Masters of Photography

[LeeIs]

Inspired by a post made by Greg in GB's "Composition and Rules, etc". GB posted a link to a photographer named garry winogrand, I really liked his work and googled him and found my way to a website dedicated to the masters of photography. a big list. I didn't get through them all. but.. honestly, a lot of the work if it was posted in the critique forum, i would've said, u need to do this and that etc. without knowing this is considered a great work of art by a master photographer..

i don't know that thought alone got me thinking, maybe i should rethink the way i see and look at photographs.

A lot of it was b&w, street scenes. Are they amazing because they are older photos? I mean, nowadays, with digital u can fire off a thousand photos and search through them and just pint point the ones u like. back in the days, u'd have to be more careful and only the masters would get great photos considering the amount of shots that were taken?

Some of the shots were landscapes. like this one by Joel Meyerowitz



I can just imagine the critique this would get here.

Don't wanna go on too long. I hope you get my point. Am I seeing things wrong? maybe need to think on a higher level? i don't mind that. I'm in a very beginner level. or is this just outside of what we can learn and it's just a matter of who gets in to that 'league' of masters and who doesn't. And maybe those that have some superb work can sneak in not so great work solely based on the name they've built up for them selves.

I'm sure this topic has come up before somewhere. If there are any other threads, feel free to point me to them.

Also, who is your favourite photographer of all time? I love browsing photography work

I love Adams, but that's very easy choice. I like a little of everyone of them also.

[Greg McCary]

There is a very good podcast avaliable on Itunes of Winogrand giving a question and answer session with a college class. Talking mostly about his approach to it all. It is audio only but it gives a great insite to his philosphy. It's free. I also have another podcast of Robert Frank but have yet to listen to it. You should youtube Bruce Gilden sometime.
One thing I would like to try is breaking the rules on purpose and learning to get away with it,

[LeeIs]

I would love to listen to these podcasts. I usually listen to youtube vids at work. How do I go about finding them Greg?

I searched Winogrand on itunes and nothing came up. Same thing with Robert Frank. I know I'm probably doing something wrong. I guess, I don't know how to find podcasts or subscribe to them... Never really done that. Sometimes, I come across a podcast and listen to it, but i have no clue how i've done. i think mostly through links on people's websites.

Bruce Gilden on the other hand, I found on youtube quite easily. youtube is so easy. I'll watch a few of his vids this morning.

thanks greg.

[Greg McCary]

Search in the Itunes store under podcast.

[Greg McCary]

This is pretty cool. It covers pretty much what he said to the class.
http://2point8.whileseated.org/2007/...h-bill-moyers/

[Loupey]

I imagine that with increasing successes an "artist" is granted (implicitly) more and more artistic license. I think there is Art in every discipline by known artists which many might think "hmmm". And those are the ones they choose to show. Think of all the ones they throw away - like us.

Why not start a thread of images that "worked" (whatever that means - images that sold or shots that other people generally like) but go against common rules. Knowing "what should be but ain't" might be more of a learning experience than "what should be and is".

[Greg McCary]

I imagine that with increasing successes an "artist" is granted (implicitly) more and more artistic license. I think there is Art in every discipline by known artists which many might think "hmmm". And those are the ones they choose to show. Think of all the ones they throw away - like us.

Why not start a thread of images that "worked" (whatever that means - images that sold or shots that other people generally like) but go against common rules. Knowing "what should be but ain't" might be more of a learning experience than "what should be and is".

I love that idea. Maybe it is a natural progession from learning first the camera, then composition and then what you can and can't get away with.
Maybe the greats never studied much at all and just blazed their own trails.

[Loupey]

.... Maybe the greats never studied much at all and just blazed their own trails.

Perhaps they started not knowing the rules and just had an acute awareness of what pleased the eye and brain.

Perhaps we have it backwards. To know the rules first may be a hindrance for those with vast potential. But it sells books and does cut down the time it takes for everyone to get over many common "errors" that we all have at first.

