Minimalism

[RSL]

Everybody who posts on LuLa needs to see this. It may help to reduce the number of tourist pictures being posted:

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/stories/minimalism/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fbp20170319ys-minimalism&utm_campaign=Content&sf63735827=1

[Paulo Bizarro]

Interesting images, no doubt. So, according to you, LuLa are abundant with "tourist" pictures? What are those?

[luxborealis]

I understand where you're coming from Russ. We do see a lot of rather un-unique views of places we all recognize, something I am also guilty of. I picked up your sentiment in a recent comment you made to another forum user, when you said, "So you were there." or something to that effect. I imagine, without meaning to put words in your mouth, this is what you meant by "tourist pictures", photographs that document and validate one's presence at a place other than home. Yes, we see a lot of those here, for better and worse, photos we once classified as "postcard shots".

Many (but certainly not all) of the photos from the NG link you shared are wonderful in their uniqueness. They don't speak to the "tourist pictures" idea because of this and all of us can certainly learn from seeing these photos.

I also see Paulo's point of view. If I understand it correctly, he seems to be questioning your authority, Russ, to classify many photographs into a single genre and in a (slightly) disingenuous way. If someone is excited by a photograph they've made they should be encouraged to post here without being judged in quite that way. They may be looking for feedback, they may be looking to be a part of the club of those who have gone before, they may be just checking in to say,"Hey, I'm pleased with my results.", they may simply be boasting.

I get that we've seen a lot of Iceland, Lofoten, Yosemite, US southwest-canyonlands-arches, waterfalls, mountains, lakes, storms, etc., at times same-old-same-old, with some much more compelling than others, but we're all on a journey and sharing with others is part of that journey. Try to find the positive in each one, then, if requested, constructively suggest improvements to help in the journey. Blanket judgements are akin to COMS (crotchety old man syndrome). 

[Otto Phocus]

I think we would be all a little bit better off if we all paid a little less attention to what other people choose to post.

One person's "tourist" photograph may be another person's unique experience photograph.

There are few things easier to ignore than a photograph posted on this site.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... There are few things easier to ignore than a photograph posted on this site.

I think Russ' comment is meant to explain why certain photographs remain ignored.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...If someone is excited by a photograph they've made they should be encouraged to post here without being judged in quite that way...

Not so fast. Otherwise, we would be inundated by pictures or cats, cute babies, family gatherings, "look, ma, I was there," what we had for breakfast, etc. That's what Facebook at al are for.

This site isn't k-12, where everyone gets a ribbon for participation. You do not get pat on the back for anything. You get judged, and sometimes harshly, and that, if you are smart, should help you improve. If you are not, then nothing will. Pats on the back feel good, but are useless if they are not genuine.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Some time ago I wrote the following in another thread, which I think is still releveant:

"...A lot of members on the forum lived and worked in a pre-digital and pre-Internet era. It occurred to me that in that era, images like that most likely would have never been displayed publicly (other than to friends and family).

There were only two ways for public access: publishing in a magazine or book, and displaying it at an exhibition (be it of international standing or a local club one). Both ways include some kind of jurying, some kind of triage, filtering before an image reaches public. Images that were poorly composed, out of focus, and overexposed (for no good reason), had very little, if any chance, to be selected. So, when something did reach the public, it already had a certain "seal of approval". Furthermore, it took considerable effort and resources to prepare images for publication and submit them. Unless you wanted to risk your original transparency, you needed to make a decent copy (a problem in itself), pack it well, go to the post office, etc.

So, the effort and resources needed, plus knowing you will be judged seriously, meant for us that we would need to think twice before attempting to go public with our work. The only way to deal with that was to learn beforehand what tools those who would judge our work would use to evaluate it. So we hit the library, attended courses, joined a camera club, and learned about composition, technique, art, perception, etc. For years, sometimes. Consequently, we had to exercise a fair amount of self-restraint, and when we finally submitted something, we did not have to ask the world "what's wrong with my image"... we knew it already (at least the elementary stuff).

Enter the digital/Internet era: after a (shutter) click, with all those wi-fi memory cards, Kodak's Share buttons, various other cameras with direct access to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc., it might take literally seconds and costs absolutely nothing, before an image is displayed to millions. Anyone can post anything to everyone. No triage, filtering, self-restraint... nada. Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before. And no, I am not an Internet Luddite... just pointing out certain unintended consequences..."

[luxborealis]

Not so fast. Otherwise, we would be inundated by pictures or cats, cute babies, family gatherings, "look, ma, I was there," what we had for breakfast, etc. That's what Facebook at al are for.

This site isn't k-12, where everyone gets a ribbon for participation. You do not get pat on the back for anything. You get judged, and sometimes harshly, and that, if you are smart, should help you improve. If you are not, then nothing will. Pats on the back feel good, but are useless if they are not genuine.

The very point I was making. It's the blanket judgement I took issue with, but am understanding of (as I stated at the beginning of my post!)

I like what Otto said:

I think we would be all a little bit better off if we all paid a little less attention to what other people choose to post.

One person's "tourist" photograph may be another person's unique experience photograph.

There are few things easier to ignore than a photograph posted on this site.

[RSL]

Interesting images, no doubt. So, according to you, LuLa are abundant with "tourist" pictures? What are those?

Hi Paulo, Tourist pictures are pictures people shoot to show "they were there." They usually involve mountains, churches, graveyards, etc. The classic is the one with some humps on the horizon that, according to the poster, are "the Mingus mountains," or some other "so what" named terrain, or a scene that includes some obscure historical fact. The classic is the sunrise over a mountain -- a picture whose quality and significance are much exceeded by the postcard scenes in the local souvenir shop.

[RSL]

I also see Paulo's point of view. If I understand it correctly, he seems to be questioning your authority, Russ, to classify many photographs into a single genre and in a (slightly) disingenuous way. If someone is excited by a photograph they've made they should be encouraged to post here without being judged in quite that way. They may be looking for feedback, they may be looking to be a part of the club of those who have gone before, they may be just checking in to say,"Hey, I'm pleased with my results.", they may simply be boasting.

Right, Terry, and we're all still waiting for you to post that example of a picture with "artistic, technical and emotional merit." We can then use that as an example of what to post.

[Farmer]

Right, Terry, and we're all still waiting for you to post that example of a picture with "artistic, technical and emotional merit." We can then use that as an example of what to post.

And presumably you're going to claim authority to determine whether such an image from Terry qualifies or not?

Making a point in such a blunt, common way, is hardly worthy of response.  Perhaps your next one will demonstrate wit, insight, and linguistic artistry?

[Rob C]

The thing is, Russ is right and everybody knows it, but as with so much in contemporary life, it’s considered politically incorrect to call a spade a spade.

That’s what the fuss is really about: the spade’s right to be thought a rose...

Photography has become so easy to do because of digital that most of it has lost meaning. The ubiquitous cellphone shot is as relevant as the one from a Hasselblad.  Yes, it really is, because today you can make an image with anything that calls itself a camera and within seconds there it is: the image.

Of course, whether or not it’s any good will remain subjective, and everything is going to be defended simply because someone has fathered it.

Yet, yet… yet it probably still sucks. My feeling is that today, more than ever, photography has been hijacked by money. From the professional level to the amateur (why do I feel a subliminal, external pressure to defend the word amateur?) it feels as if faith rests on the brand of camera used, and even the denizens of the cellphone pond bow in prayer at the feet of the iPhone.

But who are the new photographers whose names will be revered and respected fifty years down the line? Where the new Avedon, Bassman, the new Haskins or Hass? There are no replacements. The skills that marked the difference have not only vanished from the workplace but been ridiculed and turned into antisocial activities that depended upon black magic and darkroom incantations. (There may be some truth to the latter, but most of the ones I heard or uttered were simple, basic four-lettered ones.)

