# Dunning Kruger Effect: Why Insecure People Can’t Take Good Photos



## 9VIII (Apr 14, 2018)

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/04/10/why-bad-photographers-think-theyre-good

So there’s this video doing the rounds right now, apparently a lot of people think it explains something about the psychology of photographers, and it may, but it doesn’t reveal what most of the commenters posting about it think that it does.
There’s no need to watch the video, the premise of applying the Dunning-Kruger effect to Photography is ludicrous.

At the core of the medium, photography is _almost_ nothing but subjective opinion.
Yes, there are people who can’t get the right exposure, those people who lack the most basic technical familiarity with a camera may be frustrated by the methods of getting a decent exposure.
Beyond that, the whole of the medium is a level playing field. There is no right, there is no wrong, there is no best photograph and there is no photographer with any more or less talent than any other photographer.
A huge print that took dozens of hours of preparation and post processing and sells for a million dollars in a world famous art gallery has no more inherent value than the millions (billions?) of cat pictures flooding the Internet.
The satisfaction of the creator is the ultimate definition of success.

If you didn’t get it right, you may need a bit of practice reading the exposure meter, but looking at comments around the Internet today virtually no-one is talking about basic mechanical competancy in regard to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

What people are pointing out is how dependent they are on outside opinion for self assurance.

If someone else likes your photograph, that’s great, but it actually doesn’t change the value of an image. It may cost you money if you need to sell an image, but if you’re happy with something, it is good.
Consumers of your content will form their own opinions. Good, bad, or indifferent, the opinion of another person only tells you how to cater to the opinions of other people, it says absolutely nothing about the intrinsic value of a given image.

Intent and Execution is all that matters unless you _let_ outside opinion influence how you feel about your work.
If you’re constantly looking for affirmation then you’re probably going to be constantly disappointed. Sooner or later every image will be criticized negatively.
“I think all your photos suck.” There, everyone reading this has had the whole of their work negatively criticized. Are you a worse photographer than you thought you were? If you let outside negativity influence your perspective of your work, then yes.
Trying to apply the Dunning-Kruger effect to photography is a self defeating exercise.
If you know what you like then no amount of criticism can change the quality of your photography. Your picture is perfect the moment you deem it so.
The most creative people will awlays have a thirst to learn and do more, it’s good to question what you know and how you do things, but your satisfaction with yourself will always be the ultimate test.


----------



## slclick (Apr 14, 2018)

Yet so many famous artists are depressed and socially awkward. Good points yet I agree to disagree.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 14, 2018)

When I was in college I bought a Yeshiva rangefinder camera and started taking color slides. Slides are unforgiving, so you have to get the composition and exposure and focus right in the first place, so it was a good learning process for me, plus I took many pictures that I still think are among my best.

There was a group of five or six of my friends who compounded the unforgiving nature of slides by insisting to see every slide in the roll just as I first saw them. If there ever was any chance to cull rejects, I never took it as best I can recall. They were people who were from a variety of disciplines many of which required artistic sensibilities, anyway. They were merciless in their critiques, though some comments sounded more like compliments than the speaker meant: "We can see pictures like that in the _National Geographic_." Or they would say in one way or another that a picture was merely pretty. Scathing, right? I loved it, and they took my work very seriously. That made me learn and grow, and I felt that dabbling in a visual art was a bit like cross training for my real art, about which I felt more insecure.

Every now and then one of them will make a comment in email, like the recent one that began, "That reminds me of the picture Steve took of . . ." and then went on to mention a picture from more than 40 years ago that he probably hadn't seen more than once since, if then.


----------



## dak723 (Apr 14, 2018)

Didn't know there was a thing called the Dunning Kruger effect. Didn't know you needed a fancy name for something that is totally obvious for pretty much every creative endeavor. As the painter Degas is famous for saying, "Painting is easy when you don't know how, but very difficult when you do." 

I didn't watch the video, but read the article. Seems pretty basic - when you first begin any creative activity, you don't have enough experience or enough knowledge to accurately critique your own work. Many, therefore think they are having better results than they actually are. Beginning artists are always ready to frame their latest work or are asking questions on how to sell, when more experienced artists looking at the work understand that it is still a beginner's work. Experienced artists notice this when looking at their earlier efforts - they see mistakes and aspects that could have been done better - but they couldn't see it at that earlier time because they just didn't know enough. Photography, creative writing, and other creative efforts should be no different. My guess is that pretty much every one with years of experience in a creative pursuit will experience that similar learning curve where their early work was well overestimated!

I didn't see anything in that article or the explanation of the Dunning Kruger effect that relates to insecurity or the title of this thread. Perhaps I missed something.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 14, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Didn't know there was a thing called the Dunning Kruger effect. Didn't know you needed a fancy name for something that is totally obvious for pretty much every creative endeavor.



Some things which seem totally obvious turn out to be false, or at least not entirely true. When someone who identifies as an artist observes some "truth" about the world, they may paint a picture, write a novel or chisel some rock to illustrate their view of this "truth." Science, though imperfect, takes the view that an observed "truth" is simply a hypothesis to be tested. Dunning and Kruger get credit for this not because they came up with the idea that this might be true, but because they did the scientific work needed to demonstrate the degree and circumstances of its truth.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 14, 2018)

I thought this was a coffee maker.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 14, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I didn't see anything in that article or the explanation of the Dunning Kruger effect that relates to insecurity or the title of this thread. Perhaps I missed something.



Most people confuse “saleable” with “quality”, when in reality the two are almost totally unrelated, and “quality” in this case is entirely subjective anyway.
There is actually no basis for saying that anyone “improves” as a photographer, you just change your opinion of things over time.
Fundamentally the only way to take a “bad photo” is to critique yourself. The rest is semantics.


----------



## BillB (Apr 14, 2018)

9VIII said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't see anything in that article or the explanation of the Dunning Kruger effect that relates to insecurity or the title of this thread. Perhaps I missed something.
> ...



Well, the title asks why insecure people can't take good good photos. The Dunning Kruger effect says that insecure people don't think their photos are any good, or at least no better than anybody else's, which seems to me to imply that there is a meaningful basis for deciding what is good and what is not. You have been posting that the assessment of photographic quality is completely subjective, which seems to me reject a main premise of the Dunning Kruger effect.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 14, 2018)

The video is quite good, actually. What is really bad is the OP's rant



9VIII said:


> ...the whole of the medium is a level playing field. There is no right, there is no wrong, there is no best photograph and there is no photographer with any more or less talent than any other photographer.
> A huge print that took dozens of hours of preparation and post processing and sells for a million dollars in a world famous art gallery has no more inherent value than the millions (billions?) of cat pictures flooding the Internet.
> 
> The satisfaction of the creator is the ultimate definition of success.



Sorry, but you could not be more wrong if you tried. 

Indeed, you have epitomized exactly what is so wrong with so much of western culture today. The coddling, affirmation-obsessed culture that gives equal validity to all opinions and viewpoints, no matter how amateurish they may be. Where we are expected to reward effort rather than results. 

The world is full of mediocrity and to suggest that the only judge of quality is the individual is just silly. 

Sure, if photography is simply a hobby to you and you are satisfied with thinking your work is of equal quality to that of great photographers, that's okay. You would be wrong, but in that grand scheme of things, it's probably a harmless delusion. 

But, the point of the video is that many people take photography seriously and view it as a journey toward achieving something of real quality. In every field, the best in the field constantly strive to improve their work. The video simply points out that beginners are programmed to think themselves better than they are because it gives them the boost they need at the start to keep trying and learning. As people gain more skills they become more critical of their own work, which in turn motivates them to improve. Finally, the very lucky and very talented reach a level where they are reasonably confident in their skills but still strive to outperform themselves.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 14, 2018)

unfocused said:


> The video is quite good, actually. What is really bad is the OP's rant
> 
> 
> 
> ...



False dichotomy. 

The fact that it's subjective does not mean we give equal praise to all effort. All works of art have context; consider, for example Orthodox Christian ikons: their poor anatomical proportions, lack of perspective, and idealized subject matter would be laughable today. Yet, in their time, they were something of great artistic value. What would happen if you were to show the work of Picasso or Dali, or even Monet, to Leonardo or Michelangelo? Can we possibly know how they would be received by those artists? Many people praised the work of Andy Warhol, but I see nothing of value there -- to me he is that mediocrity you disparage.

While there is too much mediocrity out there, we don't know where future generations will find deep artistic intent and value.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## dak723 (Apr 14, 2018)

9VIII said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't see anything in that article or the explanation of the Dunning Kruger effect that relates to insecurity or the title of this thread. Perhaps I missed something.
> ...



Everyone, of course, is entitled to their own opinion. If you don't believe people improve at photography as they become more knowledgeable and experienced, feel free. I think you are trying hard to be really deep. That's OK, too. But, there seems to be no doubt among those of us who aren't trying to be philosophers, that experience and gaining knowledge leads leads to improvement in photography, painting, writing, woodworking, cooking, driving, or basically any activity.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 14, 2018)

BillB said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



No, there is no meaningful basis of deciding what is good, that’s made up by every individual first, and then social collectives.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 14, 2018)

unfocused said:


> The video is quite good, actually. What is really bad is the OP's rant
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is your basis in claiming the existence of mediocrity? You have nothing but your own opinion and common opinion!
The qualification of “Good” and “Bad” in photography is truly a mental construct.

In this case, the quest of the “expert” to better oneself is truly the delusion (barring the basic ablility to reach the desired exposure, which definitely can take some time to reach a feeling of natural proficiency).


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 14, 2018)

dak723 said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



The only activity you’ve listed that isn’t totally subjective is driving. We have speeding tickets and a wrecked car is a very objective definition of failure.
Again, there is “some” very basic amount of objectivity, if you drop your camera in the water, that is definitely a failure to take pictures.

Good composition in photographs is utterly subjective.

“there seems to be no doubt among those of us who aren't trying to be philosophers”
Exactly, you’re just in denial.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 14, 2018)

I’ll simply reiterate my previous points. The video is worth a watch. The OP’s rant is utterly without merit.


----------



## Tyroop (Apr 15, 2018)

> Didn't know there was a thing called the Dunning Kruger effect.



Really? It's been all over the Internet for a while now, a term often used with the name of the current POTUS.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 15, 2018)

Tyroop said:


> > Didn't know there was a thing called the Dunning Kruger effect.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? It's been all over the Internet for a while now, a term often used with the name of the current POTUS.



It is such a profound piece of science that Kruger and Dunning were awarded an Ig Nobel Prize in 2000.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 15, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I’ll simply reiterate my previous points. The video is worth a watch. The OP’s rant is utterly without merit.



The reason we see so much backlash from people like this is that they spend years developing a "style" and justify their efforts by pretending the results have objective value, when in reality that is a self deception.
The idea of objectivity in Art is just another case of The Emperor's New Clothes.
And worse, when you have a bunch of "experts" pretending to pass on "expert" knowledge to beginners for a fee, what you end up with is effectively a Ponzi scheme.
"Experts" take money for their "expert" advice, only to justify and perpetuate that mindset in the newcomer that their advice will some day hold similar value, when in light of time and the inevitable change of culture, everything you "know" about photography now is ultimately meaningless.


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Apr 15, 2018)

This has been a fun thread to read and think about. Being a musician, I'm going to steal a quote from Igor Stravinsky and say that photographers capture photons, that's all. 

A photograph is merely an insignificant number of photons captured over an insignificant amount of time. It inherently has no meaning or value, which is placed on it by the viewer. As an example, I showed one of the finalists of the Word Press photography awards to my family. Their response was a collective "so what" because it's a bland photo of a common bird. But we lived in Unalaska (Dutch Harbor) where bald eagles are as common as gulls. However, someone placed value and meaning onto the photograph, submitted it, and it became a finalist in a competition.


----------



## zim (Apr 15, 2018)

9VIII said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I’ll simply reiterate my previous points. The video is worth a watch. The OP’s rant is utterly without merit.
> ...



That's how I feel about exams and qualifications for any of the 'arts' delusional and meaningless.

.... And camera clubs


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Apr 15, 2018)

zim said:


> That's how I feel about exams and qualifications for any of the 'arts' delusional and meaningless.
> 
> .... And camera clubs



Mostly true. My wife skipped grad school for a music comp degree because she didn't want to become a copy of whoever she studied under. However, she needed the foundation of undergrad school to master the theory. 

I steer clear of any of "club" based on some hierarchy of greatness. I look for a community of practice where all members have an equal and valid point of view, even if they are trumpet playing Nikon users


----------



## Otara (Apr 15, 2018)

Photography has a subjective aspect in judging quality, but we are generally still aiming for 'something', whether its more keepers, better framing, more unusual aspects, more consistent style or whatever. 

The simplest thing to take away is the idea of looking at our old pictures and using this concept to see its a _good_ thing if you feel they're worse in some way than your current ones, because its means you've progressed in whatever way you wanted to progress.

But if you're happy with whatever youre doing, then yep thats all that matters, the self appointed 'photography police' arent very important, and I suspect those are the people you're critiquing rather than the effect itself.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 15, 2018)

OP, are you in a creative rut? Has your work been consistently panned?

Why else would you believe art is meaningless? For that is the essence of your C- essay.


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 15, 2018)

The original and subsequent follow-up posts, to me, read almost like a lawyer laying out that his client "doesn't suck" and here's why "legally" you can never prove he does.


----------



## LDS (Apr 15, 2018)

AlanF said:


> It is such a profound piece of science that Kruger and Dunning were awarded an Ig Nobel Prize in 2000.



Maybe their research and paper were due to the Kruger-Dunning effect? ;D


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 15, 2018)

AuroraChaserDoug said:


> I'm going to steal a quote from Igor Stravinsky and say that photographers capture photons, that's all.



How about Debussy, the image is the blank space between the photons?


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 15, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Tyroop said:
> 
> 
> > > Didn't know there was a thing called the Dunning Kruger effect.
> ...


Alan, I understand you do hard science, but there's value in social science, when done properly (too often not the case). BTW, the Ig Nobels don't merely (dis)honor bad science, they also call attention to legit science that has some humor value. From their web site:



> The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative — and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 15, 2018)

One point needs to be made clear, I am in no way refuting the validity of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I am pointing out that it’s impossible to apply it to something that inherently has no objective measure of progress.
Dunning-Kruger requires the ability to track progress, photography has no such method.
And again, I have constantly affirmed that Dunning-Kruger is very real in the sense of someone practicing the skills of reading exposiure, and I’ll add that one of the reasons I love manual focus lenses is it adds another element of skill to photography, but the pictures themselves can only be meaningful to me or anyone else for a fleeting moment, and that meaning is different for everyone.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 15, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> OP, are you in a creative rut? Has your work been consistently panned?
> 
> Why else would you believe art is meaningless? For that is the essence of your C- essay.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 15, 2018)

9VIII said:


> https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/04/10/why-bad-photographers-think-theyre-good
> 
> So there’s this video doing the rounds right now, apparently a lot of people think it explains something about the psychology of photographers, and it may, but it doesn’t reveal what most of the commenters posting about it think that it does.
> There’s no need to watch the video, the premise of applying the Dunning-Kruger effect to Photography is ludicrous.



From your rant it seems you are conflating two things: competence and affirmation. 

Photography is a subjective medium but it still has its technical aspects that you may arrive at by learning or by luck. Which is why you have a boatload of Uncle Bobs who think they can take a photo as good a wedding photo as any professional and cannot understand why a professional charges hundreds or thousands of dollars and tells their family members they are fools to pay it. The difference is that a professional with their technical knowledge is more likely to get you a worthwhile photo irrespective of conditions or location.

People seeking affirmation from posting on the internet is a different thing and nothing to do with the Dunning Krueger effect, which is about the person's opinion of their own abilities - I think a lot (most?) of us at some time have critiqued a photo only for the poster to hurl abuse and make it clear that despite posting in the 'critique' section all they want is people to say 'nice shot'.

If you post is criticising people's misunderstanding of the D-K effect, I agree. But that is not what I get from what you wrote. In fact, the original video is nothing to do with 'insecure' photographers but is about 'bad' photographers - two completely different things. So even your own thread title is confusing.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 15, 2018)

Interesting topic. I, like many, am an individual who is both concerned about what others think and also inclined to say, "it's their problem". A bit of a perfectionist when I detect that good or great output is within my capability. I tend to become driven but what I produce is only ever "pretty good". As Mike says, there is lots to learn and the best way not to learn is to get in a huff when your work is criticized honestly or even unfairly.

There is great satisfaction in seeing progress unless you're only interested in mediocrity. The progress can be hard for an outsider to recognize but a sincere individual can perceive it and it provides motivation to do better. Surely, not many people believe that their only purpose in life is to satisfy themselves and not care about what others think, so for me it's a balance between the two.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Apr 15, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Tyroop said:
> ...



Ig Noble prizes are awarded by far the most frequently to the hard sciences - see https://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2018 - and most of them are for the laughter and not for thought provocation. Eg VW got the prize for Chemistry for their work on diesel emissions. One of my friends got one for levitating a frog in a magnetic field.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 15, 2018)

9VIII said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > OP, are you in a creative rut? Has your work been consistently panned?
> ...



Politely questioning your frame of mind is not a personal attack. A grade of C- isn't a personal attack either.

Several others in this thread have already pointed out the silliness of your original post.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 15, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/04/10/why-bad-photographers-think-theyre-good
> ...



Right, and thus in the future the best wedding photographers will be robots.

That's not what people are talking about when they try to apply Dunning-Kruger to photography.




Mikehit said:


> People seeking affirmation from posting on the internet is a different thing and nothing to do with the Dunning Krueger effect, which is about the person's opinion of their own abilities - I think a lot (most?) of us at some time have critiqued a photo only for the poster to hurl abuse and make it clear that despite posting in the 'critique' section all they want is people to say 'nice shot'.
> 
> If you post is criticising people's misunderstanding of the D-K effect, I agree. But that is not what I get from what you wrote. In fact, the original video is nothing to do with 'insecure' photographers but is about 'bad' photographers - two completely different things. So even your own thread title is confusing.



The contention is with the premise of an objective aesthetic style, which fundamentally cannot exist.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 15, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Giving a negative rating to the original post is a personal attack.

Giving any rating at all, positive or negative, is just a tactic to distract from the discussion.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 15, 2018)

The longer I get into photography the more I believe there is no possible way of measuring whether a photograph is good or not.
People may like one sort of photography and dislike another but whether its good or not is unknown.
I am studying for a degree in photography and its opened up a completely new world of photography when most of what might be considered good photography by the general public (nice landscapes, colourful photographs, beautiful model shots) would be considered completely cliche and unworthy of study or interest.
It terms of academic photography I would think insecure people would take the most relevant photographs in Contemporary Photography. They view the world differently and show a less perfect world.
I must admit I do like looking at beautiful photographs on 500px but I would conclude they are completely meaningless like a sort of photographic candyfloss, beautiful at the time but instantly forgettable and overly sweet.


----------



## LDS (Apr 15, 2018)

9VIII said:


> "Experts" take money for their "expert" advice, only to justify and perpetuate that mindset in the newcomer that their advice will some day hold similar value, when in light of time and the inevitable change of culture, everything you "know" about photography now is ultimately meaningless.



Many great artists had great teachers, others didn't. Some find mastering the craft easy, others have to learn. Sure, there are also many "teachers" and "experts" who will just try to make money, and the internet let them make a lot through a wider audience, and there are bad teachers as well - you have to avoid them.

But there were and there are also great teachers - and they don't expect their students to think like them. Just look at Bernd and Hilla Becher at Kunstakademie Düsseldorf...


----------



## LDS (Apr 15, 2018)

AuroraChaserDoug said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > That's how I feel about exams and qualifications for any of the 'arts' delusional and meaningless.
> ...



While exams and qualifications won't certify anybody being an artist, you may need a plan B in your life. If you artistic career goes nowhere, exams and qualifications may help to find a better paid job (teacher, curator, editor, etc.), unless you already have other skills and qualifications that allows you to earn a decent living. And even when you study to get them, nothing hinders you to follow your inspiration and developing your style.

I've seen art schools dropouts ending to work as supermarket cashier or in tattoos shops.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 15, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


Isn't it? Have you asked them? Which comes back to my point about...what is your point? That the video is wrong or peoples' interpretation of it is wrong? 
I am not sure if you don't yourself understand what the D-K effect is about or if you ware saying people critiquing the video don't know. 




9VIII said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > People seeking affirmation from posting on the internet is a different thing and nothing to do with the Dunning Krueger effect, which is about the person's opinion of their own abilities - I think a lot (most?) of us at some time have critiqued a photo only for the poster to hurl abuse and make it clear that despite posting in the 'critique' section all they want is people to say 'nice shot'.
> ...


In that case it is you missing the point of the video: which makes it interesting that you told people they did not need to watch it, just take your word that your interpretation is correct - in a way is the very embodiment of that the video is about  .
The video is about the basic photographic competence which is independent of what the photographer is trying to get across. Photography, as any art, is about communicating an idea and no matter how subjective the output is, it takes a competence to communicate that. I liken this to Ansel Adams' observation that there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept: knowing how to get the concept across is about competence in the medium.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 16, 2018)

Camera club competitions - I have never understood those. Project anonymized images at a rate of four per minute, discard half, project remaining images, discard half, etc until there is a rank order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Judge of the competition doesn't comment on images or on criteria he considered important. 

I don't get to learn from others' mistakes, I don't get to debate criteria, I don't know who shot interesting but technically imperfect images, I don't know anything about the context of the images, I don't get to know individual members' interests or anything else about them. Socially, it's a dud.

Biggest waste of time - when I attended that club, I would exit after the guest talk, before the competition, using excuse "must get to bed, I have an early day ahead". (True. Competitions would drag on to 10:00 PM sometimes. Most of the attendees are retired and don't need to be coherent at 7:00 AM.).

Many or most amateur photographers are not in it to become acknowledged as excellent at a genre of photography, they merely want family and community photos, proof of bird sighting (or way to ID bird definitively), snaps of something they'd like to own or copy for decorating their house, ID that flower, etc. A proportion of the above "many or most amateur photographers shooting for own satisfaction" like to improve their craft, because it is interesting to work on skills and on communicating ideas.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 16, 2018)

NancyP said:


> Camera club competitions - I have never understood those. Project anonymized images at a rate of four per minute, discard half, project remaining images, discard half, etc until there is a rank order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Judge of the competition doesn't comment on images or on criteria he considered important.
> 
> I don't get to learn from others' mistakes, I don't get to debate criteria, I don't know who shot interesting but technically imperfect images, I don't know anything about the context of the images, I don't get to know individual members' interests or anything else about them. Socially, it's a dud.
> 
> ...



Fortunately (phew!), our town's camera club is nothing like this. We enter statewide competitions, but we never compete within the club. We display up to eight images per person at our monthly meeting, open comments, brief description. Mostly still lifes, some birds, landscapes. Majority of members are terrified of taking pics of human beings! Some field trips, but not nearly enough. A wide range of skill levels, but friendly most of the time, informative, and a good place to make friends. Mostly retired folk, yes, but a few college students and people who have flexible working schedules.

But I can imagine there are many variations of the "camera club," some not so nice.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 16, 2018)

9VIII said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



If you aren't kidding, if you truly believe this, then you are half way to solving your issue! You conflate ratings with personal attacks, so you recoil from ratings. If you reject ratings, you likely reject many judgements of value, even those which have become the norms of a craft. 

Here's an example. A car might be painted sufficiently to protect it from rust, but if there are brush marks, thumb prints, bristles trapped in paint, lumps, grapefruit effects, some color smears...Would you say that the paint job is equal to all other paint jobs that protect the car from rust? Could any paint job be called "better" than such a paint job?

Did you believe grades in schools, if not "A," were personal attacks?

(BTW, I am quite certain you are pulling our legs just to keep a discussion going.)


----------



## unfocused (Apr 16, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> ...I am studying for a degree in photography and its opened up a completely new world of photography when most of what might be considered good photography by the general public (nice landscapes, colourful photographs, beautiful model shots) would be considered completely cliche and unworthy of study or interest...
> 
> ...I must admit I do like looking at beautiful photographs on 500px but I would conclude they are completely meaningless like a sort of photographic candyfloss, beautiful at the time but instantly forgettable and overly sweet...



I would highly recommend "Beauty in Photography" by Robert Adams and published by Aperture. Adams is one of the most poetic essayists in photography. He is also a very respected photographer in the art world. In fact he was one of a handful of photographers selected for the groundbreaking "New Topographics" exhibition at the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona back in the 1970s. He is also a defender of beauty as worthy of artistic merit, although not necessarily of the 500px variety. 

Reading his work is thought provoking and incredibly enjoyable at the same time.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 16, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> I am studying for a degree in photography and its opened up a completely new world of photography when most of what might be considered good photography by the general public (nice landscapes, colourful photographs, beautiful model shots) would be considered completely cliche and unworthy of study or interest.
> 
> ...
> 
> I must admit I do like looking at beautiful photographs on 500px but I would conclude they are completely meaningless like a sort of photographic candyfloss, beautiful at the time but instantly forgettable and overly sweet.



To paraphrase Paul McCartney, _

Some people want to fill the world
With beautiful photographs
And what's wrong with that?
I'd like to know
Cos here I go again


_


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 16, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Camera club competitions - I have never understood those. Project anonymized images at a rate of four per minute, discard half, project remaining images, discard half, etc until there is a rank order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Judge of the competition doesn't comment on images or on criteria he considered important.
> ...



And ours is different again - for internal club competitions every image is viewed, critiqued and marked by the judge. Mind you, our is a relatively small club.
I have heard so many variants on how clubs work that it is a fool's errand to generalise in the way Nancy did.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



A school teacher’s job is to critique students, and by attending it is implied that the student is asking for critique.
You are neither a teacher nor is this a school, your posts serve no purpose but to distract from the conversation. Your behavior here is clearly intended to be disruptive.

Even more ironic is that you are conflating things that were clearly defined in the OP.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...




First, it sounds like you never actually read the OP.



9VIII said:


> If you didn’t get it right, you may need a bit of practice reading the exposure meter, but looking at comments around the Internet today virtually no-one is talking about basic mechanical competancy in regard to the Dunning-Kruger effect.






Mikehit said:


> Photography, as any art, is about communicating an idea...



Oh Really?



Mikehit said:


> and no matter how subjective the output is, it takes a competence to communicate that.



Oh Really?

In the end the most OOF, poorly framed and technically horrid image can be defined as perfection, there is no way to invalidate that as long as the creative person is satisfied.

But again, I’m just repeating what has already been said in the OP.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 16, 2018)

9VIII said:


> First, it sounds like you never actually read the OP.



I did...and I have re-read it. 



> There’s no need to watch the video, the premise of applying the Dunning-Kruger effect to Photography is ludicrous.
> ...
> Trying to apply the Dunning-Kruger effect to photography is a self defeating exercise.



I disagree. 



> The satisfaction of the creator is the ultimate definition of success.



Is it? 
I want to take an image that reminds of my holiday. I can do that easily
I want to take an image that expresses my feeling. I take that image and I feel it does. I succeeded.
I want to take an image that communicates my feelings to other people. I like the image but if that image does not evoke the emotion I want it to evoke, it has failed
I want to take an image that satisfies my client's requirements. I like the image but if that image does not satisfy their requirements it has failed. 



> What people are pointing out is how dependent they are on outside opinion for self assurance.



That is not what the D-K effect is about, which is why I wonder if you understand it. The type of affirmation you talk about may entrench the D-K effect but it is not what D-K is about.
And yes, you can separate the artisitic and the technical/mechanical.




> A huge print that took dozens of hours of preparation and post processing and sells for a million dollars in a world famous art gallery has no more inherent value than the millions (billions?) of cat pictures flooding the Internet.


