• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Following Maris' thread

Mike Shimwell

New member
here and Asher's comments on composition, I remembered these comments from willaim Eggleston as a contrast.

Please feel free to discuss:)

Mike


20110125-ns-4-of-6.jpg
 

Bob Rogers

New member
I'm more like Mr. Eggleston. I have good spatial abilities. I can fit more in a suitcase, or a car trunk, than the average person. My wife sometimes wants to move furniture or something, and I'll say, "no, it's not going to fit that way." But we'll need to try it anyway, and it will be 20 mm too big. When I first started at my job my boss was pretty impressed that I could do a measured drawing in perspective without plan or elevation. Apparently this is a rare skill in architecture school.

Anyway, I use those skills to move the scene around in my mind and see where I need to put the lens. For me, a very enjoyable aspect of photography is seeing a scene develop, and get my camera to the right spot at the right time to capture a great picture.

With film I would usually only make one exposure, much for the same reason Mr. Eggleston explains. When I got into 4x5 (inches) I always made two identical exposures so I could mess one up in processing. (not intentionally, btw).

Now that I have only digital, I'm tending more towards the other direction, and shooting lots of pictures, but I'm still getting to know the gear. Hopefully I'll slow down with the shutter finger. I've always felt that it's better to come home with one really good photo than a whole bunch of good photos.

Especially as I've gotten older and given up on any idea of ever trying to sell my pictures. I have more than I can display, so I go out and take some. If I don't get one that might have been good I don't worry about it, because I already have good photos, and I'll make more good ones in the future.

I've gotten rusty though. I haven't been doing anything substantial in photography in about 10 years, and I know my abilities are a lot lower now than they had been.
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
William Eggleston is, and by all accounts has always been, very much a person guided by his own whims and instincts in everything...including photography. My own advice to avocational photographers is to mimic William's free spirit but not his specific choices in either equipment styles or scene selections / compositions.

Where 90% (my guess) of hobbyist men fail in photography is in putting tools and technique ahead of developing anything beyond the most mundane, pedestrian visual sophistication. This includes not only the fellows that continually chase the newest but also the guys that chase the oldest. (Yes, placing vintage cameras, lenses, and techniques at the top of your decision chain is even more detrimental to most guy's creative development than chasing the tech edge.) Just grab any camera at all, whatever's convenient and whatever you've genuinely mastered. Devote your time and energies toward developing a visual sense and sophistication. This is especially true for weekend snappers who have very limited time to devote to their photography.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
The camera is unimportant beyond working properly and giving you control over what you want to control. What's important is vision. The vast majority of people involved in photography place cameras before vision, thinking that vision will come once they have acquired the proper camera. But vision doesn't care which camera you use. Those who manage to go further than mundane images place vision first and worry little about which camera they use.

I credit a lot of my photographic progress to a 4x5" (or other format) opening in a piece of cardboard. Why? Because it promotes vision and is independent of any camera.

When I read the countless essays, reviews, forum threads, blog posts, etc. written about gear, I realize why so few photographs are interesting. The lure of the equipment is so powerful that hardly anyone pays attention to vision. Better or different gear is believed to be the road that leads to better photography. It does not. Better and different vision is the road that leads to better photography. Better gear leads to better gear. It's a dead end.

Many people photograph. Few see.

Many people have great cameras. Few have great photos.

Photographers who want to improve their work need to spend as much time researching their vision as they spend reserching their equipment. If they do they will see a dramatic increase in the visual quality of their images.
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I credit a lot of my photographic progress to a 4x5" (or other format) opening in a piece of cardboard. Why? Because it promotes vision and is independent of any camera.

Alain,

This is so true. I started my 3 sons on "photography". We went about for months on "photography trips" each sunday. Our "camera" was a frame made from fingers and thumbs from each hand. I told that that's how the best folk learn to find what's fantastic. Even now, I use my fingers, or if I'm being very careful, a cardboard cutout. I often draw what I want to include in the picture. Of course, at times I take lots of snaps too.

