Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: History of The Religion of Cropping ?  (Read 596711 times)
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6200



WWW
« Reply #160 on: May 20, 2009, 09:39:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pegelli
Russ, I started my "serious" photography with a IIIf and a 50/3.5 elmar and later added a 90/4 elmar. As far as I remember it had a "built in" 50 mm rangefinder wich had "fuzzy sides" so accurate framing was always a challenge. The distance meter with the double view which you needed to overlay was a separate opening just besides the rangefinder. So for more accurate framing (and other f/l's than 50 mm) I had a stick-on rangefinder that was adjustable from 28 to 135 mm. It didn't have a zoom but just closed "black curtains"  to give you the right view. Since it was placed quite high above the lens you could adjust the angle to correct for parallax with a little handle. I can't even count how often I forgot to adjust that and had very weird framed portraits with ears or nose cut off  

That's why I changed to an M2 later, it had frames for 35/50/90 mm(automatically set by the lens you mounted) and automatic parallax compenstation coupled with the distance meter and was infinitely more user friendly. Especially for 50 and 90 mm it sometimes was a help to see what was "flying in" from outside in anticipation of pressing the shutter. I love that camera and still run a roll of film through it once in a while. Just wished the M8 was more affordable, so I could use such a system digitally.

Pieter, One of the things I really regret is selling my M4 back in the early eighties. But I'm not going to buy a film M now just so I can get back into film. If you ever think seriously about the M8, check Rangefinder Forum and Leica User's Forum first. The M8 has some serious flaws -- one's I don't want to have to put up with. I often shoot on the street with an Epson R-D1, which takes Leica M lenses and has the same sensor as the Nikon D100. It's a fun camera to work with and still has a film advance lever. It really does feel like a Leica M -- more so than the M8 by the way.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6200



WWW
« Reply #161 on: May 20, 2009, 09:41:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
When I shot this image I had two crops in mind. I actually preferred a tighter crop without the gate but on second thoughts decided to include it so that I could choose between the two later. It's a 17 image stitch. The frame with the moving guy took an hour of waiting but once I had it I then shot the rest of the frames at my leasure. No doubt the single shot I took at the beginning to decide on the framing prior to stitching is photography - whereas this image is not eventhough it looks exactly the same but with 60 megapixels instead of 12. Oh and if I'd cropped it to match one of the framings I had envisaged while shooting that would have shown my lack of visionary skills. What a load of nonsense.


Seems like an awful lot of work for the result.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 09:42:18 AM by RSL » Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #162 on: May 20, 2009, 10:27:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Seems like an awful lot of work for the result.

It is the only image in this thread that I like.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6200



WWW
« Reply #163 on: May 20, 2009, 11:10:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
It is the only image in this thread that I like.

I like it too. It looks like a well-composed street shot, the kind of thing you raise your camera and shoot when you see it developing. My question is, why not simply wait until you see someone walking by and then shoot?

What Alain is doing with landscape actually requires a lot of post-processing work, but I question whether or not street photography requires it. It's a different kind of thing altogether. What Ben's complaining about is that he thinks I refused to call his stitching operation "photography." In the case of his composited street shot, that's not true, any more than I refuse to call HDR photography, which I sometimes do, "photography."

In Alain's case, even though the source material is photography, the result isn't something I can call photography any more than I can call one of Charles Sheeler's photographic paintings, copied from a photograph, a photograph. Sheeler's source material was photography but his result was painting. What I'd like to see is a word that can distinguish what Alain's doing from straight photography. Straight photography records and captures time. Alain's work captures the vision in his creative mind.
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #164 on: May 20, 2009, 11:30:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
I like it too. It looks like a well-composed street shot, the kind of thing you raise your camera and shoot when you see it developing. My question is, why not simply wait until you see someone walking by and then shoot?

What Alain is doing with landscape actually requires a lot of post-processing work, but I question whether or not street photography requires it. It's a different kind of thing altogether. What Ben's complaining about is that he thinks I refused to call his stitching operation "photography." In the case of his composited street shot, that's not true, any more than I refuse to call HDR photography, which I sometimes do, "photography."

In Alain's case, even though the source material is photography, the result isn't something I can call photography any more than I can call one of Charles Sheeler's photographic paintings, copied from a photograph, a photograph. Sheeler's source material was photography but his result was painting. What I'd like to see is a word that can distinguish what Alain's doing from straight photography. Straight photography records and captures time. Alain's work captures the vision in his creative mind.

I can agree with that.  It has been on my mind as I've been thinking about buying one of Alain's photos.  Great stuff but what exactly would I be buying?
Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 675



WWW
« Reply #165 on: May 20, 2009, 11:50:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
I can agree with that.  It has been on my mind as I've been thinking about buying one of Alain's photos.  Great stuff but what exactly would I be buying?


I think you will be investing in artwork that represents the outcome of my creative vision.  You will also have an image that no one can ever create again due to how it was made.  I don't think it is very different than a painting in that regard.  I collect paintings and what I am interested in is how the artist saw and represented the subject.  This is what I aim to do in my work: express how I saw and perceived the subject.
Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #166 on: May 20, 2009, 12:31:16 PM »
ReplyReply

How about just calling it 'Photographic Artwork' or 'Photographic Imagery'? To be honest I don't see any difference between the Zone system, dodging and burning and (decently done) HDR myself, one uses chemicals the other uses computers. The results look the same though if properly done. The only people who care how you got there are the ones who miss the point. The only important thing is whether the final image achieves its required purpose. If it does than to degenerate it due to how it was made is pathetic. If it doesn't than who cares how pure the photographic purpose was?

If the powers that be do not want to accept the terms I employed above then I'll simply call it 'Artistic Representations' and screw the word photography. Personally I don't believe it brings anything to the table anyway other than false snobbishness.

My images have the resolution and imaging size to give big prints with incredible tonality. My project (link in my sig) has specifically been targeting the idea of shooting street like subjects but with a landscape type feel and level of quality. I wanted to see if my vision could be expressed but without the sacrifice in pure quality that accompanies street photography. I started with LF but gave up when I realised I couldn't get the DOF required using lenses that gave the perspective I wanted to realise, but still freeze movement or at least have control over it. Using a DSLR with a huge range of useable ISO's and more DOF has enabled me to realise the images I had in my mind. Incorporating human subjects in stitched images of 10-17 frames has been a challenge that I've enjoyed.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6200



WWW
« Reply #167 on: May 20, 2009, 03:43:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
How about just calling it 'Photographic Artwork' or 'Photographic Imagery'? To be honest I don't see any difference between the Zone system, dodging and burning and (decently done) HDR myself, one uses chemicals the other uses computers. The results look the same though if properly done. The only people who care how you got there are the ones who miss the point. The only important thing is whether the final image achieves its required purpose. If it does than to degenerate it due to how it was made is pathetic. If it doesn't than who cares how pure the photographic purpose was?

If the powers that be do not want to accept the terms I employed above then I'll simply call it 'Artistic Representations' and screw the word photography. Personally I don't believe it brings anything to the table anyway other than false snobbishness.

My images have the resolution and imaging size to give big prints with incredible tonality. My project (link in my sig) has specifically been targeting the idea of shooting street like subjects but with a landscape type feel and level of quality. I wanted to see if my vision could be expressed but without the sacrifice in pure quality that accompanies street photography. I started with LF but gave up when I realised I couldn't get the DOF required using lenses that gave the perspective I wanted to realise, but still freeze movement or at least have control over it. Using a DSLR with a huge range of useable ISO's and more DOF has enabled me to realise the images I had in my mind. Incorporating human subjects in stitched images of 10-17 frames has been a challenge that I've enjoyed.

Ben,

"Photographic Artwork" is fine, but "Photographic Imagery" is a tautology. I'm trying to figure out what your beef is, but I'm not succeeding. Who are these "powers that be" who want to deny you your rights?

"How you got there" is the whole point. If you're not claiming that what you shot represents reality then there's no limit to what you can do. That's where Alain stands. He's not claiming that his stitched images represent a real scene any more than Picasso claimed that "The Frugal Repast" was a representation of a real event. What he's creating is art that's closer to painting than to photography -- and he does it very well.

Street photography is a horse of a different color. A street photograph tells a story, even if the story isn't terribly understandable. Here's an example:

[attachment=13836:Confrontation.jpg]

The title I gave that picture is "Confrontation." I haven't the foggiest idea what was going on there, but it's clear that there's a story behind it. It's real. It really happened. If I'd shot a picture of a group around a table in a restaurant and then dubbed in the kid in the middle it wouldn't be street photography. I don't know what it would be, but if I called it "street photography" I'd be telling a lie. I'd be pretending the photograph is something it isn't.

There's nothing wrong with you wanting to shoot "street like subjects" at high resolution -- as long as you don't call it "street photography." Go ahead. Call it "Photographic Artwork." That's a pretty good name.


Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #168 on: May 21, 2009, 02:35:34 AM »
ReplyReply

'How you got there is the whole point'.

I think that says pretty much everything about you as an artist.

The idea that photography has ever been about representing reality is a joke. You cannot begin to substantiate that. I've never seen the real world in black and white. Or with Velvia colours, or distorted as with a super wide angle lens, or as shown with an ND grad. I don't ever remember seeing frozen blurs in the real world like in HCB's moving bike or man jumping over the puddle (sorry I don't know the real names of the images). As a photograph by definition does not show context it's ability to tell the truth is again by definition untrue. Reality is in 3D, in movement, with sound and with context. Photography is none of those and that was long before the digital era. That the distortion of reality is accomplished in photography using new methods in this century is irrelevant.

The image above looks pretty much exactly the same as the test image I took before starting the work on the stitch. Nothing changed because I stitched it except that the stairs for example were captured some seconds after the walking man. No different in fact than perhaps using a long exposure where certain elements would be captured at a different time to others.

I'm not saying that my imagery could be used to testify in court. Just like about 99% of what you actually would consider photography it is a distortion of reality. A distortion of reality is what photography is. To pretend otherwise is to wear blinkers....

Oh and I never said I was shooting street photography. 'Street like' was the phrase I used.  

You are defining photography by a set of rules that the medium itself can not begin to aspire to.
Logged

daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


« Reply #169 on: May 21, 2009, 09:00:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
You are defining photography by a set of rules that the medium itself can not begin to aspire to.

...To me the question is, "Why would it want to?" How can binding the medium with rules and definitions help the artist make images... or help the viewer see them?
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6200



WWW
« Reply #170 on: May 21, 2009, 10:48:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
'How you got there is the whole point'.

I think that says pretty much everything about you as an artist.

The idea that photography has ever been about representing reality is a joke. You cannot begin to substantiate that. I've never seen the real world in black and white. Or with Velvia colours, or distorted as with a super wide angle lens, or as shown with an ND grad. I don't ever remember seeing frozen blurs in the real world like in HCB's moving bike or man jumping over the puddle (sorry I don't know the real names of the images). As a photograph by definition does not show context it's ability to tell the truth is again by definition untrue. Reality is in 3D, in movement, with sound and with context. Photography is none of those and that was long before the digital era. That the distortion of reality is accomplished in photography using new methods in this century is irrelevant.

The image above looks pretty much exactly the same as the test image I took before starting the work on the stitch. Nothing changed because I stitched it except that the stairs for example were captured some seconds after the walking man. No different in fact than perhaps using a long exposure where certain elements would be captured at a different time to others.

I'm not saying that my imagery could be used to testify in court. Just like about 99% of what you actually would consider photography it is a distortion of reality. A distortion of reality is what photography is. To pretend otherwise is to wear blinkers....

Oh and I never said I was shooting street photography. 'Street like' was the phrase I used.  

You are defining photography by a set of rules that the medium itself can not begin to aspire to.

Ben,

You probably need to look up the meaning of the word “represent.” The first definition in the Random House Unabridged starts out: “to serve to express, designate, stand for, or denote.” In other words “represents” is not the same as “is.” Once you look up “represents” and “is” or “to be” you’ll probably understand that even though you’ve never seen the real world in black and white, black and white can represent the real world.

What we’ve called “photography” for 170 years has always attempted to represent the real world. I have a hard time calling what Alain’s doing “photography” for two reasons: (1) It doesn’t attempt to represent reality, and by calling it “photography” you warp the meaning of the word and make it less precise. And (2) It doesn’t give Alain his due. What he’s doing is something new and it deserves a new name. Beyond that I can’t see a problem with calling HDR or the kind of stitching one does to create a panorama or the kind of stitching you did in your example “photography.” They’re all attempts to represent the real world.

But when you add the word “street” to the word “photography” you’re dealing with another term that’s had a specific meaning since at least the early 1930’s. “Street photography” implies the representation of a true story. If your photographs ignore that implication they’re liable to acquire the kind of odium that taints those early pictures of the Russian revolution that no longer include Trotsky.  

But you never explained who the “powers that be” are: the ones who castigate you when you make photographs the way you want to

Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8877


« Reply #171 on: May 21, 2009, 10:50:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
The idea that photography has ever been about representing reality is a joke. You cannot begin to substantiate that. I've never seen the real world in black and white. Or with Velvia colours, or distorted as with a super wide angle lens, or as shown with an ND grad. I don't ever remember seeing frozen blurs in the real world like in HCB's moving bike or man jumping over the puddle (sorry I don't know the real names of the images). As a photograph by definition does not show context it's ability to tell the truth is again by definition untrue. Reality is in 3D, in movement, with sound and with context. Photography is none of those and that was long before the digital era. That the distortion of reality is accomplished in photography using new methods in this century is irrelevant.