Intrinsic value is irrelevant to the D-K effect. 




> There is no right, there is no wrong, there is no best photograph and there is no photographer with any more or less talent than any other photographer.



Is that what you believe or is that what you think other people are saying. I am still not quite sure. Either way, it is bull. 




> In the end the most OOF, poorly framed and technically horrid image can be defined as perfection,


The most OOF image _can be _defined as perfection if that is what the photographer intended.



> “I think all your photos suck.” There, everyone reading this has had the whole of their work negatively criticized. Are you a worse photographer than you thought you were? If you let outside negativity influence your perspective of your work, then yes.



What you seem to be saying is that a wedding photographer only needs to rely on his own perception of himself to know he is a great wedding photographer. Odd, really because that is precisely what the D-K effect is about.
Imagine a self-important neophyte thinks he knows it all and does his first wedding. Blows highlights on the dress, chops heads and feet off and the couple criticise him as a bad job. He ignores that comment which means he remains a great wedding photographer and moves blissfully onto the next jon. He takes it on board which means he isn't a great photographer but strives to be one. To you, both positions are right: you are applying Heisenberg's uncertainty to have two mutually exclusive positions yet refuse the possibility of ever resolving it (and even Heisenberg's allowed for someone to open the box) .


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> > What people are pointing out is how dependent they are on outside opinion for self assurance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, just, wow.
To repeat all of my major points in your own words, and try to say it refutes my original post, is quite an accomplishment.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2018)

It’s an equally amazing feat to keep butchering the context so thoroughly.


Take this:



Mikehit said:


> > The satisfaction of the creator is the ultimate definition of success.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Apply this statement...


Mikehit said:


> > What people are pointing out is how dependent they are on outside opinion for self assurance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





...but in its full original context:



9VIII said:


> What people are pointing out is how dependent they are on outside opinion for self assurance.
> 
> If someone else likes your photograph, that’s great, but it actually doesn’t change the value of an image. It may cost you money if you need to sell an image, but if you’re happy with something, it is good.
> Consumers of your content will form their own opinions. Good, bad, or indifferent, the opinion of another person only tells you how to cater to the opinions of other people, it says absolutely nothing about the intrinsic value of a given image.



And all your questions are answered.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2018)

You’ve even defeated yourself on the only point of contention that you do bring up (and even then you give no argument), with your own following statement.



Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > There is no right, there is no wrong, there is no best photograph and there is no photographer with any more or less talent than any other photographer.
> ...



It’s really an amazing bit of mental gymnastics.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 16, 2018)

9VIII said:


> You’ve even defeated yourself on the only point of contention that you do bring up (and even then you give no argument), with your own following statement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not really. 
you made a general comment



> In the end the most OOF, poorly framed and technically horrid image can be defined as perfection,



Again, you were ambiguous so I was trying to be more specific in that if the photographers intended it to be OOF, then an OOF image can be 'perfection'. If it is OOF because of an error then not necessarily.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > You’ve even defeated yourself on the only point of contention that you do bring up (and even then you give no argument), with your own following statement.
> ...



As long as it does not affect the artist’s opinion of the work it has no impact on quality.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 16, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Which is precisely what the D-K effect is about (seeing as you talked about quality).


----------



## stevelee (Apr 16, 2018)

I suggest reading _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_ to help get you thinking about quality if that is of interest.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 16, 2018)

9VIII said:


> https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/04/10/why-bad-photographers-think-theyre-good
> 
> So there’s this video doing the rounds right now, apparently a lot of people think it explains something about the psychology of photographers, and it may, but it doesn’t reveal what most of the commenters posting about it think that it does.
> There’s no need to watch the video, the premise of applying the Dunning-Kruger effect to Photography is ludicrous.
> ...



Somehow I fail to see why you cannot see why you are wrong.


----------



## Talys (Apr 16, 2018)

The title, "Dunning Kruger Effect: Why Insecure People Can’t Take Good Photos" is somewhat poor.

It would be better titled (and less controversial) if it read, "Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why new photographers have a hard time improving their craft."

The chart is absolutely accurate, and I'll be the first to admit that I've been guilty of it too, not just in photography but other trades/hobbies as well. As I start with something, I think, "hey, that's pretty good" and then overestimate my competence, partly because gaining competence at the low end is very easy and improvements come rapidly. Also, I can buy my way out of trouble sometimes.

At some point, it becomes much more difficult to improve, and then I realize the vastness of what is yet to be learned, and as I become more critical of my own work and more appreciative of how far short it comes of other work, I am floored by how much further I have to go!

What should be additionally noted, though, is:

- In different hobbies/trades, the distribution and shape of the curve of poor ability versus expert varies dramatically.

- There are some things that only take hundreds of hours to become nearly expert in; others that take a lifetime.

- In some hobbies/trades, tools matter very little; in others, a lot more. I think photography is in the middle (some aspects are quite tool-dependent, others much less so).

- Sometimes, spending a lot of money on a tool will actually spur improvement, not because the tool makes much of a difference, but because I want to make use of something that I spent a lot of money on, and hey, practice makes better.

For me, I guess I've gotten past the hump where I have illusions of being great at photography, and have not progressed beyond the bottom of realizing how far yet I must go, lol lol. 

For some other things that I'm much better at than photography, I totally understand how experts -- for example, those in the top hundredth of the top percentile -- underestimate their skill level. Part of the problem is that absent serious narcissism, it's hard to not see other extremely skilled and talented people who you feel are perhaps better than you -- who may view you the same way. Another is that "skill level" at the top end is often subjective; and finally, that skills at the top end of any trade or craft can be very difficult to improve.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 16, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Somehow I fail to see why you cannot see why you are wrong.



I think the true answer is "trolling." The form it is taking here begins with posting a ludicrous opinion, then as the discussion begins there is the changing the goal posts, denying he wrote what he wrote, deliberate obfuscation, personal attacks and doubling down. 

I've spent too much time trying to figure out what his point is supposed to be and this is closest I can come:

Photographs have no intrinsic value, therefore all photographs are of equal value. And, therefore the value of my photographs is whatever I think it is worth. So my photographs are worth as much as a photograph by, say, Ansel Adams. 

I'm sure there is a name for this particular type of fallacy, but I never took philosophy so I'm not sure what it is. 

It is true that almost nothing in this world has any intrinsic value. Gold, food, shelter, even a person's life – all of these things have value because society has determined that they have value. So naturally, art in general and photography specifically, has no intrinsic value.

So, one could say that since nothing has value, the intrinsic value of an Ansel Adams print and the intrinsic value of a 9VIII print is exactly the same: nothing. 

But, of course, while this may make a fine mental exercise, it's ridiculous in real life.

We live in societies and the value of everything in society is determined by markets. Gold has value because the market says it has value. An Ansel Adams print has value because society has set a value on the print. Human lives have value, because society gives them value. To an eagle, fish have value but gold does not. 

So, if your only interest is in satisfying yourself, you can say that your personal work is of greater value than Ansel Adams' work. However, that would not be the judgement of the rest of the world and since value is set by society, you would be wrong.

Somehow, 9VIII seems to think this sort of mental exercise can be extended to the claim that all social standards and expectations are meaningless and the only thing that matters is the personal opinion of the creator. But, it doesn't work that way. 

If you are content to simply enjoy your own work -- which there is nothing wrong with. Then you need only satisfy yourself. But, it would be delusional to claim that because you are satisfied, you have created a great work of art. Great works of art are great works of art because, for a variety of reasons, the market has selected them as great works of art. There are a many ways that great works of art rise to the top, but they do rise to the top. 

One generally accepted assumption is that a great work of art will transcend the medium and speak to larger truths, which are recognized by a substantial percentage of the population. Great art can be beautiful and soothing or it can be shocking and disturbing (Picasso's Guernica is a good example). It can scream, or it can whisper. In the case of photography, it can show Moonrise over Hernandez (Adams) or it can document mercury poisoning in Minamata (Smith) or, in rare cases, they can invent a new way of seeing that will influence generations that follow, while also exposing racism and other social injustice (Robert Frank's _The Americans_)

These are great works not because the photographers thought they were great, but because they are great in the judgement of most intelligent people. 

No doubt, 9VIII will simply double down, but I hope intelligent people won't be fooled by him.


Finally, be aware that nothing in 9VIII's rant has anything at all to do with the Dunning Kruger effect or the video about it. He was simply using that as an excuse to troll.


----------



## dak723 (Apr 16, 2018)

For anyone who believes that we can learn and improve our skills in various creative activities, then the position of the OP is impossible to argue with because they do not believe so.

This has nothing to do with the opinion of others, what is accepted as "good' or what sells or doesn't. Simply put, do we learn and improve our skills or not. I believe that most of us would say yes. To many, it seems so obvious that any alternative viewpoint seems absurd. 

But if you have that view, then that's your opinion and all the arguing won't change that.

Better to let the thread die as it is impossible to debate or argue when two such opposing views are presented.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 16, 2018)

I, for one, I'm glad that unfocused chimed in with refreshing lucidity and balance before we moved on from this thread. And I still believe the OP has been pulling our legs just to see how many pages we would go. Rascal!


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Somehow I fail to see why you cannot see why you are wrong.



