|
Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2015 12:41:23 PM · #1 |
I'm loving this thread! I guess for me, what DPC has done is to allow me to see so much of what all of you talk about, and to have it help my vision ever so much.
Originally posted by Spork99:
The first group, with their sights set on technical perfection, are about using their tools accurately and precisely. As a machinist learns to make a surface perfectly flat to within 0.0002" or a writer learns to perfect grammar and sentence structure or a musician learns to read music and play scales.
The second group takes the tools they've developed as part of the first group and uses them (or abuses them) to express something less concrete and more abstract. The machinist making an ingenious mechanism, the writer making poetry or the musician writing a song. |
I love this description because it so aptly describes the way I look at life and how I do things. I have worked with tools and my hands my whole life. As well as having certain tasks require the most stringent of standards, there are so many things out there that approaching a solution from outside the box actually achieves better results. But as  Spork99 points out, you still need to know how to use a tool proficiently to abuse it in a creative manner. I have a few tools in my shop I consider irreplaceable as I use them, yet they were never intended to be used the way I do.
Bringing this back around to DPC, I am ever grateful for the wide and varied approaches to so many techniques of using, and abusing, my shooting & post-processing. It amazes me how many different styles that there are, attitudes, theories & practice, and perspectives. These pics are just three I dragged out to explain my crossing boundaries. I think this shot is pretty darn good technically, although maybe not all that interesting. I love bridges, this one happens to be right near me, and I have on the wall of my gallery a seven foot wide canvas version. This is my example of having learned to use the tool correctly earlier on in my journey. It amuses me that it looks as clean as it does blown up so large as it was taken with my 6.1MP Nikon D70s.
From there, my proficiency and experience enabled me to actually conceive, set up, and shoot decent images. I owe that directly to the many people here who taught me everything I know about getting to know my camera, and how to create a scene. This shot is a combination of my shooting and PP skills. As it was themed, it did well.
I love to enter challenges because it forces me to look around me in the world and that allows me to discover things I would not have seen otherwise.
I'm fortunate in that I have no particular intent, genre, regimen, what have you that only allows me to do things one certain way. I'm also very grateful that any time I want to find out more about technique or perspective that all I have to do is peruse a portfolio, or even just ask the photog, and they're usually eager and willing to share. My hokey tagline states that I do life photography. I do. And I do it for me and the sheer joy I get from the very start of a vision 'til it's processed and uploaded/printed/stashed in my archives. That's where this last image really works for me. Yeah, it's crap technically, but I am so pleased with this capture. It truly represents the exact moment & place to me, and it evokes a lot of feeling for me. I shot it from my doorstep, too, so it literally hits close to home for me.
Quite a bit of the validation I get is from the comments received. I love that I have gotten great comments from photographers that run the gamut of philosophies & styles. They are all important to me, especially having gotten many terrific comments from the people here whom I admire, both as people and photographers..
The other thing about photography for me that I don't hear much about is the way that my camera allows me to become a part of, and share special moments in others' lives. Everything from the basic snapshot of a young couple outside their new sub shop, to those candid wedding shots, to a shot of kids playing soccer. Sometimes, you get more than you bargained for........I took my camera to my daughter's first cheerleading competition and the next thing you know, I had 85 daughters. It certainly wasn't what I planned, but it provided an experience I both never expected, and thoroughly enjoyed.
I have to say that I am a very happy, reasonably accomplished photog in that I get what I want, get what I intend to, and achieve that satisfaction I'd always dreamed about both for myself through my work, mand the appreciation from others, be they other photogs, or just regular folks.
I hate to play that same old broken record, but I am what I am as a photog, and I am eternally grateful to theis site and the community here. I truly believe that you can learn and accomplish just about anything as a photog here through the tremendous resouces available. I've been here for almost a decade, seen it happen to me, and I've watched a lot of others grow and flourish here. Had someone told me ten years ago I'd have the knowledge and experience I do as a photog, and even enough confidence that I'd partner up in a gallery, I would have suggested that they weren't all there.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2015 11:00:15 AM · #2 |
| I wholeheartedly agree that this is not a continuum. Perhaps more of a spectrum. Expanding on that, being in one "camp" or the other is not an absolute either. I, for one, while having a stronger leaning towards one camp, enjoy jumping around, exploring, learning. I think many, if not most, pros have their bread winner work and "personal projects", which are usually the product of those other/opposite yearnings. |
|
|
|
02/11/2015 09:32:56 AM · #3 |
No disagreement there.
Realizing that and accepting it for what it is means, for DPC purposes anyway, you need to either a) Create that which caters to the masses, b) disregard the importance of DPC scores in your work or c) you get lucky and work that expresses what you want to say has mass appeal.
History is littered with now famous artists who chose to disregard mass appeal. Artists like Gauguin, Van Gogh… So just because your work doesn't score well, doesn't necessarily mean it's not good. It might be, but DPC scores aren't what determines the quality of the work.
Originally posted by soup:
but here - there is the bias toward one over the other. just as there is in a lot of things people 'like' because they are trained to like them.
stepping outside that comfort zone is not easy. but making that step might be incredibly enlightening. a machinist writing a technical song, a poet taking a photo that speaks, a writer incorporating a newly learned skill into their next piece.
Originally posted by spork99:
The first group, with their sights set on technical perfection, are about using their tools accurately and precisely. As a machinist learns to make a surface perfectly flat to within 0.0002" or a writer learns to perfect grammar and sentence structure or a musician learns to read music and play scales.
The second group takes the tools they've developed as part of the first group and uses them (or abuses them) to express something less concrete and more abstract. The machinist making an ingenious mechanism, the writer making poetry or the musician writing a song.
There's nothing wrong with technical mastery, just like there's nothing wrong with using photography to express an abstract idea. It's a personal choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
02/11/2015 06:16:16 AM · #4 |
Some great posts in this thread. Thanks all!
Originally posted by jagar:
This discussion got me thinking about how I take photos. The photos we take are they our vision of reality or are they what we would like reality to be ? To be honest I think in my case it's a bit of both and sometimes neither.
It would be intresting to know if there was a predominance in religious belief in the first group compared to the second, if that were to be true it could be considered contradictory no ? |
This is very interesting. I think for the most part that when i take photos it is to capture my sense of reality, that interaction between myself and the environment i am in. The late writer Robert Aickman often said that his ghost stories, or as he'd rather call them, his 'strange stories' were not particularly supernatural they were just how he saw the world. Some commentators have claimed he was being disingenuous with that but i can see his point in many ways and i suspect he was just exaggerating it. I have various quirks of the brain myself and that definitely feeds into my photography and ideas/beliefs about the world. I tend to have a high level of apophenia and also pretty constant low level auditory and visual hallucinations. It's all pretty easy to cope with and even beneficial/enjoyable apart from a small handful of times, such as my teens and late 20's when things get a bit much and it develops into full blown mental illness and it needs sorting out. Generally, hearing voices and seeing elaborate patterns is part of who i am and i quite like it that way. I also suffer from a bit of a facial recognition disorder, a kind of reverse prosopagnosia/face blindness where i often think i recognise and know total strangers. Everyone gets this to a certain extent occasionally but i tend to have it in quite intense ways - pretty much every wedding i've photographed my brain is telling me i know an usher or bridesmaid or guest or two. In the past it's often got me into trouble or even fights for staring so these days i ignore it. Of course, that means people i do know often think i'm ignoring them in the street which is a pain. Anyway, my photography and how i record the world is often tied to this and whilst i wouldn't describe myself as religious i definitely have a bit of a leaning towards animist/polytheistic type approaches although it really makes no difference to me if the voices are deities or my mind. I tend to believe that our consciousness and imagination is far more tied to our environment and deity than is commonly understood - even more than in a Jungian sense. This leads me to enjoy communing with the city or woods or mountains in quite an intense way and is why i'm very interested in things like the Situationists idea of the dérive or drift and psychogeography etc. And for me, photography is a big part of that. It's a way of interacting with our environment and if i'm seeing cities in the rust on the side of an abounded car then thats all well and good. My recent entry -
- is a good case in point. The first thing i noticed and wanted to record was the sense of humour the universe often has. Some comments has said that it would be better without the trees but, as much as i like a good strong coloured composition, the trees were the whole point of the visual pun that i'd come across.
