Is There A Name For This Style Of Photography?
Chris Ellinger
wrote:
>Over the past 30 years I have been taking photographs of street scenes,
>buildings and landmarks that are in a state of change.
<snip>
>Here are my questions:
>
>Do any other photographers pursue this style of photography? Who are they?
>Is their work published anywhere?
David Plowden comes to mind. His photography has been widely
published and exhibited.
Chris Ellinger
Ann Arbor, MI
Mxsmanic
you took the time to document such things. This is just the sort of thing
that historians of the future will adore. Imagine how much more we would
understand about past history if someone had just been willing and able to
take a few photos at the right time and place, even if it seemed boring to
others at the time.
"Jeremy" <jer...@no-spam-thanks.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
PK2l9.3299$t6.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
(all snipped)
John Stafford
That is documentary photography. If you do it with certain firm metrics, it
can also be called survey photography.
Ken
>
> Whatever you do, keep the photos. Someday, someone will be thankful that
> you took the time to document such things. This is just the sort of thing
> that historians of the future will adore. Imagine how much more we would
> understand about past history if someone had just been willing and able to
> take a few photos at the right time and place, even if it seemed boring to
> others at the time.
I think this is so true. I know people who would give their eye teeth
for some of these old photos.
--
Ken
--
Mxsmanic
> It turns out that the bulk of the photos were taken
> by a local photo studio, over a period of several
> decades, and were in the photographer's possession
> all that time--unseen by anyone else.
Probably because the photographer thought that they were boring. And if he
showed them to anyone else, he was probably told that they were boring by
other people as well. And perhaps they were, at the time. But they aren't
now. They are the only record left of those times and places.
> The thought occurred to me that those "ordinary"
> photographs of those "everyday" subjects (which
> were now only memories) would have more sentimental
> and historical value than most of the "artsy"
> photographs that were being churned out by most
> photographers.
Sure. I consider the vast majority of "artsy" photos to be a waste of time.
Anyone who wants abstract art can paint. Photography documents reality, and
the photographer's challenge is to find the art in the real world, not to
make stuff up out of his imagination.
> I began hearing from people that had relocated
> to various parts of the USA, that had grown up in
> my home town, that hadn't been back in decades,
> and who were thrilled at being able to see some of
> the old sites, buildings, and streets once again.
What I find interesting is that, despite the billions and billions of
photographs being taken today, 99.99999% of our world still goes
undocumented. Even famous things and people are poorly documented. How
many decent pictures have you seen of the Washington Monument? Or of the
Griffith Observatory?
> Everyone, without exception, loved the photos--and,
> believe me, they were nothing special. They were
> only snapshots taken by a 2 megapixel digital camera.
Anything is better than nothing. Ask anyone who has watched his children
grow up but never got around to taking pictures of them, or who has lost a
loved one and only realized after the latter's passing that nobody ever took
any pictures of him. All of a sudden every torn and faded snapshot is worth
its weight in gold.
> As I said in a prior post, my work will never hang
> in an art gallery.
Never is a long time.
> BUT, they just may be important historical records
> in the future.
And some historian 300 years for now will fairly salivate when he finds your
treasure trove of photographs. "Look! Someone documented the entire town!
Now we can finally discover what it really looked like!"
Imagine what the world would be like today if we had pictures of the
Egyptians building their pyramids, or photographs of famous people and
events described in the Bible.
> Granted, this subject matter may not be for everyone,
> but for the first time, I feel that I am doing something
> creative that comes from ME, as opposed to my doing a bad
> imitation of someone else's work.
You're making a contribution to society. It won't be recognized much during
your lifetime, but it will survive you and someone will eventually find it
and appreciate more than anyone today might imagine.
I remember once, after my grandfather died, I found a lot of old
reel-to-reel magnetic tapes from a fancy tape recording setup that he bought
long ago, when he wanted to record his music (music was a serious hobby of
his). He recorded a lot of family events and stuff, too. One day I was
listening to a tape (in perfect, high-fidelity stereo, thanks to my
grandfather's no-expense-spared approach to buying equipment) and recognized
the voices of various people in my family, although I could not figure out
when it was made (most of the people on the tape were still very much
alive). But then I heard a baby crying, and I couldn't figure out who it
was ... until I heard my mother on the tape telling ME to stop crying!
Sends a bit of a chill down your spine when you realize that the crying baby
is yourself!
When I was little, our parents took still pictures of my sister and me, but
no moving images to speak of. On one occasion, though, my father did borrow
a camera and shot about three minutes of footage of me and my sister, just
for fun. Little did he know that it would turn out to be the only moving
pictures of our childhood to ever be recorded. So now that
previously-boring little movie is quite significant to us!
RD
wrote:
>I am not a professional. I have no formal photographic training.
>
>Over the past 30 years I have been taking photographs of street scenes,
>buildings and landmarks that are in a state of change.
For the past five or six months, I have been doing something similar.
There are numerous small towns within a one hour radius of my home,
and many are partially or wholly abandoned.
I try to frequent these towns, and I shoot everything that looks old
and impermanent. Although I haven't actually searched out subjects
that make the news, I know these are structures and fixtures that will
soon be gone.
One example is an old, three story hotel I found, about 45 minutes
away. It died a number of years ago, apparently due to construction of
a highway and the subsequent cessation of passenger train service. The
tracks are visible alongside the hotel, the building still has its
sign, and all the windows and doors are boarded. Despite its plain,
brownstone exterior and total desertion, little is required to
mentally reconstruct its better days. You can almost hear the chatter
of the patrons and the traffic in the street.
Down the block is a structure that looks like it might have been a
diner at one time. The exterior is wood, curled and splitting, and
it's very imposing when shot with only a mild wide angle lens.
Diagonal from the hotel is a defunct GM dealership with a uniquely
'50s round logo on top that apparently used to rotate. This one has
given me a great deal of difficulty; the feeling of abandonment that
is so apparent in person simiply will not transfer to the print. I
haven't given up, but it's frustrating.
I guess there's a certain nostalgic quality about these things,
although like the auto dealer, I've found that it's often a
significant challenge to capture on film. It would probably help to
shoot B&W, and lately, I've begun to think that color may be creating
a distraction in my images.
Sorry I can't answer your questions; your experience in this area
eclipses my own. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only person who enjoys
this type of work. I happened upon it gradually, not as a result of
studying the work of other photogs. I didn't even know it should have
a name. :)
JL
fbearl
"Jeremy" <jer...@no-spam-thanks.com> wrote in message
news:PK2l9.3299$t6.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
snip
> Is there a name for this style of photography? The term "Documentary
> Photography" comes to mind, but I believe that documentary photography
> attempts to make a point through the photos. I just want to show things
as
> they actually looked--with no other "message."
>
> Do any other photographers pursue this style of photography? Who are
they?
> Is their work published anywhere?
>
photographs
> just might become precious historical records one day. If there are any
> specific techniques or objectives that should be followed in this type of
> work, I'd like to know what they are. And I sure would like to see
examples
> of others' work, if such material exists.
>
> Any comments or suggestions for further reading???
>
>
>
I would call it Historical Photography, with a capital "H". Another notable
photographer who did much the same thing was Eugene Atget. He was initially
an actor in the provinces in France. He later moved to Paris and became a
photographer. He supported himself by selling contact prints to anyone, but
primarily to artists to use as settings for their paintings. He charged a
ridiculously small amount. Here is a quote from promotional literature for
the book Atget's Paris:
"Eugene Atget. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the photographer
Eugene Atget embarked on a single-handed project to record for posterity the
face of "vieux Paris" at a time when the city was undergoing rapid change.
"Atget's Paris" brings together his photographs in a single volume,
reflecting the scope and nature of his efforts to capture the daily life of
the "Ville Lumiere", and to record its boulevards and buildings."
Berenice Abbott was essentially the one who recognized the historic and
artistic merit of Atget's work and made sure his legacy was preserved.
There is a small bio at this site:
http://www.waywardintellectuals.com/page68.htm#About%20Eugene%20Atget
And consider leaving your photos, negs and documentation to an institution
with both the interest and manpower to properly catalog, document and
preserve what you have done. If you total your time and expenses you will
find that your bequest is worth thousands of dollars.
