Hmmm...interesting, the "Beer Goggles" theory applied to creative photography. I think there might be book in that :DQuote:
Originally Posted by blansky
Seriously, I think that you have an excellent point there. I'm thinking of people that I know who have visited the Grand Canyon and, overcome by the spectacular vista, the depth, the color, the breathtaking scale, they shoot dozens of frames sure that every one will certainly be a masterpiece. When they get their 4x6's back, they are inevitably disappointed. The prints just don't convey their experience of standing in front of the real thing (must be the damned lab's fault).
Speaking of "fecetiousness" one of my favorite expressions that's often misused is a variation of "taking something with a grain of salt."
In contemporary parlance the phrase has no meaning. What do condiments and dubiousness have in common?
The original expression was "dose of salts" which referred to taking a laxative.
So when I suggest that others take my advice with a dose of salts you can be assured that I, not they, may be full of it.
My theory is that as with all artists you have to be emotionally involved with your subject in order to create great images. Technique is a necessary precursor; but you can't say today I'll shoot architecture, tomorrow nudes & day after natural lnadscapes, and expect to create something that grabs you. Tourists create mementos whereas the great work is created by those who live in & deeply respond to the beauty of an area.
Ansel Adams, Clyde Butcher, etc. create inspiring images of their areas; but with few exceptions create only good technical pictures of areas they visit. Weston created thousands of portraits, but they don't inspire. Reading his biography one realizes that even his pepper series evolved from his interest in food & health.
So, find a subject that grabs you, inspires you; then your images may do the same.
That's what's called editing, isn't it? Sorting out the very few good ones from the rest... Being critical to ones own work, sorting out what's working and not working immediately, then revisiting later with new perspectives. Or revisiting and re-discovering "crap" as being part of a theme, a body of work.Quote:
Originally Posted by ader
I find myself these days printing negatives 2-5 years old, negatives that I did not find interessting at first glance, but are rediscovering in a new context. I am doing a streetphoto portfolio with exhibition in mind.
What I do with the rest of the "crap"? Contacts of course. And then filing archivaly and maintaining a database. The crappy ones I am emotionally attached to - kids & family - travels - holidays - are printed as workprints on RC paper. As archival as RC can be, stored in print-books.
That is exactly as it should be. If doorknobs fascinate you, for heavens sake, take photographs of doorknobs. Or clouds, or ...Quote:
Originally Posted by doughowk
I once saw a wonderful book based on an unusual theme, "Outhouses"; another on *wonderful* graffitti in the Greenwich Village area of New York....
With all respect for our individual "pre-dispositions" ... I AM inspired with many of Edward Westons portraits... case in point would be "Galvan Shooting, 1924"; there are MANY of Tina Modotti (aside from the Azotea nudes) - protraits of a beautiful, emotional, expressive woman; "Nahui Olin, 1925".... so many more.
Possibly I am just weird ... I've been accused of that before ... but I experience a great deal of "emotional involvement" from the work of Ansel Adams.
Interesting ... Steiglitz was once asked about his fascination with clouds ... so many images produced on Kodak Postcard stock. "Why do you photograph clouds? What do you `see' in them?", he was asked.
His answer: "Naked women."
Are you implying that naked women make us see cloudy? maybe it's not my lenses fault afterall for my images being out of focus.
LOL, ED, I just found an old doorknob that had been taken from my girlfriend's house and photographed it :)
Originally Posted by Thomassauerwein