IPF/LIPF

PaulieC

Could someone please explain these to me in language I can understand ? I have had a root around the sites and I am none the wiser. What I can glean is that they are some kind of photographic award/qualification. How does one go about attempting to gain one?

snaps
Paul

baby and crumble

Yeah, this is a good question, even my Dad hasn't been able to explain it, and he has one!!

kensutz

IPF is the Irish Photographic Federation. To achieve an L you must be a member of an affiliated club, then submit a panel of 10 images which will be judged by 3 people afaik and then if they're are good enough you receive an L. It's a membership where you have to pay a fee every year to retain your L.

Paulw

Similar to SWPP or SISLP (in the UK), which I have my L through. I have my LSISLP for sports images.

Not sure what it's worth, but it's nice to have.

Morrisseeee

then submit a panel of 10 images

Q. I've seen one person's panel, but do all panels have to be laid out the same way, or can you lay out your 10 best images any way you want ?:o

Fajitas!

It's not really worth anything though, is it? Other than saying you're in a camera club that a few people on a panel like your photographs.

You might be able to sound more impressive, and try make an extra buck out of it. I'd prefer letters like MA and PHD instead though.

kensutz

It's probably best to lay them out the way they're used to seeing them.

@Fajitas - I know some people stick it after their name which I think is laughable. It's not worth anything imo.

CabanSail

kensutz wrote: »

IPF is the Irish Photographic Federation. To achieve an L you must be a member of an affiliated club, then submit a panel of 10 images which will be judged by 3 people afaik and then if they're are good enough you receive an L. It's a membership where you have to pay a fee every year to retain your L.

Mostly correct.

The IPF is the body which coordinates the various Camera Clubs in Ireland. most clubs are affiliated with it & when you join an affiliated club then you also become a member of the IPF. The IPF is associated with FIAP (International Federation of Photographic Art) which is the international body.

The IPF, like most national bodies, have Distinctions which are awards to show you have reached a certain level of proficiency as a photographer. There are three levels, Licentiate, Associate & Fellowship (LIPF, AIPF & FIPF) which are awarded & if you are successful you are permitted to put those letters after your name. It does cost an annual fee to maintain (I paid for a life membership instead)

You do NOT have to be in an affiliated club to apply for a distinction, though most people are. I think the application fee is a bit higher if you are not in a club.

The process that is employed by the IPF is done by presentation of a Panel. For the LIPF this is a panel of ten photographs, generally in two lines of five images. This is then assessed by a number of judges. At Thurles there were eight judges & after they all inspect the panel they vote. It is taken on a majority decision. If it's tied then there is a discussion where some judges say why they voted the way they did & ussually some others will then vary their vote & the panel eith passes or fails. The guidlines for the LIPF is that you can have a couple of images with "faults" and still pass.

The AIPF is a higher standard. It is themed panel of fifteeen images with a single fault being allowed.

The FIPF is twenty images with no faults allowed.

Fajitas!

CabanSail wrote: »

The process that is employed by the IPF is done by presentation of a Panel. For the LIPF this is a panel of ten photographs, generally in two lines of five images. This is then assessed by a number of judges. At Thurles there were eight judges & after they all inspect the panel they vote. It is taken on a majority decision. If it's tied then there is a discussion where some judges say why they voted the way they did & ussually some others will then vary their vote & the panel eith passes or fails. The guidlines for the LIPF is that you can have a couple of images with "faults" and still pass.

The AIPF is a higher standard. It is themed panel of fifteeen images with a single fault being allowed.

The FIPF is twenty images with no faults allowed.

These 'faults' - What are they?

kensutz

Crap photos?? :P

Fenster

Fajitas! wrote: »

It's not really worth anything though, is it? Other than saying you're in a camera club that a few people on a panel like your photographs.

You might be able to sound more impressive, and try make an extra buck out of it. I'd prefer letters like MA and PHD instead though.

I was going to ask the same. What practical benefit, if any, comes of having an 'L?' (Other than pointing out an 'L' lens and trumpeting that you have the same letter in your name)

Fajitas!

But what's the definition of a crap photo?

CabanSail

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Q. I've seen one person's panel, but do all panels have to be laid out the same way, or can you lay out your 10 best images any way you want ?:o

The panel has to work as a entity as well as individual images. Each photo has to placed correctly so that it relates to the others. It's not just your ten best photos.

Fajitas! wrote: »

These 'faults' - What are they?

These are up to the Judges but would include the normal things like images not being sharp where appropriate, incorrect exposure, printing errors, poor composition etc.

Fajitas!

Aha, so it's entirely subjective as regards what's a fault?

Are the faults based purely on the technical side of photography?

trishw78

I've heard of other faults including the corner of a mount being slight damaged

Fenster

Fajitas! wrote: »

Aha, so it's entirely subjective as regards what's a fault?

Are the faults based purely on the technical side of photography?

As I was led to understand it, yes. I've seen one panel which, while technically competent, was truly terrible in terms of creative expression.

Paulw

Fajitas! wrote: »

Aha, so it's entirely subjective as regards what's a fault?

The joy of photography - everything is subjective. Catch a judge on a bad day, and your image has a fault. On a good day, it's a brilliant image. Simple as that.

That's why I find these things so interesting. It's all about timing.

Fajitas!

Paulw wrote: »

The joy of photography - everything is subjective.

Ah it's not really though - muck is always muck, and a poor photo is always a poor photo

But what I'm getting from this is, it's essentially Photography By Numbers; Put that in focus, shoot at this aperture, put that there so it conforms to... etc etc etc, you're basically photographically regurgitating what's been written over and over again in the various amateur photography publications, as opposed to being awarded for creativity and interest.

elven

I have to laugh at the concept of 'poor composition' as a measurable quality.

I suppose it's just the same as saying a woman is only attractive if she has a particular ratio of distance from her eyebrows to her nose to her chin.

Seeing those letters after someone's name tells me exactly what kind of photographer they are, and i think fajitas summed it up best with the 'photography by numbers' line. Heaven forbid anyone should consider anything good other than what some bunch of camera club elders deigns to be the height technical perfection. This is art, not maths, sorry.

nilhg

Fajitas! wrote: »

Ah it's not really though - muck is always muck, and a poor photo is always a poor photo

But what I'm getting from this is, it's essentially Photography By Numbers; Put that in focus, shoot at this aperture, put that there so it conforms to... etc etc etc, you're basically photographically regurgitating what's been written over and over again in the various amateur photography publications, as opposed to being awarded for creativity and interest.

I sat through the whole assessment procedure last Saturday L, A and F, and while it's true to say that you can do the whole thing by the numbers that would not be fair to a lot of the work produced there, when the list is published I'll try and produce some links so you all can judge for yourselves.

There were three panels which caused quite a rift in the judging panel, two got through for their F's and one A panel got knocked back after at least 10 minutes of heated discussion (in public) at which stage the chairman said that it was a disgraceful decision. It was quite a conceptual panel with a very "artistic" (incomprehensible to to those of us that don't have an MA in arts:D) artists statement, which to me depicted a journey through a deserted village to a beach, I liked it but it failed.

On e of the successful Fas was 20 7x5s mounted in 20x16 board of the swirl patterns in a pool (think water going down a plug whole) with blue and green lighting, visual art one of the judges called this one but it got through.

At the end of the day your L or A of F means nothing except that you have the approval of your peers, it has the same real value as getting picture of the week here, or 100 thanks to a photo in the random thread except if you are serious about it it forces you to really think about your work and its strenghts and weaknesses, something that is taken for granted if you're in an artistic degree but not if you're beavering away on your own.

nilhg

elven wrote: »

I have to laugh at the concept of 'poor composition' as a measurable quality.

I suppose it's just the same as saying a woman is only attractive if she has a particular ratio of distance from her eyebrows to her nose to her chin.

Seeing those letters after someone's name tells me exactly what kind of photographer they are, and i think fajitas summed it up best with the 'photography by numbers' line. Heaven forbid anyone should consider anything good other than what some bunch of camera club elders deigns to be the height technical perfection. This is art, not maths, sorry.

Oh you'd have loved some of the judges discussions last saturday.:)

Calina

Paulw wrote: »

The joy of photography - everything is subjective. Catch a judge on a bad day, and your image has a fault. On a good day, it's a brilliant image. Simple as that.

That's why I find these things so interesting. It's all about timing.

Actually this would be why I find it less than transparent as a process and don't necessarily agree with it at all. I also feel there's a hierarchical structure to it that's more at place in - say - something like the Catholic Church.

