'Photographness'

<p>As I was looking online at some ParkeHarrison images, it occured to me that the artist(s) might have chosen to make them as paintings or collages (painting and collage is part of the process employed). They give the appearance of being photographs (and they are photographs, I am not implying they are something else that only appear to be photographs. A photograph need not give the appearance of being one) through associations to antique technique such as sepia, salt, and print processes identified with photography such as photogravure. Some photographers attempt to give their photographs the appearance of being paintings (and some painters attempt to give their paintings the appearance of being photographs).</p>

<p>Some film photographers opine that digital images lack something qua 'photographness' (to use my word) , often referred to as "texture" or "depth". Some digital photographers employ plugins to produce graininess, b&w, "borders", and curves to emulate specific film emulsions. Are those things, along with the antique look noted above, 'iconic" of photographs -- 'photographness'? Often enough in the film forums there will be requests (always from the young or beginner) to identify a film with a link to an image that is almost always a Polaroid or if not then one with a palette redolent of the 1960s. Have those palettes become iconic, and indicator of 'photographness'? Their interest appears to be aesthetic, and since they are young, they are not nostalgic.</p>

<p>The above are 'looks' from previous eras of photography. That seems appropriate. It takes time for something to settle into our cultural viewshed and become iconic, often requiring a significant change in technology. No doubt fifty years from now today's photographs will display 'photographness' that we may not see now.</p>

<p>I like photographs and 'photographness' and want my work to give that appearance, which is why I prefer old approaches to photography, and if I did not, if I used a modern kit, I'd probably buy some of those plugins. Do you consider 'photographness' when evaluating your own work or that of another photographer?</p>

<p>I do consider photographness [good word] but I don't just consider the already-existing icons. I am aware, as you suggest, that new iconic styles/characteristics/qualities (pick any or all of these) are being created. I find it a challenge to work, sometimes, within the iconic templates that have been set before, whether through absorbed influence or intentional homage, mimicry, irony, jest, etc. I also find it a challenge to seek new approaches, especially as mediums change and new ones become available, and love watching others do it. New approaches to well-worn iconic characteristics are also a great challenge: the mixing of characteristics from new mediums with historic qualities.</p>

<p>I think photography and art are on new pathways all the time but are often (among the best of them) referential to the past. It's like a dialogue through history. New languages or vernaculars are built upon old with the occasional blast that seems to come out of nowhere.</p>

<p>For me, there's potential both in using plug-ins to get a historical photographic feel and also in using digital to explore its own uniqueness.</p>

<p>I find that the most photographnessish images are those that show the optics at work. Like actors being "caught acting" in a film, photographs that betray the lens involved demand to be approached in a different way. Of course, I'm the guy in the first row at the Folger looking up at what sort of fresnel is casting Hamlet's shadow when he's to-being or not-to-being. But still.<br /><br />When the perspective (by way of camera position and composition, and thus of necessity by way of lens choice) breaks away from our accustomed human view of things, the unnaturalness off the image - whether a flattened perspective from a long lens, or an impossible sliver of clarity courtesy of a tilt/shift, or Nose Of Wonder brought to us with a very short focal length - forces a moment's contemplation about the choices made. There are certainly images of such power that my desconstruction of the shot actually takes a back seat - even if just for a moment - to digesting the photographer's communication. But poor jaded me ... those are so few and far between. So just as you, Don, note grain or vignette as the markers of photographness, I'm almost always struck first by the photographer's choice of perspective. I can <em>see</em> the photographer working throuh her options as she makes that decision.<br /><br />I'm starting to be very conscious about whether or not my own choice of working distance - and the resulting perspective - is going to get in between the subject and the audience. I suppose it has to do with choosing whether I want to say, "Look at this subject!" as opposed to, "Look at what <em>I</em> have to <em>say</em> about this subject!" My decision whether or not to make it impossible to ignore the photographer's hand in the image is an increasingly complex one, for me. Sometimes I'm all about the subject, and want the audience to forget they're in that theater. Other times, I'm clearly feeling self-referential about the photograph, and might choose an angle, lens, and exposure that screams, "A photographer is allowing you to see this!"<br /><br />I'd like to think that one day I'll have solid control over the <em>artifacts</em> of that process (grain or the lack of it, non-human-eye perspective, dynamic range, etc) and their apparent presence or absence so that I can command their intrustion into the viewer's understanding of the photograph as I see fit. That's an impossible goal (people being people, of course), but as an objective, it causes me to think carefully about everything from chroma noise depth of field and whether I want to be "caught photographing" while communicating.</p>

