Post by: Alan Klein on June 12, 2018, 08:16:44 pm
This apparently un-edited photo at G7 that went international was claimed to purport Angel Merkle starring down Trump. I've even seen the photo cropped from behind Merkel's head to eliminate the people behind her making the photo seem even more like a stare-down. But the analysis of the original photo shown below by many indicates a stare down or Trump being lectured. Is it? What I see is that Trump isn't even looking at Merkel (6). Rather, he (1) and Prime Minister Abe of Japan (4), and Security Advisor Bolton (2) are looking at and listening to French President Macron (7) who is speaking. Yet none of what I read even states that. Is it that only I see who's looking at whom?
So what's the truth? How much of distortion of photos are not the photo but the interpretations and captions?
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/13AAB/production/_101955508_77703956-b037-4509-9fa6-84e91613f984.png)
To have a little fun, here's another picture taken a few seconds earlier or later showing everyone having a good time. News outlets are giving photography a bad name.
(https://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20180610&t=2&i=1270941402&r=LYNXNPEE59008&w=940)
Post by: stamper on June 13, 2018, 03:48:16 am
Post by: OmerV on June 13, 2018, 07:24:21 am
In this case, as in much of photojournalism, context is needed. Of course, context, like history is interpretive. Which is what the Euro-Merkel camp is doing. Still, when the President of the United States becomes accommodating towards authoritarian regimes, but belligerent towards allies, things get weird.
Strange bedfellows and all that. Truth is, ...
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 13, 2018, 09:35:17 am
Here comes another political debate? :'(
Not necessarily, it just shows the importance of photography, where timing makes the difference.
Cheers,
Bart
Post by: stamper on June 13, 2018, 09:41:00 am
Not necessarily, it just shows the importance of photography, where timing makes the difference.
Cheers,
Bart
An image without a politician in it could have proved the point just as well. I take it you are itching for a political debate?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 13, 2018, 10:12:04 am
The rest are just a bunch of pompoues, arrogant figures, stomping their little feet in impotent anger, thinking they still matter. ;)
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 13, 2018, 10:34:54 am
Post by: Alan Klein on June 13, 2018, 11:18:53 am
An image without a politician in it could have proved the point just as well. I take it you are itching for a political debate?
Well, it is true that the noise surrounding the picture bothered me as being untrue and politically tainted. But so many of our journalism pictures are just that - they are being used to make a political point by misinterpretations and captions that are in the mind of the caption writer. So even though the photo is unphotoshopped, it's the editors who distort it through their mis-characterizations. I thought that general issue worthy of debate.
If the moderators feel this is strictly a political discussion that should be in the Coffee Corner, then I would certainly want them to move it there. On the other hand, if they think the topic goes to the "art" and efficacy of photojournalism in general, as I do, then it should remain here in the sub-topic of "Is it Art". I have to admit that I thought about both locations and suppose it could go in either. There maybe even be a better section than these.
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 13, 2018, 12:48:17 pm
Jeremy
Post by: MattBurt on June 13, 2018, 01:32:03 pm
The one that ran certainly fits the majority of accounts regarding the summit (http://time.com/5307992/g7-trump-reaction-media/).
Fake news?
Post by: Alan Klein on June 13, 2018, 02:25:05 pm
Of the two versions of the photo, it's tough to say which is more of a real deception of events since I was not there. It's possible that there was a much lighter mood like the less publicized photo depicts but that doesn't seem to align with multiple reports on the event.
The one that ran certainly fits the majority of accounts regarding the summit (http://time.com/5307992/g7-trump-reaction-media/).
Fake news?
Of course the majority of foreign news outlets captioned the picture in a negative way towards Trump. After all, the leaders of their countries were at odds with Trump's position. I also note that Japanese President Abe has his arms crossed too. Was he acting petulant too?
However, despite their prejudice and just plain opinions we all have, don't we want the photograph's caption to be neutral when presented in a so-called unbiased forum or newspaper? Sort of like, "Members of G7 Discussing Terms of Final Statement." Then let the viewer determine who's staring whom down or what they think is going on?
How should reputable news outlets handle which of the two pictures above should be used? They present differing views of what's going on and how the parties relate to one another.
Post by: David Sutton on June 14, 2018, 12:43:02 am
It's hard to find examples like this of the Fibonacci spiral.
David
Post by: MattBurt on June 14, 2018, 12:52:41 pm
How should reputable news outlets handle which of the two pictures above should be used? They present differing views of what's going on and how the parties relate to one another.
I think they pick the one(s) that appears to match the story.
I've done some editorial photography for news outlets but I usually do not write the story. Sometimes they run my photos with a story because they go well together even if my photo isn't of that exact moment being referred to in the story. But even though there is that dependency, the photo does appear to support the story and to me that doesn't seem misleading even if the caption and story are not a 100% match (like it was a different moment than what is referenced in the caption, but would still make a fitting image and could have been that moment).
Post by: Alan Klein on June 14, 2018, 09:33:01 pm
So here we are often arguing about the truthfulness of a photograph in how much we should photoshop it. And it really doesn't matter because the news publishers will present it in a way that matches whatever political point they want to make. I remember as a kid the statement that photos don't lie. Well they don't. It's people who lie about them.
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on June 15, 2018, 03:49:18 am
Mark me down as amused.
Post by: RSL on June 15, 2018, 07:55:43 am
Post by: OmerV on June 15, 2018, 08:34:47 am
Photographs don’t lie, people do. But photographs are not the truth. 8)
Post by: Alan Klein on June 17, 2018, 09:44:32 am
G7 (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/06/16/00/4D4906FE00000578-0-image-a-8_1529106000051.jpg)
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on June 26, 2018, 05:36:56 am
Post by: Rob C on June 27, 2018, 08:40:07 am
Photos do not lie. People lie.
On the other hand, sometimes they, people, just reveal a different perspective. Exactly as do photographs.
Rob
Post by: BobShaw on June 29, 2018, 03:28:22 am
Of course the majority of foreign news outlets captioned the picture in a negative way towards Trump.All news is negative. it would not matter if it was Trump or not.
