Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,688   Posts: 1,548,697   Online: 1186
      
Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 172
  1. #121

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    One of my photography teachers always stressed that "impact" was created by taking an ordinary thing in an "unordinary" manner.

    Michael
    What precisely do you mean by impact and why does a photograph have to have it? (to me, "impact" implies something forceful, loud, a collision - between the viewer and the picture perhaps? - a strong effect, arresting, almost violent.)

    Because for me the power of a photograph comes not from its impact - which seems generally an immediate thing (I suppose you can have low impact, or even a slow motion impact I guess, but those terms qualify the word down to almost nothing), but rather from the discontinuity and inherent ambiguity to be found in a photograph. It is there that things are reveled, that the "magic" is to be found, where something is revealed. This can be an immediate thing, or it can be a slow, gradual thing - but to me, it's not the same as "impact"

  2. #122
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by tim atherton
    What precisely do you mean by impact and why does a photograph have to have it? (to me, "impact" implies something forceful, loud, a collision - between the viewer and the picture perhaps? - a strong effect, arresting, almost violent.)

    Because for me the power of a photograph comes not from its impact - which seems generally an immediate thing (I suppose you can have low impact, or even a slow motion impact I guess, but those terms qualify the word down to almost nothing), but rather from the discontinuity and inherent ambiguity to be found in a photograph. It is there that things are reveled, that the "magic" is to be found, where something is revealed. This can be an immediate thing, or it can be a slow, gradual thing - but to me, it's not the same as "impact"
    In my opinion and probably that of the teacher I had, the "impact" is what drew me to a particular picture instead of moving on.

    Granted some photographs have impact by hitting you in the face and others have impact( at least to me) by their confident silence, but in all the cases of pictures that "speak to me", they have that something that pulls me in. Even if it is a quiet nuanced seduction.

    I am never very impressed with "access" pictures where someone has access to a place I can't go nor am I very impressed with grab shot type stuff where an image is snagged.(not to be confused with stalked)

    The picture in question offers me nothing and even as a slice of life picture to me fails.

    You speak of the ambiguity, and slow revelation but I'm a little wishy washy on that one. I think that is just a case of the viewer adding personal things to the image that are not there.

    If that makes it interesting to you, fair enough, but not to me.

    It's like if I took a picture of a can of spam. Artsy types could come up with all sorts of personal foolishness about, it's an attempt to show we need to feed the hungry of the world, or it's a case of the protetariot's ingenuity, or it's just sooooo campy and 1950s, or it's an indictment of the state of the computer industry today, or it's a slice of life or 100 other things but all I had in mind was a picture of a can of spam.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  3. #123

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    127
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    It's like if I took a picture of a can of spam. Artsy types could come up with all sorts of personal foolishness about, it's an attempt to show we need to feed the hungry of the world, or it's a case of the protetariot's ingenuity, or it's just sooooo campy and 1950s, or it's an indictment of the state of the computer industry today, or it's a slice of life or 100 other things but all I had in mind was a picture of a can of spam.


    Michael
    of course, you'd have to print it at 50x60" :^) (unless you contact printed it in platinum)

  4. #124

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    You speak of the ambiguity, and slow revelation but I'm a little wishy washy on that one. I think that is just a case of the viewer adding personal things to the image that are not there.

    If that makes it interesting to you, fair enough, but not to me.


    Michael
    Oh - I think it's more than that - it's part of the essential nature of almost any meaningful photograph

    It's like if I took a picture of a can of spam. Artsy types could come up with all sorts of personal foolishness about, it's an attempt to show we need to feed the hungry of the world, or it's a case of the protetariot's ingenuity, or it's just sooooo campy and 1950s, or it's an indictment of the state of the computer industry today, or it's a slice of life or 100 other things but all I had in mind was a picture of a can of spam.

    or maybe a pepper... :-)

  5. #125

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    Cate, I'm not sure if you were aware when this thread started whose work, the picture in question belonged to, so I don't know if you are adding in elements or emotions to the picture that are not there for me.
    No, I didn't know who the photographer was, and I still haven't looked at any more of his work. I'm familiar with Eggleston's work, and maybe it reminded me of that, though it seems different (gentler? - kind of). So I didn't 'add in' anything apart from what I felt when I looked at the picture.
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    That being said, we live in different environments, with different life experience, but if you can, would you tell me, or try to analyze for me what in the picture, disturbs, implies danger, or what is it that leads to the conclusions you have described.

    I'm truly interested.
    In fact, I find it quite hard to explain, because it's not immediately an intellectual thing, but quite a visceral thing. But it's about how meaning is conveyed through imagery, (to me anyway), I'll TRY to put it into words....

    First, there's the fairly ordinary-looking suburban-looking house, nothing particularly amiss - but then you look again and it seems as if some of the windows may be boarded up, it's hard to tell. The sills look a bit wrecked. It's a bit distant, and I feel I can't work out what's going on there. It's very different from the house you posted, which seemed to have everything in it's place, very "there" and readable. I know this was an illusion, given the context, but that's not the point at the moment.