<p>Interesting topic, but it begs an even bigger question. What does a photograph look like? It probably looks a little smoother and less textured than most paintings, but what about "naturalness?" Should a photograph look like what we see with our eyes? If it doesn't, does the viewer perceive it to be "trick" photography?</p>

<p>I have had people stand beside me at my light table, look at untouched, unedited chromes of natural places and tell me that "it doesn't look natural." And to some extent, they're right. The film that I was using featured more contrast and color saturation than our eyes perceive. So, the flowers look redder and the grass looks greener and the sky looks more blue than one might expect. Does this photo still exhibit photographness, or would it be better described as hyper-photographness?</p>

<p>I'm someone from another planet landed in a forest and looked as a bunch of trees, and then we showed them a black and white photo of a tree, would they be confused at its lack of color and three-dimensional depth? What are the parameter of photographness? What exactly makes a photograph look like a photograph and not like a painting or a natural object?</p>

 

<p>Dan, what I mean be 'photographness' are the qualities by which people recognize an image as being a photograph. Those qualities I've called "iconic". Obviously, they are not the only ways. One can page through endless images on photo websites and not encounter them, yet we know they are photographs. In the ParkeHarrison images they are the vignette, sepia, and the marks of graininess and gravure. Others would be b&w, grain, borders, and various palettes such as Polaroid or old emulsions. Maybe the look of TriX and Kodachrome are also iconic. Because it is a cultural phenomenon they would not be iconic to beings from another planet. We can only guess what will be iconic of photographness in today's photography fifty years from now.</p>

<p>My feeling is that they are iconic for a reason and I do not dismiss them as being stereotype or cliche. My photography is divided between the red rock high desert and my home town. I can understand the attraction of the desert photos; I can really make them pop. Finding an explanation for why a low contrast b&w with a bit of flare of some non-descript buildings is attractive is not as simple.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> That's a tough word to pronounce. I'm reading P-ness as the total optical signature(s) of different processes, & hardware. Of course, these things have space-time-cultural-etc stamps, and eventually become signifiers for them as well. So one can do nudes in the style of someone else, or a particular era, even using the time-correct gear and, say, platinum printing, but the model and the consciousness behind the camera is from 2010, and any connoisseur can easily tell the difference. Nothing is timeless.</p>

<p> I have, and still occasionally use, many (dozens) of cameras, lenses, etc from long ago. Each, like all camera/lens/film/sensors/etc, have their own P-ness. Since very early on, I've paid attention to this, even at subtle levels in my own work and that of others. I love the chameleon-ic malleability of digital, and tailor it to aid and abet my intent and vision. Rarely do I mimic an past process per se, though I will utilize certain qualities from them. </p>

<p> The populist P-ness du jour seems to be the cliche'd, eye-popping, visual diabetes-inducing, super-saturated, over-processed, vapid, sparsely composed, numb and spectacular image, usually of exotic locales, as often seen here and on Flickr. It evolved from the implicit schedule of reinforcement in sites like these. Which is not to say that there isn't a tiny but perceptible amount of first-rate, individuated work out there as well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Interesting OT. </p>

<p>Regarding red rock "desert photos" (and "scenic" generally) : I suspect viewers who are interested more in images or "art" than they are in cameras etc (ie "photography") respond at least as strongly to oils, pastels, watercolor, drawings etc as to glorious photographic color or fine B&W.</p>

<p>Scenic photography is not representative of photography broadly: it's a very narrow and typically dreamy/unrealistic subset. Scenic photographers tend not to photograph litter, tend to emphasize certain sky conditions, golden hour etc.</p>

<p>"Finding an explanation for why a low contrast b&w with a bit of flare of some non-descript buildings is <strong><em>attractive</em> </strong>is not as simple." - Don E (<em>my<strong> italic/bold</strong>..JK</em>)</p>