_____________________

I've no motivation to do one of these things. I'm happy for people who do them, and work at it and succeed at them; but I get more of a kick out of creating a photograph in my head and getting it to happen the way I see it. So much more if it's way outside my comfort zone (ie the macro stuff I've been playing with later).

But that doesn't mean everyone else will like it. I mean I had no idea how people would respond to the photograph of the sunset in Malahide that had about 1 million technical problems



It's never going to win prizes plus it has the obligatory fault because my sensor needed cleaning at the time (and needs it again - what is it about this camera - I've never had the same level of trouble with a sensor and the camera theoretically has sensor cleaning).

I think the question is do you need validation from a scheme/system like this or don't you? Is it a marketing tool - are there other options available to you - the world has changed.

I'd be interested to know why exactly people go to do it...what motivates them to do it. It's not what motivates me. For me, it's the need to create something new and different every once in a while.

AnCatDubh

elven wrote: »

I suppose it's just the same as saying a woman is only attractive if she has a particular ratio of distance from her eyebrows to her nose to her chin.

But, but, but......... I thought the converse side of that one is that the male attractiveness is the ratio of distance from chin to beer belly??? Women/Venus/Men/Mars????

if you follow a painting by numbers then the chances are that you'll produce a reasonable result. If you photograph by numbers, then you also have a reasonable chance of producing a reasonable result. For some, this is as far as it goes As with painting by numbers there will be levels of aesthetic niceness - some people are better (more careful) at applying the paint than others and follow instructions better. So too, if you photograph by numbers then you will possibly progress along a ruled and measured line but that line will definitely have an end point. For some, taking the new dSLR out of auto will never happen because it gives them poor results (they deviate from that line) - how many film SLR's fell into such disuse through inertia *sigh* or because the end of that ruled line was hit and they were going nowhere else with there photography. I know someone like that. Shame, shame, shame....

CabanSail

elven wrote: »

I have to laugh at the concept of 'poor composition' as a measurable quality.

I suppose it's just the same as saying a woman is only attractive if she has a particular ratio of distance from her eyebrows to her nose to her chin.

Seeing those letters after someone's name tells me exactly what kind of photographer they are, and i think fajitas summed it up best with the 'photography by numbers' line. Heaven forbid anyone should consider anything good other than what some bunch of camera club elders deigns to be the height technical perfection. This is art, not maths, sorry.

I disagree. If you actually go along and see the process then you may have a better idea. I was there a couple of weekends ago to see the process for the first time. Some panels went up & you just knew they were not going to get through, they may have been technically quite competent but they were lacking on creativity. Then others looked really good from a distance and failed because of technical problems. I suppose it's like in Motor Racing it's not good enough to have technically the best car if the driver does not have the skill, but at the same time a good driver in an unreliable car will also not make it. The two have to be there together to succeed. In this case what is required is the technical and creative ability combined.

It's not a process that suits everyone. I would not go around saying that photographers who do not have a distinction are no good. Likewise I think to say that someone who has a distinction is going to conform to a certain mould is also untrue.

Fajitas!

nilhg wrote: »

There were three panels which caused quite a rift in the judging panel, two got through for their F's and one A panel got knocked back after at least 10 minutes of heated discussion (in public) at which stage the chairman said that it was a disgraceful decision. It was quite a conceptual panel with a very "artistic" (incomprehensible to to those of us that don't have an MA in arts:D) artists statement, which to me depicted a journey through a deserted village to a beach, I liked it but it failed.

But why did it fail? Was it poor execution of the artists statement where the audience were unable to understand it? Were the photographs not suitable? Did it follow its brief?

On e of the successful Fas was 20 7x5s mounted in 20x16 board of the swirl patterns in a pool (think water going down a plug whole) with blue and green lighting, visual art one of the judges called this one but it got through.

I assume it was through its technical merit it got through then?

if you are serious about it it forces you to really think about your work and its strenghts and weaknesses, something that is taken for granted if you're in an artistic degree but not if you're beavering away on your own.

