Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 06:01:54 am
I’ll throw in one of myself:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190113/881d91a084b0bcf20075f9c811e77475.jpg)
Post by: Riaan van Wyk on January 13, 2019, 07:09:47 am
But I might be wrong as I gave up reading the debate here many years ago.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 09:01:20 am
According to Russ any landscape pic has to have people in the frame. Otherwise it cannot and will not be a proper one as "the hand of man" has to evident. So this will rate highly, unless you called this "street"
But I might be wrong as I gave up reading the debate here many years ago.
Please no debate, I want to see Lula’s understanding of humanism in pictures.
Post by: RSL on January 13, 2019, 09:26:14 am
According to Russ any landscape pic has to have people in the frame. Otherwise it cannot and will not be a proper one as "the hand of man" has to evident. So this will rate highly, unless you called this "street"
Oh come on, Riaan, I’ve never said anything of the sort. I have said, and I still maintain that the highest and best use of the camera is to make pictures of people, and within that set the very best use is real street photography. If you check Landscape Showcase you’ll find several pictures of mine without people in them. I shoot what’s there to shoot, and for the past couple years I haven’t been able to get to places where I can do street photography. So I shoot landscape, or its equivalent, depending on what you think is the definition of landscape. I do believe the best landscape is done with a brush. If you’re painting you can distort linear perspective to produce the kind of convincing mountain scenes Bierstadt did so well, and you also can control the relationship of color: advancing and receding. You can’t do that with a camera, which tells the literal truth about landscape, but a truth that often isn’t what the observer feels when observing the real thing.
Post by: john beardsworth on January 13, 2019, 09:43:53 am
Please no debate, I want to see Lula’s understanding of humanism in pictures.
How do you define "humanism"? In English it refers to a philosophy (eg Erasmus). Do you just mean "people"?
Post by: faberryman on January 13, 2019, 09:48:49 am
You can’t do that with a camera, which tells the literal truth about landscape, but a truth that often isn’t what the observer feels when observing the real thing.Go to Flickr. You won't find a literal landscape on the site. They are all science fiction.
Post by: RSL on January 13, 2019, 09:54:59 am
[quote author=RSL link=topic=128553.msg1089261#msg1089261 date=1547389574You can’t do that with a camera, which tells the literal truth about landscape, but a truth that often isn’t what the observer feels when observing the real thing.
Go to Flickr. You won't find a literal landscape on the site. They are all science fiction.
Whatever that means.
Post by: stamper on January 13, 2019, 10:34:09 am
Go to Flickr. You won't find a literal landscape on the site. They are all science fiction.
Unquote.
Hans Kruse posts very fine landscapes on here and on Flickr. Are you stating his images are science fiction.?
Post by: faberryman on January 13, 2019, 10:38:06 am
Hans Kruse posts very fine landscapes on here and on Flickr. Are you stating his images are science fiction.?Most of the landscapes I see here and on Flickr are overblown. There are the occasional exceptions.
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 13, 2019, 10:48:04 am
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 11:04:23 am
Humanism in photography, humanism how ‘you’ understand it.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190113/d4ba69b14cb0773bf38b23cf6d26db3b.jpg)
Post by: RSL on January 13, 2019, 11:27:06 am
Please no debate, I want to see Lula’s understanding of humanism in pictures.
As John said, Ivo, give us your definition of "humanism." Do you mean kids being athletic? The pictures you've posted don't define the term.
Post by: faberryman on January 13, 2019, 11:37:22 am
As John said, Ivo, give us your definition of "humanism." Do you mean kids being athletic? The pictures you've posted don't define the term.From the dictionary:
humanism - an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
Ivo must be using the term in a different way. Based on the posted photos, it appears humanism to him means humans in the environment.
Post by: amolitor on January 13, 2019, 11:58:06 am
See Wikipedia.
But basically it's just "human-forward pictures" with an emphasis on genuine human experience rather than staged scenes.
I must admit that I find it throughly depressing how out of touch with the history of the medium most photographers seem to be.
Post by: john beardsworth on January 13, 2019, 12:30:10 pm
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 12:36:35 pm
Your finding is what I tray to explain since my first week at Lula. Photography moved on since it’s existence.
I find it strange that the great students of photography here on Lula even don’t know about this broad and not so young movement in photography.
Should make them singing a lower tone imo.
A wiki search on Humanist Photography, or even humanism in photography will explain more.
Please, show us your pictures.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 12:37:51 pm
As there's little evidence of humanism in either of the OP's two pictures, you're probably over-thinking it. Not sure they're "human-forward" either, if that means anything. At the risk of calling a spade a spade, they are pictures with people in them.
No need to argue, I’m not going to elaborate on my perspective, I would be happy to see yours, John.
Post by: john beardsworth on January 13, 2019, 01:35:30 pm
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 01:37:39 pm
Easy enough. I'll find a nondescript part of town with some randomly-distributed people doing nothing interesting, point my camera vaguely at them and then claim it is Humanist Photography with a big H and a big P. Not much of a challenge though, is it?I will be glad to see it, John.
Post by: john beardsworth on January 13, 2019, 01:44:17 pm
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 02:31:20 pm
I don't keep my rejects, let alone frame them!
Then focus on other things you understand, John, no need to be denigrating.
Post by: john beardsworth on January 13, 2019, 02:50:40 pm
Post by: amolitor on January 13, 2019, 02:53:20 pm
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 03:07:13 pm
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190113/4c562647a7c0f0af03ce3be428b7c5f5.jpg)
Post by: amolitor on January 13, 2019, 03:14:04 pm
Post by: john beardsworth on January 13, 2019, 03:33:05 pm
What's interesting here, john, is that you're clearly saying that Ivo's photos are lousy, but claiming also that your judgement is objective truth and therefore not denigrating.
Well, aren't they?
I do see some virtue in the first.
Post by: amolitor on January 13, 2019, 03:36:06 pm
Can I imagine fairly easily a context in which they make sense, and have power? Yes. This, by the way, is not universally true of the photos I see on LuLa and elsewhere.
Post by: RSL on January 13, 2019, 04:02:53 pm
But basically it's just "human-forward pictures" with an emphasis on genuine human experience rather than staged scenes.
Another way to say "street photography."
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 04:06:39 pm
Here's an interesting case that might be tangentially related, which I wrote about here a few years ago: https://photothunk.blogspot.com/2016/07/vernacular-enigma.html
Good article, Andrew.
Post by: RSL on January 13, 2019, 04:11:50 pm
Photography moved on since it’s existence.
Right, Ivo. It moved from wet plates to dry plates, then to film, finally to digital. I think most of us are familiar with those moves.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 04:14:52 pm
Right, Ivo. It moved from wet plates to dry plates, then to film, finally to digital. I think most of us are familiar with those moves.
Yes Russ. And you missed the rest. I ‘m not going any further in discussion with you, it’s of no use.
But I would be glad to see some recent work of you fitting in this thread. I will not judge it.
Post by: RSL on January 13, 2019, 04:19:57 pm
Post by: amolitor on January 13, 2019, 04:24:17 pm
Post by: amolitor on January 13, 2019, 04:30:44 pm
But subject matter hasn't really changed, and never will.
In a literal sense, I suppose this is true. The subject matter in the sense of "the stuff in the world" remains "the stuff in the world" but not only has the stuff in the world changed in the last 150 years, the way we treat the stuff in the world photographically has changed enormously.
In the first, say, 50 years of photography it would never have occurred to anyone to take a closeup photograph of an eye. Do we claim that the subject matter is the same, because, well, it's basically just someone's face? Whether we choose to split hairs on what "subject matter" means or not, something has changed.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 04:37:19 pm
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 13, 2019, 04:52:04 pm
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 04:58:00 pm
In a literal sense, I suppose this is true. The subject matter in the sense of "the stuff in the world" remains "the stuff in the world" but not only has the stuff in the world changed in the last 150 years, the way we treat the stuff in the world photographically has changed enormously.
In the first, say, 50 years of photography it would never have occurred to anyone to take a closeup photograph of an eye. Do we claim that the subject matter is the same, because, well, it's basically just someone's face? Whether we choose to split hairs on what "subject matter" means or not, something has changed.
A century ago, post mortal photography was usual, it isn’t today.
In the seventies, certain pictures of naked teenager girls where considered as art, it isn’t today.
Not so long ago wedding pictures where expected to show the golden rim around the day, nowadays a straight forward reportage of the day is preferable.
Etc etc
If you consider a person as a subject, didn’t it change?For sure society did.
The picture as such is not a main goal for me, it’s what it describes on a not literal way. It’s about peoples and what is going on around peoples, peoples are even not necessarily in the frame to search for the circumstances where peoples live in.
If a picture can be a reflection of social circumstances, it better is not ‘good’ or ‘beautiful’ or according to whatever rules. It better is what it is.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 04:59:43 pm
Dear Lord! What a load of crap and artsy-fartsy lingo in this thread!? This is Luminous Landscape, not a Crappy Humanity site. We shoot landscape, pure landscape, precisely to avoid idiots otherwise known as humans.
I asked to share pictures. Nothing more.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 05:10:51 pm
Dear Lord! What a load of crap and artsy-fartsy lingo in this thread!? This is Luminous Landscape, not a Crappy Humanity site. We shoot landscape, pure landscape, precisely to avoid idiots otherwise known as humans.
You can’t turn your back and this shit happens, Slobodan. Tsss...
Post by: OmerV on January 13, 2019, 05:14:16 pm
Post by: OmerV on January 13, 2019, 05:18:29 pm
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190113/0bf14ed1112123b41e1b69e4eac344d2.jpg)
Nicely done, Ivo.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 05:19:19 pm
Nicely done, Ivo.
Tx Omer
Post by: KLaban on January 13, 2019, 05:23:21 pm
I just give thanks that we are all different, if it were not so then what a desperately dull place this would be.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 13, 2019, 05:28:03 pm
So much bitching lately on LuLa.
I just give thanks that we are all different, if it were not so then what a desperately dull place this would be.
You have to be brave to start a topic about something not pre approved by the old farts of Lula.
