How open are we to alternate forms of photography?

Whatever our goals, photography is for all of us here a passion, a way of enjoying and celebrating life and what's around us.

Murray Foote said:

... . My career goal is now to live life as well as I can.

Click to expand...

to which Cem Usakligil replied

"This is the best mission statement ever! I salute you."

So in following Murray's example, how much space do each of us allow for alternate ways of photography.

Ben Rubinstein, who's pictures of old Jerusalem are iconic, has found reasons for leaving film behind. Busy on the road shooting weddings, succinctly shared the following

Ben Rubinstein said:

• digital took over from my 35mm film with the 10D,
  
• medium format film with the 5D
  
• LF film when I discovered stitching and when Type 55 disappeared.

Film is just to much faff for anyone but someone who loves the process. Personally if I could sketch I'd probably never take a photo again, everything that comes in between the image I have in my mind and the finished picture is an annoying necessity for me. [bullets by AK]

Click to expand...

But then look at the work of Dawid Loubser who's returned to LF with just two lenses to make his best work or Maris Rusis going straight to Harmon paper to get an image in one shot!

How many of us even look at other ways of expressing our need to make images? Who has studied the Picture a Day series of Jim Collum with his remarkable platinum-palladium prints?

One of the features of the artist is "openness to new experience" ....

For a wedding, I understand the need for competing speed. However, otherwise, do we even look at alternate photography. Maybe we can get inspired for what we want to do?

Are we missing out?

Asher

Even if we stick to digital, for example, does that go through to what we choose to look at and comment on in other work here?

Just as a reference, are we giving sufficient attention to photographers who make pictures in ways so different from out own? Who's work here or elsewhere that's so unique, interests inspires or thrills you, even though you may not copy their techniques?

IOW, are we closed or are we open?

Asher

Asher, I am thick!!

What's IOW?

Thanks.

fahim mohammed said:

Asher, I am thick!!

What's IOW?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

In other words.

Deleted in hindsight.

Asher Kelman said:

Even if we stick to digital, for example, does that go through to what we choose to look at and comment on in other work here?

Click to expand...

I only talk for me, but no: it does not. I do not look at the process by which a picture has been made when writing comments.

I came to this forum for the very reason that it avoids discussions about cameras. I make no secret of the camera I use (it is easy to find out), but I have consistently avoided to name it or cite lenses, etc... on this forum for a reason. For the same reason, I would rather avoid discussing the merits of some photographic processes over other processes.

Asher Kelman said:

Just as a reference, are we giving sufficient attention to photographers who make pictures in ways so different from out own? Who's work here or elsewhere that's so unique, interests inspires or thrills you, even though you may not copy their techniques?

IOW, are we closed or are we open?

Click to expand...

That is a different question. The problem, in that case, is that the limitations of the Internet medium do not make it suitable to convey the merits of these techniques. We do not see prints here, just data in a rectangular frame. We do not see the machines to make the pictures in a way that would allow us to understand how the way they are constructed dictates how we see the world through them.

In that respect, "ditching LF film when I discovered stitching" is a misleading statement. Not that it is not possible to emulate LF photography by stitching, but that it is only possible to do so if one has the experience of using a LF camera. The camera constrains the vision: one does not make the same pictures with, say, a 35mm SLR and a Rolleiflex. You do not look in the viewfinder in the same way, that constrains the position of the camera and therefore the perspective. You can't use some lenses or some apertures. The tone rendition will be different. An experienced photographer can of course work around the limitation of one system to emulate the other, but one first needs the experience so as to understand the limitations of the system one usually uses and what the other system would have given as a result. But the Internet cannot give us that experience.

Cem_Usakligil said:

In other words.

Click to expand...

Thank you Cem.

Hi, Jerome,

Jerome Marot said:

I came to this forum for the very reason that it avoids discussions about cameras.

Click to expand...

Zut alors! I had no idea. I talk about cameras here all the time.

Best regards,

Doug

Indeed, some post ( not talk, I can't hear them but can read what they type and post ) results from their cameras quite frequently.

