rules are made to be broken? and others...
Originally Posted by eydryan
a picture is an isolated moment in time, and time usually has the habit of being boring in 9/10 cases.
This is why you have to choose your moment. You can go with HCB's 'decisive moment' but I much prefer Les Krims' 'indecisive moment' as there are more of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eydryan
if a picture is not at least somewhat impressive at first glance, it does not (usually) get the second chance. that is of course as always fmpov
This just highlights what I was saying about having a closed mind. If you have a set idea about what is impressive then you only look at pictures that match your idea instead of looking at each photo on it's own terms. In effect, you are pre-judging a picture before you look at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eydryan
problem with opening your mind is that you are very frustrated to get it right. you know that you have one shot, film costs a lot of dough to regular joe, especially when prices are same as in the us or whatnot and salaries quite aren't... and therefore you think so that that picture will be technically perfect, to comply with all rules and break them at the same time. and naturally, when it comes to stress art cannot flow, which in turn brings more stress and so on. it is true that from time to time you have to rethink your attitude to escape from any such circles of doom :D
The first step is to stop thinking about the cost of the film. Sounds difficult to do but it just takes discipline. Once you have bought the film then it is paid for. Once you have used it all, then it is gone. You work within those boundaries.
The second is to stop thinking that there are rules to follow or to break. This is a fallacy. There are only three unbreakable rules in Photography and none of them have anything to do with composition. You do whatever you have to to get the shot you want - and what you want comes from your reaction to what you are photographing.
But I think we have hi-jacked this thread long enough. If you would like to continue this discussion then please feel free to re-start it in the Photographic Discussion Forum ;)
and so i did. my reply lower.
Interesting none the less.
of course, there is no coffee in the house. well, that leaves me to choose between milk and a fine assortment of alcoholic drinks. i'll do the bad thing. milk, it is:D
all right, let's debate:D
first, about the history, i have seen from experience that what you learn from a teacher is invaluably better than what you learn by yourself. the learning is easier and fits better in. as for books i usually get them from the british council but they don't really have that many really worth it books, only a few (from about 20-30 just 5-6 are really interesting). i'll search for those books too but i doubt i'll find them... :(
i know that photography teaches you how to see, or is it the other way around? :D well they're interlinked, so if you learn how to see life, you learn how to make photos.
hehe, fine art photography. now that's a goal. but who knows what they really want? i know i don't...
when i go out loaded with cameras and junk i always have a little problem: i sense the scenes, i can even touvch them in my mind, but i can't unlock them. it's as if i went blind all of a sudden when i know i want to takde the photos. you're right too about ignoring the photograpphy and concentrating on the rest but if i do that i'll really end up with no photos :D ever :D
i know that photography is one of the finer arts and like any art it must be made with real liife and real soul, but i just can't seem to enjoy life in the past year. it's all just gray to me. even in the best of times something is missing. and that just doesn't let me see what i should. i just go out there and i start to piece up a puzzle but it only reveals itself when i'm doing something else with no intention of shooting. and then it goes away again... a photographer's block i'd say, but it lasts for quite some time now... :(
There are two kinds of light--the glow that illuminates, and the glare that obscures.
- James Thurber (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/James_Thurber)
"hehe, fine art photography. now that's a goal. but who knows what they really want? i know i don't..."
It is not about what anyone else wants beside yourself, don't worry about what others think of your photography, trust and confide in your mentors and a few close peers to aid in your growth, but worry little about what the general public wants.
Yes, it does help to learn from a talented teacher whether it be history or technical side of things. Although, all to often I see stundents emerging from the art schools, trying too hard, trying too hard to be different from everyone else and not following what comes naturally to them and invariably ignoring their best work. So, teachers who "get it" are of a rarity to me.
I know you don't know me for a hole in the wall, but I would be willing help you get some books if want.
I wish you the best of luck in your endevours.
JC
maybe you can also suggest a little project for my outing tomorrow? it has to be urban, and i really need a theme, the bad weather is draining all my inspiration. got an idea? :D
A misconception regarding Descartes is that he cast doubt on 'reality' or what we perceive. What he actually did was go back to first principles - by doubting everything that admitted of doubt and seeing what was left: what was indubitable (intrinsically incapable of being doubted).
Thus he came up with cogito, ergo sum (I am thinking, therefore I exist) and used that as a basis to work out what else exists.
