Clock of Jean-Claude Lemagny

[Ivo_B]

See:

Jean Claude Lemagny

Jean Claude Lemagny developed this 'clock' as a startpoint to discuss photo's.

There are other interesting approaches, such as the six categories of Terry Barret

Is there any interest at Lula to use such a tool to have a startpoint to openly discuss and eventually better understand photo work?

[Martin Kristiansen]

I would be interested. A few things put me off though.

How long before a debate rages between those who say it’s all pure talent and or instinct and rules are for those who don’t have talent
How long before people take positions on their own favorite ideas and shut down all others
How long before someone says we need to look at all the dead photographers and if we don’t we we will never understand anything.

Hope this developed into something. Good on you for trying. I will try to contribute but for some reason I am flat out with commercial work at the moment.

[Ivophoto]

I would be interested. A few things put me off though.

How long before a debate rages between those who say it’s all pure talent and or instinct and rules are for those who don’t have talent
How long before people take positions on their own favorite ideas and shut down all others
How long before someone says we need to look at all the dead photographers and if we don’t we we will never understand anything.

Hope this developed into something. Good on you for trying. I will try to contribute but for some reason I am flat out with commercial work at the moment.

All very valid, Martin. Check out my last reply in the Qou Vadis topic.



However, it is not about rules, just a tool to look deeper into photos and try to understand to what we look.

I found this approach helpful in my own photography, instead of firing from the hip or waiting for the light, I started to pre determine what kind of visual language I wanted to use. In the hope someday to have my own style and recognizable visual language. (Still a long road ahead)

Facility tools like this (like anything else) should not be the goal, but the means.

[KLaban]

I see tools and systems such as these as being useful in clarifying where we want to be rather than where we've been.

I see my existing work as being essentially muddled - unsurprising perhaps as there were many reasons for it existing - but my path forward as having some clarity.

[Rob C]

See:

Jean Claude Lemagny

1. Jean Claude Lemagny developed this 'clock' as a startpoint to discuss photo's.

There are other interesting approaches, such as the 2. six categories of. Terry Barret

Is there any interest at Lula to use such a tool to have a startpoint to openly discuss and eventually better understand photo work?

1. Well, I found myself wondering exactly what Instrumental Photography means. Without a clear, accurate understanding of that basic concept, the rest of his "clock" became confusingly complex, because despite thinking I understood him, that intial definition doubt had remained unresolved, and because of that, my suspicion that perhaps my entire sense of understanding of what was written was flawed too...

2. It was an object lesson in how bad my cataracts really are: my initial reaction was that it was the worst website interface I'd ever battled; I could hardly read the white writing against the black background. Then, on masking off the bright image, the print suddenly became a lot more readable to me. So, it confirmed my difficulty with bright frontal light situations, where light plays around within the cataracts and diffuses itself and, as consequence, the image it forms.

That website should be added to the opthalmologist's toolkit!

However, Martin has a good point to make:

"How long before a debate rages between those who say it’s all pure talent and or instinct and rules are for those who don’t have talent"

I certainly conform to the idea that some interest has to be there, if only to encourage an initial foray into the medium, but then you face the extent of that talent and/or interest, and have to decide whether you had been dealing with nothing but curiosity without the talent part. Without that bit, you could still become a good photographic technician.

Where I don't share Martin's concern is in the matter of rules. I don't read the two articles as drawing up rules, but as a form of post-event forensics. None of what I have read would have the slightest input on my shooting, if only because, mostly, I go out with a blank mind - a bit like a dry sponge awaiting the hot water tap. The only exceptions were when I had to shoot to a layout, fortunately not too often more restricting than just having rectangular or square spaces to fill.

Rob

[Rob C]

I see tools and systems such as these as being useful in clarifying where we want to be rather than where we've been.

I see my existing work as being essentially muddled - unsurprising perhaps as there were many reasons for it existing - but my path forward as having some clarity.

That's interesting; all my current work is muddled because it has no clear raison d'être beyond the frantic do something, do anything, if only not to atrophy unto death.

Unlike yours, my forward, photographic vision is an empty space.

Rob

[Ivophoto]

I use reader mode and send it to Instapaper. Makes it readable.
I agree the websites are a bit clumsy, but I didn’t find something else on the net. For myself, I refer to some books about reading and understanding images written by Belgian photo art critic Johan Swinnen.

[Ivophoto]

That's interesting; all my current work is muddled because it has no clear raison d'être beyond the frantic do something, do anything, if only not to atrophy unto death.

Unlike yours, my forward, photographic vision is an empty space.

Rob

Could such a ‘clock’ or ‘categories’ be a guide to draft the framework to give some orientation to fill the emptiness in vision?

About seeing behind the obvious:
Seeing the difference between Nachtwey and Witkin is not difficult, but seeing the difference behind the style of La Chapelle and Witkin is not so simple.

[Ivophoto]

1. Well, I found myself wondering exactly what Instrumental Photography means. Without a clear, accurate understanding of that basic concept, the rest of his "clock" became confusingly complex, because despite thinking I understood him, that intial definition doubt had remained unresolved, and because of that, my suspicion that perhaps my entire sense of understanding of what was written was flawed too...


Rob

As I understand it.



This is a picture of a 1Dsmiii. Purpose: commercial, publicity or just showing off?

This is another picture of same camera purely for user manual purpose:


?

[KLaban]

Could such a ‘clock’ or ‘categories’ be a guide to draft the framework to give some orientation to fill the emptiness in vision?

About seeing behind the obvious:
Seeing the difference between Nachtwey and Witkin is not difficult, but seeing the difference behind the style of La Chapelle and Witkin is not so simple.

I believe they could certainly help focus the mind.

[Rob C]

Could such a ‘clock’ or ‘categories’ be a guide to draft the framework to give some orientation to fill the emptiness in vision?

About seeing behind the obvious:
Seeing the difference between Nachtwey and Witkin is not difficult, but seeing the difference behind the style of La Chapelle and Witkin is not so simple.

I don't think we're speaking about the same thing.

My "emptiness" is all about opportunity of doing what I did best. It has nothing to do with personal style, motivation or treatment, but everything to do with availability of talent to stick in front of my cameras. It's physical.

That's the empty space in front of me - an extension of all my own landscape attempts, and the problem that I perceive in that of most other people's landscape shots too: they make interesting - sometimes - backgrounds to, if not the hand of man, then certainly to the presence of woman. Of course, those other authors will not see that.

Some landscapes are more conducive to that realisation than others: deserts, beaches, old buildings... the list does not, however, include the Grand Canyon or Niagara Falls, nor snaps of lions etc. ;-) .

Rob

[KLaban]

1. Well, I found myself wondering exactly what Instrumental Photography means. Without a clear, accurate understanding of that basic concept, the rest of his "clock" became confusingly complex, because despite thinking I understood him, that intial definition doubt had remained unresolved, and because of that, my suspicion that perhaps my entire sense of understanding of what was written was flawed too...

2. It was an object lesson in how bad my cataracts really are: my initial reaction was that it was the worst website interface I'd ever battled; I could hardly read the white writing against the black background. Then, on masking off the bright image, the print suddenly became a lot more readable to me. So, it confirmed my difficulty with bright frontal light situations, where light plays around within the cataracts and diffuses itself and, as consequence, the image it forms.

That website should be added to the opthalmologist's toolkit!

However, Martin has a good point to make:

"How long before a debate rages between those who say it’s all pure talent and or instinct and rules are for those who don’t have talent"

I certainly conform to the idea that some interest has to be there, if only to encourage an initial foray into the medium, but then you face the extent of that talent and/or interest, and have to decide whether you had been dealing with nothing but curiosity without the talent part. Without that bit, you could still become a good photographic technician.

Where I don't share Martin's concern is in the matter of rules. I don't read the two articles as drawing up rules, but as a form of post-event forensics. None of what I have read would have the slightest input on my shooting, if only because, mostly, I go out with a blank mind - a bit like a dry sponge awaiting the hot water tap. The only exceptions were when I had to shoot to a layout, fortunately not too often more restricting than just having rectangular or square spaces to fill.

Rob

It's fascinating how we differ - we as in a collective of photographers, artists, whatever, rather than RobC or KLaban. I have an entirely different approach to shooting, working. I won't so much as pick up a camera if I don't have a clear vision of what it is I want to do. I never shoot for the sake of shooting. Good thing, bad thing, dunno.

[32BT]

Could such a ‘clock’ or ‘categories’ be a guide to draft the framework to give some orientation to fill the emptiness in vision?

No.

I have yet to read the information more in depth, but i would like to contribute two general remarks:

#1 reversing implications
The idea seems to apply to classification or taxonomy. Applying rules in classification or taxonomy is quite obviously not a problem and in fact is a necessity. Some of us believe rules are a problem in the production process, not in the consumption process.

You could for example classify pictures using the rule of thirds just fine. That would simply be a selection criterium. The problems arise when reversing the logic:

if a picture conforms to the rule of thirds, then it is a beautiful picture.

Or

try to conform to the rule of thirds, then your pictures will be considered more beautiful

In other words, you generally want to avoid reversing implications.

#2 hierarchical structures
I usually am doubtful when classifications allow categories to overlap. I see it happening a lot even within precise engineering definitions and it usually is a forboding of a lot of trouble. Trouble as in endless discussions and animosity.

