| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2012 08:31:12 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by dyridings:
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
i try and capture what my eyes see, it often does not work... |
I think that many of us experience this. If only I could capture what my eyes see... perhaps that's why I enjoy the editing process so much :) |
Oh! For me it's the opposite goal ... to try to capture what the eyes do NOT see. The best instrument for capturing what the eyes see is actually the eyes. Waste of effort (and money) to use a camera for that.
A camera can do so much more, can see so much more, than the eyes can. Giles, this may be why you are baffled by all that weird posthumous crap. You're standing in the wrong place and looking in the wrong direction.
But not always ...
|
Interesting. I do agree that a camera can do so much more...
Maybe I should rephrase my initial comment...
I want to capture what my MIND sees. When I see a photo opportunity, what is captured is not what I have (sometimes) seen. There are times when I am able to capture the image I wanted, the image I "saw in my mind"... other times, I had this "idea" of what I wanted the image to be... therefore, post processing is sometimes a necessity (for me, anyways).
Good point.
Message edited by author 2012-02-09 08:31:32. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 09:44:29 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by dyridings:
...I want to capture what my MIND sees. When I see a photo opportunity, what is captured is not what I have (sometimes) seen. There are times when I am able to capture the image I wanted, the image I "saw in my mind"... other times, I had this "idea" of what I wanted the image to be... therefore, post processing is sometimes a necessity (for me, anyways). ... |
It's okay to try to create something from your imagination. I assume that mostly explains the current popularity of the Extreme Editing ruleset. Sort of like painting and drawing. The mind is remarkable.
Our world is a very beautiful place. I'm not a painter. I'm simply content to try to use my camera to make images which approach the magnificent scenes my eyes observed. Our cameras are very weak tools relative to our eyes. But, there are artistic and technical techniques which can be utilized to overcome the limitations of our cameras. When I come close to presenting, in a photograph, the light I saw with my eyes, I find some self-actualization. At the top of Maslow's pyramid comes a lot of very good things, many which nurture tolerance. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 10:28:37 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Neat:
By  UbiqueI dislike 'photography' (studio, set-up, lighting, tripods, all that crap) because it makes for very dull photographs, and almost never makes art.
I'm the same, I much rather portray someone naturally ( I hope I don't have to eat these words) than a portrait shot. |
To  Neat -- You may agree with Ubique's general statement, but perhaps not so rigidly in some areas. Paul mentions set-up shots. A recent shot of yours that is in my favorites is:
You sent your son onto the roof with your dog. While you did not put him on a stool in front of a muslin backdrop, I would still call it a set-up shot.
You say you prefer natural shots to portraits, and you take a lot of wonderful candid shots. But, you also take some great images that I would classify as portraits:
 
While you do not process your shots to be highly glossy and overly shiny, I get the sense that you process your images very carefully -- just with a much different mood in mind.
I should say that I have images of both you and Ubique in my favorites. I am always very interested when I see either of you post images in challenges and side challenges. However, I also love several images of the OP,  tanguera, that required "studio, set-up, lighting, tripods, all that crap" that Ubique might find generally dull. We all draw the line between what we consider "dull photography" and "art" in different places, and we all have different tolerances and preferences in terms of processing.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2012 11:10:56 AM · #54 |
Mark, your post brings us back to full circle on this topic, so thank you. I wanted to respond to Derek's post, which if further pursued in that direction, would make all captures meaningful and intentional, and by extension, "worthy" or good, at least to someone.
While I could certainly be debated into accepting this philosophical pov, I cannot accept that all images are "good". I believe there is objective criteria to draw on - a "general consensus" line of what constitutes a "good" or a "bad" capture, regardless of the genre. Or perhaps that is part of the issue? As with context, maybe it's the genre of an image which will influence whether it is a successful image or not.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2012 11:25:00 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
While I could certainly be debated into accepting this philosophical pov, I cannot accept that all images are "good". I believe there is objective criteria to draw on - a "general consensus" line of what constitutes a "good" or a "bad" capture, regardless of the genre. Or perhaps that is part of the issue? As with context, maybe it's the genre of an image which will influence whether it is a successful image or not. |
Certainly, I see what you mean. Something I've considered is that perhaps a photo's merit is in its depth of medium. This is an invented term of mine, and what I mean by that is the degree to which an individual can immerse themselves in said photo in whatever fashion resonates with the viewer. This last bit is important, as it accounts for photos which some love and some despise, as well as photos that most find relatively dull or mundane. Obviously, there are still those who will delve into an otherwise dull photo whole heartily.
So, how is this different from simply saying different strokes for different folks? Well, in some ways, it isn't, but it IS in that it is a means of quantifying how and why individuals love any one photo. It allows them to "be lost" in whatever idea.
A literary analogue to this would be to consider a story which you find horribly repulsive in content, setting, and which is populated by characters you find to be reprehensible. You're not likely to have a very good opinion of it, no? But, in a literary sense, it is this strength of narrative that the author has succeeded in enveloping your mind, a mark of quality writing.
I came to this by seeing how wide a variety of reactions people would have to my photos. Some love the same photos that I've taken that are very dear to me, but for completely different reasons. We both value the shot quite a bit, so how can we compare and quantify that? The most obvious answer, I thought, was in how lost we became in the thoughts and feelings that it invoked in each of us.
It's not a terribly developed idea, just something I've considered and figured I'd throw out there. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 12:46:57 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
While I could certainly be debated into accepting this philosophical pov, I cannot accept that all images are "good". I believe there is objective criteria to draw on - a "general consensus" line of what constitutes a "good" or a "bad" capture, regardless of the genre. Or perhaps that is part of the issue? As with context, maybe it's the genre of an image which will influence whether it is a successful image or not. |
I didn't originally post this in this thread because it might have seemed a hijack. But given your post here I'm now presuming to link to it.. I'm always banging on about what's NOT good in my exalted opinion. So here's a link to someone that I think is very good indeed, at This other thread.
Message edited by author 2012-02-09 12:48:29. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 03:00:16 PM · #57 |
I'm coming late to the party, so I will just say that IMNSHO, composition is what makes a picture good or bad to me in the artistic sense. You can be the best processor in the world, but if you aren't working with a shot that is well composed, the end result will be weak. By the same token, if you have a well composed shot, more times than not, you can judiciously process it into a respectable image.
What makes a respectable image? To use a couple of cliches, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and one size does not fit all. You'll know what you like when you see it. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 04:11:49 PM · #58 |
For the OP...
I think there's a hidden complexity in the term "documentary" that undermines your dichotomy.
"documentary" assumes
1. something is really there
2. you can capture that reality in a photograph
For example, if you're "documenting" a person, you can't show every part, front and back. This is the quandary that the Cubists explored. You therefore have to make *decisions*, have to *interpret* what to show and what not to show.
Interpretation is unavoidable. I don't think that's your skeleton key into what is art and what is not art. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 04:22:06 PM · #59 |
The late 19th century/ early 20th century French film-maker Georges Méliès was vehemently opposed to 'documentary' style film-making and photography as it was unfair lying.
A good point i think. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 04:35:00 PM · #60 |
A great point, Don. I think that in my "definition", documentary imagery does not care to interpret - is even oblivious to alternatives - while artistic imagery is precisely about interpreting.
I'm finding words to be my enemy here, with so many semantic interpretations of each concept. When I say "documentary", I simply mean that any sort of artistic value normally associated with picture-taking is irrelevant. If I take a picture of a cluttered room just to remember where everything is before I do something to it, it doesn't matter if the light is good or if the colors match, or that there's nothing to focus on, etc. It is something I go back to for reference and for no other reason. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 04:38:03 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
A great point, Don. I think that in my "definition", documentary imagery does not care to interpret - is even oblivious to alternatives - while artistic imagery is precisely about interpreting.
I'm finding words to be my enemy here, with so many semantic interpretations of each concept. When I say "documentary", I simply mean that any sort of artistic value normally associated with picture-taking is irrelevant. If I take a picture of a cluttered room just to remember where everything is before I do something to it, it doesn't matter if the light is good or if the colors match, or that there's nothing to focus on, etc. It is something I go back to for reference and for no other reason. |
ok, but if you start defining "documentary" too strictly you're going to make it a smaller and smaller category until it is almost useless. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 04:50:10 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
ok, but if you start defining "documentary" too strictly you're going to make it a smaller and smaller category until it is almost useless. |
as with many things. such as human being. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 04:53:03 PM · #63 |
"Documentary" and "Non-Documentary", in photography, are analogous categories to "Non-fiction" and "Fiction" in literature. And in literature there is a whole scale of what might be called non-fiction, ranging from "catalogues" on one end to, say, "memoirs" on the other; and it's very easy to perceive that no memoir, or no biography for that matter, can be entirely free of fiction, or, alternatively, entirely "faithful" in its depiction of the reality it claims to describe or report.
It's all about what you leave out as you include stuff in. As Don is essentially pointing out, to photograph the right side is to obscure the left. There's no way around it.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2012 04:54:05 PM · #64 |
| Yes, let's talk about documentary that at least strives to have aesthetic value. I think the necessary (not sufficient) condition for a "good" photo is that it must show you something that you DO NOT see every day. It may be either the subject matter (easiest), the processing (both in-camera and p/p tricks), or the unique eye of the photographer which saw things others didn't in the most mundane surroundings (most challenging). Documentary is interesting only when it is filtered through one of these... but perhaps that's what you were saying in the first place, Johanna :) |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 05:26:40 PM · #65 |
Classifications constantly blur and meld into one another. One term that seems to have been popping up more and more frequently in recent years is 'Conceptual Documentary Photography'. When i was doing the M.A in doc photography last year it was a buzzword that was bandied around quite a bit and i had some lectures that touched on the slippery concept. I should dig out my notes but i do have a copy of Photoworks magazine from last year handy in which one of my lecturers, Paul Reas was interviewed along with Martin Parr and a couple of others and they touched on it. This is an interesting bit when asked about 'Conceptual Documentary Photography'...
PR: It is difficult to define but i would say that is a photography that is primarily about ideas. Obviously, you could say that all visual art is about ideas, but i think that, with conceptual documentary, the idea is very self-consciously present, and the research behind the ideas is always forefronted in the work itself. The thing that interests me about it as a genre is the sense that it represents a reaction against a lot of the old humanist traditions in documentary photography. I think that a lot of younger documentary photographers see that as a flawed and outmoded practice. I also think that part of their interest is driven by the art market and that some of this work is very consciously created for that space, which drives some of its conceptual underpinning. I also think it is quite controversial within the world of documentary photography, because a lot of the old guard see it as being superficial. For them it's about surface, the design of the work.'
Message edited by author 2012-02-09 17:27:38. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 07:18:19 PM · #66 |
I guess I agree.
Documentary is not art.
I can say that because documentary is my form of photography, and I truly believe that I'm not an artist.
I know a good shot when I see one. But when I'm sitting on a hill watching the osprey, at a time of day when I'm free, but not my ideal pick of times. When the spot on the hill is the only spot from which to get a shot. All I'm doing is pushing the shutter release.
Is this art?
I think it's documentary. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 07:34:55 PM · #67 |
| Why can't documentary be art? Just deciding on the framing of the image may make enormous difference to the impact it makes. What about photographing osprey's right foot? |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 10:00:27 PM · #68 |
Most definitely documentary can be art. But then I guess we're back to the unexpected. My osprey shots are photography:
 
I'll be self-promoting and say that it's good photography. (I really like these shots :)
But are they art?
Had I done an osprey foot, I believe Margaret is right and it could be art. But I do the typical framing -- the one to best set off the scene.
I think we're back to the a-typical, the unexpected is more what's considered art. Elephants will be considered art much more than osprey, because they're harder to come by. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 10:11:24 PM · #69 |
What are you documenting Wendy? And why are they useful as documents?
(they are fantastic shots Wendy, don't get me wrong, but i thought the question was interesting) |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 10:30:40 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
What are you documenting Wendy? And why are they useful as documents?
(they are fantastic shots Wendy, don't get me wrong, but i thought the question was interesting) |
I'm fascinated wildlife. I think it's incredibly beautiful. I love the movement of the wings. I love the noises they make. I want other people to see them and be as interested as I am. But more than that, I want to create beauty. I can't do it on my own: I can't draw, I can't paint, but even though it's a photograph, I feel like I've created something beautiful.
I do find it depressing that if any other good photographer was sitting next to me, they could have captured the same shot. But when I try to figure out how to change it up, I find I don't want to. I want to show it as it is.
This may be more artsy, and it was fun to do. But notice I don't do too many shots like that.
I still prefer this:
Perhaps I have more claim to this one simply because of the conversion to b&w. But does that make it art? I feel it's artistic. But there's not a lot more to the shot than the osprey as far as work by me.
Or is it simply the subject matter and the way they are found that make it art?
(The last one, I think, is the most artistic of the shots. I absolutely love it, and I'd call it art. But there's not a lot of processing to it. I think it's the situation that makes it art.)
Message edited by author 2012-02-11 12:20:15. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 10:36:47 PM · #71 |
so far we have art defined as "interpreting" and "working" ... odd definitions of art.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2012 10:49:09 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
so far we have art defined as "interpreting" and "working" ... odd definitions of art. |
and situational. :) |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 10:52:10 PM · #73 |
Wonderful photos all Wendy, and i'm quite with you on the art bit. It was your claim to documentary i was playing with.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2012 10:54:29 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
so far we have art defined as "interpreting" and "working" ... odd definitions of art. |
and we haven't still got a clue what ART is. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 10:57:53 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by posthumous:
so far we have art defined as "interpreting" and "working" ... odd definitions of art. |
and we haven't still got a clue what ART is. |
Well, according to Brecht, Art is a HAMMER.
I like to think of Art being more playful. Art is PLAY.
So, a big inflatable hammer i guess. |
|
