commandments for photography, not prayers

Funny how folks like gritty photography but shun gritty speech......

Lets be honest.

 

Does anyone really want a sterile/sanitized PN.

 

A hippie love in sort of place and boring.

inoneeye’s use of a shallow dof betrays his sentiments. She looks like an isolated mad woman, not part of society. It’s a pretty crap photo.

Just shake my shaggy head at this comment.

If inoneeye (and, obviously, out the other) really wanted to demonstrate his sentiments he should of spoken to the woman and take a more inclusive photo.

Never a good idea to tell a really good photographer like ironeye what he should have done and assume what he wanted to demonstrate.

Moderator comment:

 

Lets be honest.

Does anyone really want a sterile/sanitized PN.

A hippie love in sort of place and boring.

 

For clarity -

 

Not interested is sterilizing and sanitizing PN: also (hello, Moving On), not interested in stopping gritty commentary.

 

Simply this is not a place for personal attacks, and that was what was off topic.

 

I'd reckon that most people understood that was what was meant in the previous Moderator Comment: if that wasn't clear to everyone before, then it should be perfectly clear now the request is rephrased -

 

ENOUGH of the personal attacks

 

Thanks in advance.

 

William

General comment about gritty language. No one here (it's been a long thread and I didn't re-read it word for word so I could be wrong) seemed troubled by gritty language. Several seemed to be concerned about photographic literacy. An opportunity would be missed if those two were conflated.

The word isolated has been used. Typically, photographers will use that word to describe a subject isolated from or against a background, often accomplished by keeping the subject in focus along with an out-of-focus background. Lighting can help do this as well whether depth of field is employed or not.

 

But I think it shouldn't be assumed that all subjects in focus with an out-of-focus background are isolated. Things that can integrate even a focused subject into a background that's not focused are distance, perspective, lighting, tonality, gesture, and narrative. The danger of "focusing" only on "focus" is that all the rest of what goes into making a full picture will be ignored or missed. Translated to verbal facility, that would be like only understanding the word acting as subject of a sentence without having a clue what all the verbs, adjectives, subordinate clauses, and tone of voice might have to offer that subject.

Edited September 7, 2020 by samstevens

Also worth noting that sometimes isolating a subject from background happens because of the connection between photographer and subject. And, sometimes, such connection transfers to a viewer. Photographer and viewer aren’t always just observers. They may participate.

Simple facts are that photographers, critics, and casual viewers are going to have their own motivations for taking a particular photo, and interpreting those photos through their own personal experience and bias.

Sometimes they intersect, sometimes they don’t.

 

Arguing about it seems a pretty natural result.

I appreciate directness.

Kinda neat thing just happened.

After reading over this thread just now, this song just played on the radio.

 

I once heard in an interview, Billy Joel speak about the aspect he liked least of making music videos.

He said that the visual aspect so narrowed the interpretation of the song that it robbed the music of its broadly individualized interpretations.

There’s a point there that is applicable here methinks.

A literate reader, an acute viewer, will relish their individual interpretation and balance that with not misreading what's in front of them. People can actually learn to listen to music more carefully, read with more comprehension, and look at a photo with a greater degree of visual acumen. There are misinterpretations of writing, music, and photography. That doesn't deny a still wide array of individual interpretations. The tension of interpreting imaginatively while not misunderstanding due to a lack of visual, aural or verbal comprehension goes as far back as reading, writing and looking.

Is there coffee or tea stain in the cup or a quarter and two nickels?.......

 

[ATTACH=full]1356003[/ATTACH]

open-ended, plenty of wiggle room.

open-ended, plenty of wiggle room.

;)

I imagine a failing student or two may have wondered aloud whether the dagger Juliet kills herself with symbolizes Zeus's lightning bolt. That would be a misunderstanding of symbolism.

 

The way I assess critiques is by hearing the critic give reasons for what she imagines and/or questions, based on things in the photo and within the context of the world the photo is showing. Sometimes, of course, those imaginings will wander far afield. That can be interesting, often in terms of getting to know the viewer more than getting to know the photo.

 

If a critic meanders into unfounded guessing games about the back story, for example, projecting that the photographer did or did not talk to his subject or did or did not shoot from the hip, I'm likely to see that as a poorly-developed critique.

Oh, Ludmilla, Ludmilla. We are each individuals and different sorts of things help connect us, especially to subjects in photos. Her world is a figure of speech: her as an individual and my connecting to her and what's happening at the moment.

 

It would be reasonable to say the dof separates her from the crowd. It's not reasonable to say her being in focus separates her from the viewer.

Suggesting empathy based post processing and the position of the lens relative to the subject is highly debatable.

I don't know why. A lot of post processing I see is intentionally harsh, intentionally over-contrasty. Both of those things often serve to stylize rather than humanize. A lot of street stuff, taken of subjects sitting, is done from a standing position and that suggests observing to me rather than empathy. Getting on the same plane as a subject, in this case, suggests empathy to me.

One doesn’t need to be an experienced critic to recognise a cheap, gimmicky, photo.

True. But that's not what I was addressing. I was saying that an experienced critic wouldn't, without knowledge or reason or foundation, incorrectly suggest that a photographer hadn't talked to the subject or shot from the hip.

DOF I had no other option so it wasn't considered till after the fact. Too many limitations (not sure if you are aware of them) on dof to explain it to you here. Hipshot no. Tough to shoot from the hip with a large format camera. The border is what you get when you make a contact print. I choose not to crop contact prints. So we'll take the cheesy with a smile.

