Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,902   Posts: 1,521,179   Online: 1157
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 59
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by DannL
    Thanks for the plug, I appreciate all the free advertising I can get. But I don't recall writing on the subject of burning-in and dodging. It must have been "my other self". Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is the downside of being famous. You are accused of saying and doing some fairly fantastical things. But that's cool. I'll just have to sleep on it and then deal with it in the morning. LOL
    That's not what you said exactly, but you mentioned something about straight photography, that I thought that had to do with the techinique.

    What did you mean in your second post?

    Artists very rarely paint the truth, and most artists know it. It's nearly impossible to find artist that doesn't take liberties with their subject. Removing a wrinkle here, a blemish there, a scare from there, add a wonderful backdrop there and some clouds there, fix that shadow. In fact I think "straight photography" is the best anyone can do to represent the truth. Normally I would say "whatever" when confronted with the apples/oranges chicken/egg thing. But it's still fun to talk about it. With regard to Giovanni, I trust he painted to please his benefactor and not the painter, as do most artists.

    Alright, give me some free advertising, too.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by digiconvert
    As to my original question I still believe that a photograph needs some interpretation by the person taking the image, even if it is one made with a 2Mp camera 'phone (yes I do do that for my snapshots). However I think that the attitude of 'shoot more and keep less' is slowly erroding that ideal, I just feel worried that on my College course the attitude is very prevelant and that some of those who find it harder than I do would have benefited from some 'short term pain long term gain' teaching of the basics with fully manual film cameras. That said the pressure to produce good work quickly may well have turned them off photography for good.
    You should travel abroad with a camera and ask the same question you're asking yourself right now. That might give you a hint.

    Having a camera is a privilege in life, and understanding how to use it for your vision is not so easily achived by many people out there. No matter how many digital cameras and camera phones they consume, I have a strong feeling that this won't change so soon.

  3. #43
    digiconvert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cannock UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    809
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by firecracker
    You should travel abroad with a camera and ask the same question you're asking yourself right now. That might give you a hint.

    Having a camera is a privilege in life, ..............
    WOW that put me back in my box :o . Thanks for that perspective, here's me with the UNICEF subscription, Fairtrade coffee in the kitchen etc. etc. and I'm whining on because my photos are not perfect and the world's going to hell in a handcart with the onset of digital. Thank whichever God you are comfortable with that we can worry about such things and not about where the food is coming from !

    THANK YOU Firecracker

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by digiconvert
    WOW that put me back in my box :o . Thanks for that perspective, here's me with the UNICEF subscription, Fairtrade coffee in the kitchen etc. etc. and I'm whining on because my photos are not perfect and the world's going to hell in a handcart with the onset of digital. Thank whichever God you are comfortable with that we can worry about such things and not about where the food is coming from !

    THANK YOU Firecracker
    Just to be able to use film is a real privilege. I'm serious.

    And no god is on my side.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by firecracker
    What did you mean in your second post?

    Artists very rarely paint the truth, and most artists know it. It's nearly impossible to find artist that doesn't take liberties with their subject. Removing a wrinkle here, a blemish there, a scare from there, add a wonderful backdrop there and some clouds there, fix that shadow. In fact I think "straight photography" is the best anyone can do to represent the truth. Normally I would say "whatever" when confronted with the apples/oranges chicken/egg thing. But it's still fun to talk about it. With regard to Giovanni, I trust he painted to please his benefactor and not the painter, as do most artists.

    Alright, give me some free advertising, too.
    Not a problem. I will be glad to assist in any way I can. LOL! Please take everything I say “with a grain of salt”.

    I can appreciate the work that went into creating any specific work. Whether it is a painting or a photograph or whatever form it takes. I also understand the labor on the part of an artist and/or photographer to create a work that will "appeal" to it's intended audience. That aside, I prefer the journalistic approach to photography. Maybe that is not the best word for it, and somewhat ambiguous. But, for me a photograph "can be made" as an honest record of a specific moment in time. I feel paintings on the other hand are an artists interpretation of a specific subject. Their labor is filtered through their training, education, likes, dislikes, feelings, emotions, etc. I should know, having been raised by an artist and dabbling in that field.

    Here's a tough one to get to . . . I believe Harry Mellon Rhoads was a good example of a straight shooter. Try the following link below, and you should have access to 2500 photos of what I'd consider "good honest straight photography shot from the hip". Even his "canned photography" is quite truthful.

    Go to http://photoswest.org and hit SEARCH menu item on the left side. Then click the CONTINUE in the middle of the next page. On the search page type in "Harry Mellon Rhoads" on the search line and hit the SEARCH button . . .

    Hey, how many more posts do I need to get my free APUG tote-bag? I don't think I can keep up this pace much longer. LOL!

  6. #46
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,197
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    Looking at the Harry Mellon Rhoads photos, his work looks like primarily newspaper journalism. While he may have striven to impart some of his own personality into the photos he took, I would argue that they are "artless". This is not to pass judgement on their quality or their historic importance. They are also very much artifacts of their time in the posing, costuming and framing of the images.

    I wouldn't place any greater (or lesser) value on these photos because they are "straight" than I would on Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother (which IS manipulated- she removed the mother's hand from the lower corner of the image for the sake of composition), or a Jerry Uelsmann photo which is heavily manipulated. Both Dorothea Lange and Jerry Uelsmann tell a particular truth using their photographs, even if it isn't the "truth" you're expecting. In the Dorothea Lange case, it is an intentional emotional manipulation through the physical manipulation of the image, to get to a greater emotional truth about the dust bowl. In the Jerry Uelsmann case, he is manipulating his images to show you an internal truth, the specific quirks of his vision of the world.

    Nobody gets a free Apug tote bag. You have to shoot one

  7. #47
    MurrayMinchin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Coast, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,195
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    Where to start? You know, when I graduated from photography school we all thought anyone using one of those new fangled cameras with a built-in meter was cheating and didn't know anything about photography.

    Then came auto-focus and I almost gave up on photography as a being a serious image making medium because now you had people who couldn't be bothered to actually learn how to focus a camera making photos.

    You're ranting about digital? Haaaaahhhh. Sorry, the slipperly slope's already been passed.

    Talk about a "cop out for lazy" to quote a previous post = auto metering with auto focus.

    The problem with the attitude is that it doesn't matter when it comes to the final image. I use auto focus cameras plus auto metering for a number of different applications and I'm damn glad it's available.

    Digital does not make you lazy unless you're inherently lazy to begin with. The fallacies ascribed to digital photography speak more about the person making the claim than the medium itself.

    Working digitally is as challenging as working with film when you pursue it to the fullest extent. If you don't, it's no different than working with film and dropping your film off at the nearest photo processing lab, then coming back to pick up the prints.

    Wow, that's REAL photography all righty because you're using F.I.L.M.

    Really, just how difficult is it to make a print? I can teach anyone to properly expose a print, and how to process it in less than 1 hour. Dipping a print through 3 chemicals and washing it is not the pinnacle of difficulty.

    Can I teach a person to see a unique image? No. Can I teach a person to make an expressive print of an image? No. That holds true whether it is done with film or digitally.

    Sour grapes? Just sounds like you're resentful. Do you feel you're in competition with this person for some reason?

    At a personal level, photography is a lot like golf. The only person you're playing against is yourself regardless of the golf course. If I were you, I'd quit worrying about what other people do and how they do it; and just try to make the best images you can.
    Well now, that was worth reading again! I don't know though Steve...if you keep up this blistering pace of two posts a day you just might hit 1000 by 2008

    Murray
    _________________________________________
    Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by DannL
    But, for me a photograph "can be made" as an honest record of a specific moment in time. I feel paintings on the other hand are an artists interpretation of a specific subject. Their labor is filtered through their training, education, likes, dislikes, feelings, emotions, etc. I should know, having been raised by an artist and dabbling in that field.
    So, you mean artists' interpretations of specific subjects are not nearly as honest as the honest records of specific times created by photographs?

    I think it's not the medium they use, but how they express their experiences. But just by looking at someone's photographs without reading any text, I cannot examine how honestly they are taken. I can only guess and/or hope they are, though.

    About Harry Mellon Rhoads photos, I'm led to think that having the persons pose in front of a camera in 1910 must have been quite a labor for the photographer as well as the subjects. Those indoor shots are nice, but I wonder how still the those subjects had to be. And making photographic prints from that, may have been...

    To me, printing photographs on paper is much like painting images on canvas as I work on the same negs and subjects repeatedly. I actually started darkroom photography with drawing and oil painting at the same time back in college. I had almost no prior skill or traning in any of them at that time, so it was a fresh start for me, and I learned what you mean by the labors that are required to do in the process.

    Anyway thanks for your response and the link for the photographs. I enjoyed them very much.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    284
    Whether it is a digital capture device in my hand or a 4x5 in a box at my feet I still see the same photograph in my minds eye before looking through a view finder or at groundglass...

    A photograph is what I see in that moment before the camera equipment is even a part of the equation. When my eye see's something and my mind thinks "that would make a great photo!", after seeing that photograph in my minds eye I then know what focal length I need for the idea, what emulsion would be best or if it might be more appropriate to work digitally..

    I make the same photographs no matter what system I use. My mind generally is interested in seeing the same things as photographs whether I have a 4x10 pinhole camera with me, a plastic holga, a 35mm camera, a 4x5 monorail or no camera at all!

    If the fellow mentioned in the first post of this thread saw a different sky with the foreground what is wrong with that?

    BUT what's the point in shooting a scene then making it better with part of another scene.

    The point is they can make a photograph exactly how it was invisioned by them. I believe this is called photography whether it is more than one photograph or not.. it was still created with photographs. Surely you arent proposing that we NOT make our photographs (what we invision them to be) better if we could!

    I need to have thought about it, considered the exposure, differential focus, metering etc. etc.

    Does this mean to imply the photographer who spent about 4 hours working on making a convincing print with a sky from a seperate photograph didnt have thought about the work he was creating?
    "Where is beauty? Where I must will with my whole Will; where I will love and perish, that an image may not remain merely an image."

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    726
    There seems to be a tendency amongst some contributors to imply that if a photograph does not depict reality, it cannot be art. Art can, but actually seldom does depict reality and as someone else said photomontage is hardly new. I have been putting different skies on pictures for decades, because I thought they looked better, whilst most of us use dark room manipulation to some degree. To say that making changes in either the darkroom or a computer stops a picture being art is about as logical as saying that putting paint on canvas stops it being art.

    It is true that a lot of digi users use even very advanced cameras as point and shoots, with auto everything, but so do many users of modern film cameras. I only use digital cameras rarely, but when I do, I use them like my old manual film cameras, with all the automation switched off, and take much the same pictorial approach. I hate the fact that I don't have a depth of field scale, because this is something I normally use all the time, but then, few AF film cameras have them these days, which is why I tend to use 1970's/80's cameras.

    I use film because I prefer it, but I have never thought that being pro analogue means that I have to be anti digital, or deny it the possibility of it rising to art. If I liked using oil paints, I wouldn't feel that water colours couldn't be art. They just wouldn't be my art.

    David.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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