Some rarely post the results of their photographic efforts, but join in discussions and educate us textually about different aspects of photography. Some are kind enough to show us graphical diagrams.

Then there are posts which could easily be mistaken for pages from ' how things work ' book.

I try to post more pictures. I do not like typing pages and pages of text. I am on this forum to share pictures and learn practical, in the field, photographic techniques. Not read or type text essays or academic papers.

Jerome Marot said:

I only talk for me, but no: it does not. I do not look at the process by which a picture has been made when writing comments.

Click to expand...

I ask about this since we see significant contributions by good photographers ignored. Is it that we tend to look at "our kind of pictures". What about reaching out and making sure no good pictures get orphaned?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

I ask about this since we see significant contributions by good photographers ignored. Is it that we tend to look at "our kind of pictures". What about reaching out and making sure no good pictures get orphaned?

Asher

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the answer has to be that yes..mostly. But not to the complete exclusion of other ' kinds '
of pictures. There is one category I do not ( almost never ) look at.

For others, I do need to put it right.

Thank you for reminding us.

Regards.

Doug Kerr said:

Zut alors! I had no idea. I talk about cameras here all the time.

Click to expand...

I would have said that you talk about Imaging Technology (and other technologies, including insulin pens...). That is no problem, there is even a section for it. I always find it interesting to read how a particular machine works or to learn about the possibilities of expression given by a new process. What I am not interested about is judging an end product by the process used to make it.

Deleted

**************deleted************

Jerome Marot said:

What I am not interested about is judging an end product by the process used to make it.

Click to expand...

Jerome,

that does not make sense - the process one use to make work is part of the work and makes the work.

The way information (I am looking at photography here) is interpreted and rendered differs thought types of the photographic processes – giving each a character and possible interpretations.

How people work / or don’t work with the process this can inform the reading of the image.

Just a thought.

cheers

Mark Hampton said:

that does not make sense - the process one use to make work is part of the work and makes the work.

The way information (I am looking at photography here) is interpreted and rendered differs thought types of the photographic processes – giving each a character and possible interpretations.

How people work / or don’t work with the process this can inform the reading of the image.

Click to expand...

I understand that other people prefer to know how a picture has been produced to interpret it. I don't. In some cases, and especially on an Internet page where everything is rendered as a digital file, there may be different ways to produce the same picture. For example, and since we are discussing "alternate processes" in this thread, one can produce similar images using analog technology or emulating the look of analog film via software. I choose to consider both approaches as equally valid and to only concern myself with the final product, disregarding the process used.
Other people may elect to consider that one approach or the other has more value, e.g. because it is technically more difficult, etc... That approach is certainly possible but is not my choice.

The question titling this thread is "how open are we?". I am just answering the question: I look at all sections, whether I use that particular technique or not. I am interested in all the pictures, whether I use the same type of camera / process or not.

Asher Kelman said:

I ask about this since we see significant contributions by good photographers ignored. Is it that we tend to look at "our kind of pictures". What about reaching out and making sure no good pictures get orphaned?

Click to expand...

I will try to comment more, but I think that your question is a paradox. As far as my pictures are concerned, I consider that all the pictures which were ignored are not good. If they did not interest anyone, they are not interesting by definition.

Jerome Marot said:

I will try to comment more, but I think that your question is a paradox. As far as my pictures are concerned, I consider that all the pictures which were ignored are not good. If they did not interest anyone, they are not interesting by definition.

Click to expand...

Yes of course, that true when and if one actually looks at the picture. However, sometimes I see a picture with 2 comments and 3 visits!

Asher

I usually refrain from commenting when:

1. I don't have anything useful, interesting or valuable to say, or just don't know a thing about what's being posted, like thermal photography for example (I brake this rule frequently anyway).

2. It's too late, everything has been said and done about a photo.

3. From previous experience, after several attempts, I have come to realize that the poster is not interested in MY opinions (figure out!).

4. Quite simply, the photo doesn't motivate me to do any comment, and this has little to do with how much I like or not the photo.