I don't know why, but I feel like if you were to try to articulate what you see is wrong with my post we might actually be able to come to a better understanding.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2018)

dak723 said:


> For anyone who believes that we can learn and improve our skills in various creative activities, then the position of the OP is impossible to argue with because they do not believe so.
> 
> This has nothing to do with the opinion of others, what is accepted as "good' or what sells or doesn't. Simply put, do we learn and improve our skills or not. I believe that most of us would say yes. To many, it seems so obvious that any alternative viewpoint seems absurd.
> 
> ...




This may very well be the ultimate conclusion.
I should add though that I do not posit that people can't get better, but that their progress is entirely self measured and outside influences are actually irrelevant to the definition of progress.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 16, 2018)

9VIII said:


> I should add though that I do not posit that people can't get better, but that their progress is entirely self measured and outside influences are actually irrelevant to the definition of progress.



So if outside influences are irrelevant to the definition of progress, how do they know they are getting better? How do they know where and how they need to improve?


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2018)

unfocused said:


> If you are content to simply enjoy your own work -- which there is nothing wrong with. Then you need only satisfy yourself. But, it would be delusional to claim that because you are satisfied, you have created a great work of art. Great works of art are great works of art because, for a variety of reasons, the market has selected them as great works of art. There are a many ways that great works of art rise to the top, but they do rise to the top.
> 
> One generally accepted assumption is that a great work of art will transcend the medium and speak to larger truths, which are recognized by a substantial percentage of the population. Great art can be beautiful and soothing or it can be shocking and disturbing (Picasso's Guernica is a good example). It can scream, or it can whisper. In the case of photography, it can show Moonrise over Hernandez (Adams) or it can document mercury poisoning in Minamata (Smith) or, in rare cases, they can invent a new way of seeing that will influence generations that follow, while also exposing racism and other social injustice (Robert Frank's _The Americans_)
> 
> These are great works not because the photographers thought they were great, but because they are great in the judgement of most intelligent people.



The missing piece here is you think that my position is totally incompatible with practical living.
This might be the part that most needed clarification.

Self satisfaction is the only definition of success, but as soon as you make the desires of a third party part of your own definition of satisfaction, then the satisfaction of others is integral to your own.

If you never have the desire to satisfy others with your work then you are absolutely correct to claim every creative work that you are satisfied with as being absolutely equal to any other image.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I should add though that I do not posit that people can't get better, but that their progress is entirely self measured and outside influences are actually irrelevant to the definition of progress.
> ...



It's a false assumption to say that anything needs to improve.
If creative people decide that they need improvement, then they will find their own ways to improve and their own definitions for that improvement.
For one person, more Bokeh might be better, for another, less is better. This can be applied to all aspects of the image. All positions are equal.

I should reiterate what I said above, that it seems the element of confusion throughout this discussion in how self satisfying motives can apply while making images that please other people.
If you're not happy when other people aren't happy, then the desires of others become part of your personal satisfaction.
I'm sure that the thought of going hungry is a big part the motivation for many professionals.

It's important to remember though that societal trends in Art are utterly fluid. It is still impossible to create an objective formula for "good" Art.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 16, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



But that is the basis of the video that you say is irrelevant. you titled the thread "Why insecure people can't take good photos" but the title of the video is "why bad photographers think they're good" which is a completely different premise. You then base your whole argument on that misunderstanding. 

A person can be very happy with their work even though they are not very good. Some people will say 'I know I am not very good but I don;t care and my images satisfy me'. They do not want to improve (and I envy them in some ways  )
Some of them are not very good but believe they are as good as people who are better photographers. They maybe happy with what they are producing but as photographers they are not very good and there is a resistance to learning because they overestimate their competence and it is these people who the D-K effect is referring to. 
You seem to refuse to accept that you can separate personal satisfaction from technical competence. I can shoot 3,000 images in a day and one or two of them will be very good. A better photographer can increase that ratio. 





9VIII said:


> If creative people decide that they need improvement, then they will find their own ways to improve and their own definitions for that improvement.
> For one person, more Bokeh might be better, for another, less is better. This can be applied to all aspects of the image. All positions are equal.



I agree. 
But you talk again about 'improve' which, contrary to your statements, suggests there is a progression in competence. And the D-K effect is about people who overestimate that competence - the D-K effect is only relevant when they are communicating their competence to other people and as soon as they do that, their own personal satisfaction in their photos is no longer the key element of the discussion. 




9VIII said:


> I should reiterate what I said above, that it seems the element of confusion throughout this discussion in how self satisfying motives can apply while making images that please other people.
> If you're not happy when other people aren't happy, then the desires of others become part of your personal satisfaction.



I totally agree. But that is not what you have said over 4 pages. 
In your OP you made a simple statement that the D-K effect is irrelevant to photography. Yet your position here opens up the view that it has relevance when taking other peoples' views into consideration.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 17, 2018)

Things are only worth what somebody else is willing to pay if we are talking about $$$$. Otherwise, in the end as we take our last breaths, the only thing worth anything is life and the love we've received and given. After that your own body is worth nothing to you.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 17, 2018)

9VIII said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Somehow I fail to see why you cannot see why you are wrong.
> ...



Dunning-Kruger: In simple words it's "people who are too stupid to know how stupid they are". Thanks for making my point.

It has nothing to do with insecurity either. : People in that state are very secure in their stupidity and think they know more than everyone else.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 17, 2018)

9VIII said:


> The missing piece here is you think that my position is totally incompatible with practical living.



No, I think your position is incompatible with reality.



9VIII said:


> Self satisfaction is the only definition of success..



No it's not. Self-satisfaction is more frequently a detriment to success, not a facilitator of success.



9VIII said:


> ...but as soon as you make the desires of a third party part of your own definition of satisfaction, then the satisfaction of others is integral to your own.



You really don't understand creative arts do you? In the case of sponsored art (such as the Mona Lisa) the satisfaction of the client is one aspect, but it was certainly not the desire to please the client that led da Vinci to create a masterpiece. If he had merely wanted to give the client a picture that would satisfy, he could have knocked something out that would have been adequate but forgettable.

Robert Frank didn't set about to "satisfy" anyone, he set out to show Americans their country from a new viewpoint and to shake them out of their complacency and come to grips with racism and other problems. W. Eugene Smith didn't want to satisfy anyone, he wanted to expose the horrors of mercury poisoning. 

Diane Arbus wasn't trying to satisfy, she was interested in forcing viewers (and herself) to confront those that society recoiled from and forcing us to reflect on our own feelings toward people's physical appearances. 

Even a contemporary portraitist like Rineke Dijkstra isn't making her pictures to satisfy, but rather to challenge.

Even photographers like Edward Weston or Ansel Adams weren't seeking to satisfy, but rather to make images that spoke to the soul and, in Adams case, made statements about the importance of the natural world and its preservation.



9VIII said:


> If you never have the desire to satisfy others with your work then you are absolutely correct to claim every creative work that you are satisfied with as being absolutely equal to any other image.



That's quite the non-sequitur. I suppose anyone has the right to claim anything they want. But, just as you may claim to be able to fly, if you jump off a bridge you might find your reasoning flawed as you plunge to the ground.

Your grasp of photography strikes me as incredibly self-absorbed. You find it impossible to imagine any higher purpose to photography than simply satisfying one's own ego. At the same time, you want to denigrate anyone who views photography as a personal journey in search of excellence and mastery. I find your views not merely immature and self-centered, but as a said in my first post on this thread, they represent much of what has gone wrong in society today.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I should reiterate what I said above, that it seems the element of confusion throughout this discussion in how self satisfying motives can apply while making images that please other people.
> ...



At which point the skill in question is your ability to read other people and predict what they like. Dunning-Kruger is still not applied to photography in that case.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



It is a fundamental misunderstanding to think that Dunning-Kruger can be applied to art.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”




Mikehit said:


> A person can be very happy with their work even though they are not very good. Some people will say 'I know I am not very good but I don;t care and my images satisfy me'. They do not want to improve (and I envy them in some ways  )



No, there is simply no logical basis for anyone to say they have improved. There is only the personal validation that someone has achieved self appointed goals. Past works can only be deemed inferior if the artist wants them to be called inferior.




Mikehit said:


> Some of them are not very good but believe they are as good as people who are better photographers. They maybe happy with what they are producing but as photographers they are not very good



How do you define “good”?



Mikehit said:


> and there is a resistance to learning because they overestimate their competence



Competence at what?



Mikehit said:


> You seem to refuse to accept that you can separate personal satisfaction from technical competence. I can shoot 3,000 images in a day and one or two of them will be very good. A better photographer can increase that ratio.



Define “technical competence”.
You’re probably still conflating “art” with the skills of manipulating the machine called a “camera”. I’ve said it a dozen times now, that skill definitely applies to Dunning-Kruger, but the composition of a photograph cannot be given an objective measurement of value and cannot be applied to Dunnning Kruger.




Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > If creative people decide that they need improvement, then they will find their own ways to improve and their own definitions for that improvement.
> ...



Painting your car a different color can still be called an “improvement” while being utterly subjective.
Picking your favorite color is not something you practise and get better at, it’s just something you do for self gratification.


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 17, 2018)

I'm having flashbacks of Bill Clinton saying, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2018)

unfocused said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The missing piece here is you think that my position is totally incompatible with practical living.
> ...



And you have nothing but your opinion to support that.




unfocused said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Self satisfaction is the only definition of success..
> ...



“Success” is not monetary gain, it is the achievement of personal goals. That’s the case if every human endeavour. Some goals have physical limitations, like trying to maintain flight, we have an objective reality, gravity, holding us to that skill.
There is no equivalent to “gravity” in photography.




unfocused said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > ...but as soon as you make the desires of a third party part of your own definition of satisfaction, then the satisfaction of others is integral to your own.
> ...



There is still no basis for calling the Mona Lisa a “masterpiece” other than if the artist claimed it as such. If he didn’t then it wouldn’t even be right to call it that.
That painting could have just as likely been thrown in the trash along with his other “failed” paintings if he were in a bad enough mood one day.




unfocused said:


> Robert Frank didn't set about to "satisfy" anyone, he set out to show Americans their country from a new viewpoint and to shake them out of their complacency and come to grips with racism and other problems. W. Eugene Smith didn't want to satisfy anyone, he wanted to expose the horrors of mercury poisoning.
> 
> Diane Arbus wasn't trying to satisfy, she was interested in forcing viewers (and herself) to confront those that society recoiled from and forcing us to reflect on our own feelings toward people's physical appearances.
> 
> ...



And now you’re just conflating “art” with social commentary, which is no less subjective. With enough time any and all views held by anyone today will become irrelevant to the population in the future.




unfocused said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > If you never have the desire to satisfy others with your work then you are absolutely correct to claim every creative work that you are satisfied with as being absolutely equal to any other image.
> ...



Any purpose someone can come up with for their photograph will still be rooted in self satisfaction. Even spending your life spreading awareness for helpless people still does that, and indeed self gratification can easily become the primary motivator for a person involved in that kind of work.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I find your views not merely immature and self-centered, but as a said in my first post on this thread, they represent much of what has gone wrong in society today.



And your own views are just as much a problem with the amount of value you place on consensus in determining value. You are a slave to the ideologies of the masses.
You’re really quite self conflicted with how you hold value in “art” motivating social change and yet you still hold common opinion as a way of determining value that you want to call “objective”.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2018)

unfocused said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Somehow I fail to see why you cannot see why you are wrong.
> ...



And lastly, I have not moved any goalposts or denied anything from my Original Post. Everything I have written is logically consistent with the OP, meanwile almost every time someone tries to disagree their statements are full of strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, and self contradictions.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2018)

The basic premise stands:
Your photography is ultimately an expression of your own creativity, you are the only real source of authority on what is good in your photography.
When people try to apply Dunning-Kruger to their photography, all they accomplish is to bring doubt on their own preferences.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 17, 2018)

9VIII said:


> The basic premise stands...



It never stood in the first place, so repeating it doesn't make it true.


----------



## Talys (Apr 17, 2018)

9VIII said:


> The basic premise stands:
> Your photography is ultimately an expression of your own creativity, you are the only real source of authority on what is good in your photography.
> When people try to apply Dunning-Kruger to their photography, all they accomplish is to bring doubt on their own preferences.



I don't agree. 

Your premise is only true in the context of: "I only care about my own opinion. Nobody else's matters. Ergo, I am the only authority on what is good or bad." I suppose if you are POTUS 45 that holds in your personal delusion. 

There is the less narcisstic version: "I don't care about what others think about my photography. It makes me happy, and that all that matters." And that's fine, but just because you think chopping people off at the knees is cool doesn't mean that the rest of the world thinks so. 

From a professional perspective, saying "I'm the only judge of my work" is hogwash, because the only judge of your work that matters is your client, and whether they're willing to pay you, publish your work, hire you again or say nice things about you. If you think ultra-dramatic photos (high contrast between left and right sides) are awesome, go take a hundred headshots like that, and good luck getting paid.


----------



## sanj (Apr 17, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I thought this was a coffee maker.



Bwahhhhhh...... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 17, 2018)

9VIII said:


> It is a fundamental misunderstanding to think that Dunning-Kruger can be applied to art.
> “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”



You are talking about art merely as a finished item not including how you make it or how you pre-empt what it is you want to create.



> You’re probably still conflating “art” with the skills of manipulating the machine called a “camera”. I’ve said it a dozen times now, that skill definitely applies to Dunning-Kruger, but the composition of a photograph cannot be given an objective measurement of value and cannot be applied to Dunnning Kruger.


Again, you are misquoting the original video simply for sake of complaining. The video is not about 'art' but about 'photography. 

The original video: it was about photography and bad photographers
Your rant: "This video is about insecure photographers making art and I will show how it is totally wrong"

So in other words: "I accept there is a technical aspect to photography but because that does not fit my pre-formed idea that D-K is irrelevant to photography, I will ignore it."


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 17, 2018)

9VIII said:


> There is still no basis for calling the Mona Lisa a “masterpiece” other than if the artist claimed it as such. If he didn’t then it wouldn’t even be right to call it that.



WHAT?
The Mona Lisa was regarded as good but not a masterpiece until it was stolen in the early 20th century - the publicity catapulted it into the public consciousness. 
How many times does the value of a painting increase or decrease while arguments of its provenance wax and wane?
How many artists died destitute but whose paintings now sell for millions?

The idea that it is the artist alone who defines it as a masterpiece is laughable.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 17, 2018)

As a schoolboy, I defended the motion in a debating contest that: "The value of a work of art becomes apparent only at its auction". The ensuing debate convinced me never to take part in such discussions again. So, to quote Sam Goldwyn, include me out.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 17, 2018)

AlanF said:


> As a schoolboy, I defended the motion in a debating contest that: "The value of a work of art becomes apparent only at its auction". The ensuing debate convinced me never to take part in such discussions again. So, to quote Sam Goldwyn, include me out.



I remember a long discussion as a student on this, and one of my contemporaries was insistent that the 'worth' of an art piece was influenced by the suffering that the artist had experienced in his life. 
I was reminded of this recently when I read an article on how there is a lot of computer-generated music the people don't realise had no human intervention other than writing the program, and it is getting to a point where they can press a button for 'rock' or 'blues' or 'melancholy'.

I wonder how long before they reverse-engineer face/object recognition to do the same with painting.


----------



## Talys (Apr 17, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > As a schoolboy, I defended the motion in a debating contest that: "The value of a work of art becomes apparent only at its auction". The ensuing debate convinced me never to take part in such discussions again. So, to quote Sam Goldwyn, include me out.
> ...



I agree on the basic premise that things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. However, the question, though, isn't _worth_. It's whether people overestimate their skill in photography.

It may be hard to reach a consensus among many great photographs the best among judges, because this is a subjective evaluation,. But if you take an equal number of random photos out of flickr and add them to the mix, it will be easy for the panelist to come to agree on which half is _worse_.

That's because the expression that a great photograph has good composition and lighting, and captures a moment isn't just tripe. Sure, there is a subjective element as to one's favorite photo, but there are many ways to objectively point out, for example, if a portrait is poorly taken. If one is an budding photographer, there are many ways to self-evaluate each work and ask, "how could this photograph be better?"

It's also the job of a photographer to understand things like what emotions certain shapes confer, how to use perspective, how to use field skills to position oneself, how to choose interesting locations, or how to work with the subject to create something special. The ability to do this sort of thing describes "skill" as a photographer, as in, the ability to consistently create great photographs.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2018)

Talys said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



And none of that invalidates that the photographer is the final authority on what is good in their own photography.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2018)

As was suggested by another member a few pages back, the summary of the majority of the "debate" seen to this point is very simple:
Those who criticize the Original Post are incapable of understanding it because the basic premise violates the critic's fundamental understanding of the world.
Thus, the critics refuse to actually debate, and instead, even to the last post, re-phrase the whole thing in their own terms, or use blatant ignorance to cut the OP into pieces that they can refute on their own terms.

Almost all of the debate in ts thread is actually just people rejecting the original premise and trying to avoid discussing the real subject because actually debating the subject would put them in a state of cognitive dissonance.

Refusing to actually address the basic premise of an argument is one of the most common tactics used by people who just want to win a quick argument without bringing their own views into question.

These people are actually scared out of their wits to actually talk about the merits of artistic work outside of value in a communal setting, it's really interesting to see, and again it reinforces my premise that people often seek out "advice" unnecessarily just because they can't decide for themselves, or worse when people are not comfortable functioning fully autonomously for fear of criticism.
This mindset of fear is prolific and harmful to beginning photographers.

The Original Post still contains all the answers to every criticism that has been posted thus far (I'm not infallible so I won't deny I might have missed something, but if there is a valid criticism it wouldn't have been in one of the big puffed up posts).


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 17, 2018)

9VIII said:


> And none of that invalidates that the photographer is the final authority on what is good in their own photography.



And again you missed the point of the video.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 17, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Refusing to actually address the basic premise of an argument is one of the most common tactics used by people who just want to win a quick argument without bringing their own views into question.



And the basic premise of you OP is precisely what we are debating. We are not simply winning a quick argument we are putting forward valid reasons why we believe your OP is flawed. You interpret that as us just wanting to 'win a quick argument' - in other words 'you are simply wanting to win a quick argument, therefore your points are invalid therefore my original assumptions are sound'. 



9VIII said:


> These people are actually scared out of their wits to actually talk about the merits of artistic work


I have no problem discussing the merits of artistic work. It is just that is not what the video was about. 
You built a straw man then knocked it down - and when people point out you are tilting at the wrong windmill you accuse us of ignorance.



9VIII said:


> This mindset of fear is prolific and harmful to beginning photographers.



'fear'. Really?



9VIII said:


> The Original Post still contains all the answers to every criticism that has been posted thus far (I'm not infallible so I won't deny I might have missed something, but if there is a valid criticism it wouldn't have been in one of the big puffed up posts).



No it doesn't. 
Your thread title bears no relationship to the video you aimed at criticising. 
You concentrate on the artistic merits but that is not what the video is about
You reject any discussion about the technical merits of a photo - and that _is_ what the video was about. 

Perhaps you care to address those three points if you are intent on actually having a debate.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 17, 2018)

Mikehit, Talys, YuengLinger and Canon Fan Boy,

We've all tried to inject some rational thought into this discussion. Let's face it, we are being thwarted by a single troll who has no interest in an intelligent exchange of ideas. 

I'm ready to throw in the towel or alternatively, if any of you (or others on this forum) want to discuss the original topic intelligently, or even the nature of art, value of images, etc., I'm willing to join in that discussion with you, but I'm going to try as hard as I can to ignore the OP. 

I do think the Dunning Kruger effect is kind of an interesting topic, although it seems like pretty much common sense. In photography, initial success is fairly easy to achieve. That's especially true today with the improvements in cameras and the conversion to digital.

People who develop a passion for photography generally seem to move into the other stages, where they become dissatisfied with their own work and strive to improve it. That's a lifelong journey and one that many of us on this forum seem to share (along with a heavy dose of GAS). 

One thing I find interesting though is how frequently great artists peak at a fairly young age (not everyone, for sure). Ansel Adams (I can't find the exact quote) once basically admitted that his work in the 1930s was his best and everything after that he was repeating himself (I know I've butchered the quote but you get the idea.)

I think of many great artists (not just photographers) and find that a whole lot of people accomplish something great in their 20s or 30s and then don't really achieve much in the way of groundbreaking work after that. I wonder how that fits into this Dunning Kruger theory.

Anyway, I'm mostly trying to test the waters for an intelligent discussion, feeling that the rest of us should not feel trapped because the OP is incapable of engaging in an intelligent discussion.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 18, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I think of many great artists (not just photographers) and find that a whole lot of people accomplish something great in their 20s or 30s and then don't really achieve much in the way of groundbreaking work after that. I wonder how that fits into this Dunning Kruger theory.



An interesting thought. 
I think you need to separate 'creativity' from 'groundbreaking' but your comment still stands. 

I wonder if there is a difference depending on when the person 'made their name'? I suspect that the ones who hit it young are someone who has a different way of looking at the world that chimes with other people: they are then followed by people who move into that area, copy it, develop it and move on leaving the progenitor stuck with their way of seeing the world which starts to seem old hat. I guess it is not a lot different to a scientist wedded to the theory that made them famous or the aging grandparent stuck in the days of 'when things were better'. 

Then you have the people who hit the big time later in life. I suspect these are the real 'creative types' in that they are absorbing form different areas before something synthesis in the brain and comes out as something 'new' - David Hockney springs to mind with his portraiture, then his photo portraits ending up with photo collages and then moving into set design. 

Of course, some hit it young and keep on innovating (David Bowie in music springs to mind) but they are truly rare. 

How does this fit into Duning-Kruger? I guess it is hard to generalise but the problem with success at art is that it relies so heavily on other peoples' opinion. There are many artists (painters, musicians, photogrpahers etc) who struggled for years and were only recognised when 'the world was ready for them' - their art is no different to what it before that point, but one person in the right place at the right time in the right national mood got them noticed. 
Even the person with the singular world view that informs their 'greatest hit/s' (see above) may strive for years to improve their technical skill in other areas but never quite make it - the D-K effect is not the reason they never hit the same heights, but things just don't pan out like they did before and are forgotten as the one-hit wonder. Fame is capricious like that. 
I have read so many approaches from musicians - some bands are happy to keep playing their 'greatest hits' as a 'thank you' to the fans. Others grow to hate playing the same song time after time. Yet in both groups are those who manage to break new ground, others just don't develop. 

I think the D-K effect is rather like the psychometric tests some companies are so fond of (Myers Briggs to name just one) - not really a guiding principle but a 'mental tool' to help analyse your own approach and performance and ask yourself how you can do better.


----------



## Talys (Apr 18, 2018)

9VIII said:


> And none of that invalidates that the photographer is the final authority on what is good in their own photography.



I love my stucco ceiling photography collection. They demonstrate the infinite possibilities of the universe, because no two stucco ceilings are identical. They are the mirror of the universe, a true reflection of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; all other photography... is just noise in comparison.

See how demented that sounds?

Frankly, the whole concept of, "only your opinion should matter in judging your own work and you should stop competing against others" harkens to elementary school, where some educators or parents simply don't want to hurt kids' feelings. When you grow up... sometimes, hurt feelings or not, the truth is, it sucks. Own it, and improve!



Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I think of many great artists (not just photographers) and find that a whole lot of people accomplish something great in their 20s or 30s and then don't really achieve much in the way of groundbreaking work after that. I wonder how that fits into this Dunning Kruger theory.
> ...



It is an interesting thought. It is possible that as we achieve success, we come more conservative, or at least, more adverse to risk. Because the pressure to produce incredible work is directly proportional to one's success, it's possible that some creative types get in their own way worrying about releasing a flop, and as a result, produce what becomes perceived as mediocrity.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 18, 2018)

Talys said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Yeah, I also think it's possible that many people become known for one great work or one particular style and that's what the public expects and what they feel comfortable with. They may move on, but their fans/critics may not. 

Of course, there are lots of exceptions. Some people are very good at reinventing themselves. Van Morrison, for example, has gone through a lot of genres and still remains a pretty good songwriter. But, as you say, there are a lot of musicians content to keep playing the hits they wrote in their 20s. 

I often say that an early death spared Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix from having to release a duet album of 1940s standards -- the fate of far too many over-the-hill rock stars.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 18, 2018)

I would have bought that Joplin-Hendrix duet album!


----------



## geekpower (Apr 28, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Good composition in photographs is utterly subjective.



this is exactly the kind of thing that a person who couldn't tell the difference between good composition and bad would say; in other words, someone exhibiting dunning/kruger.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 28, 2018)

geekpower said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Good composition in photographs is utterly subjective.
> ...


Since you don't think it's subjective, perhaps you could share with us the *objective *standards of good composition.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



There are thousands upon thousands of good references regarding effective use of deliberate composition, and I'm not talking about the always mentioned and laughable 'rule of thirds'. To suggest there are not objective compositional techniques that make any image creators (stills, movie, paintings, drawings etc) work more compelling is laughable.

That doesn't mean every technique is as effective to every viewer or relevant in every image, but the core to the various compositional techniques is proven and sound. Artists have used these natural and balanced objective techniques for centuries, more recently artists have deliberately broken these innately 'balanced' techniques to jar our senses and add power to their work, all the while recognizing the underlying objective nature they are eschewing.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > geekpower said:
> ...


To summarize:

Wrong interpretation: "Every composition is good because everything is subjective." This is a meaningless straw-man argument.

Correct interpretation: "There can be images that violate currently-accepted rules of composition, yet are, nevertheless, artistically interesting."

People who object to the statement "it's all subjective" seem to be using the straw-man argument that this means all compositions are "good." This is not the claim! The claim is that any given composition could very well find one or more people who find it artistically interesting (and I don't mean people without any knowledge of art). In fact, future generations may find that non-conformist image inspired. 

Ask yourself how Rembrandt would have reacted to Pollock?


----------



## Talys (Apr 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > geekpower said:
> ...



It's actually easier to make rules about what DOESN'T look good, than what does. It does not mean that these rules will always apply, but there are some pretty common themes.

To take some simple examples: if you cut off someone at joints, it usually looks bad, such as a crop at the knees; if you have a male subject turn so that his profile faces you, he will look less masculine (because of the diminished shoulder broadness); crossed arms on a woman will often make her look boxy and less flattering than if you can capture her waist and hips.

You can (and some people do) literally write books filled with such tips. But they aren't really so much "objective standards" as stuff you'd learn on your own if you asked people subjectively compare a lot of photos. People might not understand why a whole group of photos look off, but the commonality might be that the catchlight isn't positioned above the subject (thus not mimicking the sun, that they are expecting), or that they're cropped too close to the side that the subject is travelling towards.

There may not be any "hard and fast" rules, but generally, a trained -- experienced -- eye will try to avoid things which will ultimately be unflattering or simply look off to the folks in general. Photography is a message written in light, and a poor message is one that folks other than the author don't understand.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2018)

You.



Orangutan said:


> To summarize:
> 
> Wrong interpretation: "Every composition is good because everything is subjective." This is a meaningless straw-man argument.
> 
> ...



Me.


privatebydesign said:


> That doesn't mean every technique is as effective to every viewer or relevant in every image, but the core to the various compositional techniques is proven and sound. Artists have used these natural and balanced objective techniques for centuries, more recently artists have deliberately broken these innately 'balanced' techniques to jar our senses and add power to their work, all the while recognizing the underlying objective nature they are eschewing.



What's the difference? 

Anyway, I dispute your framing of the claim, unless you are talking about the extreme situation where the image creator is creating their work purely for themselves to view. What you are effectively saying is it doesn't matter how bad a picture is it has value because somebody out there might find it interesting, which is patently false.


