Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Marrakech article  (Read 12113 times)
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5698



WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2007, 02:28:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
An interesting exchange.

It is indeed.  Don't have much to add, but it's one of the more intriguing discussions on this list for some time!  As Alain wrote in his article 'Just Say Yes', there's a viewpoint among many people that a photograph has to be an accurate view of something, but the bottom line is that every image is manipulated in some way, whether it's from Photoshop or simply what's included or excluded in the viewfinder at the moment the shutter release button is clicked.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Danijela D. Karic
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 221


« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2007, 03:21:10 PM »
ReplyReply

My first post on Luminous Landscape, so just to say Hi and to compliment
Michel for his effort including many of the Luminous-Landscape members for
their contributions to this site.


:: GREAT SOURCE ::

Danijela D. K
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2007, 03:43:15 PM »
ReplyReply

There's something strange about wanting people to do something other than that which they choose to do; unless there is a commission involved, then do whatever turns you on. Some commissions even allow that.

Reference to photography of places like Paris by people working between the wars or just after WW2 is spurious: if one cares to read interviews with the likes of Doisneau, Ronis, HC-B et al. then it becomes clear that what happened then, what was permissible and possible in those years is gone forever; at best, today such attempts at people hunting will earn one a swift kick in the ass if not a bunch of fives. And why not? It's intrusion, colour it how you will; a camera in the hand gives no devine authority of use, however much such power might be craved.

Most of the photography of the type in question, which was shot in those early days, was for left-wing publications - does anyone think there was no political agenda, no axe to grind, that it was all some cosy artistic endeavour? Poverty and the exotically 'downtrodden' masses predominate in those photographs because it suited the publishers to depict such material. One could have shot something very similar in '50s Glasgow - indeed, some did - but there was bugger-all pleasant in the experience being pictured - different accents and languages but the same squalor. Funny how now we see it as quaint and, somehow, romantic.

There is certainly merit to the idea of documentation of now for the future. But that is a different animal, one that requires a specific agenda which is not necessarily to do with creating artistic documents in the manner of  fine prints. I'd suggest that most of the pictures which people produce when without a paypacket at the end of the exercise are shot with the 'pretty picture' ethic somewhere at the back of the mind. There's nothing wrong with that. For some people it results in exactly what they had chased, for others it ends in disappointment; either way, it's always been their call. Frankly, documentation by the likes of the people I mentioned earlier on might have been more manipulated than today's somewhat brain-washed viewer likes to believe; was it art? Did the photographer really believe he was producing 'art'? Did such an idea ever cross his mind, I wonder.

Ciao - Rob C
Logged

wakeboy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2007, 05:51:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Art it all is and opinion it all is, what is important from my point of view is photos that stand the test of time, this is no mean feat if you can do it despite political agenda, maybe im hoping that i can think outside the box and produce something original, all photos are a point of view, yet all photos also should try to produce an accurate moment maybe if that is even possible of where we are, otherwise we start to distort reality and then maybe we don't help ourselves later as we cant really remember if it was that good/real?
Maybe only cctv images are real? or webcams if they are not controlled by people? Anyway good discussion
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2007, 06:57:43 PM »
ReplyReply

a Quote from an earlier post:

"I just hope the old part of town manages to retain its 'mystery' and avoids becoming westernised by the influx of tourists."

I took this to mean that the poster didn't want to see these people take part in prosperity.  I find that strange from a person with a digital camera and lens around their neck that would cost several year's wages for the "model."  But this starts to sound political or religeous.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2007, 05:18:05 PM by howiesmith » Logged
Sune Wendelboe
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2007, 04:55:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Wakeboy:

Go nuts -  spend yor time and money making a documentary of suburban Marrakech 2007, bet it would sell (?), be interesting (to some), photogenic (may well be). Same thing goes for New Ireland, Micronesia, Tajikistan - There's no limit to how mediocrely dull you could present every corner of the world if you're really into that.

Travel around the globe looking for black birds if you feel like it, I don't :-)

If you're prospecting for gold, your bag's content wont be representative of the mineralogy of the field you browsed through - would it.

I'm not saying you don't have a point - I'd just never waste my time making it.


Sincerely
Sune
www.globalphotographic.net
Logged
wakeboy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2007, 03:52:14 AM »
ReplyReply

sune

I was not detracting from the quality of your pictures, i was mearly talking about the ideas that all of us (we) use in  our photos and was suggesting they were a bit cliche, mine included. Thus i am suggesting a paradigm change slightly to discover how can it be done differently yet original and interesting? After all it is all art.... there is no correct answer.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7725



WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2007, 05:49:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I have finally read the article. Nice images, but it struck me that the M8 appears to be most inapropriate a tool for such a locale where people don't want to be photographed.

A D80 with a 18-200 VR would IMHO be much more versatile a tool.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 480


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2007, 07:08:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"I just hope the old part of town manages to retain its 'mystery' and avoids becoming westernised by the influx of tourists."

I took this to mean that the poster didn't want to see these people take part in prosperity. I find that strange from a person with a digital camera and lens around their neck that would cost several year's wages for the "model." But this starts to sound political or religeous.

Odd, I took it to mean that he didn't want to see historically important settings destroyed by ugly commercial billboards. There are people who would gladly plaster the eastern face of the Rockies with ads for beer because "you can't eat scenery". That doesn't mean we should let them do it.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
rvanr
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2009, 07:24:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: howiesmith
a Quote from an earlier post:

"I just hope the old part of town manages to retain its 'mystery' and avoids becoming westernised by the influx of tourists."

I took this to mean that the poster didn't want to see these people take part in prosperity.  I find that strange from a person with a digital camera and lens around their neck that would cost several year's wages for the "model."  But this starts to sound political or religeous.

Only just read this post from last year. I wrote the original quote.

You totally misrepresent my point of view. I don't equate not being westernised with being poor. That would be very condescending. There are many ways people can be prosperous that do not involve being westernised. What I meant was that the old town is not spoilt by McDonalds, Starbucks, etc. It retains its own character and this has nothing to do with being poor. Venice has got its own character, Tokyo has, New York has. Yes, compared to most of the people living there I have a lot more money and an expensive camera, but that does not disqualify me from appreciating different cultures.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad