Photographers Philosophy... the mindset?

[darkman]

Just one question, the "intense" statement, was that meant in a good way or were you giving me a hard time? I'm just curious, I have a hard time understanding posts sometimes...

BTW, this has got to be my favorite PR.com thread of all time...

Hi Sebastion,

I almost used the music analogy too... While I appreciate some form of photography, that doesn't mean I want to hang it on my wall.

Yes, it is hard in posts to always understand. You want to be short and consice; but often end up rambling-on or sound abrupt.

I meant the "intense" statement in a very positive way. I do enjoy your phogography even though I don't often reply to it. Your passion for it comes through.

Mike

[Sebastian]

Hi Sebastion,

I almost used the music analogy too... While I appreciate some form of photography, that doesn't mean I want to hang it on my wall.

Yes, it is hard in posts to always understand. You want to be short and consice; but often end up rambling-on or sound abrupt.

I meant the "intense" statement in a very positive way. I do enjoy your phogography even though I don't often reply to it. Your passion for it comes through.

Mike

Mike,

Thanks for clearing that up, and thanks for the supportive words, I appreciate them.

[Norman]

I tend to agree with you, however, you are blending illustration and photography together, to me they are two seperate things. Yes, many people load an image into PS and start messing with filters and effects. But how many stick with it? Or go beyond applying the same stupid filter? I'm sure not many photographers do, but the ones that do become illustrators. They become different than you and I. A photograph might be the starting point for their final vision. Can we call that photography? Not really IMO, it's illustration, but that only means it's different, not better or worse. And digital photography didn't make this possible, scanner have been around forever, as well as PS. No, instead digital photography has made it more widespread, easier to get into. Yes, the amount of garbage being posted and printed goes up, but with that so does the amount of quality images. Is it proportional? I'm sure not. Like I said, all those ideas that you didn't want to waste film on before are now photos for everyone to see. You still make the same amount of quality work, maybe even more, but the amount of trash pictures has skyrocketed. This is not in any way representative of how digital has affected the art of photography, instead it is just a physical record of all those ideas we used to discard.

Are we getting technically sterile photographs? I don't think so. I think we used to with film. Only the ones that really could afford to do it experimented enough to get those truely masterful, artistic images. The rest of us couldn't risk it, we took the "safe" route. Well-exposed, technically great images, using safe compositions. Overall, not to exciting except from the group of really excellent photogs, who could allow themselves the risky frames, just to see how they come out. I think digital has allowed many more people the freedom to experiment and learn so much faster that I think in some areas the bar is being raised. I think the ones that will truely push the envelope will be the ones that succeed with digital, the ones that stand out from the rest. I don't think it's a bad thing, just a transition period. I don't think we can really compare today's images to the ones of old. We can learn from the past, but I think the current situation is one where we will have to see what these new tools will let our new artists create.

Do you sound cynical? Maybe...but I tend to lean your way as well, I agree with what you say, I have seen too many dabblers put out garbage. I think I'm not looking hard enough for the ones that are really pushing the medium, maybe you should try looking harder as well?

The problem is, the internet is homogenizing art. Groups like ours here are wonderful, but how often do you see orignal, truely different work? And when you do, the posters tend to get few remarks, simply because it's so strange to us we just don't know how to respond. Forums such as these are basically like cliques in high school. We all dress the same, we all listen to the same music, you get the point. It becomes easy to sit inside one or two of these groups and make a statement about the world as a whole. I feel you are frustrated, and I am in many ways as well. I suggest we both search out really brilliant photographers and see what they are doing with the medium in the digital age. I think your views might change, and I hope my idealistic banter will have been worth it.

We need to start ignoring the masses and start looking for the rare gems.

Jesus, I hope any of this makes any sense, but I will post it anyway.

I guess I have a different way of expressing what I think we both share as a perception of photography. I started out trying to encourage Sean into stretching his reach into photography.

I have spent more years than I care to remeber perfecting the craft of photography, expousure, composition, darkroom work developing B&W, C41 & E6. Now I reached a point where I taught myself digital as a new comer with photographic baggage & there has to be more. That is what Sean should do, find his own style. I guess I have a touch of been there done that, & it does not feed the passion anymore, so style is more important than pleasing a photo clubs judges on the rules of photography.

By the way this post has been inspiring, thank you.

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=Sean Dempsey]Hi, here's a non-hardware related post from your local new guy.


First - I am taking pictures of stuff that anyone could take pictures of. Zions Natl Park has been photographed a million times, or more. So, I want to do stuff a little more unique and artful, but what? It's like I've got this great camera, great software, but I am like "what to take pictures of???"

Hi Sean:

At the age of 16, my mother got me into a camera club that was associated with the Canadian Association of Photographic Art. I got involved in a considerable amount of competition photography which did not exclude professionals and I ended up competing against my mother for many of the awards.

The important part was learning WHY some photographs won competitions and why some photos did NOT. The "elements of design" which are basic to art, also form the rules for judging photographic competitions and salons. I also got to see a very wide range of subjects shot in a very artistic manner from in some cases a very unique point of view. The result is that as a photographer, I learned to look more closely at things, angles, points of view, etc. and to experiment. There is the silly comment that a good television camera man or producer has to have SQUARE eyes. It is also true for photographers that are serious about their craft. By that I mean, able to think in terms of framing subjects in an environment to create a unique, individual, artistic point of view.

My experience with competition photography considerably improved my skills and differentiated my work in terms of visual effectiveness and art from that of the purely photographic technicians capable of using the equipment but not producing quality artistic results.

I suggest you consider the same kind of learning experience. Get into competition photography. Join a camera club. Learn the elements of design and apply them in your work. Check out what you consider to be very effective photos and look at why they are effective. What did the photographer do or use that was different or unique? How did he/she express his/her personality or point of view in the shot?

Ronnoco

[Lionheart]

When I first went digital, I shot like there was no tomorrow. I recently looked at my photos from the last 3 years, the most recent 2 years of which were all digital (since my beloved EOS-1V got stolen ). At least half of my film shots were keepers or semi-keepers, where as my digital collection could pretty much be tossed as snapshots. The difference was the frugal mindset I had when shooting film. I didnt want to waste my precious Provia and Velvia slide film, so I seriously thought my composition through, studied my vantage points, lighting, etc.. With digital, I got trigger happy and visionless. It's only recently since I've been tasked with shooting weddings for friends and relatives and the studio photography I do at the office that some semblance of vision has returned to me. I've been shooting more with my point and shoot G2, with its limited capabilities and with a 128mb card to limit the number of photos, to force me to think critically again, and see through my old eyes as when slide film was my medium of choice. Now I'm beginning to look and wait for those moments (usually with my children) to capture again instead of pointing and spraying photons all over my camera's CCD. Photography hasn't changed, just my lack of discipline from the joys of having a powerful new photographic tool. Unfortunately my rehabilitation process has been slow as photographic opportunities away from assignments and work have been few and far between.