Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Isaac on February 29, 2016, 08:09:52 pm
-
Interesting historical perspective … without a relevant knowledge of the times and circumstances …
Beware.
Was Cartier-Bresson an émigré?
Was Cartier-Bresson of Jewish descent?
Was anything there actually about Cartier-Bresson?
-
Beware.
Was Cartier-Bresson an émigré?
Was Cartier-Bresson of Jewish descent?
Was anything there actually about Cartier-Bresson?
No, but nobody said that, nor it can be concluded from the post (if one is reading it carefully). It was, however, about historic circumstances in which many photographers were collaborating with the Communist press, and why. One view, at least. It does give a context to HCB's own collaboration.
-
Beware.
Was Cartier-Bresson an émigré?
Was Cartier-Bresson of Jewish descent?
Was anything there actually about Cartier-Bresson?
My comment was more of a general rumination on the importance of context in the appreciation of art. Rob's specific comments on the times clearly were not exhaustive, but nevertheless are a(nother) piece of information that helps toward a greater understanding of HCB's production, nor does HCB necessarily need to conform to any of the groups mentioned to be influenced by the era's various social and political happenings.
-
Rob's specific comments on the times clearly were not exhaustive …
They were not true of Cartier-Bresson.
-
They were not true of Cartier-Bresson.
Nobody said that they were: HC-B came from a wealthy family, thanks largely to whose financial security blanket he was able to swan around much of the world indulging himself in art - in one form or another. And I think we are all the better for it. The references are all there in the many books - as I'm sure you well know, which makes me wonder why you thought it necessary to raise the matter, if not simply because you find yourself in a continuing state of open warfare.
Rob C
-
I find it a good article, and gives some pointers on how to look and analyse photos, from HCB, or anybody else.
A good example on how to learn from the works of the masters.
-
gives some pointers on how to look and analyse photos
I think it does exactly the opposite, but everyone has a right to an opinion.
-
Does anyone honestly think that looking at his images will improve their photography? Nobody can hope to replicate them mostly because they were taken in a bygone era. The "decisive moment" is simply plain common sense and luck is probably more important. Personally speaking most of my "best" images were luck and the planned ones never really came to fruition. It is simply all about looking and seeing. :-\
-
For me, it's not a question of whether he deserves another 'poetic elegy' or whether there is consensus as to how good he was. It's the problem of yet another article/thread reducing his body of work to the 'decisive moment' mantra. (To be clear, I'm not specifically criticizing this author or this article, just that nearly all writings/ discussions are solely focused on the 'decisive moment' theme.) As though his photography was all about waiting on the streets for someone to jump or ride by on a bicycle or make some motion that he captured at precisely the right time.
What about the rest of his work? Where are the articles discussing his strong Surrealist influences, without which the 'decisive moment' would have had much less visual impact? What about his photojournalism work or his environmental portraiture? Or even his film work?
There is so much more to Cartier-Bresson. And even if limited to the 'decisive moment', so much more to his photographs than the, well, decisive moment. I'd love to read an informed article about the difference between the millions of photos of people caught yawning on a bus or sleeping on a park bench or walking under a funny poster, etc. and the visual art captured within Cartier-Bresson's photos.
If you would like to know another side of HCB, try Sextet by John Malcolm Brinnin.
-
Does anyone honestly think that looking at his images will improve their photography? ...
Russ does, rightly.
-
Does anyone honestly think that looking at his images will improve their photography?
Yes. Not enormously, and not through going searching for magic moments... but in the general sense of being inspired by some wonderfully poetic images, to imagine what can make a powerful photograph. Along the lines of the comment made by Katrin Eismann, on the importance of being vulnerable by trying things: to stop worrying about whether this or that is worthy of a photograph.
Personally, I don't think Derrière la Gare St Lazarre is particularly outstanding, it just happens to have lots of elements that are easy for critics to point out and make a fuss of. I don't get very excited about the Armenian photo either... but the Mexican one yes (even without caring about the Vacado sign), and so many others. And of course other people will by inspired by different things, which is good, since we are able to be inspired to follow our own directions.
The world has indeed moved on, it's too late to become HCB, but inspiration is more subtle than that.
-
A video interview about him.. (https://youtu.be/5U63Pf7GS6A)
-
Does anyone honestly think that looking at his images will improve their photography? Nobody can hope to replicate them mostly because they were taken in a bygone era. The "decisive moment" is simply plain common sense and luck is probably more important. Personally speaking most of my "best" images were luck and the planned ones never really came to fruition. It is simply all about looking and seeing. :-\
What I think these images will do, is this: as with other genres, looking at what's possibly/probably up there amongst the best of whichever genres, will open the viewer's eyes to what's been/being done in the various photographic spheres. Then, from much looking, it becomes possible to discover the things that mean something to you, the individual.
Once you have overcome that quite large hurdle - you can't really love everything, any more than you can love everyone - you are then in a mental position to think seriously about where you really want your own efforts to be directed.
Today, with the Internet, opportunity to explore and discover is incredibly wide. I began in a time when all that could be accessed was magazines, and they cost a lot when you only had a half-crown per week pocket money to live on... ;-)
I'm not, of course, aiming this post directly at stamper - he's been around long enough to know all this - I'm just pointing out to fresher, less experienced minds that the world of photography is huge, that you can't hope to excell at everything, and that time is always too short even if you are dealt the best hand of cards on the planet.
Please, discover what turns you on and pursue it!
Rob C
-
I think it does exactly the opposite, but everyone has a right to an opinion.
Thanks for letting me have an opinion :)
To me, analysing photos, and learning how to do it, is an important part of the learning process for photography. Therefore, for example looking at complementing figures, geometries, colours, motifs, etc, can be a good exercise in understanding why some photos work, and others not.
In this regard, I can highly recommend this book:
http://www.rockynook.com/shop/photography/why-photographs-work/
-
The "decisive moment" is simply plain common sense …
Perhaps there was more -- "An Investigation into the Concept of the 'Decisive Moment' (Augenblick (http://www.academia.edu/3745989/An_Investigation_into_the_Concept_of_the_Decisive_Moment_Augenblick_as_Found_in_Nineteenth_and_Twentieth_Century_Western_Philosophy)) as Found in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Western Philosophy".
