This not that: frame it

<i>Replacement is not subtraction.</i>

<p>

replacement is subtraction followed by addition.

Eggleston is, first off, responding to someone else's characterization in the quote. Neither is putting forth a philosophical

treatise or exclaiming what a photo necessarily is. They are mulling over a way to think about photos. Simply dismissing it

is doing no more than just that, simply dismissing it. It's closing your mind and turning a blind eye. Stop looking for truths and open up to ideas.

<p>Thanks for the complement, Julie. I assure you I have never read Rudolph Arnheim. I haven't read much in terms of art of photography in general. I do have an intense visual sense and I am acutely aware of where my eye is moving or "is moved" by elements in an image, and this guides my cropping and other post processing.</p>

<i>They are mulling over a way to think about photos. </i>

<p>

eh? they are comparing processes.

<p>

<i>Stop looking for truths and open up to ideas</i>

<p>

everyone here has opened up to the idea of photography being a subtractive process (<i>thanks Julie</i> ) but some of

us have rejected it.

<p>Rejecting it for yourself is different from rejecting it for others. You didn't compare your process to Eggleston's, which might have been interesting, you simply said Eggleston doesn't know what he's talking about (what the meaning of subtraction is). Actually talking about a process and describing it is the hard part. Getting out your dictionary and chiding someone else's use of a word is a whole lot easier and much stimulating.</p>

<p>The only way I would have of knowing whether someone here is open to an idea is by how they talk about the idea. A simple statement, as if a statement of fact, telling me that Eggleston hasn't properly used the word subtraction doesn't show me, at least in this setting that you're open to the idea, just that you chose to write a word or two about it.</p>

<p>And in what world is comparing processes not a mulling over of ideas. One plays word games when substance just doesn't come.</p>

<p>norman, earlier you wrote, "replacement is subtraction followed by addition."</p>

<p>It's a peculiarity of photography that, in photography, that's not true. When you think you are subtracting something, there's always already something else there. There is no "followed by," therefore neither subtraction <em>nor</em> addition (upping the ante ... ). There's only 'this not that.'</p>

@Fred, I never said anything about Eggleston and I have put foward a counter argument to what Prodger said. By taking

a snapshot you are creating something. All creative processes are additive.

@Julie, in my example I never actually said subtract 'something'. one can subtract the photographic equivalent of the

empty set (ie subtract nothing). ditto with addition. and you can subtract from as well as add to a photograph.

 

replacement i took to mean creating something from nothing or altering something or leaving something untouched )

<p>norman, if you let go of the literal, you get into pretty much everything, not just creativity. Bateson's "difference that makes a difference" is the lower surface/limit of awareness. I move my pencil from here to there; what it covered is now visible; what it now covers is now not visible.</p>

mmm, not sure about the letting go bit. would that be letting go forever?

<p>LOL</p>

<p>You are a wise man, norman.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By taking a snapshot you are creating something. All creative processes are additive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Norman, these are not counterarguments or arguments of any sort. They are both CONCLUSIONS, asserted with no reasoning. That's dogma, not argument. So is "replacement is not subtraction." All these are are pithy little assertions that are meant to dismiss ideas, not consider them.<br /> <br /> Again, the only way I can tell that someone has actually considered an idea is if they show me they have. You have not.<br /> <br /> Notice how several others in response to the question posed, "how often do you think that you're 'subtracting'?" answered by doing just that. They were descriptive. That tells me that in a photographic context they personally considered the question, whether they accept or reject the premise. You and Julie are merely confidently asserting academic conclusions, made seemingly as objective facts would be, which is something very different.</p>

<p>For instance, this . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The thing is, if you 'subtract' you should have less of something afterwards. Do you have a smaller picture? Or is there a hole in the picture?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>. . . I hope is a joke but, if so, it doesn't make a point. Did Julie really think the subtraction involved was referring to subtraction from the physical print? That would be a rather eccentric understanding of the back and forth between Prodger and Eggleston.*<br>

<br>

[Please, let's remember we are discussing neither Prodger's nor Eggleston's views. We are discussing simple singular statements of each ripped from a bigger dialogue to which I don't have access. So I'm discussing ideas abstracted from whatever they were actually talking about and whatever more they may have both said on the subject.]</p>

<p>Arthur, I know you were considering the act of cropping which was the context in which the question was posed. Interestingly, because I was thinking about what Prodger might have actually been getting at in his discussion with Eggleston, I didn't interpret the question relative to cropping but instead to the act of photographing. Until I realized you were talking about the act of cropping only, I was surprised at your answer, because I've always found your work, in particular, rather subtractive. As you, yourself, say, "Less is more," something I don't find to be the case as opposed to "more is more", which I find as true, though I know I may be in the minority. Regardless of what we each think of "less is more," however I can see that idea at play in your work, so you seem to often stay true to it. To me, though, "less is more" suggests both subtraction and addition, but what we call it is relatively unimportant to me. What's more important is that I do see you as one who will often not include in the frame what you think is distracting. I think that gives your work a focused and usually organized feel, composition-wise. I think it's a bit more in your narratives, your use of reflection and shadow, etc. that enigma may arise as opposed to in your compositions themselves.</p>

<p>I, on the other hand, have often be "accused" of leaving in what others consider distracting elements. That's provided me with some tensions over the years and some amount of second-guessing between what adds texture and interest and a bit more storytelling to an image and what is a distraction to the point where it gets in the way too much. Looking back at some of my work, I now see what the critics meant in some cases and yet, in others, I'm more sure I made the decision that most got the result I wanted. This is kind of a line I both fell into naturally and now like to play with precisely because it does cause some anxiety in me, which keeps me on my toes.</p>

<p>This thread is about cropping. It would be lovely if it weren't turned into yet another thread of Fred talking about Fred.</p>

<p>Then why did you, yourself, bring in a quote that wasn't about cropping? Julie, I think we should face the fact directly that I do like to talk personally because I'm here to share ideas about photography that will be practically helpful to my own photographing and I suspect that's why some others are here as well. If you want to maintain your own academic standards of objectivity, please do so. Just don't tell me how to approach these threads, even the ones you start. You're not the teacher, proctor, or queen.</p>

<p>... and away we go with the usual melodrama.</p>

<p>Thank you Arthur, Leslie, Phil, Steve and norman. I really appreciate your contributions. It was fun while it lasted.</p>

<p>Julie, I ask you, sincerely, to re-read my last comments to Arthur. They were a sincere effort to engage with how Arthur works and thinks about photography by both giving my impressions of Arthur's work relative to his own descriptions of how he works and bringing in some differences to the way I work and see my work. I can't imagine why anyone would be offended by that type of dialogue. It's often the way Arthur and I like to discuss photography and I thought he'd appreciate an actual response to his thoughts rather than a mere pat on the back for having given them. You know these threads go on tangents but it's not like it was an unproductive one or one that wasn't related to some extent to the theme of the thread. You can always opt to engage whatever thread participants you want and many threads have simultaneous conversations with different participants at the same time. There's nothing melodramatic about this. It's two photographers wanting to share something about their process and how they think. If that in some way offends you, I'm sorry, but it won't change the way I approach these threads.</p>

<p>Fred, I appreciate your comments. Sometimes I try to whisper in the ear of the viewer with a title (e.g., the "Reflection" image) but then often rethink that it is better to let the viewer decide how the photo strikes him or her. I am sometimes a little disappointed that the "meaning" of the image does not always transfer easily to others but then that is the nature of subjective creation and appreciation. Yes, I was referring in my post to cropping, but I am conscious also of the fact that any discussion related to either cropping or to initial image creation per se is highly dependent upon what we define as "less" and what we define as "more". Quantitative and qualitative measures. I am glad you brought up that phrase and approach ("More is more") for those of us here to reflect upon.</p>

<p>"More is more" can refer in one sense to extra subject matter, but I prefer instead to think of it as a more perceptive or profound interpretation of what is being seen by the photographer. "Less is more" inspires much of my work. What I mean by that is a concentration on the essential element or even elements of what I see. More is less in those cases, hopefully providing graphical and emotional attributes of an image that can be unencumbered by what may be unnecessary, misleasing and sometimes even counterproductive detail.</p>

<p>I like some of the Oriental approaches to photography and art in general. Yûgen seeks to evoke a subject rather than describe it in detail. It often enters into the area of the mysterious. Shibui is an approach and antonym of “sweet”, the latter in one extreme I think of as “eye candy”. Shibui, that I find a bit closer to my approach than Yûgen (Yûgen I find harder to deploy in practice), is an aesthetic based on the portrayal of a simple, subtle and unobtrusive beauty. Minimalism can be associated with that I think, as "less is more" in those cases by virtue of depicting what is subtle, not shown, or not overly emphasized (as in “sweet”). Some of my photos, like the case for any of us, occur by stumbling across what my curiosity and eye finds and wants to perceive in a different way, or like others, I simply pose (set up) my images to deal with a certain thought (like the photo "Reflection") I might have. I don't see you cropping or reducing your subject matter in many of your images but rather see you seeking (as in your portraits or human activity shots) additional environmental elements that strengthen the image.</p>

<i>By taking a snapshot you are creating something. All creative processes are additive.</i>

<p>

<i>Norman, these are not counterarguments or arguments of any sort. They are both CONCLUSIONS, asserted with no

reasoning</i>

<p>

Fred, Prodger said, <i>Whereas photography is subtractive — you start with the world and then you narrow it down to

what you want to show</i>

<p>

Implicit in my statement is the believe that one doesn't start with the world and narrow it down, one starts

with nothing and then, <i>hey presto</i>, you have something. This is not subtractive.

<p>

Furthermore, even if one reduces a photo by cropping (or a musical score by deleting notes) you are still adding to it because you are

refining your vision.

Sure, Norman all depends what you want to emphasize. One can talk about adding by refining vision or one can, as you

also did, talk about subtracting by deleting notes. If you have x notes at one point and x minus y notes at another point

(where y is not zero), then, by definition, you have subtracted something, notes. If you have a distracting tree trunk in your

initial file or negative and you, to use your word of choice, delete it, you have one less tree trunk in your frame. Of course

you may have added emotion, vision, artistry, by cropping out the tree trunk, but you've cropped out--subtracted--the tree

trunk. I'm proposing what I don't think is a terribly radical idea. You can subtract notes and tree trunks and add value and

artistry and emotion at the same time.

I also take your point about starting with nothing and, presto, having something. But I can see it just as readily as

starting with the world and narrowing it down. It's like the foreground/background study of the two black vases on the

white background. Sometimes I see it as two vases, but with just a switch in perspective, I see the white face, then, presto, the two black vases. Similarly, I have no trouble seeing the process as both an addition and a subtraction. As a matter of fact, there's some wee

bit of joy in switching back and forth between feeling as though I'm starting with everything and feeling as though I'm starting with nothing. Sometimes it even feels like everything and nothing are the same, but I'll keep that to myself. Oops!

<p>Arthur, one of many ways I was thinking of "more is more" is in a non-essential approach, where details act as unnecessary flourishes, adding more of a feeling and texture to the overall mood of the photo rather than contributing to the essence of the subject <em>per se</em>.<br>

<br>

I don't know offhand which photograph you're referring to with the title "Reflection." I think a title can be very important in some instances. Like all things, in other cases, they can be distracting. Interesting to think of titles as being additions to photos, in which case they often fail or mislead if they don't seem well integrated, much like many additions we see on houses that stick out like sore thumbs. When they seem organically part of the photo or even accompaniments rather than additionso, I find they are often more successful. <br>

_______________________________________________<br>

<br>

But I'm hesitant about giving too much weight to the ideas of addition and subtraction, which mostly strike me as quantitative. I think a lot of art and photographic decisions are more qualitative. Is this going to express something of significance? Is this framing or crop taking my vision to a place where I'm challenged or satisfied? A writer might be concerned with addition and subtraction if he's getting paid by the word or if her publisher has limited her to a particular length. A photographer might be concerned with addition and subtraction if he has to make a photo small enough to fit on a particular wall that doesn't have a lot of space. Addition and subtraction seem a bit linear. One doesn't generally create art by equation. I tend to view the process of making art and photos more holistically than mathematically.</p>

<p>Subtraction and additions are just words.</p>

<p>Does it work yes or no?...what is it telling and communicating on any different level of sub/ or consciousness ? Does its need another language to hold its hand?</p>

<p>My interest in Julies wood photograph were the waves, which I highlighted ,moving in a slow time not really noticeable other than patterns. But in fast time they were the waves of the sea in constant motion.</p>

<p>Julie, thanks for posting this thread. I know I'm quite late to the party. Accordingly, here's a concise description of my steps to modify the image. First, I resized it. Then, I slightly darkened the shadows and midtones, and brightened the highlights to boost the pine needles role in the frame. I then added some warming to the image.</p><div></div>