Post by: RSL on January 13, 2019, 07:52:19 pm
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 13, 2019, 11:49:13 pm
I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to "fit" anything into this thread, Ivo, since I haven't the foggiest idea what it's about. So far there's not a single picture in it worth trying to emulate or follow. You seem to think photography has moved on since its inception, and from a mechanical point of view you're correct. But subject matter hasn't really changed, and never will.
Well well here we go again. I have a dog in this fight having posted an image I am actually quite pleased with. I think generally the criticism is quite one sided coming from you Russ. It’s not the first time you have had a go at Ivo’s photos. Not the first time you have had a go at mine either. I remember you telling me the photos I posted on a Street thread were pooor snapshots without merit. I have always found Lula to be quite kind to photographers having a go and trying something and have myself generally refrained from being critical. I have sometimes suggested where I think an image can be improved but I don’t think I have ever attacked anyone’s images in the way you do Russ.
Would you be strong enough to take it since you are pretty good at dishing it out?
Post by: john beardsworth on January 14, 2019, 04:11:00 am
You have to be brave to start a topic about something not pre approved by the old farts of Lula.
Or too arrogant (since you throw insults) to expect pictures to go unquestioned when they were dressed up in such fine clothing? Ever read the Emperor's New Clothes?
Post by: Ivophoto on January 14, 2019, 04:18:55 am
Or too arrogant (since you throw insults) to expect pictures to go unquestioned when they were dressed up in such fine clothing? Ever read the Emperor's New Clothes?
Excuse-moi?
There is certainly a serious issue with arrogance here on Lula. All who stumble over each other to condemn the images shown in this thread are sick in the same bed.
Why not simply put the level to your height by posting some of your work? I will not judge it.
Post by: john beardsworth on January 14, 2019, 04:35:07 am
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 14, 2019, 05:17:03 am
Post by: KLaban on January 14, 2019, 05:33:10 am
As the vultures circle I post another photo.
Martin, superb and IMO fits the topic perfectly.
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 14, 2019, 05:34:44 am
Martin, superb and IMO fits the topic perfectly.
Thank you kind sir.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 14, 2019, 05:37:26 am
As the vultures circle I post another photo.
Yes, this is a great contribution. Great image!!
Post by: stamper on January 14, 2019, 05:42:57 am
Post by: Ivophoto on January 14, 2019, 05:48:02 am
Humanity in photography would perhaps be better?Not really Stamper. Check what Wiki is saying about Humanist Photography. But thanks for your open question.
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 14, 2019, 06:00:31 am
Yes, this is a great contribution. Great image!!
Thanks Ivo. We walked in close proximity to these two people for 3 days. This was day two and we were at around 5600m altitude. Shortly after taking the photo I caught up with them and went past and then noticed that the old lady on the right was totally blind. The younger woman was talking to her guiding her foot placement on the tricky sections. Imagine the commitment to help getting the old lady around a three day pilgrimage?
Post by: Ivophoto on January 14, 2019, 06:07:15 am
Thanks Ivo. We walked in close proximity to these two people for 3 days. This was day two and we were at around 5600m altitude. Shortly after taking the photo I caught up with them and went past and then noticed that the old lady on the right was totally blind. The younger woman was talking to her guiding her foot placement on the tricky sections. Imagine the commitment to help getting the old lady around a three day pilgrimage?
Marvelous story, Martin.
Post by: OmerV on January 14, 2019, 06:38:46 am
Good one, Omer.
Thanks Russ.
Post by: RSL on January 14, 2019, 08:53:31 am
Humanity in photography would perhaps be better?
But that would be street, Robert. Too difficult a concept for a lot of photographers to grasp.
Post by: amolitor on January 14, 2019, 09:09:02 am
Post by: RSL on January 14, 2019, 09:09:18 am
Well well here we go again. I have a dog in this fight having posted an image I am actually quite pleased with. I think generally the criticism is quite one sided coming from you Russ. It’s not the first time you have had a go at Ivo’s photos. Not the first time you have had a go at mine either. I remember you telling me the photos I posted on a Street thread were pooor snapshots without merit. I have always found Lula to be quite kind to photographers having a go and trying something and have myself generally refrained from being critical. I have sometimes suggested where I think an image can be improved but I don’t think I have ever attacked anyone’s images in the way you do Russ.
Would you be strong enough to take it since you are pretty good at dishing it out?
Sorry you're feeling abused, Martin. As I recall, I've commented favorably on a few of your photographs, and I'll give you a thumbs up on the one you just posted. But if I suggested some of the pictures you posted were poor snapshots without merit, I'm sure I saw them that way, and I'm sure a lot of the posters on LuLa quietly agreed, even though they were too polite to say so. All sorts of crap gets posted on LuLa, so don't feel like the lone ranger. One of LuLa's problems is being "quite kind" to photographers whose work richly deserves criticism. Slobodan and a couple others aren't too polite to criticize. I wish more LuLaers would be willing to speak their piece. If you're afraid of criticism, better stay home.
Post by: RSL on January 14, 2019, 09:13:39 am
I've gotta say, Russ, after watching you argue for years that street photography is more than simply sticking a person in the frame, it is surreal to watch you argue the exactly opposite position here.
Sorry, Andrew, you're going to have to explain where you thought I argued "exactly the opposite position here." I don't recall doing that.
Post by: amolitor on January 14, 2019, 09:19:50 am
But look, we all know you just want to butt heads with Ivo and are willing to do whatever. You can drop the pretense.
Post by: RSL on January 14, 2019, 09:28:17 am
And as far as Ivo's stuff is concerned, as soon as he posts something worth a thumbs up, I'll give him one.
Post by: rabanito on January 14, 2019, 09:34:00 am
As for hard critique:
I HATE being criticized and I LOVE being praised.
On the other hand I am grateful for the critiques since they help me to do better or, if I am of a different opinion, I just discard them.
Nobody gets hurt.
Since my goal is the print, every bit advice is welcome. Much better when I see the defects before they are hanging on the wall ;D
Just my two cents
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 14, 2019, 10:00:08 am
Martin, superb and IMO fits the topic perfectly.
Which topic?
Oh, you mean the invented, artsy-fartsy new genre for the MFA and the Aperture crowd that Luminous Landscape is turning to?
The above shouldn’t be read as a criticism of Martin’s fine photo. It already fits well into the existing categories of People and Travel.
“Human-forward pictures”? What!?
It seems that new genres has to be invented when “artists” can’t find a home for the rejects.
Post by: KLaban on January 14, 2019, 10:07:21 am
Which topic?
Oh, you mean the invented, artsy-fartsy new genre for the MFA and the Aperture crowd that Luminous Landscape is turning to?
The above shouldn’t be read as a criticism of Martin’s fine photo. It already fits well into the existing categories of People and Travel.
“Human-forward pictures”? What!?
It seems that new genres has to be invented when “artists” can’t find a home for the rejects.
When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks.
Post by: OmerV on January 14, 2019, 10:11:47 am
Post by: RSL on January 14, 2019, 10:12:23 am
Post by: 32BT on January 14, 2019, 10:20:53 am
Which topic?
Oh, you mean the invented, artsy-fartsy new genre for the MFA and the Aperture crowd that Luminous Landscape is turning to?
The above shouldn’t be read as a criticism of Martin’s fine photo. It already fits well into the existing categories of People and Travel.
“Human-forward pictures”? What!?
It seems that new genres has to be invented when “artists” can’t find a home for the rejects.
Now, now, Slobodan? If LuLa turns into a new settlement with a different crowd, it is entirely our own fault since the one and a half posters that were still here obviously don't pay the bills and certainly can not dictate the house rules based on seniority or whatever, a basis that probably doesn't even exist in the fluidity of the internutz age.
Humanism is a real, but rather large encompassing concept in art. Ivo is obviously free to start a thread about it, is also free to request photo entries, and is also free to judge whether his own contributions fit the bill or not. I don't mind reading discussions about the merit of photos in whatever genres, but the slush I have to wade through in this thread doesn't seem justified in any way. It doesn't contribute to anyone's understanding.
I'd vote for a restart of this thread with either less, or at least more respectful discussion.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 14, 2019, 10:53:32 am
... I'd vote for a restart of this thread...
By all means.
But first think about this: you come to a Sons of Anarchy motorcycle club and start a lecture on the art of macrame. You'd think that for the sake of your dear life you'd be better off by explaining first what macrame is and why the bikers might warm up to it, no?
Post by: amolitor on January 14, 2019, 10:55:27 am
Still, it is unfair to dismiss Humanist Photography as new, especially in an internet forum on photography which is, like all internet forums on photography, thoroughly locked in, apparently irrevocably, to an extremely Modernist mindset.
Post by: 32BT on January 14, 2019, 11:10:03 am
By all means.
But first think about this: you come to a Sons of Anarchy motorcycle club and start a lecture on the art of macrame. You'd think that for the sake of your dear life you'd be better off by explaining first what macrame is and why the bikers might warm up to it, no?
Of course, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. But I wouldn't blame anyone for trying the macraméthingy, since the gangmembers still there seem occupants of the retirement home across the street. (Did I just say "street"?)...
;-)
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 14, 2019, 11:25:57 am
Slobodan
A card-carrying misanthrope
Post by: KLaban on January 14, 2019, 11:44:24 am
Let's keep it safe, sterile and over saturated.
Post by: Rob C on January 14, 2019, 01:34:12 pm
You can go to some schools, listen to all their old farts telling you about old processes etc. but they never tell you the truth that the ones without a dog in that fight can see. That truth is that photography was something that you learned via apprenticeship or hobby, and from looking at magazines and the very few photographic monographs that you came across. Instead, in recent decades it has become a new, teachable subject in art schools, as distinct from technical colleges where, for a brief period I had to attend, too.
That situation has created a handy niche within the educational establishment where lots of people can make an extra buck from talking about something instead of doing it. That incentive becomes self-perpetuating, there are grants available, and so you get people rabbiting on about images and tacking them onto the tails of other socially motivated ideas and psychological concepts that have nothing to do with photography other than provide playgrounds where anyone, with or without talent, can play and think himself a king; there are ever those other fellow players who will stand up and cheer, if for no other reason that they are swimming in it together.
You can, today, make an absolutely bland, featureless photograph, claim some silly absurdity of a genre for it, and hey, you're on your way. Think of that grim period of fashion photography that made a star of Corinne Day, that gave a platform to Nan Goldin et al. and you begin to get the picture: it's the art establishment that is responsible for this trend, because in my view, it is there to do one thing: make money for itself by building up stables of people that, in a sane world, would never sell anything. Where the age thing comes in, is memory: we/I or any similarly aged person well remembers a time when photographs depended on technique, content and purpose. For younger people this appears to have become an embarrassingly awkward thought, reactionary even, because if your diet is tweeting, texting and living your life in your palm, then no wonder anything goes if only because, in your world of dinner plate art, anything and everything does, indeed, go. Without expectations of excellence, you get no excellence, which is where we came in.
Just another old fart's opinion, of course.
Post by: rabanito on January 14, 2019, 01:47:58 pm
..... Where the age thing comes in, is memory: we/I or any similarly aged person well remembers a time when photographs depended on technique, content and purpose. For younger people this appears to have become an embarrassingly awkward thought, reactionary even, because if your diet is tweeting, texting and living your life in your palm, then no wonder anything goes if only because, in your world of dinner plate art, anything and everything does, indeed, go. Without expectations of excellence, you get no excellence, which is where we came in.
...
Hear, hear !
Post by: amolitor on January 14, 2019, 01:58:27 pm
Still, this is the same as it ever was. Henry Peach Robinson railed against Julia Margaret Cameron's fuzzy portraits at some length, disparaging the lack of technique and asserting that this produced worthless results. But some people seem to think she was doing rather well in the end.
Post by: faberryman on January 14, 2019, 02:07:54 pm
Where the age thing comes in, is memory: we/I or any similarly aged person well remembers a time when photographs depended on technique, content and purpose. For younger people this appears to have become an embarrassingly awkward thought, reactionary even, because if your diet is tweeting, texting and living your life in your palm, then no wonder anything goes if only because, in your world of dinner plate art, anything and everything does, indeed, go. Without expectations of excellence, you get no excellence, which is where we came in.It is not limited to youth. Everyone gets a certificate of participation. Even around here where long term members pat each other on the back for mediocre images just to keep up a spirit of bonhomie on an otherwise moribund website.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 14, 2019, 02:15:32 pm
Post by: Rob C on January 14, 2019, 02:16:51 pm
It is not limited to youth. Everyone gets a certificate of participation. Even around here where long term members pat each other on the back for mediocre images just to keep up a spirit of bonhomie.
In a sense, you are correct, but not in this thread because older farts are not posting images they wouldn't want to make. This may now open the floodgates.
:-)
Post by: KLaban on January 14, 2019, 02:18:11 pm
God forbid that the young should ever stop challenging the old.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 14, 2019, 02:33:40 pm
... God forbid that the young should ever stop challenging the old.
And who exactly are the youngs we are talking about here?
Post by: Rob C on January 14, 2019, 02:36:00 pm
It's no coincidence that many old farts made their best work when they were comparatively young.
God forbid that the young should ever stop challenging the old.
I'm not really convinced of that; Lindbergh is cracking on with great stuff and Feurer too; Avedon didn't exactly go off and Newton would still be doing it had his ticker not done for him as he drove his car out of that hotel... I think that what does change with some of these older stars is that their interests - if not opportunities - go elsewhere. I can quite understand how that can happen after a while.
The young are constantly challenging the previous generations, and for as long as the challengers produce great stuff, long may it continue. Bailey challenged French and won, but both were/are very good at making photographs. That is a different conversation.
Actually, thinking of the relative youth of the photo-art business, Penn was no slouch, and would send assistants down into the streets to pick up cigarette butts and bits of litter; I believe that one was scolded for trying to make it look more tidy and clean. Quite interesting on 8x10...
:-)
Post by: OmerV on January 14, 2019, 02:37:33 pm
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190114/b4a17ef90d9a223aae3024cad7ab4620.jpg)
Another good photo, Ivo.
Post by: KLaban on January 14, 2019, 02:39:07 pm
And who exactly are the youngs we are talking about here?
Young people.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 14, 2019, 02:39:43 pm
Another good photo, Ivo.
Tx Omer.
Post by: RSL on January 14, 2019, 02:40:37 pm
The trouble is, for anyone under about 70, more or less, the concept of photographic history is a bit distorted.
You can go to some schools, listen to all their old farts telling you about old processes etc. but they never tell you the truth that the ones without a dog in that fight can see. That truth is that photography was something that you learned via apprenticeship or hobby, and from looking at magazines and the very few photographic monographs that you came across. Instead, in recent decades it has become a new, teachable subject in art schools, as distinct from technical colleges where, for a brief period I had to attend, too.
That situation has created a handy niche within the educational establishment where lots of people can make an extra buck from talking about something instead of doing it. That incentive becomes self-perpetuating, there are grants available, and so you get people rabbiting on about images and tacking them onto the tails of other socially motivated ideas and psychological concepts that have nothing to do with photography other than provide playgrounds where anyone, with or without talent, can play and think himself a king; there are ever those other fellow players who will stand up and cheer, if for no other reason that they are swimming in it together.
