Compare and Contrast

<p>I believe that the more you photograph and experiment, the more you learn. However, in trying to improve my ability to "see", I've acquired a large number of books on individual photographers. I have about ten books with China as subject matter (Ribaud, Kubota, among others) and would like to learn something from how each photographer tackles similar subject matter.</p>

<p>I'm familiar with Szarkowski's method of evaluating photographs. Other than just putting the books side-by-side and looking, has anyone found useful techniques to meaningfully compare and contrast?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>doing fine art printing and nowadays digital postprocessing for other (accomplished) photographers I have found to be extremely valuable.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Other than just putting the books side-by-side and looking, has anyone found useful techniques to meaningfully compare and contrast?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly what do you want to compare and contrast? The photographer's individual vision (subject matter choice), composition, or...?</p>

<p>Isn't it really about looking at the images and deciding for yourself what you like and don't like about them?</p>

<p>Jon, your approach is reasonable except for your mention of Szarkowski. I suggest 1) Forget Szarkowski and any other critic. 2) Forget Szarkowski and any other critic.</p>

<p>Given that you have ten China books, exclude every other source...most especially, exclude everything that purports to be "on individual photographers." Something coherent will shake out of that China book experience, whereas the books "on individual photographers" will exert undue influence...people tend to believe mistakenly that books prove significance.</p>

<p>As well, you can learn more from prints than from photo books unless you're studying book making. Given that you're a book collector, forget them for a while and work hard to see as many gallery and museum exhibitions and collections as possible. Most communities have superb photographers, so perhaps simply exploring bars and restaurants that hang their work would be rewarding for more than booze and food.</p>

<p>John, while I agree with you on the value of visiting gallery's and musea to see the actual prints I don't agree on your dismissing photo books so easily. For me both are valuable. A well printed and high quality photobook can give a lot of insight for instance about how other and renowned photographers use composition as a tool and how they use light. Actually there's lots more that you can get out of them.</p>

<p><em>"...whereas the books "on individual photographers" will exert undue influence..."</em></p>

<p>maybe in your case but certainly not as a matter of principle</p>

<p>What I'm trying to develop is a visual vocabulary using the books as a starting point. The problem is getting beyond the bleeding obvious and understanding which variables each photographer held to be most important and why.</p>

<p>For example: why would one photographer shoot only black and white while another stuck with color? Were they really after different experiences?</p>

<p>Jon--</p>

<p>One exercise helpful in comparing and contrasting is to try yourself to do a photo in the style of each of the photos you are contrasting. Sometimes doing helps seeing a lot. I did it early on and it really taught me a lot and allowed me to see a lot I hadn't before seen with such depth. I still do it.</p>

<p>There's an important distinction to be made between influencing how and what we see and influencing vision. The former doesn't necessarily lead to the latter. Besides, most of art history, real good art, is about the combination of influence and creativity. It is true that influence can, for some and at times, be a hindrance.</p>

<p>I'll echo Ton. For me, books don't exert. They enlighten.</p>

<p>"why would one photographer shoot only black and white while another stuck with color? Were they really after different experiences?"</p>

<p>Sometimes, it's as simple as it being a matter of taste. We each see the world and envision how we want to express ourselves differently. Seeking great "meanings" can be of value but it can also lead one astray. Remember that photography is visual. <i>Feel</i> what you see in each photograph and that feeling will often be the answer to "Why?"</p>

<p>My hunch is that serious photographers develop a set of skills and habits based on their experience and posibly mentoring. Understanding in a verbal way what they are doing is helpful to me.</p>

<p>You are right about good mentoring. I wish you the best.</p>

<p>

<p>You're welcome and good night. :)</p>

<br />

</p>

<p>Jon, if you are hoping to emulate popular photographers, obviously you should study the books of the Pop Top 40..the "usual suspects" (various commonly mentioned, therefore praised, nature, street, portrait photographes)... and you'll want to fall in line with the one routinely accepted (like a TV Guide) critic, Szarkowski. Szarkowski's fine, but if you use him as your guide...will you remain yourself? </p>

<p>If on the other hand you're interested in developing your own approach you might avoid those standardized sources that you have so far accepted as proof of merit.</p>

<p>Your choice may be something like "risky work making highly ideosyncratic personal evaluations" vs "acceptance of what's officially aesthetically authorized." If one is interested in falling into line, one's choice will be obvious.</p>

<p>As to the visual merit of books, no matter how wonderful they are they're not photographs. Not even much like photographs if you actually step up to the plate, like a photographer would, and compare them to the real thing.</p>

<p>I rarely buy photo books if I've not seen actual photographs...the one I bought yesterday is technically educational in that the beautiful plates seem to show portraits that were shot 35mm, printed to large format inter-positives, retouched (new coccine whitening eyes), printed very flat and bleached (potassium ferrocyanide). This was a common practice by better press photographers in the Fifties. I like the look, might like to emulate it with Photoshop.</p>

<p>But are you interested in the aesthetics of photography, which are by definition partially technical, as much as you are in "what's approved?" It's one man (you, perhaps) contrasted with "what's authorized."</p>

<p> </p>

<p> My suggestion is to pore through one book at a time, and write out general notes on what you are seeing, feeling...the strong points of the pictures...what they express about China, its culture, and landscape, recurring themes, geometry, use of space and color everything you can think of. Then go to the next book, and so on. When you are done, compare your notes along with the pictures. You will find that you have developed your own native way of looking at photographs, describing them, and your feelings about them. This will help when you discuss pictures with others.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> Jon, please excuse the wise-guy tone of my post, above. I stand by the substance of what I said (about the popular vs the personal) but I shouldn't have been negative: it's admirable when someone serious like you, who already has ideas about photography (given the book collection) decides to step back and re-evaluate, as you seem to be doing.<br>

I like Luis G's suggestion. But I think I'd begin by leafing through all your China books, mind clear, no notes, tagging photos that grabbed me or notably turned me off with Post-Its. THEN I'd do what Luis suggested. The photos you actively dislike may be as important as those you love....</p>

<p> </p>

<p >I have found that on the rare occasion when I have found exhibits of fine art photography, seeing the work of different photographers on a similar subject very informative. I say rare because you seldom see anymore, a fine art exhibit of photography as an art form, and if you do, it is almost always the work of one person. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I do wish more museums would do more shows like this.</p>

<p > <br>

It is by seeing how many artists handle a single subject that you get the real impact of the art form.</p>

<p>I find that visiting a museum and looking carefully at realist paintings is just as inspiring a lesson in composition and lighting as looking at photographs.</p>

<p>Art is art. What makes a meaningful statement, makes a meaningful statement. The vision of the artist is more important than the medium.</p>

<p>So there is every reason that a realistic painting will hold as much power as a well composed photograph.</p>

 

<p>Jon,<br>

Learn lighting and composition. Then use the camera to capture what you see.<br>

Bill P.</p>

<p>Jon you write that you are "trying to develop is a visual vocabulary". I would surely support the approach you are pursuing. It is through knowledge about the work of other photographers and other artists that we learn. Also I have found much inspiration in photographers that are renown for their work on China, maybe because they often have been influenced not only by Chinese landscapes, which are truly spectacular, but they seem also often influenced by the Chinese tradition of paintings and Chinese Tao philosophy and religion. Szarkowski is in my eyes as good a start as any for learning to "see" photographs and to analyse what makes them special for you and maybe also for others.<br>

I have found that the process of learning through studying other phtographers have advanced my own skills and competences as photographer (I now know better why my photos are bad and sometimes when I succeed deserve to be improved !). However as concerns a genuine <em>vocabulary</em> that makes it possible for us to communicate between us what we learn and what we see when we look at and analyse photographs, I have still not found or mastered. It is my impression that I'm not the only one around in that situation.</p>

<p>"if you want to be a good photographer"...the best advice i've ever received was this</p>

<p>(1)make pictures</p>

<p>(2)look at other photographers work(and edit them, what are the 5 most essential images in franks americans for example and why!)</p>

<p>(3)edit your own work, and keep editing</p>

<p>i really don't think that there is any technique as such for evaluating pictures. you just keep doing it and you build up an ability....everthing we do and are somehow affects us and our relationship to images. the books we read,friends we dicuss pics with, music, life's experience etc etc.....i always found this bresson comment intriguing, show me the photographs that someone takes and i'll tell you what kind of person they are....</p>

