What do you expect from the photographs you are presented?

We are flooded with images. It is said that the most used camera nowadays is the smartphone and in no time photographs are shared, seen, and rapidly fall into oblivion (try to find again a photograph after you have seen it for a moment and swiped on). We are presented with endless timelines of single photographs, hardly any of them is ever printed, but also not united to others in any way.

 

My expectation of a photographer is that she guides me through a journey, new to me. Showing me an interesting subject and interesting details of this subject. To make me know more, to broaden and deepen what is shown to me, to ask questions.

 

If I see a sequence of randomly taken picture a quickly move on.

 

This does not mean that I believe that the photographic process is a linear one to begin with, not at all. Photography, as was underscored in a thread in the casual conversations, starts with the real. It is necessary to watch the real, capture it, transform it, reassemble it. It can start at random, grow at random, but the journey needs to be visible.

Great topic for discussion! My 3 cts.

- almost everyone these days takes pictures, most often on smartphones; sometimes as just a memory of being somewhere or with someone, often to share with family and friends on social media. I do too and I love seeing photos taken by my family (most of whom live in a different country) on Facebook. Yes, the photos are 'ephemeral' and soon forgotten but no less valuable for this

- there are many professional photographers for whom 'photography' is their day job; some have 'personal projects' too

- there are also photographers whose primary goal is to 'tell a story' in a documentary, artistic or other styles.

 

It's often difficult to 'tell a story' through a single image. An example that immediately springs to my mind is Dorothea Lange's 'Migrant Mother' photo in 1936. It's become iconic in telling the story of the 'Great Depression' in the US 1930's. There are undoubtedly many more 'single photos' that tell a powerful story. More usual is that a series of photos tell a story. And there I agree that sharing 'smartphone' photos (over a period of time) only tell some kind of story to family and friends.

 

So my guess is that you should be looking at my 3rd category of photographers who intentionally want to tell 'stories'. Bottom line: 'photographers have a very wide range of skills, budgets (and equipment) to tell stories. I'm a volunteer at a local photo festival and I'm always impressed by the 'stories' that selected photographers tell in very different ways.

"We" is a generalization--and the "whom" depends upon the audience. PN is composed of people who purportedly express an avocation for the creation of something aside from selfies, one's current meal, and whatever else passes the time. Pictures in the moment for the moment, as the OP noted.

 

Then, how do you qualify "random?" A bunch of impulsive pictures detailing the flotsam & jetsam of one's personal life? Or any photographer with purpose that does not seem to have a cohesive theme of creation?

 

BTW, nothing is linear--including time. Ask a physicist or historian...

 

Photography, as was underscored in a thread in the casual conversations, starts with the real. It is necessary to watch the real, capture it, transform it, reassemble it. It can start at random, grow at random, but the journey needs to be visible.

 

Visible? As in meeting the cognitive perception of order of a single person, a group, or the collective unconscious? Why is it that we endlessly try to place the creative into a basket of acceptance and understanding? To me, the little time I have in this world is best spend amusing myself with the camera amongst the hoi polloi--instead of appeasing itinerant philosophies.

 

Sounds like a matter for dead philosophers, and not those who love creating...

Edited May 3, 2022 by PapaTango

I don't get into the philosophy of photographs like I do certain other arts. To me I merely evaluate each photo in terms of whether or not it appeals in some way to me. If the appeal is intense, I try to discover why. Very few meet this criteria. For those which do, I try to ascertain how they were taken...what elements create the appeal. I'm not a purist so I don't get sucked into those type of discussions...which probably puts me into the shallow disinterested viewer category.

I don't get into the philosophy of photographs like I do certain other arts. To me I merely evaluate each photo in terms of whether or not it appeals in some way to me. If the appeal is intense, I try to discover why. Very few meet this criteria. For those which do, I try to ascertain how they were taken...what elements create the appeal. I'm not a purist so I don't get sucked into those type of discussions...which probably puts me into the shallow disinterested viewer category.

Fair enough, it's a free world, ain't it?

I try to go into making and viewing photos with as open a mind as possible.

 

Even if I have a goal or project I’ve set for myself, I’m often most inspired when I either exceed or stray from my own expectations. Same with viewing … if I read a review of someone’s work or a friend has told me about a photographer or a curator has introduced a museum show, I try to balance any expectations I have with an openness to discovering something else and being surprised.

 

There are set series, very random photos, and lots of territory in between those two. A body of work can form a coherent whole even when it’s randomly produced. Finding that coherence in what might appear to be more random shots can be a wonderful challenge to a viewer. And noticing some sort of coherent vision in one’s own randomly-taken photos can also be an eye opener.

 

Mike makes good points regarding the diversity of approaches, all valid uses of photography.

 

I honestly don’t feel flooded with images. I am often led to work by recommendations and naturally-occurring viewing paths. Except for PN, I’m not on social media. So much stuff is out there that affects me and more is out there that does not. The number of images on the Internet has very little impact on how or why I make or view pictures.

 

I tend not to share photos with others, except here, until I have a gallery show of printed photos that are presented to my taste. That feels intimate and special, and I do it about once every four to five years. People seem to pay attention and there’s a focus to those situations I appreciate. It’s a different kind of sharing experience than offering a web site, which I’ve found much more impersonal. There’s a bit of a performance aspect to that kind of in-person gathering, somewhat like live theater. I’ve always thought the many performance aspects of photography are well worth considering and honing.

 

As I said in a recent thread, I like non-subject/object photos, or subject/object photos that also transcend that paradigm. These can be photos that may be less grammatically structured, allowing for an enveloping experience and not always a particular point of focus and detail. In such cases, I might say that the photo itself becomes the subject rather than pointing to something in it that dominates consciousness.

As a viewer, when it comes to meaningful or moving work, more often than not it’s less about my expectations of the photographer and more about what demands or challenges the photographer is making of or offering me.

It's often difficult to 'tell a story' through a single image. An example that immediately springs to my mind is Dorothea Lange's 'Migrant Mother' photo in 1936. It's become iconic in telling the story of the 'Great Depression' in the US 1930's.

I believe that that depends largely on the context. Lange's photo was and is deeply in context, because of the knowledge about the effects of the great depression, because of the title and the caption. The photo says it all.

 

As does Ut's "Napalm girl", for example, but there are innumerable other examples. Eugene Smith's "Country doctor" is the seminal example of a picture story based on multiple images. Reading the background story of Smith's work is fascinating (he's also the author of Minamata), as well as his life "at the edge".

 

So my guess is that you should be looking at my 3rd category of photographers who intentionally want to tell 'stories'. Bottom line: 'photographers have a very wide range of skills, budgets (and equipment) to tell stories. I'm a volunteer at a local photo festival and I'm always impressed by the 'stories' that selected photographers tell in very different ways.

My experience is that

1. The stronger the "red thread", the more cohesive the series or the story, but also the single picture.
   
2. The skills of the photographer are about a) finding this red thread; b) making the story or the series distinct from all the other, similar red threads, also working on the collateral elements; c) figuring out which tools to select from the photographer's toolbox to achieve her goal.
   
3. A striking majority of photographers just don't care and snap away. Not very interesting in my view.
   

And by no means there are recipes, procedures, and certainly there is no linearity in the process, nor a pre-defined roadmap. I know when a piece of work is strong. It is about working on the approach and setup.

 

Equipment certainly has a role, but probably it is far less important than most think. There is the right tool and the right technique for a given result, but equipment will not make a piece of photographic work strong.

I completely agree. IMHO, photographers whose primary goal is to 'tell a story' will find ways to do this. They have a (story) goal - which may change - and I agree that their photography and PP are often non-linear processes. I also agree that photographers need to find their 'red thread' in capturing, selecting, and presenting their 'story'. I also agree that equipment is sometimes important (wildlife, sport, ...) but not always. In all cases, I agree that it's the photographer that makes the photo and not the equipment,

 

On point 3, see my original comment. Most people who take pictures are not 'photographers'

 

I believe that that depends largely on the context. Lange's photo was and is deeply in context, because of the knowledge about the effects of the great depression, because of the title and the caption. The photo says it all.

 

As does Ut's "Napalm girl", for example, but there are innumerable other examples. Eugene Smith's "Country doctor" is the seminal example of a picture story based on multiple images. Reading the background story of Smith's work is fascinating (he's also the author of Minamata), as well as his life "at the edge".

 

 

My experience is that

1. The stronger the "red thread", the more cohesive the series or the story, but also the single picture.
   
2. The skills of the photographer are about a) finding this red thread; b) making the story or the series distinct from all the other, similar red threads, also working on the collateral elements; c) figuring out which tools to select from the photographer's toolbox to achieve her goal.
   
3. A striking majority of photographers just don't care and snap away. Not very interesting in my view.
   

And by no means there are recipes, procedures, and certainly there is no linearity in the process, nor a pre-defined roadmap. I know when a piece of work is strong. It is about working on the approach and setup.

 

Equipment certainly has a role, but probably it is far less important than most think. There is the right tool and the right technique for a given result, but equipment will not make a piece of photographic work strong.

... The photo says it all.

 

As does Ut's "Napalm girl", for example...

 

Certainly Nick Ut's photo can stir up emotions and helps to show some horrors of war. One might think that a photojournalist has simply snapped some photos and went on his way. But there is more that could be said.

 

Some more details in my post linked below...

 

Nick Ut 2018?

I agree with your point. But I also see that 'iconic images' often have to do with being at the right place at the right time. Sometimes by design and at other times by coincidence. In both cases, the ability to take the 'íconic shot' is paramount.

 

I missed the original discussion in the link that you posted but I found the thread very interesting. Not only through the OP's photo but through the political opinions that were expressed. I'm a non-US citizen and I deliberately refrain from commenting on US politics. I have my own opinions but US politics are for US citizens to discuss and decide.

 

 

Certainly Nick Ut's photo can stir up emotions and helps to show some horrors of war. One might think that a photojournalist has simply snapped some photos and went on his way. But there is more that could be said.

 

Some more details in my post linked below...

 

Nick Ut 2018?

I agree with your point. But I also see that 'iconic images' often have to do with being at the right place at the right time. Sometimes by design and at other times by coincidence. In both cases, the ability to take the 'íconic shot' is paramount.

 

I missed the original discussion in the link that you posted but I found the thread very interesting. Not only through the OP's photo but through the political opinions that were expressed. I'm a non-US citizen and I deliberately refrain from commenting on US politics. I have my own opinions but US politics are for US citizens to discuss and decide.

Journalistic photos, as well as many others, will often stir up political sentiments and such discussions can be relevant in the context of photography, which has a history of political and social commentary.

 

Though I have no vote in other countries’ elections, I certainly feel able and willing to express opinions on policies and actions they make and take. I’m glad, for example, the entire world seems to be expressing itself on the current Russian invasion of Ukraine. And, as a U.S. citizen, I know only too well the global implications of much of our foreign (and even domestic) policy. I think it’s perfectly fair and even necessary that citizens all over the world react to things the U.S. does.

’iconic images' often have to do with being at the right place at the right time. Sometimes by design and at other times by coincidence. In both cases, the ability to take the 'íconic shot’ is paramount.

I appreciate your inclusion of the last sentence. “Right place/right time” is part of the story. One’s instincts have to kick in as well. First, very immediately and on the go to recognize that this is the right place and the right time. Second, to instinctively shoot the scene or action or person in such a way that gives the photo a sense of the iconic or at least conveys both information and the import of the scene. I’m sure we’ve all been (well, let’s just say I’ve been) in the right place at the right time and, nevertheless, come away with less than an iconic or even inspiring picture.

"We" is a generalization--and the "whom" depends upon the audience. PN is composed of people who purportedly express an avocation for the creation of something aside from selfies, one's current meal, and whatever else passes the time.

We is whoever feels addressed by the statement. In fact PN is the farthest thing from what I would call a timeline and still I would say that there are things in-between selfies and documentary projects. As a matter of fact lots of pictures presented seem to be taken at random.

 

Then, how do you qualify "random?" A bunch of impulsive pictures detailing the flotsam & jetsam of one's personal life? Or any photographer with purpose that does not seem to have a cohesive theme of creation?

The former.

 

If there is a purpose, even if hidden on in development, the cohesive theme of creation will emerge one time or the other.

 

Visible? As in meeting the cognitive perception of order of a single person, a group, or the collective unconscious?

Whatever you prefer, PT. Visible in the sense that it can be captured by a sensor or expose a film.

 

Why is it that we endlessly try to place the creative into a basket of acceptance and understanding?

No categorisation intended here, no placement in a basket, and even less acceptance and understanding. Just capturing something visible. The acceptance and understanding part is somewhere else. Connected or disconnected.

 

To me, the little time I have in this world is best spend amusing myself with the camera amongst the hoi polloi--instead of appeasing itinerant philosophies.

 

Sounds like a matter for dead philosophers, and not those who love creating...

;)

I agree with your point. But I also see that 'iconic images' often have to do with being at the right place at the right time. Sometimes by design and at other times by coincidence. In both cases, the ability to take the 'íconic shot' is paramount.

 

Absolutdamnlutely, Mike! I love the word 'serendipity,' as it wraps up many aspects of an opportunistic moment. Ut was a war photographer--war photographers make images of war. Winogrand liked the street--he photographed the street. The skill of the photographer in such cases rests as has been said not so much on the equipment--but "being there" and FEELING when to snap the shutter.

 

Consider 'Billy Name'--a hairdresser and part-time stage lighting designer. He never aspired to photograph the Warhol Superstars--no less take a heavy hand in shaping how The Factory looked and socially functioned--ultimately influencing contemporary culture & modern art. Oh, and he took those pictures too... On the other hand, Richard Avedon deliberately set out to document the denizens of The Factory. There you have a stunning dichotomy between random and structured.

 

What about Major Sidney Freedman's wife, Diane Arbus? She sort of "drifted" into a certain crowd--and look what happened. Of Vivian Mayer, whose stuff was not 'discovered' until after her death? This all leads us into rabbit holes about the social construction of reality--and then someone like me will inevitably quote Tonnies & Weber--and someone else responds with someone else that is dead.

 

There are so many more examples--those who attended college to learn things creative--and those who just move along the boundaries that they seem to have been subscribed to. For many reasons (back to that social constructionism thingy), groups decide what is relevant--and what is not. A worthy side discussion concerns the "instant ephemera" of the smartphone set...

 

Any reasonably good photographer is a product of their environment. Let's just say that I find more of interest (and personal motivation to make images) in an urban environment rather than a rural one. Others perform quite differently.

 

I missed the original discussion in the link that you posted but I found the thread very interesting. Not only through the OP's photo but through the political opinions that were expressed. I'm a non-US citizen and I deliberately refrain from commenting on US politics. I have my own opinions but US politics are for US citizens to discuss and decide.

 

Oddly, I am going to defer to Sam's last post. What happens in the greater world affects me, and what happens in our American basket of deplorables affects the world...

Don't forget TIME. My portfolio includes images taken by me as a Boy Scout in the late 1940s up to the present day TIME:

 

My pictures were documentary and I used them in teaching (not for nothing was I known as the "Marquis d'slides").

 

After I retired, my "conditioned" documentary style persisted, but I tried to be more "arty" :oops:

 

But we'll always have my water tower....

:D

Edited May 4, 2022 by JDMvW

I try to go into making and viewing photos with as open a mind as possible.

 

Even if I have a goal or project I’ve set for myself, I’m often most inspired when I either exceed or stray from my own expectations. Same with viewing … if I read a review of someone’s work or a friend has told me about a photographer or a curator has introduced a museum show, I try to balance any expectations I have with an openness to discovering something else and being surprised.

 

There are set series, very random photos, and lots of territory in between those two. A body of work can form a coherent whole even when it’s randomly produced. Finding that coherence in what might appear to be more random shots can be a wonderful challenge to a viewer. And noticing some sort of coherent vision in one’s own randomly-taken photos can also be an eye opener.

 

Mike makes good points regarding the diversity of approaches, all valid uses of photography.

 

I honestly don’t feel flooded with images. I am often led to work by recommendations and naturally-occurring viewing paths. Except for PN, I’m not on social media. So much stuff is out there that affects me and more is out there that does not. The number of images on the Internet has very little impact on how or why I make or view pictures.

 

I tend not to share photos with others, except here, until I have a gallery show of printed photos that are presented to my taste. That feels intimate and special, and I do it about once every four to five years. People seem to pay attention and there’s a focus to those situations I appreciate. It’s a different kind of sharing experience than offering a web site, which I’ve found much more impersonal. There’s a bit of a performance aspect to that kind of in-person gathering, somewhat like live theater. I’ve always thought the many performance aspects of photography are well worth considering and honing.

 

As I said in a recent thread, I like non-subject/object photos, or subject/object photos that also transcend that paradigm. These can be photos that may be less grammatically structured, allowing for an enveloping experience and not always a particular point of focus and detail. In such cases, I might say that the photo itself becomes the subject rather than pointing to something in it that dominates consciousness.

I think your point of view touches upon a very important point: you go for curated work. Be it in a gallery show, a book, an author's website (I think).

Curated work has the enormous advantage to be selected, edited, sequenced. Very important.

 

A key take-away point for me is that you aren't on social media, where the bulk of undifferentiated stuff pops up. Most of the platforms, photo.net included, are not suited to post edited and sequenced work. Platforms, for some strange reason, are about timelines, which is opposite to edited work.

 

Books would be a good choice, but they have one bias, to publish a book one has to be in a certain group of photographers, which is pretty small. My experience is that many younger and very interesting photographers aren't published in books. I guess that that's also due to the different dynamics of photography on this side of the Atlantic. I normally prowl the web to find these.

"My expectation of a photographer is that she guides me through a journey, new to me. Showing me an interesting subject and interesting details of this subject. To make me know more, to broaden and deepen what is shown to me, to ask questions" Je ne.

 

My expectations from a photographer is follow their vision/journey. Methinks, why would they want to pander to others thoughts of " what we would like" Rarely does any Art pander to "what we would like".

 

Indeed most greats...fill in the blank.

JDMvW

 

A man that time forgot....

 

How nice that time forgets...and, he is a photo man.

 

Bit special on this place.....of armchair photographers.. Masters of the craft-with little to show.

 

.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Allen Herbert

I make slide shows that are played as video on Youtube, or on my computer's monitor or my 4K TV. I tell stories of vacations, trips, and activities I do. I include music, annotations, credits, etc so it seems like a short movie slide show. Sometimes there are actual short video clips mixed in with the stills. It's a great way of sharing experiences with others especially friends and family. Here are a few I posted on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDzogShfhgCHh2rVvEsFOJQ

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGsByP1B3q1EG68f4Yr2AhQ

Innovative creators are able to conceive the journeys I mentioned and present them. That's not only craft, it's also talent. I've seen stories about the same subject, one conveying feeling and sentiment, the other appearing more distanced and cold. Although the subject in both cases was emotional in the same way.

 

And then there is the viewer. Photographs are about connections:

• the photographer's with the subject, and her capability to transmit this with the means selected. The combinations of such means are fundamentally infinite.
  
• the photographer's with the viewer
  
• the photograph's connection with the universal body of photographic work, in what is it innovative, in what repetitive (subject, combination, form, tools, techniques, etc)
  
• the viewer's knowledge. One important Italian designer, artist, creator, author, Bruno Munari, said "Everyone sees what they know". The viewer becomes an active part of the connection and is responsible for their understanding of what they see and what is shown.
  
• the stance "if I like it or I don't" is just not enough. It's too subjective.
  

The conclusions I draw for myself are:

• I don't know enough. Not enough about history of photography, not enough about its developments and complexity. Not about the combination of techniques and how they contribute to a visual message. I may know a bit about photographs and photographers, mostly due to the photographs I've seen, but that's it.
  
• Photographs can be analysed and assessed, but then there is something instinctive about them, which leads to the conclusion about whether they make sense or not.
  
• The little I know leads me to think that most of the photography I am exposed to adds very little to the sense of the global corpus of images. In other terms, everything has already been photographed - conceptually - and in most cases so much better by the original authors than the epigones popping up all the time.
  
• It's not about photographers, it's about their photographs. This is not a congruent set: an author may produce one outstanding piece of work and then fade away in repetitions. That is why I focus on photographic work and not on photographers.
  
• I'm driven towards photographs, it is interesting that @samstevens does not use social media and I may go that way as well: as far as I see, they are not suitable for my purpose. I need to look for curated work and not waste my time with randomly posted pictures.
  
• Hopefully I will be able to transfer all this into my own photography, which, at the moment, looks a bit complicated I must say.
  

everything has already been photographed

Only if I focus on the thing photographed instead of the photograph.

 

1) I do my best, usually successfully, not to think of photos as photos of things.

 

2) If I’m after new, unique, or personal experiences, and I’m in a thing-oriented frame of mind, I focus on how the thing is photographed.

 

Monet wasn’t the first person to paint a church, a landscape, or a bridge. Picasso wasn’t the first person to paint a bedroom chair. Adams won't be the last person to photograph Yosemite. The creativity and freshness and uniqueness in photography or any art is not necessarily in the thing chosen to be the subject.

 

In one of the recent Photo of the Week threads, a lot of energy was spent on whether the walking man was really a statue or not. This is both understandable and limiting. Of course, we know how dependent on the “real” world photography is. It can be used to present the news and can be accurate to an acceptable degree for certain purposes. In the world of photography, there’s also a kind of tension between that real-world pull and the more imaginative and personal planes on which new visions can be adopted and built, the responsibility of both viewer and photographer.

 

I don’t know that I can say it better than ...

 

MAGRITTE

repetitive

The very same situation that, in some eyes or circumstances, might seem repetitive, in other eyes or circumstances might be a significant connection to the past, a homage, or a re-envisioning. It's only limitations I might impose on myself that would keep me from making or seeing the old as new.

In her first chapter "On photography", Susan Sontag says

Humankind lingers unregenerately in Plato’s cave, still reveling, its age-old habit, in mere images of the truth. But being educated by photographs is not like being educated by older, more artisanal images. For one thing, there are a great many more images around, claiming our attention. The inventory started in 1839 and since then just about everything has been photographed, or so it seems.

When I say everything I mean the conceptual thing, the conceptual subject.

 

Of course, we know how dependent on the “real” world photography is.

That's where I start from. Of course the "real" can be reshaped, transformed, transsubstantiated.

 

I wouldn't compare photography with painting to begin with, because, even if they share the art of composition, the painter has intrinsically more control over the objects she places on her canvas than the photographer, who must make many more efforts and deploy many more abilities to find and arrange the objects to conceive and realise the image he has in mind.

 

I think of two particular photos by Jeff Wall: A Sudden Gust of Wind and Dead Troops Talk. They are both about the real, depict the real, but we know that they are unreal.

In the world of photography, there’s also a kind of tension between that real-world pull and the more imaginative and personal planes on which new visions can be adopted and built, the responsibility of both viewer and photographer.

Absolutely yes!

That's the puncture, the sting, the imperceptible, which distinguishes the repetition from the new. This includes the

significant connection to the past, a homage, or a re-envisioning.

these distinguish the same representation of the same subject from a mere repetition.

 

I have recently seen a perfect re-envisioning of Weston's Tina Modotti sixty-four years later: Hugues Erre. Both sting.

Only if I focus on the thing photographed instead of the photograph.

If I don't focus on the thing photographed, my photographs are blurry. :(