I understand what you are trying to say here, Pom. There are a number of ways in which the photographic image falls down in the reality test. B&W before the introduction of color was one of them. The lack of a 3-D effect is another, which is actually now being addressed for future plasma TV screens.

The flaw in your argument is that our eyes and brain also don't represent reality. In some respects, the photographic lens produces distortions that our eyes don't see, as at the edges of an ultra-wide-angle lens. However, our eyes, with necessary brain interpretation, also don't exactly represent reality. They can be tricked by all sorts of phenomena and optical illusions, sometimes in very extreme ways. Has anyone ever photographed an hallucination?

With modern digital photography, I expect my shots to be an fairly accurate representation of what I saw; no hallucinations or flying saucers; no spiritual ectoplasm and no rearrangement of the elements in the scene. If I later decide to rearrange the elements in the scene, copy and paste a few additional items, make a collage, remove a few undesirable objects or blemishes, then clearly I've altered the reality of the initial photograph. Such alteration cannot be used as an argument that the camera does not capture a very convincing representation of reality.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2009, 11:00:33 AM by Ray » Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #172 on: May 21, 2009, 03:35:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
If your photographs ignore that implication they’re liable to acquire the kind of odium that taints those early pictures of the Russian revolution that no longer include Trotsky.

I miss Leon too. Wasn't it peculiar that LHO was seen on the cover of Life magazine in early '64 with commie newspapers in each hand, one being pro-Stalin and the other pro-Trotsky?  Like he couldn't make up his mind.  Or do we have a problem of journalistic integrity - somebody diddling with the photos?

That's where art solves the problem very neatly - you don't have to split hairs about reality, you just appreciate what's there.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6200



WWW
« Reply #173 on: May 21, 2009, 03:39:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
I miss Leon too. Wasn't it peculiar that LHO was seen on the cover of Life magazine in early '64 with commie newspapers in each hand, one being pro-Stalin and the other pro-Trotsky?  Like he couldn't make up his mind.  Or do we have a problem of journalistic integrity - somebody diddling with the photos?

That's where art solves the problem very neatly - you don't have to split hairs about reality, you just appreciate what's there.

You're right, Dale. I should have substituted "street shots" for "photographs" in that sentence.

Logged

ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #174 on: May 21, 2009, 04:29:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
What we’ve called “photography” for 170 years has always attempted to represent the real world.

I'm sorry, but that statement is simply not true and borders on absurd. Many of the serious early, and mid, practitioners were primarily interested in conceptual photography with little, or no, interest in the real world. Subjects ran the gamut from Biblical stories (Mother Mary, last supper) to simple, romanticized altered depictions of normal life to contrived and created battle scenes. Heck, many of these photos were comprised of multiple sheets/plates, some containing more than a dozen. How about the pictorialist movement, alive and well for more than 100 years? To that group, "real world" is the antithesis of what they stand for.

Thus, this notion that photography has had, since it's invention, a singular altruistic mission is invalid. Photography, like all the arts, is about the creators and the viewers, not the processes as you would have us believe. Photography, no matter what he specific process, style or subject matter, is simply a medium used to create.



Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6200



WWW
« Reply #175 on: May 21, 2009, 04:56:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
I'm sorry, but that statement is simply not true and borders on absurd. Many of the serious early, and mid, practitioners were primarily interested in conceptual photography with little, or no, interest in the real world. Subjects ran the gamut from Biblical stories (Mother Mary, last supper) to simple, romanticized altered depictions of normal life to contrived and created battle scenes. Heck, many of these photos were comprised of multiple sheets/plates, some containing more than a dozen. How about the pictorialist movement, alive and well for more than 100 years? To that group, "real world" is the antithesis of what they stand for.

Thus, this notion that photography has had, since it's invention, a singular altruistic mission is invalid. Photography, like all the arts, is about the creators and the viewers, not the processes as you would have us believe. Photography, no matter what he specific process, style or subject matter, is simply a medium used to create.

Chuck, I'll certainly concede that Henry Peach Robinson didn't do street photography and that "Fading Away" used five negatives. Nonetheless, all of these guys were attempting to portray what they saw as the real world, though, as you say, they attempted through allegory to romanticize it. I've forgotten who said it, and I haven't time at the moment to search for the actual quote, but someone once pointed out with reference to pictorial biblical stories something to the effect that you can dress the girl up and photograph her and call the photograph "Mother Mary," but it's still Miss Simpson from down the street. In the end people laughed at the pretentiousness of "Fading Away." Pictorialism may have been alive for 100 years, but "well?" I don't think so. Paul Strand was beginning to undermine it not long after the turn of the century.

Where did you get the idea that I suggested photography has an altruistic mission? I've never suggested that any particular unselfishness is involved in capturing time in a representation of reality. And where did "processes" come into the discussion?

We do agree on one point: photography is a medium used to create.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #176 on: May 22, 2009, 07:50:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Photography, when limited in certain ways, can be used to document "reality", but that does not mean that what one does with an image must remain within those limits to be called "photography". Where do you draw the line, then? If I burn-in a part of the image by 10% it is photography, but if I go past 10% then it is not photography, but something else? Very little of the images one sees in fashion magazines would qualify as photography by that definition.
Logged

ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #177 on: May 22, 2009, 09:11:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Chuck, I'll certainly concede that Henry Peach Robinson didn't do street photography and that "Fading Away" used five negatives. Nonetheless, all of these guys were attempting to portray what they saw as the real world, though, as you say, they attempted through allegory to romanticize it. I've forgotten who said it, and I haven't time at the moment to search for the actual quote, but someone once pointed out with reference to pictorial biblical stories something to the effect that you can dress the girl up and photograph her and call the photograph "Mother Mary," but it's still Miss Simpson from down the street. In the end people laughed at the pretentiousness of "Fading Away." Pictorialism may have been alive for 100 years, but "well?" I don't think so. Paul Strand was beginning to undermine it not long after the turn of the century.

Where did you get the idea that I suggested photography has an altruistic mission? I've never suggested that any particular unselfishness is involved in capturing time in a representation of reality. And where did "processes" come into the discussion?

We do agree on one point: photography is a medium used to create.

Russ,

While Strand (and Stieglitz) may have tried to undermine pictorialism, it's very much alive and well. Much of contemporary fine-art photography is based on the tenets of pictorialism.

As for early photographers, again, I have to disagree. Many of these folks had little interest in reality. Many were simply illustrating stories they knew either from literature or the Bible. The model may have, in reality, been a neighbor or a nanny or a friend, but in the image they lost their true identity and became who they were portraying. Consider the theatre or the movies. Is it the actual actor we are emotionally involved with, or is it the character?

I did no mean "altruistic" to be literal, but rather to emphasize your assertion (of which I strongly disagree) that photography, since its inception, has had a singular and unwavering mission to, as you put it, "represent the real world" through documentation of the human condition.

As for bringing up "process", given the previous sentence and your earlier statement that landscape photography is a cop out and landscapes are better left to painters, I could only assume that, in your view, photography is less about personal vision and more about mechanics (if you have a camera, you must shoot people). I seriously doubt that is what you really mean (you seem too intelligent to be so myoptic), but it does come across like that.

I don't totally disgree with you on everything, Russ, but do take a bit of offense at some of your assertions.

Regards,
Chuck
Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6200



WWW
« Reply #178 on: May 22, 2009, 11:25:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
Russ,

While Strand (and Stieglitz) may have tried to undermine pictorialism, it's very much alive and well. Much of contemporary fine-art photography is based on the tenets of pictorialism.

As for early photographers, again, I have to disagree. Many of these folks had little interest in reality. Many were simply illustrating stories they knew either from literature or the Bible. The model may have, in reality, been a neighbor or a nanny or a friend, but in the image they lost their true identity and became who they were portraying. Consider the theatre or the movies. Is it the actual actor we are emotionally involved with, or is it the character?

I did no mean "altruistic" to be literal, but rather to emphasize your assertion (of which I strongly disagree) that photography, since its inception, has had a singular and unwavering mission to, as you put it, "represent the real world" through documentation of the human condition.

As for bringing up "process", given the previous sentence and your earlier statement that landscape photography is a cop out and landscapes are better left to painters, I could only assume that, in your view, photography is less about personal vision and more about mechanics (if you have a camera, you must shoot people). I seriously doubt that is what you really mean (you seem too intelligent to be so myoptic), but it does come across like that.

I don't totally disgree with you on everything, Russ, but do take a bit of offense at some of your assertions.