You can, today, make an absolutely bland, featureless photograph, claim some silly absurdity of a genre for it, and hey, you're on your way. Think of that grim period of fashion photography that made a star of Corinne Day, that gave a platform to Nan Goldin et al. and you begin to get the picture: it's the art establishment that is responsible for this trend, because in my view, it is there to do one thing: make money for itself by building up stables of people that, in a sane world, would never sell anything. Where the age thing comes in, is memory: we/I or any similarly aged person well remembers a time when photographs depended on technique, content and purpose. For younger people this appears to have become an embarrassingly awkward thought, reactionary even, because if your diet is tweeting, texting and living your life in your palm, then no wonder anything goes if only because, in your world of dinner plate art, anything and everything does, indeed, go. Without expectations of excellence, you get no excellence, which is where we came in.
Just another old fart's opinion, of course.
Well said, Rob. As the oldest fart on here, I endorse your view.
Post by: KLaban on January 14, 2019, 02:44:14 pm
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Old_Folks.jpg)
Post by: Rob C on January 14, 2019, 02:48:37 pm
:-)
Post by: KLaban on January 14, 2019, 02:50:24 pm
Keith, is that a diversionary tactic into a bokeh fight?
:-)
Too many fights going on here as it is.
;-)
Post by: OmerV on January 14, 2019, 03:04:27 pm
As opposed to old people.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Old_Folks.jpg)
Good photo, Keith.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 14, 2019, 03:05:41 pm
As opposed to old people.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Old_Folks.jpg)
Nice One!
Post by: Ivophoto on January 14, 2019, 03:09:38 pm
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on January 15, 2019, 06:35:34 am
Here is my contribution.
P.S. As for the argument of this site being dedicated or called "Luminous Landscape", have a look at the recent articles posted by the new management. Even during Michael's time, the site was already about more than "landscape".
Post by: OmerV on January 15, 2019, 07:02:40 am
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190114/fc1fb747593be661240158421a565a88.jpg)
Well done, Ivo. It is surreal.
Post by: RSL on January 15, 2019, 07:15:19 am
Post by: Ivophoto on January 15, 2019, 07:15:36 am
Well done, Ivo. It is surreal.
Thank you very much, Omer, I value your appreciation.
Your photos are a pleasure to look at.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 15, 2019, 07:16:36 am
It's getting increasingly sad to see this sort of discussion becoming recurrent in Lula. One may not appreciate the subject/topic/photos posted, but there is no need to denigrate posters.
Here is my contribution.
P.S. As for the argument of this site being dedicated or called "Luminous Landscape", have a look at the recent articles posted by the new management. Even during Michael's time, the site was already about more than "landscape".
Interesting picture, Paulo. And thanks for your support.
Post by: Rob C on January 15, 2019, 09:07:12 am
https://www.sarahmlee.com/
Rob
Post by: KLaban on January 15, 2019, 09:27:03 am
Of a girl who can do traditional well, and rocks with this modern stuff that I dislike and, somehow, whether by dint of volume or talent, makes it work:
https://www.sarahmlee.com/
Rob
I see neither traditional nor modern, only excellent image making.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 15, 2019, 09:52:25 am
...P.S. As for the argument of this site being dedicated or called "Luminous Landscape", have a look at the recent articles posted by the new management. Even during Michael's time, the site was already about more than "landscape".
Exactly my point, Paulo. The new direction should result in the change of name into Hipster Whateverscape, otherwise it should be reported for false advertising.
As for Michael, please. Coincidentally, I just got one of the few remaining copies of his book for LensWorks, about San Miguel de Allende. A beautiful reminder just how different his street and people photography was from the hipster crap seen here recently. The same eye, the same sense of esthetics, the same feel for color and design that were part of his landscape work, just applied to street scenes.
Post by: KLaban on January 15, 2019, 10:17:59 am
Post by: John R on January 15, 2019, 11:14:51 am
Of a girl who can do traditional well, and rocks with this modern stuff that I dislike and, somehow, whether by dint of volume or talent, makes it work:It is interesting work, some of it very good, IMHO. All I know, is when I attempt to photograph people in the circumstances this photographer has, especially some of the more exotic looking subjects, I regularly get threatened. Not for me. I note she works for a Newspaper, and that would give her access that none of us could get. Even in public on her own time, if she runs into trouble, she can pull out her credentials and avoid a lot of confrontations that the rest of would surely encounter. I suspect being female makes it much easier as I have observed when I go on outings with female club members. They get way less hassle than males. In most of the images by Vivian Maier, it becomes apparent that the subjects ignored her and her camera. This kind of photography is difficult to do these days. You have to be furtive. We can never go back and should not compare what we do today with what older generation photographers were able to do. Times were different. People who are able to do so so-called "personal work" involving people in close, sometimes intimate circumstances, have to become embedded in their families and communities to do anything worthwhile. Most of us will never do this kind of work. A lot of the work I see online, I regard as intrusive, bordering on voyeurism. I can't see myself subjecting my family, friends, or neighbors to that kind photography. This is why I don't understand why the critiques on this subject are so harsh. And I think the urban work, including graphic style images are just as valid and worthwhile as any perceived "Street" type images. Bottom line for me, Street, Urban, travel, architecture or landscape, it has to be good!
https://www.sarahmlee.com/
Rob
JR
Post by: D Fuller on January 15, 2019, 11:33:25 am
Of a girl who can do traditional well, and rocks with this modern stuff that I dislike and, somehow, whether by dint of volume or talent, makes it work:
https://www.sarahmlee.com/
Rob
Thanks for sharing that, Rob. She has an interesting eye.
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on January 15, 2019, 11:45:52 am
Of a girl who can do traditional well, and rocks with this modern stuff that I dislike and, somehow, whether by dint of volume or talent, makes it work:
https://www.sarahmlee.com/
Rob
thanks for sharing, I like her style.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 15, 2019, 11:51:18 am
I don’t have any problem to get harsh critic, I’m very well aware I’m touching particular subjects and have a style not popular among average photographers. I know my work balances on a difficult edge, it’s a choice. I know what I’m doing, photographically spoken....
I’m very aware my photographic quest is still on going, I will be probably death if I arrive at the complacency level of the big mouths here.
So no problem to get loads of shit over me.
But let’s stay normal.
The venom spitting in this thread is beyond believe. How some pretend to have the monopoly of wisdom about photography and esthetics is laughable and sad at same time.
.....
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190115/8699cea01166404bf5159ec9137eb08a.jpg)
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on January 15, 2019, 11:54:28 am
Exactly my point, Paulo. The new direction should result in the change of name into Hipster Whateverscape, otherwise it should be reported for false advertising.
As for Michael, please. Coincidentally, I just got one of the few remaining copies of his book for LensWorks, about San Miguel de Allende. A beautiful reminder just how different his street and people photography was from the hipster crap seen here recently. The same eye, the same sense of esthetics, the same feel for color and design that were part of his landscape work, just applied to street scenes.
Slobodan, I see your point. I hate to categorize photography in genres, because, if you have a good eye, the basics of a good photo are transversal to genres: good light, interesting subject, good composition, click that shutter at the right time. Easier said than done!
I remember Michael's work, I learned a lot from his advice and photo analysis. In the early days of Lula, he even was gracious enough to encourage people to send images for his personal and valuable analysis. Indeed he was very strong on composition, lines, geometry, and light.
I also separate what was/is shown in terms of photography under the official editorial line and Lula content, from what is shown in the forum. In the latter, I feel there is more freedom to show more than "landscape". In the former, after Michael's departure, there was hardly anything about landscape, even from Kevin et al.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 15, 2019, 12:17:55 pm
As John R said above, rightly, "it has to be good," no matter the genre. And your last one is good. Not because it fits (or not) the dreaded "humanism" category, but because it is photographically good. It has a tangent to Edward Hopper, not only in the name, but also atmosphere. It works well as a play on words, "hopper," with the guy in mid-hop, so to speak. It pays homage to HCB's jumper too. The overall color palette, and in particular the blue/orange combination, I very much like. Fog is another lucky addition.
See? There is still hope for you (and me) ;)
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 15, 2019, 12:25:41 pm
I’m very disappointed in some of the ‘respected members’ of this community. Even the ones I had high in regards lower themselves to call the work posted in this thread ‘crap’ without any attempt of nuance.
I don’t have any problem to get harsh critic, I’m very well aware I’m touching particular subjects and have a style not popular among average photographers. I know my work balances on a difficult edge, it’s a choice. I know what I’m doing, photographically spoken....
I’m very aware my photographic quest is still on going, I will be probably death if I arrive at the complacency level of the big mouths here.
So no problem to get loads of shit over me.
But let’s stay normal.
The venom spitting in this thread is beyond believe. How some pretend to have the monopoly of wisdom about photography and esthetics is laughable and sad at same time.
.....
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190115/8699cea01166404bf5159ec9137eb08a.jpg)
That’s a great shot in my opinion. Well done.
Post by: stamper on January 15, 2019, 12:39:59 pm
That’s a great shot in my opinion. Well done.
Agreed.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 15, 2019, 12:40:38 pm
Ivo, nothing personal meant, just expressing my blunt, yet non-monopolistic opinion on the direction this site seems to be going. And "here" meant not just this thread, but LuLa overall.
As John R said above, rightly, "it has to be good," no matter the genre. And your last one is good. Not because it fits (or not) the dreaded "humanism" category, but because it is photographically good. It has a tangent to Edward Hopper, not only in the name, but also atmosphere. It works well as a play on words, "hopper," with the guy in mid-hop, so to speak. It pays homage to HCB's jumper too. The overall color palette, and in particular the blue/orange combination, I very much like. Fog is another lucky addition.
See? There is still hope for you (and me) ;)
Thanks for you reply, Slobodan.
I knew this shot would be accepted.
Can you understand this is close to a reject for me? Not because it is not good or because in contrary it is likable, but because it is don a zillion times.
