content/ context

Very much interested in your response. I am having a solo exhibition next year of oil-colored photographs. I submitted 20 images of landscapes, 2 of which were "industrial". Curators looked over my submission and said that they would like to exhibit the industrial landscapes. I have plenty of negs of this style, but would never settle with what I have in the books and am going to venture forth this summer to shoot new landscapes. For those of you interested in what cameras I am employing, I have two medium formats: Fuji 69 and Pentax 67, and a Toyo 4"x5". Medium format is easiest for me to handle, but that is not the issue here.

I am not sure how to phrase my question delicately. How do I photograph industrial stuff without its content being or becoming most important when my intent is to create a composition? Somehow I believe that by asking this loose question can help define the result. The one hand I have in my toolbox is that half of these will be oil-colored and tinted.

How do I photograph industrial stuff without its content being or becoming most important when my intent is to create a composition?

One way you might consider is to photograph a mood on a particular day. Use the site not as an object or subject but as a conveyer, along with atmosphere, of mood. Think abstractly as much as or more than concretely. Metaphorically over literally. Don't be afraid of the content, just don't make it your primary focus.

You might look at the work of the photographer/painter Charles Sheeler, if you're not already familiar with it.

sheeler - Google Search

Charles Sheeler - Wikipedia

He did both painting and photography, but not mixed media, so far as I know.

Great question!

It's interesting that curators should have selected your 2 industrial landscapes and rejected the 18 other photos you submitted.

I don't pretend to understand much about curation. But - as a volunteer for a large photography festival here in NL - I've come to know the festival curators quite well. From conversations with them, my impression is that their initial criteria for evaluating submissions include:

- their relationship (in terms of subject matter) to the overarching 'theme' for any upcoming festival

- whether they shed any new/different light on subject matter related to the festival theme

- whether they are innovative in terms of background research, (video)photography and presentation

Your curators may well have a different set of explicit or implicit criteria and it's important to know how your 'artistic vision' relates to their curation criteria.

IHMO, the answer to your basic question is embedded in the question itself: whatever you see around you is just "industrial stuff" for photography. Which parts of this "stuff" you choose to include in a frame (and from which distance, perspective, angle, etc) determines the basic composition in terms of lines, forms, textures, etc. Lighting, exposure, and Dof (sharp/diffuse/blurred), etc. determine how 'whatever's in the frame' will appear in a photo. As will any digital PP.

So a working title could be something like 'new ways of seeing/appreciating the industrial landscape'. Where your emphasis is not on 'the landscape' (=the "stuff") at all but on enabling viewers to see and appreciate (parts of) this in new ways.

Very much interested in your response. I am having a solo exhibition next year of oil-colored photographs. I submitted 20 images of landscapes, 2 of which were "industrial". Curators looked over my submission and said that they would like to exhibit the industrial landscapes. I have plenty of negs of this style, but would never settle with what I have in the books and am going to venture forth this summer to shoot new landscapes. For those of you interested in what cameras I am employing, I have two medium formats: Fuji 69 and Pentax 67, and a Toyo 4"x5". Medium format is easiest for me to handle, but that is not the issue here.

 

I am not sure how to phrase my question delicately. How do I photograph industrial stuff without its content being or becoming most important when my intent is to create a composition? Somehow I believe that by asking this loose question can help define the result. The one hand I have in my toolbox is that half of these will be oil-colored and tinted. [ATTACH=full]1377798[/ATTACH]

I think the example your showing is a pretty good example of what you say you're trying to achieve. It seems one route to that, in terms of composition is for you to think of in their abstract shapes and how you can arrange them in your frame, and you can use content within that as well. That seems what you did in your photo and the content part of it and of course the lighting seem to work. But you can take an idea like that a long way. Is that what you're trying to do?

OP...I like your work. Post more of them. As far as your question? Dunno, except shoot a lot and color them and see what you can use. The more you do the bigger the lot to choose from.

I always liked working with hand-colored / tinted photos in the Archive.

Search Results for “tinted” – Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection (wordpress.com)

I also liked the freaked out one that are pretty out there.

Good luck...and if you go to the show take photos of it to post.

If you are after form and shape and not after content, you should make form and shape the content, i.e. look for shapes and compositions of shapes and disregard what the things are that lend their shape to your compositions. I.e. focus on what you're after, and do not shoot a lot and then see what's usable and what's not afterwads.

I'm sure the OP knows that, viz. "without its content being or becoming most important when my intent is to create a composition?" The composition must be strong enough to catch the eye.

It helps that you use paint, i think, because that provides a tool to emphasise what you want to.

" How do I photograph industrial stuff without its content being or becoming most important when my intent is to create a composition?"

I don't understand the question. Can you explain the difference between content and intent? How do separate the content from the intent? In your photographs what do feel is the difference between the content and the intent?

The contrast is the ancient one between form (composition) and substance.

The intent is to focus on the first, not allowing the second to distract from it.

The contrast is the ancient one between form (composition) and substance.

The intent is to focus on the first, not allowing the second to distract from it.

