Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on February 26, 2013, 09:16:30 am
-
.
-
Cracker!
Rob C
-
Is this 'ROAD' photography as opposed to 'STREET'?
Quite a telling picture.
W
-
At first, I thought the foreground needed an additional half stop exposure. But after looking at it a bit I think I'd leave the foreground as it is, but dodge out the truck just a little so it stands out a tad more, but not too much (if this were a commercial assignment for FedEx they'd want it to really pop).
-
You're right, Doug, and if I were shooting for FedEx I'd have made the truck pop. But that's the nice thing about shooting for yourself. I want the confined sunlight on the hills to pop. It pops.
-
Is this 'ROAD' photography as opposed to 'STREET'?
Quite a telling picture.
W
Yes. That's why it has the "Truck of Man" instead of the "Hand of Man." :D
I like it, Russ. The sunlight on the hills is just right.
-
And you were in the fast lane! Hasn't anyone told you not to shoot and drive? So forgive me, I like it, but it's weird. At the risk of asking a rube question, is "street photography" a style or mode that strives to be quirky? Hope this doesn't come across snotty, it's not meant to be so.
-
Is this 'ROAD' photography as opposed to 'STREET'?...
I would say it is a landscape photography. Or road-trip photography, a sub-genre of travel photography. I see it as landscape not only because it contains one, but also on purely esthetic grounds: lovely, muted, Earth tones; even the truck has one, echoing the sunlit hill in the background.
-
I didn't take it that way, Dave.
My wife was driving and I was shooting.
No, street photography is documentary photography -- documenting people and their activities -- which, among other things, doesn't tell a complete story. "Ambiguous" is the word people use to differentiate street from normal documentary, photojournalism for instance, but "ambiguous" doesn't really describe the difference. To understand the difference you need to study the work of people like Henri Cartier-Bresson who didn't invent it, but who defined it with his surrealistic early photographs. Other street masters worth studying are Andre Kertesz, Robert Doisneau, Willy Ronis, Walker Evans, Elliott Erwitt, Marc Riboud, Helen Levitt, Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, and Lee Friedlander to name just a few. Some of these people were photojournalists, and you have to distinguish between the documentary photography they did on the job and the street photography they did in their spare time.
Last year I wrote a couple short articles on the subject. Having spent years submitting poetry to "little magazines," with a fair amount of acceptance but with too much work, I never got serious about sending out the articles. I enjoyed writing them, but I don't really care that I can't read them in a magazine. They're at:
http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/OnStreetPhotography.html
and
http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/WhyDoStreetPhotography.html
But FedEx isn't street photography. It's highway photography, or, as Slobodan points out, actually landscape. That's fun too.
-
I know of Bresson and Friedlander of course, but will look up the others. Thanks for the explanation. PS Glad you weren't driving ;)
-
You're right, Doug, and if I were shooting for FedEx I'd have made the truck pop. But that's the nice thing about shooting for yourself. I want the confined sunlight on the hills to pop. It pops.
Lovely colours and tones in the rocks but I'm confused. The title refers to the truck, so, I would have thought that was the subject but you made the sunlight on the hills pop and that area stands out more than the truck. So, why refer to the truck in the title if that was not your main interest?
I agree that, if you have to have the road in the frame, including the rear of any vehicle driving away from you is better than a bare road or a vehicle driving towards you, but I would like to see an image featuring just the rocks if that were possible—they look great. I agree you cannot just crop the truck out of the picture for what I am looking for and you would have to find a new spot to take the shot from.
Roger
-
Russ: masochism?
;-)
Rob C
-
No, Rob, I think Roger's just confused. He seems to have the idea that a title has to identify the purpose of a picture. I sat in the right seat that morning and made a whole series of pictures through the windshield as we headed west toward California. I was fascinated by the shifting light on the hills in front of us, filtering through heavy clouds that gradually were breaking up. Here's the kind of picture Roger suggests would be an improvement. Can't say I agree, but whatever floats one's boat.
-
Now that is a very fine image Russ. Is that pipework on the middle left? Perhaps cloning it out? Either way it doesn't really detract. The processing is first class. :)
-
Now that is a very fine image Russ. Is that pipework on the middle left? Perhaps cloning it out? Either way it doesn't really detract. The processing is first class. :)
Arizona Highways.
For me, the one with the wheels is it.