Regards,
Chuck

Chuck – And Jonathan,

Okay. I’ll confess. I’ve deliberately overstated the case, but you can’t really get a discussion going by surrendering to the first argument that comes along. Backing away from excesses, here are some statements that illustrate where I actually stand:

My favorite kind of photography is street photography, and street photography needs to be straight photography.

I think people, and the things they create, are infinitely more interesting than anything else out there.

I do think that landscape is better left to painters, but occasionally I do landscape.

I really, really dislike the kind of pictorialism that was done early in the century, and I agree that much of contemporary fine art photography is based on pictorialism, which is one reason to dislike much of contemporary fine art photography. But I do fine art photography and sell it through local galleries and on the web. I guess I’d have to admit that my fine art photography isn’t contemporary. I occasionally sell street photography, but mostly I sell pictures of dying towns and abandoned farms and mine structures. I’m into wabi sabi in a big way. Is street photography “fine art photography?” If you’re in doubt, walk into a couple of the fine art photography galleries in Santa Fe and look around. I’ll shamefacedly have to admit that my most recent sale is the “landscape” I’ve attached. It’s HDR from 9 exposures.

[attachment=13906:Palatlakaha.jpg]

I absolutely do think that photography is at its best when it represents the real world. But it’s possible to represent the real world in many different ways. There have been some arguments in this thread about whether or not photography captures time. Yes it does. It always does. When Ansel Adams captured “Moonrise Hernandez” his photograph represented the real world. How many of you have seen the real world scene he captured in Moonrise Hernandez? You won't be able to because you can’t turn back time.

Now, let’s look at burning and dodging, Jonathan’s beef. Ansel did a whole lot of burning and dodging for his final print of “Moonrise,” and then he came back later and did a whole lot more burning and dodging for later prints, all somewhat different from the first print. When you snap a picture, the result rarely is what you actually saw. It frequently takes at least some post-processing to reproduce your vision. What Ansel did with his burning and dodging was to emphasize the things that were important to his vision and deemphasize things that were less important so that the important things stand out. I don’t see any problem with that. I do it all the time with layers and masks. But when Gene Smith, most of whose work I greatly admire, dubbed in the tools in the lower right corner of his picture of Albert Schweitzer on the cover of Let Truth be the Prejudice, he went too far. That wasn’t reality. That was an attempt to make a political statement.

On the other hand, though I’m very much against manipulated prints that pretend to represent reality, I’m in favor of the kind of thing Alain’s doing. He doesn’t pretend it’s reality, and it’s something new and often very beautiful. I’d hope to see more of it and I’d hope to see it become an accepted artform.

Cropping sometimes is necessary – usually when something gets in the way and you have to remove it. A reasonable amount of cropping is legitimate when you can’t get close enough to the scene you want, or, say the scene needs to be square and you’re shooting at a 2 x 3 aspect ratio, but most habitual croppers carry cropping to the point where the print falls apart and becomes soft or pixilated. To me the most important reason not to crop is that, as HCB said, if the geometrically correct interplay of proportions isn’t there in what you see through the viewfinder at the moment you trip the shutter, it’s bloody unlikely you’ll be able to recover or create that interplay by cropping. I also think that once you’ve developed your eye, even though you move around for additional shots your first impression of the thing you’re shooting almost always is the right one.

Finally, let’s address the semantic problem that’s been causing all the outrage: If you pick up a brush, dip it in paint, and swipe it across a canvas, what you have is a “painting.” If you pick up a camera, point it at the wall and trip the shutter, what you have is a “photograph.” But I doubt any of us would call that canvas a “painting,” and I doubt any of us would call that file in the camera a “photograph.” (Though you might if you're really into "modern art.) It may be that I’ve pushed my own idea of what’s actually a “photograph” a bit too far in this thread, but I got some pretty interesting responses so I’m not going to apologize.

Best regards to all of you,
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 02:24:52 PM by RSL » Logged

daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


« Reply #179 on: May 22, 2009, 09:48:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
If you pick up a brush, dip it in paint, and swipe it across a canvas, what you have is a “painting.” If you pick up a camera, point it at the wall and trip the shutter, what you have is a “photograph.” But I doubt any of us would call that canvas a “painting,” and I doubt any of us would call that file in the camera a “photograph.”
No offense, but to me that makes no sense whatsoever.

I paint and I photograph. If I pick up my brush, dip it in paint and swipe it across a canvas, I have created a painting. I and my fellow painters would call the canvas a painting. If I pick up my camera, point it at a wall and trip the shutter, the file or film in the camera is a "photograph," and would be called so.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad