"..ideas bubble up..." vs. "capture"

"...ideas continually bubble up like gas from a warm swamp." : Ron Reeder

 

http://www.ronreeder.com/

 

Reeder's work (like Weston's) inhabits a photographic universe that was (for what seem obvious reasons)

overlooked in the earlier "spontaneity" vs "thought" thread.

 

Photography in Reeder's universe draws attention more to image and less to narcissism. Perhaps that's because

Reeder (like Weston) is more fully a Photographer than most: he makes images, not "captures."

 

Seem valid?

Interesting to look at and thanks for the link.

 

Can't say I see much "like Weston" in it though.

 

Finally John, it's not video. (jes' jokin')

Right, it's not video :-)

 

It's often platinum.

 

"like Weston " : Both think. They proceed mostly from ideas (save for Weston's portraits) and are consciously intent on light.

 

Weston's light is more distinctive, particularly in some of his less-appreciated nudes. Reeder's light is more conventional, which probably works better with his particular workflow.

 

I've not seen Reeder's prints but I have seen many Westons...he's been my #1 for about 40 years..

 

Some of Reeder's work is fantastical and pictorial, Weston remained influenced by his early pictorial roots... Weston was sometimes political, was evidently more romantic than arguably-escapist like Reeder.

Weston resonated to Robinson Jeffer's poetry...perhaps Reeder is into similarly dark science fiction?

I think you're making a bit of a false dichotomy, John. There are styles (and demand) for photography that do, indeed, require the capturesque approach, but which are scarcely narcissistic in nature. Wildlife photography, photojournalism, flavors of wedding photography, editorial assignment work, documentary stuff...

<br><br>

One might have a considered vision for the ultimate use of the image, and a coherent style that one might use... but a given shot may only be possible in that be-ready-and-capture mode. That type of work is not done by someone who is less fully a Photographer simply because it serves a different purpose or finds a different outlet. In fact, someone who can deliver technically good, stylistically interesting, and intellectually solid work <i>while</i> working on the fly might actually be considered the <i>more</i> fully formed photographer. All depends on how it's all used.

Matt, There certainly are many fine "capture" Capturers...

 

...but the tendency on P.N, particularly Philosophy, seems verbally constricted (eg the "pro-spontaneous" and "anti-commercial" , yet pro-consumerism posts) rather than visual.

 

...unlike Canon and Nikon, who are this year rolling out fairly competent professional video capabilities in their top professional cameras (under pressure from RED, which until recently had Canon's FD mount), many DSLR-snappers continue to imagine that "capture" means "still."

 

They don't even know that Ansel Adams made films and altered images :-)

 

The significant American journalism schools and actual photojournalism jobs (typically posted on Poynter.com) now REQUIRE video capability, which will increasingly define the "capture" version of photography. Few fashion or commercial clients will want to keep paying for expensive still shoots that don't generate videos along the way, any more than wedding clients will...every single one will want video shortly.

 

... while you're free to embrace Pop Photography's version of "Photographer," just for the purpose of this thread ("ideas" vs "capture") I assert that the term sometimes deserves significant narrowing: For the purpose of this thread, I assert that Photographer favors skillful print-making.

 

Everything isn't everything and everybody isn't equal in every respect, everything isn't "sematic," and we don't have to continually chant "kumbayah"...do we? :-)

John, this site is about photography, not cinematography. Why don't we stay focused on photography, even though some

still capture devices offer movie capability, it's still a different medium not the subject of this site.

 

If you're discussing video technology as a means of obtaining still images, that's a ridiculous idea considering that the most of the cost is

with the hours spent on post-processing and there isn't going to be a personal computer available in decades which would make using

video capture as a sensible (cost-effective) substitute for a still camera.

No, NO, Ilkka, don't do that --It will only make him angry ;-)

 

But even I, one who has often goaded John myself, wouldn't buy that photography doesn't include cinematography.

 

Let's get back to Ron Reeder, it's more likely to be illuminating.

Cinematography is replacing photography in a number of areas, it is far more relevant to the future of photography than who announced what camera. That will get lost here because people will claim that it is completely different and then wonder one day what happened. What we will see in the future is that still work becomes increasingly about art and manipulation, and what was photojournalism, documentation ,etc. becomes video. Reeder falls into the first category, at least as of today.

Well, they bubble up little bit and then you do little capture..

 

That's how life is, isn't it?

Ilkka, your notion of photography vs cinematography is quaint and artificial...it was popular among hobbiests ten years ago. This site is not "about" personal limitations, you are mistaken. That you personally lack a skillset does not make that skillset "ridiculous" for more skilled people. I don't do platinum printing...that doesn't make Reeder "ridiculous."

 

Illia, no, "life" is not as bland as you think: We're not all the same, though some of us try to require it of others. Kumbayhah.

 

The similarities of my life and yours are superficial. All that matters is the distinctions. If your life is "about" the same things as mine, one of use doesn't even exist.

 

JDM, your goading is appreciated. Somebody has to stir the pot, otherwise we all become capture capturers.

 

JDM, your goading is appreciated. Somebody has to stir the pot, otherwise we all become capture capturers.

Ooops, oops.

<i>

But even I, one who has often goaded John myself, wouldn't buy that photography doesn't include cinematography. </i>

<p>

I do understand that in a broad sense photography includes cinematography. But as far as I can tell, this site

doesn't include a single static article on it - not one, there are no forums on photo.net that discuss it, and

there is no facility to upload or play movies in the gallery or in the forums. Therefore I conclude that the

people who created and run this site did not consider cinematography as part of photo.net. Therefore, I would

think it would be better to discuss cinematography on forums which have the appropriate orientation and facilities.

<p>

<i>That you personally lack a skillset</i>

<p>

It's not about my skills, it's simply that the processing power, time, money, and the computer memory that would

make it practical and economical to replace still capture with video in the general case doesn't exist today and

isn't even close to existing in the near future. Even if it were, many people would not be interested in using

it. Not every viewer is a member of the illiterate MTV generation unable to take anything but a continuous

flashing feed of chewed information, and not every photographer wants to do video.

<p>

The fact that you're trying to discuss video on a photography site that doesn't have any material or forums on

video, and that it seems that there is no moving picture equivalent of photo.net (or is there?) speaks volumes

about the popularity of making movies outside the movie industry itself.

<p>

BTW I will be among the first in line to get the D90. But I won't be trying to discuss movies here.

Ilkka, that you are ignorant about and incapable of an aspect of photography does not make it "ridiculous." I'm ignorant about and incapable of platinum printing: that doesn't make Reeder, or any other highly skilled print maker "ridiculous."

Could you keep the personal insults to a minimum, John?

 

You mention weddings. Let's see what one TV and wedding photography specialist has to say about making still images from video. Marc Williams comments on this at

 

http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00QV0C

 

in his Aug 14, 2008; 05:35 a.m. post. Looks like there are people in the know who are in agreement with me.

 

Fashion, eh? Would you care to link to some fashion magazines that do their photography using video cameras? I would like to be informed in new trends even when I know the technology doesn't exist short of a Hollywood movie budget.

Ilkka, pardon me. I thought you said:

 

"...processing power, time, money, and the computer memory that would make it practical and economical to replace still capture with video in the general case doesn't exist today and isn't even close to existing in the near future."

 

That's amusingly off-base, from both "practical" and "economical" angles ...surely you didn't write that? It was you, not me, that suggested "replace still capture" as was "still images from videos": Video would challenge some print art directors, but it's easily possible with APS video sensors.. certain fashion photographers have used 16mm film for their Vogue ads since the 70s...Sarah Moon worked hard to get that look from 35.

 

Ilkka, you are free to doubt that photojournalism, wedding and advertising often involve video when stills are primary, it's OK for you to be unaware of video fashion, and since you wish it to be true, you may fantasize that some "MTV generation" is to blame for various unhappinesses. By contrast, I admire many contemporary "captures" (Matt's Fred's, and Jeff's for example...I doubt JDM shoots digital so I won't call his work "captures.")

 

Have you bothered to look at Reeder's website? What are your thoughts?

<i>It was you, not me, that suggested "replace still capture" as was "still images from videos":</i>

<p>

But you said "video capability, which will increasingly define the "capture" version of photography". Now it is

true that English is not my first language, but let me try to interpret what you're trying to say. Video, in your

view, will define how photography is captured, i.e. be the gold standard, the reference for photography at large.

Your statement could imply one of the following things:

<p>

(1) video technology will be the primary means of capturing photographic images

<p>

(2) people will mainly view video instead of still photography, hence, video will have greater importance and

define photography even if stills are not made from the video

<p>

Correct me if I am misinterpreting what you said. My arguments against (1) are simply that still capture

yields superior image quality now and will continue to do so in the future, and the time when this difference

becomes immaterial is not going to take place in our lifetimes. There are reasonably purchaseable video cameras

that can be

used to make web quality still images. And there are some that can be used to make prints, but the latter are

inaccessible to the majority of the population and the computer capacity to use e.g. stills from RED video data

to do photographic prints in a practical time doesn't exist to the general population. My point is not about

whether you can technically do it or not in a single instance to demonstrate that it "can" be done but simply

that it is not at all sensible or practical to do it that way - if you record one minute of video, and if you

don't drop any quality from a typical APS level DSLR, then it'll take hours just to view all the raw data let

alone do any editing on a typical PC (I am taking the position that if the quality is to be the same the

information must take approximately equal amount of memory than still capture run at 24/30 fps (due to the

redundancy in the video data this is not strictly the case, but my points remains valid that the post-processing

time is excruciatingly long)). The post-processing and

editing of video and/or still images from video are a lot of work. Why do you think they have

personnel of one <i>thousand</i> professionals working on just 2-3 hours of movie? Do you honestly think this

kind of intellectual and computing capacity will be at the hands of any single individual wishing to communicate

something?

<p>

My argument against 2) is very simple. Active people are always trying to make the most efficient use of time

they can. Giving the power to control their use of time to another party, in this case the maker of the video, is

usually out of question, except for exceptional circumstances where the information isn't otherwise available.

It is far easier and faster to find and understand the information you need by reading and looking at still

images than waiting for the video to get to the point. There are videos that get to the point quickly but they're

probably one in a million. And this isn't likely to change.

<p>

For art, entertainment, and children's education, it is possible to use video effectively. For information

delivery, except in the case of the most passive recipients, still images and text are more efficient. They are

selective and show just the gist of the matter and allow the reader to use their time as they see fit. Video

takes over the control of the use of time from the viewer and this is in the majority of cases unacceptable for

any intelligent person.

<p>

<i>fantasize that some "MTV generation" is to blame for various unhappinesses.</i><p>

Thanks for being concerned, I am quite happy. Would you please stop posting claims about people who you do not know.

<p>

I have no objection to the use of video in the media. I didn't have a TV for 15 years but nowadays I do. As far

as online newspapers go, they do use video but almost no one that I know ever has time to watch them and the

quality is so poor that it's extremely annoying to watch. This isn't a question of technology but the fact that a

single person cannot produce movies that are watchable and deliver the information efficiently in the general

case in any reasonable amount of time, and this will likely never change. And the viewer doesn't want to see the

information in the form of video because that that would mean they relinquish control over time or risk missing

the information, and there is very little material online which is of sufficient quality to warrant this loss of

control. In any case these are just my personal opinions. I have every intention to use video to document

theatre, music, wedding ceremonies, and sports in the future, but I don't make the bold expectation that they

will entertain anyone but me and the subjects, and that only for a single time view. It is rather easy to make

stills that have general artistic appeal. To make movies that have lasting interest, well, it takes a whole

industry to do it. I am willing to be proven wrong if you have some samples to show me.

To make my point of view a bit softer I'd like to add that there are online videos which I do enjoy, e.g. some events have been recorded in an illuminating way at bbcnews.com, and they deliver information that could not easily be delivered by other media. I welcome more such material and hope that more people working in the traditional newspaper media educate themselves in making movies. I will take advantage of new technology as it becomes available to me but without a degree in cinematography and a large crew I don't have high hopes for the end result.

I fail to see why cinematography or vidoegraphy has any bearing on the end result. You seem to be conflating the means

of capture with the final, desired output. If that's a print, then why is how the image was made important? In reality, it

never has been. You choose your tools to make the desired image and to support the display aesthetic.

 

If the desired end goal is a short or long or indeterminate length moving image...fine, but that's all been done without the

current crop of Dslr's with video capability or the Viper System, or the RED system. If the goal is a still image printed in

some manner....well, I still have rolls of film from 3 years ago that I haven't gotten around to editing, and a number of

digital subdirectories with digital images that haven't been dealt with.

 

While continuous image recording (video capture) can be effective for certain event scenarios, the efficacy of having to

wade through 10 of thousand's of images to find "the one" is questionable in a substantial number of image making

conditions.

 

If you're trying to make the case that displaying work on Youtube or even through a digital picture frame will supplant the

still image in a single print -- I don't think so. You can't hang Youtube on the wall matted and framed and digital picture

frames don't have the aesthetics of an image printed on paper. There is a certain gravitas to a well done still image that

is not present in a moving image presentation because the movement alone detracts from the singular moment.

 

As for Reeder's images - I find John Paul Caponigro's work far more compelling.

" To make movies that have lasting interest, well, it takes a whole industry to do it. I am willing to be proven wrong if you have some

samples to show me."

 

How about this <a href="http://www.patrykrebisz.com/stills/between_movie.html">short movie</a> made with a canon 20D. It's mostly the

work of

one guy, well, and the actors and a few others maybe, but hardly a whole industry. <a href="http://www.patrykrebisz.com/films.html">Patryk

Rebisz</a>.

Strunk and White's crucial work seems relevant.

 

I don't think JPC is in the same league as his father, Paul Camponigro...more technical, less perceptive. And I don't think either is as "compelling" or nearly as significant as Edward Weston, or nearly as interesting as Reeder. But Steve, why reduce your perception of Reeder to ranking him with a better-known photographer?

 

JDM made an amusing comment, and I responded with some thoughts about video. Phylo provided a relevant link and it'd be easy to come up with hundreds of others (for example, look for usually-still photojournalist videos on lightstalkers.com). Conceptual blind spots are one's own handicaps, we all have them and they can't be fixed online (they typically require passionate encounters)

 

HERE I've intended raise questions. They have been "if one cannot make one's own prints (and cannot see potential in video), is one a fully formed photographer?.

 

I'm not a fully formed photographer. I hope I will always be a student, but age does seem to make people slower-to-learn. I'm challenged and embarassed by technical and aesthetic limits. But I'm not as limited as folks who can neither make fine prints nor appreciate video :-)

John-

"..ideas bubble up..." vs. "capture"

Reeder's work is just as spontaneous as any "captured", in the moment photograph- just look at his own words- "ideas bubble up" - That

is not the thought out process you are comparing with your #1, Weston. It is a valid image process though, but not even close to the

honed talents of Weston. Reeder's own words:

"it dawned on me that reality was completely optional in my images. I finally had the skills to take a background from here, shots of

models from there, and other objects from anyplace"

Although Reeder has talent, his work is still a little, for lack of a better word, simplistic.

Video has two big disavantages, to my mind. Firstly, it requires a more sophisticated display system than ink and

paper. Secondly, by it's nature it makes demands on my viewing time that still photos do not. (This is why I rarely

look at anything on Youtube...)

 

As for Reeder, well, at least he seems not to be taking his work too seriously... Good to see.

 

I must admit though, I'm not a big fan of studio-style "nude photography for nudity's sake" photography, so some of

his stuff there just passed me by, TBH. Well, with

the honourable exception of decent quality porn, there rarely seems to be much to think about when looking at such

stuff... All it usually says to me is "here's a model with her clothes off"... Very nice, I'm sure, but so what...?

 

I'm not saying the resulting images can't be briefly interesting on a fairly superficial visual level, but they generally

strike me as being pretty disposable.

Martin, good points, especially about "bubble up".

 

I don't know if it's realistic to compare Weston's "honed talents" to Reeder's more elaborate processes...the technologies are so vastly different. Some of Reeder's work seems exceptionally well-honed, some is so wildly tripped out that it might have been done by a Dali.

 

Do we agree here? I do think "tripped out" and surrealism in general are, to use your word, "simplistic" by comparison to Weston's work. Dali was a master at subtle levels but it's hard appreciate that due to his crude symbolism and weirdness...perhaps it's the same with Reeder.

 

Maybe it'd be more reasonable to compare Weston with a shakuhachi player and Reeder with a synthesizer player than to compare them directly to each other.

 

Paul, I generally agree with your thoughts about nudes,"disposable," and your comment about video (though I think you misunderstand my appreciation for Youtube's utility...it's mostly a reference tool, an archive of historic notes, excellent for its particular purpose. It also features excellent audio, much of which is unavailable commercially. It also offers good instructional videos (mechanical, foreign language, guitar playing, photo techniques...).

 

Video does take a time commitment and prints may not...although I recently spent an hour (having spent half-hours twice previously) carefully appreciating about twenty prints by Douglas Kent Hall (deceased 2008) in the Albuquerque Art Museum. Prints allow more freedom: I could spend 5 minutes with one image, skate past six images, spend moments with two, come back seven because something came to mind...

 

I prefer prints to video... but that is not like saying "prints are better than video"...it's like saying I prefer audio tape to CD or live performance because I can rewind to the middle of a piece :-)

I like Reeder's images of women: the way he imagines them as butterflies - as fantastic creatures that speak their own fairy-tale. What I found interesting is that he at other times puts them in boxes, thus cutting their butterfly wings. Is it a metamorphosis? It could be.

I really like this idea of woman as butterfly.