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

[Asylum Steve]

Kelly, I agree with you here. IMO, Irakly's logic on this is seriously flawed.

Only a relatively small percentage of photographers shoot with and set up their own lights.

Most people shoot using available light, or artificial, but existing light (street lights, building lights, etc.) and often creative wonderful images, yet they had nothing to do with the light setup.

As you say, many times it's the TIMING of the shot that is the critical element, and that takes skill regardless of how the lighting was created.

Also, theatrical lighting changes dramatically over the course of a performance, so choosing the exact moment of the shot is not much different than watching the sunlight change and choosing a moment when the light strikes you.

What we have is a lighting situation where you have to LOOK, ANALYZE what you see, and CHOOSE a moment to shoot, and that is no different than any of dozens of other shooting situations.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Steve, perhaps I did not clearly express my thought. I am not saying that artificial lighting is a prerequisite of art, quite opposite is often true.
My beliefe is that art involves more than just recording of reality, it also requires interpretation of this reality. Just read my post before

Kelly, I agree with you here. IMO, Irakly's logic on this is seriously flawed.

Only a relatively small percentage of photographers shoot with and set up their own lights.

Most people shoot using available light, or artificial, but existing light (street lights, building lights, etc.) and often creative wonderfully creative images, yet they had nothing to do with the light setup.

As you say, many times it's the TIMING of the shot that is the critical element, and that takes skill regardless of how the lighting was created.

Also, theatrical lighting changes dramatically over the course of a performance, so choosing the exact moment of the shot is not much different than watching the sunlight change and choosing a moment when the light strikes you.

What we have is a lighting situation where you have to LOOK, ANALYZE what you see, and CHOOSE a moment to shoot, and that is no different than any of dozens of other shooting situations.

[opus]

One more illustration I thought of to illustrate my point.

An architect designs a building, creates its form, chooses how best it will take advantage of natural light around it, etc. He builds a beautiful building.

Now someone comes along and looks up, sees the light hitting the beautiful building, and takes a wonderful picture of it. Is his photo invalid because someone else "set up the shot"?


Now here's my answer: "Yes, the photo is not art", if the photographer adds nothing of himself to the image. But there are many ways the photographer could add his own personal touch to the shot. Maybe a long exposure. Maybe enhanced contrast. Perhaps an unusual DOF. A filter. Etc...

Will he succeed? That's for the observer to judge. But one cannot disregard the photo just because the subject was beautifully created by someone else.

I am saying it's the same with theatre. You are not guaranteed a work of art if you take a picture in a theatre. You have to add that little piece of yourself to it. But it IS possible.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Kelly, I fully agree. I just have not notice enough of that little piece of oneself. Again, it just so happens that everything so subjective in this wold...

[Trevor Ash]

One more illustration I thought of to illustrate my point.

An architect designs a building, creates its form, chooses how best it will take advantage of natural light around it, etc. He builds a beautiful building.

Now someone comes along and looks up, sees the light hitting the beautiful building, and takes a wonderful picture of it. Is his photo invalid because someone else "set up the shot"?


Now here's my answer: "Yes, the photo is not art", if the photographer adds nothing of himself to the image. But there are many ways the photographer could add his own personal touch to the shot. Maybe a long exposure. Maybe enhanced contrast. Perhaps an unusual DOF. A filter. Etc...

Will he succeed? That's for the observer to judge. But one cannot disregard the photo just because the subject was beautifully created by someone else.

I am saying it's the same with theatre. You are not guaranteed a work of art if you take a picture in a theatre. You have to add that little piece of yourself to it. But it IS possible.

Great job kelly! This is what I was trying to say in my last few posts! You make it look so easy. Maybe I should go study the english language.

[Tuna]

Thanks for all the comments. It's definitely been an eye-opening experience.

Hope to see most of you in the Critique forum.

Bye bye.

Tuna

[Elysian]

Elysian, your behavior is certainly not my business, but as a person whose intentions are as friendly as they can possibly be, I would really enjoy seeing a little bit more dignity in your posts. You seem to act like a schoolboy trying to put up a fight with a new kid on the block. Try not to post anything of this nature here forr a couple of days, then read whatever you have already posted, and you will understand what I mean. Remember, the key word is "dignity". We are adults here.

So act like one!

Also try to be a man and have the courage to discuss what I said in my previous reply. I refuse to believe that I was only talking nonsense in my last reply, trust me, after 42 years you learn to know yourself quite well, the qualities and the limitations.