<p>The subset of photographers who prioritize "<strong>attractive</strong>" seem typically and rigorously to <em>reduce</em> "photographness"...they seem to dislike "photographness" fundamentals such as grain and optical distortion...<em>even restricting their work to "golden hours" in order to avoid certain realities of light. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em>"photographness" may be "iconic" mostly to people who think of themselves as photographers. However, some painters pursue "photographness," notably Chuck Close.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Their interest appears to be aesthetic, and since they are young, they are not nostalgic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're sure about that? Maybe they're looking to replicate something they've never had in their life - another type of nostalgia. Or, if it is "aesthetic" are they looking for a quick way to establigh a graphic look as opposed to having a unique and individual vision?</p>

<p>However, I would ask you to further define what you think is "iconic" about a photograph, since you have listed a number of types of processes that all have a different look to them, and I could add at least a half dozen others - none of them being more or less iconic than the other. Then there is the photogram which is not a photograph but a product of the photographic process - is that more or less iconic or photographically recognizable?</p>

<p>The problem with the question, is that for a lot of people history started the day they were born and they are unfamiliar with what has preceeded them and the evolution of an art form. If you are familiar with art history and the history of photography you understand that art and photography have constantly changed and that it is a building process where the art form evolves through work created. You could not have rock 'n roll without Beethoven for example - regardless of whether he "rolls over" or not...</p>

<p>Compare the later work of JMW Turner and photo-realistic painting and then tell me what is "iconic" about painting as Turner's work and photo realism have little, if anything, in common other than they've both been done using brushes. Likewise, if you compare a Daugerreotype to a color inkjet print there is little that is common between them in process or look - never mind the image itself that the photographer has made.</p>

<p>For the film photographers who opine that digitally generated work lacks a certain photographic look - I would opine that they've either been looking at bad digitally produced work, or if they've tried it themselves, have little control of the digital work flow. I find those type of comments come from people who are generally looking to subsitute appreciation of process in lieu of having an individual vision that is aesthetically expressed through the chosen process. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do you consider 'photographness' when evaluating your own work or that of another photographer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. I only consider whether I find the image interesting or boring. In the best images you are not aware of the craftwork as the total aesthetic should be one integrated presentation and not parts to be appreciated separately. </p>

<p>That's part of the problem of judging work on the Internet - unless the work has been done expressely to be viewed on a monitor, you're not getting the full aesthetic experience. For example, seeing Gainsborough's "The Blue Boy" as a textureless, Lilliputian replication on a computer monitor is a poor substitute for a painting of a nearly life size figure done with vigourous brushwork. </p>

<p>With that in mind, how can one judge the aesthetics or "photographness" of an image presented on the Internet when size and process are so important to the total aesthetic experience? Or, are you speaking only of works viewed in person? If so, then there is another dynamic involved, and that is the fact the work is being formally presented, making it something to be considered in and of itself outside of any relation to what may be photographically iconic.</p>

<p>Steve, re: Parke-Harrison, I've seen the work in oerson, and spoken at length about it with the gallery owners that were showing it. From every indication, it is <em>mostly</em> an aesthetic decisiion.</p>

<p>I think I understand what Don meant by "iconic" in relation to P-ness, but also had some reservations about it. Iconic in this context means little out in the real world. I've already made the point that these technical (and we can add stylistic) signatures become signifiers, but in my opinion, "iconic" is a bit of a stretch. While some people are using certain films because they see them as Iconic, but even conservative galleries tend to see such a practice as an affectation unless it is essential to and integrated with everything else. When one sees an Eggleston dye transfer print, what doesn't stand out is the process, or the fact that some consider it iconic.</p>

<p>I think digital tends to look different from film. So what? Every process has had its own look (P-ness). I remember the endless arguments about flat-grain vs. ball-grain "aesthetics", and Adams wistfully seeing printing papers change back in the day. Each technology has its own look, and all are valid, alll are photography.</p>

<p>Soon we will leave the era of pixels, and a compact P&S will have better IQ and DR than the $8,000 pro-DSLRs of today. I can't wait to hear people whining about the pixel era passing and how they'll have become "iconic" !</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Good point... I always found this "digital is not photo-like" a bit a bore, except for black and white - until I got a better a grip at that too in digital and found it can be done.... The photographness (which is OK to write but don't make me say it!) is, I think, more a complex of things and some good points already raised.</p>

<p>But a stupid technical hands-on details story first. Lately I've fallen more and more in love with older manual focus lenses, for a number of reasons. The main offender is a 105mm lens which is roughly a year older than myself. Some time ago I was working on some photos made with this lens, converting them to black and white and for some reason the conversion was just ways ahead of what I usually get with more modern lenses. A lot of poking around mainly showed that this oldie has a different respons; less "dynamic range" and not as vivid as the newer toys, but with far more subtleties in the mid-range tones. So, in B/W, it just isn't as harsh (clipping at black and white), but it's lots of subtle greys - to me, these photos just work better and have an appeal that others don't have. Pixel-peeping? You bet. But to me, they do what I'm aiming for.<br>

It's just one of the aspects, of course, and others already mentioned are equally valid.<br>

The main thing for me, it's more than just iconic, it's more than just a reference of ye days of ole'. It is - to me - getting the right look and feel, matching the scene as I want to show it. If it uses iconic elements, it is because of their iconicness, to deliver an associated value that will pull the rest of the photo (hopefully) into its right perspective. In many ways, I think of this as a play with symbols and implied references, where photographic techniques and its history is one of the tools in the kit.</p>

<p>All in all, it still comes down to the viewer picking it up. What is iconic for one generation (a Campbell soup can, the original VW Beetle, black and white 35mm photos shot with a 50mm) is another's generation "old stuff" or "retro". Nothing wrong with retro, but it is a different (and in my view less genuine) reaction, with a different context.<br>

So while you put photographness in your photos, will I pick it up? Likewise, will you see what I think I see in those photos that I think have it?</p>

<p>"You're sure about that? Maybe they're looking to replicate something they've never had in their life - another type of nostalgia. Or, if it is "aesthetic" are they looking for a quick way to establigh a graphic look as opposed to having a unique and individual vision?"</p>

<p>There are other 'nostalgias' besides the past. Nostalgia of place, for one. I wanted to stress they were not old duffers looking to recapture the things of their youth. It could be a rejection of what is commonplace in contemporary photography. For those who are older, the past 20 years have been revolutionary. For someone in their teens or early 20s those things are just mundane. We've seen it happen before, that young people will rummage through the past, to some point before the contemporary, and adopt those tropes, often the opposite of that which is currently valued. It is a way to establish a graphic look. It's a way to rebel. It's a way to hope to stand out from the crowd. If I were again a young man starting in photography, I'd give serious thought to making platinum-palladium prints as an entre.</p>

<p>"The problem with the question, is that for a lot of people history started the day they were born and they are unfamiliar with what has preceeded them and the evolution of an art form."</p>

<p>I don't see it as a problem. It's the naive response, rather than the sophisticate's, that identifies the iconic. The sophisticate bears the burden of their knowledge and can nail the trite, the cliched, and they are impelled to distance themselves from the masses and their cupboard loves.</p>

<p>"Compare the later work of JMW Turner and photo-realistic painting and then tell me what is "iconic" about painting as Turner's work and photo realism have little, if anything, in common other than they've both been done using brushes."</p>

<p>What is iconic about painting is, I think, the stylistic elements of the Impressionists. Recently, attempting to promote a painter's work with the buyer of a museum gift shop (that carries contemporary work), I was told: It's the Impressionists. That's all they buy. Impressionist prints, Impressionist calendars, Impressionist books, Impressionist postcards, coffee mugs and T-Shirts. The sophisticate may be appalled, but it certainly argues that Impressionism is iconic.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"cupboard loves"....I like that.</p>

<p><strong>Don -"</strong>It's the Impressionists. That's all they buy. Impressionist prints, Impressionist calendars, Impressionist books, Impressionist postcards, coffee mugs and T-Shirts. The sophisticate may be appalled, but it certainly argues that Impressionism is iconic."</p>

<p> A partially alternate explanation might be that the mainstream public is just now catching up to Impressionism.</p>

<p>"If it uses iconic elements, it is because of their iconicness, to deliver an associated value that will pull the rest of the photo (hopefully) into its right perspective. In many ways, I think of this as a play with symbols and implied references, where photographic techniques and its history is one of the tools in the kit."</p>