… luck is probably more important.
« … (par hasard, direz-vous peut-être, mais souvenez-vous que dans les champs de l’observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés) … »
-
Isaac, what influence has it had over your photographic education? Some examples would be helpful in understanding how you have progressed. I don't have a problem with looking at images and learning but to me modern examples would be better than ones taken decades ago because photography has moved on. Digital has been a game changer?
-
To me, analysing photos, and learning how to do it, is an important part of the learning process for photography. Therefore, for example looking at complementing figures, geometries, colours, motifs, etc, can be a good exercise in understanding why some photos work, and others not.
I agree with that without hesitation. It's just this particular case, where the analysis seemed to me more about hagiography than illumination. But possibly just that's me 8)
-
stamper,
...photography has moved on.
'How pictures work' has not.
-
stamper,
'How pictures work' has not.
Yes they have. Looking at modern contemporary images - that I have a chance of shooting - is better than looking at old images of France and Paris. Regarding cities then seeing images of Glasgow and Edinburgh in a present day setting will mean that I can learn better than Paris pre war? I don't get this fascination with a dead Frenchman. :(
-
The problem with looking at images of photographers from years of yore is that they saw the world with a set of "rules" in mind, some of which was derived from painters. In the modern world the "rules" have less relevance - if any at all - and if the "rules" are adhered to then your mind is set in a photographic straightjacket. Did HCB cut the heads off in portraits? David Bailey did so and initially got castigated for it. In modern times it is now acceptable. Thinking has moved on and the present day risk takers in photographic terms are the ones to study.
-
stamper,
The problem with looking at images of photographers from years of yore is that they saw the world with a set of "rules" in mind...
There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.
Credit: Ansel Adams
-
stamper,
There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.
Credit: Ansel Adams
Correct! By all means look at HCB's photographs....but try not to be influenced by them.
-
stamper,
By all means look at HCB's photographs....but try not to be influenced by them.
Why?
-
stamper,
Why?
If you had read my earlier posts there is a clue there?
-
stamper,
If you had read my earlier posts there is a clue there?
I can see a statement of personal preference and several questions, but must have missed that you have a clue.
-
stamper,
I can see a statement of personal preference and several questions, but must have missed that you have a clue.
Unlike yourself I am willing to make a statement of personal preferences and pose questions. Unfortunately you prefer to snipe and are unwilling/unable to contribute anything to the thread. :( :)
-
stamper,
Unlike yourself I am willing to...pose questions.
Unlike yourself my questions (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=108516.msg894731#msg894731) are not assertions terminated with a question mark.
Unfortunately you prefer to snipe and are unwilling/unable to contribute anything to the thread.
You have eyes but cannot see.
-
stamper,
Unlike yourself my questions (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=108516.msg894731#msg894731) are not assertions terminated with a question mark.
You have eyes but cannot see.
Go practice your trolling somewhere else. :P
-
The sniping stops here or I will ban the lot of you.
-
Chris,
For what it is worth, I apologise.
-
Does anyone honestly think that looking at his images will improve their photography? Nobody can hope to replicate them mostly because they were taken in a bygone era. The "decisive moment" is simply plain common sense and luck is probably more important. Personally speaking most of my "best" images were luck and the planned ones never really came to fruition. It is simply all about looking and seeing. :-\
As a landscape photographer I couldn't agree more. There isn't really a 'decisive moment' Most of it is driving round for days on end and being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time!
-
Digital has been a game changer?
This is a really interesting starting point for a whole new thread! There is no doubt that the world of photograhy has changed because of digital but I'm not sure the aesthetics of photographiy has changed. The means by which you take a photograph, in theory, should be irrelevant but. in practice, probably does has an influence. I started with film 45 years ago (Voightlander Prominent!) and tried to return to it about 8 years ago. I found it incredibly difficult to go back for lots of reaons and now rarely use my film camera.
-
Does anyone honestly think that looking at his images will improve their photography? Nobody can hope to replicate them mostly because they were taken in a bygone era. The "decisive moment" is simply plain common sense and luck is probably more important. Personally speaking most of my "best" images were luck and the planned ones never really came to fruition. It is simply all about looking and seeing. :-\
Exactly right, Robert. If anybody doubts that, HCB himself said, "It's always luck," check this reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4qZ3Z8shZE&feature=related. He added: "You just have to be receptive. That's all." If you've ever done street photography you realize that's exactly how it works. "It's always luck. You just have to be receptive. That's all."
What you can learn from Henri's photographs is how important composition is. Three things make a successful photograph: (1) Interesting subject matter, (2) Good composition, and (3) Good light. If you're really good at composition and you understand light, even #1 doesn't matter a lot. With the right composition and beautiful light you can turn something boring into something striking.
-
Exactly right, Robert. If anybody doubts that, HCB himself said, "It's always luck," check this reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4qZ3Z8shZE&feature=related. He added: "You just have to be receptive. That's all." If you've ever done street photography you realize that's exactly how it works. "It's always luck. You just have to be receptive. That's all."
What you can learn from Henri's photographs is how important composition is. Three things make a successful photograph: (1) Interesting subject matter, (2) Good composition, and (3) Good light. If you're really good at composition and you understand light, even #1 doesn't matter a lot. With the right composition and beautiful light you can turn something boring into something striking.
[/b][/i]
This is plain commonsense and I don't think you have to look at Henri's photographs to realize this. Most of what he composed was a long time ago and I think that most photographers will look at something modern and learn composition from that especially if they know the scene.
-
[/b][/i]
look at something modern and learn composition from that especially if they know the scene.
Is it possible we are discussing different things here? At one level there are certain compositional features, not all of which are readily codified into simple rules, which give a photo impact, whatever the subject matter. For me, at least.
At another level, there is what makes a photo saleable in the current context, which is rather more about fashion and expectation, creating surprise. Bailey cutting heads off would seem to fall into this category.
-
Read this last night: "Once upon a time Henri Cartier-Bresson staged a photograph of a man...stepping over a pool of water." Lyle Rexer, photograph, March/April 2016
I have no idea where Rexer gets his information, the article in which it appears is on the fashion photographer Hiro, but we have heard the assertion before.
If it was staged then the place and composition were all-important. For some photographers the place comes first, waiting comes next and finally the right action takes place. See also Sam Abell The Life of A Photograph on Youtube. Abell talks of his father's dictum to compose and wait. Personally, that notion appeals to me in my version/attempt at street photography and I don't think it has gone out of style.
David
-
[/b][/i]
This is plain commonsense and I don't think you have to look at Henri's photographs to realize this. Most of what he composed was a long time ago and I think that most photographers will look at something modern and learn composition from that especially if they know the scene.
The point is that Henri's composition was some of the very best. Long ago doesn't matter. You can look at paintings from the fifteenth century and learn something about composition. Good composition is good composition no matter which century or decade it comes from.
-
I have no idea where Rexer gets his information…
Why do people just make up stuff sometimes? (https://www.facebook.com/carrieunderwood/posts/10151639746554568)
…“I did remember that I saw his contact sheet of this picture (means Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare), I am so surprised that people these days doubt that picture is a “Set Up Picture”, I know it is NOT because I read the contact sheet from Henri Cartier-Bresson for that picture.” David Hurn told me that Henri Cartier Bresson was actually stand in a same place and waiting people to jump over the water, he captured every best moment and choose the “Best of the Best” moment (http://mrfox44.blogspot.com/2013/04/some-random-time.html) to become this most famous picture - “Behind the Gare St. Lazare”.
Everyone thought his was a pure chance, a piece of luck. Once again, it was but only to a certain degree. The contact sheet showed us that HCB had tried some 10 times to obtain that shot. With other cyclists, passers-by, pedestrians and such. He then chose the best one out of all those other ones (http://morganmoller.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/street-photography-is-the-hardest-branch-of-photography-cartier-bresson-still-teaches-us-every-day/) and it became this incredibly famous image. [Th]e rest of them never saw the light of day.
If you want to imagine Cartier-Bresson staging a photograph then imagine how easy it would be to ask friend André (https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/005-Andre-Pieyre-de-Mandiargues-1933.jpg) to take a step back -- but wouldn't Cartier-Bresson just move himself?
-
Does anyone honestly think that looking at his images will improve their photography?
I don't have a problem with looking at images and learning but to me modern examples would be better than…
Honestly which "modern" photographs have you looked-at with the aim of improving your photography?
I look at other photographers work to enjoy and understand what they've done; I look at my work with the aim of improving my photography.
I see that to improve my photography, I must prevent myself from focus-stacking at the sharpest aperture from far-horizon to foreground -- because there will never be enough DoF in the foreground but, in the moment, I keep making that mistake (as-if stubborn hard-work will overcome physics).
To break that habit, I've printed out relevant DoF tables (and weather-proofed (http://www.scotchbrand.com/3M/en_US/scotch-brand/products/catalog/~/Scotch-Self-Sealing-Laminating-Pouches-4-x6-?N=4335+3294529207+3294601203+3294857497&rt=rud) them) as a physical reminder that I must start in the foreground, and accept the compromise of somewhat less-sharp but none-the-less adequate DoF.
Personally speaking most of my "best" images were luck and the planned ones never really came to fruition. It is simply all about looking and seeing.
For me, photography is always secondary to some other activity, so "planning" makes it more likely that I will succeed when I'm tired and distracted and being rushed.
-
. Most of what he composed was a long time ago and I think that most photographers will look at something modern and learn composition from that especially if they know the scene.
Most of what HCB composed was not so long ago in terms of the history of the visual arts. Thanks to the internet we all live in a virtual museum in which a significant and increasing proportion of everything that has ever been done is readily available, for pleasure and/or learning. The advantage of modern work is that it will be immediately accessible because the cultural context necessary for understanding doesn't have to be learned. On the other side, with older work, time has usually done some weeding out of mediocrity, and some qualities are partly independent of cultural context. I would argue that composition is like that. When I look at the composition of landscapes by Van Ruysdael or Claude or Cezanne, I find varieties of excellence that I also find in modern landscape (or other) photography and that I try, vainly, to emulate in my own work (but the trying keeps me awake). Photographers who only look at modern photography will no doubt be able to learn a great deal from it, and good luck to them, but there is a whole world of pleasure and instruction to be found both in older photography and in other forms of visual art. We learn from what we love (and what we don't care for) wherever we find it.
I also think there is a truth in the following (mis)quotation:
What should they know of photography
Who only photography know
But that is another discussion.
-
With respect to composition and HCB - and others of his ilk - how many here think that modern equipment plays an important part in composition. Henri used Lenses that are antiquated by today's standards, especially long lenses. Primes lenses were popular in by gone days. Composing an image with a wide angle prime and standing further away and framing the same field of view with a zoom at a longer focal length is a different approach? In a nutshell what I am stating - perhaps controversially - using modern lenses means that in a lot of instances the compositional aspects of photography is different from - and better - than it was decades ago?
-
Honestly which "modern" photographs have you looked-at with the aim of improving your photography?
http://www.in-public.com/photographers
http://davidduchemin.com/?action=printpage%3Btopic%3D170.0
There are others but these two are helpful. Looking at images from photographers of yore is pleasurable but the difference in equipment between the old and new makes a difference in the way we approach photography. Using a film camera and a digital camera may mean there is a difference in approach. The small mirrorless cameras is an all new ball game and I read on here, and other sites, about photographers changing their approach to photography. In a nut shell photography has moved on and this imo includes composition?
-
Honestly which "modern" photographs have you looked-at with the aim of improving your photography?
I look at other photographers work to enjoy and understand what they've done; I look at my work with the aim of improving my photography.
I see that to improve my photography, I must prevent myself from focus-stacking at the sharpest aperture from far-horizon to foreground -- because there will never be enough DoF in the foreground but, in the moment, I keep making that mistake (as-if stubborn hard-work will overcome physics).
To break that habit, I've printed out relevant DoF tables (and weather-proofed (http://www.scotchbrand.com/3M/en_US/scotch-brand/products/catalog/~/Scotch-Self-Sealing-Laminating-Pouches-4-x6-?N=4335+3294529207+3294601203+3294857497&rt=rud) them) as a physical reminder that I must start in the foreground, and accept the compromise of somewhat less-sharp but none-the-less adequate DoF.
For me, photography is always secondary to some other activity, so "planning" makes it more likely that I will succeed when I'm tired and distracted and being rushed.
