Color vs. Black & White in Artsy Photos
Terry Dawson
photographs I have made are much more effective in b&w. I wrote a brief
article about it with side-by-side examples on my site (below). So, if you
like the art of photography and have a minute, take a short break from the
techno-stuff. Hey, maybe we could get the RPD and the RPTA (cross-posted)
folks to discuss the issues raised and others (in a lively but polite manner
;-).
--
One Zen Zeros - A Digital Photography Resource
http://www.infinet.com/~tdawson/index.html
Mr G
Terry Dawson <tda...@infinet.com> wrote in message
news:38290cf4$0$97...@news.infinet.com...
Mr G
mainpage gets u a new pic.
Mr G <G...@gland.earth> wrote in message news:hy8W3.33$2F....@read2.inet.fi...
Terry Dawson
handle it right. I hate that, but it makes the gallery very easy to update.
Dan Haygood
flower is displaying all of the images in the exact same size, making
the horizontals very vertically stretched.
- Dan
Frank DuPont
This thread seems to have gotten side tracked which by the way your site
works fine in Netscape 4.6 but the sound effects always make me jump!
I'm an old Ansel Adams fan so right away you know where I'm coming from.
Black and white photography is much harder then color and I feel more
useful for expressing yourself. A little color in the right place can
make or break a picture but a B&W stands on its own. B&W is a much
better means of expressing your emotions but is very hard to do. How
many picture have we taken that when looking at them later we wonder
what went wrong! I can't count the number of times I have gone back to
retake some pictures because I can't seem to get the feeling I felt when
seeing the subject. Photography is different things to different people,
for some it is just to show off our loved ones or where we have been but
to other it is to express something and I guess for many of us it is a
combination of these things. The hardest thing is to see great pictures
in ordinary places.
I come from the old days and learned alot from a freelance German
photographer. We always shot in B&W, learn to judge light because there
often wasn't time to be using lightmeters when getting pictures of
people.
Really I think the picture you want people to vote on is better in color
but really need a bigger picture to tell. The bridge is a perfect
example of good B&W photography, color takes away from it.
I have not done any "real" B&W with my Nikon 950 yet but in testing it I
get the feeling that I get better pictures in B&W mode then in
converting them later on.
Keep up the good work and enjoy life like everyday was the last.
Peace
frank
Terry Dawson
news:382AEE5C...@netonecom.net...
> Terry
> This thread seems to have gotten side tracked which by the way your site
> works fine in Netscape 4.6 but the sound effects always make me jump!
>
Thanks, Frank! Guess I should cut the shutter-click volume a little. Yes,
the thread is currently sidetracked and readers should know that the article
mentioned has no Javascript to worry about.
> I'm an old Ansel Adams fan so right away you know where I'm coming from.
> Black and white photography is much harder then color and I feel more
> useful for expressing yourself. A little color in the right place can
> make or break a picture but a B&W stands on its own. B&W is a much
> better means of expressing your emotions but is very hard to do. How
> many picture have we taken that when looking at them later we wonder
> what went wrong! I can't count the number of times I have gone back to
> retake some pictures because I can't seem to get the feeling I felt when
> seeing the subject. Photography is different things to different people,
> for some it is just to show off our loved ones or where we have been but
> to other it is to express something and I guess for many of us it is a
> combination of these things. The hardest thing is to see great pictures
> in ordinary places.
>
Your last sentence is right on point, Frank. I think "seeing" should be
expanded to include "translating" as well. This is where b&w can demand
more of the photographer because b&w is a tad more abstract or
representational while color tends to be more literal. Thus, more is
demanded of the translator. Of course, color and b&w are both merely
2-dimensional symbols of reality, but b&w is farther removed.
However, color adds difficulty as well because it brings a whole set of its
own attributes (hue, chroma, etc.) into the picture. I think my little
article was hinting at the question, "Well, what are you trying to do with
all these elements?" B&w is often quite useful for eliminating the
irrelevant -- unless, of course, color is relevant.
> I come from the old days and learned alot from a freelance German
> photographer. We always shot in B&W, learn to judge light because there
> often wasn't time to be using lightmeters when getting pictures of
> people.
>
> Really I think the picture you want people to vote on is better in color
> but really need a bigger picture to tell. The bridge is a perfect
> example of good B&W photography, color takes away from it.
>
I'm really torn on the photo I'm polling on. That's why I'm asking for
opinions. ;-) To me, the ambiguity of the b&w version can mometarily
produce an image of a raging waterfall. I find these kinds of mind tricks
fascinating. Yet, the color version captures the simple majesty of a mature
woods. And, yes, I agree the bridge makes a pretty good case for b&w.
> I have not done any "real" B&W with my Nikon 950 yet but in testing it I
> get the feeling that I get better pictures in B&W mode then in
> converting them later on.
>
I'd be interested in hearing your conclusions, as they develop, on shooting
b&w vs. converting later. One obvious question area is the use of filters
on the camera. I'm wondering if digital manipulations in an editor can
acceptably duplicate the effects of the commonly used b&w filters (red,
orange, green, etc.). If I find this is true, I'll continue the digital
luxury of shooting in color and deciding later.
Laren Dart
<tda...@infinet.com> wrote:
>I'd be interested in hearing your conclusions, as they develop, on shooting
>b&w vs. converting later. One obvious question area is the use of filters
>on the camera. I'm wondering if digital manipulations in an editor can
>acceptably duplicate the effects of the commonly used b&w filters (red,
>orange, green, etc.). If I find this is true, I'll continue the digital
>luxury of shooting in color and deciding later.
I have the standard version of Picture Window, which may solve your
problem. From their website:
"Picture Window lets you convert color images to black and white the
same way you do it in the camera -- by using colored filters to adjust
the tonalities of the different colors." Also, "Picture Window has
been preprogrammed with the colors of a complete set of Kodak's
standard CC (color correction) and Wratten filters."
For a $40(US) program, I'm impressed. Check it out at www.dl-c.com
The usual disclaimer applies: I have no connection of any kind with
Digital Light and Color, I just think it's a neat program. >;->
--
http://www.got.net/~ldart/album
Frank DuPont
"TEC...@photo-rescue.com" wrote:
>
> On 11 Nov 1999 10:27:00 -0600, Frank DuPont <fdu...@netonecom.net>
> wrote:
SNIP
> Just curious.. since you're now working in digital, have you ever
> tried putting some color into a black and white photo? (just one
> item?) .. or taking a color photo, converting it to black and white,
> except for a certain portion of it?
>
> It's an interesting kick.. if you have the right photo.
>
> We went to the city and found an old brownstone with lots of steps and
> then my friend sat down and started reading the paper. We had saved
> this newspaper for the shoot, since the headline was
> "U.S. Declares War on Coke" (big anti-drug campaign)
>
> and there he sat, photographed in black and white, reading the paper
> with the headline blazing across the front page.
>
> The only part of the photo that was in color was the logo on the can
> of Pepsi sitting at his feet.
>
> We thought Pepsi would love it for an ad, but they didn't even nibble.
Charlie
That is a real interesting Idea you have there, I will have to file that
away and steal it from you!
> > B&W is a much
> >better means of expressing your emotions but is very hard to do. How
> >many picture have we taken that when looking at them later we wonder
> >what went wrong! I can't count the number of times I have gone back to
> >retake some pictures because I can't seem to get the feeling I felt when
> >seeing the subject.
>
> I've been on the road a lot over the years and since I can't usually
> stop to shoot what I see, I have a little notebook full of places I
> MEAN to go back to and the approx. time of day/weather
> condition/season when I'd like to shoot there. Of course, this type
> of project is always on the back burner, since I'm a hobbyist, not a
> 'real' photographer. But so far the book covers about 100 locations in
> a dozen or more states. I've got the 'feel' for a decent shot, but
> not the expertise or the time to 'make it happen'.
I can relate to that, recently one Fall morning I was on my way to my
doctors and I saw this nice early morning light on the Fall colors in a
cemetery by the time it took everything to click in my brain I had gone
1/4 mile and by the time I got back to it the clouds had started to
cover the sun so the picture was lost! Just the other day while waiting
for my car to be fixed I was walking around outside and saw what looks
like a nice B&W picture but it needs some strong light and here in
northern Michigan we are running out of that! I may got back tomorrow
when the sun comes out but this one may have to wait till next year in
the late Spring.
> > Photography is different things to different people,
> >for some it is just to show off our loved ones or where we have been but
> >to other it is to express something and I guess for many of us it is a
> >combination of these things. The hardest thing is to see great pictures
> >in ordinary places.
>
> I know what you mean. I think that's a matter of putting your mind to
> it, or taking yourself outside of your normal viewing mode. I have a
> friend who is great at this (but then his mind is wired differently
> than most) and he finds these shots when I just pass by them. He'll
> point something out and explain it to me.. when it wouldn't have
> occurred to me to think in that direction. It shows in his photos.
I feel that training the eye and brain can help to see good pictures and
it helps to study other people's work and try to understand why we like
it, in my case people like Terry Dawson help me but nothing beats having
your brain wired differently in the first place so guess I'm doom to
being an Ansel Adams or Weston wanabe!