<p>Wouter, well said.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"So just as you, Don, note grain or vignette as the markers of photographness, I'm almost always struck first by the photographer's choice of perspective. I can <em>see</em> the photographer working throuh her options as she makes that decision."</p>

<p>As an example, I have a 'project', inspired by some scenes in Tati's My Uncle, Mr Hulot, and some photos by Soviet photographers in the 1920s...panoramic street views from a height above street level capturing several centers of activity in one frame. I don't know anyone with a window onto such a scene, so it is likely my next photography-related purchase will be a ladder for my van. For the panorama of the scene, wide angle suggests itself, but due to the circumstances the distance from the scene suggests a long lens. The lens will have to be sharp edge-to-edge and I think I've got a 28mm that can do the job. A tripod will be necessary. It may be better to go to medium format, but I don't have suitable wide lens...well, it would be a good thing to have, so I may buy one. A lens too wide or too long so that 'dimensionality' was compromised by the optic would not do for what I imagine the photos should be. And the whole effort depends on finding a parking space 8-)</p>

<p>If I had a different aesthetic approach I might want the optical artifacts -- and, just a thought, fisheye is iconic of photography -- but, to quote Ansel Adams in the Negative, he said his photos are considered "realistic" because they are "optically plausible". Optical plausibility is a goal of mine in any photo.</p>

 

<p>Wow! There are some great quotes in this discussion so far!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Fred:</strong> New approaches to well-worn iconic characteristics are also a great challenge: the mixing of characteristics from new mediums with historic qualities.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Matt:</strong> My decision whether or not to make it impossible to ignore the photographer's hand in the image is an increasingly complex one, for me.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Don:</strong> I can understand the attraction of the desert photos; I can really make them pop. Finding an explanation for why a low contrast b&w with a bit of flare of some non-descript buildings is attractive is not as simple. [<em>Interesting!]</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Luis:</strong> I love the chameleon-ic malleability of digital</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Luis:</strong> (<em>my favorite quote</em>) The populist P-ness du jour seems to be the cliche'd, eye-popping, visual diabetes-inducing, super-saturated, over-processed, vapid, sparsely composed, numb and spectacular image, usually of exotic locales, as often seen here and on Flickr. It evolved from the implicit schedule of reinforcement in sites like these. Which is not to say that there isn't a tiny but perceptible amount of first-rate, individuated work out there as well.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>John K:</strong> Scenic photography is not representative of photography broadly: it's a very narrow and typically dreamy/unrealistic subset.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Steve:</strong> for a lot of people history started the day they were born and they are unfamiliar with what has preceeded them. [<em>Brilliant!</em>]</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Steve:</strong> I only consider whether I find the image interesting or boring. [<em>Bravo!</em>] In the best images you are not aware of the craftwork as the total aesthetic should be one integrated presentation and not parts to be appreciated separately.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Luis:</strong> Each technology has its own look, and all are valid, alll are photography.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Wouter: </strong>What is iconic for one generation (a Campbell soup can, the original VW Beetle, black and white 35mm photos shot with a 50mm) is another's generation "old stuff" or "retro".</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Don: </strong>There are other 'nostalgias' besides the past. Nostalgia of place, for one.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Don:</strong> For those who are older, the past 20 years have been revolutionary. For someone in their teens or early 20s those things are just mundane.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to hand it to you folks - this is quite the collection of thought-provoking ideas!</p>

<p>What <strong>Don</strong> has described in his OP seems to me to be very much like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbre">timbre</a> in music; it's the "voice" or particular "tone color"; the instrument he chooses to play.</p>

<p>This is the flip side -- the inverse -- of style. One's style is something that one does with the medium in a characteristic way; you get it to express what <em>you</em> want; bend it to your will. This, on the contrary, is what one allows the medium to do TO you. Just as the violinist submits (willingly, joyously) to the violin and the pianist submits to the piano, so Don (and IMO every good artist or photographer or whatever) allows the voice or tone color of that instrument (in his case, what he has described as <em>photographness</em>) to permeate his consciousness so he can speak <em>through</em> it. This "submitting" is not forced or begrudged; it's because he loves it -- is IN love with it.</p>

<p>I have a documentary video about the making of a Steinway concert grand piano -- from start to finish (called <em>Note by Note: The Making of Seinway L1037</em>) and in it, they show professional musicians going to the Steinway showroom in New York, and, from dozens of (to my eye) identically gorgeous pianos, choosing just one that is ... right. They sit down, play a few chords, wrinkle their nose in revulsion, move to the next, same thing, next, next, then, suddenly, there is one where after playing two or three chords, this ecstatic expression, pure joy, this is the one. In an instant, they know.</p>

<p>Julie, what a brilliant "link" to timbre; it makes a load of sense.<br>

Whether it's the inverse of style, I would not immediately say; Miles Davis does not only sound like Miles Davis because of his instrument; Karajan with the Berliner isn't more Karajan when he conducted another orchestra; most famous musicians have more than 1 instrument to meet specific requirements after all. I'd say timbre can enforce style, where style cannot replace timbre.</p>

<p>When I picked out my piano many years ago -- at a wonderful old brick warehouse in New York housing mostly used Steinways -- a significant consideration, in addition to the sound of the instrument, was the feel of it. I was enthralled by the differences in the feel of the instruments themselves along with the timbres of the sounds produced: how much depth to the keys, how cushioned they were, how active and responsive they were.</p>

<p>"Photographness" or its counterpart in any art or craft can come from the actual feel and physical usage of the instruments/tools involved. Oil paints have qualities, water colors do, film has its grain, digital images their noise and backlighting, but part of what goes into the creation of music for the pianist or a photo for the photographer is his own relationship (physical, intimate) to the instrument or camera. It is not just what is output, what is seen and heard and the various timbres or colorations that inhere in the products of various mediums, it's also what goes into the making that can influence the musicality, photographness, painterliness of someone's work and therefore the iconography that may result.</p>

<p>Handling a small point and shoot is different from handling a dslr which is different from handling a traditional 35mm. A polaroid and a 4x5 . . . different physical experiences. Not only do my lenses produce different visual results because of attributes they have (bokeh, sharpness, distortion, etc.), they are very different to work with, to hold, to maneuver, to "dance" with. In addition to the difference of the "look" each of these lenses produces, there's an important difference in the physical and emotional relationships I have with them. They also have different effects and influences on my human subjects.</p>

<p>I think differently, I play differently, I emote differently, I interpret differently when I'm playing on an upright and when I'm playing on a big, shiny grand piano. Such phsyical (sensual) relationships with our cameras or musical instruments can translate to the visual or auditory output. Iconocraphy unique to each (sub)medium (what kind of piano, what kind of violin, what kind of camera) can grow out of such relationships.</p>

<p>I don't judge "iconic" to be either naive or sophisticated. It depends who's doing the seeing or listening, in what context, and what kind of iconicity we're talking about. The Greek <em>eicon</em> has to do with seeming and likeness, which are of some significance to photographs.</p>

<p>The OT seems to me to have referred specifically to photographic work product (print, film, slide, projection, monitor, TV etc): image-as-perceived by a viewer, and...seemingly... not just the imagining of the photographer...</p>

<p>Anybody read that differently?</p>

<p>And does anybody really think "photographness" (a third party's perception) has anything to do with timbre? Timbre doesn't refer to "violin-ness does it? I think timbre refers to a subtle flavor within violin-ness, something that can be perceived by listeners...nothing like a violinist's or photographer's narcissistic imaginings. </p>

 

<p>John, I did read it differently indeed, and hence for me timbre does ring the right bell. But I understand your take on it too, since it's not entirely unrelated. The way I read it, the OP refers to specific qualities of existing photographic products, being "re-used" to obtain a specific effect, due to the implied reference to the existing work. Iconic photos or subjects, but also "old" photographic techniques (the way a sepia print always makes to seem people think it is an old, more nostalgic, photo, for example). That's how I read it, and timbre does fit in very nice (though arguably we can change the timbre of each photo, an instrument is a bit more static).</p>

<p>Within the class of violin-ness, my violin had a warm, rather deep tone (*), which is the specific timbre of this (Bohemian) violin; most affordable violins sound sharper, more defined and precise. This specific sound can of course be perceived by listeners, and can suit the work being played well or not; but personally I found far less joy in playing the Japanese/Chinese affordable violins with their more precise timbre - to me, they lacked a soul for which I could not make up and the timbre just never seemed OK to me. So it's a 2-way street, not only up to the perceiving end.</p>