<p>as for bashing szarkowski and photography books. i'm at a loss...by all means we should question any source of 'authority' but we should also listen...open up a dialogue between their perspective and our world view....his introduction to egglestions guide for example...that worth a visit from time to time...and you get to see a great photography book as well...time spent digesting quality photography books is time well spent!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So true, if you do not learn to edit your own work, you never learn to be a really good photographer.<br>

Looking over what you have done, and see what is really there, being harsh with yourself is the best way to learn.<br>

Also, a good mentor can work wonders!</p>

<p><strong>My negative comments about critics and photo books from yesteryear involve these thoughts:</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />1) We don't live in Szarkowski's world or AD Coleman's world...times have changed BIGTIME. It's easy to see the change when you compare the work done by young people with the work done by antiques (ie 45, maybe even 30).</p>

<p>2) At 65, processing and printing since age 8, a Weston fanboy with more recent enthusiasms, I see a decline in the overall impact and quality of "art" photography post-WWII until digital photography. a) technical quality has improved tremendously recently, b) young photographers have digested and apply far more imagery ideas than older photographers, c) photo context has shifted away from isolated individuals (street, nature etc) toward social beings (you can see that in Flickr or strobist.com or lightstalkers.com).</p>

<p>3) This is not to say M3 Leicas or Ebony field cameras are no longer good, fun tools, but people relying on them are living in the trailing edge of photography's still-worthwhile past (as I am). In general, the best photographs of the past look better in inkjet prints, yet many of us remain ignorant about that.</p>

<p>4) Enthusiasm for Frank or Winogrand or Weston or photo-Frenchies from eras past is wonderful but it regularly seems to go along with ignorance of the best work of today. Not only that, it often ignores or even disdains some the best photographers who have ever lived, especially photojournalists and commercial photographers.</p>

<p>5) I think the best places to see photography are galleries and homes, but if you think books are important (I do) you should also take a look at what's actually being done today: Flickr and Photo.Net galleries, for example.</p>

<p>6) I don't think people who fail to make and share their own prints or at least display their images online (eg Photo.net or flickr) are serious photographers... risk of display grows photographers better than does book-study ... mere camera ownership is entirely irrelevant.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I personally doubt there is such a thing as "progress" or leading edge in art or literature. There is novelty and invention, but Homer or Stieglitz still stand on their own. I know some artists will always create wonderful works in archaic styles that have significance to many.</p>

<p>Flicker and Photo.net are the most recent manifestations of the problem I am trying to grapple with, i.e. how can we gain insight from others' photographs? Especially when the potential volume of sources is now beyond count.</p>

<p>Let's not confuse novelty with an understanding of artistic merit.</p>

<p>what interesting thoughts.<br>

I had not thought about how important places like flickr and photo.net have become in art photography, but I think you are right.<br>

There have always been those that are simply drawn to novelty, and you have to wade through that for the real genius, but is that a bad thing?</p>

<p>You see that in all the arts. We now have the opportunity to create on a level never before seen.<br>

Everyone has a chance, and not all who take it will be any good! The arts were always closed off to the majority of mankind before but now, more and more people do have the opportunity to be a part of it,<br>

It is a big world and there is a lot to go through.</p>

<p>"I personally doubt there is such a thing as "progress" or leading edge in art or literature. There is novelty and invention, but Homer or Stieglitz still stand on their own." - Jon W</p>

<p>I'm a Stiegliz fan...he was cutting edge of course. Not Weston's equal, or Irving Penn's, or the equal of Picasso, hung in Stieglitz's gallery...</p>

 

<address><strong> "Homer" is reportedly thought by most scholars not to have existed.</strong> "Ulysses" ( a new translation is gathering dust in my bedroom) is said by what are evidently all the right scholars to be the centuries-long accumulation of songs of bards, memorized in various versions long before it was written...centuries before "Homer" was invented as its author. It's much like the King James Bible in that respect.</address><address></address>

<p><strong>So... maybe Flickr offers as much value as "Homer's" Ulysses.</strong> Somewhere else I read the idea that James Joyce, author of a more important "Ulysses," invented the Internet (not Al Gore)...an amusing idea in that Joyce seems to have possessed more diverse knowledge than any other human :-)</p>