Anyway, i've banged on about that more than i'd intended to. The other thing i wanted to mention was Paul's initial post and idea about the two communities and i think there is a lot in that. As others have mentioned, it's probably not a case of a progression or continuum from one to the other in the way that people often refer to writing or art - that you must first master the rules of grammar or art before you can break them such as Joyce or Picasso etc. Personally, i'd say i was largely in group two but have been increasingly dipping into group one over the last few years. I think having a daughter and starting doing weddings is probably the cause of that. When i first started doing photography in college and university in the mid-1990's i was very firmly in group two. I really didn't have much interest in how a camera or lens worked as long as i got what i wanted and when in the darkroom i was far more interested in experimenting with ripping up old bits of lace and textures to create montages/collages etc. Although saying that, previously, in the late 80's early 90's, i'd worked and trained in theatre as a lighting/set designer so i think various ideas about composition and light were already ingrained.
Message edited by author 2015-02-12 11:04:44. |
|
|
|
02/11/2015 03:48:08 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by jagar:
This discussion got me thinking about how I take photos. The photos we take are they our vision of reality or are they what we would like reality to be ? To be honest I think in my case it's a bit of both and sometimes neither.
It would be intresting to know if there was a predominance in religious belief in the first group compared to the second, if that were to be true it could be considered contradictory no ? |
Interesting post John - I remember some SF programme (perhaps Startrek NG) where there was a religious war based on 'heresy against doctrine'.
I also remember Dr Achoo postulating that my atheist position emerged, at least in part, to my unwillingness to obey, submit even, to God (at least that's how I took it). So perhaps there is no contradiction in that hypothesis. However I'm not convinced there is that alignment anyway.
Cheers
Paul |
|
|
|
02/11/2015 02:56:23 AM · #6 |
What a treat to read these comments. And it's another treat to sit here, the keyboard under my fingers, the monitor lighting my face, trying to think my thoughts through on these ideas.
I think one group is concentrated on the subject. They want to get a technically excellent picture of the subject.
The other group is concentrated on the photograph. They will take a picture of anything, with anything, to get that photograph.
I'm pretty sure it's not a continuum. I'm pretty sure these 2 groups have enough in common, & enough not in common, to make a successful discussion pretty rare. They have almost nothing to gain from trying to understand one another. One group's score on the other's photos is never going to match what is expected. The only thing they have in common is the camera. |
|
|
|
02/11/2015 02:25:25 AM · #7 |
This discussion got me thinking about how I take photos. The photos we take are they our vision of reality or are they what we would like reality to be ? To be honest I think in my case it's a bit of both and sometimes neither.
It would be intresting to know if there was a predominance in religious belief in the first group compared to the second, if that were to be true it could be considered contradictory no ? |
|
|
|
02/11/2015 01:50:14 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I am quite befuddled by the labels of "real" and "dream." It makes me feel like I have nowhere to sleep in either camp.
Is Dorothea Lange's photo of migrant workers a dream? Is there some technical failing in that photo?
Is a picture of honey dripping from a spoon reality?
I give high votes to real photos and low votes to fake photos. |
My use of 'dream' was just self indulgence really, a reference to a specific lens I'm after - dubbed the Canon 'Dream Lens' by many. I was just trying to explain why I was choosing kit that is disruptive rather than kit that is designed to give a more neutral and precise rendering of the scene in front of it. It seemed to be a convenient linking metaphor. |
|
|
|
02/11/2015 12:42:27 AM · #9 |
I am quite befuddled by the labels of "real" and "dream." It makes me feel like I have nowhere to sleep in either camp.
Is Dorothea Lange's photo of migrant workers a dream? Is there some technical failing in that photo?
