Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: shutterpup on May 06, 2010, 05:21:10 pm
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4584854139_a0d60a305c.jpg)
-
"This photo is currently unavailable"
-
"This photo is currently unavailable"
Available now.
-
Whao. Wonderfull location. Where is that?
Actually, be carrefull of the floods, after the worsed monsson winter we had in Madrid (yes it rains in Madrid...from time to time), the weather is becoming halth crazy.
I don't trust any more the global warming. Seems more than we are going to face soon another ice age, we have the coldest temperature from 1902.
Spring, may, Madrid, Spain, writing now absolutely freezed.
-
Whao. Wonderfull location. Where is that?
Actually, be carrefull of the floods, after the worsed monsson winter we had in Madrid (yes it rains in Madrid...from time to time), the weather is becoming halth crazy.
I don't trust any more the global warming. Seems more than we are going to face soon another ice age, we have the coldest temperature from 1902.
Spring, may, Madrid, Spain, writing now absolutely freezed.
Fred,
This is NorthEastern Oklahoma Grand Lake country. There are numerous small towns around the lake which is about 12 miles long. We are about half a city block from the lake's edge. The owner of the RV park swears that the actual park never floods although the adjacent storage lot will flood with enough rain.
I agree that we are headed toward another ice age of sorts.
-
Whao. Wonderfull location. Where is that?
Actually, be carrefull of the floods, after the worsed monsson winter we had in Madrid (yes it rains in Madrid...from time to time), the weather is becoming halth crazy.
I don't trust any more the global warming. Seems more than we are going to face soon another ice age, we have the coldest temperature from 1902.
Spring, may, Madrid, Spain, writing now absolutely freezed.
Fred, when my daughter came to spend some days with me just before the airport closures, she also brought me a pair of those gloves without tips on the fingers so that I could still work the mouse without losing the feeling in my hands because of the dampness and cold here. I have not used them yet: it's the damn tips of the fingers that get the loss of feeling the most! Does my daughter really, really love me at all?
Rob C
-
Try a trackball. They are a little difficult for some to learn but cause a whole lot less stress in the hand, arm shoulder, neck...
Some people (me) even have a traditional mouse plus a trackball and switch back and forth
-
I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hijacking of my thread by Rob C and Justan. Fred is fine; no problem there.
All I'd like is some helpful critique. I thought that's what this part of the forum is for.
-
Well, the location looks beautiful. As to the image, I'd put it in the 'nice, but not spectacular' category.
Mike.
-
Color is nice. I don't care for the foreground.
-
Well, the location looks beautiful. As to the image, I'd put it in the 'nice, but not spectacular' category.
Mike.
Mike,
I'm curious as to what I could have done when I took this to make it become closer to "spectacular" category?
-
Color is nice. I don't care for the foreground.
I don't particularly either. But then I feel it's incomplete without a foreground literally of ground that bounds that lake. What would you have done differently at the time of shooting? I ask that specifically because I can crop the heck out of it afterwards but would prefer to improve my initial composition skills.
I too like the color.
-
I don't particularly either. But then I feel it's incomplete without a foreground literally of ground that bounds that lake. What would you have done differently at the time of shooting? I ask that specifically because I can crop the heck out of it afterwards but would prefer to improve my initial composition skills.
I too like the color.
I agree with Mike. But I would not fret about it too much, it's pretty good. We all have to accept that some of our images are going to be better than others, or at any rate, more or less appealing than other images. What to do to improve the image? I am not sure there is anything to improve. However, I can suggest that you try to reshoot another time and wait for a coloured sky and use a split neutral density filter to retain the balance of land and sky. Twilight, whether morning or night, is the best for even light of broad scene. To me, the more uninteresting, or silhouette-like a composition, the more you should keep your foreground to a minimum, like a sliver, allowing the water and sky to dominate even more. If the sun was behind you going down, this is the magic time where the land and sky are almost evenly lit, and it should allow for the foreground to be more visible and less silhouette-like. Having said all that, one should allow a feeling for the scene to dictate the actual composition.
JMR
-
John,
Thank you for a thoughtful response that provides me with something besides my gut feeling as a guide the many next times that I make a photograph. You succeeded in addressing my foremost concerns of composition along with the lighting.
-
Mike,
I'm curious as to what I could have done when I took this to make it become closer to "spectacular" category?
Who's to say? Different perspective, different scene, different lens, different... The colour of the sunset is nice, but there isn't anything in the image to hold interest. Now, that's only my opinion. If you like it, that's what's most important.
Mike.
-
Who's to say? Different perspective, different scene, different lens, different... The colour of the sunset is nice, but there isn't anything in the image to hold interest. Now, that's only my opinion. If you like it, that's what's most important.
Mike.
Ok. I get it. It makes me think of the line about a picture being about "just another sunset." There really doesn't appear to be anything beyond the color of the twilit sky. I find that this place rests my spirit better than any other I've found. The quietness, calmness, the near solitude in spite of this being an RV park of some 120 spaces. I was trying to create a photo that spoke of these feelings. Perhaps including a figure would have helped me to achieve more of a sense of it.
-
Sorry. Double post.
-
I find that this place rests my spirit better than any other I've found. The quietness, calmness, the ...
That's probably why all of us have drifted into the arms of LuLa - calm, peace, cordiality, it's all here!
Rob C
-
That's probably why all of us have drifted into the arms of LuLa - calm, peace, cordiality, it's all here!
Rob C
Except when 35mm vs MFD shows up
-
I don't particularly either. But then I feel it's incomplete without a foreground literally of ground that bounds that lake. What would you have done differently at the time of shooting? I ask that specifically because I can crop the heck out of it afterwards but would prefer to improve my initial composition skills.
I too like the color.
Without being there I really don't know.
-
That's probably why all of us have drifted into the arms of LuLa - calm, peace, cordiality, it's all here!
Rob C
-
Except when 35mm vs MFD shows up
-
Without being there I really don't know.
So it's a subjective evaluation and not necessarily an objective one? I can live with that as long as I know that's where the comment is coming from. But in the past you(the collective you of those offering critique)have occasionally acted as though they had all the answers. I guess you all don't after all:)
-
... Different perspective, different scene, different lens, different...
... photographer?
-
So it's a subjective evaluation and not necessarily an objective one? I can live with that as long as I know that's where the comment is coming from. But in the past you(the collective you of those offering critique)have occasionally acted as though they had all the answers. I guess you all don't after all:)
Guess not.
You said the photo you wanted to take needed a foreground. The one presented isn't good. (To me it looks like the Zodiac murdering someone on the beach.) About all I can offer is "put something else in the foreground". What that might be I have no idea. You're the one on the ground.
Or were you looking for a crop? Try cropping to the right of the tree and at the outcrop of land the tree is on. Oooo.. a crop suggestion. I hear Russ stirring now...
-
... in the past you ... have occasionally acted as though they had all the answers. I guess you all don't after all:)
This sounds (to me at least) as if you are blaming us for not having the answer how you could have made it a spectacular photograph? It also sounds like you are presupposing there are "secret recipes of spectacular photography", but we just do not know them that well.
In my humble opinion, there are no "recipes", especially not deliverable in a few forum postings. There are however, tools and ingredients (that one can learn over time), but how well you mix them into your own recipe depends either on your talent or on years of honing whatever skills you were born with. You know, "nature vs. nurture" debate.
-
... I find that this place rests my spirit better than any other I've found. The quietness, calmness, the near solitude...
Now, this is something I consider extremely important when shooting: a feeling for the place and moment. You got that. The next step would be to align what is in your head (or heart) with what is in the final photograph. And, in the case of your photograph, this is where I sense the disconnect between the intention and the result: the photo seems too "busy" to be able to communicate "calmness". Too many things going around, trees, branches, stumps, bushes, surfaces, etc. Perhaps finding an angle that would concentrate on just a few elements of the scene against the monochromatic color of the sky and its reflection would better suit the calmness theme.
-
You said the photo you wanted to take needed a foreground. The one presented isn't good. (To me it looks like the Zodiac murdering someone on the beach.) About all I can offer is "put something else in the foreground". What that might be I have no idea. You're the one on the ground.
I love your analogy of the foreground to the Zodiac killer because that's what I see when I look at the foreground also:) I'll go back out and find that angle and then avoid it like the plague!
Nope. Don't want to crop. Want to learn better composition while taking the picture instead of cropping the heck out of it afterwards.
By the way, thanks for the conversation here.
-
This sounds (to me at least) as if you are blaming us for not having the answer how you could have made it a spectacular photograph? It also sounds like you are presupposing there are "secret recipes of spectacular photography", but we just do not know them that well.
In my humble opinion, there are no "recipes", especially not deliverable in a few forum postings. There are however, tools and ingredients (that one can learn over time), but how well you mix them into your own recipe depends either on your talent or on years of honing whatever skills you were born with. You know, "nature vs. nurture" debate.
I agree with what you're saying about no magic recipes. And I'm sorry that it may have come off that I am blaming the collective you on the fact that I've not taken an effective photograph. I'm just frustrated that what was in my heart did not translate the way I'd hoped. Time for me to go back and try again.
-
Now, this is something I consider extremely important when shooting: a feeling for the place and moment. You got that. The next step would be to align what is in your head (or heart) with what is in the final photograph. And, in the case of your photograph, this is where I sense the disconnect between the intention and the result: the photo seems too "busy" to be able to communicate "calmness". Too many things going around, trees, branches, stumps, bushes, surfaces, etc. Perhaps finding an angle that would concentrate on just a few elements of the scene against the monochromatic color of the sky and its reflection would better suit the calmness theme.
I hadn't thought of this as being a "busy" photo but I can see why you'd say that. As you've said, simplification would go a long way to achieving the calmness theme that I'd like to present.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, and especially for getting past what I inconsiderately said about the collective you. It was not meant to flame.
-
Shutter Pup,
This is how I would interpret your image to make it more similar to what I like:
(http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/OPP/Briot-original.jpg)
Eventually all art is a reflection of the artist. In helping others improve their work we often point to what we like ourselves.
-
Shutter Pup,
Eventually all art is a reflection of the artist. In helping others improve their work we often point to what we like ourselves.
This is a very wise statement. It rather goes along with what Mike said in my other thread concerning this photograph when he said that 'I wanted to teach you to be yourself; instead I taught you to be me.'(paraphrased heavily).
Thanks to both you and Mike for your comments to me.
-
This is a very wise statement. It rather goes along with what Mike said in my other thread concerning this photograph when he said that 'I wanted to teach you to be yourself; instead I taught you to be me.'(paraphrased heavily).
Thanks to both you and Mike for your comments to me.
This is why students decide to study with a specific teacher. There is a direct relationship between what one does and what one teaches. This is true of photography as well as of any other art. It is no different for painting, dance, sculpture, etc.
Regarding being yourself versus following someone else's style, you first have to learn someone's style well before you can create your own style. You cannot just start to work on your own style "out of the blue". This is a crucial step that many students miss. I hear many say "they want to develop a personal style" who do not know how to do a style yet. You have to first acquire the skills necessary to do someone's style well. Then you can move further by developing your own style which, most of the time, is an extension of someone else's style.
-
This is why students decide to study with a specific teacher. There is a direct relationship between what one does and what one teaches. This is true of photography as well as of any other art. It is no different for painting, dance, sculpture, etc.
Regarding being yourself versus following someone else's style, you first have to learn someone's style well before you can create your own style. You cannot just start to work on your own style "out of the blue". This is a crucial step that many students miss. I hear many say "they want to develop a personal style" who do not know how to do a style yet. You have to first acquire the skills necessary to do someone's style well. Then you can move further by developing your own style which, most of the time, is an extension of someone else's style.
Alain,
Do you have to fully learn someone else's style, or do you simply want to engrain skills into yourself. Or does it boil down to the same end? I really don't want to make mediocre photographs.
