Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: wmchauncey on October 17, 2015, 01:06:10 pm
-
IMHO, I have progressed enough that taking a photograph is no big deal and am trying to cross that blurred line between
photography and art, whatever that even means.
My question is...how many of us are patient enough to create a photograph as opposed to just going out in the evening and shooting that sunset?
Do you shoot or...do you create?
-
Fortunately HCB never had to worry about this, since in French one says "faire une phote", ie make or do a photo
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2014/12/23/1419343551396/Sunday-on-the-Banks-of-th-003.jpg)
But then one can never be sure anyway, since we now know that Robert Doisneau made Le Baiser de l'Hôtel de Ville more than he first let on...
(http://culturezvous.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/doisneau-baiser-hotel-ville.jpg)
-
Re. Doisneau: that's what happens when models come out of the woodwork trying to get repeat fees, or even trying to make false claims about being said models...
;-)
Rob C
-
IMHO, I have progressed enough that taking a photograph is no big deal and am trying to cross that blurred line between
photography and art, whatever that even means.
My question is...how many of us are patient enough to create a photograph as opposed to just going out in the evening and shooting that sunset?
Do you shoot or...do you create?
It isn't up to the individual to make the decision regarding the shooting of 'art' or 'non-art'; the truth seems to be that there is no 'art', there are only artists. Then, the next step would be that sometimes an artist makes art and then at other times, he fails to make it.
Who said it was going to be easy?
Just do it, and if you like it, to you it's art. It's what keeps me messing about, liking or not liking what I come up with now and then.
Sunsets don't make me want to snap them, even less work at them! They are for enjoying that G&T with the one you love, especially from the flybridge of a large yacht. Now I shall go away and burst into tears.
;-)
Rob C
-
Then I remembered that while "on fait une photo", film comes in either 20 or 36 "prises", ie "takes"... lol
-
Graham,
(http://culturezvous.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/doisneau-baiser-hotel-ville.jpg)
Do you happen to know: is the image heavily processed?
-
I have no information, but it certainly looks like the Hôtel de Ville was masked so it could be under exposed by a stop on the print.
-
I've checked the image out in the Hazan Publications book on Doisneau, and it looks pretty much identical to the shot above. If anything, I'd be happy to accept it as almost a straight print: it was a commercial shoot, and so he had time and understanding of where lay the interest - the kiss. Exposing for that, would render the brighter-lit building much more dense, so thus lighter on print.
Digital 'control' and expectation can make things seem far more complicated than they often might be. If you look at the blur on the edges of the post, it looks real enough as not to suggest much monkey business with exposure to print.
Alternatively, it might have been lightened to take copy - never saw the shot as anything but the bare, unadorned print.
Rob C
-
I'd always thought of it as a straight pic too... but there is a halo around the foreground subjects, particularly around the man's head... unless this copy had a bad experience with a jpeg compressor before being re-expanded.
Just checked with the version on the cover of Peter Hamilton's book and it looks much straighter ... the building is less blown out and the lamp-post has kept some shadow detail. There is still some evidence of dodging around the kisser's head though.
Ah, I just looked inside and found a re-print of an English newspaper article including that pic. The version I googled may have come from thaf, with the compression required for reproduction on newsprint, and a bit if help from an engraving tool on the etched metal in the production process.
-
Graham, Rob,
Thanks.
-
I'd always thought of it as a straight pic too... but there is a halo around the foreground subjects, particularly around the man's head... unless this copy had a bad experience with a jpeg compressor before being re-expanded.
Just checked with the version on the cover of Peter Hamilton's book and it looks much straighter ... the building is less blown out and the lamp-post has kept some shadow detail. There is still some evidence of dodging around the kisser's head though.
Ah, I just looked inside and found a re-print of an English newspaper article including that pic. The version I googled may have come from thaf, with the compression required for reproduction on newsprint, and a bit if help from an engraving tool on the etched metal in the production process.
Yes, but I would assume that to be poorish dodging to keep from over-exposing the couple's faces... They are a bit lighter than the face of the guy to the left, wearing a beret. If identical open light, it shouldn't look that way unless the couple has been dodged to keep 'em light because they are not looking straight forward, as is the beret guy, so they'd be more shaded.
I love reading pictures; it makes me wonder how I'd have handled the same situation.
Rob C
-
I love reading pictures; it makes me wonder how I'd have handled the same situation.
Rob C
The VERY best education...
Peter
-
It floors me to think there are people who agonize over questions like this one.
-
Nice to see you posting again, Russ! Florida now?
Rob C
-
Yeah. We're here, but just barely at the moment. I wracked up my hips loading and stacking boxes. Gotta get back on my feet.
-
Yeah. We're here, but just barely at the moment. I wracked up my hips loading and stacking boxes. Gotta get back on my feet.
I know the feeling! I'm too prone to getting pains across the upper part of my hips, especially from bending down badly to pull up the bolts securing the french windows. It hurts like hell for a day or two, and I have no idea why it happens, because it sure isn't down to speed on my part!
Get right soon, and back on those 'mean' pleasant streets! But keep out of the river.
Rob
-
It floors me to think there are people who agonize over questions like this one.
Agreed. Too much over analysing imo.
-
Well, asking or not asking the original question depends on where you imagine yourself to be on the ladder.
I was lucky: I knew my direction and heros from the start. Takes care of everything but the money.
;-(
Rob
-
IMHO, I have progressed enough that taking a photograph is no big deal and am trying to cross that blurred line between
photography and art, whatever that even means.
My question is...how many of us are patient enough to create a photograph as opposed to just going out in the evening and shooting that sunset?
Do you shoot or...do you create?
I create. Everything/one is directed/arranged. Almost everything is strobe lit, and when it's not the ambient is specifically timed and planned. A large proportion of what I shoot is explicitly pre-envisioned prior to the shoot day insofar that I know exactly what the final image will look like before the shoot. Photoshop, for some of my work, makes or breaks the concept.
I shot as a 'taker'/opportunist years ago, for several years: Enjoyed it, but it couldn't hold my interest over a lifetime.
-
... create a photograph as opposed to just going out in the evening and shooting that sunset?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean: for me "going out in the evening and shooting that sunset" may equates to "create a photograph", if I have a feeling I want to put into that photograph.
-
My photography tends to be a combination of both taking and creating.
I don't think it is possible to do one without the other.
But like most questions like these, it depends on how one chooses to define the terms.
-
I suppose I take, not make, most of the time. Many of my photos are "light's not great today, spot has potential, come back later" scouting documentation, or "species x, not perfect, but make the best of it, and get a straight identification shot too". I do work a scene to decide on perspective and composition. I guess that if I have planned out a photograph and gotten the elements I want in the photograph, I feel that I have "made" it. If it isn't quite my ideal, I "took" the photo.
-
It floors me to think there are people who agonize over questions like this one.
Agreed
-
One shouldn't need to agonise over it, but it could be helpful to be clear in one's own mind about the differences between 'taking a photo' and 'creating a photo'.
For example, one cannot create a photo without first taking a photo. The process of taking a photo I would describe as the recording on the camera's sensor or film, of whatever scene is in front of the lens and within the angle-of-view of the lens.
The choice of the scene to direct the camera toward, the point in the scene selected for maximum focus, the amount of DoF chosen in accordance with selection of F/stop, the choice of a precise moment to press the shutter, and the choice of many other variable camera settings, especially when shooting in jpeg mode to take advantage of the camera's built-in processing capability, are all acts of creativity at some level, however basic.
Those who wish to apply greater levels of creativity, will tend to shoot in RAW mode and selectively process the 'captured image' or 'taken shot', sometimes removing distracting and unwanted objects in the scene, raising shadows, darkening highlights, increasing vibrancy and so on.
A painter begins with a blank canvas and adds to it. That might be considered as the purest form of pictorial creativity. A photographer begins with a recorded image, and if he wishes, he can spend as much time creatively modifying that initial recording as a painter spends in adding to a blank canvas.
-
One shouldn't need to agonise over it, but it could be helpful to be clear in one's own mind about the differences between 'taking a photo' and 'creating a photo'.
For example, one cannot create a photo without first taking a photo. The process of taking a photo I would describe as the recording on the camera's sensor or film, of whatever scene is in front of the lens and within the angle-of-view of the lens.
The choice of the scene to direct the camera toward, the point in the scene selected for maximum focus, the amount of DoF chosen in accordance with selection of F/stop, the choice of a precise moment to press the shutter, and the choice of many other variable camera settings, especially when shooting in jpeg mode to take advantage of the camera's built-in processing capability, are all acts of creativity at some level, however basic.
Those who wish to apply greater levels of creativity, will tend to shoot in RAW mode and selectively process the 'captured image' or 'taken shot', sometimes removing distracting and unwanted objects in the scene, raising shadows, darkening highlights, increasing vibrancy and so on.
A painter begins with a blank canvas and adds to it. That might be considered as the purest form of pictorial creativity. A photographer begins with a recorded image, and if he wishes, he can spend as much time creatively modifying that initial recording as a painter spends in adding to a blank canvas.
It goes beyond (& before) the point of capture, and the subsequent post production. There are photographers whose work cannot exist without an effort to assemble all that is placed in front of the camera to realise their wholly imagined scene and concept. Fine art photographers such as Gregory Crewdson, and commercial artists like Erik Almas work this way for all or much of the imagery they create. In some cases the post-work is very slight due to the extensive pre-production efforts.
-
It goes beyond (& before) the point of capture, and the subsequent post production.
Of course it does. That why I wrote: "The choice of the scene to direct the camera toward, the point in the scene selected for maximum focus, the amount of DoF chosen in accordance with selection of F/stop".... and so on. All this takes place before the shutter is pressed and is all part of the creative process.
Even if one makes no settings other than switching the camera on, one still has to choose the scene to photograph, which involves pointing the camera in a specific direction, from a specific position, and pressing the shutter at a specific moment in time, which is apparently the point where Henri Cartier-Bresson's creativity stopped. He never processed his own images.
-
Of course it does. That why I wrote: "The choice of the scene to direct the camera toward, the point in the scene selected for maximum focus, the amount of DoF chosen in accordance with selection of F/stop".... and so on. All this takes place before the shutter is pressed and is all part of the creative process.
Even if one makes no settings other than switching the camera on, one still has to choose the scene to photograph, which involves pointing the camera in a specific direction, from a specific position, and pressing the shutter at a specific moment in time, which is apparently the point where Henri Cartier-Bresson's creativity stopped. He never processed his own images.
What I was alluding to is that the scene doesn't actually exist other than in some photographers minds (such as Almas, especially Crewdson). Their scenes are complete fabrications, built by the photographers either physically and/or digitally. Crewdson's interiors are usually assembled on sound stages. Almas' landscape'y concepts almost invariably involve several (sometimes dozens of) unique frames composited and retouched to realise the 'ideal' in his minds eye. And then the people placed into these scenes, either physically or digitally, have been explicitly directed in terms of their body language, expression, etc. and specifically styled for the image's concept. I work this way sometimes too ... Every frame in the set has been mentally pre-envisaged, and then drawn (scamped / story boarded), then every set, person, piece of wardrobe, and prop is brought in to realise those drawings photographically.
So it goes beyond choices on composition, exposure, DOF, etc. ... It can be about creating pictures using cameras that exist only in a photographers mind, and nowhere else prior to a total production (pre-shoot) effort.
-
What I was alluding to is that the scene doesn't actually exist other than in some photographers minds (such as Almas, especially Crewdson). Their scenes are complete fabrications, built by the photographers either physically and/or digitally.
I don't think a composite photographic image is a complete fabrication. Parts of the composite image are often realistic representations of parts of, or the whole of, the original scenes captured.
I would say there is a spectrum of 'degrees of deviation' from what most people would consider to be a realistic representation of any particular scene. At a fundamental level, all images exist only in the mind of the viewer, and every image requires an interpretation in the brain, for the composite elements and colors to be recognised. The interpretation usually happens automatically, but it is nevertheless an interpretation.
Whether one is painting or manipulating photographs, one can create imaginary scenes which would not relate, in whole, to any identifiable physical location or event. We've got used to that with painting, but some people still object to photographic images being manipulated in that way because they think it's a deception.
-
Thing is, the moment you pick up a camera you are restricted to/empowered by its type and setup.
What you thought about before is or is not important to the degree that your preconception - if you had one - has been fulfilled. If you come up with something unexpected, but good, you can claim it to your experience; if you come up with nothing, you can blame it on lunch, a wife partner who doesn't understand you, or simply the brand of tool and the depth of your pockets.
Photography can be a win win situation, which is why so many indulge. It's the next best thing to playing the lottery for kindling hope, mostly vain.
Rob C
-
Thing is, the moment you pick up a camera you are restricted to/empowered by its type and setup.
Rob C
That's why I prefer zoom lenses, Rob. Less restriction. ;)
-
That's why I prefer zoom lenses, Rob. Less restriction. ;)
There you are: the luck pf the draw. My single zoom turned out to be a dog, even on a cropped format D200. It was a Nikkor 24-70 G. It was a dog, as I said, but it must also have been a lemon-coloured dog: Russ posted a beautifully crisp shot from such an objective a short while ago. I own no more dogs.
;-(
Rob
-
There you are: the luck pf the draw. My single zoom turned out to be a dog, even on a cropped format D200. It was a Nikkor 24-70 G. It was a dog, as I said, but it must also have been a lemon-coloured dog: Russ posted a beautifully crisp shot from such an objective a short while ago. I own no more dogs.
;-(
Rob
Crikey! Rob, you should know as a professional that sometimes equipment can be faulty, or not up to standard, in which case one should return the equipment immediately for either a refund or replacement. I've done that myself on a few occasions in the past, and I'm just an amateur. ;)
-
Well, if I was trying to sell it, I would certainly tell people I created it rather than took it.
-
Crikey! Rob, you should know as a professional that sometimes equipment can be faulty, or not up to standard, in which case one should return the equipment immediately for either a refund or replacement. I've done that myself on a few occasions in the past, and I'm just an amateur. ;)
I bought wholesale. Faulty Nikon stuff is a new departure for me. Never happened with anything of theirs I bought for film.