His argument for the existence of 'reality' goes: Whilst I can doubt that objects exist and that I have a body, I cannot doubt that I am having experiences as if such objects were there. Therefore something must be producing these experi
but do not take the beautiful i said as pretty. i was judgding more along the lines of good/bad shot. that is what the brain does.
and i quite rely on my automatic meter and it hardly ever fails. and if the cat is on an 18% gray background :D the exposure will be correct. and if all fails, spot metering does not... well, it's a weird subject, wether there is a normal exposure but i think there is.
cheers! :D i can't wait to edit those pics from the past three days, there are a few which i think are very sweet :D and by that i mean kick-ass dude :D now i've gotta go, the year is due to start in about an hour at my university and i think i've gotta be there... maybe take some shots :D
and let's ponder a bit about what it means to take a photo. it means to sit, think then shoot. everybody previsualises something, but it's not necesarilly the same as you thought because of the tooth fairy. :D she comes and switches the slides. or a satellite crashes into the tree when you shoot it. you cannot predict all. and you shouldn't. photos lose their mystery like that. and by getting too technical you lose the emotional side.
fmpov at least that is what i see.
now, some are not that good but personally i think they are an improvement :D feel free to disagree, i have better ones on the way so these ones are somehow unimportant...
oh, and i especially like the effect on this one. well, previsualise this! http://photos1.blogger.com/img/11/3781/1024/City%20Biking%20069.jpg :lol:
i've just downloaded the work of the masters off the lan and they're quite impressive, especially for those days. i haven't quite had time to see it all, it's quite a lot. ansel adams for example, for 1930 made some extraordinary landscapes, even for today...
what he says in those quotes is the point of view as a master, a man who has so much experience that to him things just click into place with no or little effort...
I doubt if he read everything in to it that I have - mine is a modern analysis done well over 100 years later.
But it is quite obvious that the position of his body to the face in the doorway is no accident. He would have seen the reflection of the camera and himself and it would have been a simple matter to move slightly and get rid of it. He chose not to. Instead he carefully positioned himself with the face in the window - you would be lucky to get that happening that well by accident. You must remember that he used a plate camera which took some setting up and he would probably have only taken the one shot.
Given that the juxtaposition was done on purpose you have to ask the question 'why?'. I know what would have gone through my mind in that situation. I don't see why it shouldn't have gone through Atget's.
If this were an isolated image then I would, of course, hold a different view. But it fits in perfectly with all of his other work, and by looking at his other work you can get an overall feel for the man.
The juxtaposition was entirely purposeful.
If you want further proof, try taking a similar shot and see how much work you have to put in to get it right.
but thinking again i must disagree. opening your mind may in some cases actually diminguish the quality of your pictures and/or inspiration. thing is, if you are used to taking photos which are supposed to conform to say an idea or some society cliche an open mind may confuse you as opposed just obeying the rules... it's hard to say of course what an open mind and maybe those few cases are indeed very few. but without knowing for sure what you arelooking for, and just opening your mind to everything i have realised i can't focus because i don't know on what.
You misunderstand me.
I meant that you should keep an open mind when viewing photographs.
When taking photographs a different approach is needed - but then, they are two different and distinct acts.
Taking pictures requires that you have some idea of what you want and what you are trying to achieve (why you are taking the picture), if only in a general way. You should try to remain receptive though. Circumstances might offer you a better way or a clearer view. Or dictate something else.
You can see the image as a straight documentary shot. The cafe front with it's truncated signage and ornate carving and marble effect, railings in front of the window, the drum over the door, the scuffed and scarred door itself - all of these make a tremendous subject in themselves.
And yet there is more.
The bars on the windows and the claustrophobic framing make the thing feel enclosed and insular, almost defensive. It is as if it is trying to protect itself from the outside world. Then you see the trees reflected in the windows and you realise that this Cafe is not huddled in an alley or dingy street but is facing a large open space.
The faces that can be dimly seen peering through the door window - probably the owner and a waiter - make you aware of the inside of the Cafe. The bottles and water boiler seen in the windows increase this awareness. The shop front becomes a barrier or divide: the world outside from the world inside. You can read a lot more into this - and the Gateway represented - if you wish.
Looking at the reflections to find out more about the location of the Cafe you become aware that you can see the camera taking the picture.
This brings in to play another layer of awareness. You have the world outside, the small world inside the cafe, and the even smaller world inside the camera. You are made aware of the moment of capture.
But if you can see the camera then... yes, there is the photographer, standing calmly next to his equipment, looking at the scene. And because he is reflected in the window, looking out of the photograph and at you. But...
The head on his shoulders is not his. Sitting there in perfect position on the reflected shoulders, gazing out at you, is the face of a man inside the Cafe.
The photographer confounds your expectations. Instead of seeing him looking at you, you see one of the subjects in the image looking at the photographer.
The picture plane becomes your point of contact.
The photographer looks at you through the photograph - and in turn you look at him through the photograph.
It is a very subtle, and very clever, visual joke.
My own personal view is that it is one of his greatest pictures. And it tells me a lot, I think, about the photographer.
Learn a little about Atget here:
http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/eugene.htm
His work is well worth exploring.
To quote Susan Sontag 'most people think that a beautiful picture is a picture of something beautiful'.
Pictures, either by accident or design, actually say something about the photographer and the way they view the world.
Most people viewing a picture project their own opinions and world view onto it.
The 'art' of being a photographer is to more or less direct the viewer to see what you want them to. Pre-visualisation is one of the tools that help you to do it.
Seemingly a simple image, but it draws me in more, the more I view it.
Do you do it because others pay you to do it - or do you do it for your own personal satisfaction?
If you take pictures that need to be commercial then they do have to conform to type - the people who commission them have a pretty clear idea of what they want and what your picture should look like. In fact, when I worked in Advertising the Art Director quite often presented you with a sketch of the picture and the photographer's job was to re-create the image as a photograph.
Taking pictures for yourself means just that - taking pictures that satisfy you and do what you want them to. You shouldn't worry if no-one else likes them though as you are not taking them for them.
'Art' Photography is the problem area. Once you start wanting people to buy your pictures you can't help but try to take pictures that people like. We have had a discussion about this before, though, so I'm not going to resurrect it. Those interested can mine the archives for it.
As far as looking at pictures is concerned, I have had countless arguments with people over the years who hold the belief that looking at Photographs is second nature and an ability we all have from birth. They are prepared to accept that you have to learn how to read and how to look at a painting but they don't think that this extends to looking at a photograph.
To quote Sherlock Holmes 'we all see but very few of us observe'.
Take a simple thing like subject matter. Every picture has to have a subject - but what constitutes a subject? The usual belief is that it should be a solid object that can be identified and is the picture's focal point. Preferably it should jump off the page at you.
Why?
Equally valid as subject material is mood, emotion, feeling. These are not solid objects but you can still photograph them - or at least embody them in a photograph. And then there is Landscape.
If you have one object in a landscape that stands out and is a focus of interest then the picture ceases to be a landscape. It becomes a picture of that object.
In a landscape it should be the landscape as a whole that is the subject matter.
The majority of what are considered to be great pictures are ones that don't immediately grab you. They are ones that you have to work at to find out what they are all about. You explore them and find new things to enjoy.
Take a look at this image by the legendary Eugene Atget
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/atget/atget_drum.jpg
What is the focus of this image? Take your time and really look. What do you see?
If you are looking right you should see one thing...that leads you to see another...that leads you yet further...
The picture has many layers and subtleties. Perhaps they were not all originally intended but you can never know. I find it hard to believe that someone who spent their life taking pictures was not aware of what was going on in there, but that is just my view. It doesn't matter because inteded or not they are there.
As you look and see each successive layer your attitude and feelings towards the image should change as well. I still get a kick every time I look at it and as the real focal point of the image appears I always smile. See if you do.
This image typifies Photography. Many people would give it a couple of seconds of their attention if that, and write it off as just another old photo. It has historical importance, true. But it has so much more and the photographer still speaks through it. You just have to listen.
When you don't have your camera your mind's eye is not limited by reality. You combine the visual aspects of the scene with many other senses and feelings; a camera merely records the visual aspects of the scene. One of the first things any visual artist must learn is see what is actually there, instead of seeing what you think is there. Reality often doesn't live up to our imagination.
To create an image that captures not only what is there visually, but also what you felt, you must pre-visualize your finished photograph. Very often the final image may not be completely accurate with reality, so you must be familiar with all the steps between seeing the scene and creating a final print (or whatever your intended output is). This way you can alter the image to provide the viewer with the feelings you felt that made you want to take the photograph in the first place.
Ansel Adams is often credited with the concept of pre-visualization. I have to believe it's too basic of a concept to be truely any one person's creation, but his books are a good resource. Particularly check out "The Making of 40 Photographs". It's 40 photos, and his thoughts about creating them. Here are a bunch of Ansel Adams quotes ( from www.photoquotes.com ) to inspire you.
"In my mind's eye, I visualize how a particular . . . sight and feeling will appear on a print. If it excites me, there is a good chance it will make a good photograph. It is an intuitive sense, an ability that comes from a lot of practice."
"When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my minds eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without."
"I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching - there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster."
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter."
To quote a good friend of mine:
" To make a pretty picture is to see only the surface of the subject matter, and be relatively unconscious of the beautiful. "
Most people viewing a picture project their own opinions and world view onto it. The 'art' of being a photographer is to more or less direct the viewer to see what you want them to.
The viewer has their own unique vision and is dependent on how well evolved that vision is. Which is one reason I have no interest in directing a viewer, the photograph will "speak" to them as they see it regardless of my seeing. Nor does it come in mind when making a photograph as I do not photograph for others. I photograph for myself. The bonus of that journey is that someone may enjoy the photograph.
...in fact no rules of course, just strong suggestions or guidelines,...
Are not strong suggestions, rules more or less? While it is important to understand the technical, which is not required to see photographically, when it comes to so called rules of composition, there are none, none what so ever, none to follow or not follow. Techique can be taught how to compose should not be.
I ask this out of curiosity:
Why do something when you know exactly how it will turn out? The sense of discovery throughout the process would then be lost.
Of course there is a right way to look at a picture - with an open mind and on it's own terms.
If you don't see things that are in a picture it doesn't mean that they aren't there, it may mean that you don't know how to look. That's where the open mind comes in.
in other news, i see that in the 2 days i've been missing you have quite discussed about other stuff as well so i'll get into that right away, as well as it fits very well in jc's question. first, about the rules. there are these guidelines which i have already implemented in my software :D which assist you in making a photograph. also some guidelines about exposure. and of course the very bad no-no.s which i believe are the most useful. now they are to be respected in 99% of the cases and here comes the question: what is previsualising and what is respecting normal exposure and other rules? i for one have a style that (with the compact at least) i see a frame in my head, i don't know what it is, but the brain says that i should take the shot. i scan quickly through rulesets (subconciousely) and if i find any i think if it really is necessary and then just take the shot. it all happens in 5 seconds, mainly the time it takes me to say if the shot is worth taking or not. and then i take it, with all pre-thought. however i cannot say that is actual previsualising of the shot, sometimes it's ok otherwise it is a fault in my judging and/or technique. that of course does not happen with film. there i have a considerably higher success rate. no film scanner though :D so the films just keep on piling. that goes very well with the fact that i have decided not to scan them at a guy anymore. it costs too damn much and they are archived for the present being at least till christmas when one shall be acquired :D
and about a pic lookin just like you wanted it to be when you shot it, well that is usually 9/10 digital editing :D i mean, it is impossible most of the time to capture exactly what our eyes see. so previsualising in my oppinion is techically possible only to people with bad eyesight :lol:
ok, i'll talk some more after i post those pics.
There are people I'd like to show your essay too... but... there's just no point - they either get it already or they'll just read it and think they get it but won't. I wander if I get it really. ;)
As you say, epiphanies are the only way and can be introduced to people; But it's hard work.
It's a beautiful thing when you're trying to open someones eyes on a subject and you suddenly realise that it's your own eyes that have been shut. ;)
Does photography/art have to be pretty and beautiful?
I don't think theres any right way to look at a photo. ANd if there is a natural narative offocus points, if you don't see it then the picture could be more successful.
and you're right about observing, maybe not acting can generate knowledge. in photography as well as in real life.i've never really looked at it like this before... i have always thought that in order to achieve something you must actively make it happen, but you can also make it come your way... confusing, but i get the hang of it, very nice:D
oh and that's one more thing, i don't have mentors, never in my life have i had a role model or such since i can remember. and my close peers don't really do it for me, it's maybe because i am dissatissfied with my friends that i have this attitude towards everything. i'm a boat without a paddle... eh, but that's just my melancholy speaking, i'm usually a very cheery and fun guy... oh, well.
teachers often present their side of the story i admit, but it is better to hear that side and understand it than take your side and not understand anything. the problem with students ius that they are very eager to fulfill their education that they forget what art is about... may be.
i admit i do not know you and you might just be a total psychopath :lol: but it is in the nature of my people to trust in strangers. any stranger is just a friend you haven't discovered... :D because no one will come from somewhere just to steal from you. so they mean well. i for one do not like meeting new people but once i do i make friends with them instantly. it may be my biggest flaw: having many friends, i cannot really get attached to any. but enough about me! :D
about the books, well right now i've just borrowed what i could find off the british council mainly "Complete Idiot's Guide to Photography like a pro", "Photo retouching with adobe photoshop" and "digital photography hacks". and believe me, they were quite the best in there so... i hope next month's book will be better (they buy one of these every month). right now i'm not going into any bookshops because i;m low on cash and my girlfriend's birthday is this week so i'll just leave it for another time. but when i get some cash, thank you for your very kind offer, i'll speak to you and maybe you can buy me one from there and i'll mail you the money :D ok?
so thank you again for all you've done and for wishing me luck, i seem to have some these days :D
ok, now let's see what the rest of my mailbox contains :D
Also the sequence of seeing things doesn't apply to everyone. It isn't the sequence I noticed things in. Maybe this picture is too small but I don't get the joke and find it hard to make things out.
i'm glad you like them, it is exactly that "observing" that you were talking about and it really inspired me to change my going-out style and i thank you for it.
now, about the many-picture-taking thing; i presume that everyone who takes photos is a person interested in perfecting himself in the field of photography. and if he uses his imagination and learns the technical ropes of the craft i believe that his photos will get better the more he takes them. because he stumbles upon frequent mistakes. and that helps him learn more. and so on. experience is only gained by practice. otherwise, it's useless. growth comes from within. mastery must be supported. like blind people who play starcraft (there are some who are quite good at it). given the necessary practice, their game grows and evolves.
the quote is nice and funny. and it characterises the people who take vacation shots. but those people usually don't bother to visit such forums. it is only the true learner who wants it so badly that he searches constantly for mroe knowledge. the snapshot and therefore unevolving type gets bored way before he can actually learn very much.
Before he was a master photographer, Ansel Adams enjoyed the great outdoors: hiking, camping, etc... He brought along the standard point-n-shoot of the day to record the majestic scenes he was seeing, but when he got the pics back they were crappy snapshots, not at all conveying the intense emotions he wanted to convey. So began his passion for photography.
No matter how good you get, it is unlikely that you will make great photos "with no or little effort". The difference between master and novice is rarely talent as much as it is effort.
How to open your mind.
An essay by Jadin.
This...
This...
This is going to be a hard essay...
(post writing - meeting my expectations of this essay I failed miserably. this is what's left of it...)
Imagine a child born in a bubble. As he grows the bubble grows with him. It protects him from possible dangers, negative influence, etc. The only problem is he can't see anything outside of his bubble. Some children spend their whole lives living in the bubble, and most are quite happy without ever knowing of it's exsistence. (Ignorance is bliss)
Some children, however, can see the bubble. They look at it. They probe at it. They see how it stetches when they poke it. They see what it does and what it's capable of. And when they are ready, they decide they want to see outside of their bubble. The bubble bursts.
Instantly you are overwhelmed by new thoughts, ideas, concepts, emotions. It's a whole new point of view. You run around taking in as much as you can of this whole new world you never knew exsisted before. You see people in bubbles everywhere. They walk around, go to their jobs, live their lifes all in the comfort of not knowing they are trapped inside a bubble. Trying to talk to them about this whole new experience, they look at you like you're crazy and think nothing more of it. You find talking with them can be unfulfilling, you don't relate as well as you used to.
But as you look deeper you also see other people running around in this new space bubble free. With those you discover you can relate to them on a whole new level. They understand when you talk about your new ideas, and have some of their own that make you think, "Woah! I never would've thought of that!".
Once freed you realize that you will live life with a greater variety of emotions. You experience happier highs and sadder lows. You can't relate to your old friends the way you once could. Sometimes you wish you were still in the bubble, but you can never return, It's gone. Oh, you can close your eyes, pretend, and make it real, but it's not the same. The very knowledge that it's there makes it useless to you.
Years later you are living your life and you slowly realize the space you've been living in is actually just another bubble, much larger than the first, surrounding you. But now you know how it works. Do you run at it with scissors? Or live in the bliss of never knowing what's on the other side. Will you regret popping this one? How many more bubbles will there be? Only one way to find out...
----------
Being open-minded is a never-ending process. Simply because the layers aren't linear. Being open-minded about sex, for example, will not make you open-minded about art, and vice versa. Because of this, noone can walk you through it. You have to open your mind as each opportunity arises. Then you will be an open-minded individual (forever a work in progress). The biggest mistake you can make is assume that you're open-minded. Doing so closes your mind to the other layers you haven't even discovered yet. Only after you've opened your mind do you realize it was previously closed.
The more I think about this, the more I realize you can't teach it. Simply because it usually requires an epiphany usually from a life-altering experience. A close call with death. A new baby. A mid-life crisis. Etc. I've been trying to think of ways to help the process along, the only way I've thought of is catharsis. I found this definition I rather like...
Catharsis is a form of emotional cleansing first defined by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. It originally referred to the sensation that would ideally overcome an audience upon finishing a tragedy. The fact that there existed those who could suffer a worse fate than them was to them a relief, they felt ekstasis (literally, astonishment), from which the modern word ecstasy is derived. Their spirits are refreshed through having greater appreciation for life.
Basically you can watch a movie or read a book and feel as though you've had a life-altering experience (in many ways you have). During that ecstasy is the perfect time to meditate not only on what you just saw, but on your own life.
Here is some things you can check out that changed who I am today.
