Modesty becomes the photographer

Donald Willemsen wrote on Monday 28 February 2022 at 23:00  | reply

Yljas, I think you're right. A little modesty never hurt anyone. Flash light doesn't have to ruin the atmosphere, but then you do need to know how to go about it. Now I find that flash light is easier to mix with daylight than, for example, with artificial light as in the accompanying photo in the article. The atmosphere isn't ruined, but it's clearly visible that a flash was used. The only thing that bothers me in the photo are the eyes of the girl in the lower right next to the girl with the sunglasses. The eyes of the girl in the lower right have been influenced too much by the flash light, the so-called 'red-eye' effect.

The curve concerning current knowledge and statements that people make about a subject is much older than the study by Dunning and Kruger. The curve has been used since 1980 or even earlier for the acceptance of new technology.
But the way the curve is used in this story is brilliant and to the point. As for using flash with ambient light, I will refrain. I am past the mountain of stupidity, but not yet far enough along in my knowledge to contribute.

Very recognizable, that's why I also stopped with those photography groups. It may also have something to do with social media. Sometimes I see photos appearing that are really impossible to look at in terms of technique, composition, quality, atmosphere and editing. Yet underneath them I then see all kinds of comments saying that it's such a great photo, that it's a top photographer, etc. Then of course you also start thinking that you're great and know everything about everything. I find that really prevalent in the photography world. I usually stay well away from commenting on photos.

Dear Yljas,

A very good article that applies to many industries. As far as photography is concerned, having been lugging around a DSLR for years, I am repeatedly amazed by the photos my children take with their mobile phones, there are some real gems among them, taken at just the right moment, there is no arguing about taste. On the other hand, a professional photographer is skilled at creating the best through knowledge and good equipment.
As a specialist in your field, modesty also has its place, people are becoming more outspoken and smarter, guide them where possible,
satisfied people always come back.

Someone once said "the more you know the more you realize that you know nothing". But as is shown here once again the opposite is also true the less people know the more they think they know everything.And indeed when you sometimes see what stupid comments people make on questions asked on fb then I can certainly imagine that the questioner no longer knows which way he or she should go

Dear Yljas,
I am a member of the same photography group as you and I know which topic you are referring to. I followed it as well and was also surprised here and there by some of the reactions. Especially when people give very unequivocal advice.

But I do think it goes far too far to pass judgment on the abilities of other photographers based on their public profiles. That does not necessarily have to say anything at all.
That is why I myself have been photographing for quite a long time and have built up the necessary knowledge and skills. But this will not be apparent from my public profile, simply because I do not post my photography work on Facebook. And if I do post something, it is not publicly visible. Perhaps I am one of the few in that regard, but I personally value my privacy and it is not exactly in good hands with the tech giants. There was once a video that I had posted privately that ended up somewhere it did not belong. Since then, I have put very little personal material on there.

That is why I find it rather improper to pass a value judgment on the expertise of others based on what people share on social media. And I myself find it quite unpleasant when I notice that people start going through my profile to find 'something' about me. It does feel a bit like an invasion of my privacy, as if someone were trying to look inside your house from the street. Maybe that is commonplace nowadays, but actually that is all the more reason to be very restrained about sharing things online.

My rule of thumb is therefore that if I do respond in a topic, it preferably should not be about the other reactions. So mainly in a substantive way and not about other people. Otherwise, before you know it, bickering starts in the discussion. That does not help the topic starter at all.

A nice motto for this kind of thing remains the saying "do not be amazed, merely wonder"...

Donald Willemsen wrote on Wednesday 2 March 2022 at 07:11  | reply

@Bart, you seem to feel rather addressed by Yljas's blog and immediately jump to the defense. You claim that knowledge and expertise cannot be determined by looking at people's profiles. You yourself say that you don't post your own photos on, among other things, Facebook partly because of privacy.
Sorry, but I think that's laughable. The mere fact that you have a Facebook profile means you've already lost a large part of your privacy. Facebook now tracks every move on your computer, knows exactly what you're doing on your PC, smartphone and tablet. Knows exactly which websites you visit, yes, even that you're here on Photofacts now.
If you really want privacy, you shouldn't go on social media, create a Facebook profile, use Google, etc.
Why are you jumping to the defense? Yljas isn't attacking you with his blog, is he?

Donald Willemsen wrote on Wednesday 2 March 2022 at 10:17  | reply

@Jacob de Winkel, I think that's a good idea. I consistently call myself a 'hobby photographer'. I'm not a 'good' photographer either, but I do have a fair amount of theoretical knowledge. I photograph for my own pleasure. So I won't offer myself to photograph weddings and other occasions on commission. And certainly not at prices below those of professional photographers.
Should it be the case that some random person, company or advertising agency wants to buy a photo of mine, then that can be done at a price that is customary in the sector.

@Donald Willemsen: your assumption that I feel personally addressed by Yljas's blog is incorrect. I myself had no involvement in the Facebook post he refers to. I only used my own Facebook profile as an example to indicate that this does not necessarily give a representative picture of someone's abilities as a photographer and that it is therefore rather improper to bring in profiles on social media in order to form an opinion about someone else's skills based on that. It is not necessary at all either, you can easily have such a discussion based on the arguments given under such a post.

The fact that Facebook does not handle privacy, personal data etc very properly is all the more reason to be very restrained in using it and not to put too many personal matters on it. It seems very unwise to me to put all kinds of posts (including photos of people) publicly on your profile 'because Facebook already knows everything about you anyway'. After all, you do not have to feed the monster Facebook has become even more. With a good browser such as Firefox and a privacy-friendly search engine (I myself never use Google), you can still protect your personal data to some extent, by the way. Those who are sensible make use of that.

Yljas, I do not use my Facebook profile as a showcase or to promote myself, but mainly to be able to follow a number of people and pages. For example (family and friends who live far away), current affairs through reliable media and also photography groups. Unfortunately, in those respects there still isn't really a good alternative to Facebook.

I think the blog post itself is nicely written, it's always fun to provoke a little, but the bit about looking at other people's profiles could just as well have been left out. It comes across as somewhat unprofessional.

When asking for help via social media about, for example, photography, the problem is that people often do not read properly and/or formulate unclearly. Responses often consist of one-liners without nuance, people apparently prefer to (give) a simple answer. The topic starters themselves do not always formulate their questions very fully either: there is regularly information missing that is necessary to give a good answer to the question. And underneath that you then see answers where the commenters primarily reason from their own perspective and mainly recommend their own equipment and way of working. The fact that commenters have not read the previous answers and comments (quite often an annoyance of mine, then you see the same answer come along 10 times) will largely be because when viewing topics and questions on social media via a smartphone, you do not automatically get to see the previous comments.
When it comes to camera brands, the emotions really run high, everyone passionately defends their own brand/their own camera/etc.

That everyone is an 'expert' nowadays is something you can see has been going on for longer: during European Championships and World Cups there are 17 million national coaches and in the past 2 years our country has also had quite a few virologists

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a popular model that fits in with our intuition and it also looks nice and scientific, but further research has since shown that it is not correct. For example, another study found that almost everyone (including people with more experience) systematically overestimates their own abilities somewhat in certain situations. The 'peak of stupidity' makes for a very appealing click, but it does not exist at all...