The best I could get was an exchange for a 2.8/180 af Nikkor that's seldom been used since. Oddly, that meant adding more money to the deal because the 180mm was more expensive in Spain...
The wholesaler eventually found itself forced to close down on Mallorca due to the total loss of its former big business selling chemicals and papers to all the wedding and 'social' snappers. Thanks, digi! Only the head office in Barcelona seems to exist today, and when I contacted them trying to buy something, the distinct impression was that they coudn't care less about anything outwith Barcelona. Hence my relationship with London.
I have never met any of those shopkeepers who accept 'try 'n' then buy when one works' deals. But that's because I seldom buy these days, and when I do it's by post from Greys of Westminster, a Nikon specialist in London; very good service and nice people with whom to deal. They do offfer a two week return policy, but that's not a lot of help when from abroad. To make it even worse, my local GPO won't do insurance on posted items: they tell me I have to drive the 60 klicks to Palma for that service. Hey ho.
Rob
-
It floors me to think there are people who agonize over questions like this one
Aah...why would you assume that the question was the result of angst.
-
Because you made that quite clear in your original post. You're worried sick about crossing that "blurred line between photography and art. . ." You emphasize your angst with the statement, "whatever that even means."
You evidently think there's some kind of difference between photography and "art." Please explain what you think that difference is. What, exactly, do you think the difference is between taking and creating a photograph?
Evidently you're hung up on landscape photography because you're talking about going out in the evening and shooting that sunset. There are a lot more photographic genres than landscape. In some genres you and your camera can do a better job of creating art than can a painter and his brushes, but landscape isn't one of those genres.
In photography, "shooting" is synonymous with "creating." The patience comes in learning the strengths and weaknesses of the genre, not in the amount of time you agonize over a sunset before you trip the shutter. A good street photographer may frame and shoot in a fraction of a second, and what he produces may or may not be art -- just like the poor guy who agonizes for hours over his landscape.
It all comes down to what HCB said: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." Learning to look is how you graduate from snapshots to results that reasonably could be called art.
-
Basic photography, IMHO, represents more of a documentary genre, whether it be BIF/sports/street work/whatnot.
Creating an image involves more work at the outset...working the scene/subject, waiting for the light, perhaps lots of work in post.
You have that vision before squeezing the shutter.
-
Basic photography, IMHO, represents more of a documentary genre, whether it be BIF/sports/street work/whatnot.
Creating an image involves more work at the outset...working the scene/subject, waiting for the light, perhaps lots of work in post.
You have that vision before squeezing the shutter.
I disagree...
Dorothea Lange, Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Yousef Karsh, Erwin Elliot, took (exceptional) photographs. In relatively modern times Steve McCurry, James Natchwey, Frans Lanting, Charlie Waite took/take (exceptional) photographs.
Gregory Crewdson, Erwin Olaf, Julia Fullerton-Batten, Carl Warner, David la'Chapelle, Erik Almas, the matured Leibovitz & Meisel *make* (exceptional) photographs.
...can you spot the difference?
-
Stanmore,
...Ansel Adams...took (exceptional) photographs.
You don't take a photograph, you make it.
Credit: Ansel Adams
-
He made them all right. In the darkroom.
-
You don't take a photograph, you make it.
My guess is that has become more a matter of choice, as photographic equipment has become (in many ways) less of a constraint.
"You don't make an image like this (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=74139.msg598464#msg598464). You don't make a day with an incredible storm, graphic waves. I just managed to take a few frames before the man walked away."
-
Isaac,
My guess is that has become more a matter of choice...
My guess is that Ansel Adams did not consider it a matter of choice at all.
-
As-before, I don't think that was independent from the constraints imposed by the photographic equipment available, when Ansel Adams was becoming a photographer.
-
Isaac,
As-before, I don't think that was independent from the constraints imposed by the photographic equipment available, when Ansel Adams was becoming a photographer.
We cannot know for certain what Ansel Adams meant. We can be certain that in this age of fewer photographic equipment contraints, Ansel Adams remains one of, if not the most celebrated landscape photographers in the world.
-
We can be certain that in this age of fewer photographic equipment contraints, Ansel Adams remains one of, if not the most celebrated landscape photographers in the world.
That's no excuse for anachronism.
-
Isaac,
That's no excuse for anachronism.
Do you consider my comment to be an example of anachronism?
-
As far as I understand Ansel Adams saw the printmaking with his highly skilled and elaborate dodging and burning as a key aspect of his photographic art, hence "making a photograph".
Today we have almost limitless post-processing possibilities so there's no clear line between photography and graphic arts. I think this makes "creating a photograph" sound quite suspicious, like it's about manipulation. As I find the documentary aspect important in my own photography, I would avoid using "creating a photograph" to describe how I work.