Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,920   Posts: 1,522,026   Online: 908
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,041
    Blansky how can you say that Atget the great, the powerful who inspired Friedlander and countless other modern photographers works only because of nostalgia? I never saw the allure of Atget myself either and believe you're right.

    Dominik

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    Go take some street scenes in a surreal medium like black and white and in 100 years someone may think you're incredible too.

    Make sure you blow the exposure, grind some grit into the negative, and print poorly and you're all set.

    In 100 years you're a genius.

    To me there is nothing all that special about the work like Atgets, just that it transports you back to another time. No great trick here.

    Time does it on its own. It's called nostalgia.
    Agreed. Not that I don't like some of the images. But yeah.
    -brian hayden
    http://fed-2.org

  3. #13
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Why do some photographic images have a sense of presence? I am not referring to carefully hand-crafted prints in this question, but images. Take some of Fox Talbots or Atget’s images, which exhibit a wonderful power of presence. They are merely a photomechanical process. So how can such a detached process embody the soul of the creator?
    In the case of portraits, I think it is connection photographer-to-subject, which makes possible a real subject-to-viewer connection. In that case, the subject has presence in the eyes of the person who views the print.

    That connection is entirely separate from all the technical stuff... it is a personal, human, emotional and/or intellectual connection that transcends all the technicals and allows the subject's expression / mannerisms and the photographer's intent to speak for themselves.
    Last edited by keithwms; 02-11-2012 at 11:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  4. #14
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    In the case of portraits, I think it is connection photographer-to-subject, which makes possible a real subject-to-viewer connection. In that case, the subject has presence in the eyes of the person who views the print.

    That connection is entirely separate from all the technical stuff... it is a personal, human, emotional and/or intellectual connection that transcends all the technicals and allows the subject's expression / mannerisms and the photographer's intent to speak for themselves.
    Or the so called connection can be entirely imagined by the viewer, much like celebrity stalkers imagine that when they see movies and pictures of actors they think the actor is talking only to them.

    Much like magazine covers in newstands where the photographer has the model look straight in the camera so the magazine maintains that eye contact with the customer making them feel a connection that really isn't there, but makes them wants to buy the magazine anyway.

    One always has to be careful of which illusions one buys into.

    Some people also imagine that their cats talk to them, when really the cats can't really stand them. Usually for good reason.
    Last edited by blansky; 02-11-2012 at 12:48 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  5. #15
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,092
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    Some people also imagine that their cats talk to them, when really the cats can't really stand them. Usually for good reason.
    So when my cat tells me that she can't stand me does that mean it isn't true? Or am I merely spiritually connecting with the truth?
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  6. #16
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post
    So when my cat tells me that she can't stand me does that mean it isn't true? Or am I merely spiritually connecting with the truth?
    You're just projecting.

    Cats are sinister creatures who spend the days toying with you until they can find a way to open up the food tins on their own. Then they'll just kill you.

    Some may even pretend to like you but most don't bother wasting their time.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  7. #17
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    I used this example when I judged a show a while back. Some photographers (new) like to photograph things to show they were there, they experienced, they found something. (sort of like a dog marks it's territory). A "seeing" photographer shows through a photograph what a place smells like, sounds, what it meat to be there, or be in the presence of the subject.

    I was "called out" for giving a technically fine photo of a bald eagle a red ribbon rather than a blue. I said you may as well shot the eagle with a gun, it was a centered photo of a eagle in flat bright light sitting on a telephone pole. It told me nothing other than you got close to an eagle and wanted to tell the world that you had. I said, show my your passion for the eagle. I don't think he got it.

  8. #18
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,092
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    You're just projecting.
    Drat! That must mean it's my wife who leaves the love notes.

    Now I'll have to buy her a Valentine's day card.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  9. #19
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Why do some photographic images have a sense of presence? I am not referring to carefully hand-crafted prints in this question, but images. Take some of Fox Talbots or Atget’s images, which exhibit a wonderful power of presence. They are merely a photomechanical process. So how can such a detached process embody the soul of the creator?
    No photographic image has a sense of presence, rather it has technical qualities that interrogate the sensitivities of the viewer. Long experience with photographic exhibitions incline me to think that the majority of viewers leave with the same preconceptions, preferences, and prejudices that they came in with. If a picture tweaks something in a viewer that viewer will say the picture has presence, is cool, waxes sublime, etc, etc. Some people see nothing, say nothing.

    As for the detachment of the photographic process from the soul of the photographer I think it is more a case of someone with such-and-such a psychological make up inevitably produces pictures with a such-and-such appearance. Tracing the connection between the two is both fascinating and rewarding and underlies much of the appreciation of art in general.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  10. #20
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    No photographic image has a sense of presence, rather it has technical qualities that interrogate the sensitivities of the viewer. Long experience with photographic exhibitions incline me to think that the majority of viewers leave with the same preconceptions, preferences, and prejudices that they came in with. If a picture tweaks something in a viewer that viewer will say the picture has presence, is cool, waxes sublime, etc, etc. Some people see nothing, say nothing.

    As for the detachment of the photographic process from the soul of the photographer I think it is more a case of someone with such-and-such a psychological make up inevitably produces pictures with a such-and-such appearance. Tracing the connection between the two is both fascinating and rewarding and underlies much of the appreciation of art in general.
    I think you nailed it.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin