Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Jack Flesher on June 08, 2004, 10:43:00 pm
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Okay, going out on a limb here.... I liked it -- direct and to the point. I feel the intent of this article was to challenge us to create better than pretty. For me as an artist, I agree that a "pretty" image isn't often enough -- I think it needs to also have "impact". Do all of the images I post have impact? Admittedly they don't and I'll often post a pretty image... However I may be doing less of that from now on [/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Ray, to each his own. I just don't buy into "The one with the most toys (good photos?) when he dies, wins." .......
There simply hasn't been enough time since the big bang to do a lot of worthwhile things by accident. It takes some planning.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Howard,
Is a good photo a toy[/i]? I'm really talking about efficiency in capturing the moment. I didn't take the figure of a thousand literally. A hundred is probably more realistic. Of course a certain amount of planning is always necessary. Let's say we both plan to visit a particularly beautiful spot for a day, or half a day, whatever. You take your time setting up your cumbersome equipment, taking many readings from your spot meter, waiting patiently for the sun to get in the desired position and so on. At the end of the day, you've got 3 shots, one of which is good.
If, on the other hand, I can get 3 equally good shots through a process of taking 100 shots, and I've enjoyed the experience as much as you and have perhaps even explored the possibilities to a greater extent, then what's wrong with that?
Often it is simply not possible to plan everything to the finest detail. There has to be a certain amount of fortuitous accident or serendipity to make things interesting. Your parents might have planned to have a baby, but there's no way they could have planned for the particular mix of genes you've inherited from both of them :D .[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
I guess this goes to show that the old adagium still applies: talent is inversely proportional to equipment...
Nah. Mapplethorpe used a bunch of 'Blad stuff, Adams had all the cool Polaroid films and cameras before everyone else, Wynn Bullock had a darkroom to die for, as does Meyerowitz (sp?). Annie Leibowitz has a shitload of equipment-- wait, mabe the adage is right!
Les[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Back to MJ's article, the current issue of LensWork has an article that is at least somewhat related and fairly interesting. The article is "Embracing Beauty
The Post-Postmodern Pictorialist Landscape Photograph"
and is a defense of the pictorialist landscape.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Having read Mike Johnston's latest article here on the Luminous Landscape's site, I thing he does us amateurs a bit of an injustice.
Not everyone who posts images on the web is a professional. Not everyone thinks their images are the best thing since sliced bread. Some people post images to show other people and to remind themselves of good times. Or maybe not so good times.
If you come across a zillion sunsets, Mr. Johnston, please don't pan them all as boring, Instead maybe consider that a zillion people throughout the world each saw what was to them a real eye opener.
Yep, my own pbase images contain a number of sunrises. None of them with eagles wheeling or boats capsizing, but the colours took my fancy, and we're moving house soon away from the USA west coast. And maybe, just maybe I want something to remember.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']do people come here to improve their photography or just to criticise Mike's latest article (whatever it may be) ? Just wondered.
You can treat photography as an art form, with a context (or several), and aspire to work within that form, or you can treat it as a way to get hard copy pictures of the cat. It doesn't actually matter which, but generally this site, and Mike Johnston, are working in the "art" context, and to start spouting vitriolic attacks because somehow this seems to be derogatory to the those who are not, is pointless.
I think MJ makes a basic assumption that people posting photos on a site which includes review functionality are inviting review (reasonable assumption ?) and therefore are working in an "art" context, possibly unwittingly. There are myriad options for sharing photo albums on the web which do not have forum / review functionality.
Finally, I don't think MJ said that "prettiness" is bad. Simply that it is not, in itself, enough.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Good points on all sides. I could slam MJ for writing in a simplistic way. There wasn't much depth to his very article talking about the lack of depth in these "pretty pictures". Other than being curmugonly, there wasn't any real content to the article.
However, I won't. MJ is a good guy and I do understand where he's coming from in. Do I agree with him? Yes. Do I disagree with him? Yes.
My "pretty pictures" are what sell. My "Artsy" stuff doesn't near as much. I can either choose to satisfy the stock sales by providing carbon-copy shots or I can go on my own way and end up starving because most people can't understand it. Modern art is cool only for those who think they understand it. Street photography is interesting, but is dated material.
Striking the balance, as a pro, is what makes us pros. Non-pros can shoot whatever they want. If it pleases them, great. Who am I to judge. However, I'm still miffed at everybody that sold out to "Royalty Free".
Ken N.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Took pictures of a graduation with digital for the 1st time and put together a slide show on a laptop for people who were unable to attend the event.. As usual, I received request for prints of certain slides. The requests for prints from slide shows have been going on for years. After reading Mike Johnson’s essay and the responses to the article I thought of the requests for prints as being a kind of selection criteria.
My purpose has been to document our lives with occasional attempts to be “creative” along the way. With the exception of a few photos that resemble postcards available for purchase at any drugstore nobody has asked for prints of my creative pictures! I asked people I know who have been doing slide shows for their family and friends about requests for prints and their experiences are very similar regarding their creative photos.
So now I am expanding my hobby to landscape and nature photography and proudly show my images on the monitor to people who come over and have yet to get a request for prints. :laugh:[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Howard,
Okay! Let's consider the shotgun analogy. We're both out shooting at grouse. I've got the shotgun. You've got the .22 or .303 sporting rifle (whatever). At the end of the day, I've bagged 3 grouse. You've bagged only one. I say to you, 'Howard you should have used the shotgun as I advised."
How do you reply? :D[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
talent is inversely proportional to equipment...
I don't think that is neccesarily true.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
If that was really true, why did he use the best equipment available?