Yes, LuLa is no safe haven from the march of jackbooted dimes either: the obsession with equipment and tests runs deeper than ever, and the most active threads are the ones that pander to that obsession, with the least active those on the art of photography; if you doubt, just go look at how the posts figure. A close runner to the gearheads zone is the one devoted to political make-believe - the crazies and wilfully blind are ever with us.

So where good photography in all of this? Where considered conversation? Pretty much nowhere, and almost certainly not in any forum where all that seems to matter is repetition of the same old tricks. On LuLa there are (were) perhaps two or three photographers whose work was instantly identifiable and highly skilled in its execution (yeah, Texas, I’m lookin’ at you!) but apart from that tiny minority – what? Formula photographers or, worse, lost photographers.

It’s the new reality.

[Farmer]

He's not "right".  He has a point.  And if he really believes his point, then there's plenty he can do to provide feedback and guidance to people who might desire it, instead of just whinging about it and making haughty comments at people who presented reasoned and reasonable points of their own.

[graeme]

I believe Russ’s  ‘And you were there’ post was a response to some images I posted recently.

The images were of some alabaster tomb effigies in a Yorkshire church. I didn’t photograph them as ’I was there’ or as record images.

I was attracted by them as soon as I entered the church - not because I think these things are beautiful in themselves ( I don’t ) - I wasn’t sure what it was at the time.

Looking at the images in Lightroom they struck me as being on a long journey in suspended animation, all asleep together but oddly separated. If they’d been woken they’d have been appalled by their physical deterioration. ( Yes I probably watched & read too much sci-fi as a kid: My Dad took me to see 2001 A Space Odyssey when I was 9 - maybe I’m reminded of the sleeping crew in that film ).

I liked the way the light was falling on them too.

I tried to bring this out in the processing of the images: If forum members don’t think I succeeded it’s cool for them to say so - it’s the ‘Critiques’ section. ( & it’s also cool for them to ignore the images ).

I wouldn’t know if anything I post is ‘tourist’ or not - I can’t be much bothered with travel, I haven’t been abroad this Millennium & haven’t even been on holiday ( vacation ) since 2009.

Russ,

I’d be fascinated to hear how you judge ‘emotional merit’. Responding to an artwork emotionally has to be something pretty personal to the viewer & dependent on the personality, experiences, cultural background etc ( like if they read too much sci-fi as a kid ). I was discussing my attraction to shadowy interiors ( i.e. chiaroscuro ) with my partner a few days ago & we decided it was because I’d spent quite a bit of time at my grandparents place from an early age: Their house had a long dark hallway with bright light glowing through glass doors at either end, the upstairs landing was similar: This fascinated me as it was in contrast to our home which was much more evenly lit. My partner reckons she’s completely imprinted by the colours, landscape & flora of her home county.

Churches are great for chiaroscuro.

‘And you were there’. Well yeah - it’s a large part of what photography’s about. Unlike painting, illustration etc you have to be there to make the photo, it’s always at least partially a record of ‘And you were there’.

Slobodan,

I hear what you’re saying about visual noise. That’s partially why I don’t exhibit or have a website - this is the only place online I post images.

As for triage, filtering etc, well part of the fun of photography for me is that it is quite an immediate art form compared to my day job ( stained glass - it can takes years for a design to be passed by various committees & the making process last months ). If I think an image is interesting I post it. If I haven’t got the best artistic quality control then OK - nobody’s going to die because of it.

The National Geographic images were a bit too National Geographic for me.

Graeme

[graeme]

the obsession with equipment and tests runs deeper than ever, and the most active threads are the ones that pander to that obsession

It's always been like that here.

[32BT]

I recently was thinking how there seem to be two kind of images lately that work really well or are popular as of late:
On the one hand there are minimalist images, or, as i read somewhere, maximally reduced compositions,
and on the other hand are images where there is so much going on, you would see something new each time you look at them.

Minimalism has become popular imo, because it provides a refreshing rest for the eyes and mind in an hyper-stimulating world.

And i believe there are still names (to be) made in the photography scene for anyone that keeps honing their skills to maximize their outputquality, but it does involve the entire productionchain including and up to how a viewer will view the output. When you're just one link in a chain, and maximize just that link, you'll get nowhere without proper support from other people willing to maximize the other links.

