Photographer: Connie Imboden - DPChallenge Forums

06/24/2003 03:02:11 AM · #1

What might at first seem a form of digital art or darkroom manipulations are revealed to be a most unusual perspective, still remaining true to the representational ideal in photography. Connie Imboden's work is not so much revealing though, as it is mysterious.

Sony DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Super Wide Angle Zoom

06/24/2003 03:15:49 AM · #2

I don't much care for that stuff. It's interesting, yes, but if that isn't image manipulation, what is?

Message edited by author 2003-06-24 03:16:12.

Inga_fang

06/24/2003 04:10:11 AM · #3

wonderland...I wouldnÃ‚Â´t mind being photographed by her...her world is uniqe

06/24/2003 04:30:31 AM · #4

Originally posted by JasonPR:

I don't much care for that stuff. It's interesting, yes, but if that isn't image manipulation, what is?

Uhh, if that is image manipulation, then what isn't?

Turn in your lens, it's manipulating too much light.

Message edited by author 2003-06-24 13:59:03.

06/24/2003 02:13:31 PM · #5

Not that anyone is interested, but bump.

Sony DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Super Wide Angle Zoom

06/24/2003 04:18:11 PM · #6

Originally posted by dwoolridge:

Originally posted by JasonPR:
I don't much care for that stuff. It's interesting, yes, but if that isn't image manipulation, what is?

Uhh, if that is image manipulation, then what isn't?

Turn in your lens, it's manipulating too much light.

Not sure i understand what you're trying to say here. yes, I understand that photography is the metering and manipulation of light. My comment was based on your "what might at first seem a form of digital art or darkroom manipulations are revealed to be a most unusual perspective." This is just someone making what IS digital art, only they have been doing it before the advent of digital, so what's the difference? I mean, shooting from perspective which bend and twist the lights using mirrors, water, or whatever it is she's using, is not traditional photography. It is art. I'm all for art, but I don't think it should be said that some art is better than others because of how it is made. It is the final product that matters, and to me, this final product is kind of lame. I enjoy the style, but I saw little experimentation or change through years and years of work. How long can an artist be satisfied doing the same thing over and over? What makes one almost indistinguishable photo different from another? Yes, the images have a feeling all of their own, something I could see as a NIN cover or something, but it gets a bit boring after a while. One can only look at so many photographically manipulated black and white body parts. In short, I hardly think this remains true to the representational ideal in photography, an ideal that I myself don't think is ideal btw. Thanks for posting though, it is interesting stuff and definetely unique. I personally find it more annoying and disturbing than mysterious.

06/24/2003 05:02:32 PM · #7

Originally posted by JasonPR:

Not sure i understand what you're trying to say here. yes, I understand that photography is the metering and manipulation of light.

Yet you're willing to accept that your vastly overengineered glass lens does not distort and manipulate light in the same way? Surely you don't walk around with a pinhole camera to keep yourself "true" to your idea of representational art?

Originally posted by JasonPR:

My comment was based on your "what might at first seem a form of digital art or darkroom manipulations are revealed to be a most unusual perspective." This is just someone making what IS digital art, only they have been doing it before the advent of digital, so what's the difference?

I'm afraid you'll have to provide an actual definition of "digital art" if you're going to confuse it with something that is clearly not digital art (in my view). To me, the "digital" part involves a coerced manipulation of information (pixels) to produce a desired effect, though this is nothing new in any medium. Imboden's work introduces a chaotic, random effect which she captures on film. She gets exactly what she sees and she has to be lucky enough to be there when it happens.

We really are going to have to stop qualifying things with "digital" at some point. Digital art is no less art than "non-digital" art. Digital photography is no less photography than "non-digital" photography. Imboden's work is photography and it is art. It's not often (enough) that this is the case for much photographic work.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

I mean, shooting from perspective which bend and twist the lights using mirrors, water, or whatever it is she's using, is not traditional photography. It is art.

Again, you'll have to define "traditional photography". She enters her studio. She looks through her viewfinder. She likes what she sees. She captures the image on film. She produces a print from the negative. Where do you suppose she deviates from the "traditional" or from "photography"?

I'm glad you consider her work art, but perhaps this is because her process is so creative as opposed to heavily technical (though it is certainly quite technical too). Perhaps it's just that the images are so evocative.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

I'm all for art, but I don't think it should be said that some art is better than others because of how it is made.

I don't remember saying that, nor can I see where I've written it.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

It is the final product that matters, and to me, this final product is kind of lame.

So you don't like her art. Fair enough.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

I enjoy the style, but I saw little experimentation or change through years and years of work. How long can an artist be satisfied doing the same thing over and over? What makes one almost indistinguishable photo different from another?

Well now you're bordering on criticism, which is a whole other topic. However, that one artist uses a particular means, the same means, to express does not make it lame or less artistic. One might restrict oneself to landscape or portrait photography, still yield artistic results and never veer.

There is much change over the years in her work. Even a quick sample of 1987, 1994, and 2002 should reveal that. Still, none of us shares our eyes.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

Yes, the images have a feeling all of their own, something I could see as a NIN cover or something, but it gets a bit boring after a while. One can only look at so many photographically manipulated black and white body parts.

That's about as dismissive as one gets.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

In short, I hardly think this remains true to the representational ideal in photography, an ideal that I myself don't think is ideal btw.

What do you think the "representational ideal" is then? Naturally, at its core, photography can be little more than representational as it deals with capturing what we see on film. There is much in the way of post-processing one can do to change that "capture" and interpret it, present it differently. In this case, what the photographer sees is pretty much what you get. The print does not fall far from the negative.

Sony DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Super Wide Angle Zoom

06/24/2003 05:33:28 PM · #8

You're taking me all wrong. Did I ever imply that I thought I had the camera with a magic lens or that I used a pin-hole camera? No... I am simply stating that her images are highly manipulated (and not by the camera lens), in a way that isn't portraying what is actually seen. Sure, that's what she sees through the viewfinder because she's set it up in the studio with all kinds of magical smoke and mirrors stuff, which is cool, but it in no way portrays the photographic ideal, which I believed to mean that a photograph is supposed to show what is seen by the actual eye. Setting something up for the eye to see, whether that means moving filters around in the studio, or preparing them digitally, is the same thing to me. You saying that she has to be lucky enough to be there to see these things is just funny. She sets it all up, obviously, so it has very little to do with luck. As for the digital verse non-digital, I was the one that said it didn't make a difference, you are the one that said it did, so I'm not sure why you're arguing with me now that it doesn't make a difference. Your original post clearly implied that there was something better about her work because it wasn't digital, or perhaps you just cut and pasted the words from the site and didn't think about what they actually meant. I'm also not arguing that her art isn't technically "traditional photography". My question is why is that so important? If it was really so important not to post-process, then nothing would really get made. Think of the movie industry. I call her work art because it isn't just point and shoot photography, and I do like it and find merit in it. It's just not my style. And yes, to me an artist that doesn't go through changes in life and in their art is a bit lame. It's like a bird with clipped wings. Todays life is about being able to change. I think any good artist would agree. I'm glad you think that my comment was dismissive when I was trying to explain why I didn't like the art, but when I simply said that it was lame you thought that was alright and fair. You must be one of those one word comment droppers. I don't even think we're arguing about anything here. I think we have the same ideas about what photography and art are and I was just annoyed by the phrasing of the original post, plus I don't really like the art in question that much and you do so you got offended. I never said that I was true to the idea of representational art. I wouldn't want to be.

Kali

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/24/2003 06:10:35 PM · #9

Anyways... I've been a long time fan of Connies. My personal fav is...

Sony DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Super Wide Angle Zoom

06/24/2003 06:30:36 PM · #10

It is some pretty sick stuff! :) That shot reminds me of a comic book. Actually more graphic novel illustration. Very intriguing.

06/24/2003 06:30:57 PM · #11

Originally posted by JasonPR:

...

I would like to respond in full to all of your points, but I find it difficult enough reading your unstructured response. (This is not a personal criticism of you or your ability to argue, but rather my desire to employ this medium to deconstruct your response into one which is suited to my (in)ability to respond in kind.)

I'll note that I did not imply anything was better about Imboden's work because of her methodology. I indicated that her work does seem like some form of "digital art" (sans definition) or darkroom manipulation, when it is not. While I appreciate her work as art and photography, I do not think it is better or worse than anything else, though I do like it more than some things and less than others. Certainly I was quite surprised there was no (not much) post-processing, but I think this is a better interpretation of my original post.

Calling something lame is an expression (albeit an inarticulate one) of your opinion. However, the dismissive part of your comment was in extending your opinion and generalizing.

If you do look at her body of work, there is change. If you cannot see that, I suppose it's a matter of opinion. The artist and their work need not change to suit the observer/fan/critic.

I'm not sure how much you explored her work and her methodology, but it is quite clear that she does not use "magical smoke and mirrors". She does not control her studio as much as you seem to think she does. The "luck" factor is that the studio, in particular the water element, are not controlled nor does she strictly try to control them; she does pose her subjects.