It does not help if you keep prodding the media though.
When was the last time you saw a good news story?
There is a well known saying in media " Good news is NO news".
Post by: Two23 on August 31, 2018, 09:00:04 pm
Kent in SD
Post by: Rob C on September 01, 2018, 07:16:15 am
Perhaps it's because of photography and the associated familiarity with the fair sex that makes me feel quite comfortable with the lesbian idea - I could be entirely mistaken, I'd need confirmation from one (which I would never presume to solicit) that the influence of makeup and the massive obsession with looks is partly what creates the urge within some women to appreciate one another a bit more than usual, but on the other hand, some published examples would prove looks to be not a driver, but perhaps a case of last resort. Who really knows, one way or the other?
However, even there, there are limits to where I'd like film or stills to venture.
An interesting situation.
I forget: how did we get here?
Rob
Post by: Telecaster on September 01, 2018, 05:17:03 pm
Writing as a 'non-complicated' guy, I believe that most guys I know are quite interested in the concept of Sappho; however, the sexual opposite, male homosexuality is a decided turn-off.
Seems to me this works the other way 'round too, though not identically. My "straight" female friends have all had a default affinity for our gay male friends and acquaintances. I think this is due to two interrelated things: 1) they're both attracted to the same gender and so are in some degree of sync straight off; and 2) their friendships aren't complicated by the possibility/danger of romance.
-Dave-
Post by: Rob C on September 02, 2018, 04:56:23 am
Seems to me this works the other way 'round too, though not identically. My "straight" female friends have all had a default affinity for our gay male friends and acquaintances. I think this is due to two interrelated things: 1) they're both attracted to the same gender and so are in some degree of sync straight off; and 2) their friendships aren't complicated by the possibility/danger of romance.
-Dave-
Regarding the second point, doesn't such a sterile relationship, DOA, mean that any such relationship holds no subliminal thrill at all, not even as hypothetical question? Is such a cold relationship worth the bother?
I mean, when one meets somebody attractive, married or otherwise, can one deny that the thought of being somewhat more intimate, and how that might feel, doesn't pass briefly through the mind? On the other hand, when the meeting is a decided turn-off, then doesn't a sense of relief flood throught one too, that no further action need even be contemplated, however academically that might be the case?
I think that sexual attraction is everwhere, as is its opposite. One can even detect it on the telephone in the voice of a stranger one has never, and will never meet. It's what sells music.
Rob
Post by: KLaban on September 02, 2018, 07:14:47 am
Regarding the second point, doesn't such a sterile relationship, DOA, mean that any such relationship holds no subliminal thrill at all, not even as hypothetical question? Is such a cold relationship worth the bother?
I mean, when one meets somebody attractive, married or otherwise, can one deny that the thought of being somewhat more intimate, and how that might feel, doesn't pass briefly through the mind? On the other hand, when the meeting is a decided turn-off, then doesn't a sense of relief flood throught one too, that no further action need even be contemplated, however academically that might be the case?
I think that sexual attraction is everwhere, as is its opposite. One can even detect it on the telephone in the voice of a stranger one has never, and will never meet. It's what sells music.
Rob
I've many friends that I wouldn't want to shag.
;-)
Post by: Rob C on September 02, 2018, 07:52:33 am
I've many friends that I wouldn't want to shag.
;-)
I don't know anybody anymore with whom I would feel inclined to play games. That I inspire similar thoughts is a given.
I was about to say there's a relief in that, but then where would that leave the rest of the argument?
:-)
Rob
P.S.
Thinking deeper thoughts on this, I could write a list of ladies in their 40s/50s that I do not know at all, but from their publicity shots, would love to know very well. Not a young model makes that list, not because of numbers, but because lack of interest in the vacuous.
Post by: KLaban on September 02, 2018, 08:33:23 am
Thinking deeper thoughts on this, I could write a list of ladies in their 40s/50s that I do not know at all, but from their publicity shots, would love to know very well. Not a young model makes that list, not because of numbers, but because lack of interest in the vacuous.
I've never been in the position that I've had to or even wanted to think of women in terms of models or publicity shots or had lists of either, so perhaps I've had a different starting point. I've admired women who are 'conventionally' beautiful and others who aren't. I've certainly been attracted to both in equal measure. I also know young women who are anything but vacuous, they're not models but I would doubt all young models are.
Post by: Rob C on September 02, 2018, 02:47:28 pm
I've never been in the position that I've had to or even wanted to think of women in terms of models or publicity shots or had lists of either, so perhaps I've had a different starting point. I've admired women who are 'conventionally' beautiful and others who aren't. I've certainly been attracted to both in equal measure. I also know young women who are anything but vacuous, they're not models but I would doubt all young models are.
I'm sure they are not, but then again many have been. Guess it's who you get to know, but the bright ones have been, in my experience, few and far between. Maybe that's why the exceptions are memorable... it's not an occupation that usually pulls in the brighter minds - I think the overall occupational boredom must preclude that. It does help if they read, though, because they get a lot of time for doing that on a trip.
Post by: Telecaster on September 02, 2018, 05:23:30 pm
Regarding the second point, doesn't such a sterile relationship, DOA, mean that any such relationship holds no subliminal thrill at all, not even as hypothetical question? Is such a cold relationship worth the bother?
A very strange question IMO. :D I presume you have or have had male friends IRL, and that those friendships haven't had an attraction/desire component but yet haven't been sterile or cold either. Male/female friendships can work the same way and still be rich and warm. My pal Patty's husband has been fine with her spending time with me throughout their marriage (35 years now), even fine with the two of us gallivanting across the country for extended periods, because he's always understood I'm like one of her brothers rather than a potential competitor.
-Dave-
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2018, 04:49:11 am
A very strange question IMO. :D I presume you have or have had male friends IRL, and that those friendships haven't had an attraction/desire component but yet haven't been sterile or cold either. Male/female friendships can work the same way and still be rich and warm. My pal Patty's husband has been fine with her spending time with me throughout their marriage (35 years now), even fine with the two of us gallivanting across the country for extended periods, because he's always understood I'm like one of her brothers rather than a potential competitor.
-Dave-
I have known a lot of guys, but I wouldn't confuse an acquaintance with a friend, a very much more rare animal. I think male friendship (in the loose interpretation) is mainly about common advantage in the sense of each being of some value to the other. I find that the whole concept of friendship changes dramatically with the age in which one finds oneself. In schoool, it's about a sort of ganging up for mutual protection and affirmation; as you get into work it's about forwarding career, and as you reach the end of that period it's about shared interests in what you can still do in your spare time. As you lose partners to death you realise that you, as individual, were never the friend, but simply part of the double-act that formed the friend entity. You have no idea how common that is out here, where couples lose partners and, with that, their social circle shrinks to vanishing point: a spare rib doesn't sit well at a formal dinner, and it's even worse for the lone female.
Fortunately for me, most of the friends we had died off or moved back to Britain and died there whilst my own wife was still alive. That meant that our own shrinking circle - never that huge anyway - was something that we had both grown to accept and survive with ease. When she died, I was left running on empty, which is how it's been for almost ten years. I believe that only my years in boarding school (which I hated) gave me the character and will to survive the loss. Sure, photography helped a lot, as did a place such as LuLa, but I can't change my own personality and so there was little comfort to be found spending time with the rest of the lone males in the expat community. I can't drink anymore because of heart issues, and there is little more boring than inebriated conversation when you are stone cold sober. Frankly, I'm better off with the Internet or playing with some snaps of window reflections. At least the accompanying music is to my taste and free!
I am sometimes asked if I am lonely. No, I am not; I am alone. If I desired the crowd it is there, to drift into and out of as does the rest of the population that forms it.
;-)
Post by: Two23 on September 03, 2018, 11:53:00 am
I am sometimes asked if I am lonely. No, I am not; I am alone. If I desired the crowd it is there, to drift into and out of as does the rest of the population that forms it.
;-)
You need a cat! The friendly kind. I guess they're all friendly if you feed them. :) As for crowds, ironically the times I feel most lonely is when I'm in one.
Kent in SD
Post by: Alan Klein on September 03, 2018, 11:58:12 am
All news is negative. it would not matter if it was Trump or not.
It does not help if you keep prodding the media though.
When was the last time you saw a good news story?
There is a well known saying in media " Good news is NO news".
Certainly, "bad" news captures more attention often. But a newspaper like the NY Times should be reporting good news as well. International conferences where things are settled do command headlines. Wouldn't a peace treaty ending the 65 year old Korean War be good news AND command page 1 headlines? I think so even if you don't. However, if the newspaper opposes the leader politically, the headlines could be written in a way that would diminish the important news so the leader doesn't gain political advantage. There's a lot of that going on today. Blaming the leader for "prodding" the media is a copout. The media, if they claim to be honest and non-biased, should leave the news section as a news section and use their op-ed editorial section to make present their preferences. How you write headlines or how to caption a photo, could distort the truth of the underlying news or photo.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 03, 2018, 12:25:36 pm
Writing as a 'non-complicated' guy, I believe that most guys I know are quite interested in the concept of Sappho; however, the sexual opposite, male homosexuality is a decided turn-off.
Perhaps it's because of photography and the associated familiarity with the fair sex that makes me feel quite comfortable with the lesbian idea - I could be entirely mistaken, I'd need confirmation from one (which I would never presume to solicit) that the influence of makeup and the massive obsession with looks is partly what creates the urge within some women to appreciate one another a bit more than usual, but on the other hand, some published examples would prove looks to be not a driver, but perhaps a case of last resort. Who really knows, one way or the other?
However, even there, there are limits to where I'd like film or stills to venture.
An interesting situation.
I forget: how did we get here?
Rob
Well, I had a good friend who was Lesbian. Very nice girl, really. And to be honest, It could have been working, me and here, I would not object to a second woman in bed. :-)
But then, at a certain evening, we effectively ended up with 3 in bed. And damned, I didn't have a thing to bring in . I was literally a quantité négligeable. :-)
We spent lot's of evenings in a local Lesbian bar, and one evening i took here for a dance. Next thing I remember was I was laying on the floor with a gap in my head. Some jealous woman hit me with a Marlboro ashtray.
Apart from this short story, I can testify the elegant Lesbian's on tv or in films are seldom found on the Lesbian scene. And the last woman I want to be found dead with, is one that pretends to have a dick. :-)
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2018, 01:00:19 pm
Well, I had a good friend who was Lesbian. Very nice girl, really. And to be honest, It could have been working, me and here, I would not object to a second woman in bed. :-)
But then, at a certain evening, we effectively ended up with 3 in bed. And damned, I didn't have a thing to bring in . I was literally a quantité négligeable. :-)
We spent lot's of evenings in a local Lesbian bar, and one evening i took here for a dance. Next thing I remember was I was laying on the floor with a gap in my head. Some jealous woman hit me with a Marlboro ashtray.
Apart from this short story, I can testify the elegant Lesbian's on tv or in films are seldom found on the Lesbian scene. And the last woman I want to be found dead with, is one that pretends to have a dick. :-)
I always knew cigarettes were bad for people, even when I used to smoke.
:-)
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2018, 01:32:00 pm
You need a cat! The friendly kind. I guess they're all friendly if you feed them. :) As for crowds, ironically the times I feel most lonely is when I'm in one.
Kent in SD
Cats! At one stage we were feeding about 23 or 25 of them, all from two females abandoned by their mother one day: she stopped at the foot of our terrace, studied our alsabrador for a moment, realised she was just a huge pussycat, and never came back for the kittens. She did well. Then, some years later as we came home from a trip, we discovered a self-styled animal lover had poisoned them after lifting two males and hiding them in her apartment as she fed the rest death. She sold, eventually, and the two males reverted to us, where they lived to a ripe old age.
What I would love is an Alsatian, but it would be very unfair to any animal to become my friend; it would most certainly outlive me, and there is no rosy future for large, potentially dangerous animals in new homes. That would be selfishness run amok!
Rob
Post by: Alan Klein on September 03, 2018, 02:44:57 pm
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 03, 2018, 02:57:39 pm
Could we get back to my topic? I really don't care about cats or who you sleep with. Start your own threads.
You are right. However, getting back to your topic would mean a political discussion. You'd be better off just locking the thread yourself. Otherwise, we might even get some pictures of cats. Or lesbians.
Post by: amolitor on September 03, 2018, 03:26:37 pm
It is more complicated than that. A photograph, an unmanipulated photograph let us stipulate, represents a literal point of view. As far as that goes, it is "true":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_claim_(photography)
A caption has more scope for lying, it can be simply factually wrong, it can be willfully wrong, such is the nature of language. There is no equivalent of the Truth Claim for words.
But to get at the thing you need to have some notion of what you even mean by truth. Not to scramble down a philosophical rathole here, but, in my favorite example, "what was the cause of the First World War" jumps to mind. There is no glib singular "truth" here, and there may not even be a lengthy book-sized truth to be had here. The one thing we can be sure of is that the assassination of Ferdinand was not in any meaningful way the cause.
Once you have your arms around something like the "truth" of a situation, assuming that yours is one of those where it is possible to get your arms around it, what then does it mean to for a photograph, or a caption, or a combination of them, to be true?
Must it align factually with the little details of the truth, even if the overall impression it yields is the opposite of the big picture?
Or may it skim over and play games with the little details, if the overall impression aligns with the "truth"?
Must it do both? Must it, that is, align at every possible level of detail?
These are complicated questions, once you start digging. A reasonable, albeit flawed, starting point is Believing Is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography by Errol Morris. I find his analysis flawed, but the raw material he digs up is mostly excellent, except the bits about the clock on the mantelpiece as shot by Walker Evans.
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2018, 03:33:20 pm
You are right. However, getting back to your topic would mean a political discussion. You'd be better off just locking the thread yourself. Otherwise, we might even get some pictures of cats. Or lesbians.
Three cats under a hot tin roof, just for an anxious Slobodan:
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2018, 03:42:01 pm
Hope dear Alan's brow is now soothed and gently mopped, his cat allergy allayed.
;-)
Post by: Alan Klein on September 03, 2018, 04:08:03 pm
(https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=125304.0;attach=183688)[/font]
Three cats under a hot tin roof, just for an anxious Slobodan:
Well that's a picture of a painting. So is the painting the truth and if so does it make the photo the truth? Is a photo more true than a painting? Does a photo totally manipulated in PS the truth or digital art? Why do we call it a photo?
Post by: amolitor on September 03, 2018, 04:43:19 pm
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2018, 04:55:37 pm
[/font]
Well that's a picture of a painting. So is the painting the truth and if so does it make the photo the truth? Is a photo more true than a painting? Does a photo totally manipulated in PS the truth or digital art? Why do we call it a photo?
Well no, Alan, it's not a painting.
The three cats are cut-outs pasted to the wall in the bar... there are more, and I don't know the reason the guy has them.
However, your questions have been addressed in the other thread about photography being or not still being photography today.
Post by: Telecaster on September 03, 2018, 05:05:09 pm
I have known a lot of guys, but I wouldn't confuse an acquaintance with a friend, a very much more rare animal.
Yes. Deep and meaningful friendships are rare (or so I've found), and all but one of mine as an adult have been with women. Bruce is my most recent genuine friend, and we've known each other for ~12 years. All the others go back much further. Patty and I have been friends since high school…40+ years.
Still I've always been comfortable being on my own. Give me a guitar, a camera and an engrossing book and I'm good to go. :)
-Dave-
Post by: langier on September 04, 2018, 12:09:37 am
Case in point, DAPL a couple of years ago. The "focus" of much of the visual reportage appeared to feature the 1970s-style protest that was little noticed for several weeks until it became fashionable to go to photograph the encampment. Yet, few did the due diligence to discover the other side of the story and it seemed to be ignored, requiring the average person to fend for himself. I think it was that it was just not "sexy" or exciting to photograph that narrative. I guess we sometimes favor David over Goliath even if it is just a myth... A single photo doesn't always tell the entire story much as one can see only one side of a coin at a time.
Post by: Rob C on September 04, 2018, 06:25:23 am
Well, I had a good friend who was Lesbian. Very nice girl, really. And to be honest, It could have been working, me and here, I would not object to a second woman in bed. :-)
But then, at a certain evening, we effectively ended up with 3 in bed. And damned, I didn't have a thing to bring in . I was literally a quantité négligeable. :-)
We spent lot's of evenings in a local Lesbian bar, and one evening i took here for a dance. Next thing I remember was I was laying on the floor with a gap in my head. Some jealous woman hit me with a Marlboro ashtray.
Apart from this short story, I can testify the elegant Lesbian's on tv or in films are seldom found on the Lesbian scene. And the last woman I want to be found dead with, is one that pretends to have a dick. :-)
What did you expect? You were only permitted in in order to be the victim, the humiliant, if I may be allowed to create a pleasing neologism - probably the only 'gism going at such times!
Isn't life fascinating when you get up and about? I think I've just convinced myself to go out for lunch again today, despìte thinking I couldn't be bothered. Never know what lunch might bring.
By the way, some of you guys are from the right end of Europe and can help me out: when writing a name that includes van as part of it, as in Vincent van Gogh or J-S van Damme, should the van always use a capital V or does that depend on the circumstance in which the name is used?
Rob
Post by: Ivo_B on September 04, 2018, 02:15:07 pm
What did you expect? You were only permitted in in order to be the victim, the humiliant, if I may be allowed to create a pleasing neologism - pobably the only 'gism going at such times!
Isn't life fascinating when you get up and about? I think I've just convinced myself to go out for lunch again today, despìte thinking I couldn't be bothered. Never know what lunch might bring.
By the way, some of you guys are from the right end of Europe and can help me out: when writing a name that includes van as part of it, as in Vincent van Gogh or J-S van Damme, should the van always use a capital V or does that depend on the circumstance in which the name is used?
Rob
I did expect to have the night of my life, instead I witnessed the night of two woman's life. :-)
Ha, the V question.
There is a difference between the Netherlands and Belgium.
In Belgium, if the V is not capital, it is said the person have noble ancestors, but this is not a general rule. It is how it is officially recorded and here a lot of typos and writing errors are the cause. So it is according how it is in the register, not following a kind of rule.
Up to 1806 the parish registers where the only real registration of birth and passing away. in 1806 under Napoleon the National register was founded and a surname became obligatory for not noble a few years later. Names as: Rick from the Corner, or Jeff from the water where used if nothing else seemed appropriate or just in case of no fantasy. It is said that in Holland, peoples where so anti Napoleon they fooled a bit and took stupid names. Still today you can find Dutch peoples with, for Belgian ears, incredible idiot surnames.
And then there is the issue of bastard kids from the noble, landlords, even it is a public secret our first king made a platoon of children with same umber of unmarried mistresses. Those kids got a kind of a legacy and received a name. Genealogical investigation of peoples with ancestors in this situation stops abrupt at a certain point in history. :-)
In The Netherlands it is according to a simple rule. If the forename is mentioned, the 'van' is with a small v. => Gerard van Steen. If the forename is not mentioned, p.e. mister Van Steen, the van is written with a capital V.
at least, that is what I remember from school.
Our Dutch friends on Lula will counter speak if not accurate.
:-)
Post by: Rob C on September 04, 2018, 04:31:36 pm
Paperwork confounds everybody; that's why we moved to computers: you can blame them and so nobody gets hurt or fired, unless you run a bank like the TSB whose head honcho just resigned for a minor inconvenience caused by a new computer system introduced when the TSB gained independence from Lloyds Bank. It's not like anybody lost money - in fact they saved some, because their online banking was halted for some time. Best reason yet to keep local banks open. I never use online for that stuff. You can talk to a person, but if you do that to a computer you have a problem. A big one. A bigger one than you think.
:-)
Post by: Ivophoto on September 05, 2018, 03:55:02 am
You are right. However, getting back to your topic would mean a political discussion. You'd be better off just locking the thread yourself. Otherwise, we might even get some pictures of cats. Or lesbians.
Slobodan, man, I have to stop reading your comments while drinking my coffee. I sprayed my screen again with coffee out of my nostrils. Your humor is priceless.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 05, 2018, 09:38:02 am
Slobodan, man, I have to stop reading your comments while drinking my coffee. I sprayed my screen again with coffee out of my nostrils. Your humor is priceless.
Thank you, party of one ;)
Post by: LesPalenik on September 06, 2018, 05:26:03 pm
By the way, some of you guys are from the right end of Europe and can help me out: when writing a name that includes van as part of it, as in Vincent van Gogh or J-S van Damme, should the van always use a capital V or does that depend on the circumstance in which the name is used?
Rob
Or if you were an American, called Van Trump, they might create a park in your name (Van Trump Park in the Washington state).
No political motifs in this post, Philemon Beecher Van Trump (1839–1916), also known as P. B. Van Trump, was an American pioneering mountaineer who is best known for the first ascent of Mount Rainier in 1870.
Post by: Ray on September 08, 2018, 04:15:43 am
In a sense, everything we perceive is a lie because everything has to be interpreted and every interpretation will be different, to some degree, depending on a person's biases, prejudices, background experiences, education, and so on. However, this is in relation to the concept of an 'absolute' truth.
A lie is a willful attempt to distort what one believes to be true, whether or not what one believes to be true actually is true.
For example, if a person with a mental disorder were to state that he had just witnessed his great grandfather, who died many years ago, sitting at the table opposite him, during the evening meal, would that be a lie? Not necessarily. However, if the same person were asked by a psychiatrist if he'd ever experienced visual impressions of dead people as though they had come back to life, and the person replied 'No', then that would be a lie.
The concept that the camera doesn't lie is true because only animate creatures can lie. If the photographer genuinely believes that his photo is an accurate representation of what he saw at the time of the shot, then he is not lying.
In the case of the Angela Merkel shot, it's common practice for journalists to choose the photo which best matches their 'biased' story. If the person writing the story genuinely believes that what he has written is true, then he is not lying.
Oops! Have I strayed into philosophy? ;D
Post by: Ivophoto on September 08, 2018, 06:20:03 am
In a sense, everything we perceive is a lie because everything has to be interpreted and every interpretation will be different, to some degree, depending on a person's biases, prejudices, background experiences, education, and so on. However, this is in relation to the concept of an 'absolute' truth.
A lie is a willful attempt to distort what one believes to be true, whether or not what one believes to be true actually is true.
For example, if a person with a mental disorder were to state that he had just witnessed his great grandfather, who died many years ago, sitting at the table opposite him, during the evening meal, would that be a lie? Not necessarily. However, if the same person were asked by a psychiatrist if he'd ever experienced visual impressions of dead people as though they had come back to life, and the person replied 'No', then that would be a lie.
The concept that the camera doesn't lie is true because only animate creatures can lie. If the photographer genuinely believes that his photo is an accurate representation of what he saw at the time of the shot, then he is not lying.
In the case of the Angela Merkel shot, it's common practice for journalists to choose the photo which best matches their 'biased' story. If the person writing the story genuinely believes that what he has written is true, then he is not lying.
Oops! Have I strayed into philosophy? ;D
You have given a very clear and interesting perspective. Thanks.
Ivo
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 07:38:47 am
This relates to the thing discussed here once in a while about photographs having messages. I don't believe they do: I believe they can be constructed so as to suggest thoughts in some directions, but prodding thought isn't the same as providing a message.
The example of the flower pot is one such: it doesn't really suggest anything - it just is what it looks like; there is no emotional force intrinsic to it that I can sense. My suggestion in the earlier post was tongue-in-cheek and I suppose it's what happens across multilingual zones, that finer details of communication are lost - as per the movie title. However, the doll is dynamite in several languages and probably across cultures, too. A flower pot in a corridor?
This isn't meant as a grading comment regarding quality of photos - just that some seem to fit a category where others can't fit the same one.
Agreed or otherwise, I find these conversations more interesting that gear-talk.
Rob
Post by: Ivophoto on September 08, 2018, 08:00:13 am
The flaw in your argument, from my "lying" perspective comes late in your post where you state that the concept of the camera not lying is true because it's an inanimate object. Does that imply that you believe it to tell truth, whist still inanimate? I don't imagine that you do, but the thought, nonetheless, arose...
This relates to the thing discussed here once in a while about photographs having messages. I don't believe they do: I believe they can be constructed so as to suggest thoughts in some directions, but prodding thought isn't the same as providing a message.
The example of the flower pot is one such: it doesn't really suggest anything - it just is what it looks like; there is no emotional force intrinsic to it that I can sense. My suggestion in the earlier post was tongue-in-cheek and I suppose it's what happens across multilingual zones, that finer details of communication are lost - as per the movie title. However, the doll is dynamite in several languages and probably across cultures, too. A flower pot in a corridor?
This isn't meant as a grading comment regarding quality of photos - just that some seem to fit a category where others can't fit the same one.
Agreed or otherwise, I find these conversations more interesting that gear-talk.
Rob
The flower pot is just what it looks like. Correct. And different viewer have different reactions on it. So how does that match?
It’s the viewers projection.
This is an important mechanism and used in conceptual and cerebral art. Why could photography not be of that kind?
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 08:29:31 am
The flower pot is just what it looks like. Correct. And different viewer have different reactions on it. So how does that match?
It’s the viewers projection.
This is an important mechanism and used in conceptual and cerebral art. Why could photography not be of that kind?
That's my point: I don't honestly believe a viewer can feel anything in that pot beyond the obvious. Of course, we are just as likely, by this view, to encourage a million posts to the opposite, but that's Internet psychology at work.
Talking about conceptual and cerebral art is one of my red flags: it usually means that if I dip a toe therein, I find many naked swimmers, royal or otherwise.
;-)
Rob
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 08:36:16 am
That's my point: I don't honestly believe a viewer can feel anything in that pot beyond the obvious. Of course, we are just as likely, by this view, to encourage a million posts to the opposite, but that's Internet psychology at work.
Talking about conceptual and cerebral art is one of my red flags: it usually means that if I dip a toe therein, I find many naked swimmers, royal or otherwise.
;-)
Rob
In the Doll vs Pot topic, I could have used this one (see below) completely on the opposite side of the scale. What would be the reaction here? That this setting blows away the subtile dynamite of the doll?
Nearly every photographer of graveyards or abandoned places carry a kind of doll with him, it is so cheap, dynamite or not. The pot picture abstract from the obvious, and that makes the image interesting for me.
Post by: Ray on September 08, 2018, 08:39:28 am
The flaw in your argument, from my "lying" perspective comes late in your post where you state that the concept of the camera not lying is true because it's an inanimate object. Does that imply that you believe it to tell truth, whist still inanimate? I don't imagine that you do, but the thought, nonetheless, arose...
Rob,
A camera is designed to produce 2-dimensional representations of the 3-dimensional objects that surround us. The representations are not even close to reality, although we usually don't have trouble in identifying the objects or subjects that are represented, but sometimes we do if they are abstract.
I'm reminded here of Picasso's response when someone criticized his paintings for not representing reality as a photo does. Picasso asked the person if he had a photo of his wife. The guy pulled from his wallet a small photo of his wife, maybe 2"x3", to show Picasso. Picasso commented, 'surely your wife is not that small'. ;D
In other words, the camera (with lens) is designed to produce a specific quality of image in specific circumstances with specific settings. It will always produce the same 'quality of representation' in the same circumstances with the same settings, because it has no choice. Therefore, it cannot lie. But it can malfunction of course.
Post by: 32BT on September 08, 2018, 08:55:56 am
There is a very distinct difference imo between ambiguity in a picture vs ambiguity in the viewer. Obviously there is no issue with an artist searching the limits of the latter. But there is an issue with the former since ambiguity itself can not be ambiguous, therefore an image contains it or it doesn't.
Similarly images can most definitely contain messages in the same sense as common sayings and colloquialism contains figurative language. How much of it one manages to capture and project on the viewer is obviously an intricate process involving too many variables concerning background and culture to such an extent that it seems a small wonder that it's even possible. But it happens especially with universal commonalities like certain emotions, family bonds etc...
However when an image merely triggers projection of the viewer on the image, i personally consider it shoddy art, because while it may be psychologically revealling, it also means your art expression was no better than a Rorschach test.
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 09:22:13 am
In the Doll vs Pot topic, I could have used this one (see below) completely on the opposite side of the scale. What would be the reaction here? That this setting blows away the subtile dynamite of the doll?
Nearly every photographer of graveyards or abandoned places carry a kind of doll with him, it is so cheap, dynamite or not. The pot picture abstract from the obvious, and that makes the image interesting for me.
There you are: the black/white "doll" carries a bang because of the tones, the location and the juxtaposition of death and faux life. The doll was stillborn at the factory. I can imagine a host of implications in the photograph.
I had no idea some photographers carried dolls in their backpacks; no wonder some get funny looks from the passing public. No wonder so many versions of backpack are available! Family-size must be available too, I guess.
But the pot, regardless of what it might have meant to the photographer at the time, is just a bland representation of what was. It is the equivalent of a picture of somebody climbing into a bus. Ony if that someone is in some way special, does it register. If not special, just another example of what is, with no further excitement to impart. Is that really worth shooting and processing?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 08, 2018, 09:25:10 am
... However when an image merely triggers projection of the viewer on the image, i personally consider it shoddy art, because while it may be psychologically revealling, it also means your art expression was no better than a Rorschach test.