Rob C
-
Cool! It successfully demonstrates the degradation that contemporary machines like the FedEx truck face when surrounded by those wasteful, unnecessary artifacts of our past, such as nature ;D
-
Arizona Highways.
For me, the one with the wheels is it.
Rob C
That is also very good. When I saw it yesterday I wasn't all that impressed but after looking again I like it better. Leaving an image for a day or two definitely helps. :)
-
Now that is a very fine image Russ. Is that pipework on the middle left? Perhaps cloning it out? Either way it doesn't really detract. The processing is first class. :)
Hi Stamper, No what you're seeing on the left in the second picture is the other side of the freeway. The two sides are widely separated through this area.
-
Thanks Russ. That makes sense. :)
-
I find the FedEx logo too distracting. The image works better without it.
-
Then it's just an other lorry?
-
Then it's just an other lorry?
Indeed. And we do not like anonymous around here ;D
-
Then it's just an other lorry?
Yes, as it should be.
Otherwise, the logo is the strongest graphic element in the photo. The eye goes to it first, when it shouldn't be competing with the sunlit ridge. Not unless you're making a FedEx advertisment, anyway.
-
Maybe the logo is the point; it would be were it my shot: it changes the mundane into the different idea of destination, mission, purpose, fighting frontiers etc. and anything much other than a company in a worldwide delivery business like that would fail to sell the story.
You must nurture the romantic in your soul.
Rob C
-
Leaving an image for a day or two definitely helps.
Try a month or two, Stamper - it's amazing!
Nice going, Russ.
-
Maybe the logo is the point; it would be were it my shot: it changes the mundane into the different idea of destination, mission, purpose, fighting frontiers etc. and anything much other than a company in a worldwide delivery business like that would fail to sell the story.
You must nurture the romantic in your soul.
Rob C
It would be FedEx ad. Which is fine, if that's what you're going for. There's no way to separate that logo from the company it signifies.
-
Andy Warhol didn't use a generic soup can, but Campbell's. And it wasn't an ad for them either.
-
Right, and next time I go across country I'll be looking for Campbell soup cans. I hope I can get one with a background as good the one behind the FedEx truck.
-
Russ, I should have made clear that I was responding to Doug's post right above mine. In other words, I am not in favor of removing the logo, and agree with Rob's eloquent statement about its importance.
-
Andy Warhol didn't use a generic soup can, but Campbell's. And it wasn't an ad for them either.
But Warhol's painting was only about the soup can, which was stylized to make a point. Different context, different message.
-
Russ, I should have made clear that I was responding to Doug's post right above mine. In other words, I am not in favor of removing the logo, and agree with Rob's eloquent statement about its importance.
I knew that, Slobodan. I was cracking a joke. And it looks as if Doug is of the school that says a picture is never finished until you've changed something important in it.
-
It would be FedEx ad. Which is fine, if that's what you're going for. There's no way to separate that logo from the company it signifies.
That's the point I was trying to make. But, equally, it's not an advertising shot: it's Russ making a sentimental statement that works because of the emotional reaction his location and treatment evoke as response. As was pointed out, without logo there's no emotional response at all and, ergo, no picture.
Rob C
-
I knew that, Slobodan. I was cracking a joke. And it looks as if Doug is of the school that says a picture is never finished until you've changed something important in it.
Not at all, Russ. I'm of the school that says visual elements which detract from the image have no business being in the image.
-
That's the point I was tryimg to make. But, equally, it's not an advertising shot: it's Russ making a sentimental statement that works because of the emotional reaction his location and treatment evoke as response. As was pointed out, without logo there's no emotional response at all and, ergo, no picture.
Rob C
All I'm saying is that given the fact that it's not a FedEx ad, the logo isn't making a contribution to the shot. You have stated that the logo adds a sense "of destination, mission, purpose, fighting frontiers etc."
I think the truck does that all by itself, even without the logo. Which makes the logo an unnecessary distraction.
-
I think the image works better without the logo and agree with the reasoning behind it. Had you been following the truck for a while or was it a "see and snap" photo? Just curious ::)
-
Yes, as it should be.
Otherwise, the logo is the strongest graphic element in the photo. The eye goes to it first, when it shouldn't be competing with the sunlit ridge. Not unless you're making a FedEx advertisment, anyway.
I agree cloning away the logo is a clever move because it is too distracting. Then I recommend a new title, such as, "Late afternoon, Route 70".
-
... I'm of the school that says visual elements which detract from the image have no business being in the image.