But does it really force someone to think about their strengths and weaknesses? Or will they just look to what's been done before them, and follow the path that's been taken before, safely knowing they'll get a few letters and have a few jars after? I mean, from what I'm hearing, a panel of quite conceptual (but successful) work would get turned down for not being 'camera club' enough. Wouldn't it be great if, similarly enough to a thesis - at BA, MA or PHD level, you had to take on and research a project or series of images that hadn't been put forward before (Or at least for the 5 years previous). There'd be a lot more variety and effort put in, and having to do that would further the applicants even further.

Well, further than reciting 'Understanding Exposure' by whatshisname while taking a photo anyways.

Fajitas!

AnCatDubh wrote: »

if you follow a painting by numbers then the chances are that you'll produce a reasonable result. If you photograph by numbers, then you also have a reasonable chance of producing a reasonable result. For some, this is as far as it goes As with painting by numbers there will be levels of aesthetic niceness - some people are better (more careful) at applying the paint than others and follow instructions better. So too, if you photograph by numbers then you will possibly progress along a ruled and measured line but that line will definitely have an end point. For some, taking the new dSLR out of auto will never happen because it gives them poor results (they deviate from that line) - how many film SLR's fell into such disuse through inertia *sigh* or because the end of that ruled line was hit and they were going nowhere else with there photography. I know someone like that. Shame, shame, shame....

See, this is the problem with all the photographers shooting by numbers, they completely forget about anything else other than how to take what they think is a great photograph that they saw last week. It's a complete reduction of creativity, conceptual ability, everything... to be able to say they used hyperfocal distancing to get a whole scene in frame.

Yes, you've gotten the numbers right, but you've forgotten exactly what you're doing, and why.

Paulw

Calina wrote: »

I'd be interested to know why exactly people go to do it...what motivates them to do it.

I got my "L" by default. I submitted 20 images to SISLP (part of SWPP) as part of their "Mentor Me" programme. I wanted to see what their "experts" though of my images. It cost me nothing. Anyway, they liked my images, and I was granted my L.

Since then, I have submitted images to their monthly competitions (from time to time), and in many cases, the images I submitted to the competitions were (in my opinion) far superior to my panel, but yet they were marked as average.

I can see no standard level of quality nor creativity in many catagories (especially when it relates to sport).

To each their own, but even in discussions with some, I can see no business reason in going to an L (or whatever). People will either like or dislike your work based on your portfolio, not on a once off panel of images.

Calina

Paulw wrote: »

People will either like or dislike your work based on your portfolio, not on a once off panel of images.

This would be my view as well.

Ballyman

The "artists" among us will never be able to understand it.

Each to their own really. The letters L etc. mean absolutely nothing. Same as Institute of Engineers A etc. mean nothing. They are letters to signify an achievement. Nothing else. If people put them after their name then best of luck to them. Lots of people put BSc after their name. Well done to them too. Just because people do this doesn't make it wrong or funny, just different to you. There are other ways to be wrong and funny!

If you are in a camera club then it's something to have a go at at the end of the year. It's no big deal and I doubt anyone takes it too seriously although it is a nice achievement for yourself to have 10 photos that you are proud of and able to show off. They could just as handy be sitting on your harddrive at home never to see the light of day without the opportunity.

If you are too artistic and creative for this then so be it. I'm sure you have your own outlet to show off your pics!

EDIT:
By the way, I applied for an L and presented a panel last Sunday as well. I passed The panel is below.
How it's photography by numbers I don't know but maybe I'm not artistic or creative enough to know any better. What I do know is I like landscapes and sport a lot. Which is why 80% of the panel photos are of these disciplines. The other 20% was of a lovely sunny day back in June when I had nothing better to do than head out to Saltee Islands and enjoy the day. Maybe there is something wrong with me!!

AnCatDubh

Fajitas! wrote: »

See, this is the problem with all the photographers shooting by numbers, they completely forget about anything else other than how to take what they think is a great photograph that they saw last week. It's a complete reduction of creativity, conceptual ability, everything... to be able to say they used hyperfocal distancing to get a whole scene in frame.

Yes, you've gotten the numbers right, but you've forgotten exactly what you're doing, and why.

True, but creativity, conceptual ability and all things else don't always exist for or in some people. Thus if you photograph by numbers it won't be everyone's cup of tea but it might keep you satisfied momentarily until the point where you either give up or gain enough curiosity to awaken some deal of creativity that is latent within.