Films:
- Fight Club (cathartic + makes you think about your life)
- American Beauty (cathartic + makes you think about your life)
- Amelie (cathartic + makes you think about your life)
- American History X (cathartic + makes you think about your life)
- I <3 Huckabees (makes you think about your life - for whatever reason wasn't cathartic for me)
- Baraka (cathartic)
- Life is Beautiful (cathartic)
- Twelve Monkeys (cathartic)
- Donnie Darko (cathartic)
- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (cathartic)
- Lost in Translation (cathartic)
- Hero (cathartic)
- The Matrix (cathartic)
- Pi (cathartic)
- Requim for a Dream (cathartic)
- Serendipity (cathartic)
- Shawshank Redemption (cathartic)
- Fallen (cathartic)
- Se7en (cathartic)
Books
- Princess Bride (yes the book, not the movie, movie was good, but the book is exponentially better)
- Siddhartha (cathartic + makes you think about your life)
- The Old Man and the Sea (cathartic)
- Wow. I don't read enough, I can't remember any others right now.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, just ones that moved me to re-think how I think ;)
Post what's changed your life (hopefully for the better) and I'll add them to the list.
First you see the shop with all the railings and moulding. Fascinating in it's own right and worth a lot of your time to eamine it. I think you can actually read the signboard on the left of the door in the original.
Then you see the trees reflected either side in the windows - which leads you into the windows themselves and what is in there.
Then you see the two people in the shop doorway looking at you through the glass.
Then you see that there is something reflected in the door glass.
It's the camera that took the picture.
To the right of it you see.... the photographer (Atget) standing there.
You move up to look at his face and see.....
NOW do you see the joke?
You don’t need to go to school to learn some history. I don’t know what type of resources you have where you live, but I highly suggest, The History of Photography by Beaumont Newhall. Any decent library should have it, or a used book site, or auction site. Other good book, just to learn and expand the mind, Photographers on Photography, out of print but easily found used, and Weston’s Day Books still in print, although in crappy soft bound now.
Photography as art is very much about personal growth and experience, not just those you have with a camera, some of the most influential experiences on my photographic vision were far from photography related… or were they...
“as i see it the money in this art comes from adverts, pics in magazines which impress the viewer instantly either with cliches or with stunning new cliches photographical art does not sell.”
If you are interested in making money from photography, fine art photography is not for you. Unless, you are ready to starve, be rejected, laughed at, be confronted with stiff competition, etc. and still continue to pour your heart and soul into your craft to produce the best possible work you can day after day.
I don’t know a single fine art photographer that goes out to specifically make a photograph with the intent to make money.
“it has to be urban, and i really need a theme,”
Why do you need a theme? Just go and make photographs, do what feels good, if it means just going and watching and taking no photographs, you have still succeeded in experiencing something new, the pictures you make in the end are just a bonus. Don’t worry about rules either, be aware of them sure, but don’t let them limit how you interact with your environment, just be more conscious of what is in your view finder or on the ground glass, patterns, space, light, etc. things that occur naturally around you, not just the moment of the subject or dismiss everything else around it. As you make photographs and produce a body of work themes will just appear naturally in your photographs, sometime it takes others to point it out to you, but it will surface.
“thing is, if you are used to taking photos which are supposed to conform to say an idea or some society cliché”
I mentioned this on another post, but you need to let go of the idea that a visual art such as photography for the intent of art, is about ideas. As a visual art, it is open to interpretation of the viewer and if you are trying to communicate an idea you will ultimately fail.
In reference to the Atget photograph:
This is a very deep photograph, it compels the viewer to wander throughout the photograph in search of something new, a perfect example of a photograph that asks a lot from its viewer and has an innate complexity. The only issue I have is the title, it is to specific for a photograph that is about so much more.
Much of how a photograph is seen is dependent on the photographers vision and the viewers impression. Without experience on either side of the photographer to have a deep vision, that goes beyond a “pretty picture”, pretty defined having value on the surface only, and experience on the side of the viewer who has not developed enough ability or depth in there own seeing, how the photograph is viewed can often be a mismatch. The difference is in the seeing of either and independent of subject matter.
If you point your camera at a black cat, your meter will suggest an exposure that will make the cat gray.
If you point your camera at a white cat, your meter will suggest an exposure that will make the cat gray.
If you point your camera at a gray cat, your meter will suggest an exposure that will make the cat gray.
There really aren't many "rules" about exposure, other than light meters measure for middle gray. They are very simple devices.
I'm out wandering around in the countryside with my Speed Graphic and film holders loaded with BW film, and I come upon a gnarly, old tree. About 15' from the tree is a boulder with some interesting grasses around it. I decide that I would like to create a composition that includes both. I begin to previsulaize how the final print is going to look.
First I have to come up with the composition. I can randomly choose a focal length, and wander around looking through the viewfinder until the subjects fit within the composition. Possibly they won't do it like I want, so I randomly pick another focal length and try again. Or I can use my knowledge of how distance to subject affects perspective, and how focal length affects the angle of view and the size relationship of subjects at different distances from the camera, and make an educated guess as to what focal length I want, and where I should stand. I still have to look through the viewfinder to make sure I'm right, and make corrections if I'm wrong. Both methods can be previsualization, the second method just takes less time (hopefully). In this case I'll choose something fairly wide angle, because I want to put the boulder in the foreground, and I still want all of the tree showing in the background.