It also is often and indication of undefined hierarchical structure. Some things are deemed more important than others and that should reflect in the rules used to classify. Clearly Art my be controversial at times since it's often meant to break barriers, but it should still respect its own premisses. Some examples may clarify:

A murderer could for example possit that his/her murdering is an act of art creation. He/she claims to merely produce highly controversial art. Why do we (as a society) still judge him/her as a murderer and not as an artist?

Another example from actual reality
A photographer pictures himself naked in obviously aroused state with his toddler in his arms. A judge is asked to assess whether it constitutes childporn or art.

If you don't have clearly reasoned hierarchial definitions of what is considered acceptable and what is considered unacceptable by the same society that makes your art expression possible, then you're likely to end up with more controversy than actual art. By clearly reasoned i mean universal basic truths. For example we all have the universal basic right to individual development and expression. If however i abuse that right to kill another individual i am in breach of my own inherent right, my own premiss of existence, as applied to the victim. Therefore the right to individual existence supercedes the right to do as i please in my art, even within the confines of my own home.

[32BT]

PS. Jeremy will no doubt give me the blank stare now, but at least it fills up space, no?
Now i only need to find an interesting tv show where i can fill silence with empty pseudo intellectual drivel. Considering my expertise i could become a real celebrity.

[Ivophoto]

PS. Jeremy will no doubt give me the blank stare now, but at least it fills up space, no?
Now i only need to find an interesting tv show where i can fill silence with empty pseudo intellectual drivel. Considering my expertise i could become a real celebrity.

I’m glad you said it yourself.

Hahahahaha (just joking)

I understand your remarks and I have a answer in mind, not sure how to explain in written. Give me some time.

[Martin Kristiansen]

This is shaping up to be quite interesting and as my client is sick and went home at lunch and tomorrows is canned and all the days moved to next week I have some spare time this afternoon.

First thing that comes to my mind is the whole system of analysis and rules. I believe quite solidly that the traditional rules of photography are a codified way of describing largely pleasing stable and easily accessible compositions. Obviously I am alluding to leading lines, thirds and so on. It’s part of a visual vocabulary I suppose you could say. It’s useful to know this language as you can then use it to evoke feelings and a particular response. Perhaps you deliberately place objects in a way so as to be disturbing and jarring. Perhaps you use a visually ugly nasty scene and play off against it by using classically beautiful compositions. The issue here is you need to have something to say. How can you use a vocabulary if you don’t know what you want to say. It’s not about rules. It’s about intent.

It’s also about empathy in a sense as you need to have some feeling for how others might interpret a composition. Obviously we can’t always know but we can always try.

Where I think we fall short as photographers is in communication which is weird if you think about it. We are supposed to visual communicators. I know a hell of a lot of commercial photographers. Many of them are very good when on assignment and shocking when not on assignment. The reason I believed is that when on assignment the thing they are meant to communicate is part of the brief. As in we need to make this look good so we can sell it. Or this car is very fast and you will get laid if you buy it. Give the same person a camera and say go shoot whatever floats your boat and they are lost. They don’t know what to point the camera at so tend to look for the pretty. The Pretty is fine but you go around saying look pretty stuff, pretty stuff, more pretty stuff and check this very pretty stuff I and eventually  you drive yourself and your audience nuts with boredom.

You have to have something a little more sophisticated to say than hey check this pretty stuff, then you need to figure out how to say it. What colour pallete, what tonal range, what size images, how to compose. Even technical excellence is a decision. Perhaps blindingly good quality can detract from what you want to say. You need to figure it out.

If a system like the one proposed here helps you with that then all strength to you I think.

[Rob C]

PS. Jeremy will no doubt give me the blank stare now, but at least it fills up space, no?
Now i only need to find an interesting tv show where i can fill silence with empty pseudo intellectual drivel. Considering my expertise i could become a real celebrity.

But Oscar, you already are a celebrity: you're on LuLa!

Rob

[Rob C]

It's fascinating how we differ - we as in a collective of photographers, artists, whatever, rather than RobC or KLaban. I have an entirely different approach to shooting, working. I won't so much as pick up a camera if I don't have a clear vision of what it is I want to do. I never shoot for the sake of shooting. Good thing, bad thing, dunno.

Indeed, and that lack of preconception was always evident in my pro work too, where my muse used to tell me that I never did anything until the last moment when I was pretty much out of time. So true...

I guess I'm an avid believer in the other muse striking when she's hot!

:-)

[32BT]

The Pretty is fine but you go around saying look pretty stuff, pretty stuff, more pretty stuff and check this very pretty stuff I and eventually  you drive yourself and your audience nuts with boredom.

The best definition of Instagram if i ever saw one...

[32BT]

But Oscar, you already are a celebrity: you're on LuLa!

Rob

Of course, in a party of three it's easy to become rich and famous!