Perhaps because by the time he got really famous, he gets the goodies for free? I don't suppose anyone of us really believes Michael Jordans talent was in any way related to his Nikes?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']To bring this back to the original topic... Galen's photographs, as good as they are, when in quantity will also result in MJ's Scenic Fatigue. There is a saying: "Familiarity Breeds Resentment". Too much of anything can wear on the viewer. I like going to art museums, but after two or three hours I've had enough. Even originality and extreme creativity in quantity will fatigue you and you end up returning to a tried-and-true picture to calm you.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Maybe that's part of the key ... too much of a good thing (doesn't "fatigue" imply "too much" anyway ?) photo.net is a really interesting place - it's fascinating to see trends; to see what gets rated "original" versus "aesthetic". The creative nudes get old; the closeup wide angle cow-in-a-meadow was refreshing (at least on those pages; it's certainly been done before) but within a week, it had been repeated by three other photographers. A lot of the stuff out there, while technically good, seems very contrived or forced. For me, the toughest part about bridging the gap between "pretty" and "art" is pretension. I don't pretend to understand "art" and as a result, I interpret a lot of it to be pretension. Sometimes I think a lot of so-called artists are just bluffing - if they call themselves artists and claim their work as art, then anyone who doesn't appreciate it simply doesn't understand !
Another thing that I think comes into play WRT Johnston's article is the simple fact that he doesn't like landscape photography. We shouldn't take this "scenic fatigue" too seriously when Mike has said he has little regard for landscape photography to begin with. (In an earlier article in which he expresses appreciation for Brandenburgs "Looking for the Summer" as a unique work ... I admit, I think it's one of the more interesting nature photography books I've seen in a while).
And back to Rowell, while a lot of his stuff might be deemed "pretty" (I've never been a huge fan of his photography) I've always enjoyed reading what he had to say about photography - in particular, "Galen Rowell's Vision" included some good essays that helped me nail down some of my own thoughts about photography.
You mentioned familiarity, too ... I remember an article on familiarity written by Rowell. I think that article helped me be content with photographing locally and not trying to turn every travel expedition into a photographic expedition - I'm going to get far better images from places I know well, and while it's not true for everyone, I enjoy those images better. I've lived in Connecticut all my life ... the last thing in the world I'd want on my walls would be photos of slot canyons or volcanoes or deserts or anything that doesn't "fit" ... some people go the other way - they've seen so many maple leaves they want the strange; the exotic.
In the end, if we're not aspiring to whatever goals Mike Johnston has in mind, we don't have to worry about his criticism.
- Dennis[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']A lasting photograph will have a subject, not just a buch of detail. [/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']What about a subject and[/i] a bunch of detail. Some people, such as myself, only ever see the Grand Canyon through a photograph :) .[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Tony,
I read that article this morning w/mixed reaction. I wonder if Mike is misinterpreting the intent of a lot of this photography ... he seems to have a lot of experience in the "fine art" world, yet most of the stuff posted is by hobbyists with pipe dreams but who may be, many times, more realistic than that. Some of my photographs that I feel might lead me in a "fine art" direction, if I took the time to pursue it, are nothing I want to hang on the wall. And as a professional in a field that has nothing to do with photography, producing prints to hang on a wall isn't such a bad goal, I think. So the question becomes: should I post them ? There was a recent thread over on dpreview bashing all the newbies posting "bad" pictures on the internet. But you have to start somewhere, and the fact that there are so many bad photographs is, IMO, a phenomenal thing for photography. Prior to a few years ago, out of all my friends & family & coworkers, I knew *1* person who was "into" photography as a hobby. For some strange reason, digicams encourage people to experiment, to be more intentional, and to become more interested in photography itself. It's great to be part of a hobby that may have been dying, but that's made an incredible comeback.
Back to Mike's article, at the same time he may be a little harsh on amateurs, I can definitely take some value from it. When I look through the "top rated" photos on dpreview, I occasionally glance at a couple of the pretty remarkable landscape shots - shots that do all the "right" things - usually the first couple pages has more top notch landscape shots than my entire portfolio ! But I only look at a few. They do get tiring quickly. The same is true of subject besides landscapes, so I think it's pretty generic advice, to be more intentional and more intelligent if you want to stand apart (and that's the question, isn't it ?)
On a similar note, I was out at another nature photographers website recently - one where you join up and they host 30 photos for you (can't remember which one) but one of the pro photographer site hosts wrote that amateurs need to develop more of a sense of style to stand apart, because one of the things he noticed in looking through the galleries is that most times, there's no way to look at a photo and determine whose it is just by the photo. OTOH, compare MR to Galen Rowell to Jim Brandenburg to Art Wolfe to Tom Mangelsen to David Muench - certainly Frans Lanting - and I think you'd have a pretty good idea whose photos are whose.
Galen Rowell's book "Galen Rowell's Vision" had some interesting articles that helped me identify what I do & don't like in photography - even though I wasn't the biggest fan of his work, he had plenty of interesting things to say about photography. Now the only problem is that as much as I'd like to pursue certain avenues in photography with some of these thoughts in mind, I have so little spare time, I'll likely be unable to see well enough to focus by the time I produce anything resembling "fine art"
So - take Mike's article for what it's worth - don't be offended and see if you can take something beneficial out of it !
- Dennis[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I think I know where Mike Johnston is coming from. I post to a couple of sites, and a lot of the feedback I get isn't very valuable, on one site especially.
I post on one site because it is public, and I can show stuff to friends without them needing a password. I can link to photos there that I can put up on another site where the standards are higher, and people are less afraid of being negative.