What if the whole art, and in particular modern and abstract art, is one giant Rorschach’s test?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 08, 2018, 09:28:23 am
..l Is that really worth shooting and processing?
A photo of a decaying, abandoned pot/plant might be.
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 09:34:10 am
What if the whole art, and in particular modern and abstract art, is one giant Rorschach’s test?
I think that you might have a point, going back at least into the 19th century.
I'd suggest it began when the appreciation of good draughtsmanship began to fade. Drip-art can be nothing but what you suggested it might. Which does not imply that I don't like a lot of that sort of artwork. I think my interest in "found painting" stems from the same root, and as I am lacking in the painterly skills, the camera lets me play on the edges... However, even with the dripping paint, you can't do it well without a great sense of colour and dynamics: the artist's mind is always essential.
Rob
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 09:34:41 am
A photo of a decaying, abandoned pot/plant might be.
Agreed 100%.
A photo-journey around my terrace, post green-fingered Ann, might reward me with a new series!
Rob
Post by: 32BT on September 08, 2018, 09:59:51 am
What if the whole art, and in particular modern and abstract art, is one giant Rorschach’s test?
Then it wouldn't enrich our lifes...
Post by: Ivophoto on September 08, 2018, 10:17:21 am
I think that you might have a point, going back at least into the 19th century.
I'd suggest it began when the appreciation of good draughtsmanship began to fade. Drip-art can be nothing but what you suggested it might. Which does not imply that I don't like a lot of that sort of artwork. I think my interest in "found painting"s stems from the same root, and as I am lacking in the painterly skills, the camera lets me play on the edges... However, even with the dripping paint, you can't do it well without a great sense of colour and dynamics: the artist's mind is always essential.
Rob
I can loose a whole day looking at a Pollock. I had friends who practiced the drip painting plus sliding and rolling on the canvas, they never came close to even one Pollock drip. Because your quote: the artist's mind is always essential.
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 11:13:24 am
Then it wouldn't enrich our lifes...
Why not, Oscar?
It's what we think we see and learn that brings the richness or otherwise. As per the Leiter ponytail shot referred to elsewhere, it's the revelation of a truth behind the shot that can sometimes disappoint.
Post by: 32BT on September 08, 2018, 12:37:13 pm
Why not, Oscar?
It's what we think we see and learn that brings the richness or otherwise. As per the Leiter ponytail shot referred to elsewhere, it's the revelation of a truth behind the shot that can sometimes disappoint.
But that only surfaces insights that are already available, even if only on a subconscious level previously. It doesn't provide new insights or experiences, ones that can be applied later in different context.
An abstraction, if understood, allows one to transfer an experience from one event to a different event. A Rorschach test primarily surfaces an experience that someone was most likely already applying to a different event...
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 01:36:07 pm
But that only surfaces insights that are already available, even if only on a subconscious level previously. It doesn't provide new insights or experiences, ones that can be applied later in different context.
An abstraction, if understood, allows one to transfer an experience from one event to a different event. A Rorschach test primarily surfaces an experience that someone was most likely already applying to a different event...
You're looking for photographic original sin.
;-)
Post by: 32BT on September 08, 2018, 01:59:22 pm
You're looking for photographic original sin.
;-)
8)
No, that be your expertise...
On the other hand, considering what painters have presented us over the course of history, that would hardly be surprising. Which kind of negates my argument, i realize. :-(
Post by: RSL on September 08, 2018, 02:12:16 pm
The flower pot is just what it looks like. Correct. And different viewer have different reactions on it. So how does that match?
It’s the viewers projection.
This is an important mechanism and used in conceptual and cerebral art. Why could photography not be of that kind?
I was walking in the mall today, Ivo. You usually do that this time of year because of the temperature and humidity outside. I thought about your pot as I walked by this closed room. This is just what it looks like: a table on its side and a dustpan on the floor. In concept it's very much like your dark pot in a blank, uninteresting hallway. How to you react to it? What's your projection?
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 02:36:42 pm
I was walking in the mall today, Ivo. You usually do that this time of year because of the temperature and humidity outside. I thought about your pot as I walked by this closed room. This is just what it looks like: a table on its side and a dustpan on the floor. In concept it's very much like your dark pot in a blank, uninteresting hallway. How to you react to it? What's your projection?
Take a look at the plant in pot picture and look at the perspective, it is not just a snapshot.
Your shot does have some potential, why don't you use your composition skills to photograph these kind of images? Everything can by photographed in such a way it is a good picture. That makes things interesting and would enhance your daily mall walk. It could solve your summer light in Florida quest. I took the liberty to tweak your shot in a way I would have approached it, if this scene would have grasped my attention (it wouldn't, I guess)
That does not mean I find the image not worth looking at. I ask myself why was this picture made? I look true the fence, I can imagine it is a closed slot in the male? And then I wonder.... How is it possible this mall owner doesn't provide a cache l'oeil to keep the shopping experience optimal. Or is this there an economic issue in your neighborhood? Or did you put me on the wrong leg (very legitimate) ... etc etc
Even in this snapshot there is enough to look at, only, if men want to take the effort and have the open mind.
Serious, at this moment you get killed in Florida by heat and moisture and you have to wait until bearable weather, why don't you take the challenge and try your composition skills to make a decent photo of nothing.
Wy don't you post this in the topic I opened?
Post by: RSL on September 08, 2018, 03:35:12 pm
Your shot does have some potential. . .
Ivo, neither my shot nor your pot has ANY potential at all.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 04:04:18 pm
Ivo, neither my shot nor your pot has ANY potential at all.
Ha well, wat baat kaars en bril..... (Wat is the use of a candle and glasses....)
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 08, 2018, 04:50:46 pm
... why don't you take the challenge and try your composition skills to make a decent photo of nothing.
