The Art of Fooling Around

[petermfiore]

Wow. Does everything have to become a dick size comparing contest or an argument? 

Michael


Seems the order of our times.

Peter

[Alan Smallbone]

Enjoyed the article, and saw what I expected in this forum thread. 

Funny I rarely get people asking me if it was photoshopped, but I do get them asking me what camera I used because it took really good pictures...... 


Alan

[fike]

Wow. Does everything have to become a dick size comparing contest or an argument? 

Michael

hahahaha....excellent!!!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Wow. Does everything have to become a dick size comparing contest or an argument? 

Michael

But, but... I was just fooling around, having fun 

[barryfitzgerald]

Interesting article, with a few obvious flaws.
When you suggest people are insecure for not embracing some of the more intensive uses of software (be it in camera or post) that feels a bit off in my books (let's not get into that debate again but just to say it's not black and white purist or pp demon, there is a middle ground)

And who said photography was "Art"?
It can be, it does not have to be though.

If you want "Art" buy some canvas and oils...
I think software gimmicks are overused (by some) and are getting pretty tedious and corny. BUT..it's your photo journey which is unique and individual for every person.

Anything can be overdone, be it HDR, or the Landscape photographer who "must" always use a ND filter for misty/foggy water shots.
Sometimes experimenting can be fun and rewarding, other times it can be cliché, cheesy and predictable. Sometimes being stubborn can be a hindrance and other times it can reap massive rewards. Everything but the kitchen sink can be risky at times.

[daws]

Wow. Does everything have to become a dick size comparing contest or an argument?  

Michael

In the communication medium of internet forum posts, quite literally, yes. A predilection for more or less heated debate accompanied by various degrees of ego display has been endemic to internet forums since the the first BBSs. It's part of the nature of this medium, devoid as it is of nonverbal communication (which represents two-thirds of human-to-human communication).

As such things go, the LuLa discussion forum community is near the extreme "polite" end of the civility scale. On the opposite end are video game fan forums and the readers' comment section of CNN.com.

[dchew]

Of course this isn't completely new. One of Galen Rowell's anecdotes (page 29 in "Galen Rowell's vision: the art of adventure photography") tells of his concern about disbelief of his 1981 photo Rainbow over the Potala Palace, Lhasa.

I knew Galen and Barbara fairly well. Not to long before the crash Galen wrote an article in Outdoor Photographer about Bill scanning one of Galen's slides twice:  Once for overall exposure and another to extract detail in the Moon.  Bill then dropped the Moon from the second scanned file into the first one.  The article was an open self-debate over whether that was ok. 

Soooo much easier to do today in a raw file!  For a short while I wondered how Galen would deal with shooting raw, but I settled on what I think is the obvious answer - He would be using every tool available to create the image in his mind's eye.  He even openly dreamt about the day when a digital camera would capture one exposure at several different light levels to then be blended.  Hehehe, sounds like the iPhone's HDR-mode to me! Galen was a lot more pragmatic than most people realize.  In the midst of highlighting many environmental issues he drove a Suburban.  Why? Because for him it was the best tool for the job.

Now of course Galen’s mind’s eye was different than mine, Michaels and everyone else’s.  Maybe more “restrictive”, but then again maybe not.  What I got out of Michael’s article was a reminder to not let someone else’s opinion of what’s “right” control your art, and more importantly, test your own perceptions.  Galen did all the time.

Dave

[michael]

I knew Galen and Barbara fairly well. Not to long before the crash Galen wrote an article in Outdoor Photographer about Bill scanning one of Galen's slides twice:  Once for overall exposure and another to extract detail in the Moon.  Bill then dropped the Moon from the second scanned file into the first one.  The article was an open self-debate over whether that was ok. 

Soooo much easier to do today in a raw file!  For a short while I wondered how Galen would deal with shooting raw, but I settled on what I think is the obvious answer - He would be using every tool available to create the image in his mind's eye.  He even openly dreamt about the day when a digital camera would capture one exposure at several different light levels to then be blended.  Hehehe, sounds like the iPhone's HDR-mode to me! Galen was a lot more pragmatic than most people realize.  In the midst of highlighting many environmental issues he drove a Suburban.  Why? Because for him it was the best tool for the job.

Now of course Galen’s mind’s eye was different than mine, Michaels and everyone else’s.  Maybe more “restrictive”, but then again maybe not.  What I got out of Michael’s article was a reminder to not let someone else’s opinion of what’s “right” control your art, and more importantly, test your own perceptions.  Galen did all the time.

Dave

Since I hardly look at any other any other forums (fora?) these days it's nice to know that we fall at the "polite" end of the spectrum. I'd hate to imagine what the other extreme looks like.

Back in the day, CompuServe forums and BBSes, I don't recall people being as vitriolic and strutting, but then memory has a way of smoothing away pain.

Michael

[Alan Klein]

I think it was a thoughtful article.  One quote, "Photographers want their art to be considered just that – art." is a perspective for some photographers.  Other photographers, want their "truth" to be considered just that - "truth".  There's room for both perspectives.

