IPF/LIPF

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.

Covey

Ballyman wrote: »

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!

What I'm getting from you is that art does not exist. Interesting concept and you may even be right!

elven

oh crap, now THAT's conceptual.

Ballyman

Covey wrote: »

What I'm getting from you is that art does not exist. Interesting concept and you may even be right!

Maybe I am!!

Be sure and mention my name when the rest of the world cops onto it. I could do with the publicity.

Ballyman

elven wrote: »

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

I don't have a definition.
A tree is a tree, a field is a field, a painiting is a painting, a photo is a photo.................................. Do you see where I am going here??

trishw78

How can you not call photograph art or even an art form. All you have to do is look around at all the great photographers in the world including this forum Fajitas needs help with his head ;p, and see some amazing works.

I can understand that photography is all about capturing that moment, ever since man put charcoal to cave he's been chasing that moment. It is about documenting the here & now but it's also about letting other people view the world through your eyes/imagination.

Fajitas!

Ballyman wrote: »

I don't have a definition.
A tree is a tree, a field is a field, a painiting is a painting, a photo is a photo.................................. Do you see where I am going here??

And an art is a....?

elven

Ballyman wrote: »

I don't have a definition.
A tree is a tree, a field is a field, a painiting is a painting, a photo is a photo.................................. Do you see where I am going here??

um, i guess i wont bother asking you any more questions then. Sheesh, I thought this was a discussion forum. Heaven forbid.

It could be said that a tree is also part of nature, in the same way that painting is part of art. See where I am going there?

Calina

Ballyman wrote: »

I don't have a definition.
A tree is a tree, a field is a field, a painiting is a painting, a photo is a photo.................................. Do you see where I am going here??

I'm going to change the scope of discussion from "what do you think art is" to "why do you take photographs anyway?" as that interests me slightly more and it might feed into "why would you do a distinction anyway"....

I would also add that a tree is a dwelling place; a source of shelter, a source of raw materials and in specialised cases a source of Christmas decorations.

Covey

Ballyman wrote: »

I don't have a definition.
A tree is a tree, a field is a field, a painiting is a painting, a photo is a photo.................................. Do you see where I am going here??

I see then taking that to it's logical conclusion, novels, poetry, plays are what they say on the tin, just that.

Speaking of acting and the like would that be why you've only a bit part on the fringes of Killinascully ?

CabanSail

Covey wrote: »

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) .

Which DCC Exhibition do you mean? We change the Gallery every few weeks & also have Exhibitions elsewhere.

elven wrote: »

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.

Once again I do not understand this. The process for the distinctions is set out and you comply to that process for that end. That does not limit you in any other areas of your photography. If some people feel that is the only stuff they want to do then that is up to them. Personally I liked the challenge of doing the LIPF and am glad I did so. I also enjoy putting work forward for competitions and have learned a lot from it. What I don't do is go out taking photographs specifically for those ends. Most of what I take will not be seen by many people at all but I still like it, some I am taking with vague notions of where it will fit in projects in the future, most of what I take is taken just for the fun of doing so & without some ideal or purpose in mind.

I do find some of the twaddle that "artists" spew forth is what bores me more than people getting anal over techinical issues. I often think that many of them just take crud & then write fancy sentiments which justifies it as being something it's not.