That may be your definition, but I'd rather hear from the original poster as to what it means for his work. You'll have to explain how you can separate composition from the substance (whatever that means).

Hmm... A philosophy forum and you do not know about form v. substance...

And you mean you do not understand how shapes can be considered by themselves, Steve? Circles, triangles, etc.?

I consider the content of a photo to be the identities of the things in it, for instance a casket next to a water tower. The content often suggests ideas and/or stories.

I consider the composition to be more of an abstraction, form, shape, light, dark, physical relationships.

The casket next to the tower might be seen compositionally as contrasting shapes, one long, one tall. Contentwise, I’m interested in the casket as a symbol and in the why of its being in the frame with the water tower.

Both content and composition yield emotional responses, often a bit differently, the content often being more literal, the composition often more abstract.

I, too, would be interested in hearing more of what the OP means by his initial post.

. It seems one route to that, in terms of composition is for you to think of in their abstract shapes and how you can arrange them in your frame

I think barry makes a good point to abstract.

Sometimes including too much context makes it more challenging to make the composition the subject of your photo. That challenge can be overcome by seeing the abstraction and letting it guide you through the entire process including pp.

"q.g._de_bakker

New

Hmm... A philosophy forum and you do not know about form v. substance...

And you mean you do not understand how shapes can be considered by themselves, Steve? Circles, triangles, etc.?"

No, why don't you educate me as to what form versus substance means? Start with substance, what does that mean in making a photograph? Since substance has multiple definitions, it is not one thing and a rather indefinite term without an exact explanation of how it applies to a specific photograph. It can mean the physical material of which something is made or, in a more introspective sense, the ultimate reality that underlies the physical manifestation. One is not the other although both may exist simultaneously.

The original statement was that the person making the post did not want the content to become more important than intent. I really don't care about substance (whatever that is) I'm interested in how content can overcome intent. If you intend to make an image, then you choose the content to convey your intent. They are inextricably linked. The successful image has to integrate intent and the content. Or, greatly simplified, the content is the subject and its presentation through a composition. That integration of those conveys the underlying intent. They cannot be separated in a communicative image.

Then you have to consider how the intent is going to be communicated through content. Perhaps your intent cannot be communicated through the content you've chosen - in that case, you've made the wrong choice before you've even released the shutter.

This gets back to my question to the original poster, can you explain the difference between intent and content? Because until that is no longer a conflict but an integrated presentation, you cannot resolve a successful image.

can you explain the difference between intent and content?

Don't know if the OP will come back or not. He hasn't since he originally posted.

My own quick take is that intent is what you want and content is what you get. Much more can be said but I'll rest there for now.

My own quick take is that intent is what you want and content is what you get. Much more can be said but I'll rest there for now.

Then, you have no control in communicating your intent to the viewer? You simply start with intent and then you get whatever ends up in the photograph? Then I would have to ask why that happens. If you have a specific intent you want to communicate, then shouldn't the content be used to convey that intent?

Then, you have no control in communicating your intent to the viewer?

I’m surprised you’d think that’s what I meant. I did not make content exclusive of intent. Very often you do, indeed, get what you want, and sometimes you don’t. Sometimes you’re surprised, sometimes your subconscious or emotions take over. The content can be the result of many things, intent being one of them. Randomness may play a role, as may instinct.

Even if you get exactly what you intended, though, it doesn’t become the content of the photo until it’s realized. Thus, the old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intentions are one thing, their realization another.

Like I said, intentions are what you want. Content is what you get (via some combination of intention, luck, accident, emotion, instinct, and other factors, not all of which are present all the time, of course).

Steve,

The OP's statement was not that he "did not want the content to become more important than intent", but that he wants to presents photos "without its content being or becoming most important when my intent is to create a composition".

There is no philosophical discussion intended about what intent might mean, or "how content can overcome intent". It is spelled out in the 1st post. He does not want viewers to see factories (substance), but the shapes and how he aranged such inside a frame (form).

Simple enough.

Re explaining substance v form to you. Really? If you need that, why, do you think, would it be a good idea for you to try your hand at a philosophical discussion? It starts with you not reading poperly what the OP said. And what we read above, between you and Sam, demonstrates that it was not a good idea.

I’m surprised you’d think that’s what I meant.

You're the one that made the statement, "Intent is what you want and content is what you get..." I don't know what you meant because I refuse to read anything more into the words than what you've stated. That's one of the problems in this type of communication format. So, I asked the question and you've provided an expanded response beyond your first statement.

Perhaps then, content is the information contained in an image regardless of how it got there. In some photography, the content and intent may be totally controlled. In other types of photography, serendipity and chance play a role. However, I would also say it is up to the photographer to be sensitive to the random possibilities, recognize them, and choose to incorporate or exclude them from the final image as they may reinforce or detract from the photographer's intent.

Since randomness is part of some types of photography, let's call that "found image" photography - then the idea of content becoming more important than intent (the original poster's question) is difficult to control as you cannot regulate the flow of time and events leading up to the moment the exposure is made. You can be sensitive to the flow of events and choose the moment that best fits your intention for making the image - and the closer the content will match the intent.