The next step for my kids was always one lens. For me it was only after 10 years of photography that I moved from 35mm focal length to 50mm focal length. Another 5 years before my first zoom lens, a 17-35.

Learning to see is far more important than the lens. Even a pinhole camera in the hands of someone with vision can yield a great photograph.

So, yes, I endorse you POV! That's photography, after all. One's POV!

Asher
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
Just for clarity, it hadn't occurred to me that anyone wuould consider the post to about equipment. The element of the article that struck me was the contrast between the comments in the right column on 'being struck in an instant' and 'needing to take a picture' and the contrast between that and the much more formal and long planned process advocated by Maris and Asher.

This was not a value judgement, but perhaps an encouragement to 'follow whims' and an opportunity to discuss the contrasting approaches.

Mike
 

Alain Briot

pro member
what struck me was the contrast between the comments on (...) 'needing to take a picture' and the (...) long planned process advocated by Maris and Asher.

This (is) an encouragement to 'follow whims'(...)

Mike

Good point. Intuition is important. To be honest, I haven't read 'the long planned process' of AK and MR, but long winded doesn't work in art when it comes to doing. You have to listen to your emotional response and act intuitively. That doesn't mean you don't want to 'ponder' composition etc. when you are not shooting (I do). But when you are creating images, be it in the field or studio, following a stream of consciousness works better.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Good point. Intuition is important. To be honest, I haven't read 'the long planned process' of AK and MR, but long winded doesn't work in art when it comes to doing. You have to listen to your emotional response and act intuitively. That doesn't mean you don't want to 'ponder' composition etc. when you are not shooting (I do). But when you are creating images, be it in the field or studio, following a stream of consciousness works better.
All the most valued works of art of the last5 centuries were planned with sketches and made with several attempts in an iterative process. The work itself speaks back to the artist mind, enriching the process.

A person with just one fixed lens for 5 years who then has developed the sensibility, moto-sensory connections in the brain, (which then then work in real time with intuition), snap and get a perfect shot. However, these are few and far between. The best wedding photographers do that at times. Any impulsive shooting, having a foundation in previous careful work, will be richer for that experience and honing the brains ability to do so many thing on an on an unconscious level.

So careful work and rapid shooting are part of one set of tools.

Asher
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Being a good quick-draw shooter comes in handy for candid snapshot photography and, perhaps, for some landscape work, too.

But when it comes to the art world, and even most commercial work, contemplation most definitely must come into play. The most highly valued contemporary work today is also among the most highly planned and often very intricately constructed. Come to think of it, the only candid work that's really in play at auctions, major galleries, and museum shows today is vintage work from the early/mid 20th. Nearly everything else is constructed and/or deeply planned work.

The landmarks of 21st century photography thus far, unlike the 20th, are non-documentary and very conceptual and synthetic.

Nevertheless, back to the avocational subject at-hand, I really do believe that many amateurs would be better served spending time constructing scenes in which they can study the use of gesture, form, light, and color with their camera. Running around like an image looter, and returning with the same crap, is generally only coincidentally productive. ("Even a blind hog gets an acorn every so often.")
 

Alain Briot

pro member
"The landmarks of 21st century photography thus far, unlike the 20th, are non-documentary and very conceptual and synthetic."

That's true.
 

Joe Hardesty

New member
All the most valued works of art of the last5 centuries were planned with sketches and made with several attempts in an iterative process...

...But when it comes to the art world, and even most commercial work, contemplation most definitely must come into play...

Having spent the past month researching modern art and hearing over 100 interviews with the most respected artists (including photographers) of the 20th and 21st century, I feel compelled to disagree with the above statements.

While it is true that many artists follow a exhaustive planning regimen, many many others do not. I was surprised to find that some sculptors have no preplanned notion of their work, but instead allow the material to direct the finished work.

The references for those opinions can be found in the Art:21 PBS series, MOMA documentaries, and online interviews with modern artists.

There simply is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to art. For every rule there is an exception, and perhaps in art, the exception is the rule.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Joe,

It's truer now, in this century, as Ken pointed out. Intuition isn't valued as much as an artistic tool. That doesn't mean this has always been the case. It hasn't. Or that everyone follows a non-intuitive approach. Some still do. But overall, as in many other aspects of our lives, we're becoming more controlled, more planning is going into things. That's why a lot of beginning photographers have difficulties. Just doing things intuitively isn't working because a lot of the successful work is very calculated. Intuition comes at a later stage. Looking at some of the beginning photographer's work on this site shows this quite well.

FYI, an artist interviews aren't necessarily the best way to find out everything that artsts do. Many artists have difficulties explaining their approach and often over-emphasize certain aspects while ignoring others. Art historians, museum curators and other critics are a more reliable resource when it comes to that.
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
William Eggleston is, and by all accounts has always been, very much a person guided by his own whims and instincts in everything...including photography. My own advice to avocational photographers is to mimic William's free spirit but not his specific choices in either equipment styles or scene selections / compositions.

Just grab any camera at all, whatever's convenient and whatever you've genuinely mastered. Devote your time and energies toward developing a visual sense and sophistication. This is especially true for weekend snappers who have very limited time to devote to their photography.

quote 2
Nevertheless, back to the avocational subject at-hand, I really do believe that many amateurs would be better served spending time constructing scenes in which they can study the use of gesture, form, light, and color with their camera. Running around like an image looter, and returning with the same crap, is generally only coincidentally productive. ("Even a blind hog gets an acorn every so often.")


Ken

I appreciate these comments and wonder if you expand on them. I think there is a connection between 'developing a visual sense and sophistication' and 'constructing scenes where they can study...' Yet, are these 'whim driven' or perhaps respect a longer term whim than is often implied?

How to make it practical?

Cheers

Mike
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
@ Joe:

My remarks were directed toward art photography, not towards the contemporary art world in general. I think that if you survey this relatively small niche of the art world closely you'll agree. Look, for example, at the work of artists such as Greg Crewdson who redefines the notion of "over-produce" to create a single image. Ditto Jeff Wall. Edward Burtynsky scouts and plans his scenes often years in advance. Even the apparently casual landscape images of Robert Adams are the products of great premeditation, often to convey a finger-waving environmental message. As photography continues its never-ending search for high-value legitimacy in art circles its practice actually seems to be circling back to practices more commonly found in 16th and 17th century painting. In my opinion, this is a wrong path that strips the medium of some of its strongest characteristics, particularly spontaneity. But that's a broader topic for another time and venue.

Still, it is true that in the general contemporary art world there are plenty of artists, particularly "sculptors", who claim that their work is essentially the product of the materials at-hand and perturbations of their neuro-muscular systems. Some of this work is held high ... for a time. But the often ephemeral nature of so much of it means that it's destined to evaporate as it so often does. (We recently had an exhibition in Chicago that featured a piece consisting of a few stuffed toy animals tossed into a corner with a thin rope hanging above them. Poof!)

Cy Twombly is an example of an artist who generally follows his feelings but to more durable (and profitable) ends. The Art Institiute of Chicago here has recently featured quite a bit of his work in conjunction with the opening of the new Modern Wing. We currently have an exhibition of some of his sculptures as part of the Stone Collection.

@ Mike: The average camera owner is hooked on conventionality. He's hooked on visual balance, on trying to swallow whole meals with nothing left to imagination. Most of all he's hooked on pretty. And why shouldn't he be? That's what's been used to sell him everything his whole life. Toys, candy, cars, clothing, lifestyles. And that's fine. The images that most folks hold as trophies basically mimic this conventionality or some sub-set of what's considered conventional. I am not criticizing this, merely observing. Just look around here at the images folks post. Mostly pretty or cute or charming. And that's just fine. Most folks have limited time for this hobby and if they can get a charming photo of their baby or a pretty photo of the beach where they walk their dog that's more than satisfying enough to propel them forward to the next frame.