Just curious - are there any Greats that came from families of influence? In other words, are there masters that started with the help of money and connections or did everyone start in similar fashion as an unknown with just their work to build upon?

[Grandpaw]

The first thing that came to mind when I looked at this photo was the horizon being almost centered among other things. Quite often when I look at photos posted in our critique forum, I wonder why it just wasn't deleted and not posted. Then I read the comments and they just go on and on about what a great photo it is and the colors, composition, depth of field and the lighting and I wonder why I am not seeing the same thing. I know that I'm not the greatest photographer around but some of these photos that everyone raves about I just totally miss what everyone else seems to be seeing. To me there are snapshots and then there are photos that you may want to put in the critique forum to discuss the good and bad fine points to see how to improve on it to make it a real keeper.

A lot of times after reading the comments I do learn and read about things I hadn't noticed and have learned a great deal from visiting the critique forum and getting different views and I would like to thank everyone for teaching me to look more closely at each photo. There still are several that I totally do not see the points that are talked about in the comments. Maybe my learning curve is just a little bit bigger than most of the people here.

I feel like I have made it up a few rungs of the learning ladder in the years I have been here but can see I may have several to go before getting nearer the top. Thanks to everyone for helping me get this far, Jeff

[Greg McCary]

Perhaps they started not knowing the rules and just had an acute awareness of what pleased the eye and brain.

Perhaps we have it backwards. To know the rules first may be a hindrance for those with vast potential. But it sells books and does cut down the time it takes for everyone to get over many common "errors" that we all have at first.

Just curious - are there any Greats that came from families of influence? In other words, are there masters that started with the help of money and connections or did everyone start in similar fashion as an unknown with just their work to build upon?

Well I don't think Winogrand made any money to speak of of off his photography. I think he is quoted as selling some of his prints to a museum for $10.00 each. He was always borrowing chemicals and his love for photography caused two divorces.
I think the most money is made from photographs after the artist is dead and thier work becomes limited collectables. Sad but true, the greats did it out of the love and passion they had and money was never an issue.

[LeeIs]

Greg,

Just saw the way Bruce Gilden photographs his street scene. haha.. man, does he get in to people's faces or what. That totally transforms those photographs for me for sure. I did search the iTunes podcasts for those two and nothing came up that's what i meant. Maybe I'm searchin in the wrong area. I use the top right search tool.

Loupy, I like that idea. The idea behind this thread was I was hoping someone would maybe show me why those photos are great. I think that's what you mean by your idea, Someone shows an image that has been successful inspite of it breaking the rules, or not being aesthetically great. Exactly, what i was hoping someone would do to clarify if there's something i'm missing in the way i view those images.


Jeff, yeah me too. Even the not so good photographs i post on the critique forum myself, i learn something from the feed back. That forum's been a great tool of learning for me as well. It's a good cycle of learning, we learn from the comments you yourself post on there too so thanks to you as well for chipping in your 2 cents.


I guess for this thread, I just wanted to maybe try and think differently or see those art pieces differently to appreciate them. I think it's maybe a matter of time like Jeff mentions. Something that might not appeal to me at the moment might become one of my favourites once my horizon expands.

[n8]

Good post.
I need a reminder every now and then to be ok with the unconventional. I agree with Grandpaw that I often see shots that get more praise then I would have given, but only after reading it do I understand why. I'm still getting to know the "rules," but I think they've got to be known before they can be broken. Just like in music or anything else, there's a load of theory that supports the fundamentals, but just needs to be thrown out of the window once in a while for something to work.

[arne saknussen]

The arts have always been filled with rules and people that break them. I studied theatre in college and during one period in history, thankfully brief, if a play lasted 2 hours, then the timeline in the play had to be 2 hours.

[Loupey]

...but I think they've got to be known before they can be broken...

Do you mean in order to break them intentionally? Because I bet 99% of us broke all kinds without even knowing when we started out