Some photographers have waited hours or returned to a location multiple times to find the right moment to realize a photograph that best illustrates their intent. Other photographers set up a situation to photograph controlling all aspects of the content. Two completely different approaches to communicating intent through the final image.

Then the question becomes when are you satisfied that the content matches your intent? For some people that's anytime they release the shutter and they decide through editing what best meets their intent. For other photographers, the image is visualized before making an exposure, and the shutter is not released until the perceived moment illustrates their intent. One method is not better than another, only different and as the photographer, it's up to you to decide which method is most effective for you.

However, none of that answers the original question of content becoming more important than intent, does it? I don't think that's possible, and I think the original question is poorly stated or not thoroughly thought out. It is unfortunate that the original poster is not participating in this discussion as it would be interesting to find out how in his mind, content can become more important than intent.

I don't think content can become more important than intent if you have a clear idea (intent) that you work to communicate through the content you choose to include in an image.

You're the one that made the statement, "Intent is what you want and content is what you get..." I don't know what you meant because I refuse to read anything more into the words than what you've stated.

But you did read more into it. It was you who added the exclusivity, when none was there. The word and doesn't mean intent and content should be read as excluding each other. Nothing about my statement suggested that content is never dependent on intent. That was your addition and misreading.

But, it's good that you now are able to separate content from intent.

_____________________________

The viewer shares in the reading of the content of the photo, therefore in determining what that content is. A photographer may be very pleased that he's satisfied his intent. And, yet, a viewer may see the content of the photo very differently from what the photographer intended. While a good photographer may project varying interpretations his photo may garner, no photographer can or should account for all the possible readings of the content, or form, of his photos. That's the beauty of photography. While some photos clearly reflect the intent of the photographers, others don't, at least to many viewers. Photos aren't this or that. They live. Some of their life is in the hearts and minds of viewers, regardless of what the photographer may think about the photo or may have intended. As a photographer, I think of that stuff as inspiring. I work hard to express what I want, but I also let go to a certain extent. That counterpoint of feelings is exhilarating.

Photographers can be naive as well. Many photos up for critique here are assumed or intended by the photographer to convey one thing or another, yet the critiques often overwhelmingly suggest that what was intended to be conveyed has not been. It takes skill and artistry to convey what one wants, and even then even the most skilled photographer can never completely control what others will make of the photo.

 

_____________________________

 

The viewer shares in the reading of the content of the photo, therefore in determining what that content is. A photographer may be very pleased that he's satisfied his intent. And, yet, a viewer may see the content of the photo very differently from what the photographer intended. While a good photographer may project varying interpretations his photo may garner, no photographer can or should account for all the possible readings of the content, or form, of his photos. That's the beauty of photography. While some photos clearly reflect the intent of the photographers, others don't, at least to many viewers. Photos aren't this or that. They live. Some of their life is in the hearts and minds of viewers, regardless of what the photographer may think about the photo or may have intended. As a photographer, I think of that stuff as inspiring. I work hard to express what I want, but I also let go to a certain extent. That counterpoint of feelings is exhilarating.

 

Photographers can be naive as well. Many photos up for critique here are assumed or intended by the photographer to convey one thing or another, yet the critiques often overwhelmingly suggest that what was intended to be conveyed has not been. It takes skill and artistry to convey what one wants, and even then even the most skilled photographer can never completely control what others will make of the photo.

You've brought up a very interesting point and one that I wrote about some 10+ years ago. In responding to a person on Photo.net, I wrote: "I want the viewer to become involved in the image. To do that you cannot "finish" the image - the viewer must participate in the image to find their own individual interpretation and closure."

When you realize that the viewer brings their own interpretation because of their unique life experiences then you have to accept the idea that your intent in making the photograph may not be what the viewer perceives in the image.

An interesting conundrum within the original thought of content becoming more important than intent.

Re explaining substance v form to you. Really? If you need that, why, do you think, would it be a good idea for you to try your hand at a philosophical discussion?

Is there some sort of Philosophy Forum prerequisite test you have to take to participate? Like some kind of undergraduate forum where if you get a passing grade you're allowed to participate in the real big-guy discussions?

Why do I think I'd like to "try my hand at a philosophical discussion"? Because I've been participating in this website since 1995 and don't need your permission to make a post?

I'm 72 years old and have been taking photos for 60+ years? I have a degree in photography from Rochester Institute of Technology and a degree in design from the Univerisity of Michigan School of Architecture and Design. I've been in the Master Pinter Program at Tamarind Institute printing fine art lithographs professionally. While at the University of New Mexico I took courses in 19th and 20th century history of photography from Beaumont Newhall. I have at least 32 hours of work in other history of art courses.

I think that gives me enough background to be able to post in this forum. How about you and your ego just give it a rest...

Good for you, Steve.

Doesn't change the fact that you manage to misread the OPost and base assumptions and discussions on that. And that you ask to have a most basic thing explained to you.

"Enough background to be able to post", sure. No guarantee, obviously, that your posts make sense of what was under discussion.