But when people begin talking about photography at higher levels than personal keepsakes, at levels where they can use it to express something premeditated, now they're looking at using that camera as a more surgical tool. And for that you need to get a good grounding in what makes the eye-brain connection tick in planar works. That's often a byproduct of a good art education. It's sometimes the byproduct of intuitive talent. But for most of us it's the product of intentional, exclusive study and intensive practice and review.

Whew! Too much writing here for the week! Gotta go!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Having spent the past month researching modern art and hearing over 100 interviews with the most respected artists (including photographers) of the 20th and 21st century, I feel compelled to disagree with the above statements.

While it is true that many artists follow a exhaustive planning regimen, many many others do not. I was surprised to find that some sculptors have no preplanned notion of their work, but instead allow the material to direct the finished work.

The references for those opinions can be found in the Art:21 PBS series, MOMA documentaries, and online interviews with modern artists.

There simply is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to art. For every rule there is an exception, and perhaps in art, the exception is the rule.
Joe,

If you have URL's to obtain these materials it would so valuable for us.

Thanks,

Asher
 

Bob Rogers

New member
This is an interesting topic. I really appreciate Ken's insights regarding planning vs. spontaneity in fine art photography.

I keep wondering about Ansel Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, 1941. According to his book, he just happened upon the scene, stopped, and set up his 8x10 camera with amazing speed to capture the moment before it was gone.

Anyway, 1941 was a long time ago. Is this photograph "the exception that proves the rule" or is it just old fashioned? Not too long ago I saw one of his prints of that image in a gallery. Good thing I didn't have $60,000, or I'd be divorced ;-)
 

Alain Briot

pro member
I keep wondering about Ansel Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, 1941. According to his book, he just happened upon the scene, stopped, and set up his 8x10 camera with amazing speed to capture the moment before it was gone.

Bob,

Moonrise is a good example of what I was talking about earlier on the thread. Thanks for bringing it up. It had skipped my mind!
 

Joe Hardesty

New member
Joe,

If you have URL's to obtain these materials it would so valuable for us.

Thanks,

Asher

Sorry, no links because I watch them on AppleTV, but they weren't hard to find by searching on MOMA or any photographer/artists name.

The MOMA documentaries and a huge number of photographer interviews are available on YouTube, iTunes podcasts, and iTunes U.

The Art:21 PBS TV series is available for purchase on iTunes at $1.99 for each 1 hour episode but are incredibly informative and insightful on a wide range of contemporary art disciplines.
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
@ Joe:

My remarks were directed toward art photography, not towards the contemporary art world in general. I think that if you survey this relatively small niche of the art world closely you'll agree. Look, for example, at the work of artists such as Greg Crewdson who redefines the notion of "over-produce" to create a single image. Ditto Jeff Wall. Edward Burtynsky scouts and plans his scenes often years in advance. Even the apparently casual landscape images of Robert Adams are the products of great premeditation, often to convey a finger-waving environmental message. As photography continues its never-ending search for high-value legitimacy in art circles its practice actually seems to be circling back to practices more commonly found in 16th and 17th century painting. In my opinion, this is a wrong path that strips the medium of some of its strongest characteristics, particularly spontaneity. But that's a broader topic for another time and venue.

Still, it is true that in the general contemporary art world there are plenty of artists, particularly "sculptors", who claim that their work is essentially the product of the materials at-hand and perturbations of their neuro-muscular systems. Some of this work is held high ... for a time. But the often ephemeral nature of so much of it means that it's destined to evaporate as it so often does. (We recently had an exhibition in Chicago that featured a piece consisting of a few stuffed toy animals tossed into a corner with a thin rope hanging above them. Poof!)

Cy Twombly is an example of an artist who generally follows his feelings but to more durable (and profitable) ends. The Art Institiute of Chicago here has recently featured quite a bit of his work in conjunction with the opening of the new Modern Wing. We currently have an exhibition of some of his sculptures as part of the Stone Collection.