Frank
C. J. Morgan
: Really I think the picture you want people to vote on is better in color
: but really need a bigger picture to tell.
Kind of reminds me of what my old design teacher use to say: If you can't
make it good, make it big. And if you can't make it big, make it in color."
C.J.
--
C.J. Morgan
ch...@torfree.net
Jim Coe
use it myself with a view camera and monochrome materials, I was never
completely happy without color. I just love colored light and to me light
without color is usually drab.
Not to say there aren't many wonderful monochrome photos or that it isn't
worth doing monochrome - I just love color personally.
I can rationalize the use of color like this (but it's really just 'cause I
love it so):
1 - Because color is closer to "reality" (but remember, we are really just
talking about a lot of dots on paper), you can take a viewer farther into an
image and do more with their minds before their
"willing-suspension-of-disbelief" breaks down.
2 - Because color adds another 'dimension" to an image, it let's you get
away with more complex compositions. For example, areas of very similar
tonality can still be separated visually by their differing colors. So, a
composition that might be confusing to a viewer in monochrome can be
properly "read" by the same viewer when in color. For the same reason, I
would shoot in stereo, if the technology were more popular and ubiquitous.
It gives me yet another way to differentiate compositional areas. Too close
together in tone - color can separate. Too close together in tone and in
color - let the Z-plane unscramble those areas for the viewer.
3 - Certain visual effects (visual metaphors and grammar) depend on color.
Without color you can't use these valuable elements of visual grammar in
your photos. For example, aerial perspective causes more distant objects to
be seen as bluer. While monochrome shows aerial perspective only as a loss
of contrast in the distance, color shows this and the increased blueness as
well. In the same way, reds seem to move out of the picture plane toward the
viewer - again, lost in monochrome.
To my mind this artistic choice depends on how much you want to limit
yourself. In many ways, the more limits you impose on yourself, the more
artistic freedom you get. Look at Japanese ink painters - just one color and
a few brush strokes and they create a whole world! So I have a lot of
respect for monochrome workers. They are working with more limits and a more
"abstract" image.
As far as your samples go, I don't think you can really compare the same
image as monochrome and color - although I'm glad you did, to raise this
interesting topic. I think a color composition would usually be different
than a monochrome composition of the same subject. The color, or lack of it,
would usually change the dynamics of the image, so the composition would
also have to change - if you agree with me that the subject should drive the
design of an image, rather than the photographer trying to impose a design
onto the subject 'externally".
You say you like the "ambiguity" of the monochrome tree image on your site,
but I would say that that ambiguity is a weakness of the monochrome image.
Why should a strong photographic image be ambiguous. Is it a Rorschach test
to see what the viewer might imagine in it? I'd rather see a strong visual
statement of what the photographer saw in something.
Thanks for the valuable thread.....
--jim coe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like creative photography?
http://www.everydaymagic.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Terry Dawson <tda...@infinet.com> wrote in message
news:38290cf4$0$97...@news.infinet.com...
Terry Dawson
news:80lk7l$lu2$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Good comments, Joe! Actually, we're pretty close to the same wavelength.
As far as what should drive the image (photographer or subject), however,
I'd say the most powerful statements are usually a combination of what's
there and the photographer's point of view or goal. Thus, whatever is
driving it the most is highly variable. This subject is interesting because
everytime you make a general rule someone else can show you and exception.
> You say you like the "ambiguity" of the monochrome tree image on your
site,
> but I would say that that ambiguity is a weakness of the monochrome image.
> Why should a strong photographic image be ambiguous. Is it a Rorschach
test
> to see what the viewer might imagine in it? I'd rather see a strong visual
> statement of what the photographer saw in something.
>
I guess what I mean in the case of the woods shot is that the color version
is nice and straight forward, but the ambiguity of the b&w version can cause
the viewer to pause a bit to interpret all that texture. I can actually see
a raging waterfall there too! This slowing down of perceptions, IMHO, could
cause a little deeper appreciation of or a more reflective look at the
subject. I'm taking the poll because I'm truely undecided on which version
I like better.
> Thanks for the valuable thread.....
> --jim coe
Thanx 4 helping fill it in so well, Joe!
Frank DuPont
Real glad you added your comments to this thread, gives me new things to
think about plus it showed the way to your web site which I found VERY
interesting! I can see why you love color, you use it very nicely.
If nothing else this thread got me interested once again in different
ideas in photography.
Frank
p.s
Read your bio and when it comes to computers I was right there with you.
I attended the first computer show which was on the east coast and build
my first one from a bunch of parts the ham radio people sold.
Jim Coe
> Jim Coe <jim...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:80lk7l$lu2$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> As far as what should drive the image (photographer or subject), however,
> I'd say the most powerful statements are usually a combination of what's
> there and the photographer's point of view or goal. Thus, whatever is
> driving it the most is highly variable. This subject is interesting
because
> everytime you make a general rule someone else can show you and exception.
Sorry Terry, It's "Jim". People often take "Jim" and "Coe" and come up with
"Joe". Yet another lesson in how consciousness works, right?
I take a little different view on the "subject and the photographer". I
don't agree that the best method involves "what's there (the subject) and
the photographer's point of view or goal" at least not as those are commonly
understood.
I think it is the photographer's job to be so sensitive to the subject that
their "goal" and all other intellectual and egotistical stuff is turned off
or heavily suppressed. You might say that the photographer strives to become
one with the subject, so that the subject really does drive the composition.
Of course, the photographer will never succeed in "becoming one with the
subject", so we need have no fear that the photographer's creative, soulful
forces will not come into play.
However, with this method, the photographer might succeed in bringing their
"true nature" or "photographer's vision" (nearly the same thing) into
contact with the subject and then use this alloy to cast the photo, rather
than using their ego, their assignment or some other distracting
intellectual baggage.
This is what I would call good intention or true seeing. I also think this
is not some extraordinary or unusual method, but the simplest, most direct
and most practical way to get images that work for viewers.
--jim coe
Terry Dawson
> > Jim Coe <jim...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:80lk7l$lu2$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
wavelength.
> > As far as what should drive the image (photographer or subject),
however,
> > I'd say the most powerful statements are usually a combination of what's
> > there and the photographer's point of view or goal. Thus, whatever is
> > driving it the most is highly variable. This subject is interesting
> because
> > everytime you make a general rule someone else can show you and
exception.
>
> Like creative photography?
> http://www.everydaymagic.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry about that speed-reading, name-merging error, Jim. I see you've
developed some patience with the mildly dyslexic among us. ;-)
Your explanation seems related to something we used to call "straight
photography." Can't argue with your slightly mystical description either
and your work shows that you know what you're talking about. I, too, seem
to gravitate towards a kind of "straight" photography.
While we might have some differing opinions on the driving force(s), we
certainly seem to agree that a blend of photographer's vision and the
subject's appearance is ultimately involved when something clicks (so to
speak). I think there is a mental/visual methodology that each photographer
must develop that takes place between seeking some expression and
finding/creating one. These methods may determine what the driving force
will be or may, in fact, be the driving force.
When discussing visual art, the term "goal" can also be a little squirrelly
too. I submit that it is your goal to let the subject drive much of your
method (with excellent results, by the way) and, thus, your approach is an
overriding force in itself which is applied to various subjects. Nes pas?
Is this getting too close to angels on the head of a pin time? ;-)
Jsn234
don't agree that the best method involves "what's there (the subject) and
the photographer's point of view or goal" at least not as those are commonly
understood.
I think it is the photographer's job to be so sensitive to the subject that
their "goal" and all other intellectual and egotistical stuff is turned off
or heavily suppressed. You might say that the photographer strives to become
one with the subject, so that the subject really does drive the composition.
Of course, the photographer will never succeed in "becoming one with the
subject", so we need have no fear that the photographer's creative, soulful
forces will not come into play."
I respectfully but vehemently, very much disagree. The photographer drives the
composition whether s/he realizes it or not. Heavily suppressed egos make for
bad photographers and possibly psychotic ones who live in blind self-delusion
about themselves and their photography. If I might borrow a line from that wise
sage of a sitcom "Seinfeld" - "serenity now, insanity later" - w/c means, w/o
going into a synopsis of the whole tv show, what we are angry about and deny
now later gets expressed in an angry time bomb/explosion later. Whether or not
a photographer gets angry or not and expresses it now or later is not my point.
My point is that denying one's ego is dehumanizing and makes for worse
photography (and photographers) because the act of photography is as much an
act of self-expression as it is an act of communication. Whether you/me/others
want to admit it or not we are not some fly on the wall or an invisible point
of consciousness in the world. We act and react with the world and express our
will/consciousness/ego/identity/personality with the world as well as the
subjects we photograph when we photograph our world (with the emphasis on the
"our" since it is we who change the world not only through our observation of
it but through our willful expression of what we think/feel through that
subject matter. The very act of striving you refer to - "the photographer
strives to become
one with the subject" - is an act of the photographer's will/ego whether
they/you/I recognize it or not. Better to recognize and admit it and explore it
(the both our egos/identities and the subject matter too) than to deny it.
Definitely be as sensitive to the subject as you want to be, but also be
sensitive to yourself and your will and your thoughts/feelings w/c have just as
much right if not more to exist (and be expressed) as the subject you are
striving to be so "at one" with with your sensitivity. If I was to invent a
bumper sticker slogan that expresses this point of view condensed and down to a
"T" I'd have to say it would have to be a play/twist on the old gun slogan.
Mine would be - "Cameras don't make photos, people (photographers) do."
Your's is one point of view, but in my opinion a narrow minded one, something I
don't agree w/. There is a living flesh and blood photographer who is taking
good photos, in my view, photography is a healthy way of expressing that ego
through self-expression - in other words, the photographer is the "potter," the
subject matter, technique, etc. is the "clay."
"However, with this method, the photographer might succeed in bringing their
"true nature" or "photographer's vision" (nearly the same thing) into
contact with the subject and then use this alloy to cast the photo, rather
than using their ego, their assignment or some other distracting
intellectual baggage."
This sounds like so much photo zen garbage to me and another, if unrecognized,
form of intellectualism/"intellectual baggage" masquerading as a philosophy.
"Spiritualized photography." Whether you know and/or realize it or not, every
photographer uses their ego (their senses, their mind, their insights, etc.)
when making a photograph; their preference for photographing certain types of
subject matter, the compositions they choose to show what interests them about
their subject matter, the photo techniques they use to emphasize their subject
matter, the statement (if any they are trying to make through their subject,
etc. Ego doesn't necessarily (to me anyway) mean a form of bragging, it means
the identity (character/personality/observation and self-expression of what the
photographer feels/thinks and to deny its existance in order to feel some sort
of self-glorified "photo-spiritual self-congratulatory zen-like pat on the
back" seems to me an excersize less in photography and self-expression than
hypnosis and self-deception. Please don't tell me that you are at one with a
landscape, a still life, etc. they are inert matter without nervous systems or
minds and have no consciousness of you or your camera - the "at oneness" takes
place totally in your mind. Why not just admit that this is the game you are
playing with yourself.
"This is what I would call good intention or true seeing. I also think this
is not some extraordinary or unusual method, but the simplest, most direct
and most practical way to get images that work for viewers.
--jim coe"
This is what I would call voluntarily imposed blind self-delusion, not true
seeing, it is the photographer with a human will and a human ego/identity that
takes/makes photographs to deny that in favor of some artificially imposed idea
of being one with one's subject through denial of the photographer's self/ego
is to deny the very humanity and worth of the photographer and the worth of the
subject. Photography takes place as much in the mind (if not more so) of the
photographer as it does in and in front of the camera.
Regards (despite our differences, real and/or perceived) and...
Viva!
If you wish to e-mail me just try and disconnect my brain. Have a thought and
go ahead, make my day! "Clifford, on your planet, what color is the sky?"
"Roads? Where we're going we don't need any roads" "1.21 gigawatts! Do they
make that in AA?"
Jsn234
but I would say that that ambiguity is a weakness of the monochrome image.
Why should a strong photographic image be ambiguous. Is it a Rorschach test
to see what the viewer might imagine in it? I'd rather see a strong visual
statement of what the photographer saw in something."
Jim:
Ambiguity and strong statements in photography are not mutually exclusive.
Weston's "Pepper" (the one that looks like the back of a nude's successfully
combines both ambiguity w/ a strong statement, the adjective that comes to mind
when looking at this picture is anything but "weak"). Other pictures with
strong statements can have multiple meanings/interpretations, what you would
call "ambiguity." If I want of move into the realm of the more graphic types of
photos Ralph Gibson uses shadows and details of buildings to do "strong
statements" using the ambiguity of the foreground background relationships
(planes in some of his photo do "figure ground flips" as to which plane we
perceive is in front of which). Going back further in time is a shot Steichen
took of J.P. Morgan (or was it Getty, I forget w/c tycoon) in which this tycoon
is shown as ruthless because he holds a dagger, on closer inspection we see
that the "dagger" extending from his hand is actually an arm of a chair
illuminated in a shaft of light. These are all strong photographic statements
but rely heavily on ambiguity to express the photographers singular vision. In
fact they are so successful as photographic statements that I see them as
"singularities"/"end points" (my term(s) for an image/idea that was
done/expressed so well that its impossible to see (or photograph in the future)
the same (or a simialr subject) in any way but the way the way the photographer
saw it (some less "ambiguous" photographers of the f/64 school also had a lot
of these "singularities" - Ansel Adams and his shots of "Half Dome" and
"Moonrise over Hernandez" fit this category as well as many others by
him/others). (funnily enough, I got this idea from one of my friend's - Jeff
DiBiasa's - comments about one of my own images (a skull in a yellow bucket -
there are mor elements to the shot but I really feel no need to describe the
shot further) that he liked so much and that I'd done so well that even though
he had a similar idea to do an image with similar elements to mine that my
photo so well expressed my idea through my shot elements that he felt he could
not do another shot like it w/o ripping it off/duplicating my shot, so the shot
to him was sort of "off limits" by virtue of being so well done. Whether we
like/admit it or not all photos have the ability to be read as Roarscach blots
and many will be read in ways totally unintended/unexpected by w/cever audience
sees our (or any other photographers' or image makers') images - why not
explore those "ambiguous" possibilities and use them to extend/express our
photographic vision?
Jim Patterson
<jim...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Terry Dawson <tda...@infinet.com> wrote in message
> news:382f1289$0$13...@news.infinet.com...
This was/is an interesting thread. I've been a photographer since I was a
kid (63 now) and like most contemporaries in the 50's and 60's, shot about
90% of my work in b&w.
As color reproduction became less exotic and more cost-effecitve, I made
the switch to chromes and in 1990 we closed our b&w darkroom (thanks to
Photoshop).
To me, shooting in b&w means seeing in b&w. The absence of color places
tremendous importance upon light, texture and composition. OTH, a blah b&w
scene can become a fine color shot with the presence of a color element
that draws the eye.
With my digital camera, I often find myself switching to the b&w mode just
to view a scene in the LCD for its effectiveness as a monochrome. Since
the b&w mode still captures an RGB image of the same file size, I
generally shoot in color and then convert the image in Photoshop.
One of my b&w muses has been the work of W. Eugene Smith whose prints
reflected his dark and disturbed vision. His Life Magazine photoessay "In
A Spanish Village" could have easily been shot in the 1850s instead of the
1950s.
Just for kicks a few years ago, I scanned his overall shot of the Spanish
Village (bright sunlight, shadowed people and donkeys) and then colorized
it in Photoshop. Although the end result was much like a hand-tinted b&W
print, the photo certainly was not improved by the addition of color.
Jim Patterson
Paul Saunders
> As far as what should drive the image (photographer or subject), however,
> I'd say the most powerful statements are usually a combination of what's
> there and the photographer's point of view or goal.
I'd just like to remind you of the issue of the viewer's perception of an image.
Irrespective of whatever statement the photographer may try to make, there's no
guarantee that the viewer will see it that way. Each viewer's perception of an
image, and therefore appreciation and understanding of it, is coloured by
various preconceptions that the viewer has acquired over time.
I make a distinction between photographers and non-photographers.
Photographers seem to carry far more preconceptual baggage with them than do
non-photographers, most probably due to their familiary with the "rules of
photography" and the various techniques and preferences that they've developed
for themselves. Often photographers (in my experience) tend to "see" others
work in terms of what they "would have done", rather than evaluating an image
purely on it's own merit. I think many photographers need to cultivate a more
open-minded attitude of acceptance of differing techniques.
As an example, I once showed a photographer friend some photos of mine. Those
photos that fit the "accepted rules" and demonstrated "classic techniques"
predictably impressed him. There was one photo though, my favourite, which made
no impression on him. On asking why he said that the composition wasn't very
good. This indicated to me that he'd missed the whole point of the photo. It
wasn't about composition, it was about light and shade. Since the photo didn't
conform to his compositional preconceptions he dismissed it, and was unable to
see what I was trying to convey.
I've often found that non-photographers have very refreshing points of view
(provided you can persuade them to be honest), because they have no such
preconceptions about rules. Either they like a picture or they don't, but they
generally can't explain why. Often I find that they really like a picture which
a photographer will dismiss because of some petty technicality. Conversely they
sometimes dislike a picture which a photographer may think is really good, due
to some pretentious application of a photographic principle.
I'm not sure what the moral of all this is, other than the fact that everyone
sees things differently. The perception of the viewer is as important a part of
the equation as the intention of the photographer, whether you like that fact or
not.
Paul
--
Wilderness Wales
http://website.lineone.net/~wilderness
Paul Saunders
> I'm wondering if digital manipulations in an editor can acceptably duplicate
> the effects of the commonly used b&w filters (red, orange, green, etc.).
Indeed they can, and you can also apply the results to the original colour
photo, not to mention far more than that. I'm assuming you all use Photoshop, I
doubt this is possible in most other programs.