How about the school that says that cloning out a major element of an image is one step too far in manipulation? Veracity tends to have a virtue of its own.
-
No, Rob, I think Roger's just confused. He seems to have the idea that a title has to identify the purpose of a picture.
I'm not as dogmatic as that. I just think titles can be an aid in working out the photographer's intentions. My confusion was based on more than the title. Russ called the image "Fedex" but he stated that his intention was to make the rocks "pop" which, to my mind, means he thought the point of interest in the image was the sunlight on the rocks. I think he also said that himself.
So, as Russ says, the image is about the sun on the rocks but he gave a title based on the logo on the truck. I think that is confusing.
Here's the kind of picture Roger suggests would be an improvement. Can't say I agree, but whatever floats one's boat.
I like the thought of making an image in that location like your second one. I agree it needs more work and would benefit from more interest in the foreground.
Roger
-
How about the school that says that cloning out a major element of an image is one step too far in manipulation? Veracity tends to have a virtue of its own.
Oh, no, not the "photographs are the truth" debate, again. That really is trolling, in my opinion.
Is your comment limited to saying just cloning is bad or are you saying all manipulation (including altering contrast by adjusting film development or paper selection or Photoshop) should be outlawed?
With respect, I consider it would be unfair to hijack this thread with a discussion about acceptable limits of manipulation and I encourage you to start a new topic on this issue.
Until your post, members were discussing removing a particular element from a particular photo. If you want to debate the ethics of doing this, I consider you should do so in a separate thread.
Roger
-
Russ I think you would best if you close down the thread now. The future of the forum is more important than Fedex. :(
-
Russ I think you would best if you close down the thread now. The future of the forum is more important than Fedex. :(
I agree. I also believe that if it is closed down, then the point of being here is lost.
It's not really anyone's fault if some writers can't see the same things as others: everyone is different even though there are certain common areas where some opinions meet.
In my own case, as you can see from many other threads, when I realise that a particular person simply doesn't understand my point of view (he doesn't have to agree with it), I just stop responding to him: there's no point in my getting angry or upset about matters photographic, especially when I fear my next heart attack is probably the final one.
Rob C
-
I didn't read every single post in detail, but I didn't notice anyone talking about the highway sign.
Genres be damned, this is a fine piece of work that strikes me as a capsule summary of America. We have the wild landscape with fantastic light, a landscape that while not uniquely American reads strongly as American. Then we have the highway, empty but for the truck, and the distinctively American highway sign.
As a pure image, the placement of things in it, it's nothing like a Walker Evans. As a statement of an idea it's very very very Walker Evans. I read it as "this is America, without judgement". The "without judgement" part might be the most important thing.
-
Thanks everybody. Just to complete the picture here are a couple more. The one with the cars heading east is the first in the series. The one with the FedEx truck in the distance is the one after that. Then comes the one I first posted, and finally the one with the other side of the freeway in sight way on the left side of the picture. There are several others from this sequence in my files. I like to get my wife to drive when we're going through scenery like this so I can sit in the right seat and shoot. I'm not thrilled about the softness I get shooting through safety glass, but that's life in the fast lane.
As far as closing the thread is concerned, if it gets nasty I'll try to beat Chris to the punch.
-
I can't wait until late March when I head back out west to pick up my newly purchased (used) motorhome and wend my way back through upper AZ, lower UT, and then across the top and bottom of NM and CO (the southwestern part of the USA). Taking all my camera gear, computer and gonna have some fun! No, if the local gendarmes didn't get so persnickity about pulling off to the side and setting up a tripod...oh well.
-
How about the school that says that cloning out a major element of an image is one step too far in manipulation? Veracity tends to have a virtue of its own.
OH, SB! How can you?
We've had several tiresome and lengthy discussions already that seemed to me to establish that "veracity" is vital only in the fields of photojournalism or scientific photography, where creativity should never get in the way of truth. But in "creative" photography, pretty much anything goes (such as in Rhein II ;) .)
As for shutting down the thread, it seems to me the disagreements in this thread have been pretty civil.
As for the Important Question of whether or not to keep the FedEx Logo on the truck.......
Well. I've been going back and forth, and I still haven't made up my mind. :)
-
As for shutting down the thread, it seems to me the disagreements in this thread have been pretty civil.
I agree and I have not seen any personal attacks on anyone for their view.
I would be disappointed if the thread was hijacked into a discussion about "truth" in photography or whether it should be shut down.
Roger
-
OH, SB! How can you?
We've had several tiresome and lengthy discussions already that seemed to me to establish that "veracity" is vital only in the fields of photojournalism or scientific photography, where creativity should never get in the way of truth. But in "creative" photography, pretty much anything goes (such as in Rhein II ;) .)...
Eric,
What I wrote was in the context of removing or not the logo, and thus not much to do with those discussions. In that sense, veracity is the crucial element in defending the logo, the symbolism of which Rob already explained. Without the logo, it's just a truck and much of that symbolism is gone.
Also, my impression was that Russ was not trying to make a Fine Art piece or another Rhein II. If yes, then, of course, anything goes, and not only the logo but the whole truck can be replaced by, say, a flying saucer.
What I see instead is a genre-spanning photograph, mixing landscape, documentary, travel, and road-trip photography. The documentary part in it is the one that is more related to veracity.
Simply speaking, the image as-is speaks to me much more than any other manipulated variation of it, without the logo, road signs and/or truck itself or any combination of those. As I said, veracity tends to have a virtue of its own, and it does (for me) in this picture. I am not saying one can not or should not manipulate, I am not saying one can not or should not depart from documentary into creative. All I am saying is that, for this picture, sticking to what really was works and has a virtue of its own (again, the symbolism that Rob explained).
-
Russ
I have come back to your original post here numerous times.
I grew up in the country and always feel more relaxed out of the city. The FEDEX sign on the truck jars me for what it represents i.e. the city - so on that level the picture, "as is" must be working...The fact that it has raised so much debate indicates that it must be working.
What I do find refreshing in the series you posted is that, as a non-American, I am happy to see some "new" America landscape. A nice change from the "iconic" sights that one sees so often. There must be a million places Ansel Adams didn't get to, I'd love to see more of those...
William
-
Russ, I very much like the Going West 2.
With a little bit of additional post-processing, it can be turned into an outstanding picture (again, that's just me, others might prefer it as-is). I especially like the almost black triangles on the sides of the road; reminds me of what AA did in his Moon Over Half Dome image.
-
Slobodan you know I'm always interested to hear your post-processing suggestions on landscape. As I recall I agree with them more often than not. I do agree about the nearly black triangle. We used to have a triangle like that west of our house when we lived in Colorado Springs. You'd climb a slight hill and as you approached the triangle Pikes Peak would rise up in front of your eyes. Then they built on the sides of the triangle.
-
How about the school that says that cloning out a major element of an image is one step too far in manipulation? Veracity tends to have a virtue of its own.
You missed my point. I agree with you regarding veracity, but it's not about cloning; it's about whether the image is better without the FedEx logo. I say it is.
If it were my photo I would chalk it up as a learning experience, but I don't know if I'd bother cloning out the logo.
-
As far as closing the thread is concerned, if it gets nasty I'll try to beat Chris to the punch.
If it does get nasty, it will be on someone else's head, not mine.
-
A quick attempt, perhaps overboard:
-
A quick attempt, perhaps overboard:
Overall, I prefer the composition of this image to that of the first truck shot. And I like the way the hills pop in your version of it.
-
... As far as closing the thread is concerned, if it gets nasty...
Sorry, but I do not get it... closing, nasty?... what are you guys talking about? Everything I've seen looks pretty civil so far. Am I missing something?
-
Sorry, but I do not get it... closing, nasty?... what are you guys talking about? Everything I've seen looks pretty civil so far. Am I missing something?
I think people are a little jumpy after the flamewar that went down on the etiquette thread. Understandable.
-
A quick attempt, perhaps overboard:
I like it. Okay, what did you do? I guess what I'd do is make a selection and a layer and then sharpen the layer.
-
I like it. Okay, what did you do? I guess what I'd do is make a selection and a layer and then sharpen the layer.
Basically, just three GND filters in LR4, plus several finishing touches.
One GND covers the road (starts at the bottom) and reduces exposure by 2/3 f/stops and reduces contrast by -100%.
Before anyone freaks out at such a drastic change, it is worth noting that sliders in LR4 are adaptable, i.e., their intensity varies from image to image (i.e., adopts to the content) and also (I believe) takes into account other changes to the image. So, 100% change in LR4 is not the same as 100% change in earlier versions.
Next GND starts from the top and ends at the horizon: the same parameters as above, plus 80% clarity.
The third GND starts from the top and ends before the white clouds begin: contrast reduced -100% and exposure by a whole f/stop. This GND effectively sits on top of the second one and enhances the effect on clouds.
Finishing touches: light vignetting, slight warming up of the clouds, "black triangles" were masked to protect from too much clarity in the second GND, plus clarity further reduced for the while lines on the road. There was some overall noise reduction, and low-frequency minor sharpening. That's about it.
-
Anyone remember the sweetness of holding back and burning in with your own two hands? (I speak of printing.)
;-)
Rob C
-
That's the point I was trying to make. But, equally, it's not an advertising shot: it's Russ making a sentimental statement that works because of the emotional reaction his location and treatment evoke as response. As was pointed out, without logo there's no emotional response at all and, ergo, no picture.
Rob C
It's too bad we can't experiment in two parallel universes. In the other one, it would have been fun to have Russ take a similar picture, only this time the truck that happened to come by would NOT have a logo on the back. Would forum critics have then encouraged him to clone in some company's logo to make a more powerful picture?
Too bad the interweb is so well, universal. If it weren't, then theoretically, one could post a logo-less picture on another, but similar forum, to see the reaction there. One could try but I doubt it would work, too easy to use google, find this thread and taint the opinion pool.
-
It's too bad we can't experiment in two parallel universes. In the other one, it would have been fun to have Russ take a similar picture, only this time the truck that happened to come by would NOT have a logo on the back. Would forum critics have then encouraged him to clone in some company's logo to make a more powerful picture?
Too bad the interweb is so well, universal. If it weren't, then theoretically, one could post a logo-less picture on another, but similar forum, to see the reaction there. One could try but I doubt it would work, too easy to use google, find this thread and taint the opinion pool.
But, would Russ have felt inclined to make the shot if it hadn't been FedEx, specifically? Even Wells Fargo would have worked, as a romantic idea, had it been a stagecoach...
;-)
Rob C
-
Anyone remember the sweetness of holding back and burning in with your own two hands? (I speak of printing.)
;-)
Rob C
I do. I also remember the chemicals, the plumbing, endless days of frustration in the darkroom and the little dollar signs that used to float off into space every time I pressed the shutter release on my camera. :D :D :D
-
I do. I also remember the chemicals, the plumbing, endless days of frustration in the darkroom and the little dollar signs that used to float off into space every time I pressed the shutter release on my camera. :D :D :D
Strange; with mine, the pounds (dollars, if you insist) came to me.
Rob C
-
It's too bad we can't experiment in two parallel universes. In the other one, it would have been fun to have Russ take a similar picture, only this time the truck that happened to come by would NOT have a logo on the back. Would forum critics have then encouraged him to clone in some company's logo to make a more powerful picture?
Too bad the interweb is so well, universal. If it weren't, then theoretically, one could post a logo-less picture on another, but similar forum, to see the reaction there. One could try but I doubt it would work, too easy to use google, find this thread and taint the opinion pool.
Robert, that is a very, very interesting angle and excellent question! I totally see your point.
If I am one of these "forum critics" you are referring to, I would NOT encourage any cloning in, simply because I have an aversion to major cloning in principle (unless we are talking about compositing or fine art creations). Another thing is that cloning out is simpler, just one decision to make (yes or no). Cloning in would require a whole universe of choices (i.e., which logo, which symbolism).
I guess it all boils down to Rob's point (would Russ felt compelled to press the shutter for a different-looking truck, consciously or subconsciously). Maybe yes, maybe no. So let's assume that Russ did take a picture of a truck with no logo. If we are in a parallel universe (and no google to go back and forth), there would be two pictures then. We would have at least two different reactions. Would one be right and the other wrong? I do not think so. Just different, even if ever so slightly.
Another scenario: Russ deliberately removes the logo for one "universe," without declaring it, and presents the logo version to another "universe." I think the reactions would be the same as above (i.e., just different, not right or wrong).
I think your line of reasoning then goes something like this: if so, then why are you so against cloning out the logo (i.e., if it is not right or wrong, just different)?
I think the answer is in the post-factum knowledge: in our case, we would KNOW the logo has been removed. That knowledge makes it "wrong" (if you belong to the school that considers it so).
Allow me two examples of the above, one gross and and the other not. The gross one (we still have a parallel universe scenario): a waiter brings you a soup from the kitchen. In both cases he spit into it. In one case he did it in the kitchen, and in the other case ("universe") he did it in front of you. Only in the second case you would consider it wrong, simply because you know he did it.
The other example: art forgeries. Prior to knowing, even experts would admire the forged piece of art, let alone unsuspected public, and would be ready to pay millions for it. Once proven fake, the price drops like a stone, although, visually, they continue to look identical.
-
I think you've finally convinced me that Russ's original photo is the right one, as it stands, with no removal or addition of logos or kangaroos.
Here's another thought experiment: Suppose Russ had happened to photograph a plain truck with no logo in that exact position. Do you think there is any chance that it would generate as much comment as the one he did post?
As Russ often says, what you see when you first photograph a scene is usually the right one (of course he applies that mostly to after-the-fact cropping, but I think it applies to seeing in general, much of the time.
-
Hi Slobodan, I went through your routine in Lightroom and got essentially what you got. Then I did roughly the same thing in ACR (same software) with some final touches in Photoshop. I think you really nailed it. The only problem with the picture is that it was shot with a six megapixel D100 through safety glass, so it doesn't have quite the pop I get with my D800 on a tripod.
Thanks everybody for looking.
-
Stir the pot, stir the pot...round and round and round we go... :D
Having watched this forum go from the simple to the quite complex, I got to wondering if what caused all the discussion over the logo or non-logo wasn't so much about the truck as much as it might have been about the perspective in which the scene was viewed...let me catch my breath.
So, while I did a different edit, both in focus and in color (that part just dinking with memories of that area as opposed to what russ shot, slobodan editied, etc.) that removes the grandeur of the sky which in my opinion helped to de-emphasize the trucks importance but not take away its necessity for being in the scene. I kept reading about this logo business when it did occur it may not have been about the logo as much as there was so much in the image to try to take in all at once, the truck WAS the focal point - it kept sanity to the eye's need for stabilization.
All this edit does is remove some of the grandeur and place the emphasis more on the truck, thus for me, removing the issue of logo and simply enjoying the scene.
Of course, I was able to do that in the original as well, so this is as much an exercise in futility as it is an exercise in learning from other's compositions.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8244/8524984852_7200871894_o.jpg)
-
1. Stir the pot, stir the pot...round and round and round we go... :D
2. Of course, I was able to do that in the original as well, so this is as much an exercise in futility as it is an exercise in learning from other's compositions
1. Okay -since you invited me so to do!
2. The exercise is futile on both counts: all you learn from another person's composition is confirmation of whether or not you like the genre. Anything else comes from within yourself.
;-)
Rob C
-
I disagree, Rob. If you cannot learn from other's compositions, other than stroking your own ego, why belong to a forum at all? Every image I see on here I learn from. As to it applying to a particular genre, that is irrelevant. The truck could just as eaily be a duck and it wouldn't change the horizon line or where one placed it is the scene, the lighting, tone or color.
As to things coming from within..that's sort of a catch-all - duh-uh, but to be fair to the comment, isn't everything we do each time we either put a viewfinder to the eye, or tie our shoes have a moment of internal decision?
-
Now I'm going to go looking for a duck with a FedEx logo on it. 8)
-
Quack-Quack
-
1. I disagree, Rob. If you cannot learn from other's compositions, other than stroking your own ego, why belong to a forum at all? Every image I see on here I learn from. As to it applying to a particular genre, that is irrelevant. The truck could just as eaily be a duck and it wouldn't change the horizon line or where one placed it is the scene, the lighting, tone or color.
2. As to things coming from within..that's sort of a catch-all - duh-uh, but to be fair to the comment, isn't everything we do each time we either put a viewfinder to the eye, or tie our shoes have a moment of internal decision?
1. Why would it stroke one's own ego? Belonging to a forum like this is multi-layered: I enjoy some of the writers; I enjoy many of the pictures. I don't seek to 'learn' anything from the process - I only seek the enjoyment of the moment.
2. Of course it’s a catch-all; that’s the trouble with photography: it depends totally upon your own mind. If it doesn’t, it probably signifies that you are still wanting the security of attempting to copy others.
Until that’s left behind, there’s no future.
Rob C
-
Are you really going to tell me you've never learned anything from looking at other's work? I would find that highly amazing if not highly improbable. And if you still insist you don't, then the question becomes why?
-
Are you really going to tell me you've never learned anything from looking at other's work? I would find that highly amazing if not highly improbable. And if you still insist you don't, then the question becomes why?
Chris, I think we are getting embroiled in semantics.
I grew up digesting Life (available in India at the time), buying all the Popular Photography Annuals for several years; the late, great, lamented British magazine edited by Norman Hall called, simply, Photography where I had my first published girl; buying a huge collection of books by Peter Gowland, Peter Basch, Don Ornitz and Russ Meyer. As I moved along, I admired Bill King, Richard Avedon, Albert Watson. I bought years of subscription to Playboy, British Vogue (where, much later, I had several spreads of travel fashion shoots), Nova, Harper's Bazaar, French PHOTO, Pirelli Calendar Book (two editions) and God alone knows what else.
Yes, I saw a helluva lot of stuff, ranging from W. Eugen Smith and, via the fashion kings (and one or two great fashion camera divas) to the pinup kings, as I remarked above.
But did I learn anything?
In the sense that I believe you to mean it, no. That I simply had to be a photographer, yes, that I did confirm for myself. All that drifted off slightly from the original plan was that I had had an idea about travel books: photographing places and writing about them. Got into that mindset because I used to read a lot of such material as a child. That, and detective fiction. An attraction for the movies led me to write to David Lean who, to my surprise, answered and suggested the way into the business was moving to London and a job as a tea boy. I lived in Scotland. No chance.
As for ‘learning’ how to shoot things – I always seemed to know.
I had to go to photographic night school as part of the deal when I joined my first professional photo-unit as a trainee. I lasted a couple of terms and quit the course when I realised the employers didn’t really give a damn if I went or not; the actual push came from within the night the guy ‘teaching’ portraiture on a bloody wooden camera and using photofloods (I already had made up my own flash brolly unit with modelling light, which I used at home) informed me that were he to photograph in the maner of David Bailey (one of my then contemporary heroes), he would abandon photography. As I had no intention of using half-plate cameras, looking at women upside down and buying a neck brace for the sitters (or for myself?), I voted with my feet. I never went back. I now realise that there are certain people who do like looking at women upside down, but I don’t figure I’m one. Maybe I missed a marketing niche?
So if you did refer to stylistics, techniques, I think not. I learned zilch from anyone. However, had I ever been an assistant with one of the stars of the fashion world, I’m sure I would have probably have had to become a clone. On the one hand, I regret never having had the opportunity but, at the same time, I didn’t do too badly, so it ended okay if a smidgen too quickly for the absolute happiness of my bank account!
I know pefectly well that claiming to have always known how to make images might sound like another ego exploding; I can only confirm to you that that’s how it felt. It’s like falling in love: you just know when it’s right, and if you don’t, don’t! The closest I can get to discovering I’ve learned anything is this: I hate vulgarity in pictures; I love to make women as beautiful as I can. None I’ve seen is utterly so, but some can help us create the myth together. Maybe my idols taught me that?
;-)
Rob C
-
Then, Rob, I applaud you and your own sense of having it all come together and I am saying this with the utmost respect. I've always been far more the visual learner. It is not that I ever want to copy or even emulate, moreso that I wish to know why it worked so well for them and hasn't worked so well for me. I do learn, I do move progressively forward, and now that I am away from the "is it good enough," kids, I find my growth even more directed. Thanks for your honesty and for allowing me to push you without getting a nasty earful. It was very gracious of you. :)
-
Then, Rob, I applaud you and your own sense of having it all come together and I am saying this with the utmost respect. I've always been far more the visual learner. It is not that I ever want to copy or even emulate, moreso that I wish to know why it worked so well for them and hasn't worked so well for me. I do learn, I do move progressively forward, and now that I am away from the "is it good enough," kids, I find my growth even more directed. Thanks for your honesty and for allowing me to push you without getting a nasty earful. It was very gracious of you. :)
Hey, you asked an honest question - why reply any other way?
Other influences were heavy too, though: my mother used to take me to art galleries down in London even during WW2; in India I discoved the detective fiction genre and, more importantly, how the other half of the world lives/survives; back in Britain again I had the amazing good fortune to go to a school where I ran into a wonderful lady who taught English and, at the same time, I met my wife-to-be. That English teacher bought me a copy of the Complete Works of Shakespeare as a good luck present as I left school; each time I found myself in hospital after heart attacks, it was the one tome I asked my wife to bring me. As a teenager, I had an aunt living close by in Glasgow who bought Vogue and ‘Bazaar and also owned a Rolleicord V which she lent me... yep, luck certainly does come into life!
Luck, or something I have come to think of as the unseen, but felt hand of one’s god, whatever that concept means to the individual.
Take care –
Rob C