What is Philosophy of....

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by mrstubbs, Aug 17, 2007.

  1. Every time you learn something new...it changes you. Every time you change ...you learn something new. Is your philosophy of photography....new?
    00MGEy-37989984.jpg
     
  2. jtk

    jtk

    That's a beautiful, heavily modified illustration, derived from an unknown person.

    It is dominated by a popular digital technique, intended to turn former elder individuals into a generic leathery caricatures. "Old Fisherman With Pipe" etc.

    Technique reflects philosophy. Do you agree?

    To the degree a technique telegraphs itself, do you think it might hinder the personal change that you seem to favor?

    I'd like to know more about that woman. If we were seeing a photograph rather than a technique's inherent statement, we would know more about that individual...more "new."

    I do think simpler technique opens the door to more "new." But I'm committed to film photography for another year...maybe that also hinders personal change?
     
  3. I do think simpler technique opens the door to more "new."
    Absolutely spot on, Mr. Kelly.
    The best thing about getting more experience and aging as an artist is that you tend to strip away the fripperies of style and technique becomes a luminous transparent screen instead of a thick sack. Yo ugo more and more for what counts the story to tell and the connections to the viewer. Mortality can be a wonderful thing.
     
  4. Harumph. I was setting up my studio lights and took a few self-portraits. As I am old, I used that technique on myself. I didn't like it. I am bad enough in verite.
     
  5. John, I couldn't encapsulate my own thoughts on the matter any better. Thanks for saying it so well!
     
  6. Sometimes I just have to smile...especially on saturday mornings.

    http://www.photo.net/photo/6006064

    The only modifications to this image...after camera...is sharpening and cropping.

    My personal "new" philosophy relates to attempting making images without time consuming modificaion post camera..simply because that way ...I may make images quickly and economically...and make a reasonable quality portrait at a price...everyman...can afford. Time relative!

    The old leathery "effect" is what the camera sees. The lighting makes that possible. There is no computer generated ageing applied. This is not a heavily modified illustration.

    I'm not here to correct or deride anyones opinion.

    The question relates more to what I perceive as a valuable lesson I am learning. I will never know all the answers. If I believe I do..then I will fail to learn. Learning is not..new.
     
  7. "Every time you learn something new...it changes you. Every time you change ...you learn something new.

    Is your philosophy of photography....new?"

    Anthony, time changes you whether you learn something new or not. While time is constantly changing you, you are also learning something new about who you have become and what you are doing. Your philosophy of photography will never be new for longer than an instant as the next instant it is no longer new.
     
  8. For me the question is:

    are you becoming more able to visualize a final result before anything has been done (or visualize the image possibility in something that happens in front of you) and how directly can you produce that visualization for others without compromise?
     
  9. You are right Anthony she does look better than I do in a photograph. But maybe she is younger. I guess what I learned is that I really don't have to manipulate anything to look old and leathery in a photograph. You make a great point. In actuality when not abortively trying to be tongue in cheek I have made a recent project out of capturing "history, mystery and character" in about 70 of my septagenarian contemporary pilots and their wives. It has been a wonderful experience and much more honest than all the wedding and newspaper pictures I once peddled. I do not screw with the pictures much except for exposure and cropping. My aim was to capture them at our recent reunion of AF pilots(AF sixtieth anniversay now) before we all die. They are all now on the web for each of us to look at. So I love it when you fool the experts. I don't belong, however, to that club. Expert, that is. Old pilots club, yes.
     
  10. Like you I like tightly cropped pictures for my older friends.
     
  11. jtk

    jtk

    Anthony, the artificial look upon which I commented seems sought- after in a number of your gallery images, irrespective the technique.

    Some of your lighting appears to have a chopped spectrum. The lack of magenta is interesting. What sort of lighting are you using?

    fwiw (not much)I prefer your more "photographic" portraits and your B&W, save for the disembodied heads.

    That the photographic images resonate more for me than the illustrations is inconsequential unless you find otherwise. I'm simply somebody who's looked at your images. I've yet to post my own, and my portraits don't rival yours.
     