Now I have to consider depth of field. I usually follow the traditional school of thought with landscapes that I want as much as possible in focus, so I know to achieve that I'll need a small aperture (my Super Speed Graphic has some front movements, so I can also use this to affect DOF). I'm not sure that my eye sees it this way, but I can imagine what this will look like as a print. My eye sees everything it's directly looking at as pretty sharp. I know to achieve maximum sharpness in the print I will need to use a tripod, and cable release ( and mirror lock-up if I were using a SLR ). Because I'm using the smallest aperture, I know my shutter speed is going to be slow, so if I don't want the movement of the grasses in the wind to show in the print, I'll need to wait for a break in the breeze.
Next I study the tones. There are some nice clouds in the sky, and when I previsualize the print I see a medium gray sky, with bright white clouds. I know that if I shoot this scene straight, I'll get a very, very light sky, and the clouds will hardly show, because the sky is very bright, and BW film tends to overexpose blue. To deal with this I could use a red filter. That would make the blue sky very dark, but it would also darken the green leaves. An orange filter would lessen these effects, or I could use a yellow-green filter, which should help darken the sky as well as lightening the green foliage somewhat. Maybe I'll take a shot with both the orange filter and a shot with the yellow-green filter, because my previsualization isn't perfect, and later I'll want both options. Because I'm using a hand held meter I need to consider the effects of the filters on my exposure. I'll need to overexpose a stop or so to compensate for the light blocked by the filter.
Comparing the detail in the bright clouds with the detail of the tree bark in shadow my meter says they are 7 stops apart. I know that my printing paper can only handle 5 stops and still get the full detail. To compress the tonal range into something that will print the way I want it I need to overexpose by 2 stops, and later I will adjust my development time to under-develop by 2 stops (how much time this is depends on many things, so each photog needs to do personal testing).
Now I can take the shot, and get reasonably close to what I imagined (previsualized). This may read as complicated and time consuming, but because I've been doing it this way for years, it's fairly intuitive these days, and it all happens in less time than it took you to read this. I'll spend most of my time waiting for the grasses to sit still. :)
Previsualization is just looking ahead, and thinking about the photograph you want to take. Choosing color film because you know you want a color print is previsualization. You can try and previsualize as much as possible about the photograph, or just certain aspects. It's not really as complicated as it sounds.
To me it is fascinating, almost like magic.
If you have one object in a landscape that stands out and is a focus of interest then the picture ceases to be a landscape. It becomes a picture of that object.
In a landscape it should be the landscape as a whole that is the subject matter.
The majority of what are considered to be great pictures are ones that don't immediately grab you. They are ones that you have to work at to find out what they are all about. You explore them and find new things to enjoy.
I totally agree with that. 99% of the photos I take are 'easy to digest' especially the landscape ones I take. The images that I pride myself for taking are far less dramatic but can be interpreted many ways outside of the realm of 'pretty picture'. Unfortunately, I have been inspired to take a very few of these types of shots, and when i do show them to most folks the response I always get is that 'I like your landscapes better!' :mrgreen:
The shot from atget is quite inspiring, thanks for posting that!
Why do something when you know exactly how it will turn out? The sense of discovery throughout the process would then be lost.
What I find fascinating is how I can be inspired by a scene, and then recreate those feelings in a print. As a darkroom geek, I feel the process of photography doesn't stop with the release of the shutter. In my experience if I just raise the camera to my eye and click the button the photo will end up less than what I wanted. It will usually look like what I describe as a snapshot. I have learned through using the camera that what I see in my mind is not always how things really look. Anybody can go and view the scene I saw; what I am trying to create is a way that they can see what I saw and what I felt when I looked upon the scene.
Random photography can be fun, and even inspire new ideas, but basically it's doodling. There's nothing wrong with doodling, but it tends not to lead to a final product. That's fine, not everything has to end up as a final product.
I'm never 100% sure of how the final print is going to turn out, but with my knowledge and skill I can visualize something close. Whether my goal is to create a print that is accurate to reality, completely different than reality, or something in between, I use previsualization to develop a plan rather than snapping away, and hoping for the best. Not all subjects and situations allow for or require complete previsualization, but I use my tools and knowledge to try my best with the time I have. Some subjects have a limited time I will be allowed to get the shot I want (fast moving storm clouds, children, atheletes, etc...); if I've got to make the shot count, a plan of action (previsualization) gives me a much better chance of getting what I want.
When a photog chooses to use a large aperture to simplify the background that is previsualization. When they use a slow shutter speed to show motion, or use a red #25 filter with BW film (or know they are going to copy the red channel on PS), or when they intentionally overexpose the film, and then reduce development time to lower contrast, that is previsualization. Combining all these examples and more is previsualization.
For me the sense of discovery does not occur within the photographic processes between exposure and print. It occurs before I press the shutter release as I wander the world looking with my eyes and my mind. The camera and the darkroom or computer are just tools that help me share this with others.
For all that I think previsualization is an important consideration for successful photography, I agree that there are "different strokes for different folks", and everyone needs to find the methods that work for them.
That's enough for Sunday morning - agreed ;)
I would personally hate to be able to visualize the final print, sure I have a good idea of how things will be recorded on film, but I never know what I truely have until I print the negatives. Afterall, if you could see the final print, what would be the point in taking the photograph? To me that would be boring.
Also, I forgot to ask eydryan, what rules you were refering to in the subject of your first post? I mentioned being aware of them in one of my responses, but what I consider rules are most likely completley different than most would. I speak in terms of perspective control, understanding exposure more of the technical... and nothing to do with suposed rules of composition.
Can you see the faces of the people in the shop door window?
Can you see the reflection of the photographer in the shop door window?
Who's head is on the photographer's shoulders?
Of course some people see things in different ways and in different orders, but the order I gave things in is the order which the majority of people discover things in the picture. This statement is, of course, based on my own observations and experiences over years of teaching photography. It is the order in which most of my students have found their way around the photo (with no help or direction from me, I might add) - and I have shown this image to many hundreds of students. I thought it reasonable to assume that most people here would see it in the same way. It isn't important though.
a picture indeed is a world of content and the point of view is in itself a key which opens a different door every time.
The human eye can accomodate a very wide exposure range (in excess of 1:2,000 at any given time) whereas film is quite limited.
If it is to be reproduced in a magazine the useful exposure range of transparency film (the difference between white and black) is approximately 2-3 stops (1:4 and 1:8 ).
The 'art' of previsualisation is mostly just a matter of working out which parts of the shot will be light and which dark. In the studio this means that you light for the film, not for your eyes.
Black and white is a little more complicated. You have a bigger exposure range (typically 7 stops) but you have to work out what tonal value particular colours will come out. A lot of the skill comes with familiarity. The more pictures you take the better you get.
It is possible to buy filters - called density viewers - that you look through and they approximate the exposure range of the film you are using. They are quite expensive though and of only limited usefulness.
looking art his other work, i see that he likes layers and well that is impressive, especially the shot with the bridge.
but thinking again i must disagree. opening your mind may in some cases actually diminguish the quality of your pictures and/or inspiration. thing is, if you are used to taking photos which are supposed to conform to say an idea or some society cliche an open mind may confuse you as opposed just obeying the rules... it's hard to say of course what an open mind and maybe those few cases are indeed very few. but without knowing for sure what you arelooking for, and just opening your mind to everything i have realised i can't focus because i don't know on what.
You see a scene, you pre-visualise it and then do the magic. When it turns out just as you saw it in your mind you get a kick that is better than sex.
And before you ask, you are proving it to yourself.
Each photograph could very well call for a different exposure and most often does, so stating there is a "normal exposure" is a bit misleading. Other rules? I have no idea what they might be or what your software considers rules, so hard to comment on that one.
I look at your photographs online, there are two labled 66, but the one with the smoke stacks, is right on and well seen. Actually, most appear quite nice, keep doing what your doing, you are on the right track. I can't and won't comment other than that, as I rarely if ever anymore participate in online critiques, only in those that I can see the work in person.
"The more pictures you take the better you get."
I don't think this is the case. The simple act of just taking photographs without growth, awareness, understanding, vision, etc. will only yield the same results time after time.
If this were true everyone who owned a camera would be a "photograher."
Forget were this loose variation of the quote comes from:
What are you when you just bought a piano?
Someone who owns a piano.
If you really can't see it PM me and I'll talk you through it.
about the closed mind and looking at a photo again for details: pre-judging is what advertising is all about and as i see it the money in this art comes from adverts, pics in magazines which impress the viewer instantly either with cliches or with stunning new cliches :D photographical art does not sell. or does it? this debate i believe would go on forever but fmpov it doesn't sell as good as adverts. free your mind is a good thing but i am afraid you cannot do it without proper...training. a free mind is something hard to define so it is also hard to obtain. i personally have no idea how to free my mind and i admit it...
there are some things which keep coming up when critique is involved. those are mainly the rules i speak about. however you mentioned three rules. which are they?
and also, i have a big problem and don't know how to cope with it: when i am on the street mainly doing nothing without my camera i see all kinds of brilliant shots, however when i take the camera it all fades away, my inspiration is nullified. also happens when i am on a vacation, i usually have to choose between photos and vacation... it's quite a conundrum...
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