We are too old to practice our skills on nothing, Ivo. At least I am. I can hardly lift my camera at spectacular, let alone nothing.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 08, 2018, 05:01:48 pm
We are too old to practice our skills on nothing, Ivo. At least I am. I can hardly lift my camera at spectacular, let alone nothing.I did see some examples of the spectacular in the landscape section.
All this modernisme is not very Lula,
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 05:56:00 pm
And yes, you are quite right: it does pass the time.
Trouble is, all amateur photography is about that, both the humble/exotic holiday meal-shot as the selfie, and the landscape when there's no storm... It's the problem defined by Donovan, and I've repeated it so often everybody and his dog knows it by heart by now. The only viable, worthwhile alternative to commission is the commission of sin in the snapping of people who are not expecting the service.
Basically, only people are interesting enough to warrant the effort, frustration and oft-experienced disappointment of abject failure. Only people provide one with the challenge of something that has the wit to outwit one. That's why so few people want to face the challenge: they could lose. That's why fashion was always a buzz: not only did you have to beat the hell out of the clothes, you had to make sure the girl was on your side too; they can be with you but against you, all at the same time. And still get paid. Whilst you carry the can.
Would you spend time, had you the choice, on a less demanding, less psychologically testing photographic adventure?
Post by: elliot_n on September 08, 2018, 06:24:29 pm
Post by: Ivophoto on September 09, 2018, 03:06:57 am
.
Would you spend time, had you the choice, on a less demanding, less psychologically testing photographic adventure?
The moment I loose the ability to be wondered by what I see daily, I will have to make this decision.
It’s not the first full time pro who sits in his chair with a killed passion after or even during his career
Post by: Rob C on September 09, 2018, 07:05:13 am
Donovan was a hack.
At least he made money and enjoyed his modern photography.
If that constitures hack, the so be it: I wish I had been hack enough!
Was it Jerry Garcia said: "we didn't sell out because we didn't know how to"? Think about it: you believe in the artistic sanctity of poverty?
Rob
Post by: elliot_n on September 09, 2018, 07:28:36 am
Do you like Donovan's work? Looking through his online archive, I find it very flat. There's much more energy in the work of Bailey or Duffy.
http://www.terencedonovan.co.uk
It's not the amateur who has the problem - it's the jaded professional.
Post by: Rob C on September 09, 2018, 07:42:34 am
The moment I loose the ability to be wondered by what I see daily, I will have to make this decision.
It’s not the first full time pro who sits in his chair with a killed passion after or even during his career
Indeed, and perhaps Donovan's suicide was directly connected to that instead of the medication that has been forwarded as cause of his act.
It could be the result of many reasons, but I wonder if he was already feeling the effects of the changes in the zeitgeist, too. Duffy vanished from stills well before that, and Bailey seemed to have been constructed from teflon with the added bonus of being a veritable cult figure with the general public whereas the other two were more heroes within the business than in a larger world. Bailey carried on being his own product, and he still exists large in the public consciousness. Eventual hugs from the gallery/art complex did little to ruin his popularity. After a while, his name may have become even more valuable to a client than his actual photographs.
It's often said by pundits that a working photographer's fame - if he has any - generally lasts for a maximum of fifteen years, give or take one or two. I suspect it's a general truth, because anyone's success is dependent on the people providing the work wanting to keep doing that. As those people change, retire etc. there's absolutely no guarantee new people don't want to introduce their own circle of people, thus displacing the old anointeds.
Also, constant exposure to commercial pressures, often (I have this from personal experience) resulting in the selection of inadequate models, misdirected priorities and so on can bring about a sense of pointlessness in carrying on. Often, if the fuck off money is there, that's what folks do. I did much that myself after some really bad experiences and deplorable handling of both self as photographer/designer and projects. It hurts very deeply to see opportunities being wilfully destroyed because some asshole thinks you might be the route into some idiot female's pants.
Rob
Post by: Rob C on September 09, 2018, 08:14:10 am
If you only do it for the money, you're going run it to problems when you try to do it for yourself.
Do you like Donovan's work? Looking through his online archive, I find it very flat. There's much more energy in the work of Bailey or Duffy.
http://www.terencedonovan.co.uk
It's not the amateur who has the problem - it's the jaded professional.
1. That depends: some become snappers because they fail at something else; some, like moi, because they couldn't imagine doing anything else. I had a helluva struggle getting into pro employment in Scotland. Nobody knew any pros other than wedding guys, and I'd rather have carried on in engineering than mess around in there. In the end, I got the break in my fourth year as apprentice engineer and never looked at anything else, even in the several tough times that inevitably came along to test my resolve and my wife's faith.
2. I do like Donovan's work, but it's decidedly diifferent to that of the other members of the black trinity. I feel he's much more a studio photographer than the other two. Duffy may have struck a balance point between the two, but for me, Bailey was a master location shooter. I also think Donovan photographed men better than the rest could. No, I won't go there because I don't know.
But then you have to be aware that in the UK we were pretty blind to the European people shooting fashion, and as far as the US was concerned, few in Britain spoke about anyone but Avedon when the reality was that New York was full of stars. If you bought Vogue within Britain, your main exposure was to the Brits.
3. Not sure that's the case. Even within LuLa, one of the most progressive and encompassing sites we have, the trouble seems to be that people are foundering. Were that not the case, they wouldn't be asking so many questions, looking for affirmation from others and constantly obsessing about gear. Only when you really don't have a visual point of view in which you, yourself, believe, do you feel any compulsion to consult other people on matters aesthetic. So what can you do other than stop? You revert to GAS, of course, and that's an unlimited source of engagement until cameras end.
For the jaded professional, it's a tough call; for the jaded amateur, it's just a matter of finding another hobby. Nobody will care a damn if you quit, and you can just blow your pennies on other things.
Then for the ex-pro far from jaded, the problem becomes one of substitution: the option of quitting photography is not available; photography presumably made you seek that as occupation, so you are not usually going to switch off because you no longer do it to make money today. With the commission gone, you have to come up with the substitute, yet a substitute that doesn't make you feel you have fallen off the wagon.
That one is tough to resolve.