Take a look at a a photo (Chris Neal) on which I've applied a red filter and
blue filter respectively. This is a very simple example of what can be done.
http://website.lineone.net/~mountains/misc/red_blue_filter.jpg
Before you start, load a pic into Photoshop, select Channels and click on the R,
G and B channels in turn. This gives you an instant look at what that photo
would look like in b&w with a red, green, and blue filter respectively. On most
landscapes the red generally looks pretty cool, and the blue looks awful.
Switch back to the RGB channel.
Step 1: Select Image>Adjust>Channel Mixer. Tick the monochrome box. It'll be
set at 100% red at this point which gives you a red filter effect. If you set
it to 100% green that'll give you a green filter and the same goes for blue. To
get a yellow filter set 50% red and 50% green. An orange filter would probably
be about 67% red and 33% green. The constant can be thought of as an exposure
control, to lighten or darken the image.
So far so good, the interesting bit is that you can set these three sliders in
any combination whatsoever, giving you the equivalent of millions of different
coloured filters, you can even set them to negative values which can create
really extreme effects. Don't forget about adjusting the constant slider to
compensate. This gives you infinitely more versatility than conventional b&w
filters.
Step 2: Play about with the sliders until you have the monochrome effect that
you desire. Click OK.
At this point you have converted a colour pic to b&w with the filter effect of
your choice.
Now to apply this effect to the original colour picture...
Step 3: Select Filter>Fade Channel Mixer. Set Mode to Luminosity and the
brightness values of the monochrome image are applied to the colour image. You
now have a b&w filter effect in colour! Adjusting the opacity alters the
strength of the filter.
Cool or what? It took me ages to figure out how to do that, but it's simple
once you know how. This opens up endless possibilities for messing about with
colour images without anyone knowing how you've done it. Combine this tool with
Curves and you have real power! Photoshop never fails to amaze me...
If you want more control over individual parts of the image try this;
Step 1: Load your image and make two or more duplicates.
Step 2: 'Filter' your duplicates in different ways using the above procedure.
Step 3: Select the Rubber Stamp tool, set options to Mode: Luminosity, Aligned:
On.
Step 4: Set the Rubber Stamp Origin from a point on one of the duplicates.
Step 5: Start painting on the main image from the same point. It will paint in
the brightness values from the source image. You can paint different parts of
the picture using differently filtered duplicates as sources. Show me a
photographer that can do that in b&w, let alone in colour!
Incidentally, none of the images on my website have been manipulated using this
technique. I've yet to do anything serious with this concept.
Terry Dawson
news:80p8r5$6oi$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Terry Dawson wrote;
>
> > As far as what should drive the image (photographer or subject),
however,
> > I'd say the most powerful statements are usually a combination of what's
> > there and the photographer's point of view or goal.
>
Excellent commentary, Paul! I must often remind myself that without
viewers, I'm not doing art. This must be why I freely display my work on a
web page. I have recently started to become more interested in the viewer's
preconceptions, symbolic notions, baggage, etc. I think the
non-photographer carries around a lot of useful but potentially confusing
assumptions as well. There was even an article in a recent Discover
Magazine about the "science of art" that expounded some theories that our
love of certain landscape features, for example, might even be genetic --
going back to man's earliest days on the plains in Africa! Anyway, there's
certainly a lot of conventional symbolism we can play with while we go about
the business of capturing "reality." I think there are a lot of perceptions
that "non-visual" folks have, but they just can't rationalize or explain
them like an experienced photographer or critic could.
Terry Dawson
I'm not using PhotoShop right now, but I put your excellent advice in my
archive folder for future reference. Thanks for the great input on this
topic.
Jim Coe
news:19991115084826...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
audience
> sees our (or any other photographers' or image makers') images - why not
> explore those "ambiguous" possibilities and use them to extend/express our
> photographic vision?
>
> Viva!
I mostly agree with your statements. In thinking back to Terry's example, I
would change my comment and say that I don't like ambiquity that itself
becomes the subject of the image. In other words, there is so much ambiguity
(like an inkblot test) that little or nothing comes through from the
experience of the photographer with the subject. Almost all the viewing
experience comes from the viewer. Of course, there are always exceptions and
I could probably find even one of these I like. It's fun to view images that
are all about visual perception - like Alber's paintings of color effects,
or the book I have on visual illusions.
In your example of the portrait of J.P. Morgan (I think), there was no
ambiguity about it being a picture of a seated man - it didn't flip/flop
into an image of something else. The ambiguity was in what extended from his
hand, a small part of the image. So, there was a dynamic balance between a
lot of non-ambiguity and a little (but very important) ambiguity. Weston's
pepper also doesn't flip/flop into something else (like those straight-on
photos of moon craters that sometines look like craters and sometimes like
plateaus). You can see it as a pepper that happens to be shaped like a
nude - just as some of Weston's sand dunes resemble parts of human bodies -
but there is no doubt about what actually reflected the light into his lens.
Again, a balance - mostly non-anbiguous.
--Cheers!
Jim Coe
a photographer and your subjects? How do you think about doing photography?
Do you have a mental process you go through - besides the technical
decisions?
Anyone?
---------------------------------------
Jsn234 <jsn...@aol.commybrain> wrote in message
> "I take a little different view on the "subject and the photographer". I
> don't agree that the best method involves "what's there (the subject) and
> the photographer's point of view or goal" at least not as those are
commonly
> understood.
>
> I think it is the photographer's job to be so sensitive to the subject
that
> their "goal" and all other intellectual and egotistical stuff is turned
off
> or heavily suppressed. You might say that the photographer strives to
become
> one with the subject, so that the subject really does drive the
composition.
> Of course, the photographer will never succeed in "becoming one with the
> subject", so we need have no fear that the photographer's creative,
soulful
> forces will not come into play."
>
> I respectfully but vehemently, very much disagree. The photographer drives
the
> composition whether s/he realizes it or not.
Thanks for the challenging comments.
I was writing about a balance - suppressing the usually too dominant ego, in
order to better relate to the subject and let it drive the composition. Of
course the subject isn't photographing itself! There is no danger that the
photographer's design sense, emotion and vision and mental faculties won't
come into play fully. Photographer's have much more to bring to a subject
than just ego. You make it sound like my statements are all absolutes.
Absolute suppression of the mind would have the photographer flat on their
back unable to release the shutter.
> Heavily suppressed egos make for
> bad photographers and possibly psychotic ones who live in blind
self-delusion
> about themselves and their photography.
I haven't found that to be the case.
Damn, don't you like any of my photos? Guess I'd better see a shrink right
away!
> If I might borrow a line from that wise
> sage of a sitcom "Seinfeld" - "serenity now, insanity later" - w/c means,
w/o
> going into a synopsis of the whole tv show, what we are angry about and
deny
> now later gets expressed in an angry time bomb/explosion later. Whether
or not
> a photographer gets angry or not and expresses it now or later is not my
point.
> My point is that denying one's ego
Did I write that one should "deny one's ego?" No.
> is dehumanizing and makes for worse
> photography (and photographers)
>because the act of photography is as much an act of self-expression as it
is an act of communication.
Indeed!
> Whether you/me/others
> want to admit it or not we are not some fly on the wall or an invisible
point
> of consciousness in the world. We act and react with the world and express
our
> will/consciousness/ego/identity/personality with the world as well as the
> subjects we photograph when we photograph our world (with the emphasis on
the
> "our" since it is we who change the world not only through our observation
of
> it but through our willful expression of what we think/feel through that
> subject matter. The very act of striving you refer to - "the photographer
> strives to become
> one with the subject" - is an act of the photographer's will/ego whether
> they/you/I recognize it or not.
Of course it is. Did I say making photographs was not an act of will? No.
> Better to recognize and admit it and explore it
> (the both our egos/identities and the subject matter too) than to deny it.
> Definitely be as sensitive to the subject as you want to be, but also be
> sensitive to yourself and your will and your thoughts/feelings w/c have
just as
> much right if not more to exist (and be expressed) as the subject you are
> striving to be so "at one" with with your sensitivity.
Again, I was writing about a balance - suppressing the usually too dominant
ego, in order to better relate to the subject and let it drive the
composition.
> If I was to invent a
> bumper sticker slogan that expresses this point of view condensed and down
to a
> "T" I'd have to say it would have to be a play/twist on the old gun
slogan.
> Mine would be - "Cameras don't make photos, people (photographers) do."
>
> Your's is one point of view
Of course.
>, but in my opinion a narrow minded one, something I
> don't agree w/. There is a living flesh and blood photographer who is
taking
> good photos, in my view, photography is a healthy way of expressing that
ego
> through self-expression - in other words, the photographer is the
"potter," the
> subject matter, technique, etc. is the "clay."
I agree that your view is the more popular one. Just as our whole Western
civilization emphasizes "us Vs them", "conquering nature", "driving home the
point", etc., etc.
> "However, with this method, the photographer might succeed in bringing
their
> "true nature" or "photographer's vision" (nearly the same thing) into
> contact with the subject and then use this alloy to cast the photo, rather
> than using their ego, their assignment or some other distracting
> intellectual baggage."
>
> This sounds like so much photo zen garbage to me and another, if
unrecognized,
> form of intellectualism/"intellectual baggage" masquerading as a
philosophy.
Believe me, If I could write about this stuff without being intellectual, I
most happily would. But the medium here is words and those are intellectual.
I prefer images but they are not the medium here. If my use of words to try
to get at these non-intellectual things - like a person's "true nature", a
"photographer's vision" or the "soul" of a subject sound like garbage,
perhaps I'm just not a good enough writer. These things do exist and they
can be a helpful part of a photographer's practice.
I wonder what you have against Zen? Are you writing from experience? Reads
more like from anger.
Could you describe for me what you mean by "photo zen garbage"? Any example
photos or photographers come to mind?
> "Spiritualized photography." Whether you know and/or realize it or not,
every
> photographer uses their ego (their senses, their mind, their insights,
etc.)
I take it you mean "their ego {as well as} (their senses.... ? Certainly the
ego is different from these other things?
> when making a photograph; their preference for photographing certain types
of
> subject matter, the compositions they choose to show what interests them
about
> their subject matter, the photo techniques they use to emphasize their
subject
> matter, the statement (if any they are trying to make through their
subject,
> etc. Ego doesn't necessarily (to me anyway) mean a form of bragging, it
means
> the identity (character/personality/observation and self-expression of
what the
> photographer feels/thinks and to deny its existance in order to feel some
sort
> of self-glorified "photo-spiritual self-congratulatory zen-like pat on the
> back" seems to me an excersize less in photography and self-expression
than
> hypnosis and self-deception.
I would call a "self-glorified "photo-spiritual self-congratulatory zen-like
pat on the back"" an act of ego. Just the sort of baggage I would recommend
a photographer set down before photographing and pick up (if necessary)
afterwards.
Maybe we should define "ego", since we seem to use the word differently.
However, it's getting late. Maybe next time we can turn to our
dictionaries...
> Please don't tell me that you are at one with a
> landscape, a still life, etc. they are inert matter without nervous
systems or
> minds and have no consciousness of you or your camera - the "at oneness"
takes
> place totally in your mind. Why not just admit that this is the game you
are
> playing with yourself.
...and with you. Of course it is - what is not "a game we are playing with
ourselves"? So what?
If I was 100% "at one" with even my computer here in fron of me, I probably
wouldn't be able to work the keyboard - as you said, non-compus mentus (or
however that's spelled). And as I said, I'm talking about a balance, not
absolutes.
> "This is what I would call good intention or true seeing. I also think
this
> is not some extraordinary or unusual method, but the simplest, most direct
> and most practical way to get images that work for viewers.
>
> --jim coe"
>
> This is what I would call voluntarily imposed blind self-delusion, not
true
> seeing, it is the photographer with a human will and a human ego/identity
that
> takes/makes photographs to deny that in favor of some artificially imposed
idea
> of being one with one's subject through denial of the photographer's
self/ego
> is to deny the very humanity and worth of the photographer and the worth
of the
> subject.
Interesting...
But I wouldn't say that self and ego are the same.
> Photography takes place as much in the mind (if not more so) of the
> photographer as it does in and in front of the camera.
Do you belive that there is any (even the smallest) spiritual aspect to
photography?
> Regards (despite our differences, real and/or perceived) and...
>
> Viva!
Thanks for a thought provoking (and otherwise provoking) discussion. I
believe this is pretty good stuff to think about.
--Respectfully...
--jim coe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like creative photography?
http://www.everydaymagic.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> If you wish to e-mail me just try and disconnect my brain. Have a thought
Jim Coe
photographers might come to have "prejudices" concerning certain materials,
lighting conditions, etc. which could keep them from seeing potentially good
shots.
This happened to me a few months ago:
I saw this shot, but couldn't seem to compose it into a good design. To make
a long story short, I was mentally rejecting part of the foreground and
refusing to let it into the composition, because it was this patched,
cratered and cracked, dirty pavement with nasty bits of stuff floating in
water in the cracks. When I realized what was happening and saw this
material as just part of the composition, not some ugly stuff I didn't want
to see, I included it (you couldn't see all the nasty details anyway) and
the design fell right into place.
This got me to wondering how many shots I miss or dilute because of "visual
prejudices", without even realizing it.
--jim coe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like creative photography?
http://www.everydaymagic.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Terry Dawson <tda...@infinet.com> wrote in message
news:38304ad3$0$13...@news.voyager.net...
> Paul Saunders <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:80p8r5$6oi$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Terry Dawson wrote;
<snip>
> > I'd just like to remind you of the issue of the viewer's perception of
an
> image.
> > Irrespective of whatever statement the photographer may try to make,
> there's no
> > guarantee that the viewer will see it that way. Each viewer's
perception
> of an
> > image, and therefore appreciation and understanding of it, is coloured
by
> > various preconceptions that the viewer has acquired over time.
> >
> > I make a distinction between photographers and non-photographers.
> >
> > Photographers seem to carry far more preconceptual baggage with them
than
> do
> > non-photographers, most probably due to their familiary with the "rules
of
> > photography" and the various techniques and preferences that they've
> developed
> > for themselves. <snip>
Jim Coe
inexpensive downloadable imaging program, has a set of "filters" designed
expressly for photographers familiar with the effects of photo filters.
--jim coe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like creative photography?
http://www.everydaymagic.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Saunders <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:80p8r6$6oi$3...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> In the "Color vs. Black & White in Artsy Photos" thread, Terry Dawson
wrote;
>
> > I'm wondering if digital manipulations in an editor can acceptably
duplicate
> > the effects of the commonly used b&w filters (red, orange, green, etc.).
>
> Indeed they can <snip>
Jim Coe
And of course, if it wasn't for the "dagger" in the portrait it, wouldn't be
a famous shot and we wouldn't be writing about it. So even a small area of
ambiguity can be "amplified" to have a huge effect, if its psychological
impact is large. I guess the popular story was that that shot cost him an
election. I've often wondered if J.P. Morgan saw the "dagger" when shown
that photo for the first time.
--jim coe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like creative photography?
http://www.everydaymagic.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jsn234 <jsn...@aol.commybrain> wrote in message
news:19991116013023...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
> --jim coe
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Like creative photography?
> http://www.everydaymagic.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"
>
> Jim:
>
> I think I agree w/ you to a large extent, however how much ambiguity one
likes
> in an image is a matter of taste. What I think both of us (and others?)
don't
> like is the kind of ambiguity w/c really is confusion/a weak lack of the
> photographer's vision/not using that ambiguity to make a statement (or
> statements). In other words, a photo where the photographer wasn't clear
what
> his subject was and how to express that subject. Intentional ambiguity
used
> well can lift a photograph from just a mere record shot into a powerful
> statement.
>
> As far as the J.P. Morgan shot, the ambiguity of what his hand is holding,
> chair arm or dagger is the whole point of the shot, the size of an
ambiguity is
> not limited to the amount of space in the photograph it takes but to
whether
> its useage helps/contributes to make the shot a significant photo
statement or
> not. In size the J.P. Morgan chair arm/dagger is small but its effect is
large
> in terms of that photos meaning/intent/and effect on the viewer so I would
> consider it a "large ambiguity" in that sense of the word.
>
> Regards and...
>
> Viva!
Jsn234
Jsn234
I liked your images/site, very well done!
Paul:
Thanks for your digital RGB filters post. I appreciate it and have saved it for
reference.
Jsn234
reflected his dark and disturbed vision. His Life Magazine photoessay "In
A Spanish Village" could have easily been shot in the 1850s instead of the
1950s.
Just for kicks a few years ago, I scanned his overall shot of the Spanish
Village (bright sunlight, shadowed people and donkeys) and then colorized
it in Photoshop. Although the end result was much like a hand-tinted b&W
print, the photo certainly was not improved by the addition of color.
Jim Patterson"
Ditto (and bravo!)for Smith, his work inspired me no end when I started to get
serious about photography (and now too!). My personal taste with hand tinted
black and white photography is that in most cases its better to "let Reagan be
Reagan" - let black and white be/stay black and white, rarely does color
tinting work on a black and white image where it doesn't look like the
photographer should have stopped while he was ahead/quit while they're behind.
In most cases I feel the colorizing should be left to Ted Turner, or better yet
not to Ted Turner as I'm not really crazy about what his colorization has done
to classic movies.
For me an image usually works in black and white or color, rarely both. There
is only one of my shots that I shot both in black and white and in color where
it works equally well. On one of my best shots I shot w/ TMax 100 and it came
out horrible (not the technical quality but the emotional effect) in black and
white but fortunately for me my friend had just gotten a roll of the as yet not
released in the U.S. Ektar 25. The shot (regardless of technical quality)
worked out great in color and lousy in black and white, thanks Mike! (the
friend who gave me the roll of Ektar).
