Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Mark D Segal on September 17, 2006, 10:28:45 pm
-
Hello Alain,
If I may be so bold as to distill the essence of your essay in one sentence: "Without vision, knowledge, skill, dedication, taste and experience, you can have bagfulls of the best hardware and software money can buy and it won't produce a decent photograph, but unfortunately most people don't appreciate that". Fine. Quoi de neuf? And why should most people know any better? But I'll bet the people who pay good money for your photographs know exactly why they are doing it and what they are getting.
Those of us who have had the pleasure of dealing with the public at large in a commecial environment should be pretty thick-skinned regarding just about anything that comes along. I worked part-time in photographic retail when I was a youngster and some of the episodes with our customers are unforgettable even now. But hey, that's life, n'est-ce pas?
Cheers,
Mark
-
One thing that crossed my mind is to wonder:
Does the limited understanding of the medium make it easier or harder to sell?
(If a potential customer thinks driving out to a location with a P&S is all that it takes, will they do that? If they think "magical" professional equipment is required, will they be happier to buy?)
Granting a-priori the value of educating people, in a sales situation if the priority is sales (which it's going to be sometimes for someone trying to make a living) does it matter other than for the photographer's status as misunderstood genius what the customer thinks about the balance of equipment, technique, post-production craft and artistic vision in producing the prints they're looking at?
I really liked the article. Thanks Alain for sharing it, and Michael for hosting it.
Cheers,
Giles
P.S. I've been told "you must be getting some good photographs" when shooting. My thoughts usually run along the lines "I wish", "I hope so", "when will this wind/rain/sunshine/... cooperate?", and "there's a shot here somewhere: why aren't I seeing it?".
-
And why should most people know any better?
I read the essay with much pleasure and found it inspiring, meaning a confirmation of consciousness of the attitude mentioned by mr. Briot in myself, and the intention to do better in the future. Which, I assume, is one of the goals of this essay: enlightening the masses.
On the other hand, I consider the above quote to be spot-on (if I read it correctly). Interest in photography for many non-professionals goes hand in hand with a fascination for the material which is used. Perhaps it is an attempt to compensate lack of skill, who knows, but it is a well recognized phenomenon.
But why not let those people roll around in their own cosy but fictive world? Is it necessary for high-end pro photographers to take the chatty remarks of ignorant amateurs serious and go out of their way to announce this "gospel" about the truth of image making, even though they know it's hardly any use? Or, put differently, why does mr. Briot go through the trouble to try and "save" the straying sheep?
There is no doubt that (us, I) amateurs with our limited understanding of art have an attitude to things that may cause bad dreams to some of the Wizards of Light. What interests me though, is whether the motivation for these eloquent and very informative "rants" are frustration about this ignorance, or true compassion with the poor unknowing crowd.
Disclaimer: I hope the above makes sense, the essay provoked thoughts and I would like to share them. No intention to insult anyone.
P.S. I remember an essay by Michael Reichmann in which he states that better material is preferred, and how the whole story of "it's the photographer who makes the image" is a relative concept, characteristic of "forum wisdom" ;-)
-
Alain,
Do you think that these remarks you are getting would be the same in Europe and Japan?
I personnally think they would be different in Japan. I feel that there is a strong cultural influence on the relationship between the artist and the art watcher/buyer.
I do feel that people in Japan tend to show more respect for a person recognized as a master and would rarely question the artistic superiority of such a person. Most viewers would most probably not bring the discussion to the matter of equipment, or then only as a result of curiosity.
If I were to risk a dary hypothesis, I would say that the prominence of hierarchy as a structuring part of the Japanese society directly impacts the relationship between the viewer and the recognized artist, which prevents some questioning.
Or is it the same in the US, and you would not be enough of an institution yet to prevent some people from hoping that they could top your work... had they the same gear? Just kidding of course, you know how much I respect your work.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well it's the old equipment v art chestnut again isn't it?
I like to think of them as two distinct but related hobbies. The technical hobby can be mastered by anyone with a somewhat logical mind, and explored to great depth by anyone who has the money to do so.
The second activity, and of course by far the harder and more scarce, is the making of great images.
Curiosly I know a fine art photographer who actually finds the technical side of photography very difficult, and perhaps as a result, in his lectures tend to focus far more than they should on aperture, shutter speed, film type, etc. Such people have a rare gift for seeing and capturing beauty, but have had to really work hard at mastering the technique required to turn that vision into a print.
I think that sort of photographer actually contributes to the problem the essay explores. And being a very humble sort, the man I'm thinking of probably feel a bit bemused that people with expensive equipment aren't turning out higher quality work.
-
Alain,
Do you think that these remarks you are getting would be the same in Europe and Japan?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76747\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Bernard,
It is hard to say because I only do shows in the US. I sell to the rest of the world over the internet and you don't get these comments over email or phone because people are pre-qualified by the time they contact you. Shows are different since anyone can walk up to me and ask any question they wish.
But, I did sell to a worldwide audience at Grand Canyon and had the same questions from European visitors. Japan is a little different because people exhibit a much more reserved public appearance and show a lot of respect. I have not received this type of comment from a Japanese person but I had several Japanese men show me their expensive cameras and tell me they couldn't do what I do with them.
Alain
-
But is this about respect? I mean, that would be an interesting essay for sure: if you do not have the knowledge required to acknowledge the expertise required for a certain outcome (of any kind), is it then still possible to respect that outcome?
Even so, I still think, as the essay mentioned, that this is somewhat barking up the wrong tree. LL visitors generally already know this adagium, and the described reactions are, in my opinion, less than helpful for other prospective photographers.
A more appropriate response might be something along the lines of this:
dude: "Boy, those are some great images, you must have one mighty expensive camera?"
you: "Of course, you can't win a formula 1 race if you don't have a formula 1 car, can you?"
dude: "Yeah"
you: "But then again, if you put johnny nobody in a ferrari or you put Michael Schumacher in one, who will bring back the first price by the end of the day...?"
And if you feel a bit more to the point:
you: "But then again, if I put you in a ferrari or I put Michael Schumacher in one, who will bring back the first price by the end of the day...?"
etc...
Of course, depending on the intellectual capacity of dude, you might try different metaphors, Nascar, football, baseball, and best of all, if buyer likes your metaphor it will be much easier to charge the extra (compensation for the insult).: "You can be proud of your purchase sir, you now own a real Michael Schumacher!".
btw. Alain, it seems your essays are becoming somewhat of a therapeutic diary. What's with the continuous negative approach? I kind of miss the enthusiasm for the line of work your in....
Hi Bernard,
It is hard to say because I only do shows in the US. I sell to the rest of the world over the internet and you don't get these comments over email or phone because people are pre-qualified by the time they contact you. Shows are different since anyone can walk up to me and ask any question they wish.
But, I did sell to a worldwide audience at Grand Canyon and had the same questions from European visitors. Japan is a little different because people exhibit a much more reserved public appearance and show a lot of respect. I have not received this type of comment from a Japanese person but I had several Japanese men show me their expensive cameras and tell me they couldn't do what I do with them.
Alain
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76752\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
btw. Alain, it seems your essays are becoming somewhat of a therapeutic diary. What's with the continuous negative approach? I kind of miss the enthusiasm for the line of work your in....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76755\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The next essay will be very different in tone. Variety is the spice of life ;-)
-
We can complain all we like, but this is a running theme and it's not going away soon, and frankly it doesn't bother me no matter how often I hear it. Oscar hit it on the head - the average punter does not have the knowledge to acknowledge the expertise. If I had a dollar for every time someone said "that's a great camera, no wonder you get good shots" or something along those lines, then I'd make more money than I ever did out of the photos. I'd bet there's almost no-one reading this board who hasn't heard that comment. When I hear it I usually just agree with them and tell them that it's so good I often send it out by itself while I sit at home counting the money.
Should we care how carefully and uniquely Rembrandt mixed his paints, what type of saw Leo Fender used to shape the strat, what chisel Rodin favoured? Art comes after mastery of the craft - once you know how to use the tools, you can more competently express your vision. If Joe Public thinks that the equipment is what makes your shots special, then he's not likely to change his mind nor is he likely to be a buyer in your market. But remember it's the equipment that gives you the tools you need (no good giving Mr Schumacher a pushbike, to overextend the earlier metaphors); Joe Public couldn't print the Grand Canyon 7 feet wide from a shot with his point and squirt.
Smile, and be grateful they prefaced it with "your work is beautiful..." - they could have said "that's no good, it's only down to the equipment". The people who make these comments aren't generally the one's who will buy your work, and if they do, you got the last laugh!
-
If I had a dollar for every time someone said "that's a great camera, no wonder you get good shots" or something along those lines, then I'd make more money than I ever did out of the photos. I'd bet there's almost no-one reading this board who hasn't heard that comment. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76758\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Similar approach here, just after a potentially that's-the-camera-right-?-!- kind of person starts commenting on a photo I took, I anticipate by saying myself that it is mostly the result of me using a good camera and being lucky (with the weather of whatever).
Actually, this could be the result of a conversion with Alain last year.
It works wonder when you try to avoid one more of these conversations.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
When I'm taking pictures at performance events, I get the opportunity to use a flattering approach - I often say that it's impossible to take a bad picture of such a great subject (dancer, actor, musician, etc.)!
-
We should all go back to shooting with Leicas, that would shut them up!
That said, Alain, you shoot with large format, how the hell does the camera make your picture when it is possibly the most manual and difficult to handle formats of camera around? Oh sorry, it was the filters right!
I did really enjoy the essay, made me laugh out loud quite a few times...