People are reluctant to be really critical, and negative feedback is often more useful than positive feedback. Positive feedback can be useful if it is insightful, but there isn't always much insight either. Comments like good detail, or this is pretty don't help me improve.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']A simple example of when "what is pleasing" becomes "non-pleasing":
A slice of cheesecake for dessert is a wonderful thing. A meal consisting entirely of several cheesecakes is sickening.
But that doesn't mean that cheesecake is bad. :D
Lisa[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Ray, to each his own. I just don't buy into "The one with the most toys (good photos?) when he dies, wins." It is my personal belief that there is a lot more to photography than just taking good photos. Otherwise, I might get a helmet cam and photo everything I pointed my head at, and sort them out later.
There simply hasn't been enough time since the big bang to do a lot of worthwhile things by accident. It takes some planning.
I guess too that my ego is big enough that when I do get a good image, that I actually had more to do with it than carrying the camera bag.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']if I wanted a lot of meat, I would go to the grocery store and save a lot of money and effort. [/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']I suppose next you're going to tell me, if you want a lot of photos you'll go to the gallery, buy some and save the effort. :D[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']If that was really true, why did he use the best equipment available?
Perhaps because by the time he got really famous, he gets the goodies for free? I don't suppose anyone of us really believes Michael Jordans talent was in any way related to his Nikes?[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Oh, c'mon, is there really anything to debate here ? I agree with someone who said that the opinion that talent is inversely proporitional to gear is probably someone who has neither. There's simply no relationship.
As for the basketball analogy, sneakers are no more a 'tool' than your underwear is for photography ... and yet, I'm sure every good basketball player still chooses his sneakers with intent. And if anytihng, your analogy disproves your earlier post - how is it that Michael Jordans talent isn't "in any way" related to Nikes, yet photographers talent *is* inversely related to their gear ? (Answer: photographers talent is NOT related to gear, inversely or otherwise - the gear just lets the talent produce better results).
Look at any craft - the more visionary artist produce more interesting works; the more talented craftsperson produces better crafted works; the artist/craftsperson with more/better gear at his disposal can produce a wider variety of pieces, and produce them more efficiently. Argue all you want about the relative importance, the fact is, at any stage of craftsmanship/artistry, I'd rather have a better selection of gear at my disposal ! And the goal of any photographer should be to improve on his artistry and craftsmanship and to have at his disposal the tools needed to get the results he wants.
It's really all about the right tool for the job, and the better artist will make a conscious effort to choose the right tool, instead of suffering with limitations and whining about how living with limitations makes him the better artist.
As for the importance of the tools, it's critical if you want to be able to achieve the results you want; not so critical if you're willing to work within limitations. If you're willing to restrict your subject matter and enlargement capabilities, then fine, call yourself a superior artist and have fun shooting street scenes with your 70's era SLR and 50mm lens. Console yourself with your elite status when your buddy takes his 500mm lens out to shoot wildlife, or shows you a gorgeous pano taken with an Xpan.
Personally, my photography and my gear have all gotten progressively better over the last 10 years - my own take on it is that as I've grown, I've exposed the limits of my gear, and that's when I've traded up.
And I know the stereotype of the amateur with "more money than brains" is popular among those who choose not to spend more money on gear, but by & large (with only a few exceptions), I've found that the photographers I've run across (friends, acquaintences, working pros) who produce the best work are using what I consider high end gear, and those using consumer level gear aren't good photographers. Again, one doesn't depend on the other, but good craftspeople realize the value of good tools.
Now that I've just wasted 10 minutes adding to a debate over something that, IMO, isn't up for debate, it's back to work ...
- Dennis[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']To bring this back to the original topic... Galen's photographs, as good as they are, when in quantity will also result in MJ's Scenic Fatigue. There is a saying: "Familiarity Breeds Resentment". Too much of anything can wear on the viewer. I like going to art museums, but after two or three hours I've had enough. Even originality and extreme creativity in quantity will fatigue you and you end up returning to a tried-and-true picture to calm you.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']I suspect that is in fact the heart of the matter.
For myself, I went through a photo.net phase where I was looking at a lot of photographs. I noticed that my ratings for originality especially, but also for aesthetics, went down over time. Viewing too much good work is like eating too much dessert - it is no less good than when you started, but you don't enjoy it much after a while.
Also, a comment out of left field: I find that many if not most landscapes share a common flaw, that of being overly complex.
Jason[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
Also, a comment out of left field: I find that many if not most landscapes share a common flaw, that of being overly complex.
Seems to me that "complex" in this context means "not well composed." Someone trying to photograph everything one sees, rather than concentrating on those visual elements which create the interest.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Ray, if I could paint or draw like I wish I could, I wouldn't even own a camera. Funny, but one of my favorite painters is Robert Bateman, well known for very fine details.
Detail can certainly enhance and might even be essential to a subject as you mentioned. I wont agrue that with you. It is deatil for detail sake that I can't agree with. On the subject of depth of field, not every piece of a photo need be in focus (show detail). In fact, lack of focus can add depth to a scene, or render a sense of "something" to the viewer without much detail at all, direct the viewer from an area of lesser importance to the subject. The lack of detail can tell the viewer there is no subject in particular, but view the entire "canvas." If the field of wild flowers had sharp details everywhere the viewer might miss thephotograph while digging through a mass of unimportant details.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\'](Whoops - change "top rated photos on dpreview" to "top rated photos on photo.net" !)[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi!
I am one of the guilty posters on photo.net. Yes, I have some nice, postcard-y scenics in my portfolio. As a gallery owner said to me recently, while signing me up for a show (!), "Postcards sell." I also have a few interesting, non-conventional shots, but those are not a well-rated by the reviewers at the site. So what?