If you were sitting/standing/swimming where she was you could see the same thing. It is very much representational.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

You must be one of thos one word comment droppers.

Whether this represents your opinion or not, this is simply a personal attack without any basis whatsoever. It does sully your argument however. If this is the style of debate you prefer please let me know.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

I was just annoyed by the phrasing of the original post...

You really never said this until now. You should be more forthcoming; it helps move things along.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

so you got offended

It would be wrong to assume what I'm feeling, even if you interpret it so. I'll let you know if I'm offended and I hardly ever am. You left a short post, so I replied with one.

I do not think we have had enough discussion about these subjects for me to agree that we have the same ideas about photography and art. Were I hard pressed, I would draw the opposite conclusion, based on this discussion and other DPC-related factors.

However, I hope we can agree to disagree.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

06/24/2003 06:37:44 PM · #12

Seems appropriate:

Photographic reality/ abstraction

Sony DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Super Wide Angle Zoom

06/24/2003 06:56:53 PM · #13

"Calling something lame is an expression (albeit an inarticulate one) of your opinion. However, the dismissive part of your comment was in extending your opinion and generalizing"

Lame in fact is a word with a meaning, albeit a single word. Extending my opinion is dismissive? Then obviously you are one of those people that prefers one word responses to photos and probablly gives them as well. I simply stated that this was interesting stuff. Dismissive? That is was the kind of thing I could see as a NIN cover. Dismissive? Thought that was all positive. Sorry I didn't specify that it would be popular with the NIN type of crowd, so it could also be a poster in their homes, or in comic books, etc. The statement was meant to mean that it is particulary disturbing and dark in the style of NIN. It would be popular, I would imagine, with masochists of some nature. Outside of that crowd, I see very little appeal in it. People like me, for example, can appreciate it but would never want to purchase it in any form. As far as her changing and you seeing it and me missing it, well that probablly has to do with us liking it. I'm sure your considering subtle differences that I haven't the interest in looking into. I'm referring only to the general style and tone. I looked at all the years, btw. I'm glad you weren't offended; I mean't no offense. I think the subject we're discussing is interesting in relation to DPC and how well these photos would do on here since people don't really like "digital art" and would assume that's what this is. It seemed like the point of your post was to show that the same effects can be achieved without creative post-processing. My point was, what's the difference? People only see the final result. If they like images that look like they're manipulated, then they'll like it, if they don't they won't; they don't care how it was done. I would like to press you hard to draw the opposite conclusion to mine: that we have the same ideas about photography and art, based on this discussion and other DPC related factors. I think you took a lot of my comments as me saying things, when I meant that the photography purists would say them and I disagree with them. I think this is photography and it is art, but I don't think that many other pure photographers would agree. Me, I'm a digital artist, and I was only annoyed because I thought you were saying that this kind of art was acceptable and digital art was not, which you weren't. Be it taking offense, or not, you've managed to suck me into a thread I wasn't all that intersted in in the first place. My final comment: I have friends that would love this and friends that would hate this. I am indifferent. I find the technique intersting but the photos aren't really my thing. It was a good post though, and as I'm sure others will enjoy looking at the link, I'm glad I've managed to bump it up once again.

Message edited by author 2003-06-24 19:35:56.

06/24/2003 08:11:29 PM · #14

Originally posted by JasonPR:

Lame in fact is a word with a meaning, albeit a single word.

Yes, I probably understand that your use of the word is particular to some modern vernacular, but its meaning is conveys less your intent than most of what else you've written. Still, it's an opinion. I'm not barking at it.[/quote]

Originally posted by JasonPR:

Extending my opinion is dismissive?

Here I've used a poor choice of words. The extension of your opinion to a generalized view ("it gets boring..." and "One can only...") seemed dismissive to me. I'll assume it was just an opinion.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

Then obviously you are one of those people that prefers one word responses to photos and probablly gives them as well.

Maybe.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

I simply stated that this was interesting stuff. Dismissive? That is was the kind of thing I could see as a NIN cover. Dismissive? Thought that was all positive.

To be quite honest, I don't really understand the reference to popular culture, nor that it might be a positive one. I read your original statement sort of like this: "This stuff would be better mass produced as a one-off to provide an interesting cover for the album of the week". Clearly that's a lot of interpretation.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

I think the subject we're discussing is interesting in relation to DPC and how well these photos would do on here since people don't really like "digital art" and would assume that's what this is.

Well, to be honest, I'm never really interested how someone else's photographs would do on DPC. Still, I agree that it was relevant considering some other discussions recently in the forms: concern of less restrictive editing rules leading to "digital art"; flesh/nudity as subject matter; technique; "wow" factors.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

It seemed like the point of your post was to show that the same effects can be achieved without creative post-processing. My point was, what's the difference?

Well, yes that was part of my point in linking to Imboden's work. The other part was that the "creative" part can existing at any point of the photographic process. This "creative" part adds something to the photograph that is simply not always present in photographic images. Certainly one could say this is "labour" (adding one's time to improve the image) or "expression" (putting one's interpretation into the image) or any number of other things.

When I take a picture of my cat, it's almost always representational and almost never creative. I'm simply capturing a moment. I rarely (well probably never) achieve anything resembling "photographic art" though I strive to improve my photography (through technique) as much as I can.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

People only see the final result.

Well, I'm quite ambivalent about this statement. The final result meaning one particular image or a group of images? Many photographers exhibit their work as a collection and this context is an important way of viewing any/all of the images. Art is all about expression and while some would like to remain close-mouthed about their work ("it speaks for itself") others are careful to explain their vision and the context of their work.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

If they like images that look like they're manipulated, then they'll like it, if they don't they won't; they don't care how it was done.

In photographic art, I think understanding the process (for both artist and work) are important aspects of appreciating the work (and the artist). Naturally, this is much different than liking/loving/hating the work; that's subjective.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

I would like to press you hard to draw the opposite conclusion to mine: that we have the same ideas about photography and art, based on this discussion and other DPC related factors.

Well, I don't think we have the same ideas about photography and art, while we may agree on a few things. I don't think taking a photograph automatically implies you're creating something. Neither do I think that use of D&B, USM, or other PS editing techniques implies that one is automatically part of an artistic process.

Furthermore, I think voting on photographs, especially in a comparative context, detracts from appreciating the works as potential art. I think submitting one's images for semi-democratic quantification is like swimming with (hungry, man-eating) sharks. Well, to be more precise, it makes you part of a process which does not necessarily reward the artistic and creative so much as it reinforces the status quo ("the best average wins"). This relates entirely to my view on photography and art, and I'm fairly certain (please correct me if I'm wrong) we don't really agree on this particular (and important) aspect.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

I think you took a lot of my comments as me saying things, when I meant that the photography purists would say them and I disagree with them.

No, there was some misinterpretation and miscommunication but I realize what you were saying, at least by the last post.

Originally posted by JasonPR:

Me, I'm a digital artist, and I was only annoyed because I thought you were saying that this kind of art was acceptable and digital art was not, which you weren't.

Right. I know I started this topic using the term "digital art", but only because it is a familiar one. I do not think it is appropriate to qualify art or photography as "digital" since it's not important to either, though I know it is important to some people (for whatever reasons).

Jesus, this is a long post.

06/24/2003 08:18:46 PM · #15

Originally posted by Gordon:

Seems appropriate:

Photographic reality/ abstraction

Thanks Gordon. Looks like a new essay and a funny one at that (though it relies heavily on sarcasm). I appreciate much of what was written. I found the following interesting though: "These are things that I would physically remove from the frame, if I could. I never add anything though. This is photography, not painting."

Sarcasm is tough to master in the written word so I still really don't know if he actually meant that last statement or not. Anyone think he meant it sarcastically? I'll have to assume it though the previous statement contradicts that assumption.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

06/25/2003 10:06:19 AM · #16

Originally posted by dwoolridge:

Originally posted by Gordon:
Seems appropriate:

Photographic reality/ abstraction

Thanks Gordon. Looks like a new essay and a funny one at that (though it relies heavily on sarcasm). I appreciate much of what was written. I found the following interesting though: "These are things that I would physically remove from the frame, if I could. I never add anything though. This is photography, not painting."

Sarcasm is tough to master in the written word so I still really don't know if he actually meant that last statement or not. Anyone think he meant it sarcastically? I'll have to assume it though the previous statement contradicts that assumption.

I tend to assume he is serious. That he would remove small elements that don't change the overall impression or integrity of the photograph.

It isn't photo journalism, artistic license is allowable to a certain extent and everyone has their own personal set of ethics on what counts as acceptable tidy up, before it becomes 'manipulation'

We had the same debate in a portrait photography class a couple of weeks ago. But as this is a commercial enterprise, the ethical boundary is simple, it falls where the client wants it to fall.

For artistic/ fine art photography, it falls where the photographer wants it to fall.

For example some nature photographers feel it is unethical to move a blade of grass (just bending it out of the way, not cutting it or destroying it) or knocking off dirt from a perfect flower.

There isn't a right or a wrong (again - this isn't photojournalism) and I think it is often easy to recognise the extremes, but harder to define and pin down the grey middle ground.