----------



## Talys (Apr 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> What's the difference?
> 
> Anyway, I dispute your framing of the claim, unless you are talking about the extreme situation where the image creator is creating their work purely for themselves to view. What you are effectively saying is it doesn't matter how bad a picture is it has value because somebody out there might find it interesting, which is patently false.



There is a difference between "I think that's interesting even though nobody else does," and, "I don't care what anyone else thinks, because only my opinion matters."

The first can be attributed to eclectic artistic tastes. The second is simply narcissism. 

However, either case will make for rough ride as a professional photographer


----------



## geekpower (Apr 28, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



it is obviously not possible to break any art form down into some ultimately objective 'score' based on some well defined and well known scoring system, but that doesn't mean that all art is created equal. some art really sucks. some art is mediocre and forgettable. some art is good. some art is so powerful it changes the world. this is objectively true of music, writing, painting, photography, and more.

the only way to improve one's art is to recognize the difference(s) between good and bad. people who aren't very perceptive or intelligent, or who can't be honest with themselves for whatever reason, can't do that, and their art never improves. people who can be self-critical, and do recognize better art than their own when they see it, at least have the opportunity to improve. whether they put in the effort to do so is up to them.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 28, 2018)

geekpower said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > geekpower said:
> ...





> it is obviously not possible to break any art form down into some ultimately objective 'score' based on some well defined and well known scoring system


We agree here.



> that doesn't mean that all art is created equal


No one said it did. When I say it's 100% subjective, I don't mean all art is equal, but that any given piece of art may be very interesting to someone, even someone very knowledgeable. There have been blank-canvas "paintings" shown in galleries. There's someone like Pollock, whose work looks like random drips to some, and genius to others. There's Andy Warhol, whose work looks like childish crap to me, but people have paid a lot of money for it. Then there's Robert Mapplethorpe. A few years ago I saw a photo exhibit in, I believe, Chicago, where the photographer had taken photos of litter in various settings. The artist's statement had lots of (to me) nonsense trying to give it a concept. To me it just looked like bad urban photography. Someone at that gallery thought it was good enough to hang in a major art institution.



> some art really sucks. some art is mediocre and forgettable. some art is good. some art is so powerful it changes the world


This is true, but misses the point: neither you nor anyone can hold up a work of art and claim that, as an objective indisputable fact, "it sucks." You can only claim that you think it sucks. I think Warhol and blank canvases suck, but would never claim that as an objective fact.



> this is objectively true of music, writing, painting, photography, and more.


It's objectively true only that you get to decide what you think sucks, is mediocre, or what is great.



> the only way to improve one's art is to recognize the difference(s) between good and bad.


Is a photo of a religious symbol immersed in urine objectively good or bad?



> people who aren't very perceptive or intelligent, or who can't be honest with themselves for whatever reason


Ah, now the truth comes out: you want to feel superior to others. 

I'll repeat it once more: saying it's 100% subjective does NOT mean all is equal; it means only that each person gets to make their own decisions, and cannot be told by some great authority that they're wrong.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 28, 2018)

I take pictures to please myself. I like it if others like them, too, maybe even see what I see in them, then that's great.

I take some pictures that try to convey what it feels like just to be out in the woods. There is no subject as such, but more a matter of feel of textures and atmosphere. I like them for the most part, and think some of them work in the way I intended. I don't normally share them with anybody, because they are not conventional and I figure others will miss seeing in them what I see. A good photographer could probably do both at the same time, but I'm not there yet after decades of trying.

This is not the best example, but one handy to post:







It loses a lot of its effect in being reduced for web posting and then enlarged by the board software.


----------



## geekpower (Apr 28, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > > people who aren't very perceptive or intelligent, or who can't be honest with themselves for whatever reason
> ...


----------



## Ozarker (May 20, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Well, everybody must like those blank canvas paintings because I see them for sale even at the WalMart. Warhol? His work was so good that some company built an industry around his soup can work.


----------



## DSP121 (Jun 18, 2018)

Hmm, it's a good video!
I will share it with my camera club too.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 18, 2018)

Its an interesting discussion.

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the metacognitive inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1] On the other hand, people of high ability incorrectly assume that tasks that are easy for them are also easy for other people" - according to Wikipedia

Photography is an interesting subject to look at through the eyes of Dunning-Kruger.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is probably only measurable on a topic that has something with definite right answers. Photography has plenty of competitions where photographers are measured according to their output and often the judges are under the illusion that they doing a fact based assessment as opposed to an opinion based assessment. Art unfortunately is very subjective but if you are entering competitions you have to deal with some collective biases for the type of competition you enter.

So for instance I compete in the arena of FIAP and if you want to win in their arena you need to be very aware of what the judges biases are. There would be an air of perfection in winning work. Either people are flawless or they are so disheveled they look like they have been run over by a bus. Every landscape is incredibly colourful and pristine. There is no blown highlights or distracting objects (except in nature where any human traces will disqualify you). For every winner their is lots of other competitors who believe their own work is far superior to the winners. People whinge alot about judges. The standard in its genre is very high but for me is all a little unreal and fake and lacking meaning.
That's my subjectivity which is shared with very few of FIAP competitors. If you want to beat them you have to join them.

Every year I buy the book on the Taylor Wessing Portrait prize. I don't love all the portraits but I love many of them. Especially when they are of noone famous. They'd never win a FIAP gold medal. From my subjective viewpoint they capture something of humanity I'd never find in a FIAP competition. They are often plain and simple but there is something in the eyes.

I've been involved in other things like sports etc but of all the thing I've got involved in I've never met so many egos as I have in photography. To be successful in the art world I think you have to be able to sell yourself as superior to others. Hiding your talents under a bush will not get you discovered (until you are dead - like Vivian Meier). I think many photographers completely overrate their own ability and maybe because its such a subjective thing that they are right to do so. You can get away with it. You just need to get enough other people to say you are great to get everyone else to start believing you are great. 

Even in the microcosm of Canon Rumors people go to great lengths to prove they are correct even when they are often incorrect and up against people of far superior technical knowledge. Possibly demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect. However I'd fear some of the Canon rumors experts spend more time reading technical manuals rather than taking photographs. I think its a pity as they are missing out but maybe they an enjoyment out of that aspect of photography.

Even with FIAP where once I might have raged against the unfairness of a judges decision in retrospect they were mostly correct in terms of measuring a photograph against their criteria for judging. I think its good to have your critiqued even if you don't always agree with it. For me in the end the objective is take photographs I'm happy with and if the whole world thinks they are crap it might be a little disappointing. But I know I didn't take the photographs for them but for myself.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 18, 2018)

I’ve never felt any urge to enter a photography contest. I have no interest in tailoring photos to appeal to judges. I’m certainly open to criticism and critiques, and I welcome suggestions on how I might have better done what I was trying to achieve, so that’s not it. I don’t think fragility of ego is it, either. 

There are certainly objective criteria, but one man’s poor exposure can be another’s idea of atmospherics.

An online friend told me long ago that his camera club expects pictures of birds in flight to have even the tips of their wings really sharp. To me that sounds a little odd, to make all kinds of birds look like they are riding wind currents rather than actually flying. But that is apparently the club’s main criterion.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 18, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Its an interesting discussion...



Thanks for intelligent, thoughtful contribution. And thanks also for the reference to the Taylor Wessing portrait prize, I was unaware of that and now I think I will be ordering the book.

I am always fascinated by the huge disconnect between what the general public perceives to be great photography and what the art world, such as the National Portrait Gallery, see as great photography. 

Of course, it's been this way for a hundred years or more, with the camera clubs, professional organizations, commercial world and general public extolling the virtues of formula driven images, while the art world is often looking for the unique and unusual.

My tastes tend to run toward the museum/gallery side which is more interested in what the person has to say, rather than technique and simply making things pleasing to the eye, although I readily admit that many of today's best practitioners of more commercial styles are incredibly talented and I would be very pleased to have their level of competence.

Anyway, thanks for bringing some insight into a thread that was pretty ridiculous from the beginning.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 18, 2018)

But a good photographer is not just ab\out prizes and competitions or who can follow the so-called 'rules' of photography. To me, a good photographer is one who can not only create a good photo but has the skills and experience to do it more times than not. I have some wonderful images of friends' weddings, but am I a 'good wedding photographer'? Nope. The number I take I would hope to get at least 2 or 3 great ones and those are the ones I share - but could I adapt if the church turned out to be having restoration work? or it started raining? Unlikely. I have got some great street shots, but I have a limited ability to 'see the moment' much less react quickly enough to capture it. I consider myself a 'competent photographer' not a good one.

So where is all this leading? I see the article about the person who has my level of competence, but is convinced that because they can take the occasional great photograph as proof they are a great photographer. They have one or two photos that everyone fawns over and do not take criticism that actually they are not that good - and I mean good in the way I described above. 
And you can only get that confirmation over many many photos - and it is why there is still a place for professional photographers.




stevelee said:


> There are certainly objective criteria, but one man’s poor exposure can be another’s idea of atmospherics.



Sure. But sometimes, you may get the effect you wanted but then realise it does not work after all. BTDT and got many, many T-shirts! A good photographer to me can increase the hit rate of when it actually does work.


----------



## Talys (Jun 18, 2018)

Bad photography and abstract art aren't the same thing 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder doesn't mean that randomly blurry pixels are beautiful. 

Photography now being highly accessible doesn't make the art and science of creating and capturing light simple.


----------



## Pookie (Jun 18, 2018)

this... a joke from years but really drives this home.


----------