Isaac did Henri use DOF scales? I don't know enough about him but I suspect not.
http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/003d78
So much has changed from his day it surprises me that photographers are still attracted to him? Some find his images unsurpassed and others less so. His methods are undoubtedly outdated and how do you adapt modern methods to his way of shooting?
-
In a nutshell what I am stating - perhaps controversially - using modern lenses means that in a lot of instances the compositional aspects of photography is different from - and better - than it was decades ago?
Certainly, the lens provides the opportunities and constraints within which the photographer composes, so different or new lenses provide different or new opportunities and constraints. But I don't think that means any change to what we recognise as good or bad composition. Surely that will always be about things like balance, movement, pattern, tone values, symmetry and (intended) departure from it, guidance of the eye within the frame, how the composition carries the meaning. Painters and draftsmen have always had absolute control over "focal length" and "field of view" and all that stuff. They can do ultra wide, telephoto, macro as they choose and over the years have explored the compositional opportunities provided by different approaches, within and beyond the laws of optics. It is similar with music. Electronics has provided lots of exciting new ways of making and combining sounds, but that doesn't mean better (or worse) music.
-
Certainly, the lens provides the opportunities and constraints within which the photographer composes, so different or new lenses provide different or new opportunities and constraints. But I don't think that means any change to what we recognise as good or bad composition. Surely that will always be about things like balance, movement, pattern, tone values, symmetry and (intended) departure from it, guidance of the eye within the frame, how the composition carries the meaning. Painters and draftsmen have always had absolute control over "focal length" and "field of view" and all that stuff. They can do ultra wide, telephoto, macro as they choose and over the years have explored the compositional opportunities provided by different approaches, within and beyond the laws of optics. It is similar with music. Electronics has provided lots of exciting new ways of making and combining sounds, but that doesn't mean better (or worse) music.
[/quote
This is where subjectivity comes into play. Some members on here have doubted how good, or bad, Henri was and in modern times is he really worth paying lip service to?
-
Well, I don't see it as a matter of lip service at all: I see it simply as a recognition of someone with a very good eye doing something that was of its time, but not as a unique photographer - he was one of many within the genre.
His main contribution, looking backwards, seems to have been in bringing the entire genre into public focus. Many of his contemporaries did similar work, but never did attain the glory that he did - another lesson to the PC brigade: you can't all be voted No1, even if you are pretty damned good.
It's not simply a matter of his times, either. Yes, we know Paris, India, Africa and all his favourite places have changed, some beyond recognition; the common thread, though, for his era as ours, is that it's about design and seeing, as it ever was.
I don't think it's got much to do with camera or lens as far as 'look' goes. He just used what was easiest, fastest and most comfortable for the task; after all, it was he who persuaded so many others to abandon the Rollei, a machine that is perfect for some work, but not exactly for anything that requires stealth and speed (relax, Viv, we still love you!).
Basically, he just used the best, simple tool for the job.
As for the rest of us today, we are just playing at what he did for real. And the proliferation of digi cameras doesn't seem to have raised the level one iota. We just catch more, sharper, but meaningless images.
Rob C
-
. . . the proliferation of digi cameras doesn't seem to have raised the level one iota. We just catch more, sharper, but meaningless images.
+2 or 3
-
As for the rest of us today, we are just playing at what he did for real. And the proliferation of digi cameras doesn't seem to have raised the level one iota. We just catch more, sharper, but meaningless images.
Thank you... I've been struggling to know how to respond to this thread, but this rang so true.
Rand
-
Does anyone honestly think that looking at his images will improve their photography?
I do. At the very least, they inspire.
-
Honestly which "modern" photographs have you looked-at with the aim of improving your photography?
http://www.in-public.com/photographers
"He roams his city, Leica and 35mm lens (https://books.google.com/books?id=MtCmCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=He+never+moves,+alters,+or+stages+anything&source=bl&ots=UkHztfNHUB&sig=Z6rq1DUhQ-z0NqejO6SE6c9X9HA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA57mPx6fLAhUD7GMKHdruC9QQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=He%20never%20moves%2C%20alters%2C%20or%20stages%20anything&f=false) at the ready, alert to those rare moments where serendipity and circumstance seem to magically collide. … He abides by a strict code: a simple set of unbreakable rules. He never moves, alters, or stages anything once it is within his viewfinder, and he never uses Photoshop." page 144 "The World Atlas of Street Photography"
In what way has looking at Matt Stuart's photographs improved your photography? What do you do differently now that you've looked at his photos?
Isaac did Henri use DOF scales? … His methods are undoubtedly outdated and how do you adapt modern methods to his way of shooting?
As I said: I look at other photographers work to enjoy and understand what they've done - I don't look at other photographers work with the aim of improving my photography - I look at my work with the aim of improving my photography.
There's no reason for me to care if Cartier-Bresson used DoF tables or to care that you think his methods are outdated -- I'm not trying to use Cartier-Bresson's methods to improve my photography.
-
. . .I look at my work with the aim of improving my photography.
Let's see some of your work, Isaac. That would give us a chance to help you improve it.
-
Let's see some of your work, Isaac. That would give us a chance to help you improve it.
I've already seen what you have to offer.
-
But we haven't seen what you have to offer. We've heard about it -- from you -- but we've never seen it.
-
And the proliferation of digi cameras doesn't seem to have raised the level one iota.
Rob C
Of course not. We don't get better (or worse) at any art as a result of changes in its technology.
-
Of course not. We don't get better (or worse) at any art as a result of changes in its technology.
Half my point: the remainder being that the huge increase in quantity of images, because they are now pretty much free to produce, hasn't led to a noticeable increase in great pictures. It may be just a personal choice, but I spend a lot more time and effort looking at past masters than at new people. The few times that I venture into a wider landscape I recoil. What strikes me is that a big deal is made over practically nothing at all. This might be because the people pushing the new stuff tend to be galleries, with an obvious marketing agenda, whereas the people I love came from a commercial world, and their work was there because the clients believed it did it for them; the pictures were there to shift something other than themselves.
I have to include myself there, the personal difference being that in post-professional life I now shoot some genres that I previously liked but never had time to try out for myself in my own manner, whatever that is. Perhaps more accurately: I would never have spent money on such genres, so digi has removed one problem, but replaced it with another: the vast ammount of time spent sitting on my ass in front of a monitor. In some ways, it's both therapeutic as well as destructive.
