Dance (To A Slow Shutter)

[Tuna]

I've posted this in Critique and want to have it there for that purpose. But meanwhile, it seems to me to be a possible candidate here as well. Am I allowed to do that?

Tuna

[opus]

Tuna, Steve made me do something in my post that REALLY opened my eyes, so I'll ask the same of you. (paraphrasing in my own words, of course.)

What does this photo mean to you? Why does it work for you?

[Lava Lamp]

I've posted this in Critique and want to have it there for that purpose. But meanwhile, it seems to me to be a possible candidate here as well. Am I allowed to do that?

Tuna

In the "what is art" topic, I suggested that art evokes emotion, that it moves you. I'd have to say that while many of the images you've posted move me, this one doesn't. I get the blur suggesting the fluidity of the dancer's motion, but it is a touch too much for me - it reduces the dancer to almost an unidentifiable, insect-like creature. Maybe that's what you wanted. What surpises me here is that almost everythng I remember of yours has a certain stillness to it - a frozen moment in time - that I don't find here. It's also more spontaneoous than the other stuff. I've had the impression that you are methodical in your approach. This feels more grab the camera and fire a few off.

[Tuna]

Sorry to have posted the picture instead of the gallery followed by the link. I read the instructions after the fact.

A habit I picked up from constructing my children's toys at Christmas and birthdays.

Tuna

[Asylum Steve]

Tuna, if you notice, there's already a thread about the photo posting issue.

It's something we're gonna have to work out, because I for one would expect most to just assume they can post images, and not notice the "fine print".

For the time being, I wouldn't worry about it...

[Steph_B]

I've posted this in Critique and want to have it there for that purpose. But meanwhile, it seems to me to be a possible candidate here as well. Am I allowed to do that?

Tuna

This is meta-art! It's a photograph (i.e. art) that represents another form of art (ie. dancing).... wooow my head's spinning!

I love capturing movement with low shutter speeds. Great post Tuna!

[Irakly Shanidze]

I am not sure if I like this shot. I mean, shooting in a theater I would not consider an artistic excersise, merely a technical job. This is not an easy job by all means, but technical nevertheless. I know what I am talking about here because I toured with one Russian theatre across France and shot more than 3500 frames for their needs. About 2000 frames I took during performances, and I will never show them in my art portfolio. When you shoot actors/dancers doing their thing with stage lighting that you have not set, it is almost like shooting from a screen n a movie theatre. Please do not take it personally.

[opus]

Irakly, does it make a difference if you DO set the lights? What exactly do you mean by that? I am designing the lighting for an upcoming theatre production, so what does that mean for me?

I know it's hard to get decent shots under theatre lights without flash. I thought that was the only issue.

[Irakly Shanidze]

you know... it kinda does... i mean, if you are doing candid photography it does not, but when you shoot something that was rehearsed without your participation for everybody to enjoy, all you have to do is just to press the button and make sure that your exposure is right.

actually, nobody shoots in the theatre wiith a flash for two reasons. first, you kill the lighting, and it looks plain, and second, it is just disrespectful to actors and spectators.

Irakly, does it make a difference if you DO set the lights? What exactly do you mean by that? I am designing the lighting for an upcoming theatre production, so what does that mean for me?

I know it's hard to get decent shots under theatre lights without flash. I thought that was the only issue.

[opus]

you know... it kinda does... i mean, if you are doing candid photography it does not, but when you shoot something that was rehearsed without your participation for everybody to enjoy, all you have to do is just to press the button and make sure that your exposure is right.

I don't think that's true. First of all, just like any photography, you have to know WHEN to press the button. There's a lot of movement on stage, and just because it's colorful doesn't mean your picture will be good. The right moment, the right composition, is still critical.

You have to position yourself so that you get an interesting angle. Very difficult in a theatre!

So I don't really see the difference between capturing a theatre event and capturing oh, say, a fire. They are both events, spectacles, that you've had no hand in creating. You still need to position, think, and act at the critical moment, just as in all photography.

Tell me what you think of these:

Where I've been spending my nights

actually, nobody shoots in the theatre wiith a flash for two reasons. first, you kill the lighting, and it looks plain, and second, it is just disrespectful to actors and spectators.

This is absolutely correct. Not only that, your flash would pretty much be useless, except to get really blown out shots of the head in front of you.

[shesells]

Tuna, I for one think it's fascinating. I find it very much fitting the description of art. Did you know that photographers use to be called "Photographic Artists"? I learned that from the movie " Photographing Fairies", which was a good movie too. heh..
anyway, the second I saw your shot I was stunned by the beauty of it.
Kit

[Lava Lamp]

I am not sure if I like this shot. I mean, shooting in a theater I would not consider an artistic excersise, merely a technical job. This is not an easy job by all means, but technical nevertheless. I know what I am talking about here because I toured with one Russian theatre across France and shot more than 3500 frames for their needs. About 2000 frames I took during performances, and I will never show them in my art portfolio. When you shoot actors/dancers doing their thing with stage lighting that you have not set, it is almost like shooting from a screen n a movie theatre. Please do not take it personally.

So Irakly, are you sayng that controlled lighting is a prerequisite of photography as art? That would seem to eliminate most photojournalism shots ala Cartier-Bresson, etc. I think I get your point and agree to some extent, but there would seem to be a big hole in the logic.

[Irakly Shanidze]

No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that you should create your art, not somebody else. Theatre is art, and shooting art is extremely tricky for the very reason that I tried to explain in my previous post.
Let me give you an example from Soviet history. We had this guy Brezhnev who ruled the coutry for lie thirty years until he died. He happened to like hunting. Here is how he was doing it. He would come in a national preserve closed to general public, given a scope rifle on a tripod. Then a special crew of huntsmen would direct a bison to a place where Brezhnev had a clear shot from about 50 feet. He used to kill about 25-30 bisons a day. He was having fun all right, but was it hunting?

So Irakly, are you sayng that controlled lighting is a prerequisite of photography as art? That would seem to eliminate most photojournalism shots ala Cartier-Bresson, etc. I think I get your point and agree to some extent, but there would seem to be a big hole in the logic.

[Trevor Ash]

I can relate to Irakly's viewpoint here. Using his hunting story....would you consider him a good hunter? Do you think he really udnerstand hunting and how to really achieve the results he wants? Chances are, he'd scare away all of the animals within a 200 yard radius and never get a shot off.

So with theatre, if I were taking a photograph, we all know someone other than I setup the lighting. And someone other than I choreographed (spelling?) the dancers/actors. The poses done by the dancers come from them and they know what they're doing. As a photographer in this kind of scenario I'm simply a bystander capturing a moment.

Now, capturing a moment is what photography is all about but when we're talking about photography as art I don't think capturing moments essentially setup by someone else would really cut it. And in the case that it did, who would be credited for the "vision"? It tastes a lot like plagurism (spelling?) to me.

The more I think about it the more I can see both sides of the argument.

[Clicker]

I've posted this in Critique and want to have it there for that purpose. But meanwhile, it seems to me to be a possible candidate here as well. Am I allowed to do that?

Tuna

Moving my comments over (from Critique)

It makes me wonder...
"is this one person, or two?"
I don't even want to know, because its the mystery that keeps me enthralled!

[Clicker]

The guy was not hunting, he was simply shooting.

I agree to a **point** with Irakly.. that is I see your view point, but I don't think it pertains to Tuna's Photo. Those people may have been dancing to a choreographed dance under lights he didn't set, but did they choregraph and set those lights with this vision in mind? No. He captured this vision. Studio Lighting aside, When is light **ever our own** anyway ?
I have thought about this subject before, If someone takes a picture, of lets say a wall with beautiful art / graffiti on it... People are going to think its beautiful . Was it the photo itself or the subject? It depends on if it is a straight on photo or if he worked other elements into the composition or not in order to make it his interpretation of it.
Plenty of people have taken well know art ( or even unknown for that matter) and "put a spin" on it.. I've heard plenty of times " this is my interpretation of this piece..." I think its fine, after all, we re-interpret in our minds anyway, Everyone had a different feeling or interpretation of " art" Taking a photo of it the way you see it, or taking a photo of sheerly because you thought that sculpture would look awesome with dark clouds and a rainbow behind it.. well its still your vision.. and on another note ( not sure if this fits in to this discussion, but it came to mind..) Photos of Plants : Landscaping could even be considered art as well, as it is an arrangement of plant life to gain a reaction from humans, butterflys, birds etc... So, if i take a picture of a flower dancing in the wind, is that okay? afterall a landscaper put it there in that arrangement, in a sunny spot.... lol.

Really, I think this discussion is fruitless, It should only be applied to one photo at a time, not photography as a WHOLE.

[opus]

So with theatre, if I were taking a photograph, we all know someone other than I setup the lighting. And someone other than I choreographed (spelling?) the dancers/actors. The poses done by the dancers come from them and they know what they're doing. As a photographer in this kind of scenario I'm simply a bystander capturing a moment.

Well then, by this definition, a shot of a mountain could never be considered "art". "Someone other than I" put the mountain there, set the moon in the sky, "built the stage and set the lighting" as it were.

Yet Ansel Adams is generally considered an artist. Why?

[Trevor Ash]

Well then, by this definition, a shot of a mountain could never be considered "art". "Someone other than I" put the mountain there, set the moon in the sky, "built the stage and set the lighting" as it were.

Yet Ansel Adams is generally considered an artist. Why?

You're completely exaggerating. I think there's a difference between nature (which you can't control the same) and theatre.

[Trevor Ash]

The guy was not hunting, he was simply shooting.

I agree to a **point** with Irakly.. that is I see your view point, but I don't think it pertains to Tuna's Photo. Those people may have been dancing to a choreographed dance under lights he didn't set, but did they choregraph and set those lights with this vision in mind? No. He captured this vision. Studio Lighting aside, When is light **ever our own** anyway ?
I have thought about this subject before, If someone takes a picture, of lets say a wall with beautiful art / graffiti on it... People are going to think its beautiful . Was it the photo itself or the subject? It depends on if it is a straight on photo or if he worked other elements into the composition or not in order to make it his interpretation of it.
Plenty of people have taken well know art ( or even unknown for that matter) and "put a spin" on it.. I've heard plenty of times " this is my interpretation of this piece..." I think its fine, after all, we re-interpret in our minds anyway, Everyone had a different feeling or interpretation of " art" Taking a photo of it the way you see it, or taking a photo of sheerly because you thought that sculpture would look awesome with dark clouds and a rainbow behind it.. well its still your vision.. and on another note ( not sure if this fits in to this discussion, but it came to mind..) Photos of Plants : Landscaping could even be considered art as well, as it is an arrangement of plant life to gain a reaction from humans, butterflys, birds etc... So, if i take a picture of a flower dancing in the wind, is that okay? afterall a landscaper put it there in that arrangement, in a sunny spot.... lol.

Really, I think this discussion is fruitless, It should only be applied to one photo at a time, not photography as a WHOLE.

I'm not disagreeing wtih you here. You've done a good job of discussing the opposite view I was discussing.

That's all the compromise you'll get out of me

However, I would propose that in the case of this photo, the vision is "borrowed" and then a little "salt" is added for flavor, thus making it a "shared" vision. No matter what, I still think the photographers vision.....if he looks deeply and honestly enough at his self, may agree that it wasn't entirely his own.

I think I'm going to hate this forum because these arguments don't have right and wrong answers

[opus]

I'm not completely exaggerating. I think they are exactly the same.