As said, I know what I’m doing with my camera, the boundaries of my comfort zone and beyond are my playground. It’s my choice.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 15, 2019, 12:41:55 pm
Agreed.
Thanks Martin and Stamper.
Post by: amolitor on January 15, 2019, 12:43:03 pm
And, for many reasons, but among them the fact that people will like it, we ourselves hate it.
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 15, 2019, 12:46:15 pm
Isn't it interesting, Ivo? For some of us, some of the time, we can tell that something we shot will be well received, people will like it.
And, for many reasons, but among them the fact that people will like it, we ourselves hate it.
Yep. That is definately true for me. Another tricky thing to negotiate.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 15, 2019, 12:51:11 pm
... And, for many reasons, but among them the fact that people will like it, we ourselves hate it.
David said something interesting along those lines in another thread:
... Actually I derive a good degree of grim satisfaction from nobody agreeing with me :-)
Post by: Ivophoto on January 15, 2019, 12:52:06 pm
Isn't it interesting, Ivo? For some of us, some of the time, we can tell that something we shot will be well received, people will like it.
And, for many reasons, but among them the fact that people will like it, we ourselves hate it.
Yes Andrew. It is interesting. It’s part of moving on I guess. Or part of being visually borderline perhaps?
Post by: 32BT on January 15, 2019, 12:58:03 pm
Post by: KLaban on January 15, 2019, 01:00:03 pm
Art has always challenged, I'd go as far to say that it is the job of art to challenge. Impressionists, dadaists, surrealists, cubists, the fauves, pop artists, instillation artists...all had contemporary criticism and lack of understanding yet now take pride of place in our galleries and museums. Some of this work has become so acceptable that it is now to be seen on chocolate boxes.
I like to be challenged by work that differs from my own, better that than everything put in front of me being safe and samey.
Post by: OmerV on January 15, 2019, 01:01:22 pm
Thanks for you reply, Slobodan.
I knew this shot would be accepted.
Can you understand this is close to a reject for me? Not because it is not good or because in contrary it is likable, but because it is don a zillion times.
As said, I know what I’m doing with my camera, the boundaries of my comfort zone and beyond are my playground. It’s my choice.
I've relaxed in regards to the opinions of others on my work. If someone likes something that seems to me obvious, well, okay then. It is after all, my work.
Nice hopper, by the way. 8)
Post by: amolitor on January 15, 2019, 01:04:18 pm
What then is it that you're trying to achieve with imagesharing?
I'm not sure if you're addressing me here, but the answer for me is twofold:
1. I do not in general share pictures.
2. When I do the reasons are usually pretty opaque to me, but generally include an aspect of experiment "let me see if I have correctly gauged the audience reaction"
Sometimes I dare say I do it because I want the ego strokes, even though I don't much like the pictures.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 15, 2019, 01:06:00 pm
What then is it that you're trying to achieve with imagesharing?
I guess you are asking me?
Thanks for asking.
I don’t share to have the biggest or the best, I ask to share because I learn from the images posted.
I would like to ask: why did you made this image? Not to scoff but to understand.
All the negative feedback in this thread can not take away the moment I had when I saw that phenomenal shot of Martin. Or minimize the pleasure I had looking at Omers shots, or the one of Paulo...... and others.
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 15, 2019, 01:08:50 pm
I guess you are asking me?
Thanks for asking.
I don’t share to have the biggest or the best, I ask to share because I learn from the images posted.
I would like to ask: why did you made this image? Not to scoff but to understand.
All the negative feedback in this thread can not take away the moment I had when I saw that phenomenal shot of Martin. And the pleasure looking at Omers shots, or the one of Paulo...... and others.
Hahahaha. Thanks Ivo. I’m not actually very fond of that image. I just liked the people. Funny really.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 15, 2019, 01:10:41 pm
Hahahaha. Thanks Ivo. I’m not actually very fond of that image. I just liked the people. Funny really.
Haha, well I mean it. Maybe your story made me mellow.
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 15, 2019, 01:13:42 pm
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on January 16, 2019, 06:21:31 am
Agreed.
Yup, fine shot.
Post by: OmerV on January 19, 2019, 12:13:04 pm
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4864/46077512684_7078f94eec_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dcHicS)At rodeo (https://flic.kr/p/2dcHicS) by Omer Claiborne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/146601120@N02/), on Flickr
Post by: RSL on January 19, 2019, 12:30:40 pm
Post by: 32BT on January 19, 2019, 01:58:31 pm
At the rodeo:
Omer! Utterly brilliant!
Post by: OmerV on January 19, 2019, 02:45:57 pm
Omer! Utterly brilliant!
Good street, Omer.
Well, thank you very much guys.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 19, 2019, 03:46:07 pm
At the rodeo:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4864/46077512684_7078f94eec_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dcHicS)At rodeo (https://flic.kr/p/2dcHicS) by Omer Claiborne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/146601120@N02/), on Flickr
Nice One Omer!
Post by: OmerV on January 19, 2019, 05:40:05 pm
Quote from: Ivophoto
Nice One Omer!
Thanks Ivo.