@ Mike: The average camera owner is hooked on conventionality. He's hooked on visual balance, on trying to swallow whole meals with nothing left to imagination. Most of all he's hooked on pretty. And why shouldn't he be? That's what's been used to sell him everything his whole life. Toys, candy, cars, clothing, lifestyles. And that's fine. The images that most folks hold as trophies basically mimic this conventionality or some sub-set of what's considered conventional. I am not criticizing this, merely observing. Just look around here at the images folks post. Mostly pretty or cute or charming. And that's just fine. Most folks have limited time for this hobby and if they can get a charming photo of their baby or a pretty photo of the beach where they walk their dog that's more than satisfying enough to propel them forward to the next frame.

But when people begin talking about photography at higher levels than personal keepsakes, at levels where they can use it to express something premeditated, now they're looking at using that camera as a more surgical tool. And for that you need to get a good grounding in what makes the eye-brain connection tick in planar works. That's often a byproduct of a good art education. It's sometimes the byproduct of intuitive talent. But for most of us it's the product of intentional, exclusive study and intensive practice and review.

Whew! Too much writing here for the week! Gotta go!


Ken, Thanks for taking the time to reply. It's appreciated.

Mike
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
@ Joe:

My remarks were directed toward art photography, not towards the contemporary art world in general. I think that if you survey this relatively small niche of the art world closely you'll agree. Look, for example, at the work of artists such as Greg Crewdson who redefines the notion of "over-produce" to create a single image. Ditto Jeff Wall. Edward Burtynsky scouts and plans his scenes often years in advance. Even the apparently casual landscape images of Robert Adams are the products of great premeditation, often to convey a finger-waving environmental message. As photography continues its never-ending search for high-value legitimacy in art circles its practice actually seems to be circling back to practices more commonly found in 16th and 17th century painting. In my opinion, this is a wrong path that strips the medium of some of its strongest characteristics, particularly spontaneity. But that's a broader topic for another time and venue.

Still, it is true that in the general contemporary art world there are plenty of artists, particularly "sculptors", who claim that their work is essentially the product of the materials at-hand and perturbations of their neuro-muscular systems. Some of this work is held high ... for a time. But the often ephemeral nature of so much of it means that it's destined to evaporate as it so often does. (We recently had an exhibition in Chicago that featured a piece consisting of a few stuffed toy animals tossed into a corner with a thin rope hanging above them. Poof!)

Cy Twombly is an example of an artist who generally follows his feelings but to more durable (and profitable) ends. The Art Institiute of Chicago here has recently featured quite a bit of his work in conjunction with the opening of the new Modern Wing. We currently have an exhibition of some of his sculptures as part of the Stone Collection.

@ Mike: The average camera owner is hooked on conventionality. He's hooked on visual balance, on trying to swallow whole meals with nothing left to imagination. Most of all he's hooked on pretty. And why shouldn't he be? That's what's been used to sell him everything his whole life. Toys, candy, cars, clothing, lifestyles. And that's fine. The images that most folks hold as trophies basically mimic this conventionality or some sub-set of what's considered conventional. I am not criticizing this, merely observing. Just look around here at the images folks post. Mostly pretty or cute or charming. And that's just fine. Most folks have limited time for this hobby and if they can get a charming photo of their baby or a pretty photo of the beach where they walk their dog that's more than satisfying enough to propel them forward to the next frame.

But when people begin talking about photography at higher levels than personal keepsakes, at levels where they can use it to express something premeditated, now they're looking at using that camera as a more surgical tool. And for that you need to get a good grounding in what makes the eye-brain connection tick in planar works. That's often a byproduct of a good art education. It's sometimes the byproduct of intuitive talent. But for most of us it's the product of intentional, exclusive study and intensive practice and review.

Whew! Too much writing here for the week! Gotta go!

Ken,

Thanks for taking the time to articulate these ideas and opinions delineating the pretty stuff we tend to do from work planned based on ideas. I think I have it right. I do both: I'm taken by prettiness but now I'm more aware that it really has no inherent meaning, rather it's there for being pleasant, acceptable or else some kind of seduction. I also take great pains to plan images and these can take months to figure out.

Asher
 
Top