Nicole: “IMO everyone sees photography through their own eyes”. It is pure lack of education about photography. Can every doctor see medicine (or treatment) through his own eye, or can every engineer see a car design through his own eye? NO. Why photography is anarchy?
Brewer: “photography can lie” I would rather say a photographer use photography to lie. As one guy said “my grandfather somehow managed to have a hat on his head on just any photograph of him. However he was bold and no photograph says it.” How about his liver or stone in kidney. They are not visible also, so a photograph lie. There are some part of truth in photography that photographers twists all the time to suit personal need. To get into the very source of that “true” get Janson’s “history of art” (not 7th ed, but prior that) and find it there (there is a very important word in that definition omitted by many photographers).
Cheryl: “Manipulation can be simply choosing to omit context or create an illusion, to show what they want to be believed rather than what is”
This kind of work is one segment of portrait photography and I would hesitate to call manipulation unless it is clear that photographer “manipulate”. And I said once manipulation is so far not a complimentary word (in this contaxt), unless it means manipulate (operate) a tractor,…
There so many very different fields in people portrait photography and everyone hook around his own work thinking it is the only way. How portrait will be approached depend of so many factors (time, weather, place, age, physical condition of a portrayed person,… , what camera or lens is in the hand, what photographer want, why portret is about to be made,……..).
To read more about portrait photography (sorry no yet examples, but thext is very clear and short)
I hope the link works
'Do you all consciously avoid landscape work? Why?Do you feel it's boring? Or is the way that landscape caught on film not the way you work or see?
Edward Weston/Paul Strand/Steiglitz/Stichen did both , Adams did some portraiture. Could you think of a photographer that is as known for his portraiture as he is for his landscapes today?'................
..............I don't know who you're question is aimed for, I'll answer from my perspective, I love landscape photography, any photography that's good technically, or inspirational, or thought provoking, or lyrical, or beautiful, I'm not into isms, or 'pidgeonholing' work into a bag, there's just good work and bad work to me.
In terms of your question, I don't think of who was doing it 'then' as opposed to whose doing both 'today', I consider it all, all together. Edward Weston and Steichen did 'em both, magnificently, so Alivin Langdon Coburn,............ I have no wish for flames, but I'm going to say what I honestly think and that is that I respect Adams for his landscapes but I don't think he could shoot portraits a 'lick'.
Since you brought it up, I'll upload a shot of mine, in juxtaposition to my portrait work, shot at Pismo Beach, which is the type of shot I also enjoy,...............what I find arduous about shooting outside/landscape/scenics is the lack of control you have over the elements, not the subject matter, where as I can go to my studio and shoot whatever I want to shoot, whenever I please.
Daniel, call me Jonathan if it's ok with you, I agree with you, but I think a photograph can also lie without meaning to, ...............and the fact that we think differently and shoot differently as I've said above is a good thing.
I believe that once you get handle on something, some style, some technique, you better yourself by getting into something else, and trying to learn that, I believe it's a trap to get caught up in doing what you do best, after enough portraits, I like going outside, after shooting enough b&w, I want to go out and shoot infrared, after that, some polaroids, after that some color, I feel like I re-energize myself that way.
Ilya, no, not really. I would be compelled to enjoy the scene, and I would store it in my head, so to speak, but would not feel compelled to photograph it. That's where Bob and I are different. He began as a landscape shooter and has learned how to apply those skills to people photography; I don't have any desire or currently any ability to bond with a cactus. LOL.
Originally Posted by ilya1963
I do love to shoot still life, mostly because it's a reflection on people, i.e. what they leave lying around.
The gallery work and prints I have sold have all been of a portrait nature, with the sitter being a totally un-famous person. If the portrait possesses soul and depth, it can reach far beyond the parents or friends of the sitter.
The collision, collusion, collaboration, and destruction of the ultimately-restrictive portrait, landscape, and wildlife genres are principle reasons anyone should do steet photography.
Last edited by bjorke; 01-30-2007 at 06:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Yes sir, we've made a full circle and are back to where this thread has started ....WOW
It is all one is it!!!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Ilya, you've raised some good points. I do enjoy landscape photography - although I'm dreadful getting out of bed for a sunrise! On my website I have landscape photos in colour and in B&W. I prefer them in colour mostly, because nature and it's colours IMO are spectacular. But... I need to have some form of human element to my landscape work = in the "third person", otherwise it just doesn't work for me.
Daniel, you do not know me. Your judgement and insult is unwelcome, especially in a public online forum. I advise you to be careful with your words.
Originally Posted by Daniel_OB
Cheryl, Nicol, Jonathan,Bjorke, Scott, Sanders,Cate and the company, thank you for the chat it's been a pleasure...ILYA
Originally Posted by Jonathan Brewer
Not in the least Jonathan
The reason I backed off from the discussion was my thoughts and ideas tend to go into overdrive, and I simply don't have time to keep responding.
Also, I do find discussion on forums can be frustrating and a bit like wading through porridge, though this is no reflection on anyone else in the least, but to do with confusions that can arise and I think to do with the medium.