The fact is, most of the "real" world loves beautiful pictures. Scenics and nudes/babe shots come out first in this category, with old people a close second <g>. Now it is arguable that either of the following is true. A) The majority of people do not have a developed artistic sensitivity, which must be nourished like the taste for fine wine. Because of this, they prefer the merely pretty to works of true artistic merit. The Emperor is bloody starkers. Success in the "fine art" world is dependent on how well one masters its gibberish.
Q: "What is the difference between a commercial photographer and a fine art photographer?"
A: "The commercial photog sets up his camera carefully, paying attention to all the fine details of composition, meters precisely, pulls the darkslide, and makes the exposure. The fine art person sets up his camera carefully, paying attention to all the fine details of composition, meters precisely, pulls the darkslide, kicks the tripod and makes the exposure."
By the same token, the commercial guy might say, "Look, the yahoos buy this crap. I just crank it out."[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hank, a few of comments to concur with your post. First, when I was in school, we were given an assignment to interview a professional photographer. y thoughts were "Why would a real photographer want to talk to me?"
I interviewed Art Wolfe. At the conclusion, I asked him why he would agree to talk to a no-name (not even a tadploe, but a polliwog) like me. He said something to the effect that when people like me lost interest in him or he lost in people like me, he was in real trouble.
Second, I took another look at a couple of photos I took. One was the big pretty Alaska sunset. The other wasn't really even a pretty sunset - taken at Joshua Tree looking into the LA smog. I like the Joshua Tree image much more. Then I concluded it isn't a sunset at all, but a photo of a Joshua tree AT sunset. It has impact. It is fun to look at the old photos with a new perspective.
Like the article or not, agree or not, at least it makes me think.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I think the "dilution of effort" sermon, while laudable in many ways is off the mark in its summing up and too simplistic. There are viable working methods lying in the middle ground between one picture after three days of scouting and frame selection from a digital video stream of consciousness. The point I agree with is that what matters is how deeply you manage to engage with a subject through capturing it in images. And I think that with modern equipment more shooting, if accompanied by reflection at some point, does improve the connection you can make.
MJ in a better article a little while ago talked about characteristics of great photographers -- he included obsession with photography and a deep love for their subject. I think a characteristic style is a result of those qualities rather then being an end in itself. And I am not ready to let the obsession take over my life to the extent that it did with truly memorable photographers.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Actually, after some thought Ray, I would tell you that when I use my shot gun, I get sloppy with the aim and wound a lot of grouse, but never kill one. When I use my .22, I take more careful aim, and when (if) I hit a bird, well, it's on the table. So for me, a bird on the table is better than three in the bush. It's just me and the way I do things.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
It's really all about the right tool for the job, and the better artist will make a conscious effort to choose the right tool, instead of suffering with limitations and whining about how living with limitations makes him the better artist.
(Apologies in advance for lowering the signal to noise ratio and for further detouring from the original subject of this thread)
You've hit on the key point, it's all about using the RIGHT tools. But the "right" tool doesn't necessarily mean the most expensive, nor the one with the most bells and whistles. Take a look in Galen Rowell's camera bag (http://www.mountainlight.com/rowellpages/gr_camera_bag.html). You'll notice that the plastic Nikon FM-10 and FE-10 ($260 at B&H with the kit lens) were among the cameras he used.
Rowell wrote:
"Nikon FM-10 and FE-10
These inexpensive, lightweight, plastic, manual focus bodies accompanied Galen when he needed to go ultra-light on climbs and trail runs. These cameras prove that the priority is to be there when the light is right even if only with a simple camera and lens. The top of the line quality of modern professional; cameras and lenses often comes with a weight penalty that can incline the photographer toward photographing from the roadside, rather than going further afield for a better position and a superior photograph."
Obviously, he used his other equipment when appropriate. But Rowell clearly understood the value of the right gear as opposed to the mere cost.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Consider that his last trek in Tibet (published in National Geographic) was extremely demanding on man and equipment he shunned lightweight and carried two Nikon F5 bodies and a contigent of big glass.
I doubt that an FM-10 was anywhere around in that kit.
He would write about his "grab a fanny pack and go running" kit which would be as light as possible. But when it came down to his "money trips", it was the serious gear. His livelyhood depended upon making the shot--no matter what.
To bring this back to the original topic... Galen's photographs, as good as they are, when in quantity will also result in MJ's Scenic Fatigue. There is a saying: "Familiarity Breeds Resentment". Too much of anything can wear on the viewer. I like going to art museums, but after two or three hours I've had enough. Even originality and extreme creativity in quantity will fatigue you and you end up returning to a tried-and-true picture to calm you.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']A lasting photograph will have a subject, not just a buch of detail. If I want to see the Grand Canyon with all the squires, pine needles, gum wrappers, and details, I'll just go there. When I look at a photo of the Grand Canyon, I only want to be reminded of the scene, not shown all that stuff again.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
You mentioned familiarity, too ... I remember an article on familiarity written by Rowell. I think that article helped me be content with photographing locally and not trying to turn every travel expedition into a photographic expedition - I'm going to get far better images from places I know well, and while it's not true for everyone, I enjoy those images better - Dennis
Dennis: I am delighted to hear you say this. I also believe in celebrating the local and familiar rather than needing to travel all over the world: and then I can come here and enjoy the images taken by others in their home locations too. In fact I wrote a short article on this very subject:
<shameless plug> A sense of place (http://photos.lois.co.uk/senseofplace.aspx) </shameless plug>[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi, Dennis, a nice interesting (what shall I say?) interpretation of the article. Personally, I'm not offended in the least but I am offended by the (mild) attack on image posters. I concur that everyone has to start somewhere and 'newbies' are the most likely to deserve some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, so where better to go than an image site? As I pointed out, I do not require any laudatory or other comment and the pics are there so friends/relatives elsewhere can get a glimpse from our deck. I also posted some images from scans of 35mm negatives for MR's benefit, since he is currently contemplating a workshop in Algonquin and these are from there 22 years ago. They are for interest only to show that a scanner can salvage your negatives. And yes, they're all shots of pretty trees. I lived in England and my chances of returning to such a landscape were slight. So I took a lot of photos of trees. When I look at them, I don't see that this bit is out of focus or that bit could do with a colour correction, I remember staying up at night wolf howling, and sitting for hours at an enormous beaver lodge waiting. In vain I might add.
And on that subject, I appreciate posters saying that they've modified the shot when they have.
But back to my gripe, I agree that most of us can learn and would do well to accept that. I still think that MJ was over-harsh. As you so rightly pointed out, we are all excited amateurs and should be allowed to behave that way. Negative criticism achieves nothing. Constructive criticism on the other hand......
Tony.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Being a new guy on the block, I probably have about as much voice as a tadpole.
Mike Johnson's article was pointed out to me and I have to say that I concur with Image66's comment on both agreeing and disagreeing with his thoughts. Parts of it, I could relate to; other parts sound more like a form of burn-out, crumudgeonry, as someone put it.
It just seems that he's dancing around a bigger issue. Both, at the beginning and at the end of his essay, MJ indicates that he hasn't thought long enough about the issue. But perhaps the bigger question to consider is this: What is beauty?
One guide (of many) that may be helpful with regard to this question within the realm of the "Philosophy of Art" is Jacques Maritain. He wrote an amazing little book, long out of print, entitled, Art and Scholasticism and the Frontiers of Poetry. It contains two foundational chapters: "Art and Intellectual Virtue" and "Art and Beauty." Maritain expounds on Thomas Aquinas' definition of the beautiful, as that, which being seen, pleases: id quod visum placet. Maritain's conclusion is that it is generally not good when "what pleases" brings fatigue.
If "prettiness" is in some way congruent to "beauty," then MJ's fatigue seems to run contrary to "what pleases." To be unpleased with what pleases doesn't make a whole lot of sense, unless one is burnt-out, needs to reformulate one's set of values (i.e., a paradigm shift of some sort), or is in the midst of some kind of mid-life/spiritual funk.
I've never met Mr. Johnson, so I have no clue which it is, and I wouldn't presume to try to guess. But I do encourage him to take his own advice and think more about it.
The bottom line has to do with whether public photographic forums have the capacity to inspire. Rather than emphasizing the fatigue, how about the intrigue?
Okay, this tadpole is done. I won't speak again until I learn to croak...
MacP[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Bruce, I like the articles. Of course, I don't agree 100% and I got a good laugh at maybe inappropriate times, but who cares. The dilution of effort is right on. I call it "drive by shooting."
One of the main reasons I use medium and large format cameras is they require me to slow down, think and plan what I have in mind. Not at all because I need that big piece of film (except tosee it better at hme) or like to carry all those extra pounds. I have said before that the "shoot 10 rolls and sort them later" method does not lead to consistent results. For one thing, it's hard t remember what you did right to get it. And the positive reenforcement of a good shot in 350 or so keeps the practice alive and well.
How many painters paint as fast as they can so they can make more paintings in a day, to increase the chances f their masterpiece?
A good exercise might be to go to the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone with one shot left in your camera. Most of us would be pretty careful about what we are doing. Not because that one frame is expensive, but because it is down right precious. Film is cheap and digital memory even cheaper. But I would rather take 3 images and get a good one, than 1000 and get 3 good ones.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']The M-16 used to be fully automatic. In Vietnam The US Army found that no one was hitting anything because they were using the 'spray and pray' method of aiming. Basically pointing the weapon in the general direction of your target, holding down the trigger, and hoping you hit something. A lot of ammunition was being wasted, and the amount of ammunition individual soldiers was carrying was escalating, all with less effect.
The weapon was changed so that it fired a three shot burst. Accuracy improved and the amount of ammunition used dropped drastically. The soldier had to aim the weapon to hit anything.
There are times I shoot more than one frame of something. Sometimes I'm not sure about lighting and exposure. Often I find myself working towards a composition I like as I work a subject. I can somtimes look at a sequence of frames and see a composition evolve.
I think a lot of people fire off a lot of frames because they can. That doesn't mean they get more good shots than I do, it just means thay take more frames. Sometimes this can make you lazy, almost a spray and pray method of photography. It still takes thought and deliberate effort to create a good photograph.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I guess this goes to show that the old adagium still applies: talent is inversely proportional to equipment...[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']This position seems to be primarily held by people who have neither. Poor quality equipment can be just as detrimental to the final outcome as bad technique or poor creative vision. A deficit of any of these factors will negatively impact the result; all are equally important.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Obviously, he used his other equipment when appropriate. But Rowell clearly understood the value of the right gear as opposed to the mere cost.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Quite true. But don't we all know there's a distinction between the 'right' tool and the cost of the tool? This applies across a whole spectrum of situations and is hardly worth debating. If I want a hammer to knock a nail in the wall, I would hardly say the the salesman, 'give me the most expensive hammer in the shop'. I might end up with a sledge hammer.