Rob C
-
There is a comment by Sieff that he and his colleagues saw commissions as a chance to do personal work. In other words, there was a compromise on both sides: the magasines allowed him the freedom of his creative choices, he made sure the models were wearing the appropriate clothes even if they were rather small in the frame :) Often the best photos in his opinion were not used by the mag, but they liked what they did use enough to keep paying him.
And so the HC-B picnic photo, which was not used by the newspaper that commissioned it.
Anyway, one difference is that HC-B was operating in a world where there was much less risk of reproducing, consciously or not, the work of others. Even if Lartigue had already made lots of photos of people jumping over things, which were themselves just better versions of what was already a popular theme, no one could do a google image search to prove that he was derivative. Similar when someone pointed out to JL Sief that an early reportage shot he did of a school-room looked a lot like a Doisneau, he was able to honestly reply "Who is Doisneau?" (They later became excellent friends).
Now... as an example, I saw a rather impressively posed and lit nude on the site of a Lyonnais photographer I know indirectly. It wasn't until months later that I realised that it was an almost exact copy of a Mapplethorpe. I'm guessing it was an explicit wink, but then he didn't mention the Mapplethorpe version. Probably there were earlier versions of the same shot, but of course if a big name does something, their version becomes the reference: which is one way of interpreting Picasso's comment that a poor artist borrows, a great artist steals.
-
Half my point: the remainder being that the huge increase in quantity of images, because they are now pretty much free to produce, hasn't led to a noticeable increase in great pictures.
Rob C
Are you confident that you would know if it had? With unimaginable numbers of images being taken every second. It is not that I have any different view to yours - I just don't see how one could possibly have an informed view. And if it isn't an informed view, then the only thing left is surely a prejudice, or something like that.
-
You can get some idea by going to a site like 500px, which is already self-selecting "enthusiast" photographers. If you slect a category like Black & White you further de-select the happy-snaps. What is interesting is that you can choose to look at "popular", "upcoming" or "fresh" images. You can actually see more interesting work by looking at "Fresh", which is unselected... the most popular photos are very often (not always!) utterly derivative.
Note that if you use a mobile device, the entire "Nude" category and anything deemed to have adult content will be hidden.
What is overwhelming is the vast quantity of technically competent photos of all types, most of which seem to be trying to ape existing famous photos.
Going instead to the facebook pages of local photographers who are scraping some sort of living from their work while having pretensions to art, I find pretty much the same as in the Popular section of 500px... "popular" is another term for "large market", after all.
On the other had, the showings in the local galleries are rather different: they seem to be trying desperately to find originality (understandable), but often by going down the road of banality, ie "my photo is different because the subject and composition are mediocre." They are justified by the list of grants and awards the photographer has amassed, but they seem oriented to be collected in the hope of appreciating value rather than to have something you'd want to look at on the wall.
Not that this is specific to photography, there was a rather good recent article in the Guardian on "Why all modern abstract painting looks the same"... and the conclusion was that it was chasing a marketing niche: the inoffensive painting that will fill the wall above the sofa, show you have culture, and lets you imagine that it will be a good investment.
-
... the most popular photos are very often (not always!) utterly derivative.
Right on, Graham. As any wedding photog can tell you, there's a huge market for clichés
-
Right on, Graham. As any wedding photog can tell you, there's a huge market for clichés
Not That There's Anything Wrong With That.
I mean come on, it's not like getting married is an incredibly original idea :P
-
One of the reasons that old images look good is because all of the bad ones have been culled and in the present day a lot of the bad ones are on show in Flickr etc etc. If Flickr had been around fifty or sixty years ago then there would have been a lot of bad ones to be seen? :(
-
If Flickr had been around fifty or sixty years ago then there would have been a lot of bad ones to be seen? :(
Sure, look at the average family photo-album of the period :) Costs were surprisingly high though, I remember a regular 10x15cm print cost about 50c in the late 70's, which would make it more expensive than printing an A3+ on RC paper today... Photolab printing 20 x 30 seemed an extravagant expense for a student at the time, so it was harder to be superficially impressive.
(Anecdote : around 1985 I was sub-letting a room of my house and the rent was indexed as 1 roll of K64 and 1 standard price CD per week...)
-
You can get some idea by going to a site like 500px, which is already self-selecting "enthusiast" photographers. If you slect a category like Black & White you further de-select the happy-snaps. What is interesting is that you can choose to look at "popular", "upcoming" or "fresh" images. You can actually see more interesting work by looking at "Fresh", which is unselected... the most popular photos are very often (not always!) utterly derivative.
Note that if you use a mobile device, the entire "Nude" category and anything deemed to have adult content will be hidden.
What is overwhelming is the vast quantity of technically competent photos of all types, most of which seem to be trying to ape existing famous photos.
Going instead to the facebook pages of local photographers who are scraping some sort of living from their work while having pretensions to art, I find pretty much the same as in the Popular section of 500px... "popular" is another term for "large market", after all.
On the other had, the showings in the local galleries are rather different: they seem to be trying desperately to find originality (understandable), but often by going down the road of banality, ie "my photo is different because the subject and composition are mediocre." They are justified by the list of grants and awards the photographer has amassed, but they seem oriented to be collected in the hope of appreciating value rather than to have something you'd want to look at on the wall.
Not that this is specific to photography, there was a rather good recent article in the Guardian on "Why all modern abstract painting looks the same"... and the conclusion was that it was chasing a marketing niche: the inoffensive painting that will fill the wall above the sofa, show you have culture, and lets you imagine that it will be a good investment.
An interesting exercise. Reliable as evidence for what is happening to a particular tradition as practice within it has become more widespread and has been monetized in particular ways in first world countries. And I would argue that it is not entirely a bad thing to see lots of technically competent photographs. If one were talking about music, say, one would't complain about finding lots of people who could sing in tune. But more to the point, one is still looking at a tiny subset of all the photographs taken - much less than 0.1%? - and I am not entirely confident that such a (self) selection methodology is the only way of identifying quality or that de-selecting all the "happy snaps" might not come at a price in missing worthwhile images. At the very least I would want to look at other selections. Graduating exhibitions of photographers, or artists with photography as one of their tools, emerging from art schools, for example, or curated live streams of images taken by people in India or other third-world countries with their first smart phone (I understand usage is growing exponentially over there). I have a sense that photography is a house of many mansions and that "people like us" might be kidding ourselves if we try to play the gatekeeper.[/size]
-
Well, I suppose we could all just retreat back into our shells, accept that anything we think is inevitably subjective, and simply stop posting for fear of leaving somebody out of the roster of fame.
Might actually be a good idea; it strikes me like that once in a while.
Rob C
-
I'm certainly not proposing myself as a gate-keeper... not least because I have no gate :)
-
I'm certainly not proposing myself as a gate-keeper... not least because I have no gate :)
I had a gate once; I lost it when I bought an apartment. There's a great psychological value to owning gates.
Rob C
-
Hi Rob, I often see this observation but would question its validity.
I can only go by my own experience using film when I tended to make more exposures than I do now with digital simply because I had no way of checking images on film post capture and before processing.
There again my background as an artist typically entailed one image per subject and perhaps this has influenced my approach as a photographer and resulted in a comparative sparsity of captures per subject.
Hi Keith,
I don't think I was making that observation and applying it to the professional world. I was happy shooting more than 50 36exp. cassettes of Kodachrome to make thirteen images or a so for a single calendar: the objective was to allow a selection of 'bests' from each setup, so that the client had something to cover his own tastes as well as those of his own intended recipients.That was one of the reasons I would often employ the construction format of two rows of Wiro binding: the top one allowed the suspension of the images in a manner that let them be switched over independently of the date, and the lower suspended section carried the dates and client's business information. The need to enable the switching of images was because of the huge variety of ultimate recipient: these would range from bank managers to heavy industrial plant hirer's and sellers. What was cool on an industrial depot wall didn't cut it in the banker's office were he dealing with a business lady, for example. So, a pretty headshot would suit his immediate client, and the more revealing images remained hidden below that head image. (One required pretty strong backing board. Not for heavy pictures, I hasten to add, but for the switching...) The dates section, of course, had to be ripped off each month. But at least one could always keep the images section intact.
My reference to quantity, in my original statement, is to the general purpose world, where one has to include all the cellphones and everything else. Those with pretensions to art are possibly in a tiny minority; the bulk of the image output would seem, to me at least, to be in the realm of social media: kids with not a lot better to do, or adults in the same mental vacuum when they are not working. Well, perhaps I'm being over-charitable there. ;-)
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
Must admit I've not read all the responses to this thread but assumed from the title that the discussion alluded to pro or at least serious enthusiast photographers.
Hey, what is it they say about making assumptions ;-)
Keith
Don't give it a thought: I had probably subverted/diverted the damned topic thing anyway! It's the cold, you know.
Or are we just being surrealists, in the true HC-B mould?
;-)
Rob
-
Well, I suppose we could all just retreat back into our shells, accept that anything we think is inevitably subjective, and simply stop posting for fear of leaving somebody out of the roster of fame.
Rob C
I don't think that would be a wise response, Rob and it certainly isn't a pertinent response to what I wrote. All I am suggesting is a little humility and openness to the possibility that we might not have noticed everything interesting that is going on.
-
I don't think that would be a wise response, Rob and it certainly isn't a pertinent response to what I wrote. All I am suggesting is a little humility and openness to the possibility that we might not have noticed everything interesting that is going on.
Apparently not, Ken so I guess you may as well write your own on my behalf.
;-)
Rob C
-
As a landscape photographer I couldn't agree more. There isn't really a 'decisive moment' Most of it is driving round for days on end and being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time!
And yet --
"We look at seasonal weather patterns for every location -- so perhaps (for trees) you want to photograph a particular specimen with spring blossoms, one with autumn foliage, etc. We also use tools like Google Earth, to scout locations and possible vantage points for certain shots, and we use a program called The Photographer's Ephemeris to predict where and when the sun and moon will be rising and setting, the azimuth, where the shadows will fall from surrounding buildings or mountains -- at different times of the year, …
That program saved us on our "Night Gardens" story -- when we were shooting the Italian water garden at Longwood Gardens. We wanted the moon to be centered in a shot above a fountain -- and the program enabled us to predict exactly when the moon would be in that exact position (https://books.google.com/books?id=PdSoCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22that%20exact%20position%22&f=false)."
Diane Cook and Len Jenshel: Landscape Photographers, page 16 "Photography Careers"
-
Does anyone honestly think that looking at his images will improve their photography? Nobody can hope to replicate them mostly because they were taken in a bygone era. The "decisive moment" is simply plain common sense and luck is probably more important. Personally speaking most of my "best" images were luck and the planned ones never really came to fruition. It is simply all about looking and seeing. :-\
Yep.
-
Apparently not, Ken so I guess you may as well write your own on my behalf.
;-)
Rob C
It would be a challenge, Rob, but one I would have to at least consider attempting, except that your comment (silence and the abandonment of standards the only alternatives to business as usual) was expressly written on all of our behalves (sp? gr?) and I have already written my own (also adopting a royal we) in the second part of my post. I do try to take my own advice and have a look around, much assisted by the many interesting links in your posts over the years, but doing so hasn't left me any more clear about whether the proportion of good work has changed with the increase in numbers. It is easy to find curated examples of excellence from the past, but no way that I can imagine to get any sense of how much quality there might be in photographs taken, say, this week.
-
We don't get better (or worse) at any art as a result of changes in its technology.
As a result of changes in technology, was there a transformation in photography from Atget to Cartier-Bresson? What was imaginable but unachievable became achievable.
As a result of changes in technology, we undervalue what others achieved because we ordinarily avoid the flaws ("missed-focus, camera shake (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=108516.msg894889#msg894889) and blown highlights or plugged shadows").
As a result of changes in technology, hard-won skills become unnecessary and other skills become vital.
The fact is that while digital has made "decent" photography easier for the layperson, it has also raised the bar for what is expected of us (https://books.google.com/books?id=PdSoCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22what%20is%20expected%20of%20us%22&f=false) as professionals. … Now that I've gotten better and better with Photoshop I can draw back on my original training as a painter and make several exposures … and then I'll combine those exposures in the service of a heightened reality. … there was something nice about the view camera, but now that I have fully embraced digital I think the end results are far superior to what we used to achieve using film.
-
Well said, Isaac. Spot on.
-
As a result of changes in technology, was there a transformation in photography from Atget to Cartier-Bresson? What was imaginable but unachievable became achievable.
As a result of changes in technology, we undervalue what others achieved because we ordinarily avoid the flaws ("missed-focus, camera shake (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=108516.msg894889#msg894889) and blown highlights or plugged shadows").
As a result of changes in technology, hard-won skills become unnecessary and other skills become vital.
All true and nicely put. I was addressing a different question. Are the resulting images superior in an absolute sense - is a great Cartier-Bresson better than a great Atget? When I wrote the post I was inclined to think not, and probably still do, but some doubt has been creeping in. Maybe greater resources do allow greater achievements ( eg, symphony orchestra vs penny whistle).
-
Are the resulting images superior in an absolute sense - is a great Cartier-Bresson better than a great Atget?
What absolute sense (apart from exchange value (http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/kuspit/kuspit3-6-07.asp)) ?
-
What absolute sense (apart from exchange value (http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/kuspit/kuspit3-6-07.asp)) ?
Aesthetic value, quality, depth, concepts like that. Hard (but not impossible) to define (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-concept/#AesJud), and to me indispensable, if I am to tell myself a plausible story about my own experience of the arts and my knowledge of their history.
-
I'd suggest that they are impossible to define in a way that a sufficient number of people agree on, and that without that agreement, those judgements remain subjective.
-
Aesthetic value, quality, depth, concepts like that. Hard (but not impossible) to define (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-concept/#AesJud), and to me indispensable, if I am to tell myself a plausible story about my own experience of the arts and my knowledge of their history.
Ken, Enlighten me. Define "aesthetic value" in a photograph. And please don't start talking about technical details. Give me some examples of what you're talking about. Seems to me aesthetic value is entirely subjective, but you claim it can be defined objectively.
-
Ken, Enlighten me. Define "aesthetic value" in a photograph. And please don't start talking about technical details. Give me some examples of what you're talking about. Seems to me aesthetic value is entirely subjective, but you claim it can be defined objectively.
I think what is good or bad about a photograph or other work of art can be discussed meaningfully, at least between people with a degree of common culture and education. I don't recall raising the subjective/objective distinction myself and if I did I misspoke. Both sides of that distinction seem to me problematic. "Entirely subjective" would be problematic because it would seem to exclude meaningful discussion and the kind of rough consensus that there is in practice about which works of art are the greatest. I not unaware of the problems around "defined objectively". My own starting point for discussion is usually with the relationship between form and content, the ways in which the look or shape or sound perfectly expresses the content or meaning. I know all those terms are problematic. The examples that comes to mind right now are some of Cezanne's still lives, as explicated by Meyer Shapiro, perhaps because I have just been reading his great book on that artist. Or some paintings by Rubens. I can't immediately think of any photograph that is a great work of art by those standards but I am not saying they don't exist. Perhaps you could enlighten me with an example, and tell me what you like about it. If you did, your statement would be subjective, of course, but maybe not entirely subjective, as you might present reasons which persuaded me or others. I don't expect this has enlightened you and I am not going to spend any more time down this particular rabbit hole because I don't believe enlightenment is to be found down here.
-
Is there something particular in those 10,000 words that you would claim constitutes an absolute measure applicable to the question "is a great Cartier-Bresson better than a great Atget?"
Certainly not. Not an "absolute measure". We have to do without that in discussing the value of art and I can't find where I am supposed to have claimed that one exists. The point of the link was to simply to suggest that the topic of aesthetic value is hard but not impossible to discuss.
Correction. I did of course use the word absolute. It was a poor choice. I meant to enquire whether it is possible to meaningfully discuss the level of achievement of Atget and Cartier-Bresson given the different technical resources available to them. I didn't mean to imply that such a comparison could be made against an "objectively definable" "absolute measure".
-
It's certainly possible to discuss without any hope of coming to a resolution.
That is certainly the spirit in which I embark on many, if not most, discussions on LuLa and elsewhere.
-
So how are we supposed to answer -- Are the resulting images superior in an absolute sense - is a great Cartier-Bresson better than a great Atget? (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=108570.msg896087#msg896087)
We look carefully at them to see what we admire and what moves us, then we have a conversation, which might or might include something about relative merit. As between these two, I would personally see their achievement as being at about the same level because they move me to about the same degree. You might or might not agree, or you might see the question as meaningless.
-
We could have a conversation about relative merit. How could that answer - "Are the resulting images superior in an absolute sense …" ?
As I think I may have mentioned before, "absolute" was an ill-chosen word. The job I was asking it to do was to distinguish between differences arising from scientific developments in photography, and artistic quality. The conversation about relative merit would be about which photographer we thought was better, and (if applicable) why. My sense of this discussion is that we are getting further down the rabbit hole, and it is getting darker, so I am out of here.
-
As I think I may have mentioned before, "absolute" was an ill-chosen word. The job I was asking it to do was to distinguish between differences arising from scientific developments in photography, and artistic quality. The conversation about relative merit would be about which photographer we thought was better, and (if applicable) why. My sense of this discussion is that we are getting further down the rabbit hole, and it is getting darker, so I am out of here.
Ah Ken, déjà vu?
It's the best way to handle these things: walk. I finally learned that too.
And thanks for the comment elsewhere on my pix; appreciated.
;-)
Rob
-
Keith,
There are painters whose works have moved me to shed tears of joy.
An analysis of why they move me to shed tears of joy would be joyless.
It may, however, be productive.
-
An analysis of why they move me to shed tears of joy would be joyless.
And yet it may be something kencameron would find interesting and even enjoyable.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
-
I think what is good or bad about a photograph or other work of art can be discussed meaningfully, at least between people with a degree of common culture and education. I don't recall raising the subjective/objective distinction myself and if I did I misspoke. Both sides of that distinction seem to me problematic. "Entirely subjective" would be problematic because it would seem to exclude meaningful discussion and the kind of rough consensus that there is in practice about which works of art are the greatest. I not unaware of the problems around "defined objectively". My own starting point for discussion is usually with the relationship between form and content, the ways in which the look or shape or sound perfectly expresses the content or meaning. I know all those terms are problematic. The examples that comes to mind right now are some of Cezanne's still lives, as explicated by Meyer Shapiro, perhaps because I have just been reading his great book on that artist. Or some paintings by Rubens. I can't immediately think of any photograph that is a great work of art by those standards but I am not saying they don't exist. Perhaps you could enlighten me with an example, and tell me what you like about it. If you did, your statement would be subjective, of course, but maybe not entirely subjective, as you might present reasons which persuaded me or others. I don't expect this has enlightened you and I am not going to spend any more time down this particular rabbit hole because I don't believe enlightenment is to be found down here.
Hi Ken,
In other words, "aesthetic value" can't really be "defined." I'd agree that subjective aesthetic value often corresponds more or less among groups of people -- sometimes majorities. But that doesn't make it less subjective.
-
Aesthetic value, quality, depth, concepts like that. Hard (but not impossible) to define (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-concept/#AesJud), and to me indispensable, if I am to tell myself a plausible story about my own experience of the arts and my knowledge of their history.
There are painters whose works have moved me to shed tears of joy.
An analysis of why they move me to shed tears of joy would be joyless.
Speaking of common grounds and joy... It would be very interesting (if not joyful) to see someone trying to convince Schewe that HCB should not be judged based on blown highlights (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=108516.msg894889#msg894889) :D
-
Already done by Sophia and accepted by Schewe.
Isaac, I did read the rest of that thread, and Schewe didn't really say anything new in response to Sophia (except the "be there" stuff). Even in the post I linked he said he liked HCB's images.
BUT when it comes to the definition of a "good photographer", that's not what he thinks about first. Well, not on that occasion, anyway. That's my point. Now, I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with Schewe's notion of a "good photographer". It's simply different.
Look, we can't even agree on what was or wasn't said in a particular thread of this forum, so the idea to find common ground for more esoteric stuff is well and truly hopeless.
-
… and Schewe didn't really say anything new …
That's correct, he just tried to make clear what he meant by "not a great photographer" -- "I was referring to his technical skills not his ability to make great images."
Look, we can't even agree on what was or wasn't said in a particular thread of this forum…
We can all see what was or wasn't said; and we can choose to read forum posts as-if they were intended to be definitive statements, and we can choose to read forum posts as-if they were were a conversational work-in-progress.
-
His technical skills were astonishing, Schewe to the contrary notwithstanding. If you don't believe that, find an early Leica -- say a Leica II, and load it with film of about ASA 30 (for you kids: that's the same as ISO 30.) I'm not sure what speed film he had early on, when he did his most interesting work, but I'm pretty sure it didn't reach ASA 50. (There was no ASA rating in those days.) Now, go out and shoot some street and see what you come up with. Ain't as easy to get technically superior results as you thought is it?
-
His technical skills were astonishing, Schewe to the contrary notwithstanding. If you don't believe that, find an early Leica -- say a Leica II, and load it with film of about ASA 30 (for you kids: that's the same as ISO 30.) I'm not sure what speed film he had early on, when he did his most interesting work, but I'm pretty sure it didn't reach ASA 50. (There was no ASA rating in those days.) Now, go out and shoot some street and see what you come up with. Ain't as easy to get technically superior results as you thought is it?
I agree with you in that it wasn't easy, at all. I shot hundreds of rolls of GOST-65 (pre-1985 standard) Soviet film, called FOTO65 and having sensitivity equivalent to ASA/ISO 65, using rangefinders with f/3.5 and f/4 lenses, so yeah, I can see that.
As to technical skills required to make proper exposure (in a broad sense) with 2x slower film, I wouldn't go as far as calling those of HCB "astonishing"; he most certainly had enough of those skills to support his acute sense of composition/timing and, of course, that sixth sense allowing to "be there".
Those latter parts are (IMHO!) much more important; but, ultimately, all these assessments are cans of worms...
-
I agree with you in that it wasn't easy, at all. I shot hundreds of rolls of GOST-65 (pre-1985 standard) Soviet film, called FOTO65 and having sensitivity equivalent to ASA/ISO 65, using rangefinders with f/3.5 and f/4 lenses, so yeah, I can see that.
As to technical skills required to make proper exposure (in a broad sense) with 2x slower film, I wouldn't go as far as calling those of HCB "astonishing"; he most certainly had enough of those skills to support his acute sense of composition/timing and, of course, that sixth sense allowing to "be there".
Those latter parts are (IMHO!) much more important; but, ultimately, all these assessments are cans of worms...
And little worms can catch big fish for dinner. (I'm still trying to work it out too, so don't worry about it. Iyt¡sloike my ty`ping.)
Rob C
-
His technical skills were astonishing, Schewe to the contrary notwithstanding. If you don't believe that, find an early Leica -- say a Leica II, and load it with film of about ASA 30 (for you kids: that's the same as ISO 30.) I'm not sure what speed film he had early on, when he did his most interesting work, but I'm pretty sure it didn't reach ASA 50. (There was no ASA rating in those days.) Now, go out and shoot some street and see what you come up with. Ain't as easy to get technically superior results as you thought is it?
Reminds me of my first days with photography when I was totally obsessed with the idea of the value of fine grain, something gleaned from the amateur photography press. I was trying to do stuff with Pan F and Panatomic X, and an important thing I learned was that if you made the neg thin enough, it printed quite well. The next thing I learned, the most important one, was that worrying about such things as grain was a diversion from reality, the reality of making a picture that means something. Even then, the techies cornered a lot of press...
Rob
P.S. Just realised: as I often add fake grain to digital stuff, I suppose I can say that I have stood firmly by my earlier convictions, proving that fundmental beliefs can hold their own through the decades. Of course, for some pro work, grain wasn't allowed to "intrude", and add its own dynamic, so one shot accordingly. Shows very clearly the strength of character of one Sarah Moon and relative weakness of my own in the face of such commercial pressures! Another such pressure came my way one fine day as I stood in a fashion store's AD's office looking at some snaps I'd just delivered, when one of their top dogs walked in and remarked: that's not a good fashion picture: there is no eye contact. AD and I stood silent, glanced at one another, and waited for Big Dog to wander back to the upper kennel. The shot ran, immaculately grainless.