A personal opinion, but i think those with creativity and conceptual ability will make the best photographers (if you can define best) but some of them also produce utter s***e

Covey

I've taken to going to a lot of varied exhibitions this year, photography at all levels and I have to say the most disappointing one was the DCC exhibition (sorry guys) .

It really was photography by numbers and before anyone gets a brickhammer to me I do realise some were raw beginners. In fact some of them were the better ones. Invariably the more advanced members efforts were hackneyed shots with about 5 themes running through them. I went with the intention of buying something to support someone, came home empty handed and if thats what it's all about, well it's not for me.

At the end an elderly member came up to me and said, "in the past we really had some good exhibitions", which I thought was a sad comment really.

nilhg

Fajitas! wrote: »

But why did it fail? Was it poor execution of the artists statement where the audience were unable to understand it? Were the photographs not suitable? Did it follow its brief?

You'd have to ask the judges that, there was a suggestion that the final two images didn't fit in the panel, but that would depend on how you vied the panel.

Fajitas! wrote: »

I assume it was through its technical merit it got through then?

Technically I'm sure it was perfect, some body beside me said it's biggest problem was that it could have been shot in 20 minutes in a garden centre, the previous panel was winter snowscapes fro the peaks of Snowdonia.:D

Fajitas! wrote: »

But does it really force someone to think about their strengths and weaknesses? Or will they just look to what's been done before them, and follow the path that's been taken before, safely knowing they'll get a few letters and have a few jars after? I mean, from what I'm hearing, a panel of quite conceptual (but successful) work would get turned down for not being 'camera club' enough. Wouldn't it be great if, similarly enough to a thesis - at BA, MA or PHD level, you had to take on and research a project or series of images that hadn't been put forward before (Or at least for the 5 years previous). There'd be a lot more variety and effort put in, and having to do that would further the applicants even further.

Well, further than reciting 'Understanding Exposure' by whatshisname while taking a photo anyways.

Can only speak for my self on this one but when my panel was going up I didn't feel too safe I'd get the few letters after my name.......

In fairness though it is what it is, if your criteria was in force I'd say it would be a short day of judging, unless I'm picking you up wrong is the equivalent of saying you'd have to build a completely new musical instrument before you could compose a song...

Covey

AnCatDubh wrote: »

A personal opinion, but i think those with creativity and conceptual ability will make the best photographers (if you can define best) but some of them also produce utter s***e

How true too

elven

I do find it ironic that the analogy of winning a race seems appropriate, and i suppose that says a lot about how you look at photography. The problem i have with it is that technical competence - or what those guys at the top of the tree (referred to as similar to the hierarchy of the church by calina which also crossed my mind earlier tbh) call technical competence - such as their own opinion of what consitutes 'correct' exposure or depth of field - is held in such high regard that if you put forward work that is amazing in every other aspect but doesn't fit with that idea it will fail, giving the impression that conforming to those standards is the ultimate goal in this game.

It's pointless to go down the route of saying 'all L photographers are technically great but lack in atmosphere' because it's never going to be as easy as that, and i don't think that's what anyone was trying to say. What is true that a system that rewards those who conform to particular standards is fundamentally flawed in the area of recognising true greatness. It's just the creation of an exclusive club where by setting rules to get in, creates the perception of the quality of membership, without really questioning what that quality really is.

I do see some amazing work from people who have these distinctions but i've also seen a complete pile of unimaginative, trite, boring - but polished and well mounted photography get through as well. No sweeping generalisations...

Fajitas!

Ballyman wrote: »

The "artists" among us will never be able to understand it.

Ok. Why?

If you are too artistic and creative for this then so be it. I'm sure you have your own outlet to show off your pics!

lol

AnCatDubh wrote: »

True, but creativity, conceptual ability and all things else don't always exist for or in some people. Thus if you photograph by numbers it won't be everyone's cup of tea but it might keep you satisfied momentarily until the point where you either give up or gain enough curiosity to awaken some deal of creativity that is latent within.

A personal opinion, but i think those with creativity and conceptual ability will make the best photographers (if you can define best) but some of them also produce utter s***e

I agree to a point, I think creativity does exist for everyone, just in different ways - Even one of our own posters, 6 months ago, stated she'd never ever have time for art, but now very proudly calls her photographs her art. It's just a matter of thinking about it really.

Do you think that a natural progression from the 'paint by numbers' frame of mind is on to conceptual photography? I think it ends up either splitting into conceptual photography, or the photographer gets obsessed with the technical, being able to stand up and show how sharp the images are, rather than why.

Hugh_C

elven wrote: »

I have to laugh at the concept of 'poor composition' as a measurable quality.

I suppose it's just the same as saying a woman is only attractive if she has a particular ratio of distance from her eyebrows to her nose to her chin.

snip

This is art, not maths, sorry.

I mostly agree, but there again I'm both a photographer and have a degree in Maths and have read a lot about Fibonacci, Golden ratio, rule of thirds and a whole bunch of other obscure pontifications.

So I can see why someone might say that a women is only attractive if she conforms to certain proportions, it's based on empirical observation, it's not just a whim. Maybe this can be extrapolated to the notion of composition ...

Composition is neither right nor wrong but there perceived ideals, thus the rule of thirds and all sorts of stuff Al could tell you about

I had thought about trying for the lipf, but to be honest I ran out of time and it sorta passed me by. I guess I'm not a camera-club-kinda-guy. Maybe next year ...

H

4sb

I was going to go for the L in Thurles. We had an internal club competition and we had one of the IPF judges in to do the judging; I did not do well. What confused me was that I got no real sense of what my panel lacked, other than the use of the same model in two photos.

Technical competence seems to be the key criterion: focus, exposure, sympathetic lighting to the subject matter. (I don't know if they make any statements around composition, but I imagine rule of thirds is good)

The L panel of 10 is supposed to have two strong central images, with all the left and right photographs leading in to the center, by lighting, composition or viewpoint. A good photograph in its self may not find a home in a panel.

Overall, I am now in two minds as to whether to submit. All the cliches seem to apply to the kind of photograph that does well. The panel aesthetic seems to be a very artificial and constraining model.

The only way I can rationalize doing it is to treat is as an assignment, with a very specific brief. I do think that the A is of more interest - it has more of an artistic bent. Technical competence is assumed, and the photographs seemed to be treated more on their own merits rather than as components of an overall pattern.

But I am having strong second thoughts as to whether the camera club set of values is the way I want to go.

Fajitas!

nilhg wrote: »

You'd have to ask the judges that, there was a suggestion that the final two images didn't fit in the panel, but that would depend on how you vied the panel.

Fair enough!

Technically I'm sure it was perfect, some body beside me said it's biggest problem was that it could have been shot in 20 minutes in a garden centre, the previous panel was winter snowscapes fro the peaks of Snowdonia.:D

Lol, that's exactly what I was thinking

In fairness though it is what it is, if your criteria was in force I'd say it would be a short day of judging, unless I'm picking you up wrong is the equivalent of saying you'd have to build a completely new musical instrument before you could compose a song...

Ah no, I just think making people think about why they are doing something, or helping them learn something along the way would be a lot more progressive than being able to, as the saying now goes, 'photograph by numbers'.

Fajitas!

4sb wrote: »

I was going to go for the L in Thurles. We had an internal club competition and we had one of the IPF judges in to do the judging; I did not do well. What confused me was that I got no real sense of what my panel lacked, other than the use of the same model in two photos.

Technical competence seems to be the key criterion: focus, exposure, sympathetic lighting to the subject matter. (I don't know if they make any statements around composition, but I imagine rule of thirds is good)

The L panel of 10 is supposed to have two strong central images, with all the left and right photographs leading in to the center, by lighting, composition or viewpoint. A good photograph in its self may not find a home in a panel.

Overall, I am now in two minds as to whether to submit. All the cliches seem to apply to the kind of photograph that does well. The panel aesthetic seems to be a very artificial and constraining model.

The only way I can rationalize doing it is to treat is as an assignment, with a very specific brief. I do think that the A is of more interest - it has more of an artistic bent. Technical competence is assumed, and the photographs seemed to be treated more on their own merits rather than as components of an overall pattern.

But I am having strong second thoughts as to whether the camera club set of values is the way I want to go.

I think this is a good description of the structure.

Thanks.

Ballyman

Fajitas! wrote: »

Ok. Why?

You already said it yourself that you don't understand it. It's purely regurgitated photography by numbers. Remember?
I don't consider photography art. I consider it a photograph. I don't look for or see hidden or subjective meanings or themes in photographs. If I find a phot aesthetically pleasing to me then it's good. If not, then it's junk. I'm a simple kinda guy

Fajitas! wrote: »

lol

And this is funny why?

elven

Ballyman wrote: »

I don't consider photography art. I consider it a photograph.

What's the difference, in your opinion? Do you think photography can't be art?

Ballyman

4sb wrote: »

I do think that the A is of more interest - it has more of an artistic bent.

It also requires a 300 word essay on why you picked each of the 15 photos and how they work together.

I'll never bother with this one purely because "I like this photo" repeated 15 time is hardly going to be sufficent for my essay.

Fajitas!

Ballyman wrote: »

You already said it yourself that you don't understand it. It's purely regurgitated photography by numbers. Remember?
I don't consider photography art. I consider it a photograph. I don't look for or see hidden or subjective meanings or themes in photographs. If I find a phot aesthetically pleasing to me then it's good. If not, then it's junk. I'm a simple kinda guy

I was asking questions to build up an opinion. I gave an opinion of how it seemed to me. I can still ask questions.

It's not my problem if you don't consider photography to be art, others do, other people have interested beyond the Paint by Numbers aesthetic.

And this is funny why?

Because it was such an obvious attempt to piss me off. :pac:

Calina

Ballyman wrote: »

....I don't consider photography art. I consider it a photograph. I don't look for or see hidden or subjective meanings or themes in photographs. If I find a phot aesthetically pleasing to me then it's good. If not, then it's junk. ...

I can't buy this, sorry. Photography and art are not mutually exclusive, and I'm not necessarily one who defines art as having hidden or subjective meanings or themes.

I start from the point of view that art should be a thing of beauty, that I get pleasure out of looking at. Which excludes a load of people in a lot of other fields of artistic endeavour.

I am getting - from the previous description of what a panel should entail - that there is more importance attached to the form rather than content of the panel. In which case, that doesn't strike me as an emphasis on photographic quality but on panel form.

Ballyman

elven wrote: »

What's the difference, in your opinion? Do you think photography can't be art?

I never said that. It can be whatever you want it to be.

To me it's not art. Same as 5 tractors stacked on top of each other is not art to me. It's nonsense. It's obviously art to somebody though. Best of luck to them.

Ballyman

Fajitas! wrote: »

Because it was such an obvious attempt to piss me off. :pac:

Ah lad, that oul head of yours must be awful big. It wasn't an attempt to piss anyone off only my opinion. Maybe if I left out the "" you mightn't feel so bad??

Are you artistic and creative? Well done to you if you are.

Covey

Ballyman wrote: »

I never said that. It can be whatever you want it to be.

To me it's not art. Same as 5 tractors stacked on top of each other is not art to me. It's nonsense. It's obviously art to somebody though. Best of luck to them.

Well the nearest thing to photography is painting (in it's various forms).

Would you consider a painting also to be just a painting and not art?

Fajitas!

Huge, so it is.

nilhg

cambo_gueno wrote: »

Could someone please explain these to me in language I can understand ? I have had a root around the sites and I am none the wiser. What I can glean is that they are some kind of photographic award/qualification. How does one go about attempting to gain one?

snaps
Paul

zoegh wrote: »

Yeah, this is a good question, even my Dad hasn't been able to explain it, and he has one!!

For the OP and anybody else interested, there is plenty of info on the IPF site

Ballyman

Covey wrote: »

Well the nearest thing to photography is painting (in it's various forms).

Would you consider a painting also to be just a painting and not art?

Now that you mention it, I've always called the painting over the fireplace at home a painting!! It's a nice one though so I like it Easily pleased and all that!

elven

Ballyman wrote: »

I never said that. It can be whatever you want it to be.

To me it's not art. Same as 5 tractors stacked on top of each other is not art to me. It's nonsense. It's obviously art to somebody though. Best of luck to them.

it was a genuine question, i wanted to know what your definition was, if photography didn't fit it.

Disclaimer: i don't care if people want to do photography by numbers if that's what we're calling it. They can do whatever the hell they like and the only person it has to please is them. I'm not going to try to force artistic photography down everyone's throats, but i do feel it's a shame that people often fall into the camera club/L panel aesthetic because theyd on't realise it can be anything else for them, or that they can proudly share it if it doesnt fit those ideals.