I have quite some experience in photography and art myself. I also have a clear opinion about things and several of my ideas were not the same like yours. Take for example that "So what is art anyway" thread. I disagreed with the usefulness that thread and I come up with strong arguments and two people agreed with the points that I was trying to make. I always come up with many arguments and a well thought over reply. But I didn't start to call you a schoolboy who doesn't know what dignity is, because that is a really immature reaction of you.

If you can't handle a different opinion... count to ten, something what you also should have done before you started that "Art. Crap or photography thread".

I have tried to do my best to see some positive sides of you, but the more I stay in this "Photography as art" forum, the more I get annoyed the way you can't handle the ideas of others, especially when they're not the same like yours.
You also didn't apologize for your behavior in the "Photography. Art of or crap?" thread.

I also should have listened to 3 different people who wrote in that thread;

"Irakly -- Your dialogue leaves me to believe that you are a spoiled and petulant human being with misplaced arrogance. While you may come one here and imply that your bogus venom is a "rally cry" for people to put up better work, it's nothing more than an attempt to stroke your own ego. "

"I have absolutely no respect for him, and I would hope he is removed from this site permanently. I'm not going to sugar coat this- he's just not the kind of person we need here. I will refrain from name-calling, since I would end up listing every name there is. Normally I would premise a post like this with "I'm sorry but..." But I'm not sorry- Irakly should be sorry."

". Everyone came to your defence and made sure that it was understood what your true meaning was. Everyone but you. Are you a spoiled little brat? The truth is, you were rude in a big way. Can't you be a man and admit it?"

Since an honest opinion is not appreciated by you, I have no other choice than staying out of this particular forum.

I do leave with laugh though, after reading the part in which you describe yourself;

"a person whose intentions are as friendly as they can possibly be, I would really enjoy seeing a little bit more dignity in your posts"

That was a good one Irakly!

Good luck with 'your' forum... you're gonna need it.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Thank you Elysian,
I think that you've made a right choice. Although it is regretful that such a fine photographer as you is not going to be a part of this forum, it is probably for the better, at least until you can get over the bitterness. I certainly did not want to offend you in any way, and if I did, for that I apologize. Do spend some time offline, and if you come back, you will be welcome here.

Irakly

So act like one!

Also try to be a man and have the courage to discuss what I said in my previous reply. I refuse to believe that I was only talking nonsense in my last reply, trust me, after 42 years you learn to know yourself quite well, the qualities and the limitations.

I have quite some experience in photography and art myself. I also have a clear opinion about things and several of my ideas were not the same like yours. Take for example that "So what is art anyway" thread. I disagreed with the usefulness that thread and I come up with strong arguments and two people agreed with the points that I was trying to make. I always come up with many arguments and a well thought over reply. But I didn't start to call you a schoolboy who doesn't know what dignity is, because that is a really immature reaction of you.

If you can't handle a different opinion... count to ten, something what you also should have done before you started that "Art. Crap or photography thread".

I have tried to do my best to see some positive sides of you, but the more I stay in this "Photography as art" forum, the more I get annoyed the way you can't handle the ideas of others, especially when they're not the same like yours.
You also didn't apologize for your behavior in the "Photography. Art of or crap?" thread.

I also should have listened to 3 different people who wrote in that thread;

"Irakly -- Your dialogue leaves me to believe that you are a spoiled and petulant human being with misplaced arrogance. While you may come one here and imply that your bogus venom is a "rally cry" for people to put up better work, it's nothing more than an attempt to stroke your own ego. "

"I have absolutely no respect for him, and I would hope he is removed from this site permanently. I'm not going to sugar coat this- he's just not the kind of person we need here. I will refrain from name-calling, since I would end up listing every name there is. Normally I would premise a post like this with "I'm sorry but..." But I'm not sorry- Irakly should be sorry."

". Everyone came to your defence and made sure that it was understood what your true meaning was. Everyone but you. Are you a spoiled little brat? The truth is, you were rude in a big way. Can't you be a man and admit it?"

Since an honest opinion is not appreciated by you, I have no other choice than staying out of this particular forum.

I do leave with laugh though, after reading the part in which you describe yourself;

"a person whose intentions are as friendly as they can possibly be, I would really enjoy seeing a little bit more dignity in your posts"

That was a good one Irakly!

Good luck with 'your' forum... you're gonna need it.

[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.

[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.

[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.