-
That said, Alain, you shoot with large format, how the hell does the camera make your picture when it is possibly the most manual and difficult to handle formats of camera around? Oh sorry, it was the filters right!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76761\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Alain would have been seen shooting with a 1ds2 as well recently... no wonder his images are so nice... :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This problem transcends photography. You would be surprised how many of my patients think that access to medical facts on the internet give them the ability to diagnose disease. They just come to my office for confirmation and a prescription that they are legally not able to sign for. Alain, has no one ever asked you how long and hard you had to work to create your masterpiece? Perhaps, it's an answer they don't want to hear. A connaiseur recognizes genius in others.
-
Alain, what an excellent article!
After finishing up our show season over the weekend, my wife and I have been concidering the best methods of dealing with this class of people.
One could assume that this class of person is not going to buy photography in the first place, so why waste any time on conversation with them, or take the other side, they are presenting a challenge, perhaps a choice selection of comments will make them change their minds.
Anyone ever been sucessful in selling to this type of person?
From our experience, those who are there to purchase photography, don't engage in conversation of the technical aspects, and all those who do are simply not there to purchase anything (at least from our booth).
The problem we see the most of is from people who have the film prejudice (ie digital is simply not an art form). Many of these are possible buyers of photography. We have seen people that are amazed at the work until they learn that we shoot digital. At all the shows we have done, the 1st place in photography (prize money) always goes to a traditional film photographer. These are all issues that directly effect income.
So for the possible buyer who has a prejudice against digital, what do you say?
"Digital simply provides us with better ability to present our artistic vision of what we captured from the camera."
"These colors are not the result of filters, but rather we bring out the natural colors captured by the camera through our development process."
Or do you just say it how it is?
"In the same way the master sculptor manuplates clay to produce their art, we transform what the camera records into the art you see on the paper in front of you through our own unique form of skill-full manuplation."
-
This problem transcends photography. You would be surprised how many of my patients think that access to medical facts on the internet give them the ability to diagnose disease. They just come to my office for confirmation and a prescription that they are legally not able to sign for. Alain, has no one ever asked you how long and hard you had to work to create your masterpiece? Perhaps, it's an answer they don't want to hear. A connaiseur recognizes genius in others.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76767\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very good point. As a computer programmer one is constantly told how someone has a 16-year old nephew who can do the most amazing things, write software and fix any technical problem.
And yet those youngsters go off to University do Computer Science degrees and then I still have to teach them for 2-3 years to get any really useful work out of them.
-
Hey, apart from anything else, even if there incredible digi P&S could do it straight out of camera, the maxim 'f8 and be there' has two points, the technical, and much more importantly, where they there on that damp and cold dawn morning having planned exactly where to be at which time for the composition that they've had in mind for 6 months? You've got to be there even with your incredible camera!
I had been waiting for the snow all year. When the snow started to fall I checked the forecast and it was going to be heavy. I packed up the car and spent the whole day looking for a suitible vantagepoint. That morning I was driving at 4am to reach the location at 6 for sunrise in thick and heavy fog right in the middle of the Lake District. I got to the place I wanted then waded into the freezing lake up to my knees and sat on a rock for two hours while photographing this scene. This was almost the last shot I took. Shot on a 10D with a 17-40L at f22 (diffraction) with an awful manfrotto L bracket, and this is only a 40% crop of the frame, I had been shooting wider. The picture has only 4 layers minus the sharpening. To hell with the technicalities, I had to be there didn't I?
-
After receiving this essay from Alain a while back, I sent him a response which he publshed on his site as an essay. It can be viewed here. (http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Thoughts40.html)
-
Alain Briot writes in Of Cameras and Art:
I could have loaned them my camera, told them to take a couple of photographs with it, but unless I followed them home, waited for them to get their film developed and their photos printed, I would not be in a position to make my point.
For me the real issue here is that the result of such an experiment would very likely not be as decisive as one might expect. It presumes the other person involved would actually see any qualitative difference between the two prints. Quite possibly the other person would notice a significant difference in detail and/or acutance - but even then there are differences in near vision that can make or break even this perception.
'Way back in my college days (which happened to be at the height of the hippy era), a very common occurrence was for a person to have a particular epiphany upon ingesting a psychoactive chemical. I heard this any number of times: "It's as if I never really saw colour before. Everything I see is just so incredibly vivid. The colours are all so sensual." These people were not referring to a temporary distortion induced by the chemical agent. The effect was usually permanent, persisting long after the moment and day of the awakening. It almost seems as though most?/many? people have a sort of unconscious de-colourizing filter happening in their visual cortices. My guess is such a person simply isn't paying much attention to colour (or line or form or texture) but instead uses vision as a means to various practical ends, and not as an end in itself.
When I show a portfolio of photographic prints to a sympathetic but non-artist individual I can pretty well predict in advance that the viewer will be looking through the print as if it were a window to the original scene. His/her interest is almost entirely focused on the subject matter. If someone is fishing in the picture and the viewer does fishing, the overriding question will be: what rod was the person in the picture using? What kind of motorboat is that? Where is that scene located? Certainly, there is some recognition that the scene is "pretty". If the colours happen to be esp. vivid, then the colours will be "pretty" too.
Adults normally bring a set of expectations to any new situation to use as a starting point. A photograph does not particularly suggest that the visual fine art mindset is appropriate. Most photographs are vacation snaps or advertisements or newspaper illustrations - these are all cases when the photograph is meant as a transparent window onto the original subject: i.e. documentation. A colour photograph is all the more realistic; and a sharp, detailed colour photograph yet more so. In contrast, a painting with evident brush strokes is rarely assumed to be anything other than a work of art, so the mindset (often including liberal helpings of inferiority and apprehension) a typical viewer brings to it will prepare him to give at least some attention to the painting as a physical object as well as to the subject matter (if any) it references. In my experience, to expect the typical viewer to approach any realistic colour photograph with the mindset she reserves for painting is to set oneself up for disappointment.
That takes us to the special case of the non-artist viewer who is also a photo hobbyist. The typical profile of such an individual seems to be a male who loves machinery/gadgets for their own sake, and who may in fact use his camera ... if at all ... to take pictures of other gadgets, such as cars, trains, and planes. This is what Peripatetic nicely calls the related hobby of photo gadgeteering. Nevertheless, it is surprisingly common for the photo gadgeteer to cross-dress into the art microcosm, motivated by a real enthusiasm for all things pretty. Now prettiness might seem to be the naural domain of the human female; and one might expect gender insecurity from keeping gadgeteer males from crossing the line here. In fact, males are engineered such that a fairly large minority have at least the rudimentary appreciation of prettiness it takes to admire the nubile female form. This in turn occassionally bleeds over on to sunsets, mountains, and lakes ... with the usually disastrous results (forgive my parochial prejudice) we are all familiar with.
So the case that Alain reports of the photo gadgeteer who is convinced that the camera makes the picture is just one symptom of the more general case of the photo gadgeteer who has not yet gotten sucked into that vortex whose maw is Pretty, whose funnel is Beauty, and whose end point is that black hole of Pure Art from which no ego escapeth.
-
This problem transcends photography. You would be surprised how many of my patients think that access to medical facts on the internet give them the ability to diagnose disease. They just come to my office for confirmation and a prescription that they are legally not able to sign for. Alain, has no one ever asked you how long and hard you had to work to create your masterpiece? Perhaps, it's an answer they don't want to hear. A connaiseur recognizes genius in others.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76767\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Given the situation with access to medical care in Ontario these days your patients should consider themselves fortunate that they have you to come to. Due to four decades of partially myopic policy here, many others truly do need to depend on the internet "faute de mieux" - but this is just an O.T. rant of mine about another talk show - the point you are making is completely valid. My wife makes jewelry and we sell it at craft fairs. It's the same story as every other story in this thread. People who know what's involved and have that kind of taste appreciate it and buy it. Others make various other kinds of converation and we just grin and bear it.
-
Alain Briot writes in Of Cameras and Art:
So the case that Alain reports of the photo gadgeteer who is convinced that the camera makes the picture is just one symptom of the more general case of the photo gadgeteer who has not yet gotten sucked into that vortex whose maw is Pretty, whose funnel is Beauty, and whose end point is that black hole of Pure Art from which no ego escapeth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76785\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dale, seductive but not quite - alot of the people Alain describes may not even be gadgeteers. They simply don't have a clue. I come back to my basic point - why should we expect them to? And why care whether they do or they don't appreciate photography or whether they think digital photography is a lesser art than wet-darkroom photography? The kind of people who want to be educated about this stuff will start asking the right questions and finding the right answers. Most people don't have the consciousness, interest or time, and that's fine - there's universes of stuff in this world that photographers don't have the consciousness, interest or time to get into as well. People like Alain and Michael have the best will in the world and intellectual generosity to educate those who want the exposure; and people who truly appreciate their work and have the means will buy it. For the remainder - why lose any sleep?
-
"This class of person"? "Waste time on conversation" with them?? Good grief, words fail me. For the record, I once bought a very expensive photograph by a reknowned Australian landscape photographer and it hangs, all 7 feet of it, in pride of place in my hallway. I had the temerity to "engage in conversation of the technical aspects" with the photographer and he was very charming and personable, and before I left his gallery in the Rocks in Sydney (no prizes to our antipodean mambers for guessing who he is) I'd parted with several thousand dollars and an expensive shipment to HK.
Anyone remember the phrase "the customer is always right", even when (s)he isn't?
I wish I was so good that I could be so choosy in picking my customers...