Is a picture of honey dripping from a spoon reality?
I give high votes to real photos and low votes to fake photos. |
|
|
|
02/11/2015 12:08:00 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Where DPC lacks, IMO, is in failing to instill a greater respect from either camp towards the other. Which may not be possible to achieve in a "competition" environment. |
I don't think that's any failing of DPC. The two camps discussed in the OP aren't opposite ends of the same continuum. One group produces photography and the other produces photographs, and that's a fundamental difference. They are not even in the same business, despite the cameras-in-common. That's why we see blue ribbons with scores under 3, and brown ribbons with scores over 8. It's not lack of respect, it's not bad judgement; it's just apples and oranges.
My view is that there's no art in photography, though there can be art in photographs. A very few people (the OP guy among them) can do both, But most of us can't, despite contrary delusions. It's not disrespectful to say that, though it is perhaps wiser, and more superficially respectful, to say nothing.
And I think DPC actually handles the dichotomy quite well, because most people do elect to say nothing about the stuff that doesn't interest them. Be happy with that.
Message edited by author 2015-02-11 00:11:12. |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 08:06:20 PM · #11 |
but here - there is the bias toward one over the other. just as there is in a lot of things people 'like' because they are trained to like them.
stepping outside that comfort zone is not easy. but making that step might be incredibly enlightening. a machinist writing a technical song, a poet taking a photo that speaks, a writer incorporating a newly learned skill into their next piece.
Originally posted by spork99:
The first group, with their sights set on technical perfection, are about using their tools accurately and precisely. As a machinist learns to make a surface perfectly flat to within 0.0002" or a writer learns to perfect grammar and sentence structure or a musician learns to read music and play scales.
The second group takes the tools they've developed as part of the first group and uses them (or abuses them) to express something less concrete and more abstract. The machinist making an ingenious mechanism, the writer making poetry or the musician writing a song.
There's nothing wrong with technical mastery, just like there's nothing wrong with using photography to express an abstract idea. It's a personal choice. |
|
|
|
|
02/10/2015 04:01:34 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by nygold:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The first group, with their sights set on technical perfection, are about using their tools accurately and precisely. As a machinist learns to make a surface perfectly flat to within 0.0002" or a writer learns to perfect grammar and sentence structure or a musician learns to read music and play scales.
The second group takes the tools they've developed as part of the first group and uses them (or abuses them) to express something less concrete and more abstract. The machinist making an ingenious mechanism, the writer making poetry or the musician writing a song.
There's nothing wrong with technical mastery, just like there's nothing wrong with using photography to express an abstract idea. It's a personal choice. |
I believe all of this to be true, it only gets mucked up when voting is involved. :P |
Exactly. |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 03:12:03 PM · #13 |
Mm...It's much more like the comments here inspire me to add my own riffs to the tune. Not in opposition. More like improv harmony. We all have our own voice. I'm an artist, not a photographer. I'm Glad you posted this, Paul. I'm enjoying this thread very much.
Message edited by author 2015-02-10 15:15:01. |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 01:49:31 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The first group, with their sights set on technical perfection, are about using their tools accurately and precisely. As a machinist learns to make a surface perfectly flat to within 0.0002" or a writer learns to perfect grammar and sentence structure or a musician learns to read music and play scales.
The second group takes the tools they've developed as part of the first group and uses them (or abuses them) to express something less concrete and more abstract. The machinist making an ingenious mechanism, the writer making poetry or the musician writing a song.
There's nothing wrong with technical mastery, just like there's nothing wrong with using photography to express an abstract idea. It's a personal choice. |
I believe all of this to be true, it only gets mucked up when voting is involved. :P |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 01:08:44 PM · #15 |
The first group, with their sights set on technical perfection, are about using their tools accurately and precisely. As a machinist learns to make a surface perfectly flat to within 0.0002" or a writer learns to perfect grammar and sentence structure or a musician learns to read music and play scales.
The second group takes the tools they've developed as part of the first group and uses them (or abuses them) to express something less concrete and more abstract. The machinist making an ingenious mechanism, the writer making poetry or the musician writing a song.
There's nothing wrong with technical mastery, just like there's nothing wrong with using photography to express an abstract idea. It's a personal choice. |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 12:37:09 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by tnun:
That sounds awfully condescending, but you may not have meant it that way. But I am also confused. I do not know what means "technically perfect." Should I be frightened? |
Really? It was unintentional. I didn't call (nor consider myself) a good photographer. Or even a photographer at all, beyond the fact that I take photographs.
I was actually kind of in a conversation with myself, knowing that sometimes I am a lazy viewer and often I am a lazy photographer.
My cousin and I look at photography differently which is why I pointed out our differing beliefs about cameras and what they capture. And both are true. And both are false.
As for 'technical perfection,' I think the words/phrase/sentiment often gets confused with 'Eye Candy' here. Maybe I am just caught up in semantics. But I would say the dichotomy at DPC is 'Eye Candy' vs. 'Soul Candy' for lack of a better term. Technical proficiency or mastery is something for which everyone should strive. Because then, one can dump the rules and the standards and the woulda/coulda/shoulda and just go out and shoot. The technical proficiencies are as much a part of your "kit" as cameras and lenses are. And they are a lot cheaper, too.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2015 11:16:03 AM · #17 |
In a reverse earthquake type affair.
The "get off Auto"always gives me morning sickness, as if the moment you choose the settings a wonderful image appears.
I know that it could be correct to understand settings but "auto is evil " is a little bit of cobblers.
Carry on.
Or should I say your round :)
|
|
|
|
02/10/2015 11:03:51 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
If I only had the same kit my favorite photographer has, I could get pictures like that. But then my favorite photographer gives me the entire kit. I go stand in my favorite photographer's footprints with my new kit...and get the same ol' stuff I always get. Maybe slightly (technically) better, or slightly (technically) different, but still mine. |
I'm in the strange position of wanting to point out that this isn't remotely what I'm saying and then wondering whether that's because I'm agreeing with you. I don't want to emulate anybody, I don't think I have a favourite photographer. I'm just acknowledging that our (me, you, everybody's) thinking - all of it, every single bit - is a consequence of our life so far. We are products of socio-cultural immersion. And, even kit is a socio-cultural artefact constructed from the interpreted demands of society and some form of anticipated social need.
Of course the best camera is the best one that I have with me but that doesn't mean my iPhone fulfils my aspirations or is sufficient to achieve what I have in my head. Often, but not always, I'm a contrived photographer - I see an image in my head and then create it from scratch, purposely selecting a certain camera, lens, scene etc. I can do that (in part) because I'm aware of what a certain lens can do and what the the result will be. Additionally, I'd say 80% of the time when I shoot, I'm doing so with a particular post-processing workflow in mind. Much less of the time am I an opportunist, taking what I find with what device I happen to have with me at the time.
So for me, your footprints analogy doesn't resonate at all. The work of others offers and opportunity for the affordances of certain techniques or equipment to be revealed - a try-before-you-buy-by-proxy. It expands what we might regard as possible or desirable but it certainly doesn't provide a template for photographic practice. Why would it? |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 10:43:58 AM · #19 |
If I only had the same kit my favorite photographer has, I could get pictures like that. But then my favorite photographer gives me the entire kit. I go stand in my favorite photographer's footprints with my new kit...and get the same ol' stuff I always get. Maybe slightly (technically) better, or slightly (technically) different, but still mine.
My favorite photographer should be me. Is me. As  daisydavid reminded us--the best camera is the one in your hand at the time.
Maybe, do you think another point of pride for this site might be that in addition to helping one another achieve technical mastery of our kit, we also help one another, goad and encourage one another, to stand in our own footprints? or, know what we stand for as photographers? I think we do. Most of the time. |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 08:19:27 AM · #20 |
Great topic here and seems (for me) hard to put in to words.
To me there is a BIG difference between documenting a scene and creating it.
I also enjoy when both worlds collide, the pigeon and the statue sort of thing.
Message edited by author 2015-02-10 10:37:02. |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 07:42:00 AM · #21 |
I don’t as a rule participate in these threads. Usually I note that the original ideas are bang on, but by the time I respond there are at least four contributors who articulate what I want to say and then dozens more of ‘another agenda’ responses that while legitimate, "Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." But that’s my problem. I think Snaffles recently lamented her decline in enthusiasm which may be compared to Paul’s situation of having to explore other avenues to ‘keep it real’ and be inspired. It all comes from inside really. I mean, I love the feel of jumping in with my friend in his Ferrari and bat shit it down town and pick up a litre of milk. I could have ridden my bike, I could have texted my mate to bring some back via his train trip from work. I still get the milk, but the Ferrari is a buzz. So is the bike, I get to ride past number 54 where that nice lady is gardening and showing her natal cleft. Gross I know, sometimes it’s not how you get there but what you see on the way. And the best camera is the one you have with you at the time.
You really have to feel the way Paul does, about anything, so as to move on, and ask yourself, who am I doing this for. Honestly, the most beautiful thing I have seen is this //photooftheday.hughcrawford.com/1997-2. It is 18 years of a persons’ life in snapshots. The last year, 1997, is most prominent. It documents the family and the death of someone he knows. It is so beautiful, so pure, and so utterly tragic. It has nothing to do with equipment, just the story. It took me a while to work it out, but it could have been shot on anything.
Agonising over gear always reminds me of one of my favourite movie scenes
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)
Brick Pollitt: [Offering Big Daddy morphine] It'll kill the pain, that's all.
Harvey 'Big Daddy' Pollitt: [Wincing with pain] It'll kill the senses too! You... you got pain - at least you know you're alive.
[groans]
Harvey 'Big Daddy' Pollitt: - It's easin' somewhat now. When you got pain, it's better to judge yourself of a lot of things. I'm not gonna stupify myself with that stuff. I wanna think clear. I want to see everything, and I want to feel everything. Then I won't mind goin'. I've got the guts to die. What I want to know - do you have the guts to live?
As for the two camps of styles, that’s another rant. Anyway, I hope I offended enough people with this indulgent off subject rant that they’ll go out and explore themselves with what they’ve got. |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 04:01:51 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by dahkota:
A good photograph is a good photograph. Yeah, DPC has a lot of people searching for technical perfection who are still learning. And great images without a 'wow' factor are frequently overlooked. But, if you reach one person, just one who understands what you were trying to say, isn't it all worth it? |
I don't think that is the case as much as an exploration of how each of us tries to find our own voice. |
I agree with  dahkota, we never control how exactly a capture resonates with a viewer, but that is the goal, to resonate. To expand, I don't even think it matters if they see what you saw, understand truly your intent. The fact that your idea connected and completed their side of things means you have succeeded. If all we ever did was validate ourselves based on folks seeing things the same as we did, we'd only be counting how many of our clones saw it. To elicit a response at all in itself is an artistic success, imo.
The OP Paul had some great points, and his description is very valid of the two camps, both fitting and understanding. But I think that both sides ought to give an increased recognition of the opposing side. Those who feel photos out, moving, seeing the composition but not ending with a definitive scene, instead asking the scene to speak to the viewer, would be as likely to botch the composition, the timing, the specificity of a sun falling perfectly over the specific peaks you wanted in a landscape. There is a bit of belittling, of the camp that accuracy reflects the world is a lesser form. I don't really think that's your intent, but in the phrasing, is evident. Masters of different realms, methinks, one not invading the other, but it's unfair to attempt to quantify one against the other, as they create themselves as fundamentally different works, ultimately. |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 01:15:47 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think the issue being explored there is not a dichotomy between technical perfection and art/fiction, so to speak, but rather consideration of when technical perfection as an end in itself is a self-limiting goal. |
Once again Robert chimes in with a perfectly timed and perfectly constructed summary of what it is I'm trying to express. Thank you.
Thanks to all of you for your fascinating thoughts. Of course my Community 1 and 2 pseudo-hypothesis is over-simplistic, it is (like people) more complex than that and this thread, with your response, echoes that.
I'll chime in about the 'kit' phenomenon - I believe it is important. Just as in the social sciences one refers to looking at a phenomenon through different lenses and that way of framing and filtering causes you to see differently, so it is with different kit. The first time I encountered this was when I bought a Lensbaby Composer for my Canon - use a small aperture ring, apply no tilt and you have a fairly standard lens - shoot what you want. Use a wide ring (or none) and apply some tilt and now you have a configuration that requires a different vision to be successful. The lens 'forces you' (or allows you to) see things differently. This image, which I like a lot would never have come into being had I not had a Lensbaby:
 Â
Nor this one:
The kit enabled (even prompted) the thinking and exploration that led to these results. Using a rangefinder changes your shooting process, both by not looking through the lens and by making you do everything manually. It's disruptive - add a EVF and it's different again. The special look you get with an 85mm f/1.2 when wide open demands something of you - it's only worth using it if you are going to utilise the look you get at 6ft and wide open (otherwise, save some money and buy the 1.8). This image is a direct consequence of that kit:
The end results are a consequence of a dialogue (or multilogue) between you and the kit - and other users of the kit. This last bit is important because it is about aspiration and intention. I look at photographs online a good deal, this exploration of other images - especially where particular lenses (and other kit - but less so) are concerned, manages my perception of what is possible and what I would like to shoot myself. My expectations of what I can achieve are necessarily (at least part) dependent on what I have seen, have understood and incorporated into my own schema. This is basic socio-constructivism I guess. I look (online), I coo, I ponder, I get excited, I plan.
For example, I've recently seen an image of the 21mm Voigtlander Ultron used on a Sony A7 with Voigtlander's close-up adaptor for Leica M lenses. Although it wasn't a portrait, I saw the effect and I can't wait to try it for portraits. I think I know how it will look - my brain has extrapolated the technical consequences of that particular kit combination and has suggested new possibilities. It is an ongoing dialogue that I find fertile. The kit is disruptive (and supportive) of the process of creation.
So, I'm not contending that you can't be creative with vanilla lenses, I'm saying that new kit - that does a specific thing (revealed though exploring prior work by others), prompts the consideration of new thinking - and it is this new thinking, together with the affordances of the new kit that make the new (for me) possible. Take a look at this website. It shows someone's use of one of the lenses I want to acquire. It's not the only set of examples of the particular look that this lens can offer, but viewing these images is a formative experience - it prompts new thinking. The images are data that contribute to my understanding of what is possible and gets me to extrapolate (or to imagine) the impact the kit may have on my work.
Now of course I understand my brain is important in this dialogue - that's where the interpretation takes place, but it's difficult to see how the imagination would take place with the same clarity without the data that the results of the use of the lens might provide. That's why I think kit IS important - it's not just about the kit, it's about the dialogue that happens around it and other users that's important. Does that help to clarify my thinking about kit?
Thanks for listening
Paul
[Composed on an iPad, so I'm sure there will be errors I'll need to come back to]
|
|
|
|
02/10/2015 01:09:09 AM · #24 |
Some like technically perfect tea, some will drink only technically perfect tea, others will drink anything if there's enough whiskey in it.
No but seriously, I have no problem with the technically perfect. It is good to strive for perfection. I do it myself. It's just that what I consider to be technically perfect may come as something of a surprise to others. The beauty of it is that the camera doesn't care, it does whatever it is set to do. For me, or for you.
Message edited by author 2015-02-10 01:32:43. |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 01:04:35 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think the issue being explored there is not a dichotomy between technical perfection and art/fiction, so to speak, but rather consideration of when technical perfection as an end in itself is a self-limiting goal. |
Although there are certainly genres that celebate and require that "perfection" (advertising, stock, sports...). While it could be argued that it could be interpreted as "limiting", I don't agree that it IS limiting. It's like tea. Some enjoy a cuppa and others enjoy joe. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:27:57 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:27:57 AM EDT.
|