  12. John Kelly: "That's a beautiful, heavily modified illustration, derived from an unknown person. It is dominated by a popular digital technique, intended to turn former elder individuals into a generic leathery caricatures. "Old Fisherman With Pipe" etc. Technique reflects philosophy. Do you agree?" It may well do so when you can be sure of the "technique" applied, rather than the "technique" presumed. I'm sorry the original question was so confusing for you.
    00MHbC-38040084.jpg
     
  13. jtk

    jtk

    Anthony, I wasn't confused. I observed something of concern in your example and I mis-"presumed" the technical .. reasonable presumption in the context of your other work. You manipulate light, though other manipulations are obvious. My initial comment only had to do with the old woman, and my response remains the same...she's a caricature.

    I don't mean to moralize about any of this. You do fine work. My response is my own.

    Maybe I'm a Svengali and warp the minds of better photographers, but I think they saw what I saw.

    Whatever you did took away from that woman's identity ...based on what I see. Old men are jaundiced specimens at 50Y/20C. Photoshop vs weird light is irrelevant, seen online. You showed what you wanted when you waxed philosophic to begin this thread: to me that's one piece.

    Your "not enough magenta?" is beautiful, as are the rest of your straight-ahead images, but I actively dislike the guy with the goofy beard because I bring personal experience to what the individual's vanity intends. I dislike disembodied heads (and similar lighting) because they objectify individuals, seem death masks. Is it OK to give you real responses?
     
  14. Unfortunately I bite as we do when tired John. Sorry for the sarcasm.

    There is not one of any of the colour adjusted images which would leave the shop as a print. I make two minute portraits..as the one above..sharpen, crop and print.

    The image of the lady is as shot, sharpened and cropped. Colour adjustment is in camera..for the web...and the multitudes of calibrated and uncalibrated monitors in cyberspace. It would "rate" better than the straight shot above...but that's the web.

    Images for the web are a different animal. But that topic would start more of a war than the digital film debate. Ignorance is bliss?

    Thanks for your honesty.

    My point...in this thread, was to raise the issue of the argumentive nature of people in general...in threads such as these. While we may "think" we know the answers...none know them all. I think we could all learn more from each other if ego were left behind. Not an original thought, and not likely, I know. But always worth the try. Be well.
     
  15. Two fine photographs,Anthony. You have captured the character of each in a unique way. That is what really matters not some nit picking talk which has more to do with individual taste than anything else.

    Has the title of this forum changed to the photo critique forum?
     
  16. jtk

    jtk

    Anthony, Thanks. I think you understand that by actually studying your gallery and commenting in some depth, despite whatever detail error I may have made I endeavored to contribute with respectful fullness. If you weren't as good as you are I wouldn't have taken the risk.

    Allen, photography is inherently visual and technical. Philosophizing about it without remembering its physical reality (such as color) is empty, worthless. I'll suggest you might actually contribute here if you risked testing ideas of your own.
     
  17. Allen, photography is inherently visual and technical.

    Subject to the individuals Artistic(creative) interpretation.

    Philosophizing about it without remembering its physical reality (such as color) is empty, worthless.

    Physical reality again is subject to the individuals Artistic(creative) interpretation.

    I'll suggest you might actually contribute here if you risked testing ideas of your own.

    I have by correcting your 'dye in the wool' ideas. Re-read.

    You have captured the character of each in a unique way. That is what really matters not some nit picking talk which has more to do with individual taste than anything else.

    I refer you to this post which i hoped would at least have given you 'a pause of thought'. It is also relevent to this post.


    Buy a piano, you own a piano...
    Allen Herbert, Aug 19, 2007; 08:20 a.m.
     
  18. A child develops by exploring it's enviroment.A photographer also develops by exploring their environment with the eyes of childhood.

    Both are changed by the act of discovery of the 'new'. The very movement forward of humanity is based on exploration and the discovery of the 'new'.
     
  19. Anthony I like your perspective about your own work. I have done a lot of portraits, mostly of the paid PR type. I think mine are pretty mundane. Every once in while I would catch a glimpse of the personality behind the face and I would be pleased as with my current septagenerian photos but I think most of my work is quite unremarkable but technically sufficient. What I learned is that I am no expert but a competent practicioner. I think this whole thread is way too serious for its' minimal profundity.
     

Share This Page