-
"This class of person"? "Waste time on conversation" with them?? Good grief, words fail me. For the record, I once bought a very expensive photograph by a reknowned Australian landscape photographer and it hangs, all 7 feet of it, in pride of place in my hallway. I had the temerity to "engage in conversation of the technical aspects" with the photographer and he was very charming and personable, and before I left his gallery in the Rocks in Sydney (no prizes to our antipodean mambers for guessing who he is) I'd parted with several thousand dollars and an expensive shipment to HK.
Anyone remember the phrase "the customer is always right", even when (s)he isn't?
I wish I was so good that I could be so choosy in picking my customers...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76793\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter - that is exactly right. One learns in retail as well as life in general that a bit of humility and perseverance goes a long way.
-
To hell with the technicalities, I had to be there didn't I?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76782\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gorgeous shot, Ben. I've shot in the Lakes for years and never got one this good (and I have several very nice cameras).
-
It is at Ullswater Lake you go down the slope from a lay-by about 2 miles before Pattersdale and directly opposite a small path leading to somewhere I can't remember exactly! There is actually a photo by Colin Prior taken from give or take the same place though I only saw it 2 years later. I do prefer mine though..
-
I use Abiword and just cannot get articles like that to come out of it. What word processor did you use?
-
It is at Ullswater Lake you go down the slope from a lay-by about 2 miles before Pattersdale and directly opposite a small path leading to somewhere I can't remember exactly! There is actually a photo by Colin Prior taken from give or take the same place though I only saw it 2 years later. I do prefer mine though..[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My wife's Cumbrian and bounces around those hills like a chamois on steroids. Whenever we go to the Lakes I have to take separate 'photo' days, as she hasn't the patience to get up that early or hang around with me while I have a go at my version of art. She's usually very kind though and tells me my pictures are 'very nice, pet'. If I took one like yours perhaps she'd understand a little more!
-
Alain,
Do you think looking at your photos is as good or better than being at the scene itself, and experiencing the canyons and clouds?
JC
-
She's usually very kind though and tells me my pictures are 'very nice, pet'. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That I find is the problem with wives, they are immune to our genius through so much exposure to it that they can be rather jaded in singing our praises sometimes to the level that we expect given the incredibly high level of our work! They sometimes even - no wait for it - critisise!
oh well....
-
Alain, what an excellent article!
After finishing up our show season over the weekend, my wife and I have been concidering the best methods of dealing with this class of people.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76772\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Give them a disposable camera with your business card printed on the back and instructions that if they want good quality pictures to display on the wall to give you a call. Have some good quality prints made from images produced with said disposable camera to show that you yourself have artistic ability, but then of course you use the best equipment, techniques and printing to ensure that your punters are getting the best quality art work possible.
Failing that, try spending a year selling double glazing to people who don't see the value of windows.
-
"This class of person"? "Waste time on conversation" with them??
Sorry, that did sound really bad didn't it!
That is definatly NOT how we do business, we talk to everyone who wants to entertain a conversation, expecially fellow photographers.
What I was refering to as "this class of person" is the type who comes in to ARGUE about how the work is not valid giving the same kind of remarks found in Alain's article. This being completely different than someone who has an honest question out of curiosity or just wants a positive lively chat.
But it really does seem that of the people that we talk to about technical details (questions like what printer do you use, what lenses do you shoot with, all the way to who do you buy frames from) are really there to get info for their own business. Which is fine. But 99% of the time they are definatly not there to buy art. It is fun to talk to others in the business, but you have to give your time to customers who are there to buy art first. Sorry for the over generalization!
-
Alain,
Do you think looking at your photos is as good or better than being at the scene itself, and experiencing the canyons and clouds?
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not an either/or situation. Each is a unique experience in itself. It's also an eternal question about art & life. The Portrait of Dorian Grey comes to mind.
-
So for the possible buyer who has a prejudice against digital, what do you say?
"Digital simply provides us with better ability to present our artistic vision of what we captured from the camera."
"These colors are not the result of filters, but rather we bring out the natural colors captured by the camera through our development process."
Or do you just say it how it is?
"In the same way the master sculptor manuplates clay to produce their art, we transform what the camera records into the art you see on the paper in front of you through our own unique form of skill-full manuplation."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76772\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Timothy,
The questions you mention all fit under one more general question I get asked all the time "Do you enhance/manipulate your work?"
My answer: Yes.
In short, I say it like it is. I personally see enhancement (or manipulation depending on which word you prefer to use) as part of my work. The next two essays in this series "The Eye and the Camera" and "Vision and Inspiration" respectively number 5 and 6 in the Aesthetics and photography series will provide the reasoning for this answer.
-
"Do you enhance/manipulate your work?"
My answer: Yes.
In short, I say it like it is. I personally see enhancement (or manipulation depending on which word you prefer to use) as part of my work. The next two essays in this series "The Eye and the Camera" and "Vision and Inspiration" respectively number 5 and 6 in the Aesthetics and photography series will provide the reasoning for this answer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Alain - this I am really looking forward to seeing, and I hope it gets published soon. A great topic - not only because I happen to agree with your approach on this matter (in fact with digital capture it is inevitable - the fine points being in what ways and for what purposes), but because it is guaranteed to generate alot of interesting discussion given the passionate views on either side of this issue - within and without of the professional community.
-
A few points worth bearing in mind:
1: No photographic techniques are really 'new'. Coloured filters, good cameras, darkroom skills etc have all been around for as long as photography.
2: Before the advent of the internet there was far less easily accessible information around about exactly how photographers did what they did - they was an air of mystery about the process.
3. The sorts of questions that are being asked now about photographs are a new phenomenon. In the 'old days' the answers would have meant nothing without some initial knowledge. Now 'a little knowledge is dangerous', as they say.
4. My experience with technical questions in a retail situation leads me to feel that in many cases the asker does not actually know what the question means - much like in HitchHiker's Guide, the answer (42) means nothing unless you understand the question.
"Do you use filters?"
What is a filter?
"Do you use Photoshop?"
What is Photoshop used for?
The true answers to these questions are not what the asker is looking for, since understanding a genuine answer would entail learning a lot more about the whole process than the asker really wants to.
I suspect that these questions arise from a newly arisen suspicion about the veracity of photography - the logic goes like this:
That's a great looking image.
My photos don't look like that and I know I don't use filters or manipulate my images (because I don't know how).
Ergo, your image must be made to look so good by cheating using filters, Photoshop etc.
I have gone through 3 stages of dealing with tech questions. Initially I refused to discuss them preferring to keep my techniques to myself. Then when I realised that this approach could be seen as arrogant and unfriendly I relented and freely explained what I did.
This becomes tedious after a while, especially when you find that the more questions that are asked, the less likely you are to make a sale.
My last stage is to sidestep the question by saying that 'the richness of the image is only fully revealed in high quality printing, which is exactly why many people's photos often don't look as good as they could'. This makes perfect sense to most people and just about always satisfies even the most curious.
-
Alain - this I am really looking forward to seeing, and I hope it gets published soon. A great topic - not only because I happen to agree with your approach on this matter (in fact with digital capture it is inevitable - the fine points being in what ways and for what purposes), but because it is guaranteed to generate alot of interesting discussion given the passionate views on either side of this issue - within and without of the professional community.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your comments. The email response I am receiving from this essay is very positive and quite numerous. You are right that this subject is of interest to professionals as well as to people that are not professional photographers.
I actually have part 2 ready and part 3 is in the works. They are meant to work together.
-
I, too, am looking forward eagerly to parts 2 and 3. Keep 'em coming!
Eric
-
I, too, am looking forward eagerly to parts 2 and 3. Keep 'em coming!
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric,
Thank you for your interest. I have a lot of essays coming up and also a major publication coming up in Spring 07.
Alain
-
Alain Briot wrote:
>> What I came to understand is this: many people believe that, by the time the shutter is triggered, the appearance of a photograph is sealed. In other words, the prints that they see framed at my shows, prints which are the result of days and days of work adjusting contrast, color saturation and countless other details, are believed to be the direct reproduction of the negative or transparency I exposed in my camera, or of the raw file created by the camera’s digital sensor.
... the fact that a raw file has a very low saturation and contrast level when in its original state, and that virtually no raw files are printed without some amount of saturation and contrast adjustments, is equally of no concern to the audience.<<
Probably not so many people read the publications of the ICC color.org:
http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Di...ment_basics.pdf (http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf)
To compensate for dynamic range compression
and to work from native Raw to a pleasing /preferred rendition
is a rich chapter for Art as well as for Science.
Neither camera manufacturers nor supplier of Raw conversion software really like to talk about this subject. Either for IP reasons, or because their algorithms are of limited general applicability and require intervention by the user (often sold as the freedom to adjust everything depending on taste).
So in this sense we are 'manipulating’ because we have to...
(at least by 2006)
--
-
To compensate for dynamic range compression and to work from native Raw to a pleasing /preferred rendition is a rich chapter for Art as well as for Science.
Neither camera manufacturers nor supplier of Raw conversion software really like to talk about this subject. Either for IP reasons, or because their algorithms are of limited general applicability and require intervention by the user (often sold as the freedom to adjust everything depending on taste).
So in this sense we are 'manipulating’ because we have to... (at least by 2006)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77100\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good point. Thank you for the link to the white paper. I had not read it yet.
Alain
-
Alain Briot writes in Of Cameras and Art:
For me the real issue here is that the result of such an experiment would very likely not be as decisive as one might expect. It presumes the other person involved would actually see any qualitative difference between the two prints. Quite possibly the other person would notice a significant difference in detail and/or acutance - but even then there are differences in near vision that can make or break even this perception.