Ralf R. Radermacher
> I don't know of anyone else that does anything like this.
Well, there's a fair number of us, although most occupy themselves with
abandoned commercial, industrial, or railway sites.
You'll find a selection in the 'afterscape' section of my gallery.
For a few more try:
http://www.abandoned-places.com/
http://detroityes.com/index.html
http://www.hfinster.de/StahlArt/index.html
...and then just follow the various web rings accessible from there.
Oh, and how about a little website for sharing some of your work with
the rest of us? :-)
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated May 9, 2002
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Lassi Hippeläinen
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> I am not a professional. I have no formal photographic training.
>
> Over the past 30 years I have been taking photographs of street scenes,
> buildings and landmarks that are in a state of change.
Sounds familiar... I've been doing that on my Sunday walks.
You didn't mention your filing system. At least the photos should be
dated. Also the location is worth recording - in the future people may
not recognise it. If you do that, you're doing documentary photography.
-- Lassi
John Stafford
Well, I for one appreciate documentary photography, even the kind one might
consider banal today. Its value may be realized in the future.
I am involved in establishing a digital archive of 100 year-old-prints of my
hometown. At that time, a photographer made his reputation by being the sole
source of images for a region: more picture were better. It is a shame so
few survived. But those that did, and regardless of the quality (to some
extent), are cherished.
If it's okay with y'all, I might post one such picture on a server and ask
for comments regarding the photographers technique. I assert that some of
them were state-of-the-art of the time, carefully rendered, good perspective
controls and there are a couple real mysteries in one or two.
John Halliwell
<lahi...@ieee.orgies.invalid> writes
>You didn't mention your filing system. At least the photos should be
>dated. Also the location is worth recording - in the future people may
>not recognise it. If you do that, you're doing documentary photography.
A lot of that can be usually be recorded on the film itself, street name
signs help identify the location, as do well known 'landmarks'. If you
keep the whole roll together, there's often enough information between
various shots to sort things out.
I went through a stage of photographing a TV teletext screen on the
first and last shot of each film. This gives a 'timeline' for the film,
choosing a screen full of news headlines also helps record the headlines
at the time. You can do the same with a newspaper as well.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
Rabbitbert
>Diagonal from the hotel is a defunct GM dealership with a uniquely
>'50s round logo on top that apparently used to rotate. This one has
>given me a great deal of difficulty; the feeling of abandonment that
>is so apparent in person simiply will not transfer to the print. I
>haven't given up, but it's frustrating.
I suggest that you try some Polaroid. Even after all the improvements that
they have made to their films, when these are used right they still can have
that 1960's, 1970''s look to them. TimeZero (SX-70) or the current 600 are
good choices. If you can find one of the good old folding pack film cameras,
try some type 669 (color, ISO 80) and type 667 (b&w, ISO 3000). You can tone
Polaroid b&w peel-apart films in coffee and they look authentically aged and
weathered. Of course there's also the standard emulsion altering techniques
that can help capture a spirit of times past.
R.
Patrick Draper
Jeremy <jer...@no-spam-thanks.com> wrote:
>I don't know why it took so many years for me to develop a personal style of
>photography (albeit such an unusual one). Granted, this subject matter may
>not be for everyone, but for the first time, I feel that I am doing
OK, you've inspired me. I have sometimes thought that it would be interesting
to take photos as I walk around my neighborhood, in order to be able to
remember what it looked like 20 years from now. Now, I'm going to have to do
that for real.
--
Patrick Draper | Don't |sig...@pdrap.org
Austin, Texas | Fear |Father Order runs at a
http://www.pdrap.org | The |good pace, but old Mother
Be Microsoft Free - Use Linux |Penguin |Chaos is winning the race.
RD
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Patrick Draper" <newsgr...@pdrap.org> wrote in message
>news:3d97d...@nopics.sjc...
>
>> OK, you've inspired me. I have sometimes thought that it would be
>interesting
>> to take photos as I walk around my neighborhood, in order to be able to
>> remember what it looked like 20 years from now. Now, I'm going to have to
>do
>> that for real.
>
>
>At first, you wonder why you are wasting your film.
I would never think that, but I do have concerns about cost. When I'm
shooting in this mode, I tend to burn a lot of film.
Just out of curiosity, are you using MF for this work?
JL
John Eyles
think 'I'm just wasting film, who'll be interested in this
stuff anyhow'", or some such. So now would be a good time
to repeat an interesting anecdote from the recently re-broadcast
PBS miniseries "The Civil War" (for those of us who've been
hiding under a rock and haven't seen the series) ...
They think about 1 million photos were taken during the Civil
War. At the time they used glass-plate negatives. After the
war, people wanted to forget about it, not look at photos of
dead soldiers and such. So many of the glass-plate negatives
were used as windows in greenhouses. Where of course they
promptly faded away.
Fortunately some survived, as seen in the miniseries. It's
worth watching just as a photo exhibition. Supposedly, for this
recent re-broadcast, they were "enhanced", but I'm not sure
what that means exactly.
John
Mxsmanic
> You know the type of pictures they were referring
> to--abstract shapes, "interesting" color combinations,
> manipulated images through the use of filters, etc.
> EVERYTHING BUT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE.
Yes. "Artsy" photos are a penny a dozen. You can use them for toilet
paper, IMO.
I've always wondered why anyone would use a camera as a starting point for a
composition so abstract that they could have just painted it more easily in
the first place. Photographic equipment is for documenting reality, not
creating abstract patterns of light. For the latter, all you need is
imagination and a brush.
RD
wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, are you using MF for this work?
>My MF camera is a Yashica Model-A, with only a Yashikor normal lens. I
>haven't used it much, as it is limited in terms of overall quality.
I like TLRs, but they're very inconvenient because of my eyes. I have
to use the flip-up magnifier to focus all shots, not just those that I
think need critical adjustment. I could probably solve this by wearing
bifocals, but with a SLR or rangefinder, I don't need glasses at all.
My Ricoh Diacord L (Tessar-style lens) takes amazingly sharp photos,
but I have finally decided to sell it for this reason.
>I started doing this work in digital, and have spent most of the last year
>working in 35mm.
>
>I really think that the Hasselpbad X-Pan would be ideal for this work, but
>my budget doesn't allow for its purchase.
35mm is the perfect choice for this. Documenting a location can
consume large quantities of film, and it's helpful to be able to run
24 or 36 frames off one roll (and to change out a used roll quickly).
On the other hand, taking an MF kit along ensures that an opportunity
won't be missed. I frequently come across subjects that deserve better
than 35mm can offer.
JL
RD
wrote:
>I have been searching out various signs--especially those that were painted
>onto sides of brick buildings. I just found a "Gold Medal Flour" sign on
>the side of a building on a main street--one that I had passed by for 40
>years! It was badly faded, but I managed to capture the image. (Remember
>those "Burma Shave" signs that used to be all over the place??")
I'm really amazed you just wrote that. It's exactly where my focus has
been over the last two months or so. In fact, I just shot a huge Dr.
Pepper sign painted on a brick building. It's a picture of a female
auto mechanic holding a wrench in one hand and a bottle of D.P. in the
other. It's located where almost no one will ever see it, and I'm sure
it willl soon be gone.
I have lately found business signs and mascots to be much more
interesting than most other things on the street. Some are funny, like
tin men made of mufflers; others are nostalgic, like the '50s Buick
dealership globe that no longer turns. Sometimes I happen across
something that's just plain odd, like the stuffed mannequin sitting
next to the air compressor at a local auto repair shop. It's a
life-size mannequin of an American Indian, wearing a cowboy hat,
jeans, and boots. Looks like something out of a bad movie! The thing
faces out the back of the shop, about 50 feet off the street, and I
drove past it several times before realizing it wasn't a real person.
Aside from the diversity to be found in this genre, there is probably
a greater impermanence than anywhere else (except news events). Some
of these businesses will be gone in six months, and the images will go
with them.
JL
John
>I really think that the Hasselpbad X-Pan would be ideal for this work, but
>my budget doesn't allow for its purchase.
Why not simply get a C220 and put a cropping guide over the viewfinder ?
Regards,
John S. Douglas
http://www.darkroompro.com
John Halliwell
Jeremy <jer...@no-spam-thanks.com> writes
>Instead, tons of amateurs continue "upgrading" to the latest wonders, hoping
>that their latest acquisition will lead them to the holy grail and will make
>them artists. Look at any new camera brochure--35mm or medium format--and
>you will see that message is implicit in all of them.
I disagree somewhat with the statement about medium format brochures.
Those that I have push the advantage of the bigger format and the
versatility of removable backs and finders as much as (or more than) the
latest technology. New medium format AF brochures may be as you
describe, I don't know I haven't seen any.
A few years ago ('95 or '96), Vivitar ran an advertising campaign for
the 283 flashgun, pointing out that old technology isn't always
inferior.
>We can't all be Ansel Adams. I regret only that it took me 3 decades to
>realize that. Imagine all of the treasures that I would have, had I started
>this project 30 years ago, in earnest . . .
Ansel Adams was a decent photographer, there are countless others with
similar skills (and presumably many with much better or completely
different skills). The only difference is the way he managed to
publicise himself and his work to the point where his obvious talent was
able to shine through.
Don't fret about the past and missed opportunities, instead look back to
the point where you chose photography and think about all the treasures
you have (and will still get) that you wouldn't have had, had you chosen
something else [if that lot makes sense].
Dave Wyman
> I like TLRs, but they're very inconvenient because of my eyes. I have
> to use the flip-up magnifier to focus all shots, not just those that I
> think need critical adjustment. I could probably solve this by wearing
> bifocals, but with a SLR or rangefinder, I don't need glasses at all.
> My Ricoh Diacord L (Tessar-style lens) takes amazingly sharp photos,
> but I have finally decided to sell it for this reason.<
Use a small enough aperture and the resultant depth of field will take care of your focusing
problem. For myself, I enjoy looking through the viewfinder - my complaint at my advanced age is
having to use glasses to see the f/stop and shutter speed numbers on my Rolleiflex.
Dave
--
http://www.davewyman.com
http://www.idrivebackroads.com (Guidebook to Northern California)
This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual
character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
Leonard Evens
>
> I like TLRs, but they're very inconvenient because of my eyes. I have
> to use the flip-up magnifier to focus all shots, not just those that I
> think need critical adjustment. I could probably solve this by wearing
> bifocals, but with a SLR or rangefinder, I don't need glasses at all.
> My Ricoh Diacord L (Tessar-style lens) takes amazingly sharp photos,
> but I have finally decided to sell it for this reason.
Like everyone past a certain age, you have presbyopia, meaning your eyes
can't focus close up. That means you can't see the focusing screen of
a TLR without lenses, but if you are like me it also means you can't see
the f-stop and other controls of the camera. I find it is extremely
difficult to use a camera at all, even an autmatic digital camera
without close vision. That is what bifocals (and improvements) were
invented for, and they work quite well.
>
>
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.northwestern.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
RD
<l...@math.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>RD wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:35:06 GMT, "Jeremy" <jer...@no-spam-thanks.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> I like TLRs, but they're very inconvenient because of my eyes. I have
>> to use the flip-up magnifier to focus all shots, not just those that I
>> think need critical adjustment. I could probably solve this by wearing
>> bifocals, but with a SLR or rangefinder, I don't need glasses at all.
>> My Ricoh Diacord L (Tessar-style lens) takes amazingly sharp photos,
>> but I have finally decided to sell it for this reason.
>Like everyone past a certain age, you have presbyopia, meaning your eyes
>can't focus close up. That means you can't see the focusing screen of
>a TLR without lenses, but if you are like me it also means you can't see
>the f-stop and other controls of the camera.
Yes, the camera controls can be a big problem. I recently bought a
used Koni Omega to see if a rangefinder would solve the focusing
problem (and I think it does for most shots). I was pleasantly
surprised also to discover that markings for aperture and shutter
speeds are large enough to read without glasses. Being a fully manual
camera though, I have to use a handheld meter much of the time, and
that presents problems of its own. The one I use most has a scale I
can still see, although with some difficulty. I have two others that
are not readable without glasses.
I know that wearing bifocals isn't the worst thing that could happen,
it just eliminates much of the freedom that I enjoy now. I don't
normally wear glasses, even for work at a computer screen. It's nice
to be able to just grab a camera and go. I guess this isn't the best
criteria to use for selecting equipment though.
Thanks for your comments on this, it's been difficult to deal with
lately.
JL
RD
wrote:
>I wonder if the various county historical societies would be interested in
>acquiring these images?
That possiblity would seem to make it imperative that every shot be
documentated as to place and time. And although the quality of digital
camera images isn't yet equal to film, digital technology could
provide a convenient means to do this. Attaching a 5-10 second voice
file to each image wouild eliminate the need to carry a notebook, or
to write on the prints. It's not enough to make me buy one, but I'll
bet some models already do this.
JL
Ralf R. Radermacher
> Attaching a 5-10 second voice
> file to each image wouild eliminate the need to carry a notebook, or
> to write on the prints.
Certainly not a good idea for archiving purposes. Would you want to
listen through hours of shortwave-quality stammered comments, searching
for a particular subject?
Struan Gray
> I wonder if the various county historical
> societies would be interested in
> acquiring these images?
In the USA there are formal, so-called HABS surveys paid for by
federal grants. Individual photographers can write a proposal to
document a particular area or building and, provided that they agree to
deliver a fairly strictly-specified set of archival prints, the
government pays. A web search on HABS will give you plenty of info.
In the UK (where I come from) it's all much more ad-hoc. In Sweden
(where I live) grants are available, but they're limited, and you have
to fight the artists for a piece of a small pie. Unfortunately, the
emphasis tends to be on buildings and urban settings which are obviously
about to go under. It would make more sense to photograph them in their
heyday, before decline sets in.
Struan
RD
Radermacher) wrote:
>RD <haijack...@onr.com> wrote:
>
>> Attaching a 5-10 second voice
>> file to each image wouild eliminate the need to carry a notebook, or
>> to write on the prints.
>
>Certainly not a good idea for archiving purposes. Would you want to
>listen through hours of shortwave-quality stammered comments, searching
>for a particular subject?
>
>Ralf
The attached audio would be useful for identifying and quickly
describing each image. The system used for locating and retrieving a
specific image later is a different matter. If the library is
relatively small, a thumbnail viewer with a button labeled "play
audio" might be sufficient. File names could contain date and
sequence. Larger libraries would, of course, require a database.
I agree, if you stammer, this isn't a good idea.
JL
Andrew Price
Radermacher) wrote:
>RD <haijack...@onr.com> wrote:
>
>> Attaching a 5-10 second voice
>> file to each image wouild eliminate the need to carry a notebook, or
>> to write on the prints.
>
>Certainly not a good idea for archiving purposes. Would you want to
>listen through hours of shortwave-quality stammered comments, searching
>for a particular subject?
This is the BeebCeeb ...
John Halliwell
Jeremy <jer...@no-spam-thanks.com> writes
>With the advent of digital photography, and with all those millions shooting
>anything that appears in their viewfinder, with no regard for film
>consumption, there just may be a lot more interest in documentary
>photography. Admittedly, the digital images might not be very good compared
>to film, but something is better than nothing. And some of those
>photographers just might want to expand their horizons by advancing to
>film-based equipment.
I think digital will make things a million times worse. Most people who
shoot digital shots haven't the faintest idea how to store them properly
(or even at all). Many people only buy one card and keep deleting images
on a priority basis to shoot more. There will be a lot fewer old photos
discovered in attics and the like, many photos carefully archived (but
not archived carefully enough) will be unreadable and lost.
John Halliwell
writes
>That possiblity would seem to make it imperative that every shot be
>documentated as to place and time. And although the quality of digital
>camera images isn't yet equal to film, digital technology could
>provide a convenient means to do this. Attaching a 5-10 second voice
>file to each image wouild eliminate the need to carry a notebook, or
>to write on the prints. It's not enough to make me buy one, but I'll
>bet some models already do this.
Yes, cameras can do this, but why would you want to use up a lot of data
space with digitised voice (through a dodgy microphone). Text based
titling is possible and much more compact data wise, but I haven't seen
manufacturers interested in doing it off the image (less sexy perhaps?).
John Stafford
l...@math.northwestern.edu wrote on 10/1/02 10:17 AM:
> Like everyone past a certain age, you have presbyopia,
Hey, I'm 56 and not a presbyopian! Lutheran, all the way.
John Stafford
jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk wrote on 10/1/02 3:48 PM:
> I think digital will make things a million times worse. Most people who
> shoot digital shots haven't the faintest idea how to store them properly
What we need is the a digital archival shoe box. How about digital Glassine
envelopes?
My Focomat IIa never crashes. I can set a magnet on my prints and film.
Nobody can hack into my shoebox. Life is good.
John Stafford
One more thing for the documentary photographers - it is becoming more
common to include a GPS record of the location. A good idea.
Lassi Hippeläinen
I wouldn't recommend digital storage for historical archiving. Not yet
mature enough. You are talking about centuries.
Writing with pen on a paper print fits better with current archiving
technology...
-- Lassi
John Halliwell
<jo...@stafford.net> writes
>
>One more thing for the documentary photographers - it is becoming more
>common to include a GPS record of the location. A good idea.
There's a guy who did a book called 'Posts', basically a collection of
football (soccer) goalposts throughout the world. From goalmouths of
internationally famous stadia through to those scrawled on walls in
inner city areas. He shot a lot in places like Africa, and the location
given for many of those are given as latitude and longitude.
It's an excellent book and such a simple idea too.
The past few weeks I've been documenting major structural changes in my
parents back garden, wonder if there's a book in that?
A few years ago I returned to my favourite childhood places, just to
make sure I had a photographic record of things before anything major
happened to it (nothing apart from minor landscaping about 15 years
ago).
Mxsmanic
de news: 3D9ABB3D...@ieee.orgies.invalid...
> I wouldn't recommend digital storage for historical
> archiving. Not yet mature enough. You are talking
> about centuries.
Digital representations are the only representations that can survive
indefinitely. That's why we still have the Bible.
John Stafford
mxsm...@hotmail.com wrote on 10/2/02 5:15 PM:
> Digital representations are the only representations that can survive
> indefinitely. That's why we still have the Bible.
With that post, you have become a truly certifiable Nut Case. But if you
want to become a famous Net Whacko Personality, you have to do little better
than that. Here, we understand you are just being silly: someone captured by
the glow of a CRT, isolated in France, hopelessly out of touch.
Mxsmanic
> I think that the photo magazines, the camera
> manufacturers and the book publishers brainwashed
> us amateurs into thinking that all photographers
> should create "art."
I agree. That's about all they ever publish. Of course, nowadays, it's
practically illegal to publish anything else.
> Documentary photography is not a style that sells
> cameras.
I dunno. It sells cameras to tourists and parents and the like. I suppose
it doesn't sell fancy cameras to amateurs with high aspirations, though.
> If most amateurs thought like I did, there would
> not be too many camera manufacturers out there.
True, although your policy seems highly reasonable and logical to me. All
you need is a good lens and a reliable body, and you're on your way. Nobody
is going to care which body you used when they look at the finished photo.
I take photos with all sorts of cameras, from disposables to Leicas. There
is very little correlation between the type of camera used and the aesthetic
or content quality of the finished photo, although good bodies and lenses do
make for cleaner photos from a technical standpoint (sharper details, better
contrast, etc.), which does motivate me to use better equipment. When a
perfect photo comes along, it's nice to capture it with good equipment; if
the photo is taken with a disposable, that's still usable, but you might
kick yourself later for not having a better camera handy when that perfect
photo finally came along.
Of course, if your documentary shots are of static subjects, you don't have
to worry about this haphazard aspect of taking pictures.
> Instead, tons of amateurs continue "upgrading"
> to the latest wonders, hoping that their latest
> acquisition will lead them to the holy grail and
> will make them artists.
I think a lot of them just using artistic aspirations as an excuse to buy
gear. The more interested a photographer is in his equipment, the less
impressive his photos tend to be, in my experience. While every
photographer wants gear that gets the job done, the best photographers seem
to find gear that suits their requirements and then they just stick with
that for a couple of decades, without any further "upgrades."
> Look at any new camera brochure--35mm or medium
> format--and you will see that message is implicit
> in all of them.
Have you seen the Hasselblad 2002 calendar? It's garbage. One has to
wonder why anyone would spend thousands for a 'Blad and Zeiss lenses just to
produce blurry, improperly-exposed garbage and pass it off as "art." Why
not just use a Holga if that's the objective?
> We can't all be Ansel Adams.
Do we want to be? I never cared much for his work.
> Imagine all of the treasures that I would have,
> had I started this project 30 years ago, in earnest . . .
As I recall, Ansel wasn't really successful until he was into his 70s.
Mxsmanic
news: FBdBYEAv...@photopia.demon.co.uk...
> I think digital will make things a million times
> worse. Most people who shoot digital shots haven't
> the faintest idea how to store them properly
> (or even at all).
Digital will lower photographic standards dramatically, just as all other
simplifying and enabling technologies do. The easier something is, the more
people will try it, and the fewer of them will be truly dedicated to the
task. So the easier photography becomes, the more casual the average
photographer is likely to be, and the worse the average photograph will be
in consequence.
Mxsmanic
B9C0F9EA.ABDB%jo...@stafford.net...
> With that post, you have become a truly certifiable
> Nut Case.
Because you say so?
I understand information theory, and others who understand information
theory can only agree with my statement. The only reason we still have
written languages that are readable today, even after hundreds or thousands
of years, is that they were and are represented digitally.
Ralf R. Radermacher
> I can't help think that I may be failing to cover all the bases when
> photographing these sites. Has anyone established any rules or protocol for
> shooting sights such as these? After all, there probably will not be any
> time to re-do the shots, if I later realize that my original shots weren't
> done right.
No particular rules that I'd be aware of.
Have a loook at the numerous other websites showing similar subjects and
look how people there tackle them. There's dozens of us. I've already
given a number of links earlier on in this thread.
Lassi Hippeläinen
<...>
> I can't help think that I may be failing to cover all the bases when
> photographing these sites. Has anyone established any rules or protocol for
> shooting sights such as these? After all, there probably will not be any
> time to re-do the shots, if I later realize that my original shots weren't
> done right.
I don't have anything systematic, but I've noticed that one thing is
often missing: close-ups. Details where a touch of hand can be seen.
Anything from hand-laid bricks to worn-out handles.
-- Lassi
Ralf R. Radermacher
> I don't have anything systematic, but I've noticed that one thing is
> often missing: close-ups. Details where a touch of hand can be seen.
> Anything from hand-laid bricks to worn-out handles.
Exactly. Detail, detail, detail. An old calender on the wall or an old
newspaper usually tell when the place was last active.
Some of the things I've found include, in no particular order:
- literally hundreds of "Chiquita" and "Oranges de Montagne" labels
stuck on a partitioning wall
- all kinds of wall writings
- a poster from the 60's by the "Belgian National Office for Annual
Leave"
- lists of employees' birthdays written on a wall
- the usual silent dialogues like "Keep this door closed" with a
scribbled "Sure, Bill" below
- plus the usual assortment of things which couldn't possibly be
repeated here because it's still before 10 p.m. ;-)
Then, there's all those little things left behind, like working gloves,
shoes, rusty tools etc.
If I could find someone to do my work for me, I'd be able to put a lot
more of this on my website. :-)
One more thing: be careful in those places. They can be unsafe and
sometimes there's lots of harmful stuff around.
But most of all enjoy yourself and do share your results on the net.
Gannet
>Digital will lower photographic standards dramatically, just as all other
>simplifying and enabling technologies do. The easier something is, the more
>people will try it, and the fewer of them will be truly dedicated to the
>task.
I see your point, but I don't see what digital has to do with it.
What could be any easier than "You push the button, we do the rest"?
That's been going on for over 100 years now. How is digital any
easier? If anything, even the simplest digital cameras are far more
complex to use than a box Brownie. So I don't think we have to worry
about poor photos getting poorer.
Gannet
St. Petersburg, Florida
Mxsmanic
ramspuc7ljuildu6e...@4ax.com...
> I see your point, but I don't see what digital
> has to do with it.
It simplifies photography.
> What could be any easier than "You push the button,
> we do the rest"?
"You push the button, and you get the results in ten seconds."
> How is digital any easier?
No wait, and no need for a lab.