-
This is why students decide to study with a specific teacher. There is a direct relationship between what one does and what one teaches. This is true of photography as well as of any other art. It is no different for painting, dance, sculpture, etc.
Regarding being yourself versus following someone else's style, you first have to learn someone's style well before you can create your own style. You cannot just start to work on your own style "out of the blue". This is a crucial step that many students miss. I hear many say "they want to develop a personal style" who do not know how to do a style yet. You have to first acquire the skills necessary to do someone's style well. Then you can move further by developing your own style which, most of the time, is an extension of someone else's style.
Agree 100%.
The funny thing is even if one can feel a little cautious to put himself in the end of just one master, when you do a research you end generally attracted by masters who have similar style. So this is not limitating at all.
As life is question of personal vibrations, and these do not harmonised with everything, but kind of "natural groups".
I'd love to make the photographic path now with just one master I admire o respect 100%.
Cheers.
-
Agree 100%.
The funny thing is even if one can feel a little cautious to put himself in the end of just one master, when you do a research you end generally attracted by masters who have similar style. So this is not limitating at all.
As life is question of personal vibrations, and these do not harmonised with everything, but kind of "natural groups".
I'd love to make the photographic path now with just one master I admire o respect 100%.
Cheers.
Fred,
So you don't feel that it's a lack of skill that leads you in the style of another? And then the truth, as you gravitate toward those photographers whose work you feel attraction to, becomes possibly that of the dreaded word, cliche?
-
Fred,
So you don't feel that it's a lack of skill that leads you in the style of another? And then the truth, as you gravitate toward those photographers whose work you feel attraction to, becomes possibly that of the dreaded word, cliche?
The risk you point exists. We see that in most of the "religions" for example.
But when you are determined to do something singular, the master is a guide and a sort of "energy-knowledge" exange.
Then, you have to break this relation, you have to liberate yourself and express yourself with your particular feeling, exactly like what happens with our familly. The problem comes when there is not the audacity to break the link.
-
Fred,
So you don't feel that it's a lack of skill that leads you in the style of another? And then the truth, as you gravitate toward those photographers whose work you feel attraction to, becomes possibly that of the dreaded word, cliche?
You have to acquire skills, and that is best accomplished by studying with someone who has skills that you relate to, that you are attracted to. The question to ask is "what is my skills level?" We start with answering this question with new students.
Regarding cliches, duplicating the work of a master that came before you is, I am afraid, an inevitable step one has to take. The Louvre used to be the place where painting students went to copy the work of the masters, as part of their training. It wasn't called cliche then, it was called study. The fear of doing what has already been done can result in the inability to develop necessary skills...
-
You have to acquire skills, and that is best accomplished by studying with someone who has skills that you relate to, that you are attracted to. The question to ask is "what is my skills level?" We start with answering this question with new students.
Regarding cliches, duplicating the work of a master that came before you is, I am afraid, an inevitable step one has to take. The Louvre used to be the place where painting students went to copy the work of the masters, as part of their training. It wasn't called cliche then, it was called study. The fear of doing what has already been done can result in the inability to develop necessary skills...
Exactly!
This is a point too much misunderstood.
The skills are the passports to the creativity, not so much the opposite.
It is interesting to note that many genious painters, who broke completely the established rules in their carriers, did adquire traditional skills before and most of the time even copied the masters styles. Picasso is a perfect example.
-
By the way Alain, I liked very much but specially the #2 the composing with colors articles.
Well I'll just ad that I'd love to have here in Madrid some Alain Briot or Michael Reichmann to be able to learn more
in a more human way ( and let's say renaissance ) than the inner monologue or a school.
-
Fred,
Good point. Picasso started with very "classical" paintings and portraits.
He did not do cubism when he just started! Only much later, after moving to Paris, meeting other painters, talking with them, engaging in an exchange of views on where painting was going at the time, being influenced by their ideas and forming his own vision did he start doing what he is now known for.
He is not alone in this approach. Most artists follow this pattern. The most famous paintings by Monet are the last ones he created for example. Same with Van Gogh (there's an iPhone/iPad app called VanGogh HD that shows his work in chronological fashion by the way. Recommended to study this point and only 99 cents if I remember well).
It's a mistake to think you can start by doing something unique. Most everyone starts by doing something that has been done before. The first goal is to do that which has been done before well. Then the next goal is to go further that what has been done so far.
-
Yes Alain.
Ironically, the most free mind people, real artists I had the chance to meet so far in my life had very much respect for being inspired by their masters.
And most of the time, I speak with breakrulers or posers that present themselves as truth artists and they are clones of the déjà vu.
I think that following the master skills is the best way to obtain freedom and proper powerfull style.
-
Fred and Alain,
I understand what you are both saying about skills. As my ability as a writer has progressed, I've found that my writing has improved greatly when reading the "great authors." It's not so much dissecting how to say this or that; rather it's being influenced by an author's sense of rhythm, phrasing, contextual use of creating imagery. I haven't copied an author's subject matter or his words at all; I've internalized successful ways of putting words on the page.
May this be what you both speak of; may it be the result of acquainting oneself with the masters? The internalization of skills which can free one to concentrate, not on method, but on expression of an inner vision?
I am a very visual person. I make word images of those pictures I cannot seem to resolve with my camera. I've never thought of myself as being a visual arts creator, nor have I wanted to be successful at that until now. It makes sense to me that just as I've immersed myself with the great authors and felt their influence in my writing, I also need to do that photographically.
Thank you both for pointing this out.
-
Fred and Alain,
I understand what you are both saying about skills. As my ability as a writer has progressed, I've found that my writing has improved greatly when reading the "great authors." It's not so much dissecting how to say this or that; rather it's being influenced by an author's sense of rhythm, phrasing, contextual use of creating imagery. I haven't copied an author's subject matter or his words at all; I've internalized successful ways of putting words on the page.
May this be what you both speak of; may it be the result of acquainting oneself with the masters? The internalization of skills which can free one to concentrate, not on method, but on expression of an inner vision?