There is another shot of The Beatles (roughly taken around the time of The
White Album) in profile that is a huge black and white poster and one of my
favorite shots of them as a group and just one of my favorite shots period. I
was in shock when I discovered, over the internet, that a very, very similar
shot from this session was not only not a rectangle/35mm but was a 2 1/4 color
square photograph in w/c, for the poster, just the top half was used and
converted to black and white. I am not ruling out the possibility that other
photos from this session could have either been taken in 35mm or with another 2
1/4 roll/back of black and white but the shots are so similar that my "bet" is
on the conversion of the 2 1/4 color shot to B&W. Any way, both the color and
the black and white shot are very strong aesthetically and I'm glad that this
shot was most likely done in color and converted to B&W. I have used a color
enlarger w/ filtration dialed in (pre-computer days) to print out
monochrome/monocolor? versions of some of my black and white shots on color
paper and I think they work equally well in B&W as they do in monocolor (I was
very selective as to which hue/tone the final image was printed as to make sure
the in enlarger toning matched the emotional effect of my shots) - but I'd be
very hesitant to do any colorizing/hand tinting of my shots.
I did once try on a BW work print to add color tinting and although the color
effect is interesting it is really a detraction from the intent and the effect
of the shot. I may do more experiments in this area but probably on the
computer where its alittle less messy in terms of work space/clean up, but just
as a lark.
Regards to all...
Terry Dawson
> Your comments remind me of something I was thinking recently. It's about
how
> photographers might come to have "prejudices" concerning certain
materials,
> lighting conditions, etc. which could keep them from seeing potentially
good
> shots.
>
> This happened to me a few months ago:
> I saw this shot, but couldn't seem to compose it into a good design. To
make
> a long story short, I was mentally rejecting part of the foreground and
> refusing to let it into the composition, because it was this patched,
> cratered and cracked, dirty pavement with nasty bits of stuff floating in
> water in the cracks. When I realized what was happening and saw this
> material as just part of the composition, not some ugly stuff I didn't
want
> to see, I included it (you couldn't see all the nasty details anyway) and
> the design fell right into place.
>
> This got me to wondering how many shots I miss or dilute because of
"visual
> prejudices", without even realizing it.
>
> --jim coe
> Like creative photography?
> http://www.everydaymagic.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Very instructional little tidbit, Jim. What you call "prejudices" could
also be called preferences. But, whatever you call them, I believe they
become the essence of style as the photographer exercises them, consciously
or otherwise. It's the unconscious ones that can be so baffling. If they
get out of hand or you don't understand them, you soon find you can't
effectively do certain shots because your "style" is simply incompatible
with the photographic opportunity before you. Another photographer with a
compatible "style" might come along and make you look like a novice. This
is where I think all photographers can learn a great deal from one another
regardless of the experience levels involved. Have you ever seen a
beginners shot where you just have to slap your forehead and say "Why didn't
I think of that?" Many will say those are just happy accidents. But, when
you start thinking of finely developed prejudices getting in the way, I'm
not so sure. Don't get me wrong tho. I still think style is a very
desirable thing.
Terry Dawson
> Terry Dawson <tda...@infinet.com> wrote;
>
> > I think the
> > non-photographer carries around a lot of useful but potentially
> confusing
> > assumptions as well.
>
> assumptions that most photographers learn.
>
> > There was even an article in a recent Discover
> > Magazine about the "science of art" that expounded some theories
> that our
> > love of certain landscape features, for example, might even be
> genetic --
> > going back to man's earliest days on the plains in Africa!
>
> appreciation of certain natural landscapes. Centuries ago,
> mountainous areas of the UK were generally regarded as ugly,
> depressing places. To quote Thomas Pennant (about Snowdonia); "...a
> fit place to inspire murderous thoughts, environed with horrible
> precipices...". Nowadays people consider this area to be extremely
> beautiful.
>
> Now how can you explain that?
How, indeed! Perhaps it has something to do with more transient and
accepted symbols or associations of the given time. For example, before
good roads and air conditioned autos, I'll bet any trip to those mountains
was somewhat perilous or at least very uncomfortable to pass through.
Today, we have very little such "coloration" of our view.
Terry Dawson
> Terry Dawson <tda...@infinet.com> wrote;
>
> > This
> > is where I think all photographers can learn a great deal from one
> another
> > regardless of the experience levels involved. Have you ever seen a
> > beginners shot where you just have to slap your forehead and say
> "Why didn't
> > I think of that?"
>
> designated "Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty". It's only a small
> area, about 20 miles x 8 miles.
>
> I've been photographing it on and off for about 15 years. After the
> first 10 years I thought I'd pretty much taken every photograph
> possible - every subject, every conceivable composition, every
> weather, every season. It got to the point that I simply couldn't see
> anything new to photograph there, so I more or less stopped visiting
> the area.
>
> Then last year I saw a new book of photos of the Gower. Such books
> appear every so often and rarely do they show me anything I haven't
> photographed myself dozens of times. This book was different though,
> after leafing through just a few pages I suddenly became very excited
> and bought it on the spot. This was a Gower I'd never seen before!
>
> I later studied the photos very closely, amazed at all the things the
> photographer had seen which I'd never noticed. Conversely, he'd
> avoided many of the subjects that I usually gravitate toward. I tend
> to photograph the dramatic cliffs of the south whilst avoiding the
> "boring" marshlands in the north. His book was filled with wonderful
> photos of the marshes. Whereas I've chosen to photographing waves
> crashing against rocks in bright sunshine, he chose to photograph a
> bridge in a forest on a cloudy day. On the few occasions he did
> photograph the same subjects as me, his compositions were completely
> different to anything I'd ever imagined.
>
> To add insult to injury, he'd only taken up photography the year
> before. This book was his first year's work!
>
> Incidentally, I'm not saying that I think his photos are better than
> mine, franky I prefer my way of seeing the world, but his difference
> of vision gave me the kick start that I needed to get out of the rut I
> didn't realise I was in.
>
> Beginning on January the 1st 1999, I began the process of
> systematically working my way around the Gower once more and
> re-photographing the entire area with a new open mind. My style
> hasn't changed that much, I'm still taking many of the same kinds of
> photos that I always have (I wouldn't be true to myself if I didn't),
> but additionally I've taken many more that I wouldn't have thought of
> previously. This year's collection is building up into a refreshing
> new look at that familiar old place. So far I've taken some of my
> best photos of the area ever!
>
> I haven't got to the marshes yet...
>
> That book changed my way of looking at things. In no way am I
> attempting to copy his style, it's not compatible with mine, but it's
> helped to open my eyes and allow me to see the familiar in new ways.
That must be what makes scenic photography so fascinating sometimes. As I'm
sure you know, the landscape changes from year to year, from season to
season, from day to day, and even from hour to hour. It's an endless source
of inspiration for those willing to explore at various times and vistas.
Thanks for driving my little platitude home, Paul! From what I see of your
fine work, your style seems quite mature (and secure). But, as you have
demonstrated above, style and method can (and probably should) continue to
evolve unless you just want to quit.
PS: And there's nothing like a snotty-nosed kid to give you a fresh
perspective on things. ;-)
Paul Saunders
Paul Saunders
> I think the
> non-photographer carries around a lot of useful but potentially
confusing
> assumptions as well.
You're probably right, but they're not the kind of "rule" type
assumptions that most photographers learn.
> There was even an article in a recent Discover
> Magazine about the "science of art" that expounded some theories
that our
> love of certain landscape features, for example, might even be
genetic --
> going back to man's earliest days on the plains in Africa!
Actually, something I've always wondered about is man's changing
appreciation of certain natural landscapes. Centuries ago,
mountainous areas of the UK were generally regarded as ugly,
depressing places. To quote Thomas Pennant (about Snowdonia); "...a
fit place to inspire murderous thoughts, environed with horrible
precipices...". Nowadays people consider this area to be extremely
beautiful.
Now how can you explain that?
Paul
Jsn234
From: "Jim Coe" <jim...@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 16 November 1999 02:03 AM EST
Message-id: <80qvgb$eh1$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>
Yes. Well said!
And of course, if it wasn't for the "dagger" in the portrait it, wouldn't be
a famous shot and we wouldn't be writing about it. So even a small area of
ambiguity can be "amplified" to have a huge effect, if its psychological
impact is large. I guess the popular story was that that shot cost him an
election. I've often wondered if J.P. Morgan saw the "dagger" when shown
that photo for the first time.
--jim coe"
If your "into" (I hate that word, but I'll use it anyway) Star Trek at all, I
would have titled it "Dagger of the Mind" (the title of one of the original
Star Trek episodes but very apt fot this photo) :-)
Jsn234
also be called preferences. But, whatever you call them, I believe they
become the essence of style as the photographer exercises them, consciously
or otherwise. It's the unconscious ones that can be so baffling. If they
get out of hand or you don't understand them, you soon find you can't
effectively do certain shots because your "style" is simply incompatible
with the photographic opportunity before you. Another photographer with a
is where I think all photographers can learn a great deal from one another
regardless of the experience levels involved. Have you ever seen a
beginners shot where you just have to slap your forehead and say "Why didn't
you start thinking of finely developed prejudices getting in the way, I'm
not so sure. Don't get me wrong tho. I still think style is a very
desirable thing."
