That last one was a doozy (it was also DIGITAL she didn't have to record anything, it's all in the metadata... Lol).
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
But I found it strange that her "4 most famous photographs" didn't include any of the ones I know her for....maybe the Demi Moore one but I mean definitely didn't include the John Lennon one... I know everyone already knows about it, but it's certainly more famous than the rest...
Thanks for sharing, I read the whole thing.
That's true. It is 95% about technique anyway.
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
For many photographers, especially for those who consider what they do art, there is already this feeling that they need to work against the idea that photography is just a technical exercise. It's a bias or perceived bias that has lessened over the years but hasn't completely gone away. Artists in other media get this too and you won't find too many books put out by painters who go into much detail about process. Unfairly or not in the art world it seems amateurish. Ever go to a lecture by an established fine art photographer? There always seems to be one person in the audience who asks about cameras or film or something and you'll hear a collective grown go through the audience. There are just bigger questions to ask and to think about. The stakes should be higher. Sunday painters talk about brushes. Serious artists keep that talk amongst peers.
Most readers are not interested in that detail.
Last edited by cliveh; 11-22-2013 at 02:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
Several folks have made a reply similar to the one above.
Because most people reading those books don't care a bit, and in the end it adds absolutely no value for most readers.
I think, however, that there is more to it than that. Having been around a few really talented professional photographers, it seems to me that many of them (all?) just simply don't think it that important. I think all of them have worked with the same (relatively small number of) materials for so long that they can make the materials do whatever they want...they can achieve whatever 'look' they want/need using their chosen materials.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
That last sentence is the key....
Originally Posted by erikg
Where are my peers??? LOL
Should I considered a compliment when people I think are amazing and above me actually tell me their secrets?
Maybe so! I've found that many artists don't mind talking about process and often really enjoy it but don't want to be that public with it for all sorts of reasons. Like actors not talking about their stagecraft they like to keep the illusion that what they do is effortless.
You reckon you're frustrated, well I'm driven to the point of anguish when looking at most photo-books by not knowing what is being offered to my gaze.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Ok, I can see the page in the book bears a picture and it is probably a print made by web offset photo-lithography like much of high end printing these days. But the burning question for me remains "What does the picture in the book illustrate?"
Sometimes the picture in the book IS the final work itself. The photogravures in Alfred Stiezlitz's Camera Work periodical are artworks in their own right and that's why many have been cut out, auctioned , and framed. The same goes for pages out of Ansel Adams' Parmelian Prints of the High Sierras.
Sometimes the picture in the photo-book is an illustration of a physical photograph that exists somewhere. I'd love to know "what medium on what substrate", how big is it (in long measure not pixels!), who made it, how was it made, when was it made, does it have a signature or other annotations? I've looked at thousands of photographs over several decades and I know well the frisson that goes with being in the presence of a great photograph. I wish the photo-book would give me enough clues so I could recreate a parallel experience in my imagination.
Sometimes the picture in the photo-book is a "print-out" of an electronic file that does not have (never did have?) a descriptive relationship to something with physical existence. I'm thinking of negative scans recalculated as positives, stitches, HDR's, and all the other electronic chicanery. Do I accept the picture in the photo-book as the artwork itself, a la Camera Work, or do I dismiss it as "never existed, didn't happen, never looked like this" and move on to something with physical provenance? I do wish the photo-book would be explicit about this so I don't feel soiled by accidentally and momentarily selling my soul for a swarm of pixels.
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.
I know Ansel Adams considered the technical aspect- f/stop and time, merely chatter. Including the technical "chatter" really provides no useful information if the reader is unable to reference the levels or some other variable. In his book Examples, for instance, he includes the approximate values and placements. That will help a photographer in their growth more than just knowing what aperture and shutter speed.
That's one of the reassons people find his teaching so approachable, even 30 years after his passing.