Level 24 and deep specing into Enhancement...

...wait a sec..

mervifwdc

Very tricky one.
I'm not that big on the competition thing, I've not managed to submit anything to the Celbridge club, where I'm a member at all this year. I did one on-line one here, and it went ok.

As to levels, I think anyone who is keen enough to go on-line and disucss this topic, and to activly think about how they are going, is keen, and wants to take the best shots they possibly can. As to what level, That's tricky.

I know that the greatest challenge I set myself is the sports stuff I do at weekends for the local papers as I dont get a second crack at it. Your at an event for 10 minutes or an hour or whatever. That's it. No going back tomorrow. Something like a horse race is a one time thing, unlike a field sport where you can track a given side or even player, and they will eventually give you a few oppertunities. I find that a great challenge, and love to try do it.

That said, I know I'm not a great photographer, or even very good. I can manage to keep to a given standard, even when under pressure. That's what gives me the buzz.

Not sure I'd like the pressure of a wedding though! :-)

EDIT: Just copped there was an article and a real scale. oops!
In that case, yes, I think that level can be applied. I'd like to think the numerics stuff, I'm ok, but I'm so often an A or B on the letter stuff. That's what I find hard going.

Merv.

311

interesting stuff ,I'm one avoiding hard work and buying new toys.
Composition and artistry is definetly the most rewarding I suppose ,regardless of what tools you have.
My goal was never to be an artist ,but to cherish something in my own way the best way I could. But when I look for advice ,I find it easy to get caught up on precise details and forget about the end result.
I hope thats not a bad thing.:(

Xios

4D, haha, fordy.

Em, what did it mean by "Pepper Number 30"

B0rG

you just couldn't wait till friday, could you not?

magicbastarder

that article is pointlessly navel-gazing.
more probably, it promotes it.

Backtoblack

magicbastarder wrote:

that article is pointlessly navel-gazing.
more probably, it promotes it.

Is it not good exercise though to step and look at where you're at & consider you're faults/assets/strong points/weak & have some perspective as to where you should be going/doing?
I'm only after 3 beginners classes so I'm not rating myself lol, but in anything you do its good to have a clear perspective I reckon.

magicbastarder

i just don't think photography, as a hobby, can be or should be reduced to a world of warcraft style "i'm a level 40 mage" assessment.

elven

magicbastarder wrote:

that article is pointlessly navel-gazing.
more probably, it promotes it.

Maybe you could expand slightly and give us a hint as to why this is navel-gazing, and why it's pointless? It seems pretty pointless to post half of a response...

There's a whole lot of self absorbed, narcissistic activities to busy yourself with in the photography world and I wouldn’t say that an honest, searching and self critical review of your skills in an attempt to understand how to push your photography further is one of them. Maybe you’re only interested in a series of single picture to picture evaluations, maybe you’re not even interested in what you’re actually doing and just want to shoot blindly, as you fancy, with no regard to the bigger picture or your progress overall. That’s fine, and in no way should you be forced to take on these considerations against your will. But for those of us who do wonder, maybe constantly or maybe just once a year when they look back on their stuff from the last 12 months, it seemed like something that could be useful.

The way that you use it is highly individual too. Some people will see it as a competition, or a scoring contest and brag about their final result, like its an IQ test or something. I’d rather approach it in terms of figuring out where I am in relation to where I really want to be, in order to maybe see where the gaps are, what work I’d need to do to get closer to that ideal. I’d even take the general idea and adapt the definitions to suit myself – although the author has been very careful to avoid any particularly specific measures in terms of actual images, it’s based very much on the general response of various groups of people (spouse, family, friends, neighbours, other photographers of various levels) and this is where you have to decide which response you want to pay attention to, if any of them. That depends on your intent, because obviously different kinds of skill will be appreciated by different groups of people – and also – you don’t necessarily want to measure your own ability using the opinions or response of others. In that case though, you probably already know what you’re doing, where you are, where you want to be OR you just don’t care anyway…

There is some follow up in the Luminous Landscape forum too, apparently, which I haven't read yet. I do think that the author's blog is also interesting reading though, if you like that sort of thing

Morlar

magicbastarder wrote:

i just don't think photography, as a hobby, can be or should be reduced to a world of warcraft style "i'm a level 40 mage" assessment.

From what I saw there were 6 levels not 40 and photography is more than a hobby for a lot of people, nor is anyone one talking of 'reducing' it to being just someones definition of a skill level. I dont think its overly useful to get wrapped up in the self assessment of your skill levels based on someone elses criteria, but at the same time as a one off exercise it might help some people to improve or recognise areas where they need to (/*cough) focus on.

rabbitinlights

That is not what Photography is about.

What a terrible article.

S.

elven

Wow, another thoughtful and well explained response. I'm overwhelmed.

Maybe you could tell us what photography is all about, just so I can keep shooting, since I might have it wrong...

magicbastarder

why are you getting so defensive?
i'm not going to bother writing an essay explaining why i think it's a pointless exercise; that'd be a pointless exercise in itself.

magicbastarder

Morlar wrote:

From what I saw there were 6 levels not 40

there are actually 42 levels achievable on that scale. so my guesstimate was actually slightly too low...

elven

I'm not going to point out that you saying it's pointless is even more pointless than you actually telling us *why* you think that.

Here was me thinking this was a discussion forum, for, oh, I don't know... discussing things. Imagine! Take 'defensive' and replace it with 'exasperated'.

Morlar

magicbastarder wrote:

there are actually 42 levels achievable on that scale. so my guesstimate was actually slightly too low...

Actually there are a lot more than 42 considering that the levels are

technical 1-6 and
aesthetic levels A-G.

& going by the authors description you can be at more than 1 level on the technical side as 'they sometimes describe different technical issues.' So you could arrive at a ridiculous number of combinations if you wanted to.

Course that doesnt take away from the fact that there are 6 technical and 7 aesthetic. So it is a reasonably neat and tidy set of criteria. All of that is aside from the point that (as mentioned) this is a discussion forum and not an area for dismissing discussion without putting any kind of thought into giving a reason.

magicbastarder

well, i said i wouldn't do this, but it seems it's the best option at this stage.

for a start, i don't think the categories themselves are well defined. the technical issues are expanded out more than they should be, but at least he's able to define actual issues such as camera shake, etc.
but with the aesthetic ratings, he's not able to actually define what makes an image pop out at you. it's indefinable; the best he can manage is akin to 'it's better than the last'. so trying to chop aesthetic ability in to easy to digest, discrete chunks is a waste of time, in my book.

actually, that's basically it as regards my critique of the scale itself - photographic ability (especially in relation to his aesthetic scale) is both far more complicated than a scale with two variables, and in such a subjective subject, it's meaningless to define the unmeasurable. one person's idea of beauty is another's poison.

as to my ideological issues (which sounds very arch), i know people like to push themselves, and that involves identifying weaknesses and concentrating on improving on them, but i think stuff like this is a distraction. if you know you need to work on gauging exposure, you don't need to quantify it on a scale. go out and take photos and learn. it's about the pictures, not the numbers.

FreeAnd..

this reminds me of that line in Donny Darko..I think it was the fear line was it not..

Backtoblack

magicbastarder wrote:

i just don't think photography, as a hobby, can be or should be reduced to a world of warcraft style "i'm a level 40 mage" assessment.

Golf??

I don't think the point of the exercise is to find your level and wear it on a badge when you're out and about taking pictures though lol.. it might give one an idea as to where one is in terms of "Brilliant" or "getting there" or whatever.. and perhaps it might give a photographer somewhere to aim to or think about as to where they are now and where they want to go with their photography. Clearly & obviously, if you're out there just taking pics to have the memory then good for you, but if someone is more serious about the art, then it might be an exercise that someone mgiht like to take.

Xios

I'm agreeing with elven on this, it's in no way a ruler to generate penis envy or whatever, it's just a thread to get you thinking about yourself as a photographer, and if you want, a way to tell people how you feel you are performing. Maybe people who are bashing this thread are just afraid to consider themselves on a scale...

magicbastarder

c'mon, that's a lazy defence.

magicbastarder

Backtoblack wrote:

Golf??

ah here, at least photography is a worthwhile pursuit...

Xios

magicbastarder wrote:

it's meaningless to define the unmeasurable.

Like the wise proffesor in futurama with the quantum horse race finish "You changed the outcome by measuring it!"

Morlar

FreeAnd.. wrote:

this reminds me of that line in Donny Darko..I think it was the fear line was it not..

Think this is the quote your talking about :

Donnie: Life isn't that simple. I mean who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.
Kitty Farmer: Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.
Donnie: Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here. Like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!

PS Freeand - Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Xios

Morlar wrote:

PS Freeand - Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Yes, she does have that unforgettably annoying tone of voice, my poor ears

elven

I just couldn't get into donnie darko... and now I'm even more confused

Magic, you have a valid point, and I understand it now you've actually explained it properly. I suppose it just depends on your motivation for actually shooting in the first place, and what you want to get out of it.

Fionn

ok i've read this thread and re-read it...didn't have a chance to go to the website mentioned (been having connection trouble) but i'm sooo confused now i'll get back to this soon maybe

sineadw

My head is full of snot at the moment (TMI...), but for the sake of discussion:

I think in general the article is very useful. And I notice its part one of a three part series, so will perhaps make more people happy when viewed as a whole? (couldn't find a link to the others?) I think though it'd (for me) be better used as feedback for people viewing my stuff rather than a self-diagnostic tool. I'm no good at that. If I had to guess my own level I could never be objective enough, and my opinion of my shots changes dramatically every time I look at them and depends on the mood I'm in and what I was trying to do. Some days I hate the shots I've loved the day before, and the same goes for the level I see myself at. I think its therefore difficult to define, for me and my own stuff anyway.

Vague enough for you?

Oh and I love Donnie Darko. And Harvey even more so. Favourite film

FreeAnd..

Originally Posted by Morlar

PS Freeand - Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Classic Morlar...You managed to impersonate her voice perfectly To be honest I dont even know what this thread is about. I glanced over the article without taking too much in. Is it about using a scale to measure each other so we can be defined on that scale or as i think elven tried to explain where we are on the scale in relation to where we want to be...Or is it that different people take a different meaning from it as with most things in life.

Maybe reading the article would allow me to make my own decision...but I'm far too lazy for that.

311

sineadw wrote:

My head is full of snot at the moment

Can I have a bit ,please :D

Fajitas!

Lovely Brian.

I don't see a problem with someone self assessing themselves to levels. At least it's self assessment. A previous member of this forum, without mentioning names, could have had quite a bit of use from this method. Or in fact. Any method.

At the end of the day, there's no point in underselling yourself, nor overselling yourself. Finding a level is quite important (even not one of the levels mentioned above, but a level all the same). Especially when you know you where in the land of photography, you have to improve.

Without sounding too egotistical, I'd rate myself quite high on both those. But still know what areas I have to improve.

I can see where magicbastarder is coming from. But it's so so hard to say in something as objective, subjective and opinionated as photography, "this is where I am at an artistic point", as opposed to a technical know-how point. But then again, anyone in the art 'industry' has to stand up and say, "yeah, I'm good" and how well you can say it.