    There's something about the surroundings that's unsettling, I can't quite place them (this could be cultural). The grass looks neat in places, but then it becomes on the the edge of wildness. The road, also, is not neat and well maintained, it's little more than a rough track. Again, the roads seem to be great swathes through everything, or rather very much a part of the picture, possibly taking you places (where?) possibly cutting you off from something (the houses?). Taking precedence over the houses. This reminds me very much of Eggleston - that child beside the highway...(if I'm remembering rightly). It seems no accident there's a sign-post and an intersection, quite central to the photograph.

    It seems there are lots of questions - about belonging, about stability ........those cars tucked into the bank I find oddly threatening...(who do they belong to? Why isn't the red car parked in the driveway?) I wouldn't like to go and explore that house, there's something about it, it's not as it first seems...

    But I didn't "think" all this, I just felt a kind of disquiet (or just questioning?) creep in as I was looking at it. I find it an interesting image, in fact. But you have to look at it, give it time, lose yourself in it a bit. Not take it at face value. If you do give it time, maybe your story would be a different one...

    Now if anyone says that's a load of c***p after I've tried hard to express verbally something quite emotionally-felt I'll be really p***** off.
    Cate

  6. #126
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargazer
    No, I didn't know who the photographer was, and I still haven't looked at any more of his work. I'm familiar with Eggleston's work, and maybe it reminded me of that, though it seems different (gentler? - kind of). So I didn't 'add in' anything apart from what I felt when I looked at the picture.


    In fact, I find it quite hard to explain, because it's not immediately an intellectual thing, but quite a visceral thing. But it's about how meaning is conveyed through imagery, (to me anyway), I'll TRY to put it into words....

    First, there's the fairly ordinary-looking suburban-looking house, nothing particularly amiss - but then you look again and it seems as if some of the windows may be boarded up, it's hard to tell. The sills look a bit wrecked. It's a bit distant, and I feel I can't work out what's going on there. It's very different from the house you posted, which seemed to have everything in it's place, very "there" and readable. I know this was an illusion, given the context, but that's not the point at the moment.

    There's something about the surroundings that's unsettling, I can't quite place them (this could be cultural). The grass looks neat in places, but then it becomes on the the edge of wildness. The road, also, is not neat and well maintained, it's little more than a rough track. Again, the roads seem to be great swathes through everything, or rather very much a part of the picture, possibly taking you places (where?) possibly cutting you off from something (the houses?). Taking precedence over the houses. This reminds me very much of Eggleston - that child beside the highway...(if I'm remembering rightly). It seems no accident there's a sign-post and an intersection, quite central to the photograph.

    It seems there are lots of questions - about belonging, about stability ........those cars tucked into the bank I find oddly threatening...(who do they belong to? Why isn't the red car parked in the driveway?) I wouldn't like to go and explore that house, there's something about it, it's not as it first seems...

    But I didn't "think" all this, I just felt a kind of disquiet (or just questioning?) creep in as I was looking at it. I find it an interesting image, in fact. But you have to look at it, give it time, lose yourself in it a bit. Not take it at face value. If you do give it time, maybe your story would be a different one...

    Now if anyone says that's a load of c***p after I've tried hard to express verbally something quite emotionally-felt I'll be really p***** off.
    Cate
    That's what makes a horse race.

    I watch Midsomer Murders every Sunday, and what I find sinister or ominous is those night scenes in the rain of those quiet country lanes leading up to those dark old mansions and cottages. Creepy.

    Suburbia and this picture don't even hit my radar.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  7. #127
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by tim atherton
    or maybe a pepper... :-)
    Show me a can of spam in a way I never saw it before, like Edward showed me his pepper, and you've got something, IMO. Otherwise its a can of spam, or a pepper, or some cars parked on a street. Content is irrelevant. Show me something.

  8. #128
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by mhv
    JBrunner, I must admit that you have made me aware of my fondness for these collages of faded crappy house shots. If you live in the country, it's always a bit sad to see the houses for sale, because they are hardly glamorous, and the pictures are badly taken, usually overexposed etc.

    But like the Shore photo, I don't think I would have any fascination for such photos taken in isolation. I find that the one that was singled out at the beginning of this thread to be of little interest. Some photos work as part of a series/reportage, some photos work as a standalone object. There has been much debates about the serial/standalone issue in photo, given that the serial makes you closer to cinema. Still, I like Shore, and I find his best pieces stand alone.
    You should take a closer look at it
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails land.jpg  

  9. #129

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    306
    Images
    26
    [QUOTE=And even more so, I've never come across any of the above who have ever managed to make money of their "snapshots' either (not that that's the only criteria, but it's a good one to start off with..)[/QUOTE]

    Making money has very little to do with Art. And having success selling uninspired mediocre dribble has much less to do with Art than it does with good marketing, promotion and connection. To each his own, but talking up a good intellectual argument for a book of snapshots doesn't make it anything more than a book of snapshots.
    Focusing on the cash ususally leads to compromise.
    Don Sigl
    www.drs-fineartphoto.com

  10. #130

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shenadoah Valley
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    342
    Images
    4
    [QUOTE=David A. Goldfarb]I think that part of the meaning of the image comes from the fact that it is profoundly undramatic, non-heroic, and anti-Romantic. Shooting at the golden hour would work against that aspect.



    i think this is what the image is about to me. you dont have to shoot some super dramatic ripping red sunset to evoke meaning with images. this image is not about drama, super composition or color enhancing filters in fact quite the opposite. its profoundly undramatic, well put.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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