'Way back in my college days (which happened to be at the height of the hippy era), a very common occurrence was for a person to have a particular epiphany upon ingesting a psychoactive chemical. I heard this any number of times: "It's as if I never really saw colour before. Everything I see is just so incredibly vivid. The colours are all so sensual." These people were not referring to a temporary distortion induced by the chemical agent. The effect was usually permanent, persisting long after the moment and day of the awakening. It almost seems as though most?/many? people have a sort of unconscious de-colourizing filter happening in their visual cortices. My guess is such a person simply isn't paying much attention to colour (or line or form or texture) but instead uses vision as a means to various practical ends, and not as an end in itself.
When I show a portfolio of photographic prints to a sympathetic but non-artist individual I can pretty well predict in advance that the viewer will be looking through the print as if it were a window to the original scene. His/her interest is almost entirely focused on the subject matter. If someone is fishing in the picture and the viewer does fishing, the overriding question will be: what rod was the person in the picture using? What kind of motorboat is that? Where is that scene located? Certainly, there is some recognition that the scene is "pretty". If the colours happen to be esp. vivid, then the colours will be "pretty" too.
Adults normally bring a set of expectations to any new situation to use as a starting point. A photograph does not particularly suggest that the visual fine art mindset is appropriate. Most photographs are vacation snaps or advertisements or newspaper illustrations - these are all cases when the photograph is meant as a transparent window onto the original subject: i.e. documentation. A colour photograph is all the more realistic; and a sharp, detailed colour photograph yet more so. In contrast, a painting with evident brush strokes is rarely assumed to be anything other than a work of art, so the mindset (often including liberal helpings of inferiority and apprehension) a typical viewer brings to it will prepare him to give at least some attention to the painting as a physical object as well as to the subject matter (if any) it references. In my experience, to expect the typical viewer to approach any realistic colour photograph with the mindset she reserves for painting is to set oneself up for disappointment.
That takes us to the special case of the non-artist viewer who is also a photo hobbyist. The typical profile of such an individual seems to be a male who loves machinery/gadgets for their own sake, and who may in fact use his camera ... if at all ... to take pictures of other gadgets, such as cars, trains, and planes. This is what Peripatetic nicely calls the related hobby of photo gadgeteering. Nevertheless, it is surprisingly common for the photo gadgeteer to cross-dress into the art microcosm, motivated by a real enthusiasm for all things pretty. Now prettiness might seem to be the naural domain of the human female; and one might expect gender insecurity from keeping gadgeteer males from crossing the line here. In fact, males are engineered such that a fairly large minority have at least the rudimentary appreciation of prettiness it takes to admire the nubile female form. This in turn occassionally bleeds over on to sunsets, mountains, and lakes ... with the usually disastrous results (forgive my parochial prejudice) we are all familiar with.
So the case that Alain reports of the photo gadgeteer who is convinced that the camera makes the picture is just one symptom of the more general case of the photo gadgeteer who has not yet gotten sucked into that vortex whose maw is Pretty, whose funnel is Beauty, and whose end point is that black hole of Pure Art from which no ego escapeth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76785\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh my god. I can't believe I just read all of that. What a load. Can we say overanalyzation?
I've been watching this site for a while and I love it. It really inspires me as a photographer, even though the landscape style is so different from the somewhat more modern/post-modern style of artistic photography here in Japan.
Alain's previous posts have given me a good idea what it is to be an enterprising photographer in the US, and since I'm from the US I found the information useful. But this recent article is just a bunch of self absorbed, egotistical ranting. I mean seriously, those little endings of sections. "I used a good camera" "I used the best CF card money can buy" and such. Jesus. Get off your high horse and try to learn to do something more than take pictures of rocks in the desert.
Now you're probably thinking, who the hell is this guy? Well, I'm a nobody. I take pictures of things I like and I try to have fun doing it. You'll probably never hear of me in any amazing way. I just don't like when people start to put themselves on a pedastel. Yes, you take better pictures than 90%, hell 98% of the population. So what? That's your job. I know a plumber who fixes pipes better than 98% of the population, but you don't hear him announcing how wonderful he is.
Do what you do and enjoy it. Help others who like to do the same thing and who aren't as good as you. Its a nice thing to do. Just don't diefy yourself in the process.
-
psyberjock, I really think you missed the point because you act as though Alain is the point of his own article. Just because he uses his own experiences as examples doesn't mean the article is all about him. Did you notice the times that he said, "After talking to other photographers and learning that they received the same comments," or, "And you will find yourself in such a situation if you exhibit your work." Have you noticed how many people on this forum have had similar experiences and felt the same way. The article is about a public misperception of photographic artists, not a public misperception of Alain Briot.
I don't think that if I had the expensive tools of a plumber, I could fix all the plumbing problems in my neighborhood without years of study, years of practice, and a lot of attention to plumbing to the best of my ability. Why should someone believe that money/tools/a camera is the only difference between them and a person who makes their living selling photos as art?
P.S. Maybe the one-liners about expensive CF cards are a little smug, but they're also just a joke.
-
psyberjock, I really think you missed the point because you act as though Alain is the point of his own article. Just because he uses his own experiences as examples doesn't mean the article is all about him. Did you notice the times that he said, "After talking to other photographers and learning that they received the same comments," or, "And you will find yourself in such a situation if you exhibit your work." Have you noticed how many people on this forum have had similar experiences and felt the same way. The article is about a public misperception of photographic artists, not a public misperception of Alain Briot.
I don't think that if I had the expensive tools of a plumber, I could fix all the plumbing problems in my neighborhood without years of study, years of practice, and a lot of attention to plumbing to the best of my ability. Why should someone believe that money/tools/a camera is the only difference between them and a person who makes their living selling photos as art?
P.S. Maybe the one-liners about expensive CF cards are a little smug, but they're also just a joke.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's exactly what I wanted to say. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.
Eric
-
On a totally different subject, some people find the use of the name "Jesus" as an expletive equally or more offensive than profanity. I'm pretty sure this forum discourages the use of four letter words, so without getting too "religious", I'd ask that you please be more respectful of other peoples belief systems. Thank you.
-
Enjoyed the article Alain. What has occurred to me is that the people that approach any of us at an event want to be able to speak our language, but they don't know how. The next best thing is to place ones self in a pecking order, either above or below the artist, most choose below.
I believe this is the translation of "you must have a great camera, etc". In my field, people say, "I tried making a pot once, I could never do it". They enjoy the right brain experience but speak out of the left brain.
There was an experiment once, placing a cat on a tile floor that optically appeared to be 3-D. The cat jumped from one perceived high point to the next. This was the only rational way the cat made sense of the room.
If you and I were to meet and I asked you to "show me your secrets", that implies that I don't understand what I'm seeing: the same as the cat.
If someone were to see either of us at a show, most are overwhelmed by the sensory attack that a show provides and the brain shuts down to a core functioning level, survive, survive. We on the other hand have another set of mental problems that the customers don't deal with., the show,setup, weather. them, etc.
We are dealing with a subset of the same issues here on this forum, only we have somewhat better language skills based on our collective experiences.
Wyndham
-
Enjoyed the article Alain. What has occurred to me is that the people that approach any of us at an event want to be able to speak our language, but they don't know how. The next best thing is to place ones self in a pecking order, either above or below the artist, most choose below.
I believe this is the translation of "you must have a great camera, etc". In my field, people say, "I tried making a pot once, I could never do it". They enjoy the right brain experience but speak out of the left brain.
There was an experiment once, placing a cat on a tile floor that optically appeared to be 3-D. The cat jumped from one perceived high point to the next. This was the only rational way the cat made sense of the room.
If you and I were to meet and I asked you to "show me your secrets", that implies that I don't understand what I'm seeing: the same as the cat.
If someone were to see either of us at a show, most are overwhelmed by the sensory attack that a show provides and the brain shuts down to a core functioning level, survive, survive. We on the other hand have another set of mental problems that the customers don't deal with., the show,setup, weather. them, etc.
We are dealing with a subset of the same issues here on this forum, only we have somewhat better language skills based on our collective experiences.
Wyndham
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
psyberjock
Hi and welcome
No, I don't think you missed any points at all; the problem with your post is that you shouldn't challenge any of the established gurus - it makes other people uncomfortable because they either cannot see the reality for themselves or, worse, they do but can't help themselves out of a misplaced sense of respect for someone with whom they have a tenuous contact.
Alain's work: yes, he does what he does very well; for a native French speaker he has a remarkable command of the English language - after five or six years spent studying French in school I am ashamed at how little of it remains in my reach - and he is worth a lot of respect for that quality if nothing else. As for his photographs, they are good, but so are those of many many other photographers who are visible on the web. Alain's advantage, in this context at least, is that he is allowed the space on this forum to air his views and to indulge in as much self-promotion as he likes. And that's fine by me: he's in the business of selling photographs as is our host - a little mutual back-rubbing never hurt anybody!
Perhaps the problem with Alain's writing (on this site) is that it is difficult for him to aim accurately enough at his target audience. I'm a professional photographer and whilst I enjoy the work of many of my peers (and betters too, for that matter) and buy monographs whenever they impress me enough to persuade me to put my hand in my pocket, I have never bought a photograph from any one of them. Why would I? Their skill is taken for granted and a single image means zilch to me. What is important is to have something that is representative of a man's entire oeuvre, something that can be re-read time after time and through that familiarity something new about the man's personality can be learned (it isn't always a positive thing - you can also grow to dislike a former favourite too) and that has to be a book.
So, on a site such as this, a mix of pro and am and probably most shades of life in between, how can Alain ever hope to be sure of whom he is addressing? For me, it seems absurd that a pro spends time complaining about audiences; for somebody else it might be an eye-opener instead. In the final analysis, it is perhaps the best argument that can be made for selling one's work through an agency or gallery: you can avoid the contact if you want to.
But in any respect, bitching about it is not productive.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Perhaps the problem with Alain's writing (on this site) is that it is difficult for him to aim accurately enough at his target audience.
Or perhaps it is the contempt that he seems to hold for his customers.
I don't think it matters what your medium is, there are always going to be those people that do not understand the process of art making. There are going to be comments about how your art is too expensive, or I could do that, etc, etc... That is a reality of dealing with the public at large.
Personally, I just try to ignore it. I spend some time with real artists (some photographers and some not), and people that do understand the process, and I am assured again that I am on the right path.
-
I don't think that if I had the expensive tools of a plumber, I could fix all the plumbing problems in my neighborhood without years of study, years of practice, and a lot of attention to plumbing to the best of my ability. Why should someone believe that money/tools/a camera is the only difference between them and a person who makes their living selling photos as art?
P.S. Maybe the one-liners about expensive CF cards are a little smug, but they're also just a joke.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, on this first point, I think you also missed my point. I was not defending the idea that anyone can take a wonderful picture if they have the right equipment, I was trying to say that humility is the best policy. Just as a plumber does not grandstand about his job, neither should a photographer.
On the second point (ie the P.S.), you got it exactly right. It is very smug. I did catch onto the sarcasm that makes it into a joke, but I feel that it is a joke in very bad taste. It's like grinding the faces of his customers in the dirt for not giving him his due. The joke simply makes it that much worse.
psyberjock
Hi and welcome
No, I don't think you missed any points at all; the problem with your post is that you shouldn't challenge any of the established gurus - it makes other people uncomfortable because they either cannot see the reality for themselves or, worse, they do but can't help themselves out of a misplaced sense of respect for someone with whom they have a tenuous contact.
(Now you may be writing with a bit of well concealed sarcasm and if so, I appreciate you bringing up this topic because I would like to expound on this point. If you are not being sarcastic and you really think this way (which wouldn't surprise me after some of the things I've read(though not yours in particular)), thanks anyway. (Hard to tell sometimes with just text. Also, thanks to the guy that pointed out to me that this may be a clever ploy to agree with me.)) <-- sorry for all the nested parentheses it's tough to write a disclaimer for a rant after the rant has been written. Heh heh.
I shouldn't challenge the established gurus? Why not? Are you saying that accountability is a bad thing? Where would we be if people had not challenged the established gurus thousands of times throughout the course of history? The world would most likely be flat, you certainly wouldn't have any camera with which to take pictures (it would probably be satanic witchcraft), and even more interestingly (for all you christians out there (yes I mean you aksundevil)) Jesus would probably still be a Jew. He was the ultimate established guru challenger.
Furthermore, historically art is the medium by which established gurus have been challenged. Look at 80% of the authors in the world whose works have come to be considered literature. Thomas Payne and Jonathan Swift for example. Right now there is even a professor of the University of Arizona who is being held captive in Turkey for writing a FICTIONAL book which challenged the established gurus.
Not only is it ok to challenge the established gurus, you should feel obligated to do so. If you don't, you're concedeing 90% of your rights as an artist and furthering the stagnation of our world culture.
Sorry for getting off on that tangent, I just don't feel this is a valid argument.
Alain's work: yes, he does what he does very well; for a native French speaker he has a remarkable command of the English language - after five or six years spent studying French in school I am ashamed at how little of it remains in my reach - and he is worth a lot of respect for that quality if nothing else.
Well by this reasoning, I'm certainly worth your respect as I speak English, Japanese, Spanish, and even a conversational amount of Portuguese.
Again, this is a poor argument. Language ability does nothing to justify Briot's article. If you claim that his English is a liability and he wasn't trying to come off that way, look at the sarcasm. It was used quite skillfully and with a purpose. If you try to say that he can get away with it because he's cool because he speaks more than one language, I say get real. Don't be swooned so easily by parlor tricks. Given ample time, anyone can learn a second, third, forth, or however many'th language.
(Please insert previous rant disclaimer here ^ and here v)
For me, it seems absurd that a pro spends time complaining about audiences; for somebody else it might be an eye-opener instead. In the final analysis, it is perhaps the best argument that can be made for selling one's work through an agency or gallery: you can avoid the contact if you want to.
But in any respect, bitching about it is not productive.
Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly. That's why I dislike his article so much. So much even, that I joined the forums and added a new perspective to the discussion. I'm glad that we agree on this at least.
Or perhaps it is the contempt that he seems to hold for his customers.
I don't think it matters what your medium is, there are always going to be those people that do not understand the process of art making. There are going to be comments about how your art is too expensive, or I could do that, etc, etc... That is a reality of dealing with the public at large.
Personally, I just try to ignore it. I spend some time with real artists (some photographers and some not), and people that do understand the process, and I am assured again that I am on the right path.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I knew I couldn't be the only to see the contempt for his customers. Thank you.
---------------
Now to aksundevil: I'm sorry you find certain words profane. I really feel bad that your idea of language has been poisoned so deeply by your environment. Language, like a camera, is a tool by which we communicate our thoughts and emotions. If I am told to withhold certain thoughts and emotions because they disagree with another, I feel that much more compelled to let them out. Strong language describes strong emotions. There is nothing bad about any word. There is only the social programming that causes you to react in preprogrammed ways. Please, take some language classes while you're at ASU (assuming you're still there). Tell Prof. Adams, Norman Dubie, Prof. Nilsen, and all those other crazy English teachers that I said "Hi." Oh, and take the Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology. Its a real eye opener.
---------------
Now, I would like to say that I feel bad about some of the personal attacks that I made. So far, no one has commented on them, but I want to talk about it. I was caught up in the heat of the moment, and I should have toned it down and thought it all out a bit more. Granted, I do think that Briot takes a lot of pictures of the same things, and given his comment on his own article as being "variety" and the "spice of life", I would love to see him apply that to his photographs. I think he could do many more interesting things with his camera than he allows himself. But again, my wording was harsh and I apologize.
What it all boils down to is that I feel this article has comprimised the integrity of a site that I cherish and check on a daily basis and have done for almost a year now. The front end of this site is typically very useful and objective. This last post of Briot's would have been best kept in the forums.
-
Jesus would probably still be a Jew. He was the ultimate established guru challenger. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77267\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please don't call me a Christian and then act like, because I am, I probably don't know the realities of the life of Jesus. I guarantee you I've spent a great deal more time learning and thinking about his life, agenda, and death than you probably ever will. Obviously the single most influential person in the history of the world did not get that way by following the crowd.
Now to aksundevil: I'm sorry you find certain words profane. I really feel bad that your idea of language has been poisoned so deeply by your environment. Language, like a camera, is a tool by which we communicate our thoughts and emotions. If I am told to withhold certain thoughts and emotions because they disagree with another, I feel that much more compelled to let them out. Strong language describes strong emotions. There is nothing bad about any word. There is only the social programming that causes you to react in preprogrammed ways. Please, take some language classes while you're at ASU (assuming you're still there). Tell Prof. Adams, Norman Dubie, Prof. Nilsen, and all those other crazy English teachers that I said "Hi." Oh, and take the Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology. Its a real eye opener.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77267\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You think my ideas are the ones being poisoned by my environment? What makes you so sure, since I'm sure you don't claim to live in a vacuum devoid of any contact with influencing factors? I would point out that you are the one using language to try and make other people feel inferior or shamed (you call it personal attacks and admit to feeling bad). Yes, language is a tool by which we communicate our thoughts and emotions...to OTHER PEOPLE. Language/words is absolutely nothing without an audience. Isn't that exactly the reason you decided to post on this topic in the first place; because you felt the article was written in a way that is offensive to you, the audience? You contradict yourself when you tell me that I don't matter as an audience when I read your use of the name "Jesus" as an expression of frustration. The word does tell me that you are clearly put out by the sentiment of the article you just read, but it also tells me that you do not consider the most important person in my life to be worth any reverence.
I've moved on from college, but I did take classes in Cultural Anthropology, Sociology, and Religion classes that challenged traditional Christian beliefs. By the same claims you use to discard my response as nothing but social programming, I could choose to deflate the importance of your opinions to the point that they're not worth responding to. It seems that you thought your opinions on the article were important for other people to hear in order to increase their perspective, but you think that the ideas I express to you are of no relevance because they are influences controlling me and not my own opinions. I'm sorry, but you cannot have it both ways, and I would suggest taking the path of being more open minded.
-------------
I'm pretty sure that we've long since crossed the line on what is appropriate for this thread/forum section. If anyone would like to continue this part of the conversation, I think it would be best to move it to the Coffee Shop section or personal emails. I'm willing to discuss further if you email me at tkmphoto@gmail.com
-
Back to the original topic of how good the essay was (or whether it was good at all), I'd like to say that psyberjock has a very legitimate point about this article. It is a little harsh in some places, and it makes it sound like individuals are doing a photographer a disservice by not understanding them. Some people might feel that it's encouraging us to respond to with contempt to the ones asking the "annoying questions". The more we think and talk about how much we don't like questions/comments about expensive gear, the more likely we are to respond to people making those comments with inappropriate or mean comments of our own. I had a similar feeling when I first read the article, but since I don't know Alain personally, I chose to believe he had uplifting motives for writing the article. It is possible that the article was written without the self-righteous attitude that can be envisioned. Still, I would at least agree that this article walks a fine line, and we should be careful not to let any unintended negative overtones from the article affect the way we treat other people.