The two photos in the article are not the way the real world looks.  So photo art techniques were applied.  That's fine.  It's obvious to the viewer.  It's a lot of fun to apply different filters to get artistic results.  But other photgraphers want to match as best they can what was really there in nature.  This is especially important for newspapers, travel magazines, photo essays, etc. where the viewer assumes they are seeing the truth.  And even the truth can be done in an artistic way as people like Rowell and McCurry have shown.

In any case, it's good to have fun in whatever way you like to do it.  But be true to yourself not what others think.  If you have a nagging feeling that what you're doing isn't right, stop doing it.   

[HSakols]

Here is a good article regarding how Velvia changed landscape photography.
http://landscapephotographyblogger.com/did-velvia-film-change-landscape-photography/

[Telecaster]

Vision is pure interpretation. The world doesn't look like anything. Tiny packets of energy, photons, strike our optic nerves and generate electrical signals. (Substitute waves of energy for photons if you prefer.) The rest--light, dark, color, objects, shadows--is processing. Photons strike sensor photosites and generate electrical signals. Or they strike film emulsions and generate chemical reactions. The rest is, again, processing. Galen Rowell, for one, well understood all this and sought to put it to his advantage as a photographer.

The notion that photos can represent reality is a conceit. One worth indulging in at times, I feel, but a conceit nonetheless. As I said, the world doesn't objectively look like anything. But the notion that photos must represent reality is a dogma...that is, an attempt to reconfigure reality by sheer force of belief and insistence. IMO Michael's article is a useful response to the latter notion.

-Dave-

[Alan Klein]

Dave:  Isn't it reasonable and not a conceit to want to match the unreality of what you see in the photo to the unreality of what you saw originally in the viewfinder?

[barryfitzgerald]

Here is a good article regarding how Velvia changed landscape photography.
http://landscapephotographyblogger.com/did-velvia-film-change-landscape-photography/

I remember cringing when I saw Velvia landscape shots, some love it..but it was not loved by everyone!
Provia was more appealing to my eyes or Kodachrome (not high saturation but high contrast)

Photography is taste though, but I would add it would be a pretty boring world if we all did the same thing. As for playing around and having fun, great go for it. But after a while it's like the X factor, you just get sick of it  

[Telecaster]

Dave:  Isn't it reasonable and not a conceit to want to match the unreality of what you see in the photo to the unreality of what you saw originally in the viewfinder?

IMO it's both reasonable and a conceit.     It's why we reverse the tonal scale of negative film. It's why we kludge sensors with CFAs to mimic the way our eye/brain system creates color. At the same time we shouldn't fool ourselves that we're thus more accurately rendering visual reality. But accuracy is meaningless here anyway...there is no objective visual reality to accurately render. There's only energy (light), energy receptors and interpretation.

In the end it comes down to Winogrand's quote (I'm paraphrasing, I think): photographs show us what things look like when photographed. This acknowledges the interpretive nature of the visual world while leaving it up to each of us as photographers to decide how, and what, to interpret.

-Dave-

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Progress: fooling around -> having fun -> utterly ridiculous (e.g., denying photography as reality-bound -> denying reality).

[Floyd Davidson]

IMO it's both reasonable and a conceit.     It's why we reverse the tonal scale of negative film. It's why we kludge sensors with CFAs to mimic the way our eye/brain system creates color. At the same time we shouldn't fool ourselves that we're thus more accurately rendering visual reality. But accuracy is meaningless here anyway...there is no objective visual reality to accurately render. There's only energy (light), energy receptors and interpretation.

In the end it comes down to Winogrand's quote (I'm paraphrasing, I think): photographs show us what things look like when photographed. This acknowledges the interpretive nature of the visual world while leaving it up to each of us as photographers to decide how, and what, to interpret.

I like your analogy and comparing to conceit!

Winogrand understood this distinction very well.  Here's  an interesting youtube.com video of Winogrand explaining his philosophy at about 1 minute 50 seconds in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQhZcKzbM9s

"I don't have to have any story telling responsibility to what I am photographing.  I have a responsibity to describe well -- In fact that's a photograph -- They're mute, they don't have any narrative ability at all,  you know what something looked like, but you don't know what's happening ...

There isn't a photograph in the world that has any  narrative ability, any of them.

They do not tell stories, they show you what something looks like, through a camera.  The minute you relate this thing
[indicating the photograph being examined] to what was photographed, it's a lie.

It's two dimensional, it's illusional ..."

Winogrand not only rapped the idea that a photograph shows reality, but also went further and says there is not even a story in a photograph.  The concept (or conceit) of reality or some kind of a story is all in the mind of the viewer, not in the photograph.

I find that more than somewhat interesting because particularly with Street Photography many photographers and viewers alike feel that what makes Street interesting is the part a viewer imagines about the story supposedly captured by the image.  But there is no story, it's only in their imagination and what the photographer does is provide the largest variety of memory triggers possible.

Other photographers strive to provide a  photograph that narrows the viewer's imagination down to a limited set of symbols that trigger imagination in an effort to more precisely guide the viewer's imagination to a specific conclusion. 

Both styles of photography are quite valid, even thought they are opposites.

[Floyd Davidson]

Progress: fooling around -> having fun -> utterly ridiculous (e.g., denying photography as reality-bound -> denying reality).

Reality is like beauty, it's unique to each individual and is entirely "in the eye of the beholder".  Reality doesn't exist outside of each person's imagination.

The reality of any given scene is one thing, and the reality of every photograph of that scene is something entirely different.  As Winogrand said many times, a photograph just shows you what something looks like when it is photographed.  The "reality" in the photograph absolutely is an illusion.

That does not deny reality, it just expands our understanding of it!

[leeonmaui]

Aloha,

I work everyday, if not shooting; then selling my prints.
Far more people ask me about my camera, lenses, filters, film, mounting and techniques than about Photoshop, I'm glad to tell them about anything.
The amount of time and effort it takes me to earn my living from my work is at times overwhelming, I don't think I would be able to do it if it was not an overriding passion. There are not many shortcuts. 

I love shooting, I like trying different things.
I like talking about photography, and some of the amazing places I have been able to shoot with people that view and buy my work. I never wanted to do something that I love to do, and feel the need to lie or make excuses, so I don't.
I don't like working on the computer, it's my least favorite thing, I do find it helpful, no doubt in polishing up some of my work. I'm much happier with an image the less I need to do in post processing, less work/time is always better in my book, but not always possible.
I've found polishing up a turd just gets me a polished turd, at least to my eye, and  I am doing this for my eye.
In my work I think about what is impacting me in the scene, so the scene and light need to be pretty cool for me to even want to shoot it, and I've become more obstinate in that regard over the years.

Lighting a dull scene on fire just for the sake of it doesn't appeal to me much (and not that I haven't done it either.) I can understand the need if you are on an eight day shoot and have 7 days of crap light, but I've pretty much found that the 8th day will be heaven. Playing around on the computer doesn't interest me much, but Like everyone I end up there a lot. I am under no pressure to do something I don't want to do so I don't.

I don't do HDR; but I've seen some beautiful HDR-( I guess that's not technical true as my current camera coupled with grads can get huge DR)
I don't do much Black and white; but have seen some beautiful stunning black and white.
I don't do any exposure stacking, but I've seen some wonderfully, no; magnificent stuff.
There's plenty Plenty of room at the table, Photography is the most democratic of all the arts, even children can do it well.

There has always been many valid branches on the tree of art, with new ones growing all the time. It might seem like your branch is better, and you need to tell everyone why it's better, but that's just chirping from your perch.
I can't or won't fault anyone for any technique or methodology used in their work it's not my place or my inclination. I like art based on how it impacts me. not how it was created.

Even at the most basic level of any human endeavor there is an innate competitive drive associated with that endeavor. I believe much of the let's call it "spite" in the professional photographic world (if your an amateur we really truly don't care what you think) is now focused on the amount of post prepossessing
involved in the creation of an image. When its all said and done moving a few sliders around in ACR is not enough to build a career on, but maybe doing that; coupled with more work than you thought was humanly possibly might give you a shot, and if that is what you enjoy doing go for it. I've seen many guys come and go; think you can do it all with CS6 go for it! think you can do it without CS6 go for it! Software is such a small part of what is required to year in and year out produce solid work; its patently ridiculous to give it so much attention.

Anyway, y'all keep it up cause its pretty freaking funny.... chirp chirp

[kencameron]

I believe much of the let's call it "spite" in the professional photographic world (if your an amateur we really truly don't care what you think) is now focused on the amount of post prepossessing involved in the creation of an image.

Mmmm. Certainly not something that I, as an amateur, would even dream of expressing an opinion about, let alone undertaking.

[Telecaster]

Progress: fooling around -> having fun -> utterly ridiculous (e.g., denying photography as reality-bound -> denying reality).

Yow! There's a massive difference between (quoting myself) "there is no objective visual reality" and denying reality.     Light is real as is our eye/brain light receptor/interpreter system. The fallacy lies in believing there's an objectively correct visual interpretation of light emission & absorption. "Objectively correct" just doesn't apply.

Light is pretty simple stuff. When viewed as excitations, waves, in an electromagnetic field it comes in a variety of wavelengths. When viewed as discrete packets of energy, photons, each exists somewhere within a probability range described in terms of a wavelength. That's it. Light has no bright, dark, red, blue, green, etc. property. Knowing this is a liberating thing. You can, for instance, photograph a shaded glacier under a clear sky using daylight color balance (or daylight-balanced color film), understanding that while the surrounding landscape will look "correct" the glacier will be rendered in accentuated blue tones. Rather than get upset at your camera or film for not being sufficiently "accurate," you can quit worrying about accuracy and choose simply to make something beautiful or compelling.

-Dave-