Top five tips on Composition- Question (Q)
cba...@mta.ca
I am wondering what peoples Top Five lists of important things to consider
or do to improve your compositions.
The best ones I have so far are...
#1- Step Closer
#2- Check the Frame Edges.
Anyone who sends me a top five list will have a 10 word prayer said for them
to a favorite Deity.
Also Where can I access the Canon EOS FAQ? (yes I may be a fool)
Canon- A company that makes cool cameras, and has Lizards in charge of
customer service. - It seems that Most Canadian Camera Stores Hate Them
- many don't carry, and others only do becasue Canon won't sell them
Camcorders without selling them some Still Cameras as well...
Thanks.
Cameron .:. <CBA...@MTA.CA>
Benson Wen
I am writing a Hypercard Stack to teach a bit about Composition.
I am wondering what peoples Top Five lists of important things to consider
or do to improve your compositions.
The best ones I have so far are...
#1- Step Closer
#2- Check the Frame Edges.
#3- Keep subject away from the dead center.
#4- Don't always shoot at head level (squat, get above.)
#5- Balance main subject with lesser points of focus.
#6- Search for patterns.
#7- Be aware of negative spaces.
#8- Time your shutter release to keep the energy in the photo, that is
in *anticipation* of an event, not it's resolution.
#9- Find leading lines.
#10- Keep viewer in the frame; energy should lead in.
#11- Be aware of the quality of light (stark and sunny v. soft and
overcast.)
#12- Most importantly, break any and all of the above rules.
Anyone who sends me a top five list will have a 10 word prayer said for them
to a favorite Deity.
Thanks!
-Ben
--
-Ben
|| Benson Wen
|| ben...@athena.mit.edu
|| que...@hing.lcs.mit.edu
Benson Wen
I am writing a Hypercard Stack to teach a bit about Composition.
I am wondering what peoples Top Five lists of important things to consider
or do to improve your compositions.
The best ones I have so far are...
#1- Step Closer
#2- Check the Frame Edges.
#3- Keep subject away from the dead center.
#4- Don't always shoot at head level (squat, get above.)
#5- Balance main subject with lesser points of focus.
#6- Search for patterns.
#7- Be aware of negative spaces.
#8- Time your shutter release to keep the energy in the photo, that is
in *anticipation* of an event, not it's resolution.
#9- Find leading lines.
#10- Keep viewer in the frame; energy should lead in.
#11- Be aware of the quality of light (stark and sunny v. soft and
overcast.)
#12- Most importantly, break any and all of the above rules.
Anyone who sends me a top five list will have a 10 word prayer said for them
to a favorite Deity.
Thanks!
Hans L. Bongers
|> cba...@mta.ca writes:
|> >The best ones I have so far are...
|> >#1- Step Closer
|> >#2- Check the Frame Edges.
|>
|>
|> My two additions are:
|>
|> 1. Look *at* the viewfinder, rather than *through* it. Press the
|> shutter when it looks like a pleasing *picture* not just a
|> pleasing subject.
|>
|> 2. Composition ``rules'' are really guidelines -- generally good
|> ideas that don't always need to be followed for best effect.
|>
|> #1 probably sums up 90% of the other things generally said about
|> photography.
|>
|> In lieu of the 10-word prayer, how about a copy of your stack when
|> you're done?
|>
|> Geoff
|>
|> --
|> Geoff Allen \ Driggs, Idaho -- cultural hub of the west!
|> uunet!pmafire!geoff \
|> ge...@pauling.inel.gov \ (Tom Harper in rec.skiing)
"To consult the rules of composition before taking a picture
is a little like consulting the rules of gravity before going for a walk"
--- Edward Weston
Morgan Conrad
>#1- Step Closer
>#2- Check the Frame Edges.
Since you need a total of five, may I suggest
#3- Shoot a Vertical Composition (or buy a Hassy :-))
#4- Put in something unexpected
#5- Take one more step closer
Morgan Conrad Who grants absolution
Applied Biosystems for sins that never were committed?
m...@apldbio.com
415-570-6667
Paul Repacholi
...
> Canon- A company that makes cool cameras, and has Lizards in charge of
> customer service. - It seems that Most Canadian Camera Stores Hate Them
Don't be so cruel to inocent reptils...
~Paul
Barry Sherman
>cba...@mta.ca writes:
>>The best ones I have so far are...
>>#1- Step Closer
>>#2- Check the Frame Edges.
>
>These are good.
>
>My two additions are:
>
> 1. Look *at* the viewfinder, rather than *through* it. Press the
> shutter when it looks like a pleasing *picture* not just a
> pleasing subject.
Geoff and I seem to be the only people in photography who have come up with
this concept but I've found it very useful. My phrasing is: "I look at it
as if I were looking at a framed (no pun intended) photograph and try to
imagine it hanging on my living room wall. If I like what I see, viewed that
way, then I make the exposure." It's amazing how much film this technique
has saved me. Of course the corollary is "How can I improve this so that
I *will* want to have it hanging on my living room wall." Using this
technique I've gotten to where I only throw away maybe 90% of the film that
I shoot. :-)
>
> 2. Composition ``rules'' are really guidelines -- generally good
> ideas that don't always need to be followed for best effect.
Boy I couldn't agree more. I'm on the verge of leaving my camera club because
of the way that the judges for the monthly phot contests, provided from the
list supplied by the parent organization, Photographic Societies of America,
seem to first check to see whether the image conforms to the "rules" of
composition and then look for esthetic content. I would be much happier if
they were to look for esthetic content first and then, if it is lacking,
think about whether applying some "rule" or other might improve the image.
Increasingly I find that the top-rated photographs in our club competitions and
in inter-club competitions seem to have a relentlessly similiar mediocrity.
Oh, they're all pretty and often dramatically pretty. But they tend toward
looking like they should go on the outside of greeting cards. Rather
bland and homogenized.
Then I think of my favorite images from my favorite artists: Ray McSavaney,
Ryugie, Christopher Burkett, Charles Cramer, John Sexton. Surprisingly
(or maybe not so surprisingly) many of these favorites violate one or more
"rules" of composition. Ray McSavaney with his delightful high-key b/w's
of Mono Lake with the horizon smack in the middle of the vertical dimension
of the print. Ryugie with some of his images composed of about 80% "negative
space" (dead black). Christopher Burkett with his incredible Cibachromes
of branches and flowers with "no clearly defined center of interest". John
Sexton and his high-key b/w of White Sands where there's nothing even
resembling a maximum black.
They all violate the "rules" and they're all wonderful. My point is that
adhering to "rules" will certainly guarantee a certain level of esthetic
quality but that at a certain point it may well serve as a barrier to further
growth.
Barry
--
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | "It's much easier to go to exotic places and |
| b...@uts.ccc.amdahl.com | capture spectacular scenes than to take a |
| | spectacular picture of a really boring |
| | green pepper". - Anthony Tse |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction. Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions. Unfortunately, this has been |
| said of me as well. (I.e. My statments are mine, not Amdahl's.) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Ty Monson
(deletions)
>
>Boy I couldn't agree more. I'm on the verge of leaving my camera club because
It is common enough for people to "outgrow" a camera club.
You should regard the club as a social organization where you can
make friends with people who share your enthusiasm for photography.
It should not be an impediment to your work - and it won't be unless
you allow the club to impede you.
(delete paragraph)
>Increasingly I find that the top-rated photographs in our
club competitions and
>in inter-club competitions seem to have a relentlessly similiar mediocrity.
>Oh, they're all pretty and often dramatically pretty. But they tend toward
>looking like they should go on the outside of greeting cards. Rather
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hey! That means they *are* good. There is nothing to be gained by
casting disparaging remarks about greeting cards. Most of us use them
without shame.
>
(delete paragraph about specific photographers)
>
>They all violate the "rules" and they're all wonderful. My point is that
>adhering to "rules" will certainly guarantee a certain level of esthetic
>quality but that at a certain point it may well serve as a barrier to further
>growth.
>
I think that we can get (yet another) guideline from this:
A well chosen deviation from convention works through the surprise
(or novelty) inherent in a deviation from convention.
Steve Gombosi
>
>>cba...@mta.ca writes:
>>>The best ones I have so far are...
>>>#1- Step Closer
>>>#2- Check the Frame Edges.
>>
>>These are good.
>>
>>My two additions are:
>>
>> 1. Look *at* the viewfinder, rather than *through* it. Press the
>> shutter when it looks like a pleasing *picture* not just a
>> pleasing subject.
>
>Geoff and I seem to be the only people in photography who have come up with
>this concept but I've found it very useful. My phrasing is: "I look at it
>as if I were looking at a framed (no pun intended) photograph and try to
>imagine it hanging on my living room wall. If I like what I see, viewed that
>way, then I make the exposure."
Actually, Ernst Wildi gives pretty much this advice in his books - it's
one of his arguments for preferring a waist-level finder.
Steve
Thommy M. Malmstr|m
> Geoff Allen writes:
GS> 1. Look *at* the viewfinder, rather than *through* it. Press the
GS> shutter when it looks like a pleasing *picture* not just a
GS> pleasing subject.
BS> Geoff and I seem to be the only people in photography who have come up with
BS> this concept but I've found it very useful. My phrasing is: "I look at it
BS> as if I were looking at a framed (no pun intended) photograph and try to
BS> imagine it hanging on my living room wall. If I like what I see, viewed that
BS> way, then I make the exposure." It's amazing how much film this technique
BS> has saved me. Of course the corollary is "How can I improve this so that
BS> I *will* want to have it hanging on my living room wall." Using this
BS> technique I've gotten to where I only throw away maybe 90% of the film that
BS> I shoot. :-)
I find this guideline very good to. I will add that this is MUCH MORE
easy to do when you are using a camera with a medium or large negative
format. In a Hasselblad it's quite easy, but not so in an ordinary
35mm.
/Thommy M.
--
Thommy M. MALMSTR\M | o ,__o | Lund Institute of Technology
K{mn{rsv. 3 A:202 | \-\_<, | Dept. of Communication Systems
S-226 46 LUND, SWEDEN | (*)/'(*) | Box 118
+46-(0)46 13 21 78 |~~~~~~~~~~| S-221 00 LUND, SWEDEN:+46-46 10 90 08
YOW!! The land of the rising SONY!!
Kevin Davis
> ... important things to consider or do to improve your compositions.
> The best ones I have so far are...
> #1- Step Closer
> #2- Check the Frame Edges.
Related to #2, check the background. Distracting background is a
common error for beginners (and sometimes for professionals, too).
Benson mentioned keeping the subject off-center (and also mentioned
that this rule can be broken). I would like to add that this largely
assumes rectangular format; square format often favors centering
the subject.
I believe Benson also mentioned something along this line:
Walk around the subject, look at it from different angles; the first
composition you see is not necessarily the best composition.
Morgan mentioned trying both vertical & horizontal compositions
--
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
ke...@pictel.com Only the love can make you a player
Kevin Davis Have you got the love?
PictureTel Corp
Barry Sherman
>>Boy I couldn't agree more. I'm on the verge of leaving my camera club because
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ty Monson:
> It is common enough for people to "outgrow" a camera club.
> You should regard the club as a social organization where you can
> make friends with people who share your enthusiasm for photography.
> It should not be an impediment to your work - and it won't be unless
> you allow the club to impede you.
Good points. When I find myself planning when to bring prints into the club
so as to maximize the number of points earned, I'm not being forced to do so
by the club. Yet I do find it difficult not to think in terms of trying to
win the monthly contests. Perhaps I'm more competitive than I like to think.
In one sense I think that I outgrew the club shortly after joining. I joined
2 years ago and this was approximately concurrent with becoming a participant
here in rec.photo. Much of my desire for joining the club was to exchange
photographic information and techniques. But I found almost immediately that
there were few technically inclined people in the club and that rec.photo
is vastly more useful as a technical exchange forum. I've learned more about
materials and techniques in rec.photo than I have through any other medium.
Reading has been a close 2nd, but I still think that this forum is #1 in
that regard.
Me:
>>Increasingly I find that the top-rated photographs in our
>club competitions and
>>in inter-club competitions seem to have a relentlessly similiar mediocrity.
>>Oh, they're all pretty and often dramatically pretty. But they tend toward
>>looking like they should go on the outside of greeting cards. Rather
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ty Monson:
> Hey! That means they *are* good. There is nothing to be gained by
> casting disparaging remarks about greeting cards. Most of us use them
> without shame.
Perhaps I should have thrown in a few "IMHO"s and expounded a bit. What I'm
about to say reflects very strictly my own personal taste and is not meant
to disparage the photography of others. Nor, for that matter, did I mean to
disparage the photography of others in my club in my original remarks. My
phrasing was unfortunate.
I've come to think of landscape photography as being, very roughly and with
much, much cross-over, divided into a couple of categories: commercial and
fine-art. My definition of commercial would be pictures suitable for being
put on greeting cards. I definitely would not include the majority of post-
card pictures in this category as the majority (with very significant
exceptions, such as the wonderful photography of Pat O'Hara) of post-cards
that I see are terribly boring photos taken at mid-day on sunny days.
I would include in this category much of the work of Galen Rowell and Dewitt
Jones, off the top of my head. They make beautiful pictures. But often I think
that their images arise from spending huge amounts of time in scenic locations
so as to be there when lighting conditions are pretty. Then they take a picture
that shows us pretty much exactly what we would see were we there. There's
nothing wrong with this genre. I enjoy the beauty of the pictures and, indeed,
am very happy when I make one which fits this description. There's very little
that I've done that could be shown in such august company as these artists.
And, yes, I do use greeting cards without shame.
But there are other photographers who, IMHO, show us *more* than what was
there when they took the picture. These include such as John Sexton,
Ray McSavaney, Christopher Burkett, Charles Cramer, Clinton Smith, Ryugie and,
yes, sometimes Ansel Adams. These are largely the names that I mentioned
in my original posting (in response to a posting about composition). I
admire these people because they show me the scene *not* just as it was when
they took the picture. Often, upon reflection, they show me a scene in a
slightly surreal way that could never be seen in reality. But never so
strange as to cause me to think "Hey, this is like Salvadore Dali." Rather
I'm pleased by the beauty of the image at the same time that I'm being
tickled by it's slight departure from reality (as I fumblingly try to
verbalize a complex emotional/esthetic response).
To me, Galen Rowell is a magnificent photographer. John Sexton is a
magnificent artist who uses a camera. Or, perhaps, I'm distinguishing between
outdoor/nature photographers and fine-art photographers. And I'm certainly
aware that *no* photograph is an accurate capturing of what was seen at
the time it was taken. I'm certainly not that naive. Everything's on a
scale and there are probably artists who interpret the landscap far more than
do those whom I most admire and whose followers probably look up on such
as John Sexton as not being quite the artists that *their* heroes are. But,
since I'm just voicing my opinion, I'll go ahead and do so.
And I'm afraid that this is tending toward a "This is art and this isn't"
type of discussion which I actually rather dislike. But I'm trying to
express something complicated that happens inside myself and it ain't easy.
I was recently at Yosemite immediately after a snowstorm. I went to a location
where there were both wonderful possibilities in the patterns of current, ice,
snow and rocks in the Merced River and a view of snow-covered fields and the
icy river with El Capitan in the background. It was near sunset and I was
unable to explore the patterns in the river because everywhere I went I was
in the way of one of the 12 photographers who had their large and medium
format cameras set up waiting to see of there'd be a colorful sunset with
El Capitan in the picture. A line of 12 medium and large format photographers
all hoping to take virtually the same picture which has been done thousands
of times before. In fact, I could buy a placemat with just that image on it
back in the gift shop. In fact I've often seen a well-know Galen Rowell
picture from just this place.
But it's so tempting to take the sunset picture. I find that all too often
I go on a trip and take the easy-to-see sunset pictures and come back and
find that I have some pretty scenics that look just like 250,000 others
that have been done before and nothing that displays any special "seeing"
and then am disappointed. I'm starting to make a practice of *not* taking
the pretty sunset or the cloudscape'd mountains. That way I'm not tempted
to spend my time printing them and am forced to find ways of interpreting
the landscape which may become more uniquely *mine*.
So. I'm not really running down the "Hallmark Card" photographic style. Some
of my own fit into that category, those very few that are that good.
But I do find that I admire those who take a more interpretive appropach to
landscape photography and that my photo club does not strongly encourage
such a more interpretive approach.
All of this has definitely been strictly IMHO.
Barry
>
>>
> (delete paragraph about specific photographers)
>>
>>They all violate the "rules" and they're all wonderful. My point is that
>>adhering to "rules" will certainly guarantee a certain level of esthetic
>>quality but that at a certain point it may well serve as a barrier to further
>>growth.
>>
>
> I think that we can get (yet another) guideline from this:
> A well chosen deviation from convention works through the surprise
> (or novelty) inherent in a deviation from convention.
Geoff Allen
thoughts about the much-harder-to-put-in-words artistic side of this
waste of good time and money we call ``photography'':
>I've come to think of landscape photography as being, very roughly and with
>much, much cross-over, divided into a couple of categories: commercial and
>fine-art.
Then he gives examples of each. In the fine-art corner we have names
like ``John Sexton, Ray McSavaney, Christopher Burkett, Charles Cramer,
Clinton Smith, Ryugie and, yes, sometimes Ansel Adams.''
I'm not familiar with all the names, but I have an idea of what Barry is
getting at.
>To me, Galen Rowell is a magnificent photographer. John Sexton is a
>magnificent artist who uses a camera. Or, perhaps, I'm distinguishing
>between outdoor/nature photographers and fine-art photographers.
I'm cutting a lot of stuff here, but hope I preserve enough to keep the
``feel'' of what Barry is saying....
>And I'm afraid that this is tending toward a "This is art and this isn't"
>type of discussion which I actually rather dislike. But I'm trying to
>express something complicated that happens inside myself and it ain't easy.
In just a minute I'm going to put words into Barry's mouth (well, sort
of -- they're from my mouth, but I think they'll fit into Barry's at the
same time) that I hope express what he's trying to here.
>I was recently at Yosemite immediately after a snowstorm. I went to a location
>where there were both wonderful possibilities in the patterns of current, ice,
>snow and rocks in the Merced River and a view of snow-covered fields and the
>icy river with El Capitan in the background. It was near sunset and I was
>unable to explore the patterns in the river because everywhere I went I was
>in the way of one of the 12 photographers who had their large and medium
>format cameras set up waiting to see of there'd be a colorful sunset with
>El Capitan in the picture. A line of 12 medium and large format photographers
>all hoping to take virtually the same picture which has been done thousands
>of times before. In fact, I could buy a placemat with just that image on it
>back in the gift shop. In fact I've often seen a well-know Galen Rowell
>picture from just this place.
The situation is the same all over. Yellowstone has ``Artist's Point''
and ``Inspiration Point'' along the Grand Canyon, Grand Teton National
Park has the very same turnout where Ansel Adams took his ``Tetons and
Snake River'', though 40 years of tree growth have almost completely
obscured the wonderful S curve in the river at this point.
Jackson, Wyoming is *loaded* with galleries that would just love to sell
you photos from these locations.
>But it's so tempting to take the sunset picture. I find that all too often
>I go on a trip and take the easy-to-see sunset pictures and come back and
>find that I have some pretty scenics that look just like 250,000 others
>that have been done before and nothing that displays any special "seeing"
>and then am disappointed. I'm starting to make a practice of *not* taking
>the pretty sunset or the cloudscape'd mountains. That way I'm not tempted
>to spend my time printing them and am forced to find ways of interpreting
>the landscape which may become more uniquely *mine*.
I totally agree!
Ok, now for the aforementioned profound insightful comment:
The photographs that Barry is calling ``fine art'' are those
that transcend time and space.
Now, for what I mean.
I can go to Yellowstone and take a photograph that shows the Grand
Canyon of the Yellowstone and looks like 5,000,000 other photos taken
from the same viewpoint. Or, I can think about what makes the canyon
interesting -- the zillion shades of yellow of the canyon walls. How
can I show that in a photograph? This might involve isolating a small
portion of the canyon, perhaps with some water for contrast with the
yellows. The resulting photograph might be recognizable as the Grand
Canyon of the Yellowstone by someone familiar with the place, but it's
not a picture *of* the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone. It transcends
time and space. For pictures *of* the Canyon, I can buy a photo book in
the gift shop. (Well, ok, I'll take my own picture of the Canyon, too.
;^) )
The Ansel Adams calendar sitting right above my terminal has a photo
called ``Pastureland, Fence, Hills, Altamont, California, 1946.'' I
think it's the kind of image we're talking about. Sure, it's a
photograph of a specific location, but what it really is is a wonderful
rendition of backlit grasses along a gully on some hills. It could be
anywhere, anytime. I'd never seen this image before (at least, not
that I rememer). But I like it. I like it a lot. It's more a
photograph of a *type* of place, and a mood, than of any specific place.
Adams' ``Frozen Lake and Cliffs'' is the same sort of image, to bring in
a more famous image and hopefully enable one or two people to grasp what
I'm trying to say. ;^)
Yeah, the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone is impressive, but so is that
rock at my feet while I'm gazing into the canyon admiring its Designer.
To take a photograph that best shows off the Designer's handiwork, I
need to do more than simply record the scene before me. That would be a
snapshot, and snapshots are boring.
After all this, I feel a strange need to load some film holders, pack
the family into the van and head out....
Geoff
--
Geoff Allen \ Many people come, looking, looking, taking picture....
uunet!pmafire!geoff \ No good.... Some people come, see. Good!
ge...@pauling.inel.gov \ -- Nepalese Sherpa, quoted by Galen Rowell
Geoff Allen
As a follow-up to my and Barry's comments in this thread, I'd like to
repeat a recommendation I've made here in the past. It covers a lot of
the sort of things I mentioned in message-id
<1993Mar16.2...@pmafire.inel.gov>.
=====
From: ge...@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Message-ID: <1992Dec31.1...@pmafire.inel.gov>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 15:54:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Query: Books on Photo composition
I'll jump into the fray here and recommend what is probably my favorite
photo book, beating out Ansel Adams' _Examples_ for that honor. I
cannot recommend it highly enough. 5 thumbs up, A++ rating, etc., etc.
Photographing the Patterns of Nature
Gary Braasch
Amphoto, New York, 1990
ISBN: 0-8174-5429-2 (0-8174-5430-6 for paperback)
If you want to try for it in a library, it's:
TR721.B73 1990
or
778.9'3 - dc20
depending on the cataloging system in use there (I'm not sure what the
extra stuff after the Dewey decimal number is, but it's from the
cataloging info inside the book).
I have the paperback version, and it cost $22.50. It is an amazing
book. Lavishly illustrated with 160 color photographs, it's 144 pages
long. The photographs are worth buying the book for. The text is worth
buying the book for. Combined, they are a knockout combination. Gary
Braasch is an amazing photographer, and I don't throw that sort of
recommendation around too lightly!
The contents are:
Part I
Recognizing patterns
The fundamental shapes
Perceiving patterns
Patterns in color
Analyzing textures
Documenting motion and growth
Part II
Designing an image
The creative process
Composition
Creatively combining patterns
Abstractions and symbolism
Part III
The business of nature photography
Becoming a professional
Developing an assignment
Marketing strategies
There is also a bibliography at the end.
If you shoot nature at all, you want this book. Trust me.
Oh, and, of course, I have absolutely no financial interest in your
purchase of this book.
Did I mention that I like this book? ;^)
Geoff
--
Geoff Allen \ The main difference between me and the student
uunet!pmafire!geoff \ is that I have simply made more mistakes.
ge...@pauling.inel.gov \ --George Drennan on teaching photo workshops.
robert.m.atkins
> I've come to think of landscape photography as being, very roughly and with
> much, much cross-over, divided into a couple of categories: commercial and
> fine-art. My definition of commercial would be pictures suitable for being
> put on greeting cards. I definitely would not include the majority of post-
> card pictures in this category as the majority (with very significant
> exceptions, such as the wonderful photography of Pat O'Hara) of post-cards
> that I see are terribly boring photos taken at mid-day on sunny days.
>
> I would include in this category much of the work of Galen Rowell and Dewitt
>Jones, off the top of my head. They make beautiful pictures. But often I think
>that their images arise from spending huge amounts of time in scenic locations
>so as to be there when lighting conditions are pretty. Then they take a picture
> that shows us pretty much exactly what we would see were we there. There's
> nothing wrong with this genre. I enjoy the beauty of the pictures and, indeed
> that I've done that could be shown in such august company as these artists.
>
> there when they took the picture. These include such as John Sexton,
> Ray McSavaney, Christopher Burkett, Charles Cramer, Clinton Smith, Ryugie and,
> yes, sometimes Ansel Adams. These are largely the names that I mentioned
> in my original posting (in response to a posting about composition). I
> admire these people because they show me the scene *not* just as it was when
> they took the picture. Often, upon reflection, they show me a scene in a
> slightly surreal way that could never be seen in reality. But never so
> strange as to cause me to think "Hey, this is like Salvadore Dali." Rather
> I'm pleased by the beauty of the image at the same time that I'm being
> tickled by it's slight departure from reality (as I fumblingly try to
> verbalize a complex emotional/esthetic response).
>
I'm not familair with all the "fine art" photographers you mention, but I
know that many of them work mostly in large format. Jones and Rowell on
the other hand work mainly in 35mm. Could this be the source of the
difference? Not just that one format is larger than the other, but that
the "mindset" is different for the two types of work. I would agree that
much of Jones' work is "commercial" - in fact a lot IS commercial advertising
work. With regard to Rowell, some of his stuff is, as you say, "commercial",
or the result of being on Everest when the light was right (!), but looking
at more of his work recently I am coming to admire it more and more and I
am sure that some of it could be regarded as "fine art".
I would also not dismiss finding the right light too "lightly". It can be
hard work. I was just out in Yosemite (fighting for good 'photo' spots
like all the rest) and was hanging out at the tunnel waiting for the usual
sunset view. However it was cloudy and dull with only about 5 minutes of
potential sun left. The army of photographers packed up their tripods in
disgust and all left. I stuck it out 'till the bitter end and was rewarded
with the most beautiful lighting I have seen there as the clouds parted
right at sunset. I was the only one left there taking pictures. Whether
my pictures are worth the emulsion they appear on remains to be seen
(assuming UPS, the US Mail and the New Lab don't screw them up between
them). Most of my scenic work is disappointing (to me). I have yet to
develop my aesthetic senses enough to know when NOT to take a picture
(which is much more difficult than knowing when to TAKE a picture). It
would be a great skill to develop, and save me lots of film.
Perhaps the diference between 35mm and large format work is that 35mm is
too easy. You can burn through a roll of film with litle effort or thought
about cost, so you can take lots of "bad" pictures. Perhaps the use of
large format makes the photographer think mich more before taking a shot
because of the limited number of shots possible (large format set up takes
time) and the cost. I think it was Rowell who has suggested treating a
35mm canera more like a large format camera, i.e. seting up a tripod,
taking lots of time to compose a shot, really thinking about exposure,
trying to envision the final image etc. With 35mm it is just too easy to
fire off a lot of shots and hope that one comes out "right".
I guess it's easy to do the "commercial" work with a large format camera,
but are there any good examples of "fine art" work done in 35mm? I assume
it could be done (neglecting image sharpness and grain considerations),
but I don't know enough about that side of things to think of any examples.
===============================================================
Bob Atkins AT&T Bell Labs email (direct) att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
William Tyler
>I guess it's easy to do the "commercial" work with a large format camera,
>but are there any good examples of "fine art" work done in 35mm? I assume
>it could be done (neglecting image sharpness and grain considerations),
>but I don't know enough about that side of things to think of any examples.
It's hard to define just what is meant by 'fine art', but I'll have a
try at listing some 35mm 'fine art' photographers. Maybe their work
fits your definition. I'd like to see some discussion, and additional
photographers proposed for the list.
Henri Cartier-Bresson
Garry Winogrand
Ralph Gibson
Others?
Do you consider these fine art or not? Why?
Bill
--
Bill Tyler wty...@adobe.com
william c ray
>I can go to Yellowstone and take a photograph that shows the Grand
>Canyon of the Yellowstone and looks like 5,000,000 other photos taken
>from the same viewpoint. Or, I can think about what makes the canyon
>interesting -- the zillion shades of yellow of the canyon walls. How
>can I show that in a photograph? This might involve isolating a small
>portion of the canyon, perhaps with some water for contrast with the
>yellows.
So... You've got a shot of that pine tree sitting at the top of the
"little" hummock with the wonderful orange-red clay streaming down
around it in a big inverted "V" too?
Will Ray
r...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Barry Sherman
referred to the photos of the top-rated people in the local camera clubs as
"greeting card" photographs. Ty Monson correctly reprimanded me (gently and
with good humor), commenting that what goes on greeting cards is very good.
I then posted a long, meandering thing trying to express the difference that
I see between photos which, beautiful as they may be, show me the scene
more or less as the it appeared to the casual observer and those which show
me "more" than the casual observer would see.
Geoff Allen has picked up on what I fumblingly said and, as happens all too
often, managed to articulate precisely what I was groping for the words to
express:
Geoff Allen writes:
(Geoff is the '>'. I'm the '>>')
>The situation is the same all over. Yellowstone has ``Artist's Point''
>and ``Inspiration Point'' along the Grand Canyon, Grand Teton National
>Park has the very same turnout where Ansel Adams took his ``Tetons and
>Snake River'', though 40 years of tree growth have almost completely
>obscured the wonderful S curve in the river at this point.
>Jackson, Wyoming is *loaded* with galleries that would just love to sell
>you photos from these locations.
>>But it's so tempting to take the sunset picture. I find that all too often
>>I go on a trip and take the easy-to-see sunset pictures and come back and
>>find that I have some pretty scenics that look just like 250,000 others
>>that have been done before and nothing that displays any special "seeing"
>>and then am disappointed. I'm starting to make a practice of *not* taking
>>the pretty sunset or the cloudscape'd mountains. That way I'm not tempted
>>to spend my time printing them and am forced to find ways of interpreting
>>the landscape which may become more uniquely *mine*.
>Ok, now for the aforementioned profound insightful comment:
> The photographs that Barry is calling ``fine art'' are those
> that transcend time and space.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Not a photo of El Cap. A photo of rocks which,
while it does not necessarily have to be recognizably El Cap, captures the
*feeling of* El Cap. Show me the textures that were there! Do a high-key
rendering of Mono Lake which is mainly sky with softly glowing hazy clouds and
a couple of gritty-looking low islands at the bottom. Make me feel the glow
in the air and the grit of the tufas. Yes!
>Now, for what I mean.
>I can go to Yellowstone and take a photograph that shows the Grand
>Canyon of the Yellowstone and looks like 5,000,000 other photos taken
>from the same viewpoint. Or, I can think about what makes the canyon
>interesting -- the zillion shades of yellow of the canyon walls. How
>can I show that in a photograph? This might involve isolating a small
>portion of the canyon, perhaps with some water for contrast with the
>yellows. The resulting photograph might be recognizable as the Grand
>Canyon of the Yellowstone by someone familiar with the place, but it's
>not a picture *of* the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone. It transcends
>time and space. For pictures *of* the Canyon, I can buy a photo book in
>the gift shop. (Well, ok, I'll take my own picture of the Canyon, too.
>;^) )
And this is the difficult part. I, too, will take my own picture of the Canyon.
And when I get back I'll look at the transparencies or the contact sheets and
will immediately see the beautiful picture of the Canyon and will be so
terribly tempted to spend my precious printing time working on it, instead of
on the close-up picture of the walls in all their zillion shades of yellow.
Well, maybe the problem lies in making a close-up photo of the walls that I
find more interesting than the over-all shot of the canyon. This is not easy
and it's rare that I succeed. Exceedingly rare. Discouragingly rare.
>The Ansel Adams calendar sitting right above my terminal has a photond
>called ``Pastureland, Fence, Hills, Altamont, California, 1946.'' I
>think it's the kind of image we're talking about. Sure, it's a
>photograph of a specific location, but what it really is is a wonderful
>rendition of backlit grasses along a gully on some hills. It could be
>anywhere, anytime. I'd never seen this image before (at least, not
>that I rememer). But I like it. I like it a lot. It's more a
>photograph of a *type* of place, and a mood, than of any specific place.
>Adams' ``Frozen Lake and Cliffs'' is the same sort of image, to bring in
>a more famous image and hopefully enable one or two people to grasp what
>I'm trying to say. ;^)
And now the next question: is it possible to make a photograph which
transcends time and place when the subject is well known? I think so, but
think that it's more difficult. Somehow it seems that by being easily
recognizable it's kind of "pinned down" and pigeon-holed.
I think that it was this sense of transcending time and place that I've
tried to express with my .signature which quotes Anthony Tse:
"It's much easier to go to exotic places and capture spectacular scenes
than to take a spectacular picture of a really boring green pepper".
>Yeah, the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone is impressive, but so is that
>rock at my feet while I'm gazing into the canyon admiring its Designer.
>To take a photograph that best shows off the Designer's handiwork, I
>need to do more than simply record the scene before me. That would be a
>snapshot, and snapshots are boring.
>After all this, I feel a strange need to load some film holders, pack
>the family into the van and head out....
Yeah. Or head into the darkroom and spend my 4th night trying to make a
print from that recalcitrant negative which will transcend time and place.
Probably to end in discouragement, as usual.
>--
>Geoff Allen \ Many people come, looking, looking, taking picture....
>uunet!pmafire!geoff \ No good.... Some people come, see. Good!
>ge...@pauling.inel.gov \ -- Nepalese Sherpa, quoted by Galen Rowell
Good .sig ...
Barry
Uli Bodenhausen
|> In article <1993Mar16.2...@pmafire.inel.gov> ge...@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) writes:
|>
|> >I can go to Yellowstone and take a photograph that shows the Grand
|> >Canyon of the Yellowstone and looks like 5,000,000 other photos taken
|> >from the same viewpoint. Or, I can think about what makes the canyon
I have the same problem. My first step was to take technically better
pictures than the average photographer. But what to do next? Different
perspectives, different viewpoints? I don't know exactly. I also read
"Ansel Adams, The Negative" and bought a couple of filters. Let's see how
the next pictures turn out.
Uli
H G J Evans
(Barry Sherman) writes:
[ Discussion of greetings cards, uniquely personal interpretations,
transcendence of time and space, myriad shades of colour, etc. etc.]
This has to be the most interesting discussion on rec.photo in a good
long while. Many thanks to those contributing. I thought long and hard
before deciding to throw in my two penn'orth, but I feel that a vital
part of what it takes to produce something special, above and beyond the
greetings card or 'chocolate box' photograph has not been explicitly
mentioned. That is the need to have a 'feeling', a love even, for the
landscape, or the place you are trying to photograph. I imagine most of
us have a really special place - the kind of place you go back to again
and again, in different weather conditions, at different times of year;
a place which is like an old friend that goes on revealling new facets
of its character. Certainly I have such a place, and I'm convinced that
a disproportionately large number of my better photographs are taken
there. I guess there's a more down to earth aspect to this as well, in
that to really be able to develop your own personal interpretation of a
place you need to know it inside out. You need to know how it looks in
different lighting, after rain, before a storm, in spring, in autumn,
whatever.
This, I think, is why the greetings card so often fails the test as
'art'. Anyone trying to make any money from such sales will pretty soon
realise that they can't spend all day standing around waiting for just
the right light, or waste time hunting around for the best perspective,
or, Heaven forbid, trekking for miles to reach places no four-wheeled
vehicle has ever seen.
For all that, though, I do enjoy some greetings card photographs very
much, but the difference is that some photographs just look good, whilst
others stir the soul.
Huw Evans***********Department of Mathematics***********University of Edinburgh
Email: h...@maths.ed.ac.uk, h...@castle.ed.ac.uk*********Telephone: 031-650-5067
robert.m.atkins
Galen Rowell has a very interesting column in the latest edition of
"Outdoor Photographer" on the subject of photographic vision. There are
some great lines in the article. One concerns the emotional response he
felt when looking at some photographs, which was to wonder if it was
worth cutting down trees to make the paper that they were printed on!
His final comment is worth considering too. It is on the subject of
photographic vision, or why things do (or don't) look the way we see
them in real life and in photographs. This may not be an exact quote,
but it goes allong the lines of:
"It's all in our heads, but it's not in ALL our heads"
which is probably why he takes great pictures and mine look like postcards
(if I'm lucky).
Ty Monson
>
>Galen Rowell has a very interesting column in the latest edition of
>
>"It's all in our heads, but it's not in ALL our heads"
>
>which is probably why he takes great pictures and mine look like postcards
>(if I'm lucky).
Oh, I think that's just in your *head*. :-)
donl mathis
In article <1o9fe4$a...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, u...@i13d5.ira.uka.de
(Uli Bodenhausen) writes:
|> |> >I can go to Yellowstone and take a photograph that shows the Grand
|> |> >Canyon of the Yellowstone and looks like 5,000,000 other photos taken
|> |> >from the same viewpoint. Or, I can think about what makes the canyon
|>
|> I have the same problem. My first step was to take technically better
|> pictures than the average photographer. But what to do next? Different
|> perspectives, different viewpoints? I don't know exactly. I also read
|> "Ansel Adams, The Negative" and bought a couple of filters. Let's see how
|> the next pictures turn out.
What to do next, indeed. I think this should be a lingering question
for anyone who wants to keep making better photographs.
I think part of the answer is in firming up your views of what it is
that makes a photograph "good." When almost none of mine were good
enough to please me, I looked at others. I think what I did first f
all was try to recognize which photographs I liked and which I didn't,
and that meant slowing down long enough to actually *look* at them.
We're so bombarded with pictures all day long, it's easy to just glance
at them and that's the end of it. Visit galleries and other exhibits.
Find the good books; check the library. Take some time. Begin to
formulate an explanation, in actual words, of what you think makes a
good photograph, and why you like some and don't like others.
Then you're left with the relatively simple task of putting those
qualities in your own images.
I've mentioned this before: I have a sort of "Disneyland" quotient that
I apply to the various places I go. I would probably not go to
Disneyland to make photographs, because that's not my style, though I
know others would. The point is that I drive or walk into a region,
and look around, and I see things I like, and would like to photograph,
over here, and over there, and there, and there, and here, and over
there... all around! Disneyland! There's a sense of freedom; a
different world, where you've got all these amazing things around you
that you can go play on and in and through and around and under.
Now, I *love* Yosemite, but I think I could go there and make
photographs of things that everybody else ignores, and have the time of
my life. There are so many obviously wonderful things in Yosemite;
they are large and well-known and everybody sees them. So you have
this sort of grand-scale Disneyland of large rocks and mountains and
waterfalls and rivers and trees. If you move 10 feet off the road,
though, and take a little hike, everything changes. Maybe you're not
so close to the Main Attractions, but if you look around, you'll see
all kinds of amazing things. Maybe they're not so big and obvious, but
they're wonderful, and make delicious material for a more intimate
style of photograph. Not necessarily macro-style work, though with all
the various animal, vegatable, and mineral matter around, there is an
abundant supply of small things to see. Maybe a sort of intermediate
scale; things that are close enough to shake a stick at; that you could
touch if you wanted.
I like photographs like that. They're on a different scale, but it's
still a Disneyland scale. And I think much of it goes largely
ignored.
Maybe I should call it the "Yosemite Scale".
Mount Rainier ranks quite high, as does the Olympic Peninsula. And
Point Lobos.
I need a vacation.
(Okay, Geoff? What's that? You want the Yellowstone Scale? The Teton
Scale? Now, there's a Grand one. :)
- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
do...@sgi.com
Uli Bodenhausen
Well, OK, you decide what you like in other pictures and what you don't like
and go out and take pictures by yourself. If you get some you like you
should present them to others. This is the tricky part in the whole process
of developing an own style: Do other people like what *you* think is an
interesting subject? Do they recognize what *you* see in the picture? That's
where the frustration can start: You like the picture and think it is
interesting, but noone else cares.
Of course, the opinion of other people should not be taken too seriously,
especially if they generally have not developed a reasonably good taste.
But sometimes the comments from other people are invaluable and necessary.
|>
|> I need a vacation.
|>
Me too.
Uli
Dyer Lytle CCS
Greetings rec.photo people, it has been a while.
As Huw Evans writes:
> This has to be the most interesting discussion on rec.photo in a good
> long while. Many thanks to those contributing.
Barry Sherman sez:
> To me, Galen Rowell is a magnificent photographer. John Sexton is a
> magnificent artist who uses a camera.
My feelings exactly. I went to a talk by Galen a couple weeks ago and
he was mostly talking about how we need to save Tibet from the Chinese
but he did show some photographs and they were very nice photographs,
very pretty, but not great. For me, a great photograph is an inspiration
and I can look at for a long time without getting tired of it. A great
photograph sweeps me into the picture and allows me to experience the
emotions felt by the photographer when he or she made the image.
Or as Barry enthusiastically puts it in a later post:
> Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Not a photo of El Cap. A photo of rocks which,
> while it does not necessarily have to be recognizably El Cap, captures the
> *feeling of* El Cap. Show me the textures that were there! Do a high-key
> rendering of Mono Lake which is mainly sky with softly glowing hazy clouds and
> a couple of gritty-looking low islands at the bottom. Make me feel the glow
> in the air and the grit of the tufas. Yes!
He also talks about:
> A line of 12 medium and large format photographers all hoping to take
> virtually the same picture which has been done thousands of times before.
I went through a stage in learning photography where I tried to make
photographs that looked like the photographs of photographers I admired.
These include Ansel, John, Ray, Minor, and others. This was a good stage
for me to go through because it taught me a lot about making technically
good photographs. I think the 12 photographers you saw were either going
through this stage or were trying to make photographs to satisfy the public
so that they could sell more photographs. Some people never go through this
"emulate your favorite photographers" stage but I think most people do.
Other people get stuck in this stage because they are satisfied with it
and/or they make money doing it. Look at commercial wedding photographers,
many of them shoot very similar photographs because this is what the public
who buy these people's photographs want. Most of the public is not
photographically "mature" enough to appreciate anything else. This helps
drive photographic mediocrity.
Barry sounds like he has gotten to a point beyond these photographers,
into the world of art and personal interpretation. (I hope to get there
some day myself!)
Geoff Allen sez:
> The photographs that Barry is calling ``fine art'' are those
> that transcend time and space.
>
> Now, for what I mean.
>
> I can go to Yellowstone and take a photograph that shows the Grand
> Canyon of the Yellowstone and looks like 5,000,000 other photos taken
> from the same viewpoint. Or, I can think about what makes the canyon
> interesting -- the zillion shades of yellow of the canyon walls. How
> can I show that in a photograph? This might involve isolating a small
> portion of the canyon, perhaps with some water for contrast with the
> yellows. The resulting photograph might be recognizable as the Grand
> Canyon of the Yellowstone by someone familiar with the place, but it's
> not a picture *of* the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone. It transcends
> time and space. For pictures *of* the Canyon, I can buy a photo book in
> the gift shop. (Well, ok, I'll take my own picture of the Canyon, too.
> ;^) )
>
> The Ansel Adams calendar sitting right above my terminal has a photo
> called ``Pastureland, Fence, Hills, Altamont, California, 1946.'' I
> think it's the kind of image we're talking about. Sure, it's a
> photograph of a specific location, but what it really is is a wonderful
> rendition of backlit grasses along a gully on some hills. It could be
> anywhere, anytime. I'd never seen this image before (at least, not
> that I remember). But I like it. I like it a lot. It's more a
> photograph of a *type* of place, and a mood, than of any specific place.
Wow, yes, last fall when I was given this calendar, I looked through it
and picked out this particular image to open the calendar to and hang
next to my 1992 calendar until 1993 arrived. There are many places like
this and I know how it feels to be there and see it in person. In this
photograph Ansel captured that feeling enough to pass it on to me when I
look at the photograph. (I picked the September photograph from my 1992
A.A. calendar to hang next to my 1993 calendar at least until I get my 1994
calendar. That photograph is "Mount Moran, Autumn, Grand Teton National
Park, Wyoming, 1948". This image can't be 'anywhere' but it gives me
a good feeling of autumn.)
Bob Atkins sez:
> I guess it's easy to do the "commercial" work with a large format camera,
> but are there any good examples of "fine art" work done in 35mm? I assume
> it could be done (neglecting image sharpness and grain considerations),
> but I don't know enough about that side of things to think of any examples.
As Bill Tyler pointed out, the answer is "yes". I have seen great
photographs made with all types of cameras, from pinholes to 35mm to large
format to 'toy' cameras. The greatness of vision transcends the medium.
Look in this month's "Camera and Darkroom" at some of Keith Lazelle's
photographs, they are all 35mm and I quite like all those shown.
Barry again:
> And now the next question: is it possible to make a photograph which
> transcends time and place when the subject is well known? I think so, but
> think that it's more difficult. Somehow it seems that by being easily
> recognizable it's kind of "pinned down" and pigeon-holed.
I think the photograph by Ansel I mentioned above has this quality.
(Mount Moran) although this isn't as well known as the Grand Canyon
for instance.
Huw Evans writes:
> I guess there's a more down to earth aspect to this as well, in
> that to really be able to develop your own personal interpretation of a
> place you need to know it inside out. You need to know how it looks in
> different lighting, after rain, before a storm, in spring, in autumn,
> whatever.
I do think this helps, it is nice to have a feeling or 'sense of place'
when photographing. I like to travel all over when I photograph but
a lot of my best photographs have been taken within 20 miles of home.
(Of course I go to close places more often also.)
Donl Mathis sez:
> What to do next, indeed. I think this should be a lingering question
> for anyone who wants to keep making better photographs.
[and he talks about how the photographer should look at a lot of photographs
and determine why he or she likes or dislikes these photographs.]
I have even gone so far as to make a scrapbook of photographs from magazines,
newspapers, posters, etc. that I really like. Sometimes I find a lot of
similarities between these photographs and I can formulate some ideas about
what I find in common and why I like it. Other photographs stand out by
themselves and I like them but can't determine any general characteristics
I can point to and say THAT is why I like this photo. I like these elusive
ones specially.
> I need a vacation.
YES, my lord, I need to get out and make some photographs! I've been
spending TOO much time building my VW camper van expedition vehicle!
Soon, ... soon.
And thanks again to those participating in this discussion! I know how
much time it takes to make a thoughtful reply (and some of them have
been so long and interesting)! This is what I subscribe to rec.photo
for! It has been a while.
-Dyer Lytle
--
Dyer Lytle, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-323-4136
Internet: ly...@noao.edu SPAN: NOAO::LYTLE (NOAO=5355)
Peter Davidoff
^^^^^^^^
The members of the Photo Gallery here in town (Illustrated Light)
have been debating (often with lens -- I mean tongue -- in cheek)
just *what is Fine Art*? Alas, we've not done well trying to
describe it. And none of us have tried researching it?
One of our observations is the lack of a vocabulary to talk
about images. It was either here in rec.photo or over on CompuServe
that someone mentioned a book from MIT press on Visual Literacy
(the reference escapes me right now, if any one is interested
I'll post the ref)... in any case, I've introduced some of the
terminology into our discussions, and it has helped. Balance,
stress, texture -- that an image can move towards realism, but
often lives in the abstract or symbolic (all artistic efforts
start as symbol, move very quickly to the abstract, and then
build towards the realistic; except photography. Photography
starts as close to realism as possible -- or so says this text.
Of interest to me is that I start with a large neg, 8x10 or
11x14, and then move the image to the abstract).
Thoughts on what makes a photo fine art? Should we start
this as a new thread?
Peter
Jean-Noel Moyne
This research for technical perfection is something you can be very attracted
to, those prefectly crisp pictures are facinating. But I think they are often
just a showing of virtuosity. Like in music, the artist got so much into his or
her quest for perfection that he somewhat lost his soul 'on the way'.
Beautifully artistic pictures can be taken with any camera, really ! They
don't need to be perfect, they can even be 'soft' and great shots at the same
time. What you have to look for is the point where you just are at ease with
your equipment, your tool. And then you have to find what make a picture
interesting to look at, even if it not perfect...
Try to picture thoughts ... Try to picture feelings ... Try to picture things
that are impossible to describe with words. Try to go one level deeper than
just appearance.
I know it might sound a little wierd to say something like 'picture what you
can not see', it's definitely hard to explain (-:, but the picture you take is
just one of the representation of the feeling you want to catch. You can make
series of pictures that each represent a face of it, and it will give a
strength to your pictures, a backbone that makes a set of pictures stick
together.
Try to take a bunch of different people reacting to the same stimulus (like a
joke, or an insult). And most of all, just relax and take pictures, all the
time, don't worry about missing a lot, maybe you'll find something interesting
in those missed pictures (hey who can deny being lucky with a shot (-:). Get
the eye, concentrate on what you take, not on how to take it.
And you know what ? The technical skills will come along... with the practice.
Don't be disapointed if the pictures are missed at the beginning, you get
bummed out because you attached too much importance to the form, forget about
the fact it's under-exposed and imagine how it would be with correct exposure
and see if it's a good shot anyway, and why (sometimes you can not explain why,
at least not with words).
Does any of this make sense ? It is so hard to explain such a process. I am
not an artist myself I have not reached that level yet. But I have a lot of
friends that are artists (in all fields) and I have talked with them about the
artistic process, and this is how I can explain it, and apply it to
photography, or try to anyway.
And you know the best part about it ? It's fun !
JNM
Jean-Noel Moyne
Bodenhausen) writes:
>|> I've mentioned this before: I have a sort of "Disneyland" quotient that
>|> I apply to the various places I go. I would probably not go to
>|> Disneyland to make photographs, because that's not my style, though I
>|> know others would. The point is that I drive or walk into a region,
>|> and look around, and I see things I like, and would like to photograph,
>|> over here, and over there, and there, and there, and here, and over
>|> there... all around! Disneyland! There's a sense of freedom; a
>|> different world, where you've got all these amazing things around you
>|> that you can go play on and in and through and around and under.
That's it men, just have fun and shoot that's what it's all about !
>
>Well, OK, you decide what you like in other pictures and what you don't like
>and go out and take pictures by yourself. If you get some you like you
>should present them to others. This is the tricky part in the whole process
>of developing an own style: Do other people like what *you* think is an
>interesting subject? Do they recognize what *you* see in the picture? That's
>where the frustration can start: You like the picture and think it is
>interesting, but noone else cares.
Who gives a f*ck about the others ? What are you looking for in making
pictures ? A way to get acknowledged by the others ? Is that it ? You feel so
insecure about yourself that you feel good only when people tell you you're
good ? What ? You mean you're blindly doing what they tell you to do ? If they
tell you you're not good you believe them ?????? You mean you don't know
*yourself* if you are good or not ?????
It's like in love, really, same shit. You're totally in love with her, she's
so beautifull, so amazing, how can it be possible she's even interested in me ?
Men, I'm like so ordinary though, I wouldn't go out with myself, I'm not that
pretty. It's so amazing what happens to me, it will never happen again, this is
it. I've got to call her all the time, be with her all the time. What do you
mean she just went out with an old friend of hers ? That's it ! I knew it was
too good to be true, it could not last, etc ... etc ...
<loud obnoxious buzzer sound>
Wrong ! Sorry for the analogy and the little storry here but picture this: her
is them, and you're yourself. Both stories are different, but yet the key to a
happy ending is the same:
You've got to be in love with yourself first ...
You've got to love your picture first. If you love your picture, you can talk
about it, explain it to them first. Tell them what you see in it, why you like
it so much, because you're not so amazingly good yet that everyone that looks
at your picture understands right away at first glance in a few seconds (people
often just browse thru pictures, they don't take time to get into the picture
and forget the frame).
And you know what, often once you've explained to them the picture, they will
comment on it, and tell you really what they think about it, tell you their
point of vue of the same things, give you more ideas, there's some valuable
input from the others.
Decide you are going to start making good pictures for yourself, you like them
! Who cares about the other ones, they have bad taste if they don't like your
pictures (-:. And you'll see, all of a sudden you start making good pictures,
all you had to do was decide to do it. Sounds incredible, but it works !
JNM (decided to be happy, because he had been sad for so long he realized he
was sad just because he had decided to be sad, so he tried it the other way,
feels stange but it works, now the problem is, he's so happy he feels like he
has to tell everyone)
Jake Livni
> With regard to Rowell, some of his stuff is, as you say, "commercial",
>or the result of being on Everest when the light was right (!), but looking
>at more of his work recently I am coming to admire it more and more and I
>am sure that some of it could be regarded as "fine art".
In his book _Mountain Light_, Rowell discusses the need to recognize
the different types of light available in different times and places.
On my trips to Jerusalem, I have found the early morning and evening
light to be remarkably different from the drab light in NYC where I
live. The light after sunset in the Jerusalem hills is soft, warm and
surprisingly bright for almost a full hour after sunset at which time
it falls suddenly into darkness. Michael Freeman discusses this in
_Light_. It sure doesn't happen the same way here in NYC. It
probably changes with season, too.
Rowell's understanding of rainbows and what causes them allowed him to
predict where he should be to put the rainbow in a particular place in
his field of view. For one photo (rainbow over potala palace - or
somesuch), he saw the rainbow coming, knew it wouldn't last too long,
and then ran for a mile to put the rainbow over the palace, which he
then shot with a polarizer. Would YOU know in which direction to run
to "move" a rainbow? Would YOU know how far to run? (Incidentally, I
don't know...) (Trick question: what does a rainbow look like from a
flying aircraft?)
>I would also not dismiss finding the right light too "lightly". It can be
>hard work.
Understanding light and lighting can make this much easier and less
"hit and miss".
>I was just out in Yosemite (fighting for good 'photo' spots
>like all the rest) and was hanging out at the tunnel waiting for the usual
>sunset view. However it was cloudy and dull with only about 5 minutes of
>potential sun left. The army of photographers packed up their tripods in
>disgust and all left. I stuck it out 'till the bitter end and was rewarded
>with the most beautiful lighting I have seen there as the clouds parted
>right at sunset. I was the only one left there taking pictures.
I have often seen the light turn beautiful in the last 5 minutes
before sunset. The sun may be obscured by overcast all afternoon but
just before sunset, it may become visible, peeking under a clearing in
the clouds quite a distance from where you are now, where it may not
be that overcast or cloudy at all. Recognizing this makes life easier
and more profitable for the observant photographer.
>Perhaps the diference between 35mm and large format work is that 35mm is
>too easy. You can burn through a roll of film with litle effort or thought
>about cost, so you can take lots of "bad" pictures.
When I have to wait all afternoon for literally a few seconds of
special light, being able to "burn through a roll of film" could be an
advantage. I have planned aerial shots and shots in dangerous
situations where I PLANNED on running the winder through a roll - and
got what I intended to.
>Perhaps the use of
>large format makes the photographer think mich more before taking a shot
>because of the limited number of shots possible (large format set up takes
>time) and the cost. I think it was Rowell who has suggested treating a
>35mm canera more like a large format camera, i.e. seting up a tripod,
>taking lots of time to compose a shot, really thinking about exposure,
>trying to envision the final image etc. With 35mm it is just too easy to
>fire off a lot of shots and hope that one comes out "right".
In the palace scene i mentioned above, Rowell writes that he ran with
a body and 3 rolls of film. He later regretted not bringing more
film with him, even though he only shot for a few minutes. He seems
to have come up with a winner, all the same.
--
Jake Livni ja...@bony1.bony.com Ten years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
Uli Bodenhausen
I agree that what really matters is that you like your pictures yourself. But one
should not be so intolerant and not accept comments from other people. For me
the reason for taking pictures is not only to satisfy myself, but also to
interact with the world: Show places and people the way I see them. But other
people should be able to understand the pictures and get the point.
|> You've got to love your picture first. If you love your picture, you can talk
|> about it, explain it to them first. Tell them what you see in it, why you like
|> it so much, because you're not so amazingly good yet that everyone that looks
|> at your picture understands right away at first glance in a few seconds (people
|> often just browse thru pictures, they don't take time to get into the picture
|> and forget the frame).
That's a problem: most people don't get a picture and turn away. But I hate to
explain too much about the pictures. The pictures themselves should be able
to explain themselves.
|> And you know what, often once you've explained to them the picture, they will
|> comment on it, and tell you really what they think about it, tell you their
|> point of vue of the same things, give you more ideas, there's some valuable
|> input from the others.
Yeah, that's what I was saying in my post. But depending on the style you
are developing and the other persons taste the comments may be contraproductive.
I get frustrated when I get stupid comments from people who have not developed
a reasonably good viewpoint on pictures.
|>
|> Decide you are going to start making good pictures for yourself, you like them
|> ! Who cares about the other ones, they have bad taste if they don't like your
|> pictures (-:. And you'll see, all of a sudden you start making good pictures,
|> all you had to do was decide to do it. Sounds incredible, but it works !
I more and more feel we mean the same thing! The only problem that I have
right now is to get the *right* feedback to really improve on *my* style.
|> JNM (decided to be happy, because he had been sad for so long he realized he
|> was sad just because he had decided to be sad, so he tried it the other way,
|> feels stange but it works, now the problem is, he's so happy he feels like he
|> has to tell everyone)
Thanks for your comments.
Uli
robert.m.atkins
[discussing Galen Rowell's photograph in "Mountain Light" + elsewhere]
> his field of view. For one photo (rainbow over potala palace - or
> somesuch), he saw the rainbow coming, knew it wouldn't last too long,
> and then ran for a mile to put the rainbow over the palace, which he
> then shot with a polarizer. Would YOU know in which direction to run
> to "move" a rainbow? Would YOU know how far to run? (Incidentally, I
> don't know...) (Trick question: what does a rainbow look like from a
> flying aircraft?)
There is no doubt that Rowell's skill and knowledge (and determination)
got him this shot, when all his companions missed it (if I remember the
story right). It's a great shot - an ideal magazine cover, or maybe
even a poster - but it is what has been previously called a "postcard
shot". I find it has an immediate impact, but I think I would tire of
it quite quickly if I had to look at it all day. It does not have any
subtlties. What you see is what you get. I much prefer some of his
other work in which he uses the light at dawn or dusk to make images
with a more "unworldly" appearance. Not that the "rainbow" shot is bad
(it would certainly go in my "keeper" file!), but I don't think it is
typical of what (to my eyes) he does best. I wonder where he would
rate it among his images? (anyone been to one of his lectures and know
the answer?).
Paul Gleichauf
famous photographer for several years. He taught very little about technique
directly. Those students with the patience to absorb by the examples he
presented probably learned the most important aspects of photography as art
and almost nothing about the use of equipment. A couple of paragraphs as a
summary of his methods might add to this discussion by example.
He taught by example. A class started with the projection of several
carousels of slides by one or perhaps two photographers. Projection pacing was
fairly rapid with interruptions encouraged. These might be his own provocations,
or a question about an image, or a student wisecrack. The crack had to be truly
wise though, for you would be required to defend your viewpoint. This was not
for the faint of heart or the shy, but it forced one to think coherently about
what the art of the image before you was, and did not permit the expression of
vague feelings and simple emotional reactions. Most of the art students in the
classes hated to be challenged in this way. The slides were carefully selected
but very broad in scope and historical range. The second half of the class was
devoted to voluntary exhibitions of student work on the walls of the classroom, usually of finished quality prints. Students circulated around then the critique
started from what was best and why. Again, not for the ego-impaired. The third
part of the class was outside the darkroom at all hours. You could bring out
your prints and get some detailed comments about exposure values, printing
improvements and content. The last was most important. Occasionally Gary would
print some of his negatives to give students a comparison, sometimes he would
project his images in the discussion sections, but not too often. His judgement
was acute, his personality boisterous and to some overwhelming.
You had to be ready to listen to what he said, to risk a Zen-like
annihilation of your artistic prejudices into instruction by imitation with the
hope of eventual self-restoration in a new form. Even if unintentional, what
students saw in the pictures they were "exposed" to in the class the previous
weeks showed up the next week on the exhibition walls. Then in the best of them,
the true artists, the evolution of their own individual way of seeing came into
being. This takes a lot of time to happen. Some students never got beyond
following the instructor around and producing palid imitations of his style.
Originality and artistic vision were not tied to a fixed place or perspective.
For some of us that required going somewhere new and unfamiliar to see things in
a different and imaginative way. For others the imagination was incited by the
warm and familiar. Above all we were encouraged to shoot LOTS of pictures and to
print far fewer. Some of your most valuable time with the instructor might be
spent with a loupe outside the darkroom. The process of taking pictures, of
ingraining an artistic vision, had to become automatic. It did not have to
follow any set pattern, it did not take some elaborate equipment to capture and
nourish. It is difficult to trust the judgement of others with the intimate
revelations of your art, and that is where the luck of my sentence came in.
I don't think there are many great teachers of the arts. Certainly there are
fewer than there are great artists, and after a certain point you need a master
who is both. Not every artist needs direct contact with a master teacher to
flourish. But it can make the path easier. It is also amazing how as you mature
you tend to learn to filter out the comments of the fool from the critically
useful and informed.
I thought these were great lessons at the time. Now I think of them as
transcending the context of photography into what it means to teach. Apologies
to those who find this too philosophical. Guesses accepted as to who the teacher was.
Paul
Brian Godfrey
>Galen Rowell [says]
>"It's all in our heads, but it's not in ALL our heads"
I'm not sure I totally understand what he is trying to say, but I guess
the gist of it has to do with "seeing." Many articles and instructors talk
about seeing as if it is something that we must learn how to do. I do not
agree with this. I think we all "see" the world in our own particular way
and what we must learn is not how TO see, but how WE see. In other words,
we must get in touch with the vision that we all possess. Those who think
they can't compose a good photo (or paint or draw or whatever) really can,
but they just haven't recognized their own vision yet. Often, I think,
people try to live up to someone else's vision rather than recognize their
own. That's what I suspect when I read notes from people expressing frustra-
tion at not being able to take that grand picture of the Tetons or whatever.
That kind of picture can be really beautiful, but maybe that's not the way
their right-brain iterprets the world.
Personally, I have been very near-sighted for my entire life. I am
quite certain that this has had a profound influence on my own personal
vision. Over the years I have been quite frustrated at not being able
to capture the beautiful scenery around me. It wasn't until I started
shooting closeups of mushrooms and flowers and so on that I began to
realize my potential, truly feel creative, and most importantly to enjoy
my own photographs. What's more, I also paint, and find that abstracts
with only vague connection to reality are what I enjoy and am good at.
For anyone who is not near-sighted, let me tell you that to a near-sighted
person, the world is one big, vague, colorful abstract. I get lots of
complements on my abstract paintings and my mushrooms and flowers, and I
like them, too. My attempts at scenics usually seem to bore people (and
me, too.)
BTW, a lot of work goes into the mushroom and flower pictures. They are
not just macro shots, but carefully created images. I light my mushrooms
as if they were people, using carefully controlled flash and backgrounds.
The flowers are a new subject for me. Right now, I'm shooting mostly
trilliums. They seem to be about the right size and are photogenic. I
use diffusion cloth behind them and put the flash behind the cloth. I
sometimes put twigs or leaves between the flash and the cloth to cause
shadows on the cloth which create a nice background for the flowers. I
have a few successful images made this way. If the weather clears up soon,
I will be out getting some more and experimenting with colored gels behind
the cloth, too.
Now it would probably be a waste of time for most people to go out
and try and shoot my kind of pictures. They might be able to copy the
techniques, but without my kind of inner vision, they would probably not
get pictures like mine. No brag - many people might not even like my
pictures - just reality. Just like I used to try and try and could not
get good scenics.
I think the important thing is to experiment and find out what YOU are
good at and to hell with what everyone else expects. Try many different
styles of photography and experiment within those styles. When you get a
picture that tickles you, put it in a plain black frame and hang it
somewhere where you have to look at it a lot. After a while, you will
either be sick of it - in which case that probably is not a good style
for you - or you will start seeing ways to improve it, or getting ideas
for the next one and getting an itch to make the next one. If the latter
happens, maybe you have discovered a little bit about how your own personal
vision works. Try it.
--
--Brian M. Godfrey
atlastele.com
Zoltan Levay
In article <1993Mar23....@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, ka...@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
|> There is no doubt that Rowell's skill and knowledge (and determination)
|> got him this shot, when all his companions missed it (if I remember the
|> story right). It's a great shot - an ideal magazine cover, or maybe
|> even a poster - but it is what has been previously called a "postcard
|> shot". I find it has an immediate impact, but I think I would tire of
|> it quite quickly if I had to look at it all day. It does not have any
|> subtlties. What you see is what you get. I much prefer some of his
|> other work in which he uses the light at dawn or dusk to make images
|> with a more "unworldly" appearance. Not that the "rainbow" shot is bad
|> (it would certainly go in my "keeper" file!), but I don't think it is
|> typical of what (to my eyes) he does best. I wonder where he would
|> rate it among his images? (anyone been to one of his lectures and know
|> the answer?).
Recently, I attended an all-day seminar by Galen Rowell which included
his (by now oft-repeated) "Mountain Light" lecture. He did show and
discuss this particular photograph. While he didn't comment on it's
relative importance in his files, nor really indicate if it's one of
his favorites, he does relish telling the story of its conception.
I urge everyone to look carefully at the particular picture in question
as well as the rest of Rowell's body of work and not dismiss it out of
hand as "postcard." (I wonder if they're selling postcards at the
Potala Palace.) Part of the problem is saturation (overexposure, if
you will). This particular picture has been around a lot. I'm
actually beginning to think of many of St. Ansel's pictures as almost
cliche because I've seen them so much! (Not that I'd turn down a gift,
of course. :-) Rowell even touched on this topic in his talk,
mentioning the idea of the "maturity" of a particular image idea or
location. Sometimes, a straight "postcard" presentation can stand on
its own because the scene is so unusual. More familiar subjects
require a more imaginative treatement. I do know there is more to the
"art" and lasting-power of a photograph -- I don't have the time to
ramble much more.
One nice aspect of Rowell's presentation was that he could show not
only the very best images that were published, but could also compare
these to versions of the same scenes that may have been not quite so
successful -- a decent learning experience. Other than this, he really
didn't say all that much more than is in the book.
In addition to the actual "Mountain Light" lecture, the remainder of
the seminar was devoted to an exploration of many aspects of Rowell's
style and genre of photography, spanning the gamut from specific,
technical suggestions to more philosophical points. For example, he
spent quite a bit of time explaining that photography is, in fact,
quite an unreliable means of obtaining a record of reality. However,
if one understands the nature of the departures from reality (tonal
range, color, perspective, etc.), one can use these to advantage in
"constructing" powerful images.
I'd be very careful of labeling photographs as "postcard" pictures.
I cringe when I hear that. On the one hand, a picture has to be
technically excellent and be constructed well compositionally (and more
importantly, usually show off and therefore sell a particular location)
to be used as a postcard. On the other hand, postcard pictures usually
conform to a rather rigid formula. I think most "serious"
photographers would like to evolve away from formulas and develop a
unique vision and style.
--
Zolt
le...@stsci.edu
Michael Lawlor
joke, or an insult). And most of all, just relax and take pictures, all the
time, don't worry about missing a lot, maybe you'll find something
interesting
in those missed pictures (hey who can deny being lucky with a shot (-:). Get
the eye, concentrate on what you take, not on how to take it.
And you know what ? The technical skills will come along... with the
practice.
Don't be disapointed if the pictures are missed at the beginning, you get
bummed out because you attached too much importance to the form, forget about
the fact it's under-exposed and imagine how it would be with correct exposure
and see if it's a good shot anyway, and why (sometimes you can not explain
why,
at least not with words).
I speak as an artist, myself. I feel that one problem with "photographic art"
is that too many photographers aretrying to make 'beautiful' photographs. One
problem with this means that they are trying to make, or, rather, remake,
photographs (pictures),which have already been made. One rather sad reference
to quality of photographs is that they relate to purelly formal qualities
rather than to the quality of idea that is expressed. I find it extremely
(negatively) ironic that one factor of value for an image if often listed as
the time a a photographer wastes waiting for the light, shadow, whatever. I
contend, and have produced exhibitions based on this theory, that if you
cannot take a photograph where and when you are now, you are merely copying
old photographs. My system is shutting down, must go. I will carry on this
discussion if any response request it. Michael.
robert.m.atkins
> In article <...> ka...@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
> >Galen Rowell [says]
> >"It's all in our heads, but it's not in ALL our heads"
>
> I'm not sure I totally understand what he is trying to say, but I guess
> the gist of it has to do with "seeing." Many articles and instructors talk
> about seeing as if it is something that we must learn how to do. I do not
> agree with this. I think we all "see" the world in our own particular way
> and what we must learn is not how TO see, but how WE see. In other words,
> we must get in touch with the vision that we all possess. Those who think
> they can't compose a good photo (or paint or draw or whatever) really can,
> but they just haven't recognized their own vision yet. Often, I think,
> people try to live up to someone else's vision rather than recognize their
> own. That's what I suspect when I read notes from people expressing frustra-
> tion at not being able to take that grand picture of the Tetons or whatever.
> That kind of picture can be really beautiful, but maybe that's not the way
> their right-brain iterprets the world.
>
I think you have pretty much the idea he was expressing. When we "see" it is
more than just the pattern made on our retina. A picture of half dome does
not "look" like half dome in reality, even if the visual image on the back of
our eyeballs is the same. Like he says "is all in our heads", or maybe it's
mostly in our heads. The trick is to make a photograph of half dome that
triggers a similar respons to actually seeing it in real life (assuming that
is what you want to do). That requires a special "vision", or insight into
exactly how to make a photograph which can elicit the desired "emotional"
response in the viewer. That is very difficult to do for most of us, and
why those shots of the Tetons just don't cut it. As he say's, its not in
ALL our heads (though maybe it can be if we keep on trying).
Ty Monson
(stuff deleted)
>
>I speak as an artist, myself. I feel that one problem with "photographic art"
>is that too many photographers aretrying to make 'beautiful' photographs. One
There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to create a work
of beauty - and creating something beautiful is *not* outside
the bounds of art, despite current trends within the established
art community. It *is* fair to say that meaningful artistic endeavors
(including photography) need not necessarily be directed at creating
beauty. But it is downright irresponsible to suggest that too many
people are trying to create beauty.
>problem with this means that they are trying to make, or, rather, remake,
>photographs (pictures),which have already been made. One rather sad reference
>to quality of photographs is that they relate to purelly formal qualities
>rather than to the quality of idea that is expressed. I find it extremely
>(negatively) ironic that one factor of value for an image if often listed as
>the time a a photographer wastes waiting for the light, shadow, whatever. I
>contend, and have produced exhibitions based on this theory, that if you
>cannot take a photograph where and when you are now, you are merely copying
>old photographs.
If I interpret this last passage correctly, it says that
a person is copying someone else's photography by merely waiting
for those lighting conditions that the person desires for a photograph.
I hope the rest of readers in rec.photo have the good judgement
to recognize the absurdity of this claim. Visualizing the result that
*you* want is part of the artistic process. Waiting for those conditions
that you visualize is a sign of maturity, not mimicry.
Of course, if you are trying to mimic someone else's work, it is
necessary to get the same lighting, so it is necessary (probably) to wait.
This is very different from waiting to get your own unique "magic moment."
Ty Monson
(much deleted)
>
> What's more, I also paint, and find that abstracts
>with only vague connection to reality are what I enjoy and am good at.
>For anyone who is not near-sighted, let me tell you that to a near-sighted
>person, the world is one big, vague, colorful abstract.
You *could* use this to your advantage in photography.
It should be easy enough to defocus a camera lens to produce
an image on the focusing screen that matches what *you* see.
Try it. Tell us what you get.
Alan Sanders
| for an image if often listed as the time a a photographer wastes
| cannot take a photograph where and when you are now, you are merely
| copying old photographs.
I really try hard not to flame anyone who contributes to rec.photo,
but I am sorely tempted after reading this (ahem!) opinion.
| Visualizing the result that *you* want is part of the artistic process.
-Ty Monson
Yes, and learning to shrug off the effects of other people's judgments
about what we "should" be doing is part of life wherever we are!
-Alan
robert.m.atkins
> | I find it extremely (negatively) ironic that one factor of value
> | for an image if often listed as the time a a photographer wastes
> | waiting for the light, shadow, whatever. I contend... that if you
> | cannot take a photograph where and when you are now, you are merely
> | copying old photographs.
> -Michael Lawlor
>
> I really try hard not to flame anyone who contributes to rec.photo,
> but I am sorely tempted after reading this (ahem!) opinion.
>
I agree (with Alan). And who has ever listed the time "wasted" waiting
for the light as a factor in the value of an image? Any image has to
stand on its own. Most people seeing an image have no idea how it was
taken, or if the photographer had stood up to his neck in a swamp for
6 hours to take it, nor do they care. Anyone who simply takes pictures
"on the spot" with no thought about lighting, composition etc. is at
best a "snapshooter" and certainly not a photographer (well, maybe a
photojournalist would do this, but not out of choice). A picture may
be more valuable to me if I know how difficult it was to take, but
not to any objective viewer.
I would not be at all suprised to find a school of art which values
"immediate", uncomposed, unfocused pictures taken using a camera
with a one element plastic lens as art. Wasn't there a "Diana" (sp?)
camera like that which was sold some time ago? The pictures would
certainly be unique. I guess art is in the eye of the beholder.
William Tyler
>In article <1993Mar26.2...@adobe.com>, asan...@adobe.com (Alan Sanders) writes:
>> | I find it extremely (negatively) ironic that one factor of value
>> | for an image if often listed as the time a a photographer wastes
>> | waiting for the light, shadow, whatever. I contend... that if you
>
>for the light as a factor in the value of an image? Any image has to
>stand on its own. Most people seeing an image have no idea how it was
It may be worth noting that one of the most valuable and famous of all
Ansel Adams' images, "Moonrise", was made in a tearing hurry. He
happened to be driving by, saw the scene, set up his camera as fast as
possible, exposed without metering to save time, and by the time he
turned his film holder around to make a second negative for insurance,
the light was gone. So much for the _necessity_ of waiting around.
>I would not be at all suprised to find a school of art which values
>"immediate", uncomposed, unfocused pictures taken using a camera
>with a one element plastic lens as art. Wasn't there a "Diana" (sp?)
>camera like that which was sold some time ago? The pictures would
>certainly be unique. I guess art is in the eye of the beholder.
The Diana is now ancient history (at least 20 years old, I'd think).
Friends of Photography published a book of Diana photographs as one of
the issues of Untitled several years ago.
Jean-Noel Moyne
Sanders) writes:
>> | I find it extremely (negatively) ironic that one factor of value
>> | for an image if often listed as the time a a photographer wastes
>> | waiting for the light, shadow, whatever. I contend... that if you
>> | cannot take a photograph where and when you are now, you are merely
>> | copying old photographs.
>> -Michael Lawlor
>>
>> I really try hard not to flame anyone who contributes to rec.photo,
>> but I am sorely tempted after reading this (ahem!) opinion.
>>
>
>I agree (with Alan). And who has ever listed the time "wasted" waiting
>for the light as a factor in the value of an image? Any image has to
>stand on its own. Most people seeing an image have no idea how it was
>taken, or if the photographer had stood up to his neck in a swamp for
>6 hours to take it, nor do they care. Anyone who simply takes pictures
>"on the spot" with no thought about lighting, composition etc. is at
>best a "snapshooter" and certainly not a photographer (well, maybe a
>photojournalist would do this, but not out of choice).
So much mis-understanding between the two points of vue. What Michael is
trying to say (I think ! (-:), is that you should be capable to shoot
interesting pictures wether the conditions are good or not. He implies that, if
there is something out there that is worth a shot from an artistic point of
vue, it should not depend on some luck catching the right light as it passes
by.
He thinks that 'beautiful' (in this sense 'beautiful' means perfect
technically) pictures is a field already known, and that photographs should
concentrate more on developing something else in their pictures, granted that
technical perfection can always be achieved, it just takes time.
I don't think he's right though. Sometimes (often I should say), what's
interesting in a picture is a reflexion, a certain light, caused by an angle of
the sun. Just look at a sunset, you have to wait for the sun to be going down.
If you wait this way, it's not to make the picture 'beautiful' in the sense of
'perfect', but to make it an interesting picture.
A painter is able to correct what he does not like in what he is painting. He
has total control over his picture, he can concentrate in what's interesting in
the picture and the beautiful part can always be worked on ... later.
A photographer, well he's a witness, he records things, he has to see what's
interesting in the picture before he takes it, and often he sees the
_potential_ for the picture ... and then after, he has to wait for this
potential to develop and concretise... And sometimes it will never concretize.
> A picture may
>be more valuable to me if I know how difficult it was to take, but
>not to any objective viewer.
That's right ... do you know how much time a painting took to be painted when
you look at it ? Who cares about the making anyway, right ?
>
>I would not be at all suprised to find a school of art which values
>"immediate", uncomposed, unfocused pictures taken using a camera
>with a one element plastic lens as art. Wasn't there a "Diana" (sp?)
>camera like that which was sold some time ago? The pictures would
>certainly be unique. I guess art is in the eye of the beholder.
>
I saw a show in France where they gave kids in the suburbs really cheap
cameras, the kind you would not even look at. And the kids went off taking
pictures.
And then they showed *all* the pictures in a subway station in Paris (the
biggest one). A lot of pictures, very few good ones. But some of them where
just ... breath taking ! Pictures so strong that the mediocre quality really
does not matter. A photo reporter is not considered a real photograph ? And can
not be an artist ? Not so...
JNM
Rev Dr Phil Herring
mon...@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU writes:
>In article <22...@mindlink.bc.ca> Michael...@mindlink.bc.ca (Michael
Lawlor) writes:
> (stuff deleted)
>>
>>is that too many photographers aretrying to make 'beautiful' photographs. One
>
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to create a work
> of beauty - and creating something beautiful is *not* outside
> the bounds of art, despite current trends within the established
> art community. It *is* fair to say that meaningful artistic endeavors
> (including photography) need not necessarily be directed at creating
> beauty. But it is downright irresponsible to suggest that too many
> people are trying to create beauty.
No, it's downright irresponsible to ignore the fact that
twentieth-century art photography has been a largely one-dimensional
search for beauty where it isn't. Photography will never be utilised
fully as an art form until this pathological tendency ceases.
It's true that there's nothing wrong with trying to create beautiful
photographs per se - but that's not all there is to art. Art can be
ugly. Art can be violent. It can be unsettling and malevolent, sweet
and funny, loving or angry, challenging and intellectual. I have
*dozens* of books of photographs that contain hundreds of beautiful
photographs - and just a few books of paintings that contain dozens
of paintings that aren't. That's the problem - the fact that
culturally, photographers have pursued just one thing, by and large,
and continue to do so, while the more mature media have long since
embraced the full range of human emotions.
Let me just nail this down for you: when photography was invented
about 154 years ago, people started out making photographs that are
not all that disimilar to those made today - landscapes, nudes, and
portraits. In other words, they started out operating in the common
artistic modes of the day. There have significant changes in the
interim, but by and large, mainstream art photography hasn't changed
all that much in all that time.
Try comparing that to the changes that have taken place in painting
since 1839: cubism, dada, surrealism, photorealism, impressionism,
expressionism, pop, and a whole swag of other movements have radically
altered that medium in that time. By comparison, art photography is
still stuck back in the late nineteenth-century romantic movement.
That sounds like a hundred years of stagnation to me.
-- Phil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev Dr Phil Herring, University of Wollongong, Australia
Copyright (c) 1993 Phil Herring phil_h...@info-gw.uow.edu.au
"My manner of thinking, so you say, cannot be approved. Do you suppose
I care? A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking for
others! My manner of thinking stems straight from my considered
reflections; it holds with my existence, with the way I am made. It is
not in my power to alter it; and were it, I'd not do so."
Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Bernard
>> | for an image if often listed as the time a a photographer wastes
>> | waiting for the light, shadow, whatever. I contend... that if you
>> | cannot take a photograph where and when you are now, you are merely
>> | copying old photographs.
>> -Michael Lawlor
>
> I really try hard not to flame anyone who contributes to rec.photo,
> but I am sorely tempted after reading this (ahem!) opinion.
>
>I agree (with Alan). And who has ever listed the time "wasted" waiting
>for the light as a factor in the value of an image? Any image has to
>stand on its own. Most people seeing an image have no idea how it was
>taken, or if the photographer had stood up to his neck in a swamp for
>6 hours to take it, nor do they care. Anyone who simply takes pictures
>"on the spot" with no thought about lighting, composition etc. is at
b
Schools of Art clash! Studied Landscape vs. Grabshot! There is an
honorable artistic tradition
in photography derived from Cartier-Bresson et al referred to
as the Decisive Moment tradition. It holds that photography
has a real role in catching a split second of time which can
never be repeated. Lighting, background, time-of-day, etc. are
taken as is and without manipulation.
WHich doesn't mean that it doesn't take long hours of prowling for
potential shots, or camping out at a specific composition, waiting
for the right person to walk into the scene and make it complete.
But when that instant of precise rightness occurs, it only lasts
a second, and the photographer must jump on the chance.
robert.m.atkins
On the contrary, I don't think there is a clash here at all. The
proposition advanced by the original poster "if you can't take a photo where
and when you are now, you are mearly copying old photographs", is certainly
not applicable the the Decisive Moment tradiation. The original proposition
suggested that waiting for the "right light" was a waste of time - I assume
that this would also apply to "waiting for the right moment". The link
here is that neither simply grabs a shot "whenever and wherever", both
depend on the skill and "vision" of the photographer to seek out and
identify "the right moment".
Dave Bernard
Believe it or not, there are some photographers who do take the
decisive moment a step further, to the indecisive, or absolutely
ordinary, moment, where any real composition is almost accidental.
I'm talking real, shooting from the hip, let's take a snap of life
and see how it looks. Lee Friedlander, maybe Harry Callahan (?)
and there are a few others whose names escape me. Personally, I
don't really care for this sort of style myself.
Alan Sanders
| of all Ansel Adams' images, "Moonrise", was made in a tearing
| to save time...
-Bill Tyler
According to Ansel Adam's own account, he made his exposure without
a meter because he *couldn't find* his meter, and was forced to rely
on experience to estimate the proper exposure. It would certainly
be misleading to suggest that Ansel *preferred* to work this way.
My guess is that he would have had much more difficulty in capturing
that image "on the fly" without all the years of methodical image
making that preceded it.
-Alan
Alan Sanders
Of course there is! What was offensive in the original message
was the clearly-expressed attitude that "My way is the only
right way; everything else is imitation."
-Alan
robert.m.atkins
>
> Believe it or not, there are some photographers who do take the
> decisive moment a step further, to the indecisive, or absolutely
> ordinary, moment, where any real composition is almost accidental.
> I'm talking real, shooting from the hip, let's take a snap of life
> and see how it looks. Lee Friedlander, maybe Harry Callahan (?)
> and there are a few others whose names escape me. Personally, I
> don't really care for this sort of style myself.
>
>
"accidental" shots, where is the art supposed to come into the process.
Is it in the choice of shots, or is the act of taking the pictures
regarded as "art" in itself? Perhaps the "art" lies in actually exhibiting
such pictures, the event of the exhibition itself being art. Whatever it
is, it has moved out of the realm of photography to a place where the
fact that photographs are used as the medium is quite incidental. Maybe
the art is in the social content of the pictures? I guess you would have
to ask an artist since photographers probably wouldn't know. Not that
photographers can't be artists, or artists photographers, but neither
have to be both.
donl mathis
In article <1993Mar29.1...@adobe.com>, asan...@adobe.com (Alan
It's also interesting to note that he describe the negative as very
difficult to print, because the foreground (shrubs and such) were
severely underexposed, and the negative became a bit easier to print
once he intensified the foreground in selenium toner.
- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
do...@sgi.com
donl mathis
In article <1p5m4s$6...@falin.cs.uow.edu.au>,
phil_h...@info-gw.uow.edu.au (Rev Dr Phil Herring) writes:
|> Let me just nail this down for you: when photography was invented
|> about 154 years ago, people started out making photographs that are
|> not all that disimilar to those made today - landscapes, nudes, and
|> portraits. In other words, they started out operating in the common
|> artistic modes of the day. There have significant changes in the
|> interim, but by and large, mainstream art photography hasn't changed
|> all that much in all that time.
|>
|> Try comparing that to the changes that have taken place in painting
|> since 1839: cubism, dada, surrealism, photorealism, impressionism,
|> expressionism, pop, and a whole swag of other movements have radically
|> altered that medium in that time. By comparison, art photography is
|> still stuck back in the late nineteenth-century romantic movement.
|>
|> That sounds like a hundred years of stagnation to me.
Hmmm. And a hundred years ago, people enjoyed good food, human
companionship, a warm place to sleep. They put their pants on one leg
at a time. Their eyes got foggy as they grew older, and they got
arthritis and can trouble moving around. Parents loved their
children. People were trying to find better ways of getting from place
A to place B. Doing a good job built self confidence, and teamwork
built friendships.
I think that implicit in your position is the philosophy that mankind
is somehow progressing in fundamental ways as time goes on; that we are
on our way to some kind of enlightment, some deeper understanding of
what reality is all about.
Philosophies are like opinions -- every gets to form their own, but you
really can't call them "truth." I don't happen to believe that people
today are any different than they were thousands of years ago, before
Thomas Edison or Intel. I don't believe that the things that warm
people's hearts, or make them angry, or any different now than they
were then, except in details. And I don't believe that a thousand
years from now, barring a major upset to reality as we know it, that
people will be any different than they are now.
Holding such an opinion puts me in a situation where, to be
intellectually honest, I have to reconcile it with what I see happening
around me, and that includes what we call "art". If we take an
"artist" to be a person who thinks deeply about reality and attempts to
find a way to express those thoughts through some (usually non-verbal)
means, then we might even be able to say that art epitomizes the what's
going on in our world.
I see cubism, dada, surrealism, impressionism, expressionism, pop, and
the whole swag of other movements as a desperate attempt at creating
meaning where none exists. Life in and of itself is meaningless; many
people accept this notion, others come to understand that there is more
than life in and of itself, and still others take life and attempt to
generate something that appears to give it meaning. These things are
usually difficult to understand, but only because they don't make much
sense -- not because they are complex. If I stand and gaze at a
painting and find myself trying to figure out what it "means", with an
underlying sense that I "don't get it," at this point in my life I am
confident enough to declare that there is more than likely nothing
tangible to "get."
I believe that the creation in which we live is a wonderful gift, a
wonderful thing. It is, as some of the popular movements of today
would suggest, intimately connected with our own existence -- there is
something back there that binds this all together. I am content while
investigating and experiencing the world's beauty.
I know that there are ugly things in the world -- wrought by mankind --
but as an individual choice, I suppose, I don't need to have those
things shown or explained to me through "art". There are other means
by which I become aware of these things, and rather than simply become
aware of them and experience some emotional reaction, it seems much
better to take action and *do* something about them. Art does not
really do anything about the problems it sometimes purports to address;
I suppose in some cases it can inspire people, which is all right, I
suppose, but that has never happened to me. And I suppose in some
cases, money can be directed in such a way that it does some good. But
these things don't strike me as being terribly significant -- there are
other ways of getting the job done.
Nor do I need art to elevate me to some higher form of consciousness,
or enlightenment, or some new level of understanding. For those who do
use art to attempt to find these things through art, I believe the
pursuit is futile. One of three cases exist: either the concepts in a
piece of art are a product of the mind that produced the piece, or they
somehow come from an outside force with a greater (or at least
different) understanding, or there are really no concepts inherent in
the piece, they're really a sort of synthesis of an arbitrary object
with no significance and it's impact on the mind of the viewer. I
reject the latter two of these notions. If there is meaning in art, it
is a function of the mind of the artist. Those who disagree are
essentially declaring that the artist does not make a significant
contribution to the work (and then question becomes "If the artist is
not the artist, who is?").
Now, if (as I believe) the concepts in a piece of art can be no greater
than the mind of the one who produced it, then I cannot and do not
accept the work of art as a source of spiritual truth, because I do not
look to *any* man as the source of spiritual truth.
What remains for me are those works of art that I simply enjoy looking
at. The photographs I make are intended to convey a sense of the
beauty and wonder that the natural world offers. I rarely photograph
man-made objects. I want to be reminded that the world is larger than
my four office walls, so I hang photographs on them that I can look
through. They transport me through time and space, in my mind, to a
much more enjoyable environment, and show me things that are much more
pleasant to look at than, say, the text on my monitor.
Do I qualify as an artist? Undoubtedly not. Do I care? No. Do I
consider some of my photographs, and others that I enjoy, "art"?
Absolutely. Are they stagnant? Nope. Not on your life. They are
timeless.
William Tyler
>No, it's downright irresponsible to ignore the fact that
>twentieth-century art photography has been a largely one-dimensional
>search for beauty where it isn't. Photography will never be utilised
>fully as an art form until this pathological tendency ceases.
False. Complete and utter hogwash. You may be misled by the large
commercial market for 'pretty pictures', but then it's also true that
by far the bulk of contemporary painting falls in the same categories
that you complain about in photography. Just visit a representative
selection of commercial art galleries for proof.
I have numerous books of photographs that are unsettling, disturbing,
anger-provoking, and all the other characteristics that you mention in
your post. Try looking at some of Ralph Eugene Meatyard's work, for
example, or the portraits of Diane Arbus. Get hold of a copy of
Minamata, by W. Eugene Smith, to see work that will get you angry. I
could go on at great length, but will refrain in the interest of
network bandwidth.
William Tyler
I didn't mean to imply that Adams didn't prefer the use of a meter. He
clearly did meter whenever possible, and as precisely as he could,
using the best available technology. The point of my comment was to
refute the notion that long, boring periods of waiting are a
prerequisite to making any image of value.
Hans L. Bongers
|> It may be worth noting that one of the most valuable and famous of all
|> Ansel Adams' images, "Moonrise", was made in a tearing hurry. He
|> happened to be driving by, saw the scene, set up his camera as fast as
|> possible, exposed without metering to save time, and by the time he
|> turned his film holder around to make a second negative for insurance,
|> the light was gone. So much for the _necessity_ of waiting around.
|>
|>
|> Bill
|>
|> --
|> Bill Tyler wty...@adobe.com
Moonrise was exposed without "metering" but WITH years of experience
AND the knowledge of the lumen value of the moon. When Ansel took
the shot, he placed the moon where he wanted it and prayed that the
rest would fall into place.
Experience can replace a meter any time. Ansel also felt that waiting
around for a picture to happen was not fruitful. He felt that he could
be missing another photo "over there" while he was waiting "over here".
That does not mean that he didn't combine experience and luck to
be at the right place at the right time.
I have gotten many fine photos either way. The ones I remember
best were those which required some effort to setup of "wait for".
--- hans
Alan E. Kaplan
Jake Livni
>In article <1p7cp3...@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, dber...@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
>> I'm talking real, shooting from the hip, let's take a snap of life
>> and see how it looks. Lee Friedlander, maybe Harry Callahan (?)
>> and there are a few others whose names escape me. Personally, I
>> don't really care for this sort of style myself.
Winogrand, too. I never could stomach their stuff. Didn't one of
them die leaving behind some tens of thousands of negatives -
undeveloped? They didn't have any idea of what they were doing.
Wasn't it someone (Szarkowski?) from an "Art Museum" who took it upon
himself to sanctify this unholy mess?
>I believe it, but the artistic aspect escapes me. If these are truely
>"accidental" shots, where is the art supposed to come into the process.
[...]
>fact that photographs are used as the medium is quite incidental. Maybe
>the art is in the social content of the pictures? I guess you would have
>to ask an artist since photographers probably wouldn't know.
[...]
About 15 years ago in Australia, I saw either Friedlander or Winogrand
showing some of their slides. He displayed them but refused to make
any comment on them. I've been sorely unimpressed with this kind of
"art" ever since.
--
Jake Livni ja...@bony1.bony.com Ten years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
Paul Campbell
Tyler) wrote:
> I have numerous books of photographs that are unsettling, disturbing,
> anger-provoking...
> Bill Tyler wty...@adobe.com
Avedon, who I beleive is best known for his work for "Vogue" magazine, was
commissioned by the Amon Carter Museum to do a series of portraits several
years ago. This body of work started an argument between me and my art
teacher
of the time, namely, "Why is this art?" Well, now that I've matured a few
years
(not too many, though), I like this series of Avedon's photograhs. And
yes, some
of them are disturbing -- portraits of men from meat-packing plants,
covered in
gore, holding a bloody sledge hammer. These aren't the spectacular
photographs
of Ansel Adams, but the wall-sized portaits made one hell of an impression
on me.
Look it up if you get the chance.
Brian Godfrey
>
>No, it's downright irresponsible to ignore the fact that
>twentieth-century art photography has been a largely one-dimensional
>search for beauty where it isn't. Photography will never be utilised
>fully as an art form until this pathological tendency ceases.
People have been painting for millenia, photography has been around
for what? 150 years. Geez, give it time to grow up. :-)
>... I have
>*dozens* of books of photographs that contain hundreds of beautiful
>photographs - and just a few books of paintings that contain dozens
>of paintings that aren't. That's the problem - the fact that
>culturally, photographers have pursued just one thing, by and large,
>and continue to do so, while the more mature media have long since
>embraced the full range of human emotions.
Many books of "non-beautiful" photos have been published, why have
you not purchased them? I don't because I can see lots of non-beauty
around me every day, but if that's your thing, there are such books
available. I don't mean to be too hard on you, but I have lots of
"serious", "non-beautiful" photos which I think are very good, but
which would never sell. Maybe after I'm dead...but wait; doesn't
that sound like a familiar problem in conventional art history?
>Let me just nail this down for you: when photography was invented
>about 154 years ago, people started out making photographs that are
>not all that disimilar to those made today - landscapes, nudes, and
>portraits. In other words, they started out operating in the common
>artistic modes of the day. There have significant changes in the
>interim, but by and large, mainstream art photography hasn't changed
>all that much in all that time.
>
>Try comparing that to the changes that have taken place in painting
>since 1839: cubism, dada, surrealism, photorealism, impressionism,
>expressionism, pop, and a whole swag of other movements have radically
>altered that medium in that time. By comparison, art photography is
>still stuck back in the late nineteenth-century romantic movement.
I once received a brochure in the mail that had a piece of polished
aluminum foil glued to a piece of paper which was supposed to symbolize
a mirror. I liked the reflections I saw in it and thought it would be
fun to take photos of those reflections. After some experimenting I made
a series of really cool abstract photos using this technique which I
think compare quite favorably to the best abstract art. Perhaps I need
to invent a name for my style and hire some PR person to make me into a
cult figure. Or perhaps I should just keep experimenting and making
images that please me and not try to impress others. Then if my stuff
is worth looking at it, I will become famous after I am dead.
>That sounds like a hundred years of stagnation to me.
Don't complain about it, do something about it. Either buy my photos
or those of the many other experimental photographers, or go out and make
some of your own.
Paul Gleichauf
strong contrary reactions to the way some opinions have been expressed.
Consider the photographs on their merits first. I cannot defend
their art and see little point in trying to convince someone to appreciate
something that they don't like is worth another look. Some (probably too
much) of the Winogrand-Friedlander work is repetitous and even boring.
Other images are very powerful. Winogrand's pictures of the Brooklyn Zoo,
collected into a small volume, are accessible and powerful.
Second, the reduction of their technique, as distinguished from
their art, to "shoot from the hip" is simplistic and incorrect. These two
photographers knew what they were doing, and it is not simple to imitate.
They framed and shot very rapidly, no AF, no motor drives, no meter. They
went through lots of film, and advised all photographers to take lots of
pictures. The technical process of taking picture became instinctive to them
because of a wealth of experience. I used to debate with Gary whether lots
of pictures had to be the volume of film he consumed, and whether anyone had
the right to be as aggressive in the pursuit of a picture as he was willing
to be, but his technique was a distinctive and difficult one. Any of us
could take a Winogrand-like picture, but not with the consistent unique humor
or perspective that many of the best have. The social content was often highly
relevant in this style, but that is not excluded in art or culture in general.
It isn't landscape or nature photography; it is a captured bit of street
theatre and human sociology that descends directly from Atget and Bresson.
Third, Gary always had a fairly large backlog of undeveloped and
unprinted film. He processed and printed all his own negatives as far back as
I can remember. I think he needed some time between taking the picture and
the printing process, which I think interested him less. So he would go into
shooting mode for weeks or months at a time, and then into darkroom mode
when a project matured to some more or less final form. He also consistently
made the point that what you thought you captured in an image in the viewfinder
meant nothing until you viewed the negative and prints. Still this is not the
same as "taking a snap of life and seeing how it looks". He defintely knew
what he was doing and was quite deliberate and thoughtful, but did not think
that a good picture viewed with intelligence should need explanation. He could
be lured into more introspective discussions of photographs, but not dissections.
Lee was not much easier to deal with either, but that is be more a commentary
on their New Yorker manners and personalities than their art. An anonymous
audience would not elicit great revelations, a drink afterwards at a party
or hanging around together outside the darkroom might.
When Gary was dying of lung cancer the backlog got totally out of hand.
He wanted to shoot to make his statement, to use his last energies. I think I
would do the same to feel as alive as possible for as long as possible.
Lastly, John Szarkowski arranged for the procesing and printing of
the Winogrand backlog as part of a photographic legacy that he valued.
Certainly he was an important patron of this style of photgraphy, both directly
through the MOMA acquisitions and exhibition programs, and indirectly in his
writings and recommendations to foundation boards. I find his writings about
photography some of the best expressions in words of what good photography is.
See for example the book Looking at Photographs. The long tenure of his
viewpoint made MOMA somewhat exclusionary, and the new curator is acting shift
this very selective viewpoint back to being more eclectic.
Paul
Al Goldis
> I once received a brochure in the mail that had a piece of polished
>aluminum foil glued to a piece of paper which was supposed to symbolize
>a mirror. I liked the reflections I saw in it and thought it would be
>fun to take photos of those reflections. After some experimenting I made
>a series of really cool abstract photos using this technique which I
>think compare quite favorably to the best abstract art. Perhaps I need
>to invent a name for my style and hire some PR person to make me into a
>cult figure. Or perhaps I should just keep experimenting and making
Yep, there you go. I think I'll start a trend of "accidental"
photography... you know when you pick up your camera or lean on it and
accidentally fire the shutter...or those first frames you get on
manual cameras when you're loading the film. I've gotten some pretty
arty images like this over the years. Geez, I supose someone's
already done it. :-)
--
Al Goldis alan-...@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
--Annie Griffiths-Belt
Al Goldis
>I know that there are ugly things in the world -- wrought by mankind --
>but as an individual choice, I suppose, I don't need to have those
>things shown or explained to me through "art". There are other means
I must say that I don't see this as the definition of art. In this
case, photojournalism might be appropriate.
>Nor do I need art to elevate me to some higher form of consciousness,
>or enlightenment, or some new level of understanding. For those who do
Again, not the definition of art.
>use art to attempt to find these things through art, I believe the
>pursuit is futile. One of three cases exist: either the concepts in a
>piece of art are a product of the mind that produced the piece, or they
>somehow come from an outside force with a greater (or at least
>different) understanding, or there are really no concepts inherent in
>the piece, they're really a sort of synthesis of an arbitrary object
>with no significance and it's impact on the mind of the viewer. I
>reject the latter two of these notions. If there is meaning in art, it
>is a function of the mind of the artist. Those who disagree are
>essentially declaring that the artist does not make a significant
>contribution to the work (and then question becomes "If the artist is
>not the artist, who is?").
Some believe that true creativity, whether it be art or other things
as mundane as daily activities,--*true* creativity--comes THROUGH you,
not FROM you.
>Now, if (as I believe) the concepts in a piece of art can be no greater
>than the mind of the one who produced it, then I cannot and do not
>accept the work of art as a source of spiritual truth, because I do not
>look to *any* man as the source of spiritual truth.
I do not look to *art* as a source of spiritual truth. Truth--
spritual or otherwise--is not an attribute I often find applied to
art. Nor do I believe that is art's purpose.
--
Al Goldis alan-...@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
--Annie Griffiths-Belt
P.S.: As I notice the above quote in my signature, I should point out
that it is in reference to photojournalism.
Jake Livni
>With regard to the Lee Friedlander, Gary Winogrand photographic style I have
>strong contrary reactions to the way some opinions have been expressed.
Me too. Just that my opinions don't seem to coincide with yours.
> Consider the photographs on their merits first.
I have.
>Some (probably too
>much) of the Winogrand-Friedlander work is repetitous and even boring.
>Other images are very powerful.
I contend that if you put a working camera into the hands of a trained
monkey and provided an unlimited supply of film, you'd come up with
precisely the same results: too much of it would be repetitious and
boring and some would be very powerful.
> Second, the reduction of their technique, as distinguished from
>their art, to "shoot from the hip" is simplistic and incorrect. These two
>photographers knew what they were doing, and it is not simple to imitate.
I still think the monkeys could imitate it fairly readily.
>They framed and shot very rapidly, no AF, no motor drives, no meter.
With little concern for focusing and metering, the monkeys might even
do better.
>Any of us
>could take a Winogrand-like picture, but not with the consistent unique humor
>or perspective that many of the best have.
Were their photos consistently best? Or just 1 in 1,000 or so?
> Third, Gary always had a fairly large backlog of undeveloped and
>unprinted film.
In other words, he rarely knew if he was on the right track or not.
Or on any track at all.
>He also consistently
>made the point that what you thought you captured in an image in the viewfinder
>meant nothing until you viewed the negative and prints.
This just demonstrates my point.
>Lee was not much easier to deal with either, but that is be more a commentary
>on their New Yorker manners and personalities than their art. An anonymous
>audience would not elicit great revelations, a drink afterwards at a party
>or hanging around together outside the darkroom might.
> When Gary was dying of lung cancer the backlog got totally out of hand.
>He wanted to shoot to make his statement, to use his last energies. I think I
>would do the same to feel as alive as possible for as long as possible.
Would Ansel Adams have done the same thing? Shoot without developing
or printing?
> Lastly, John Szarkowski arranged for the procesing and printing of
>the Winogrand backlog as part of a photographic legacy that he valued.
>Certainly he was an important patron of this style of photgraphy, both directly
>through the MOMA acquisitions and exhibition programs, and indirectly in his
>writings and recommendations to foundation boards.
There are lots of people with more money than either brains or taste.
Cambridge Camera and MOMA are 2 monuments to this fact.
I live in NY and, while I don't hang around "arty" circles, I have
"art" foisted on me all the time. Some of it is terrifically good,
some mediocre, plenty of it is just plain garbage. While it is still
true that the weakest artists in NYC would be considered fairly
talented in most other places, a lot of it is pathetic. Too many
people are afraid to criticize it. It's the "King's New Clothes" all
over again. When the US Government refuses to pay for "Religious
Articles in Urine", or "Two of My Friends Sucking Each Other", the
arty-farty crowd starts screaming "censorship!". It's just that most
people don't feel that this art is of much value. If MOMA wants to
pay for it, fine. I'll still call it the King's New Clothes.
Michael Lawlor
photography was invented
|> about 154 years ago, people started out making photographs that are
|> not all that disimilar to those made today - landscapes, nudes, and
|> portraits. In other words, they started out operating in the common
|> artistic modes of the day. There have significant changes in the
|> interim, but by and large, mainstream art photography hasn't changed
|> all that much in all that time.
|>
|> Try comparing that to the changes that have taken place in painting
|> since 1839: cubism, dada, surrealism, photorealism, impressionism,
|> expressionism, pop, and a whole swag of other movements have radically
|> altered that medium in that time. By comparison, art photography is
|> still stuck back in the late nineteenth-century romantic movement.
|>
Try out this idea for size: When photography was popularized in the
eighteenth century, painting was something that had the role, responsibility,
or function, of interpreting the world. By the time of photography painting
had become very facile at realistic rendering, and some photographs of early
18 century paintings have to be looked at very closely to make sure they are
not photographs. Have you ever heard the phtraes "Painting is dead"? One
interpretation of this is that the practise of photography freed painting
from the constraints of being 'realistic' and allowed it to start to explore
other avenues of experience than the purely visual. The explorations of
cubism, dada, surrealism, impressionism, abstraction and other forms were
made possible because photography got sucked in to that role. The death of
painting was a a release, actually a re-birth, which allowed a new
exploration of emotional and spiritual experience.
I did not include pop art in the above list, because the best known of it is,
actually, photographic. Warhol's silk screens are photo based works. And
Leitchenstein's paintings were copies by hand of a photographic artifact, the
dot screen of mechanical reproduction.
Another idea: The new medium used to tell us about the world is television. I
think, that in the same manner that painting is dead, photography is also
dead. LONG LIVE PHOTOGRAPHY!
Donald Mathis also writes < Now, if (as I believe) the concepts in a piece of
art can be no greater
than the mind of the one who produced it, then I cannot and do not
accept the work of art as a source of spiritual truth, because I do not
look to *any* man as the source of spiritual truth.>
It may surprise some, but the things you receive from an art work are only
those things you are ready for.
Michael Christopher Lawlor
Michael Lawlor
>>was the clearly-expressed attitude that "My way is the only
>>right way; everything else is imitation."
Sorry if the tone of my writing gave you that impression, Alan. I do believe
that there are many ways. But, I rerely find them discussed in photographic
groups. Thanks for your response.
Michael Christopher Lawlor
Brian Godfrey
>In <1993Mar31.0...@atlastele.com> bri...@atlastele.com (Brian Godfrey) writes:
>> I once received a brochure in the mail that had a piece of polished
>>aluminum foil glued to a piece of paper which was supposed to symbolize
>>a mirror. I liked the reflections I saw in it and thought it would be
>>fun to take photos of those reflections. After some experimenting I made
>>a series of really cool abstract photos using this technique which I
>>think compare quite favorably to the best abstract art. Perhaps I need
>>to invent a name for my style and hire some PR person to make me into a
>>cult figure. Or perhaps I should just keep experimenting and making
>
>Yep, there you go. I think I'll start a trend of "accidental"
>photography... you know when you pick up your camera or lean on it and
>accidentally fire the shutter...or those first frames you get on
>manual cameras when you're loading the film. I've gotten some pretty
>arty images like this over the years. Geez, I supose someone's
>already done it. :-)
Now I'm trying to figure out if you are making fun of me. There was
nothing accidental about my photos. It was serendipitous discovering
the paper "mirror", but so are many useful discoveries. The key to
creativity is not sitting down and methodically deciding what you want
to accomplish and how to go about it. The key to creativity is to go
with your instincts and impulses first. Once you have the idea and the
concept, then you try to develop them into something of quality.
Brian Godfrey
>
>I live in NY and, while I don't hang around "arty" circles, I have
>"art" foisted on me all the time. Some of it is terrifically good,
>some mediocre, plenty of it is just plain garbage. While it is still
>true that the weakest artists in NYC would be considered fairly
>talented in most other places, a lot of it is pathetic. Too many
>people are afraid to criticize it. It's the "King's New Clothes" all
>over again. When the US Government refuses to pay for "Religious
>Articles in Urine", or "Two of My Friends Sucking Each Other", the
>arty-farty crowd starts screaming "censorship!". It's just that most
>people don't feel that this art is of much value. If MOMA wants to
>pay for it, fine. I'll still call it the King's New Clothes.
The beauty and the curse of art is that it is subjective. We cannot
all agree on what is good and what is pathetic. Just because you do not
like it, doesn't mean it isn't art. On the other hand, just because it
is art, doesn't mean it is any good. Throughout the ages, many artists
have tried many artforms. I'm sure *they* all thought they were good,
but unless lots of other people (or a rich patron) thought they were
good, they faded away. So I think it is appropriate to call much of
the works that you don't like "art." But is is also appropriate for
the observers to rate it as bad or of little value and refuse to support
it. That's how art improves over time.
Bill Davidson
Someone wrote:
>Let me just nail this down for you: when
>photography was invented
>about 154 years ago, people started out making photographs that are
>not all that disimilar to those made today - landscapes, nudes, and
>portraits. In other words, they started out operating in the common
>artistic modes of the day. There have significant changes in the
>interim, but by and large, mainstream art photography hasn't changed
>all that much in all that time.
>
>Try comparing that to the changes that have taken place in painting
>since 1839: cubism, dada, surrealism, photorealism, impressionism,
>expressionism, pop, and a whole swag of other movements have radically
>altered that medium in that time. By comparison, art photography is
>still stuck back in the late nineteenth-century romantic movement.
>
> That sounds like a hundred years of stagnation to me.
This sounds like someone ignorant of the history of photography to me.
I have many responses to this:
Man Ray, Eugene Atget, Minor White, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Max Ernst, Weegee,
Harold Edgerton, Jerry Uelsmann, Aaron Siskind, Harry Callahan,
Frederick Sommer, Diane Arbus, Lee Friedlander (I'm getting tired;
somebody else want to keep this going? ;-).
If I tried I could dig up many more (it's been at least a decade since
I took photo history). Photographic art has gone through many (maybe
most) of the same movements that other artistic media have.
I had a teacher (Arthur Tausig for those who really keep up with the
smaller galleries) who used to do extensive work with mirrors (5-30 or
so mirrors in an image) and would include all sorts of interesting
things in the different mirrors (he particularly liked to have
reflections of pieces of famous paintings). It was cubist and
post-modern and all kinds of fun stuff. It bears no resemblance to
19th century romanticism.
Photographic art is hardly more stagnant than painting or sculpture
or any other art form.
--Bill
--
SVR4 is a piece of shit and it stinks.
Dennis Swanson
>
>Someone wrote:
>>[...]
>> That sounds like a hundred years of stagnation to me.
>
>This sounds like someone ignorant of the history of photography to me.
>
>I have many responses to this:
>
>Man Ray, Eugene Atget, Minor White, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Max Ernst, Weegee,
>Harold Edgerton, Jerry Uelsmann, Aaron Siskind, Harry Callahan,
Well, at least there's one name I recognize! :-)
(BTW, this is alt.44.magnum.blow.your.head.clean.off, isn't it?)
Den
--
...................................................................
: Dennis M. Swanson : "No matter how long you live, remember that :
: swan...@csus.edu : you will be dead much longer." Eccl. 11:8b :
:...................:.............................................:
jeff bowles
>>Let me just nail this down for you: when
>>photography was invented
>>about 154 years ago, people started out making photographs that are
>>not all that disimilar to those made today - landscapes, nudes, and
>>portraits. In other words, they started out operating in the common
>>artistic modes of the day. There have significant changes in the
>>interim, but by and large, mainstream art photography hasn't changed
>>all that much in all that time.
Different art forms have different paints on the palette: a novelist
can tell a story one way, a film maker another, and it might appear in
the theater in another way entirely. All effective, all tailored to the
medium it's appearing in. Why should photography be cursed to use
exactly the same mindset as something else?
The camera has the advantage of showing you "real life" if the photographer
chooses to. Look at Dorthea Lang's pictures of families in the depression,
compare them to Steinbeck's work at the same time. Different palettes,
same idea.
Look at the Mapplethorpe exhibit from the Whitney that caused the
national stir when it was moved to Washington DC. The pictures are
in several flavors: portraits; flowers (a la Georgia O'keeffe); sexual
images. The impact of the show is two-fold: the beauty of the images
and the way that the images are shown together.
There are people experimenting with color in *WILD* ways, the simplest
examples being Andy Warhol's simple changes to photos. People are
constantly playing with perspective.
Every hobbyist who's marginally serious will go out looking for
two images that contradict, and hence reinforce, each other.
Stagnant? Hardly.
Jan Brittenson
> The beauty and the curse of art is that it is subjective. We cannot
> all agree on what is good and what is pathetic.
This is what Webster's has to say about art (just injecting it for
the sake of debate, I've never believed dictionaries to be any
ultimate definition, Webster's in particular):
1. art \(.)a:rt, *rt\ [ME, fr. OE eart; akin to ON est, ert (thou)
art, OE is] is archaic pres 2d sing of BE
2. art \'a:rt\ n [ME, fr. OF, fr. L art-, ars - more at ARM] 1a:
skill in performance acquired by experience, study, or
observation : KNACK 1b: human ingenuity in adapting natural
things to man's use 2a: a branch of learning : 2a1: one of the
humanities pl 2a2: the liberal arts archaic 2b: LEARNING,
SCHOLARSHIP 3a: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill :
TRADE 3b: a system of rules or methods of performing particular
actions 3c: systematic application of knowledge or skill in
effecting a desired res ult 4a: the conscious use of skill,
taste, and creative imagination in the prod uction of aesthetic
objects; also : works so produced 4b: the craft of the artist
4c1: FINE ARTS 4c2: one of the fine arts 4c3: a graphic art
archaic 5a: a skillful plan 5b: ARTFULNESS ean the faculty of
performing what is devised. ART may be used interchangeably
with all the other terms but in its most distinct sense it
contrasts with them in implying a personal, unanalyzable
creative power; SKILL stresses technical knowledge and
proficiency; CUNNING suggests ingenuity and subtlety in
devising, inventing, or executing; ARTIFICE suggests mechanical
skill esp. in imitating things in nature; CRAFT may imply
expertness in workmanship or suggest trickery and guile in
attaining one's ends SYN syn ART, SKILL, CUNNING, ARTIFICE,
CRAFT m
I like "implying a personal, unanalyzable creative power". I think
this is what upsets the techno-geeks: why indulge oneself in the
unanalyzable (or unknown if you like) instead of analyze (improving
one's understanding or gaining knowledge)? Personally, my answer is
that something vital is inevitably lost in the analysis.
Of course, some people may claim that everything is analyzable, and
hence there is no art... nothing uniquely human.
--
-- Jan Brittenson
bs...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Alvin Chia-Hua Shih
[...]
>There are people experimenting with color in *WILD* ways, the simplest
>examples being Andy Warhol's simple changes to photos. People are
>constantly playing with perspective.
>Every hobbyist who's marginally serious will go out looking for
>two images that contradict, and hence reinforce, each other.
Photography is unlike most other artistic media by virtue of the fact
that it is *easier* to produce a realistic image than an abstract one.
Hence, we see more realistic images from amateur photographers.
It is unfair to bunch art photography with photojournalism since there
is far more photojournalism going on. However, art photography is
alive and well. Some interesting stuff comes out of schools teaching
art photography.
ACS
--
___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
| | | __| "Maybe I'm paranoid, but remember, even paranoids have |
| - | --|__ | enemies."--Cal Pryluck, Temple University |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih_____...@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
Brian Godfrey
>In article <1993Apr5.1...@atlastele.com> bri...@atlastele.com (Brian Godfrey) writes:
>
> > The beauty and the curse of art is that it is subjective. We cannot
> > all agree on what is good and what is pathetic.
>
>
> I like "implying a personal, unanalyzable creative power". I think
Me, too. It is exactly what I would have said if I had the gift of
definitions.
>this is what upsets the techno-geeks: why indulge oneself in the
>unanalyzable (or unknown if you like) instead of analyze (improving
>one's understanding or gaining knowledge)? Personally, my answer is
>that something vital is inevitably lost in the analysis.
I think the unanalyzable is the best place to indulge oneself. All
else seems like work. :-)
> Of course, some people may claim that everything is analyzable, and
>hence there is no art... nothing uniquely human.
Everyone has a right to be wrong. :-)
--
--Brian M. Godfrey
bri...@atlastele.com
Al Goldis
My intent wasn't to make fun of you. I was making a joke about art in
general. It's the old "take a picture of the floor and call it art"
joke. Actually, I didn't think you were serious about trying to
promote it. But if you like what you got from the paper mirror,
great, I'm not knocking it. The only problem I would have is if you
*didn't* like the results, but thought your compositional process was
clever enough to justify the end result.
I have rather strong opinions about how I think art should be
approached. I think creativity is of paramount importance. I don't
really know very much about visual art, so let me relate it to music.
When I was studying music composition, the predominately accepted form
of music in academia was experimental music. There are lots of
accepted compositional techniques such as twelve tone, chance music,
algorithmic composition, serialism, etc. Many of them are
mathematically based. I think these techniques are all perfectly
valid as experimental techniques, but that's all they
are--experiments. They do not create music as I would define it. I
think that no matter how clever a mathematical formula is, when you
apply it to making music you're only going to end up with math, not
music. In academic circles there seems to be a tendancy to look down
on compositions that do not employ some clever mathematical or random
technique. Yet to me they seem to be overlooking the compositional
technique which is the most clever of all: pure musical creativity.
You write:
>... The key to
>creativity is not sitting down and methodically deciding what you want
>to accomplish and how to go about it. The key to creativity is to go
>with your instincts and impulses first. Once you have the idea and the
>concept, then you try to develop them into something of quality.
I agree. And I think there are too many people who confuse creativity
with intellectual gyrations. I believe true creativity has no real
connection with one's intellect; that true creativity comes from the
soul not from the mind. I do think the experimental techniques can be
useful in providing ideas and inspiration which can be made into music
(or art), but without that step they are merely experiments not music
or art.
Enough of my babbling.
David Kassover
>>>
>>>Yep, there you go. I think I'll start a trend of "accidental"
>>>photography... you know when you pick up your camera or lean on it and
>>>accidentally fire the shutter...or those first frames you get on
>>>manual cameras when you're loading the film. I've gotten some pretty
>>>arty images like this over the years. Geez, I supose someone's
>>>already done it. :-)
Well...
About a year ago, I was at the beach with my wife and then 2 year
old. They were playing with the seagulls, and I was snapping
pictures of the birds, who were quite bold and, in some cases
hovering as close as 2 feet (Not directly overhead, I'm not
*that* dumb).
Anyhow, later that day, somehow, with the assistance of my
daughter, the back of the camera was opened. There being nothing
to do but close it and rewind the film, I did it, and sent in
that roll with the rest of them for that trip.
Quite a few of the frames printed just fine; others show a full
frame seagull against a blue sky with some interesting colored
streaks through it.
Whether these are "art" or not will have to be judged by others.
On the other hand, I've thought about leaving the prints around
and waiting for people to ask me how I accomplished the trick...
--
David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against
RPI BSEE '77 MSCSE '81 sharp weapons and dull judges."
kass...@aule-tek.com F. Collins
kass...@ra.crd.ge.com
Bill Davidson
>In article <1993Apr8.0...@equalizer.cray.com> bi...@cray.com (Bill Davidson) writes:
>>Man Ray, Eugene Atget, Minor White, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Max Ernst, Weegee,
>>Harold Edgerton, Jerry Uelsmann, Aaron Siskind, Harry Callahan,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Well, at least there's one name I recognize! :-)
If you have any interest in photogprahy as an art form you have a
serious need to get to a library and look these people up. The list I
gave was meant primarily as an example of important photgraphers
whose work was particularly unlike 19th century romanticism and in some
cases paralleled movements in painting and sculpture. It was a very
small list compared to what a student of photo-art history should
know.
You're missing out on a lot of important photographers (and hence a lot
of really cool images). Work by most of these can be found in most
major libraries. Even book stores will have many of these available.
Dennis Swanson
>In article <1993Apr8.0...@csus.edu> swan...@nextnet.csus.edu (Dennis Swanson) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr8.0...@equalizer.cray.com> bi...@cray.com (Bill Davidson) writes:
>>>Man Ray, Eugene Atget, Minor White, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Max Ernst, Weegee,
>>>Harold Edgerton, Jerry Uelsmann, Aaron Siskind, Harry Callahan,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Well, at least there's one name I recognize! :-)
>
>If you have any interest in photogprahy as an art form you have a
>serious need to get to a library and look these people up. The list I
Guess that :-) shoulda beena ;-). You're absolutely right, tho.
>SVR4 is a piece of shit and it stinks.
^^^^^^^^^
This would seem to follow!
Jake Livni
>Anyhow, later that day, somehow, with the assistance of my
>daughter, the back of the camera was opened.
[...]
>Whether these are "art" or not will have to be judged by others.
There are a number of "artists" whose works were often created while
they were under the influence of the "recreational substance" of their
times and who couldn't for the life of them figure out what thye had
done or how, but called it art, anyways.