-
Well, on this first point, I think you also missed my point. I was not defending the idea that anyone can take a wonderful picture if they have the right equipment, I was trying to say that humility is the best policy. Just as a plumber does not grandstand about his job, neither should a photographer.
On the second point (ie the P.S.), you got it exactly right. It is very smug. I did catch onto the sarcasm that makes it into a joke, but I feel that it is a joke in very bad taste. It's like grinding the faces of his customers in the dirt for not giving him his due. The joke simply makes it that much worse.
(Now you may be writing with a bit of well concealed sarcasm and if so, I appreciate you bringing up this topic because I would like to expound on this point. If you are not being sarcastic and you really think this way (which wouldn't surprise me after some of the things I've read(though not yours in particular)), thanks anyway. (Hard to tell sometimes with just text. Also, thanks to the guy that pointed out to me that this may be a clever ploy to agree with me.)) <-- sorry for all the nested parentheses it's tough to write a disclaimer for a rant after the rant has been written. Heh heh.
I shouldn't challenge the established gurus? Why not? Are you saying that accountability is a bad thing? Where would we be if people had not challenged the established gurus thousands of times throughout the course of history? The world would most likely be flat, you certainly wouldn't have any camera with which to take pictures (it would probably be satanic witchcraft), and even more interestingly (for all you christians out there (yes I mean you aksundevil)) Jesus would probably still be a Jew. He was the ultimate established guru challenger.
Furthermore, historically art is the medium by which established gurus have been challenged. Look at 80% of the authors in the world whose works have come to be considered literature. Thomas Payne and Jonathan Swift for example. Right now there is even a professor of the University of Arizona who is being held captive in Turkey for writing a FICTIONAL book which challenged the established gurus.
Not only is it ok to challenge the established gurus, you should feel obligated to do so. If you don't, you're concedeing 90% of your rights as an artist and furthering the stagnation of our world culture.
Sorry for getting off on that tangent, I just don't feel this is a valid argument.
Well by this reasoning, I'm certainly worth your respect as I speak English, Japanese, Spanish, and even a conversational amount of Portuguese.
Again, this is a poor argument. Language ability does nothing to justify Briot's article. If you claim that his English is a liability and he wasn't trying to come off that way, look at the sarcasm. It was used quite skillfully and with a purpose. If you try to say that he can get away with it because he's cool because he speaks more than one language, I say get real. Don't be swooned so easily by parlor tricks. Given ample time, anyone can learn a second, third, forth, or however many'th language.
(Please insert previous rant disclaimer here ^ and here v)
Exactly. That's why I dislike his article so much. So much even, that I joined the forums and added a new perspective to the discussion. I'm glad that we agree on this at least.
I knew I couldn't be the only to see the contempt for his customers. Thank you.
---------------
Now to aksundevil: I'm sorry you find certain words profane. I really feel bad that your idea of language has been poisoned so deeply by your environment. Language, like a camera, is a tool by which we communicate our thoughts and emotions. If I am told to withhold certain thoughts and emotions because they disagree with another, I feel that much more compelled to let them out. Strong language describes strong emotions. There is nothing bad about any word. There is only the social programming that causes you to react in preprogrammed ways. Please, take some language classes while you're at ASU (assuming you're still there). Tell Prof. Adams, Norman Dubie, Prof. Nilsen, and all those other crazy English teachers that I said "Hi." Oh, and take the Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology. Its a real eye opener.
---------------
Now, I would like to say that I feel bad about some of the personal attacks that I made. So far, no one has commented on them, but I want to talk about it. I was caught up in the heat of the moment, and I should have toned it down and thought it all out a bit more. Granted, I do think that Briot takes a lot of pictures of the same things, and given his comment on his own article as being "variety" and the "spice of life", I would love to see him apply that to his photographs. I think he could do many more interesting things with his camera than he allows himself. But again, my wording was harsh and I apologize.
What it all boils down to is that I feel this article has comprimised the integrity of a site that I cherish and check on a daily basis and have done for almost a year now. The front end of this site is typically very useful and objective. This last post of Briot's would have been best kept in the forums.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77267\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Cyberjock
Hi - my opening paragraph was, indeed, written in as restrained a form of sarcasm as I was able to summon; my reference to Alain's command of English did NOT have nor was it intended to have, any bearing on either his photographic skills or his treatment/attitude vis a vis clients.
I think that if you apply the same frame of mind (mine) to the rest of my post you will see where my sympathies lie!
My computer keeps dying - this is my second, shortened attempt at a response.
Cheers - Rob C
-
Isn't that exactly the reason you decided to post on this topic in the first place; because you felt the article was written in a way that is offensive to you, the audience?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's exactly why I decided to post. Then you felt this way and decided to reply to my post. Now I'm doing the same again.
As for the rest of your post, I would love to take the time to reply to all of your proclaimations. Some of them were pretty presumptuous, but you are right that this isn't the thread for that, and you clearly enjoy believing the way you do. Ignorance is bliss.
-
That's exactly why I decided to post. Then you felt this way and decided to reply to my post. Now I'm doing the same again.
As for the rest of your post, I would love to take the time to reply to all of your proclaimations. Some of them were pretty presumptuous, but you are right that this isn't the thread for that, and you clearly enjoy believing the way you do. Ignorance is bliss.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77320\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi folks
It's a funny thing, but almost as soon as one concludes that equipment has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality or otherwise of a photograph, the obvious opposite comes immediately to mind.
Not only do better optics allow superior drawing and colour, but format, too, plays a not insignificant role in how a photograph eventually looks. Take any of the greats in our profession/hobby/art and their choice of format accounts for a great deal of what you see in their work; even a propensity for a particular focal length shows its mark in the work. So, whilst it's nice and comforting to claim that it is all in the eye/hand of the photographer, that is an oversimplification too far, since money and opportunity do indeed control much of what goes on in our little world.
Is this not so?
Ciao - Rob C
-
Hi folks
It's a funny thing, but almost as soon as one concludes that equipment has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality or otherwise of a photograph, the obvious opposite comes immediately to mind.
Not only do better optics allow superior drawing and colour, but format, too, plays a not insignificant role in how a photograph eventually looks. Take any of the greats in our profession/hobby/art and their choice of format accounts for a great deal of what you see in their work; even a propensity for a particular focal length shows its mark in the work. So, whilst it's nice and comforting to claim that it is all in the eye/hand of the photographer, that is an oversimplification too far, since money and opportunity do indeed control much of what goes on in our little world.
Is this not so?
Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77464\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is indeed so.
Why else do master craftsmen tend to use the finest tools available to them?
There is also the aspect of using 'quality' gear where, simply by knowing that you are using the best tools available, you are able to take your vision even further. By definition a master craftsmen appreciates the fine subtleties of his craft and therefore to be limited in the execution of the craft by inferior tools is intolerable.
Therefore the best craftsmen tend to use the best tools. The two go hand in hand.
The point of this thread is that the tools themselves do not, and can not, create a master craftsman - but in combination it is a clear case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.
-
This is indeed so.
Why else do master craftsmen tend to use the finest tools available to them?
There is also the aspect of using 'quality' gear where, simply by knowing that you are using the best tools available, you are able to take your vision even further. By definition a master craftsmen appreciates the fine subtleties of his craft and therefore to be limited in the execution of the craft by inferior tools is intolerable.
Therefore the best craftsmen tend to use the best tools. The two go hand in hand.
The point of this thread is that the tools themselves do not, and can not, create a master craftsman - but in combination it is a clear case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
This is indeed so.
Why else do master craftsmen tend to use the finest tools available to them?
There is also the aspect of using 'quality' gear where, simply by knowing that you are using the best tools available, you are able to take your vision even further. By definition a master craftsmen appreciates the fine subtleties of his craft and therefore to be limited in the execution of the craft by inferior tools is intolerable.
Therefore the best craftsmen tend to use the best tools. The two go hand in hand.
The point of this thread is that the tools themselves do not, and can not, create a master craftsman - but in combination it is a clear case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Nick
Yes, you have encapsulated the position in a sentence and, really, there is little further that the thread can go other than to add that, not only are you able to take your vision further, as you write, you actually FEEL better using the best available tools.
Ciao- Rob C
-
If ever I'm pressed on the subject of the equipment being the reason for good photos, I use the analogy of creating music. You can put the most finely crafted Stradivari violin in the hands of a beginner and you will produce nothing of value. A master player will make beautiful music with a second-hand battered instrument, but marry the Stradivari with the virtuoso and you get the finest result.
Don't forget the role of craft here. Tools are used in the craft, mastery of the craft is what permits art to be made. To stretch our violinist analogy further, the art cannot be produced from the tool until the player has mastered high proficiency and dexterity with the physical components of the creative process.
Now in photography, the craft is different to what it was in the days of our pioneering heroes but not necessarily easier. I would argue it's more convenient, but still requires skill with the tools.
As you say, Rob, the tool of course makes a difference which is why we buy the expensive choices - if they weren't better, they would fail in the marketplace. For me, I couldn't produce quality prints from low-light stage performances without the superb low noise of my 1DsII and the great optics of my fast lenses. I couldn't do that with a point and squirt.
-
As you say, Rob, the tool of course makes a difference which is why we buy the expensive choices - if they weren't better, they would fail in the marketplace. For me, I couldn't produce quality prints from low-light stage performances without the superb low noise of my 1DsII and the great optics of my fast lenses. I couldn't do that with a point and squirt.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The devil's advocate in me screams: "This is ridiculous!" - what's the point of photography: to capture emotion? or to produce quality prints? If you can't do the former with a P&S, what makes you think that you can do it with a 1-series? Even if you consider yourself a master craftsman.