I think is alright to make an effort to overcome points 1and 4.

Lastly, a little rant! There are very fine photographers here who post consistently, get feedback, but giveback very little. Even a simple "cool!" or "you better trash that thing!" would provide some interesting hints.

Regards,

Ruben

Ruben Alfu said:

I usually refrain from commenting when:

1. I don't have anything useful, interesting or valuable to say, or just don't know a thing about what's being posted, like thermal photography for example (I brake this rule frequently anyway).

2. It's too late, everything has been said and done about a photo.

3. From previous experience, after several attempts, I have come to realize that the poster is not interested in MY opinions (figure out!).

4. Quite simply, the photo doesn't motivate me to do any comment, and this has little to do with how much I like or not the photo.

I think is alright to make an effort to overcome points 1and 4.

Lastly, a little rant! There are very fine photographers here who post consistently, get feedback, but giveback very little. Even a simple "cool!" or "you better trash that thing!" would provide some interesting hints.
Regards,

Ruben

Click to expand...

Hi Ruben..well said. You have summarized what I feel also.
with the caveat that often I don not know how to put my thoughts into words.

I do not consider your last sentence to be a rant, but a valid observation in line with what I have made also.

For such situations I take the view, that I should go first and maybe the second time too. If their is no reciprocal response from the other side, I just ignore their posts from there on.

Others and I are grown ups and do not need each others accolades. But it is in the spirit of maintaing an OPF community spirit that courtesy and comments are offered. I expect a quid pro quo basis to maintain that spirit.

Of course also to appreciate work that appeals to me.

Regards.

Hi Ruben,

Ruben Alfu said:

...

Lastly, a little rant! There are very fine photographers here who post consistently, get feedback, but giveback very little. Even a simple "cool!" or "you better trash that thing!" would provide some interesting hints.

Click to expand...

I have voiced the same sentiments a half year ago over here. As a result, I have been largely criticized and even called mentally ill by one member. People thought that I was referring to them and got defensive. I got so disappointed that I did not post for months in OPF. I feel that history may be repeating itself right now. Be well, I will be missing you.

Cem,

I am taking the trouble to contact everyone who gets the benefit of feedback that they have to give as well as receive. At least you know that you will always get careful review of my experience with your work. OPF will always be open. We want to add a function we have thought about but never implemented. It's now time to look to see and recognize those who's work has the quality and/potential to go further. OPF is going to transform to identifying and promoting and nurturing a dedicated group of photographers who take their own and others work seriously. OPF will be streamlines for this new focus.

Remember that we work for the long term result of a collection to meet our respective goals. For this we must be willing to take responsibility to care for each others work.

Themes allows us to work together but we should also be working individually towards sets of images. For that, Cem, I'm so pleased that you are getting so much done. As folk understand by example what's going on, this new task and focus of OPF will work very well.

If there's support, in the upcoming revision of OPF, those with collections will be invited to place their work in a gallery here for sale which we'll promote.

My own work is being transformed from doing large scale portrait and artwork for non-profits, to more of my own art. So I'll have more to post and collections to share.

Asher

A couple of disparate observations:

- Comenting means that the recipient should feel valued. The recipient may or may not agree with critique - that's fine as it's their work and doesn't necessarily mean the comment isn't valued. But we all weigh comments to 'hold on the the good'.Clearly sometimes it is not valued however. I am unhappy with individuals who post but don't comment or engage wth other people's work. I just ignore them.

- Mark's point is valid - process is a key part of the creation of art for many artists, and not just photographers. Process limits, requires and inspires as well as (somtimes) leading to a particular look. We can dedicate ourselves to one proces for a period and then to another if it allows new expressions - I spent some time with an artist who was working with drypoint engraving to make prints. She was in love with using the process to make her art. Two years on and she may adopt a new or even hybrid technique. This is not a suggestoin that commentary is filtered throgh the process, but that we have an approciation that process is intrinsic to the artistic process - the picture is not all that matters...

Best

Mike