Terry:
I agree w/ you about your point about style being a result of/influenced by
preferences. But I find style too shallow a word that is equated with surface
techniques/choices. If you don't mind me making a "formula" instead of a "rule"
I would say that style + thought = vision, and conversely style - thought =
another really bad Cokin Tobacco filter instant sunset shot :-)
Regards and...
Jsn234
Youch! What you said about both him and yourself is both inspiring and
humbling. One year doing photography and a photo book out of it, what seems
like a good photo book (having not seen the book for myself) out of it? Youch
and double youch! It inspires me to move my butt off of this chair/computer
more :-) and do some more shooting :-).
Frank DuPont
Paul
I think that centuries ago peoples big concern was to make a living off
the land and what didn't feed them wasn't worth anything but now we live
by other means and have more more time to enjoy what is around us. Of
course this means more problems for the people that have been enjoying
these places for many years, now they are getting too crowded.
It is good that you allow others to open your eyes a little wider, this
is part of growning. We don't have to let it make us untrue to ourselves
but just let us expand our view of the world, more importantly, make us
think.
I REALLY like your picture of the rocks and water, Mid-Wales Afon
Pysgotivr, I don't hang many picture on the wall but that one I would.
You make me want to pack my cameras and come there!
peace
Frank
Paul Saunders
> I REALLY like your picture of the rocks and water, Mid-Wales Afon
> Pysgotivr, I don't hang many picture on the wall but that one I
would.
> You make me want to pack my cameras and come there!
Thanks, glad you liked it, one of my favourites. If I remember
correctly it was something like a one hour exposure by moonlight. I
just placed the camera on a rock, opened the shutter, set the alarm on
my stopwatch and went back to the tent to make a cup of tea. It was
taken in February, I love winter.
Paul Saunders
> > To add insult to injury, he'd only taken up photography the year
> > before. This book was his first year's work!"
>
> Youch! What you said about both him and yourself is both inspiring
and
> humbling. One year doing photography and a photo book out of it,
what seems
> like a good photo book (having not seen the book for myself) out of
it? Youch
> and double youch! It inspires me to move my butt off of this
chair/computer
> more :-) and do some more shooting :-).
Actually, I've just checked the book and those details were not quite
correct, it seems the photos were taken over 3 years, not 1, with a
camera that was bought as a present for him by his wife on their
silver wedding anniversary, so he's not exactly a youngster.
The book was produced by a local printing company who wanted to
showcase their work to celebrate their centenary. The photographer in
question was chosen because he was a friend of the family (of course
his ability to take good photos might have had something to do with it
as well). Yet another case of "who you know".
I must make more effort to meet influental people...
Jsn234
I spent a long time typing a reply to your questions about my stance on the
will/ego when my AOL newsreader went out of existance because the messages
boards/newsgroups were taken temporarily out of commission by AOL. I had done
answering 2/3 to 3/4 of your post/questions when my newsreader disappeared and
all aparently was for naught. I have learned, finally, the lesson that when
ever I want to do a long reply its probably better to do it from a word
processing program and save it constantly (at least AOL can't get to my Claris
Works! :-)
Anyway, I was not angry at you, I was just very vehement against the kind of
mentality that let's subject rule over everything (particularly ego) - though
your post did appear to me to be denying the ego/will/intellectual baggage. I
now know (from your later comments about your original post and not the
original post itslef) that you were trying to strike a "balance" as you put it
between mixing/weighing of photographer's ego vs. subject. I think one of our
differences in the use of the term "ego" - to me that word means a man's
will/personality/identity, perhaps to you it meant more of a photographer's
bragging/puffed up pride and prejudices. My main point is that I believe that
since God gave man an ego/identity (rocks and chairs don't have this luxury
:-)) that a man/photograper should appreciate and
express this gift of ego/identity through his/her photography instead of trying
to squelch it.
You ask me whether I dislike the spiritual. I better not since the spiritual is
very important to me as I'm a Christian. What I dislike is pseudo spirituality
as expressed in some fine art nature photographers I have met who have combined
a false zen-like pantheism (being at one with your subject/nature rather than
expressing the ego/identity God gave you, and more so, spiritualizing and
worshipping the natural; trees, rocks, streams, etc.) and ego boost w/c
masquerades as a humble appreciation of nature/their own work. However much
wishing or however much emotion(s) a photographer invests in his creation (the
finished print), a straight forward photo of a bunch of rocks and trees is, was
and always will be a photo of a bunch of rocks and trees when there is no deep
seeing involved (no other statement then "Oops there it is/ain't it
beautiful"). It may be awe-inspiring scene in its emotional impact on the
viewer, and a well done composition and a beautifully fully toned fine grained
print, but it is still no more than a record shot (no matter how well done) of
a bunch of rocks and trees. It is not a statement (or at least a
deep/meaningful statement - beauty may be awe inspiring but it is not always
(and sometimes rarely) deep and meaningful). It is all subject and no content.
Or should I say its subject (nature/rocks and trees) is its content. Or at its
best, its subject is nature and its content/"theme" is beauty. Rarely is there
any deep seeing - something that says something more than "this is beautiful"
or by extension "this natural beauty is worth preserving." The only statement
is makes is "ain't this beautiful?/this is beautiful!" For me, that is
emotional food for my eyes but its more like cotton candy for my soul that
disappears after its made its initial impact and has left my field of view, its
not "soul food" that sticks w/ me and takes time to digest (and redigest). Well
yes it (this photo of nature) is beautiful but so what? There are (as Carl
Sagan used to say about the stars) billions and billions of beautiful
photographs in the Cosmos (or at least on Earth anyway). For me, the "soul
food," that I refer to is the human drama (yes, funny me, I enjoy shots of
rocks and trees but I find the human drama (human nature as opposed to just
nature) far more interesting from the point of view of how people live their
lives, interact w/ each other, the moral choices they make (their character),
their psychological make up (personailities, expressions, geusses as to their
motivations for doing their actions; moral/immoral/amoral), etc.). These things
I can not only appreciate but apply to (or at least question) how I live my
life and consider what I think and/or feel about certain actions, situations,
and issues. Much in the same way a film can be all surface (all plot, like
chase scenes/etc., and/or special effects, like explosions/etc., or it can be
deep and delve into its characters and its (the directors/writers/"the films")
philosophy of/take on life. In contrast to this I find many nature photos to be
no more than cheap anesthetic because they are beautiful but unchallenging.
Occaisionally you'll find a environmentalist w/ a social conscience that he
expresses through his vision (like Misrach and others) but mostly (it seems to
me) that the nature photographers who claim to be environmentalists in some
sense of the word (my geuss is that few nature/landscape photographers would
claim not to be environmentalists), rarely have a vision/make a statement(s)
that transcend their subject matter no matter how beautiful or well
composed/lit their natural scene is.
Yes, I'll agree, my tastes may be different from yours/others. I do get more
excited over the human drama (photojournalism) than a bunch of rocks and trees
that anybody with enough time and film and decent photo technique/observational
skills (and enough patience to scout out the right locations and wait for the
right weather/time/seasonal conditions could make a beautiful photograph out
of. But a case in point. Minimata. Not the kind of landscape Ansel Adams (or
billions and billions of Zone clones like him) would have shot because it was
neither beautiful, pristine, or the American West. Perhaps Robert? Misrach
would have shot it if he ever had a desire to go to Japan but his photos would
be mainly of the effects of the mercury poisoning without any people in it.
Smith forced the whole issue home, not just in his entire essay, but
particularly in the photograph of the mother bathing her severely deformed
child in a compositon that is reminiscent of a twisted 20th century version of
a Pieta. Not only do we see the depths/effects of man's cruelty man (women in
this case) the effects of the mercury poisoning (in the daughters massive
deformity and her inability to bathe herself) but we also see the heights of
human compassion in the mother's dedication to caring after/bathing her (what
seems like) adult deformed daughter. That inspires. That makes me think about
the many issues on a human scale of character not just a trite "save the
environment/pollution is bad" level. It is also a photograph that I may walk
away from but it never leaves me. It is more than a statement, more than a
cosideration of issues important or otherwise, it is an experience for me that
ties me deeper into what it means to be a human being. There is depth. There is
soul. There is "soul food." Now I realize its "just a photograph" and you may
accuse me of doing to this photograph what I accuse others of doing to their
own fine art nature photographs (glorifying themselves through their
spiritualizing nature and their photography of this nature). But surely (at
least to me anyway), doesn't the caring of/for a human life have more value
than just a pretty shot of a bunch of rocks and twigs you could drive to and
see their beauty anyway? (Perhaps you wouldn't appreciate the beautiful scene
in the same way as a "really good nature photographer" would show it to you but
you'd still be able to appreciate the beauty anyway even if it was different
than the way the nature photographer saw it, you wouldn't have lost any of the
beauty because you'd be seeing/substituting a slightly different
beauty/scene/weather/lighting/time of day/seasonal conditions, but their'd be
no "meaning" (other than the particular way the beauty was shown) that would be
lost, only the some of the attributes that made that scene more beautiful than
usual.