The whole "master craftsman" thinking is typical for mediocre artists. To stretch the analogy a bit further, remember the entire school of chinese violinists that could play the notes *exactly* on the most expensive strads?
The best performers seem to read the notes ones or twice, then they play the piece... by heart that is.
But that was just the devil's advocate in me, who also says that current thread participants seem somewhat self-absorbed, as in: maybe you all try to combine all disciplines in a single person, but there is no reason a true artist can not hire the expertise and equipment from elsewhere.
-
The whole "master craftsman" thinking is typical for mediocre artists. To stretch the analogy a bit further, remember the entire school of chinese violinists that could play the notes *exactly* on the most expensive strads?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77563\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nonsense.
The gist of the previous posts is that the best tools do not make a master craftsman, but, conversely, a master craftsman is able to better make use of superior tools.
-
Oscar, I AM a mediocre-to-poor artist (though I'm not sure how you knew, never having seen my work), and NOT a master craftsman - I wasn't talking about me. I do however take a decent photo from time to time, and the area I do commercially is events photography. In a theatre lit only with stage lights (not designed for photography) and no permitted flash, most shots are at ISO800-1600 and at wide apertures, with moving subjects. Largest I need to print (and yes, I DO think that's part of the photographer's craft although as you rightly say you can outsource that bit if you want / can afford to) is the occasional 24x36" poster, but more normally at A3 and A4. I stand by my comment - I can't do those prints (I did NOT say create the 'art') with a noisy digicam.
Not all photography is for pure 'art' however we choose to define that. Often it is the recording of an event, a memoir. Even so, the ability to reproduce it as well as we can (I guess that's craft rather than art) will be limited or enabled by the tools available. The Director of a recent play wanted an ensemble photo of the cast taking their end-of-show curtain call, which was to be printed up into a poster. I needed it sharp, a lot of pixels with low noise - I needed my 1DsII and a decent lens.
Thank you, Nick - my point precisely.
-
Nonsense.
The gist of the previous posts is that the best tools do not make a master craftsman, but, conversely, a master craftsman is able to better make use of superior tools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77576\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Could you define the goal then?
-
... - I wasn't talking about me.
Neither was I...
I needed it sharp, a lot of pixels with low noise - I needed my 1DsII and a decent lens.
But that's a choice, not a necessity. It is a typical goal of a craftsman. An Artist may well fetch the tool best suited to capture the emotion, which may be the first thing at hand, the most convenient tool, or, more importantly: he/she may simply hire a craftsman to capture whatever he/she dreamed up in creative vision...
Mind you, I'm not denying that quality tools can be made to shine in the artist's hands, and the entire gist of the original text (that tools don't make the artist) doesn't typically require repeating here either, as it was a boring subject to begin with. I'm simply disputing the idea that ALL disciplines need to be united in a single person and that that creates synergy. There may be more synergy in a collective of persons uniting the disciplines. And great craftsmanship without heart will result in a perfect quality image which is dead.
An essay that truly addresses this issue that the artist has to become increasingly more technical in order to operate the tools and how that combines with cultivation of creativity, such an essay would imo really be interesting.
-
If by that you mean the goal of photography, then there is no one answer - it's different depending on the use it'll be put to. Goals range from capturing a personal moment (birthdays, holiday snaps), to representation of products for commercial purposes, to capturing moments for reporting news, to individual expression as a means of communication, to creating images designed to provoke emotion. Of course, that's not a complete list. Your choice of tool will either facilitate or hinder your output.
Sure, in a purist sense one could always argue that for the 'true artist', then the art will out no matter the limitations of the tools. Back to the original point, better tools (or perhaps even just the appropriate tools) will be put to better use by the talented artist. That same tool in experienced hands in and of itself will not permit him to rival the output of an experienced artist.
The problem with public perception of photography is that it's so accessible many DO believe that the equipment makes all the difference. Unlike musicians or painters, where most know that they need a high degree of physical dexterity to produce the output, they think that all they have to do is lift a better camera to their eye and press the magic button. The reason they don't think otherwise is that same reason no-one can agree on what makes a picture 'art'. How do you define or communicate all those factors Alain referred to in his first article; emotion, experience, training, etc. etc.?
-
But that's a choice, not a necessity. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Unfortunately it was not much of a choice - if I have to shoot with high ISO in low light, then I don't want to print big - it's far more work for me. The brief was for an A2 poster of the final curtain call, on a very full stage - approx 80 people. By definition, all the cast had to be in focus from edge to edge, and I needed the pixels to be able to deliver a sharp image that size.
-
Unfortunately it was not much of a choice - if I have to shoot with high ISO in low light, then I don't want to print big - it's far more work for me. The brief was for an A2 poster of the final curtain call, on a very full stage - approx 80 people. By definition, all the cast had to be in focus from edge to edge, and I needed the pixels to be able to deliver a sharp image that size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And what would a $600 (hundred) film SLR haven't given you that a $6000 (thousand) DSLR did? And what about hiring mf equipment (film or digital)? Including a photographer so you can concentrate on capturing (the emotions of) the event? What would be the difference in outcome from your $6000 DSLR vs a $30.000 DB? Or since that will likely mean some form of f8 or higher situation, what would a cheaper sharp lens not give you that the 85L would?
Again, I'm not denying that that situation requires some serious equipment, but the degree of seriousness is still a choice. It's rather useless to discuss the relative merit of a DP&S vs a DB and how that may affect our competence. Really, if you put grandma in a formula 1 racing car and schumy in her diahatsu, she will drive faster than he does. Albeit for a very short period of time, and after the first corner it will be clear that schumy will drive a meaningful course, and grandma will likely be discussing the finer points of formula 1 as a metaphor for artistry with her devine creator.
-
So why exactly are photographers not allowed to blow off steam, to be human?
I think the complaints about the essay are far too OTT.
-
And what would a $600 (hundred) film SLR haven't given you that a $6000 (thousand) DSLR did? And what about hiring mf equipment (film or digital)? Including a photographer so you can concentrate on capturing (the emotions of) the event? What would be the difference in outcome from your $6000 DSLR vs a $30.000 DB? Or since that will likely mean some form of f8 or higher situation, what would a cheaper sharp lens not give you that the 85L would?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77599\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At the risk of heading way off topic and escalating this beyond the ridiculous... workflow processing and cost from 35mm film vs digital for the quantity of shots I take for performances over a year (ignoring for now the better low-light capability of DSLR vs film) made the switch to digital from film viable. I didn't buy a 1DsII for one shoot. Can't sensibly use MF in any current form (film or digital) for such situations, so I'm at a loss to understand that one. My main lens was the 50mm f/1.4 (which I used for the poster), plus I also used the 85mm f/1.8 extensively. Neither lens was expensive, but they're good. Is price a factor in your logic? Typically I used to shoot 20-35 rolls of film per performance, now I shoot about 1000-2000 frames. I can shoot more frames with digital and I get a hell of a lot of failures, but I get an absolute greater number of usable shots than I did before, and it takes me a HECK of a lot less time to get to final result. As a consequence I'm able to do more shows each year. The economics of film vs digital (even expensive digital) ceased to be argued over a long time ago - what has that got to do with anything I've said??
...but I know that you know all this: I've lost the point.
Ben - I'm not complaining about the essay, Alain makes the same points we all hear. I'm sure you get it all the time in your line of work. Somehow I've got myself drawn into a hair-splitting contest by saying we use the best and most appropriate tools available to do the job.
Let me illustrate what I'm trying to say: below are two images from a recent performance. They were taken in low light at ISO1600, with the 50 f/1.4 lens. After a little work I've printed them both to A3, and the organisation who sponsored the performance were thrilled with them and the 60+ others I did. Are they art? I'd say no, but I made some good prints which captured some of the emotion of that evening (speaking for myself, it took me some time to dry out my eyepiece!). Maybe others can, but I could not make those prints in those circumstances with film. In this case, I would say the equipment I had available to me definitely enabled me to create an end result I otherwise could not have.
[attachment=978:attachment] [attachment=979:attachment]
-
At the risk of heading way off topic and escalating this beyond the ridiculous... workflow processing and cost from 35mm film vs digital for the quantity of shots I take for performances over a year (ignoring for now the better low-light capability of DSLR vs film) made the switch to digital from film viable. I didn't buy a 1DsII for one shoot. Can't sensibly use MF in any current form (film or digital) for such situations, so I'm at a loss to understand that one. My main lens was the 50mm f/1.4 (which I used for the poster), plus I also used the 85mm f/1.8 extensively. Neither lens was expensive, but they're good. Is price a factor in your logic? Typically I used to shoot 20-35 rolls of film per performance, now I shoot about 1000-2000 frames. I can shoot more frames with digital and I get a hell of a lot of failures, but I get an absolute greater number of usable shots than I did before, and it takes me a HECK of a lot less time to get to final result. As a consequence I'm able to do more shows each year. The economics of film vs digital (even expensive digital) ceased to be argued over a long time ago - what has that got to do with anything I've said??
...but I know that you know all this: I've lost the point.
Ben - I'm not complaining about the essay, Alain makes the same points we all hear. I'm sure you get it all the time in your line of work. Somehow I've got myself drawn into a hair-splitting contest by saying we use the best and most appropriate tools available to do the job.
Let me illustrate what I'm trying to say: below are two images from a recent performance. They were taken in low light at ISO1600, with the 50 f/1.4 lens. After a little work I've printed them both to A3, and the organisation who sponsored the performance were thrilled with them and the 60+ others I did. Are they art? I'd say no, but I made some good prints which captured some of the emotion of that evening (speaking for myself, it took me some time to dry out my eyepiece!). Maybe others can, but I could not make those prints in those circumstances with film. In this case, I would say the equipment I had available to me definitely enabled me to create an end result I otherwise could not have.