I am a very visual person. I make word images of those pictures I cannot seem to resolve with my camera. I've never thought of myself as being a visual arts creator, nor have I wanted to be successful at that until now. It makes sense to me that just as I've immersed myself with the great authors and felt their influence in my writing, I also need to do that photographically.
Thank you both for pointing this out.
Shutterpup,
Yes, this is what we (Fred and I) are talking about. I believe that we desire to create that which we admire. We want to learn how someone made something that enthralls us, something that gives us pleasure, or excitement, or crates any other emotional response.
Learning takes place when we admire and study works that have an emotional impact upon us. But this takes longer than studying with a master, someone who is where we want to be, because when studying on our own we have to "decipher" the work, figure out how it was created. Deconstruct it in a way. As Jacques Derrida explains in his deconstruction theory, by deconstructing a text (and any work of art by extension) we engage in a "reconstruction" of this text, in a rewriting of the "text", in our own words, in our own images, in our own way. By studying with a master, we receive help in deconstructing the work. Because the master already knows how the work was created, he can explain how we can go about creating it ourselves. We save time, lots of time.
I asked once one of my teachers, when studying at the Beaux Arts in Paris, why I needed to be in a school where all we did all day was painting and drawing, something which I could do at home just as well. the answer I received was that, indeed, I could do all this at home. However, it would take me many more years to get where I would get in a couple of years working at the beaux arts with the help of teachers and with the examples of other students. The same can be said, by extension, about photography workshops or other schools of art.
This is, in a nutshell, the process we go through when we learn how to copy the work of the masters. We have to get rid of the guilt assotiated with creating a copy of someone else's work. We are not creating a copy. We are deconstructing then reconstructing a text, an image, or any work of art we want to learn how to create.
-
You where in the Beaux-Arts de Paris ?
I was there in 91 if my memory does not fail.
Worked with Claude Viallat (from support-surfaces mouvement) that was in the Nîmes Fines Arts before.
Then the german photographer Balthazar Burkhard.
I do miss the Seine border and the cafe terrasse from time to time.
That was great fun.
We used to end-up the nights in la Bastille and sometimes in a disco called "les bains douches".
Serge Gainsbourg and Jacques Dutronc where haunting these places completly drunk, and the policemen bringing them back at their home...
Unthinkable nowdays.
-
I was there in the late 70's early 80's :-)
-
Lucky, I think I did just knew the very end of the good days.
Just enough to distract myself too much
-
Shutterpup,
Yes, this is what we (Fred and I) are talking about. I believe that we desire to create that which we admire. We want to learn how someone made something that enthralls us, something that gives us pleasure, or excitement, or crates any other emotional response.
Learning takes place when we admire and study works that have an emotional impact upon us. But this takes longer than studying with a master, someone who is where we want to be, because when studying on our own we have to "decipher" the work, figure out how it was created. Deconstruct it in a way. As Jacques Derrida explains in his deconstruction theory, by deconstructing a text (and any work of art by extension) we engage in a "reconstruction" of this text, in a rewriting of the "text", in our own words, in our own images, in our own way. By studying with a master, we receive help in deconstructing the work. Because the master already knows how the work was created, he can explain how we can go about creating it ourselves. We save time, lots of time.
I asked once one of my teachers, when studying at the Beaux Arts in Paris, why I needed to be in a school where all we did all day was painting and drawing, something which I could do at home just as well. the answer I received was that, indeed, I could do all this at home. However, it would take me many more years to get where I would get in a couple of years working at the beaux arts with the help of teachers and with the examples of other students. The same can be said, by extension, about photography workshops or other schools of art.
This is, in a nutshell, the process we go through when we learn how to copy the work of the masters. We have to get rid of the guilt assotiated with creating a copy of someone else's work. We are not creating a copy. We are deconstructing then reconstructing a text, an image, or any work of art we want to learn how to create.
I really think that these 2 sentences resume perfectly all the process.
I'm 100% on line with Alain.
Regards.
-
I really think that these 2 sentences resume perfectly all the process.
I'm 100% on line with Alain.
Regards.
I can see that that makes sense.
The words below were copied out of the thread here titled "Driftwood" and is attributed to John R Smith if I'm not mistaken. I thought these words summed up another angle on what we're discussing here:
"But I tend to take pictures like this too, I see something and think "Brilliant! That's great", get the shot, but then on reflection realise that simple chunks of nature are not in themselves great pictures. The truth is we have to do more than just 'capture' the landscape or the world out there. We have to DO something to it - and I don't mean mess about with it for hours in Photoshop - we have to transform it with a personal vision somehow. Which may mean waiting days for the best light, or the perfect sky, or 'walking the shot' looking for better angles, or just plain being ready when something magic happens."
-
I can see that that makes sense.
The words below were copied out of the thread here titled "Driftwood" and is attributed to John R Smith if I'm not mistaken. I thought these words summed up another angle on what we're discussing here:
"But I tend to take pictures like this too, I see something and think "Brilliant! That's great", get the shot, but then on reflection realise that simple chunks of nature are not in themselves great pictures. The truth is we have to do more than just 'capture' the landscape or the world out there. We have to DO something to it - and I don't mean mess about with it for hours in Photoshop - we have to transform it with a personal vision somehow. Which may mean waiting days for the best light, or the perfect sky, or 'walking the shot' looking for better angles, or just plain being ready when something magic happens."
Yes, this does make sense but it points to another aspect of creating art and that is the difference between literal and subjective representations, i.e. the difference between what the camera captures which is a literal representation and what the artist sees and creates which is a subjective representation. Art is by nature subjective, therefore we have to change what the camera captures or we are left with a documentative record, not with art.
This is an entirely different discussion than what we are talking about here which is the process of developing a personal style. It is assumed when you start on the path towards developing a personal style that the topic of literal vs subjective representations has already been covered.
If you look back at the modifications I made to your photograph, these point to how I subjectively see the scene. I turned it into something quite different than the literal capture created by the camera by removing elements, modifying colors, increasing saturation levels, changing contrast levels and altering the format by vertical stretching.
-
Yes, this does make sense but it points to another aspect of creating art and that is the difference between literal and subjective representations, i.e. the difference between what the camera captures which is a literal representation and what the artist sees and creates which is a subjective representation. Art is by nature subjective, therefore we have to change what the camera captures or we are left with a documentative record, not with art.
This is an entirely different discussion than what we are talking about here which is the process of developing a personal style. It is assumed when you start on the path towards developing a personal style that the topic of literal vs subjective representations has already been covered.
If you look back at the modifications I made to your photograph, these point to how I subjectively see the scene. I turned it into something quite different than the literal capture created by the camera by removing elements, modifying colors, increasing saturation levels, changing contrast levels and altering the format by vertical stretching.
So Alain, forgive if I'm dense. Do you feel the subjective representation is actually a manipulation(not a dirty word)after the camera has done its best with the settings that have been input to get the literal representation as close as possible to your personal vision?
-
Yes, this does make sense but it points to another aspect of creating art and that is the difference between literal and subjective representations, i.e. the difference between what the camera captures which is a literal representation and what the artist sees and creates which is a subjective representation. Art is by nature subjective, therefore we have to change what the camera captures or we are left with a documentative record, not with art.
As the person who was quoted here, I would like to clarify my position - I don't necessarily agree that "we have to change what the camera captures", although I often will. Some of the pictures which please me the most I simply printed, because I got it right in camera.
John
-
So Alain, forgive if I'm dense. Do you feel the subjective representation is actually a manipulation(not a dirty word)after the camera has done its best with the settings that have been input to get the literal representation as close as possible to your personal vision?
I have an essay about this subject on this site at this link:
Just Say Yes essay (http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/just-say-yes.shtml)
It is best you read it first, unless you have already, otherwise I'd basically repeat what I wrote in it.
Regarding whether this represents manipulation or not is basically for you to decide. For me, the changes I make to my images represent my subjective representation of the scene, my goal being to re-create visually in the image my original emotional experience of the scene. Without making the changes I listed previously, and more, I would not be able to create the photographs that I want to create.
In regards to your work, you need to decide what your views on this subject are. For me, what the camera captures alone is far from representing my emotional response to the scenes that I photograph. I need to modify the image captured by the camera in order to show what I saw.
-
I have an essay about this subject on this site at this link:
Just Say Yes essay (http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/just-say-yes.shtml)
It is best you read it first, unless you have already, otherwise I'd basically repeat what I wrote in it.
Regarding manipulation or not this is basically for you to decide. For me, the changes I make to my images represent my subjective representation of the scene, my goal being to re-create visually in the image my original emotional experience of the scene. Without making the changes I listed previously, and more, I would not be able to create the photographs that I want to create.
Alain,
Thanks for the link. I'll read and be back.
"In regards to your work, you need to decide what your views on this subject are. For me, what the camera captures alone is far from representing my emotional response to the scenes that I photograph. I need to modify the image captured by the camera in order to show what I saw."
And this is what I'm finding with my own photos.
-
Alain,
Thanks for the link. I'll read and be back.
"In regards to your work, you need to decide what your views on this subject are. For me, what the camera captures alone is far from representing my emotional response to the scenes that I photograph. I need to modify the image captured by the camera in order to show what I saw."
And this is what I'm finding with my own photos.
These decisions are part of defining your own style. But, you do need to learn a style first. You need to acquire the technical foundations that are necessary for quality work.
-
When I was in fine arts, I did assistant job with a master call Balthazar Burkhard.
He was not teaching in a traditional way, but using what in some secret societies they call: "showing objects" or "objects showned",
that means that he was just doing what he would have done with us. Teaching was the action itself.
At that time I was very involved into large formats, but the lab was problematic: could not find the way to develop properly at that sizes.
Balthazar was doing really huge formats. He did that with a poultry feed. I had the solution I was looking for. It would have took me a lot of hassle
to find it by myself. Lot of lost time and energy. Just being next to the master, many things happen, many answers are answered.
-
As the person who was quoted here, I would like to clarify my position - I don't necessarily agree that "we have to change what the camera captures", although I often will. Some of the pictures which please me the most I simply printed, because I got it right in camera.
John
This implies you correct images only when you did not get it right in the camera. Personally, I never get it right in the camera, in the sense that there is always a difference between what I saw and experienced and what the camera captured. How could it be otherwise? The camera is a machine, unable of experiencing and recording feelings and emotions the way we do.
-
Just being next to the master, many things happen, many answers are answered.
That's a great statement.
-
It is a very passionate topic, that I'll have to leave at that point because I'm going out.
In Spain, they had a very interesting political debate:
They realised that the economic machine had fired the older people into a useless corner of the society. They did their task and now are useless.
But then, they started to ask themselves this question: are we loosing valuable knowledge?
So they started a plan to integrate the older people into a sort of program, so they can be active transmiting their particular knowledge (could be a craftman, a pilot, a printer...whatever). The results are spectacular among the youngest generations.
I have to leave you.
Cheers to all.
-
This implies you correct images only when you did not get it right in the camera. Personally, I never get it right in the camera, in the sense that there is always a difference between what I saw and experienced and what the camera captured. How could it be otherwise? The camera is a machine, unable of experiencing and recording feelings and emotions the way we do.
Well, Alain, I really hesitate to question you on this issue, because I have followed your contributions here on LL for a very long time and have always respected your work and your opinions. But, as you know, many many photographers shot transparency film for years (including myself, on 6x6), for publication as magazine covers, calenders, or for projection (in my case as well) for lectures and illustrated talks. And with an Ektachrome you cannot crop, burn, or dodge, or alter the colour balance. You have to get it right in camera. It seems to me that I still managed to take some pretty decent photographs back then, nonetheless.
John
-
Alain,
I'm back from reading. This summed up what I got from your essay:
My goal is to create images that represent the world not as it is, but as how I see it, how I feel when I am in a specific location and how I perceive this location as a whole. Not just the part that I see, but the part that I don’t see: the melting sap of Pinion pines on a warm summer days; the call of a blackbird bouncing off a canyon wall; the heat waves floating in front of me over the bare sandstone; the multitude of sensory inputs that are, by nature, non-visual. After all, a photograph is nothing but something we can look at. Yet, the reality of the world is much more than that. The reality of the world is something that we experience through five senses: smell, touch, hearing, taste and finally sight. A photograph only makes use of the fifth sense. It is a partial perception of the world, representing at the most 1/5th of all that we sense. I wish those that argue that unaltered photographs can represent reality would understand that. But, as I explain, it is not in my power to change their mind. Therefore, I limit myself to just answering “yes” when they ask me questions about whether my work is manipulated or not. Of course my work is manipulated. How could it be otherwise? Only a fool would believe that it isn’t. Yes.
This about there being 5 senses and only 1 being used in camera capture delineates the quandry I've found myself in for a while. It is, indeed, the reason that I write; because I have not found a way to capture in a photograph all that the senses perceive in the scene of a photograph taken.
Annoyingly, I participate in an "arts" forum; that is to say, the participants there are writers and visual artists. They have had many discussions as to whether photoshopped images displayed in the gallery are truly art. Almost to a person, they say no.
I am reminded of something I read once concerning painting/multimedia work. That it is more art than photography is because it goes onto canvas after having been filtered through the artist's mind. I've been intimidated by this reasoning for a long time. I can wrap my mind around the fact that a manipulated photo has also been filtered through the artist's mind. It doesn't have to be labeled inferior, although often they don't suit my taste. So it is with any writing, music or artistic endeavor of any kind.
Your essay has changed the way I think of post-processing. When I saw what you did to my photo, my immediate reaction was that it in no way matched the mood of twilight that I had seen and felt. My experience is not necessarily yours. But isn't that the way it's always been?
-
Well, Alain, I really hesitate to question you on this issue, because I have followed your contributions here on LL for a very long time and have always respected your work and your opinions. But, as you know, many many photographers shot transparency film for years (including myself, on 6x6), for publication as magazine covers, calenders, or for projection (in my case as well) for lectures and illustrated talks. And with an Ektachrome you cannot crop, burn, or dodge, or alter the colour balance. You have to get it right in camera. It seems to me that I still managed to take some pretty decent photographs back then, nonetheless.
John
Agreed. I also photographed on Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Fujichrome, color and BW negative film, etc. But, I never was satisfied with what the camera alone gave me. Darkroom work was an important aspect of my final work when I used film.
Notice I did not say "You." I am only talking about my work. This is a personal matter and making different choices is OK. My opinion is that the camera is not giving me what I want, be it on film or sensor, and that I need to modify the camera image to create the images I am looking for. Also note that I am talking only about Fine Art Photography.
-
Pup
You know, maybe it really isn't so deep, or profound, or bloody difficult as everyone seems to be making out. You can spend far too much time debating, agonising, and philosophising over this stuff, and in the end it is all really a bunch of crap. What does it matter if photography is art? Personally I prefer to think of it as a craft, it takes all the pretentious nonsense right out of it.
So if you can get hold of that concept, of craft, the natural conclusion is that you should get out there and master your craft. Whatever floats your boat - portraits, landscape, street, or still-life, just get a camera out (any camera will do) and get on with it. Shoot lots, be very critical of the results, go out again and do it better.
And when you get something you really like, don't give a monkey's whether it seems to be art or not. Or whether anyone here on LL Forum likes it. And especially disregard whether or not John R Smith likes it Print the sucker, pin it on the wall and enjoy it.
If it's not fun, it's not worth a damn and not worth doing.
John
(Apologies, Alain, we cross-posted. This was not meant to be a personal go at you)
-
Alain,
I'm back from reading. This summed up what I got from your essay:
Your essay has changed the way I think of post-processing. When I saw what you did to my photo, my immediate reaction was that it in no way matched the mood of twilight that I had seen and felt. My experience is not necessarily yours. But isn't that the way it's always been?
Great. So now you have to find a way to modify your photo so it shows what you saw. What I did to it was to make it look the way I like it, as I said in my original post. Not being there taking the photo there was no other way for me to approach the image.
-
Pup
You know, maybe it really isn't so deep, or profound, or bloody difficult as everyone seems to be making out. You can spend far too much time debating, agonising, and philosophising over this stuff, and in the end it is all really a bunch of crap. What does it matter if photography is art? Personally I prefer to think of it as a craft, it takes all the pretentious nonsense right out of it.
So if you can get hold of that concept, of craft, the natural conclusion is that you should get out there and master your craft. Whatever floats your boat - portraits, landscape, street, or still-life, just get a camera out (any camera will do) and get on with it. Shoot lots, be very critical of the results, go out again and do it better.
And when you get something you really like, don't give a monkey's whether it seems to be art or not. Or whether anyone here on LL Forum likes it. And especially disregard whether or not John R Smith likes it Print the sucker, pin it on the wall and enjoy it.
If it's not fun, it's not worth a damn and not worth doing.
John
(Apologies, Alain, we cross-posted. This was not meant to be a personal go at you)
John,
I am a complicated person, or better to say that I approach everything in a complicated manner. So I do agonize, debate and consider the philosophical ramifications of what I'm attempting. That is who I am; it isn't easy being green.
That said, I'm not sure I'm trying to "make art." I'm just not having any fun with photography right now, my vision seems to have deserted me, and I'm trying to change that current reality.
-
(Apologies, Alain, we cross-posted. This was not meant to be a personal go at you)
I didn't take any of this personally but thanks for the note.
-
Great. So now you have to find a way to modify your photo so it shows what you saw. What I did to it was to make it look the way I like it, as I said in my original post. Not being there taking the photo there was no other way for me to approach the image.
I will abandon my original thinking. I have always proudly stated that "this photo is just as it was straight from the camera." Somehow that statement told me that I had the right settings, was standing in the right place at the right time. Except that my images were leaving me cold, and I knew what they were about.
And so I continue forward with a new resolve, thanks to these discussions.
-
I didn't take any of this personally but thanks for the note.
Thanks, Alain
That said, I'm not sure I'm trying to "make art." I'm just not having any fun with photography right now, my vision seems to have deserted me, and I'm trying to change that current reality.
Well, that was exactly my point. You should be having fun with your photography. You have to find a way to put that passion and desire back into it. And to do that you have to have self-belief. Which means not being intimidated by some agenda which includes profundity and "art" as a prerequisite to taking a picture, and an inner conviction that you enjoy doing this craft for its own sake. In fact, it's pretty much like trying to play a great guitar solo, or finding someone to fall in love with, or writing a great novel - the harder you try, the worse things often get. It is when you cease to try, but just are, that the magic happens. Find the zone, and the pictures will follow.
John
-
I will abandon my original thinking. I have always proudly stated that "this photo is just as it was straight from the camera." Somehow that statement told me that I had the right settings, was standing in the right place at the right time. Except that my images were leaving me cold, and I knew what they were about.
And so I continue forward with a new resolve, thanks to these discussions.
Well... just to muddy the waters a little... Two photographers whose work I admire are Stephen Johnson (http://www.sjphoto.com/) and John Paul Caponigro (http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/). There are others I admire as well, but I mention these two for one reason... Both of them do great work (in my opinion, which means I like what they do), but their approach to photography is almost diametrically opposed. Stephen is very much a 'get it right in camera' type of person. John Paul uses the camera as a beginning place to create his art. Vincent Versace (http://versacephotography.com/gallery/index.html) is another, and one thing he's mentioned is that he never crops his images. Ever. Alain (http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/) is certainly another who does great work. Elizabeth Carmel (http://www.elizabethcarmel.com/) is another. To me what makes each of them and his/her work interesting is not where they lie on the bar of Photoshopped<____________>No Manipulation, but that they are each true to their own vision, and it shows in their work.
As to studying under the masters, I agree wholeheartedly. Michael has also said that one can tell a photographer by the number of books of photography (not technique books, but books of photographs) s/he has around the house. It's a subject that was covered here by George Barr (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/learning-best.shtml), and one I also covered in my blog post 'Becoming a Better Photographer (http://www.wolfnowl.com/2010/01/becoming-a-better-photographer/)'. For me, becoming complacent in one's work is the death knell for creativity. That doesn't mean one can't be satisfied with what one has achieved, only that we seek to become more.
Mike.
P.S. I remember when Alain's post 'Just say Yes' came out, and I thought it was great!
-
Well, I was going to jump in again and try to say something profound. Now I think the most profound thing I can say is that I agree completely with Mike. I especially agree with his reference to Michael's statement that a serious photographer has bookcases full of books of photographs.
Alain's work is based on darkroom or Photoshop manipulation. He's is more painter than photographer, and he's very good at what he does. My own bent is more toward the "never crop or manipulate unless you can't avoid it" school, yet I can appreciate and enjoy Alain's final prints.
I think Alain's advice about learning someone else's technique as a starting place is right on. It applies to poetry, prose, painting, photography... etc. But I don't think you have to master, say, Elliott Erwitt's technique before you can begin developing your own. What you find as you try to echo someone else's technique is that you can't! And when you hit those places where you simply can't adapt to your model's approach you begin to find -- well, let's call them workarounds -- that may eventually coalesce into your own technique.
As far as I'm concerned, the other great piece of advice came from John Smith: "If it's not fun, it's not worth a damn and not worth doing." Now that's profound.
-
Well... just to muddy the waters a little... Two photographers whose work I admire are Stephen Johnson (http://www.sjphoto.com/) and John Paul Caponigro (http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/). There are others I admire as well, but I mention these two for one reason... Both of them do great work (in my opinion, which means I like what they do), but their approach to photography is almost diametrically opposed. Stephen is very much a 'get it right in camera' type of person. John Paul uses the camera as a beginning place to create his art. Vincent Versace (http://versacephotography.com/gallery/index.html) is another, and one thing he's mentioned is that he never crops his images. Ever. Alain (http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/) is certainly another who does great work. Elizabeth Carmel (http://www.elizabethcarmel.com/) is another. To me what makes each of them and his/her work interesting is not where they lie on the bar of Photoshopped<____________>No Manipulation, but that they are each true to their own vision, and it shows in their work.
As to studying under the masters, I agree wholeheartedly. Michael has also said that one can tell a photographer by the number of books of photography (not technique books, but books of photographs) s/he has around the house. It's a subject that was covered here by George Barr (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/learning-best.shtml), and one I also covered in my blog post 'Becoming a Better Photographer (http://www.wolfnowl.com/2010/01/becoming-a-better-photographer/)'. For me, becoming complacent in one's work is the death knell for creativity. That doesn't mean one can't be satisfied with what one has achieved, only that we seek to become more.
Mike.
P.S. I remember when Alain's post 'Just say Yes' came out, and I thought it was great!
Well Mike. You can muddy the waters any time. I started by reading George Barr and your blog entry. I was so glad I did. I was able to look at Steven Johnson and Vincent Versace's work with a whole different mindset. I was familiar with neither of them; I was able to identify what I liked and didn't like based on George Barr's essay. You had already made reference to Elizabeth Carmel's work in another thread here before and I had her site bookmarked. However, I took another look and was able to identify why some of her images work for me and others simply don't. Nice to be able to look at all these images and understand my gut reaction to many of them. Not to leave out Jean Paul Caponigro, I've been getting his newletter for some time, and I am a member of his site. Again, I was exposed to him from some articles he did here.
I am familiar with some of your "top 50" list in your blog. It's a good starting place for me to delve into other photographers' work. I find Mike that much of what you have recommended in this and other threads really interest me. I thank you for this response and it's detail.
-
Well, I was going to jump in again and try to say something profound. Now I think the most profound thing I can say is that I agree completely with Mike. I especially agree with his reference to Michael's statement that a serious photographer has bookcases full of books of photographs.
Alain's work is based on darkroom or Photoshop manipulation. He's is more painter than photographer, and he's very good at what he does. My own bent is more toward the "never crop or manipulate unless you can't avoid it" school, yet I can appreciate and enjoy Alain's final prints.
I think Alain's advice about learning someone else's technique as a starting place is right on. It applies to poetry, prose, painting, photography... etc. But I don't think you have to master, say, Elliott Erwitt's technique before you can begin developing your own. What you find as you try to echo someone else's technique is that you can't! And when you hit those places where you simply can't adapt to your model's approach you begin to find -- well, let's call them workarounds -- that may eventually coalesce into your own technique.
As far as I'm concerned, the other great piece of advice came from John Smith: "If it's not fun, it's not worth a damn and not worth doing." Now that's profound.
Russ,
Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, there was quite a discussion going on here on these two threads of mine on Saturday. I appreciate so much all the input I got.
I know that you believe less is more as far as manipulation of an image. But a deft hand in the digital darkroom is as important as any other skill that a photographer has. No one ever complained about photographers manipulating images in the wet darkroom that I've heard of. I think today it's so easy to do go over the top with post-processing that it causes concern.
While I was looking at some of the photographers whose sites Mike provided, over and over I asked myself "How did s/he do that? Today I am more aware than I was last week. And tomorrow moreso than today!
-
Mike,
Your blog entry you gave me cited both "Photography and the Art of Seeing" and "More Photography and the Art of Seeing," both by Freeman Patterson. I can find the former on Amazon, but I can't seem to find the latter. Can you, or anyone else here point me in the right direction?
-
But a deft hand in the digital darkroom is as important as any other skill that a photographer has. No one ever complained about photographers manipulating images in the wet darkroom that I've heard of.
You're right. Knowing how to manipulate photographs in any kind of darkroom (or lightroom) is an essential skill for a photographer. But if you've never heard of anyone who complained about darkroom manipulation then you've never heard of Henri Cartier-Bresson. Henri wouldn't let even publications as prestigious as Life magazine crop a smidgen from his photographs. He's not the only one. On the other hand there were folks like W. Eugene Smith and Ansel Adams for whom darkroom manipulation was 80 or 90 percent of the job. Ansel said: "The negative is the score. The print is the performance." Neither side was "right." Neither side was "wrong." It all depends on what kind of photographs you want to produce. A lot of Cartier-Bresson's work is astonishing. A lot of Gene Smith's work is astonishing. The thing I've always denounced is the idea that you can go out and shoot a bunch of exposures, then look at them on your computer and see if you can find a real photograph by cropping and manipulating.
-
The thing I've always denounced is the idea that you can go out and shoot a bunch of exposures, then look at them on your computer and see if you can find a real photograph by cropping and manipulating.
And that Russ is what I've been doing in a nutshell. Until recently. My husband has severely trounced me more than once for that attitude. And that's what has caused me to abandon that mentality. I'm better at making sure what I'm photographing, but it's a process still in its infancy.
Back in the late '70's and early '80's, Ansel and black and white photography were my Holy Grail. Unfortunately, I haven't grown much beyond that hero worship I felt back then. As I told Mike in an earlier post(and forgive me as I repeat myself), I am more aware today than I was last week and tomorrow I will be moreso.
-
Mike,
Your blog entry you gave me cited both "Photography and the Art of Seeing" and "More Photography and the Art of Seeing," both by Freeman Patterson. I can find the former on Amazon, but I can't seem to find the latter. Can you, or anyone else here point me in the right direction?
Hi There:
You know, I went to Freeman Patterson (http://freemanpatterson.com/books.htm)'s website, and he doesn't list it either. Maybe I was thinking of something else? All of my books are in storage at the moment.
Photography for the Joy of It
(revised)
Photography and the Art of Seeing
(revised)
Photography of Natural Things
(revised)
Photographing the World Around You
(revised)
Mike.
-
Hi There:
You know, I went to Freeman Patterson (http://freemanpatterson.com/books.htm)'s website, and he doesn't list it either. Maybe I was thinking of something else? All of my books are in storage at the moment.
Photography for the Joy of It
(revised)
Photography and the Art of Seeing
(revised)
Photography of Natural Things
(revised)
Photographing the World Around You
(revised)
Mike.
So I'm not having a senior moment?
Thanks for checking.
-
Hi There:
You know, I went to Freeman Patterson (http://freemanpatterson.com/books.htm)'s website, and he doesn't list it either. Maybe I was thinking of something else? All of my books are in storage at the moment.
Photography for the Joy of It
(revised)
Photography and the Art of Seeing
(revised)
Photography of Natural Things
(revised)
Photographing the World Around You
(revised)
Mike.
Yes, it's an error. The reference is really to "Photographing the World Around You," , which I have and recommend to Shutterpup or anyone else learning. I have all of his learning series, which I received mainly as gifts. His first book on "Photography and the Art of Seeing." was recommended for years by the well known Kodak series of books, because for many years few books of its kind existed.
I also have "Portraits of earth" which consists of outstanding images from around the world. The book is not about pretty pictures, but about "expressiveness." They convey something, just like any people studies that are well done. I believe it won an award. I also have a book by Eliot Porter and other photographers. The way this discussion has gone is really over the top for me. Very few of us will go on to be photographers in the "artist" sense of having a career. This will not change. So I agree with John R Smith. If you have a passion for photography and enjoy the craft, just shoot to express yourself, and in the process learn what you can, and above all, enjoy it. Or else there is little point in continuing. Critique of photos should be simple, an attempt to dissect the elements using the well known principles of visual design and hopefully touch on the aesthetic qualities as well; It should not be unduly bound up with references to photographers that few people know about, much less have studied. Most of my friends don't even know who Ansel Adams is, but they still enjoy photography.
JMR