I suspect if Galen Rowell had been given the choice between the cheap Nikon FM-10 with kit lens and an equally light but better quality and sturdier camera with superior lens, he would have chosen the latter.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']To continue the digression, in terms of absolute image quality a film camera body is just there to hold the film in place. Since you've conceded that Rowell probably didn't use the kit lens, then a light plastic body was no great sacrifice. He saved a few ounces for the penalty of maybe slower autofocusing and slower continuous shooting.
Opting for the D70 as opposed to the Kodak 14n would have involved an unavoidable loss in image quality, whatever the lens. Do you think Rowell would have sacrificed that to save a few ounces?[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Well, the FM-10/FE-10 was a manual focus film camera with no motor drive option. I presume it had auto-exposure modes in addition to manual metering but I don't know. You're right, a film camera just has to hold the film in the right position, no megapixels to consider, so the plastic body wasn't a great sacrifice.
I didn't see any mention of DSLRs on the equipment page of the website. But since Rowell mentioned that wide angle lenses (20mm/24mm/35mm) were among his favorites it seems doubtful he would have made the trade-off of a 1.5x crop to go digital. Unfortunately he, his wife Barbara and 2 others were killed in a tragic light plane crash in 2002, so we'll never know if he would have embraced the full-frame digital Kodak.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']The portfolio has 40 images. I move images from the front and back toward the center as I ungrade the book. I agree too many mediocre images are a problem. I think 40 is about right for me. They cover a large variety of material. If I were preparing a portfolio for a particular purpose, it would be much smaller. Even if there were only three images in the portfolio, I would still put the weakest one in the middle.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Tonysx, I wouldn,'t get too sensitive. I am an amateur, and I certainly recognise the symptoms of the search for "prettiness" that MJ describes in his article. For me it was a useful reminder that prettiness is not enough. For many of us, we first go out to get the pretty shots almost to prove to ourselves that we can. Its only when we have the self-confidence that we can take pretty shots of most subjects, given good light etc, that we go and seek something a little more challenging, and those are typically the pictures you end up remembering.
Just my 2c.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I love the term "newbies!" It's usually disparaging and says so much about the person using it. Makes me think of terms like "snob" and "insecure" and self-serving." All of us had to start somewhere, yet many who label beginners "newbies" seem to have their highly refined panties pulled tightly into their cracks.
Anyone who feels that beginners are fair targets forgets that beginners won't always be beginners, and some in fact grow into prominence. Once they have advanced, they also tend to remember folks that stomped on their toes along the way.
Back to Mike's piece, I don't put him or his comments in the category of "newbie bashing." Beginner or expert, all of us should spend more time looking objectively at our portfolios and learning from them. It's a lot tougher than judging other people's work, but so much more valuable in the end.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\'] But I would rather take 3 images and get a good one, than 1000 and get 3 good ones.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Howard,
If I take 1000 images in the time it takes you to take 3 images, then I'll get 3 good images for your 1 good image. I'll end up having a greater quantity of good images than you. Isn't that what counts?
I vaguely recall some relevant quote from George Bernard Shaw who, when asked what he thought about the proliferation of mass produced cameras and amateur photographers, replied, "I think it's a good thing because the more photos that are taken, the greater the number of good photos that will result." (By accident or design).[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']If I were hungry enough, I'd get needed photos at the stock shop. So far, my demand has not exceeded by capabilities.
But mabe if I had an autoeverything camera with a motor and zoom lens, I'd be the stock shop. I guess we are back to each his own and it all depends on what you like to do.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
Poor quality equipment can be just as detrimental to the final outcome as bad technique or poor creative vision. A deficit of any of these factors will negatively impact the result; all are equally important.
IMO, of the three mentioned, poor quality equipment and bad technique are the lesser detriments. At least these can be corrected.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
I suspect if Galen Rowell had been given the choice between the cheap Nikon FM-10 with kit lens and an equally light but better quality and sturdier camera with superior lens, he would have chosen the latter.
I have absolutely no doubt that you are correct. But can you name another Nikkor-mount SLR/DSLR today at any price which meets the admittedly extreme criteria Rowell used to select the FE-10/FM-10? I can't.
BTW, I'm sure Rowell didn't use the kit lens (see the equipment list link in a previous post) I only mentioned the kit lens because it was part of the price on B&H.
Apropos of not a whole lot, Galen Rowell's comment on the 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 AF-D (a lens he used in specialized situations) was, "7 oz., $100, and sharp!" On the other hand he also owned a $5,000 500mm 4.0 ED P, which he prized "for its optical quality, and for its relative portability." Are we getting the idea that light weight was a high priority? ;-)[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Ray, The quote is to the effect the image should not be "just" detail. I certainly have no problem with details. But many folk seem to be of the detail is an end in itself school. "I could take better photos if I only had a 1Ds and L lens." That makes an image boring. I get tired looking for something that isn't there. [/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Howard,
There are certain subjects and compositions that don't require fine detail, for example, a misty early morning or a blazing red sunset. There are other subjects where detail will enhance the over all effect, and there are yet other subjects such as the contorted grain of an old piece of driftwood, a peeling timber door, the wrinkled faced of an eighty year old Tibetan peasant, a woman's hair blowing in the wind etc etc where fine detail might be essential for the photo to have impact.
If you don't want to celebrate the camera's amazing potential to deliver spades full of fine detail, perhaps you should take up painting .[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']To continue the digression, in terms of absolute image quality a film camera body is just there to hold the film in place. Since you've conceded that Rowell probably didn't use the kit lens, then a light plastic body was no great sacrifice. He saved a few ounces for the penalty of maybe slower autofocusing and slower continuous shooting.
Opting for the D70 as opposed to the Kodak 14n would have involved an unavoidable loss in image quality, whatever the lens. Do you think Rowell would have sacrificed that to save a few ounces?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']My two cents:
There is certainly a time and place for "pretty" shots. If that's what people are posting in droves, then a significant fraction of those people are probably doing it because that's what's meaningful to themselves in some way. Just because they aren't particularly meaningful to MJ doesn't mean they aren't meaningful to the photographer.
In my case, most of my photos are taken while on vacation in interesting places. The major purpose of my photography is to hang it on the wall to remind myself what the places I've been to looked like, and, more importantly, how it felt to be there (a more difficult thing to capture, but I try). Some of the places I've gone are most remarkable for their prettiness, so, in those cases, what I've tried to capture is, well, their prettiness! What else is there? Anything else wouldn't make sense (in those particular places), given my goal. MJ would probably not enjoy looking at my photography after looking at three thousand other people's similar photographs, but does that mean we should all just stop toting cameras on vacation to avoid overloading his poor brain? My photos are more meaningful to me than other people's are because I was the one *there*, and that's what it looked like (and felt like) to me at that time. Multiply that by a lot of people having similar experiences in "pretty" places (which after all are far more popular as vacation spots in general than non-pretty places), and then they post their photos to some web site just because it's there and why not, and what you get is what we have and what MJ is complaining about. If you get bored by other people's scenics, don't look at them. It seems presumptuous to complain about what they're doing just because it isn't meaningful to *you*, but that doesn't mean it wasn't meaningful to the photographer.
Sorry, end of rambling rant...
Lisa
P.S. No, I don't post photos to those sort of web sites.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Howard -
Amen! That's exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post. Thanks for perhaps putting it more clearly.
Lisa[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Mr. Johnson's experience with photo critique sites are identical to mine, and that experience is why I wrote an essay on the dilution of effort (http://wilson.dynu.net/dilution.asp) a while back with my advice to get out of the snapshot pattern.
More recently I've written another (I hope not too pretentious) advice-giving essay on landscape photography for the beginner (http://wilson.dynu.net/photographer.asp) in an attempt to define my own technique.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Ooh! Lots of good points in this thread now. From what I've read, most people take 'pretty' pics but for a variety of reasons. Most reasons seem to fall under the heading of 'remembrance' which is what I said in my first reply. And the fairly recent line of thought - 1 good from 3 vs 3 good from 100. It seems to me that digital cameras are built to provide burst mode and to bracket exposure and from what I've read, most people seem to do this. And why not? Take 5 pics of a scene and throw 4 away - hell! throw all 5 away, nobody knows or cares. But if one comes out clearly better/prettier than the rest and it will provide a memory then I for one would probably keep it. And I stick to my popgun - MJ's criticism of pretty shots is destructive and therefor leaves a sour taste. I liked the comment that one of these 'newbies' may well grow up to be renowned, and may turn out to be an elephant. Hope it's me.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
But can you name another Nikkor-mount SLR/DSLR today at any price which meets the admittedly extreme criteria Rowell used to select the FE-10/FM-10? I can't.
I'm not familiar with Nikon equipment. Would the Canon 300D be much heavier?
The 300D body weighs 40% more than the FM-10 body (19.7 oz vs. 14.1 oz, 560 gr vs. 397gr). Since Rowell used Nikon equipment exclusively, the D70 would be the real equivalent: it weighs 21 oz, 49% heavier than the FM-10. Note: I'm not sure if the DSLR weights include the battery pack.
Of course, depending on how much one shoots, you also have to factor in the weight of the film for the FM-10 and possibly spare batteries for the DSLR.
Sure, it's "only" a 6 or 7 ounce difference. But if you've ever backpacked or mountaineered, you know the importance of cutting weight any way you can.
Now we return you to the discussion in progress regarding Mike Johnston's essay :-)[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi everyone,
I guess this goes to show that the old adagium still applies: talent is inversely proportional to equipment...[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
Poor quality equipment can be just as detrimental to the final outcome as bad technique or poor creative vision. A deficit of any of these factors will negatively impact the result; all are equally important.
I don't think that is neccesarily true either. I think that equipment is less important. I think that someone with good technique and creative vision will be able to create something in spite of their equipment.
If I had more money to spend on kit I propbably would, but I don't think that would make me a better photographer.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Also, a comment out of left field: I find that many if not most landscapes share a common flaw, that of being overly complex.
Do you mean that it is therefore more prone to fatigue?[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']No, but rather that the "use a wide angle and the highest resolution possible to get all this stuff in the frame" effect might be one of the things that Johnston was getting tired of.
I was thinking about this recently when going through my own work - those landscapes that were most successful could be analyzed in terms of only a few clearly defined image elements.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Ray, The quote is to the effect the image should not be "just" detail. I certainly have no problem with details. But many folk seem to be of the detail is an end in itself school. "I could take better photos if I only had a 1Ds and L lens." That makes an image boring. I get tired looking for something that isn't there. "There's a lot of stuff here, but what is this a photograph of?" After a few, I go get a sandwich. Yes, and the next image may be fantastic, but the portfolio couldn't hold my interest long enough.
I learned in critique sessions that if you go last, you better have a darn good image. The judges were tired of looking at boring stuff, and the last piece of boring stuff got trashed. So I always arrived early. If my contribution was weak, I put it where it wouldbe looked at first. If it was dynomite, I would go last.
It is possible for less to be more. Two front page images Michael has posted recently are quite nice and diffused to take out detail. Seems to work very well when the whole photograph is the subject.
I build my portfolio the same way. Strong images first. Keeps interest Strong images last. Leaves a lasting memory. The weaker stuff fills the middle. Adds volume and it usually the stuff that gets flippe past anyway.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']The irony is that if we all started making self-conscious art photos, Mike would be compaining about too much self-expression in photography and photographers who didn't possess the vision and intellect to make good art photos. So you're damed if you do and damed if you don't.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Sunsets are very mature subjects, even the big nuclear ones. Nearly everyone with a camera has photographed at least one. To be more than just a pretty sunset, the mature subject requires a more mature treatment. Jack calls it impact. Otherwise, hohum.
Frequently what makes a sunset special to the photographer isn't in the photograph. I have a photo of a very pretty sunset. It is hohum though, except for me. I was there with my younger son and we were having a grand time. I look at the sunset photo and I remember what was happening, what we were talking about, not the sunset itself. No other viewer except maybe my son can experience that, or even know it was going on. The image may remind a viewer of another sunset and time they experienced, but it jst isn't the same, so it just doesn't have the same impact.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Well, I think I understand where Mike's coming from. We're bombarded with thousands of images every day, in a sense millions. Every time I turn my head, there's another scene. It might be interesting. It might not be. But it's an image nevertheless. I pick up a newspaper or magazine, or watch the tele and there are yet more images, a lot of them downright ugly.
Amidst the squalor, tedium or ordinariness of everyday life, there are patches of 'prettiness', a single rose, a garden in full bloom, autumn leaves, a forest, a waterfall, rolling green hills, a blood red sunset that moves us because it's a spectacular ending to the day. We photograph such scenes because we want to capture the moment, replay it, relive it and perhaps share it (okay, and sell it).
But who can honestly say that their photos ever do justice to such magnificent scenes? Our cameras don't have sufficient resolution, our printers are not nearly wide enough and our color spaces and ink have insufficient gamut.
So we post a miniature jpeg on the web that gives the merest hint of what we experienced and is just another of the thousands of failed attempts to capture the majesty of nature.
ps. Looks like Michael R agrees with Mike Johnston. Michael's latest cover photo is a break from his usual style :D .[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Ray, to each his own. There certainly nothing wrong with shotguns. I used to pay pool that way. I figured if I hit the ball hard enogh and it bounced off enough cushons, someday, it would find a hole and go in. I am a terrible pool player.
I have one out shooting with people who had a great time and took 5 rolls to my one. I've been ith folks that didn't eeven take the camera out of the bag. Really, to each his own.
I have nothing against pretty picture either. I think the point was, take pretty pictures (another hohummer) if you want to, but don't feel compelled to show them to the world.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']My idea exactly Scott. If I only have one bullet or one piece of film, I will want to make sure I hit something the first time.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']>If I had more money to spend on kit I propbably would, but I >don't think that would make me a better photographer.
Yes it would if the quality of your photographs was limited by the equipment.
Do you find yourself heavily cropping pictures because you don't have a long enough telephoto lens? Are you using stitching a lot because you don't have a wide-enough wide-angle? Are you having to use excessive sharpening because the lenses aren't sharp enough? Are you using gaussian blur a lot because the lenses have lousy bokeh?
Equipment isn't everything, but it is important. I'm rather tired of reading the glurge about Ansel Adams (or insert favorite master photographer) being able to take better pictures with a Brownie than others could with the world's best equipment. If that was really true, why did he use the best equipment available? Composition and technique are only two legs of the milkstool. You gotta have good technology.
Ken N.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']But can you name another Nikkor-mount SLR/DSLR today at any price which meets the admittedly extreme criteria Rowell used to select the FE-10/FM-10? I can't.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']I'm not familiar with Nikon equipment. Would the Canon 300D be much heavier?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
To bring this back to the original topic... Galen's photographs, as good as they are, when in quantity will also result in MJ's Scenic Fatigue. There is a saying: "Familiarity Breeds Resentment". Too much of anything can wear on the viewer.
<humor mode on>
So, to take this to its illogical conclusion, for maximum enjoyment we should experience something (a place, a food, a piece of music, a photograph, a painting, etc) only once and in a small amount?
<humor mode off>
I am reminded of a fictional character, who ate a food dish only once, never repeating. However, I seem to remember that he ate a large quantity since he knew he would never experience it again.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I build my portfolio the same way. Strong images first. Keeps interest Strong images last. Leaves a lasting memory. The weaker stuff fills the middle. Adds volume and it usually the stuff that gets flippe past anyway.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Perhaps you could take out the weaker center and have a stronger overall portfolio ? Good initial impact, strong lasting memory...
The biggest flaw I see in portfolios is too many images, good or bad.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Does he approve the lastest front page photo - Dawn on Lake Muskoka?
Just another pretty sunset?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']"Ray, if I wanted a lot of meat, I would go to the grocery store and save a lot of money and effort. If all I wanted were dead grouse, I'd buy a shot gun. I really like to use my old .22. Now, pass the grouse."
I know a fellow who hunts geese with a bow and arrow. That's a pretty stupid way to put meat on the table, but he enjoys it when he has goose. He isn't trying to feed his family, he is enjoying his sport.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I don't find myself doing any of those things. I know what my equipment is capabel of, and what it's limitation are. It is up to me to get the most out of it.
All more expensive equipment does, in my mind, is make some things easier. It will not make me a better photographer. Better technique and creative vision will make me a better photographer.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
Also, a comment out of left field: I find that many if not most landscapes share a common flaw, that of being overly complex.
Do you mean that it is therefore more prone to fatigue?[/font]