<p><em>(*) I haven't played violin in more than 12 years, so I hope this violin still sounds like that... </em></p>

<p>Woulter, I think you're saying your long-disused wooden object "has" a timbre, despite silence for 12+ years. Isn't that purported timbre restricted to your imagination, rather than in the mute object in the violin case?</p>

<p>Reminds me of the comments by people who claim their slides have wonderful characteristics that cannot be adequately reproduced, are therefore unshared.</p>

<p>This "timbre" idea may have unexplored conceptual value in a photo context...<em>assuming that "timbre" can be appreciated by someone other than the photographer.</em>..</p>

<p>...didn't the OT specifically refer to <em>something shared</em>, <em>such as the <strong>"special effect"</strong> to which you refer</em>..rather than to something allegedly perceived only in one skull (like your violin) ?</p>

<p>"timbre" in "photographness" is an interesting, so-far unexplored invention. But to identify "timbre" in a narcissistic experience (eg of <em>unshareable</em> slides or files) seems a stretch.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am still mulling over Julie's "timbre". I do like Wouter's "If it uses iconic elements, it is because of their iconicness, to deliver an associated value that will pull the rest of the photo (hopefully) into its right perspective. In many ways, I think of this as a play with symbols and implied references, where photographic techniques and its history is one of the tools in the kit."</p>

<p>The ParkeHarrison photos that suggested the topic to me (Turning to Spring, Cloud Burst, Exhausted Globe) have references to machinery that seem Victorian or 19th century. The choice of vignette and gravure enhances the "victorian" quality, the antique effect of the photos. From another perspective, they are steampunk. We can play the game and mix 'n match iconic technologies with iconic photographic elements. These are broad and obvious and serve as examples, but that doesn't preclude subtlety.</p>

<p>For desert photography, my interests are geological; I'm especialy interested in what the geologists call "anomalies". I want exposures that are "pure" or "characterless" -- no "photographness". In considering the light, I want light that picks out the distinctions between strata while maintaining the nuances of color among them, rather than the 'good light' before sunset that produces spectacular color in an otherwise drab landscape. Southeastern Utah is not really 'southwest', or is only so in the imaginations of Coloradans building faux Adobe winter McMansions there. The standard approaches to southwest phtography (as seen in Arizona Highways) seem false to me for this environment. For this photography my kit is digital and for the reasons film advocates give for disliking digital.</p>

<p>However, when I began encountering evidence of human presence: miners, prospectors, cowboys, American Indians and their ancestors, my satisfaction with the approach deteriorated. "History" enters the scene, becomes a subject with the evidence of human presence. I did not understand that and I continued to photograph "anthropologically" now but with the same mindset as "geologically". Looking at a series of photos of the ruins of a miner's rock cabin, I don't get a sense of place or time. I failed to capture the obvious, the cabin in the foreground with the long valley behind it, emphasizing its isolation and by association the isolation of the builders and inhabitants. I did not consider characterizing the subject in time, perhaps by shooting b&w film, or with vignette and sepia, as in the ParkeHarrison examples.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>assuming that "timbre" can be appreciated by someone other than the photographer...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's, I think, where we differ in the explanation of my words. I am referring to those things that are shared. Known things, not something that only lives in the creator's mind, but that will ring bells with an audience too (in previous posts, words like iconic were used plenty). The special effect being: referring to this, and through that recognition in the audience, add another layer to the photo.</p>

 

<p>Wouter, I don't understand where we "differ" (except that I think "iconic" is an unnecessary distraction, given that a set of more meaningful, less arguable terms exists (as scattered through this thread: grain, gravure, tone, optical evidence etc). </p>

<p>Part of my difficulty has simply to do with finding sense in some sentences ...for example, I have no idea what this one means: </p>

<p>"The special effect being: referring to this, and through that recognition in the audience, add another layer to the photo."</p>

<p>Could you express that with a couple of simple sentences? I don't understand what you mean.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Woulter, re-reading your comments I think we may actually agree. Where do we "differ?"</p>