I understand the fears of "documenting" someone else's work. I think art would be extremely difficult to achieve in a theatre situation. But I don't think it's impossible, if you put your own signature on your photo. Don't just point and shoot, do something outside the realm of theatre, something that the theatergoers wouldn't see, something that the playwrite and director didn't intend.

I think Tuna attempted to do that, with his slow shutter speed. I don't think it's quite there yet ... I'd like to see a better shape in his photo. In my opinion, if the shape was perfect, his shot would be art.

[Trevor Ash]

It seems the argument some of you have goes like this:

If there were another photographer sitting in the rafters above the one that posted this photo and took a photo at the same time but from a different vantage point then both photographers would have different visions.

With exception, I think for the most part that would be complete hogwash. Generally, the difference between the photographs isn't going to be "vision" it's going to be composition or viewpoint. Now, you can argue that different composition or viewpoint is the same as having a different vision if you want but for most photographs I'd probably disagree with you.

So, what would the exceptions be?

Well, when two photographers TRULY have something in mind that they want to accomplish in terms of "vision" and they each individually success in their own apparent vision, and the two photographs are accepted by others as having a separate vision.

I guess there's not an easy way to explain what I'm thinking so I'll just come out any say it....hopefully I'm not offending anyone too much......

If I were at that theatre at the same time as this photographer my photograph would probablt look much the same even though my intentions were different. Based on this particular photo, I think the photographer just took a snapshot that ended up being a very interesting photo. I don't think "vision" had anything to do with it.

Damn, I just took many paragraphs to state what someone already stated which you can only discuss a question like this for an individual photo....it's not something you can discuss that covers all photographs like I (we) were trying to do.

I'm going to eat my lunch now.

[Clicker]

I'm not disagreeing wtih you here. You've done a good job of discussing the opposite view I was discussing.

That's all the compromise you'll get out of me

lol, Thank you!

However, I would propose that in the case of this photo, the vision is "borrowed" and then a little "salt" is added for flavor, thus making it a "shared" vision.

"shared Vision" Wonderful choice of words... I agree.


As I was driving home just now, I thought of another example...Using Irakly's photo of people on a dock / pier...(one in which there is a violin and a woman) Would this be a "shared vision" as well? As someone chose that spot for the dock for its " picturesque" qualities, and he came along added some "salt" and made an image.

[Asylum Steve]

Irakly, I think I know the reason for your comments, but it sounds very odd coming from you.

IMO, using dancers or theatre people as "models" is about as artistic as you can get. Good stage lighting only adds to the mood.

Sure, it is easy to create a cliche photo, one that we have seen many times, but the truth is when you shoot this way, you start with a subject trained to move and have them immersed in dramatic lighting. I'll take those elements any day.

I think it's the fact that you shot this type of photo so many times that is affecting your judgement. Of course YOU are tired of it, but that certainly isn't true for many others.

Personally, I like this shot a lot. Yes, it isn't technically perfect, but it paints the graceful, colorful movement of the dancer. The slow shutter speed is the perfect way to capture this feeling...

I mean, shooting in a theater I would not consider an artistic excersise, merely a technical job.

[Asylum Steve]

I'm surprised a few of you guys (and I'm not singling you out, Trevor) seem to be dwelling on the CIRCUMSTANCES of the shot instead of its artisitc merit.

I don't think the circumstances (ie sitting in a crowd at a performance) are important at all in this discussion.

Ok, say I RENT this theatre out. I hire this dancer, set up all the lights myself, have him or her perform, and take the shot. Suppose my photo looks JUST like Tuna's.

Are you trying to tell me mine is more legit and has more artisitc merit because of the circumstances of the setup?

Sure, on a certain level you can make that argument (that the process is a big part of the artistic aspect). Still, if we're simply discussing the creative visuals and whether they work or not, both our shots would be the same...

My point earlier is that a theatrical environment with dramatic lighting and trained performers will always be a fertile place to create photos...

[Clicker]

Steve - Lots of good points here