This is probably the unfortunate side-effect of having been for example a professional fashionphotographer: you're output used to be picked up by an artdirector who in turn would have it picked up by a good reproservice etc. Clearly those days are far behind us.

[RSL]

Gonna have to pat myself on the back for getting LuLaers to argue heatedly about something besides politics. Photography? Why would be argue about photography in a photography blog when we can argue about fascinating things like climate change and similar asininities?

From Slobodan: "The only way to deal with that was to learn beforehand what tools those who would judge our work would use to evaluate it. So we hit the library, attended courses, joined a camera club, and learned about composition, technique, art, perception, etc."

Right on! But the most important part was hitting the library and looking at what's gone before. What works? Nobody seems to do that any longer. Instead of studying what's gone before to help decide what you're after, you go on photography "workshops" with a "mentor," where you learn what lenses, what apertures, what shutter speeds, what ISO's to use and then join the bunch in shooting a picture of Half Dome from the approved position.

From Farmer: "And presumably you're going to claim authority to determine whether such an image from Terry qualifies or not?"

Don't know, Farmer, because I haven't seen a picture by Terry since I guess about the beginning of time. But Terry's basis for acceptability, as he put it in another thread was: "artistic, technical and emotional merit." I think we need to see an example from him. And yes, I'll judge it! I lay claim to such authority, as does Terry!

Also from Farmer: "And if he really believes his point, then there's plenty he can do to provide feedback and guidance to people who might desire it. . ."

Exactly what I'm doing, Farmer, though I'm not sure you desire it.

From Graeme: "I’d be fascinated to hear how you judge ‘emotional merit’. Responding to an artwork emotionally has to be something pretty personal to the viewer & dependent on the personality, experiences, cultural background etc."

Actually, my response wasn't based on your "I was there" pictures of grave sculptures, though those blend into the infinite and eternal collection of "so what" pictures. They were a lot better than some. But based on the quote above I have to conclude you haven't read "The Horror of Technical Excellence." (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/TechnicalExcellence.htm) In which I said:

"When you first view a work of visual art, read a poem, or listen to a musical composition, you either get an emotional jolt or you don't. If you don't, the fault is in the artwork. Which is not to say the work is no good. It's to say the work isn't art to you. It's even possible that later in life you might come back to the work and experience the jolt. But for now the jolt is missing, and for you at least the fault is in the artwork.  For a photographer to assume that his technically perfect photograph is going to ring the art bell in everyone is chutzpah of the highest order."

My beef, Graeme, is that most people posting on LuLa aren't posting things that gave them an emotional jolt. They're just showing they were there.

[Rajan Parrikar]

Instead of studying what's gone before to help decide what you're after, you go on photography "workshops" with a "mentor," where you learn what lenses, what apertures, what shutter speeds, what ISO's to use and then join the bunch in shooting a picture of Half Dome from the approved position.

Looks like you haven't kept up. The bigger sell these days is "vision."

[RSL]

You're probably right, Rajan, but as far as I can see, "vision" still seems to be wrapped around the right camera, right lens, right aperture, right shutter speed, right ISO, a demand for ETTR, and approved vantage points for "iconic" scenes.

And yes, I still have my head back in the pre-digital, pre-internet Paleozoic era mentioned by Slobodan, even though I did software engineering for thirty years.

[Otto Phocus]

My beef, Graeme, is that most people posting on LuLa aren't posting things that gave them an emotional jolt. They're just showing they were there.

But how do you know this?  How are you able to divine what the intent of most photographers were?  Because a particular photograph does not give you an "emotional jolt" does not mean that another viewer or even the photographers him or herself might not get that "emotional jolt"?

I may be going out on a limb here with the following assumption but I think that most photographers are posting their photographs, on this site, to share and get both positive and constructive negative reactions from the various viewers.  Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with that. If posting photographs on the internet brings pleasure to the photographer, then it is a good thing.

Other people choose not to post their photographs on internet sites and that's OK too.