"But sam thinks she is in her own world, separated from us" as do I. and she still as much a part of humanity as any.

Look I get, we all get that this is not a good photo for you. Fine. But it would be nice if you just stop repeating the same words, adjectives. Boring. Take it over to the critique forum and have at it.

Edited September 7, 2020 by inoneeye

AH well there go several minutes I'll never get back. Yet I did stick around to read all this. If it's worth anything at all, I personally am not comfortable shooting people, in the way of doing "street" photography. Simple as that, it's not anything I like to do. For whatever reason.

 

That said, @inoneeye 's shot seems to be perhaps the less offensive (to me) street photo (shot of a seemingly homeless person) I've seen. SO many shots of that ilk just come off as completely exploitative and voyeuristic. This one, to my eye, doesn't have that feel to it. I'll add more c commentary over in Critique who I get a minute- as I see it's been posted there.

the lack of processing

I wonder why you’d assume a lack of harsh, contrasty, or overly stylized post processing is a lack of post processing. Many fine photographers spend a lot of time subtly processing so their photos don’t look artificially processed. Processing is getting a photo to look whatever way you want. Then again, there are those for whom post processing and a heavy hand are synonymous, or a matter of a quick run through an app.

 

Sure, these days there are plenty of ways to artificially create cheesy borders. I guess it takes some experience to know what an actual contact sheet or original polaroid border looks like. I never worked with film but have looked through enough books of photographers through the decades who have used film and left their borders, so I’m not put off by them. Many did it to show that they were using the full negative and not cropping. That was a thing in photography for some time. And many view it as a way to pay homage to the craft of photography, using elements that remind the viewer of the plasticity and/or hand-made nature of what they're looking at.

stop commenting on the limitations of your camera equipment

My guess is that to a photographically educated audience, commenting on the nature of the equipment wouldn't be necessary. Most photographers who understand large format work would incorporate the background blur into their understanding of how photos come about. They wouldn't over-interpret blurs in certain instances, knowing instead that the blurs come with the camera territory. Questioning the use of blur in this case is a bit like a modern-day photographer looking at an Edward Weston and questioning his "choice" of using black and white instead of color.

JDM, Wishing you well and toasting to your good health with a fine merlot that goes well with pizza. Still learning to be ethical by avoiding stepping on glacier lillys and when faced with destitution not photographing folks who are down and out. Photography is a gift from God and a great means of expression. Don’t have any thing new to offer but do use model releases. Thanks for your thoughts. Stay frosty.

Having read through all of this makes me wonder a bit. Ludmilla seems to be asking ‘how can you photograph’ this person, this scene, this event. I’ve been asked that question often. My answer is ‘how could you not?’ It’s often an ugly world out there and I most often photograph what I find, not what I setup. I think it’s important to photograph people like this woman as well as people in any situation. It’s what is, it’s the world we live in now. It’s up to us to record this history in a way that future historical revisionism can’t deny. I am reminded of a photograph of a starving child being basically stalked by a vulture. The photographer, who I believe later committed suicide, both won a Pulitzer and was severely criticized. It was a photograph that simply had to be made and if Ludmilla or others have problem with that, then or now, look elsewhere.

 

Rick H.

Simple - never ever take photos of folks who are suffering, down and out, addicted, etc. The "documentary" excuse doesn't cut it unless that is your employment.

How is one to know if their subject is "suffering, down and out, addicted, etc"? Yeah, maybe 'down and out' can be visible (note 'maybe') but 'addicted' and especially 'suffering' - how does one recognize that, and what is 'etc'?Also what counts as "your employment"? Must one have a signed contract with explicit payment and with contractual fine print that requires documenting folks who are "suffering, down and out, addicted, etc"?

 

Many well known and respected (by me anyway) street photographers, e.g. Vivian Maier, Fred Herzog, Mary Ellen Mark, have photographs in their portfolios of people who appear to be possibly suffering, down and out, addicted, etc (I can only say 'possibly' I'm not certain). I doubt these photographs were taken in conjunction with employment. Their work raised my empathy for humanity in general and I believe their photographs do a positive service. By no means do I see it doing harm. I have nowhere near the stature and photographic talent of these folks but I like to think (kid myself) that my photographs when viewed by others help raise their awareness and empathy of the human condition - that is my intent anyway. I have a blurb book (not created for any profit) that I suggestively titled Unnoticed No Longer and I allude in the opening that the title is to compel folks to notice the life going on around them, to open their eyes and notice.

 

Perhaps I just missed it in the many postings on this thread but there is another over-arching commandment that could be called upon as a starting point for photographers and that is "love your neighbor as yourself". While it is associated by many with Christianity, it is more universal. When it comes to photographing people this is an excellent starting point in deciding where to point the camera and when to print the result.

“It’s up to us to record this history in a way that future historical revisionism can’t deny.”

I don’t think pictures like this particular image are any great salvation from “revisionism”. Nothing to revise in this case. It is really quite ambiguous in that respect.

Lots of folks these days seem to overvalue the social impact of street photographs simply because they show what could be interpreted as social or political commentary. This particular photograph could have been taken at almost any time or place.

 

I see it more as a comment on the very common trait of humans to age and reflect. Not some social or political documentation.

Human struggle is seldom tragic in any proportional sense, and certainly not in every photograph that might be presented as such.