[attachment=978:attachment] [attachment=979:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77629\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nick - please, please don't be seduced into following this thread up any further - as I've said here before, it comes down to a pointless 'last man standing' circular argument, the energy expended upon which might be better spent watching paint dry or grass grow - no, golfing does that already. Did you know that no person with imagination has played golf twice?
Ciao - Rob C
-
So why exactly are photographers not allowed to blow off steam, to be human?
I think the complaints about the essay are far too OTT.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh, I think they are, of course. The discussion seems to me to circle around the question whether it is appropriate and/or wise to devote an entire essay to this, under the title "Of Cameras and Art", no less. I am inclined to think it is neither of the two.
Karsten
-
...whether it is appropriate and/or wise to devote an entire essay to this, under the title "Of Cameras and Art", no less. I am inclined to think it is neither of the two.
Karsten
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Surely someone has every right to put together an article about anything they like, as long as it is pertinent to the site. Alain's article is very pertinent and the issues he discusses are ones facing many photography professionals.
Agreeing with the content, or not, is the prerogative of the reader and any contributor to a site knowingly opens themselves up to criticism. Often these articles are written to provoke discussion and the writer can benefit by seeing a consensus forming.
You say he was 'unwise' and the article was 'inappropriate'? In what way?
-
Surely someone has every right to put together an article about anything they like, as long as it is pertinent to the site. Alain's article is very pertinent and the issues he discusses are ones facing many photography professionals.
Agreeing with the content, or not, is the prerogative of the reader and any contributor to a site knowingly opens themselves up to criticism. Often these articles are written to provoke discussion and the writer can benefit by seeing a consensus forming.
You say he was 'unwise' and the article was 'inappropriate'? In what way?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nick,
I completely agree that Alain had every right to put together the article; he would have even if it had nothing to do with this site.
Not wise in relation to potential customers. Not appropriate because, to me, the essay came across as a bit condescending, while at the same time not offering all that much to readers of this site, who, as the essay somehow assumes, do not suffer from the afflictions that are the subject of the essay.
Again, does Alain or you or any other professional photographer have the right to vent their frustration about ignorant customers or non-customers? Certainly. Does that "carry" an entire essay? For me, it does not.
I hope it goes without saying, but all of this regards the ESSAY and is in no way meant ad hominem.
Karsten
-
Albeit for a very short period of time, and after the first corner it will be clear that schumy will drive a meaningful course, and grandma will likely be discussing the finer points of formula 1 as a metaphor for artistry with her devine creator.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77599\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very well put. I am still laughing when I visualize this scenario. I like your sense of humor. I love Formula 1 and motor racing myself.
-
Phew. Just read through all of this to make sure I didn't start repeating what somebody else has said....
Actually, Rob C came close when he noted that few "serious" photographers buy other photographer's prints. I wonder if Alain does ? The point being, that Alain is essentially selling to an uneducated market, or at least, to people who are not expert photographers, and who do not have a degree in fine art. I'm sure that most buyers react instinctively, subconciously to Alain's photos. They like the photo, but they don't know why they respond to it. They don't even know that they don't know why. They are not conciously aware of the carefully balance of form, colour and light, but it doesn't matter, because even though they cannot articulate it, they are immersed, by and large, in the same aesthetic as Alain is. But they want to react, they want to say something, and often the first thing that comes to mind, with the brain clutching at straws, is some half-grasped comment about the quality of cameras (I'm leaving out the subsection of "photographers" who are just trying to sound knowledgeable - la connaissance, c'est comme la confiture, comme on disait a l'ecole)
So the thing is - does is matter ? It seems hardly suprising to me the majority of customers are neither artistically trained nor knowledgeable about the photographic process. Seems to me that most artists, craftsmen and, indeed, plumbers, are in the same situation.
It works the other way too - I get, now and again, effusive praise for my photographs. I try to explain that they're really pretty average at best, and indeed, the camera helps (and it does - my Xpan photos certainly benefit from those lenses), and try to show them _real_ good photography in books, or websites. But they won't have it - they insist mine are "better", and I believe that they believe it.
Plenty of commercially succesful photographers have said, in essence, that the critical thing is to be an excellent businessman. As long as you're in the top 10%, photographically-speaking, that's good enough, but in business you need to be in the top 1%. So, finally, if you're looking for artistic recognition at selling shows, forget it. You neither need it, nor will get it. Selling is about money, not art.
-
Rob C came close when he noted that few "serious" photographers buy other photographer's prints. I wonder if Alain does ? The point being, that Alain is essentially selling to an uneducated market, or at least, to people who are not expert photographers, and who do not have a degree in fine art. I'm sure that most buyers react instinctively, subconciously to Alain's photos. They like the photo, but they don't know why they respond to it.
So the thing is - does is matter ?
Plenty of commercially succesful photographers have said, in essence, that the critical thing is to be an excellent businessman. As long as you're in the top 10%, photographically-speaking, that's good enough, but in business you need to be in the top 1%. So, finally, if you're looking for artistic recognition at selling shows, forget it. You neither need it, nor will get it. Selling is about money, not art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77882\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I consider myself a serious non-professional photographer and I do buy photographic art both in books and original work. Maybe I'm one of the "few".
How do you know what kind of market Alain is selling to? What makes you so sure that the people who buy his work don't understand what they are buying? I would expect he deals with the whole gamut of potential customers.
And is anything wrong with buying a piece of art simply because you like it? I think your answer to that would be *no*, and I would agree. Nonetheless artists appreciate customers who appreciate the art, regardless of what training they may or may not have. You don't need a PhD to like a photograph enough to buy it.
Whose to say that artists don't get both artistic and commercial recognition at shows - I've observed it, been party to it, so I know it happens.
What makes you think selling is about money and not art? Can't one argue that success is a combination of artistic talent and good business skills?
-
What makes you think selling is about money and not art? Can't one argue that success is a combination of artistic talent and good business skills?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Mark
There are many, many examples of good business being far more important that good art/photography in this game. It all comes down to your goals - do you want to bask in the appreciation of the art community or make a decent living out of your photography. Some, very few, do both, but it is a sad truth that very few professional photographers are considered artists by the art community no matter how much they protest their artist status.
My good friend here in Australia, Ken Duncan, is a hugely successful photographer. He employs over 50 people, has his own Lambda printer and his prints sell for significant amounts in significant quantities. Yet he does not appear in any art collectors journals even though some of his images are simply sublime.
There is another guy here, whose name I shall keep to myself, who has a similar scale business built around photography. His work is considered very average by most photographers but his business thrives.
OTOH you have Bill Henson and Tracy Moffat who are artists using photography as their chosen medium and whose work sells for vast sums and they are taken seriously as artists.
The point here is that there are successful photographers who make no claim to be artists and then there are people who are artists first and photographers second in that, whilst they could equally well use another medium, they happen to choose photography.
Then there are people like Ken Done and Thomas Kinkade...hugely successful painters but not taken seriously as artists. And I know of some really talented landscape photographers here whose work you will never see because the have not got a clue how to sell it!
So, to address your point quoted above, yes, it is a combination of both, but more likely 75/25 in favour of business - in the photography industry at least. As I said, I know of lots of examples of this, and very few examples of photographers with little business acumen making a living purely off the strength of their work.
-
I would expect Alain deals with the whole gamut of potential customers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed. Thank you for pointing it out Mark. And I also collect art extensively: paintings, lithographs, engravings, drawings, sculptures, Native American art and photographs (I may have missed some medium too). In fact one of my upcoming essays in about my collection of fine art photographs by other photographers and why it is important to collect other artists' work. I have original prints by Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, Al Weber, Charles Cramer, Phillip Hyde and many other artists for example. I am also adding to my collection regularly.
Alain
-
Hi Mark
............ it is a sad truth that very few professional photographers are considered artists by the art community no matter how much they protest their artist status.
......................
So, to address your point quoted above, yes, it is a combination of both, but more likely 75/25 in favour of business - in the photography industry at least. As I said, I know of lots of examples of this, and very few examples of photographers with little business acumen making a living purely off the strength of their work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nick, I can relate to that - photography has problems being accepted as an art in the "art" community, but that much said it does have a hugely expanding following of devotees who don't care what the "art community" thinks - thank goodness. But even within that community, my sense is that acceptance is growing - to wit the evolving number of fine art museums that have significant photography collections and host superb exhibitions.
Your last point is a correct statement about necessary and sufficient conditions for commercial success - *almost* for sure it is no accident or stroke of Manna from Heaven!
-
My good friend here in Australia, Ken Duncan, is a hugely successful photographer. He employs over 50 people, has his own Lambda printer and his prints sell for significant amounts in significant quantities. Yet he does not appear in any art collectors journals even though some of his images are simply sublime....
... it is a combination of both, but more likely 75/25 in favour of business - in the photography industry at least. As I said, I know of lots of examples of this, and very few examples of photographers with little business acumen making a living purely off the strength of their work.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm a great admirer of Ken Duncan and have one of his Flinders Ranges images in my hallway, printed at 75" wide. You're spot on, Nick. Business / sales acumen is a key differentiator of success in this just as any other business. Ken is a good businessman. One of the finest photographic artists I know lives and works in London, and she struggles to make a meagre living (I know of a great many HK wedding photographers who make very good money out of recycled, cliched, cutesy trash). She would swap her artistic acclaim for a decent income.