| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2015 04:26:52 PM · #26 |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 04:28:26 PM · #27 |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 05:02:13 PM · #28 |
The word "fiction" has an established and honored place in the various critical musings about the arts, and we shouldn't be so eager to try and replace it. Have you ever read a novel that seemed so real, so accurate, that it felt like you'd lived it? And doesn't it, in an artistic sense have a true "reality" about it?
The portrait photographer who removes a mole from his model's nose creates a fiction of the model as she wants to see herself. The sort of processing I do essentially creates a fiction of the physical world as perceived through my eyes, just as an author, writing from experience, will do with her words. And, always, which is more "true"; the landscape as perceived by me, or by you, or by any observer, or the arbitrary "actual" landscape, which is never anyway the same from one hour, or minute, to the next?
I want fiction! And I really enjoy others', more extreme, fictions than mine. Basically I see no difference between the novelist, the poet, the photographer, the painter, the composer; all are dealing with fiction, even those who seek to "document", because there's no one reality TO document, only our individual perceptions of what IS... |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 05:04:49 PM · #29 |
Well, then 'everything' is fiction since my reality only exists in my mind.
Wait. Wait. It's OK by me if you want to call what I do "fiction." Just as long as I am allowed to call what I do by any other name or lable I choose. My term is SAP or Subjective Abstract Photoreality.
Message edited by author 2015-02-09 17:11:32. |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 05:08:32 PM · #30 |
'Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted'
Hassan-i-Sabbah
|
|
|
|
02/09/2015 05:35:33 PM · #31 |
I like "something made different -new, even".
sing unto the Lord a new song... |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 06:01:47 PM · #32 |
| I like "transformative influence". |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 06:14:45 PM · #33 |
| Words are imperfect, and often have multiple meanings, such as the word "fiction". In those instances, context is everything. Fiction is perfect here. But you have permission to use whichever word you want. Except "elephant". You are not allowed to use that word :) |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 06:23:45 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I want fiction! And I really enjoy others', more extreme, fictions than mine. Basically I see no difference between the novelist, the poet, the photographer, the painter, the composer; all are dealing with fiction, even those who seek to "document", because there's no one reality TO document, only our individual perceptions of what IS... |
Truth is a matter of the imagination - Ursula K. Ler Guin (The Left Hand of Darkness) |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 06:27:28 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Or 'REALITY REDUX!™' |
Or a glitch in the matrix. And we should have a challenge on that. |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 07:51:41 PM · #36 |
quite an interesting thread.
i won't disagree with anything posted. except the 'kit' part.
i'd like to think mastering the technicals of any set of lens/camera combination would allow you to find the freedom you seem to think is dictated by the equipment. yes i can see it would be nice to have a camera that takes lenses from any manufacturer. but is that what makes the magic ? or do you as a photographer - using any given tool - make the magic ?
i lean toward the photographer making the magic - not the equipment. and i'd like to think that's been proven over and over by countless photographers - when the availability of a 'kit' was merely what was available.
Message edited by author 2015-02-09 19:52:28. |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 07:59:07 PM · #37 |
My cousin, a photographer, says the camera always tells the truth. I say the camera always lies.
The camera only shows the what you want to show, the when you want to show, and how you want to show.
A good photographer has already set up a reality that he/she wants the viewer to see before he/she even captures the image. (For those who state they'll fix it in post - you're lazy).
Most photographs tell a story; it is up to the viewer to find the story in the image. If you are a lazy viewer, you will be a lazy photographer.
Believing you are eschewing from 'technical perfection' to create a 'fiction' is disingenuous to both yourself and photography. Some of the most beautiful and emotive images here are technically perfect - just take a look at jjbeguin, zeuszen, and Pedro to name a few.
I find these conversations amusing. There is always an 'us vs. them' bent to them. 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?
|
|
|
|
02/09/2015 08:07:55 PM · #38 |
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. |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 08:40:32 PM · #39 |
the catch is we tend to as - humans adore praise - generally. so taking happiness out of one hearing your voice -vs a bunch of us is a tough choice - until you find your voice.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2015 09:03:29 PM · #40 |
Paul you opened a beautiful can of wiggly thoughts very much needed.
I have an important question for you and it's due to my lack of photo technical knowledge: does a camera and the choice of lenses make such an enormous impact? You might laugh at my question formulated so naively but it's tied with another idea that stemmed from your thoughtful post:
"The second community don't work that way, either in how they shoot or in how they vote here at DPC. They don't want reality - they want fiction. "
Each of the communities you mentioned has branches, some intermingle. Same camera and lens in the hands of the two communities would produce an enormous different result.
The "fiction" idea - ("fiction" for lack of a better word) - does not mean an illustration made by photographic means, nor does it consist of blurry, repulsive or abstract concoctions.
I would like very much to make clear in our community here that I believe that your community #2 does not mean necessarily a lesser photograph in terms of technical ability. The distinction between the two groups is in an ineffable way of seeing, capture and describe.
Photographs shall engage both brain and eyes.
I remember something that Lawrence Durrell said about a novel: "it ravishes our emotions without nourishing our values".
The result of applying "fiction" might not be a pretty picture but NOT necessarily an ugly one.
By the same token, community #1 in search of sharpness and prettiness could develop into illustration and commercial photography.
As some here already mentioned, some people might start in community 1 and merge into community 2. It's just like in an art school where you might start for 2 years just copying old masters and learn various techniques.
I am immensely fascinated by the distinction between looking and seeing. Somebody said so well: I see - I am a see-er.
I always appreciate a lot your comments here and salute your thoughts and course of action. |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 09:07:21 PM · #41 |
I think I fit in somewhere in  pixelpig's universe, specifically this part: "I see the world of color, light, form, line, & shadow. I sally forth with my camera to get some of this magic. I take it home to find out what happens next." Though in my case, the "what happens next" is kinda limited. I don't have a lot of vision with the processing part. I just see whether or not I like what the camera captured. I've never mastered technicals (obviously!) but I also don't intentionally create a "fiction". Hack? Is there a category for hack? :-)
Great conversation! |
|
|
|
02/09/2015 09:13:34 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
My cousin, a photographer, says the camera always tells the truth. I say the camera always lies.
The camera only shows the what you want to show, the when you want to show, and how you want to show.
A good photographer has already set up a reality that he/she wants the viewer to see before he/she even captures the image. (For those who state they'll fix it in post - you're lazy).
Most photographs tell a story; it is up to the viewer to find the story in the image. If you are a lazy viewer, you will be a lazy photographer.
Believing you are eschewing from 'technical perfection' to create a 'fiction' is disingenuous to both yourself and photography. Some of the most beautiful and emotive images here are technically perfect - just take a look at jjbeguin, zeuszen, and Pedro to name a few.
I find these conversations amusing. There is always an 'us vs. them' bent to them. 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? |
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? |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 12:14:21 AM · #43 |
| 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. |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 01:04:35 AM · #44 |
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. |
|
|
|
02/10/2015 01:09:09 AM · #45 |
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 01:15:47 AM · #46 |
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 04:01:51 AM · #47 |
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 07:42:00 AM · #48 |
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 08:19:27 AM · #49 |
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 10:43:58 AM · #50 |
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. |
|