I have seen way too many (mostly nature/wildlife) fine art photographers
spiritualize the heck out of a bunch of rocks and trees and streams in their
photographs into some kind of pantheistic nature worshipping fine art
photography religion/cult. So when people talk about such spiritual/mental
self-deception as being one with their subject I see it (from my experiencing
of too many of these types of zone clones/clowns anyway, your experience
might/will be different) it makes me want to puke, literally. Get real (not you
but those photographers that worship the spiritual qualities of their inanimate
objects and by extension themselves in their photographs)! Its just a bunch of
rocks and trees and streams/etc. for crying out loud! They don't think, they
don't see, they don't feel and they don't have a life/make moral decisions,
they simply exist w/o self-aware consciousness or moral choice and while I
appreciate God's beautiful creation I have no intention of worshipping it or
myself through photographs. Those who do worship these things by trying to
pantheistically spiritualize these inanimate objects and self-glorify
themselves through their creations (photographs) of these pieces of creation
make me ill :-).
When I look at these Zen/"spiritualized rocks and trees" fine art nature
photographs three things go through my mind:
1. Nice print ("Hey Martha look at all them tones!," but really I do appreciate
good craftsmanship/composition).
2. What a grandiose self-congratualatory ego the photographer has (and doesn't
admit, by transposing his emotions of self pride into a pseudo humble slap on
his own back by glorifying his emotions into some form of spiritual worship of
nature in/of his fine art nature photograph when they go on talking about/in
praise of the "spiritual qualities" of the rocks/trees/other natural elements
in their photographs. Or as I said before (if I remember correctly),
"Spiritualizing (natural) garbage." (A funny/strange/sad thought (more strange
than usual) just occurred to me. Aren't these spiritual/environmentalists aware
that the photographs they use to praise nature and themselves with have used
toxic chemicals that will help ensure their environment's destruction? Also
reminds me of the vegetarians who shoot their photographs on film who forget or
don't know that the very film they are shooting is made from gelatin made from
the bones of East Indian water buffalo. Ahh but that's/those are another issue
entirely). For the record, I don't consider myself an environmentalist but I do
recycle, I do appreciate nature but I don't worship it (or myself through
photos of its beauty). I am not saying there is anything wrong w/ taking
photographs or appreciating photographs of natural beauty, just the glorifying
of the self I've seen by some nature photographers through their wonderfully
done fine art nature photographs.
3. What a great creator God is, he did the real creating here, all the
photographer did was point to the scene with his camera and record what was
there (w/c might take great or little skill depending on the scene, but in my
opinion the majority of the work was done by God creating his creation and not
the photographer, in this case the photographer was no more than a Western
Union man that studied selenium toning and the zone system). Almost anybody can
see well w/ some practice/training (good skills/observation) few can see
deeply. It is the deep seers (Smith, Weston (Smith & Wesson - just kidding
:-)), etc.) that get my respect, whether they have egos as big as the great
outdoors (like Smith who was constantly battling against Life magazine for
control of the display of his work) or with egos as small as the 35mm film
cannister we put into our cameras.
Oh well (I hope I'm wrong, but...) I expect to get thrashed for my "radical"
views on photography. It may seem narrow minded to some (particularly to those
nature/wild life/landscape photographers that have not had my experiences/lived
my life) but these are my true feelings, as vehement as they are. I hope that
we can all agree/disagree (as we have been doing) in a spirit of mutual good
naturedness (sorry, this word is the best I can do when typing as I am under
sleep deprivation :-)) and learn from each other no matter our differing views.
Regards to all and...
Jim Coe
Going to reply when there is time for a few deep readings and digestions
(and no doubt a few belches), as I feel you have covered a lot of important
stuff and that needs clear thinking. We are in some ways very close in view
and yet in others in entirely different cosmos (hmm what's the plural of
cosmos - another contradiction in terms). That's what I like about the Web.
People that make you try to think - what a concept!
I'm fast concluding that I need a new vocabulary. The heavily loaded words
I'm using don't seem to mean what they do to me. And nowadays they drip with
layers of fuzzy fantasy, tacky teachings and saccharin surfaces. Not only
does no one in the crowd admit that the king is wearing nothing at all, they
are all trying to buy the shirt off his back.
--Thanks again, more later.....
--jim coe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like creative photography?
http://www.everydaymagic.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jsn234 <jsn...@aol.commybrain> wrote in message
news:19991117131533...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> Jim:
>
> I spent a long time typing a reply to your questions about my stance on
the
> will/ego when my AOL newsreader went out of existance because the messages
> boards/newsgroups were taken temporarily out of commission by AOL. I had
done
> answering 2/3 to 3/4 of your post/questions when my newsreader disappeared
and
> all aparently was for naught. I have learned, finally, the lesson that
when
> ever I want to do a long reply its probably better to do it from a word
> processing program and save it constantly (at least AOL can't get to my
Claris
> Works! :-)
<snip>
Jsn234
Message-id: <810dtm$bud$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>
"He's dead Jim":
Sorry, I couldn't resist doing my Star Trek imitation of Leonard "Bones" McCoy
from the original Star Trek ;-).
Thanks for the comlpement. By now I thought I'd scared you/everybody off w/ my
"radical" (or at least "vehement") views into the nearest pixel mountains or
cosmos(es) (w/c we all know is one small step away from "osmosis" w/c is one
small step away from "Donney and Marie Osmond w/c is so "far out" not even Star
Trek Voyager has found them yet :-)).
As far as needing a new vocabulary goes... To paraphrase/twist my sign off w/c
quotes from the film BACK TO THE FUTURE "Words? Where we're going there are no
words!" :-)
Be careful of buying shirts from men w/ no pockets ;-). I eagerly await the
your reply (and am warming up my fingers for probably will be another four
course reply...
Regards and "Live long and poster (er, prosper)" ;-)...
Terry Dawson
news:19991117131533...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
God makes the tree, man makes the paper, the photographer makes the image,
and the viewer makes the meaning. So be it.
Jsn234
and the viewer makes the meaning. So be it.
--
One Zen Zeros - A Digital Photography Resource
http://www.infinet.com/~tdawson/index.html"
God makes man in His own image, man can't do the same so he gets a camera and
makes the image and the meaning and the viewer receives the meaning and/or adds
their own meaning and the networks and the actors get the residuals. In the end
Uncle Sam gets most if not all of it. But the networks (photographers and the
viewers) recycle it. Star Trek sequels? Advertising revenues? "Make it so
Number One!" :-)
Terry Dawson
> "God makes the tree, man makes the paper, the photographer makes the
image,
> and the viewer makes the meaning. So be it.
>
> --
> One Zen Zeros - A Digital Photography Resource
> http://www.infinet.com/~tdawson/index.html"
>
> God makes man in His own image, man can't do the same so he gets a camera
and
> makes the image and the meaning and the viewer receives the meaning and/or
adds
> their own meaning and the networks and the actors get the residuals. In
the end
> Uncle Sam gets most if not all of it. But the networks (photographers and
the
> viewers) recycle it. Star Trek sequels? Advertising revenues? "Make it so
> Number One!" :-)
>
> Viva!
>
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth." -- Data on STNG, quoting Sherlock Holmes.
Terry Dawson
> ""When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth." -- Data on STNG, quoting Sherlock Holmes."
>
> shadow of doubt. There's a princess sleeping on a big brass bed. There's a
> skeleton choking on a crust of bread" -- Sting on "King of Pain" with his
old
> band The Police.
>
> Viva!
>
We better stop this free association stuff before the off-topic police catch
us. -- Dawson on rec.photo.technique.art ;-)
Jsn234
improbable, must be the truth." -- Data on STNG, quoting Sherlock Holmes."
There's a king with his eyes torn out. There's a blind man searching for a
shadow of doubt. There's a princess sleeping on a big brass bed. There's a
skeleton choking on a crust of bread" -- Sting on "King of Pain" with his old
band The Police.
Viva!
If you wish to e-mail me just try and disconnect my brain. Have a thought and
Jsn234
us. -- Dawson on rec.photo.technique.art ;-)"
"Survey (or web Police) said..." -- Richard Dawson on the old TV show "Family
Feud" ;-)
C. J. Morgan
: Jsn234 <jsn...@aol.commybrain> wrote in message
: news:19991119205631...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
: > ""When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
: > improbable, must be the truth." -- Data on STNG, quoting Sherlock Holmes."
: >
: > There's a king with his eyes torn out. There's a blind man searching for a
: > shadow of doubt. There's a princess sleeping on a big brass bed. There's a
: > skeleton choking on a crust of bread" -- Sting on "King of Pain" with his
: old
: > band The Police.
: >
: > Viva!
: We better stop this free association stuff before the off-topic police catch
: us. -- Dawson on rec.photo.technique.art ;-)
Amen to that. Give it a rest Jsn. Hate to find you in the kill file only
because you haven't done some filtering yourself.
C.J.
--
C.J. Morgan
ch...@torfree.net
Jsn234
Date: Sun, 21 November 1999 01:04 AM EST
Message-id: <FLJA7y.BC...@torfree.net>
No thank you. I prefer not to rest. Viva la free speech! Even if it means I'm
talking only to myself ;-)!