wnw Something different...

Huge crop! - taken from a night harbour image - was 'browsing' the

image and suddenly saw it. 1929 Leica I -approx seconds (guessed) -

wide open.<div></div>

I like it!

Beautiful. A work of abstract art.

I like it too. It's interesting. Would like to see the full frame. I think it's a stretch to call it art as another here did. I don't think you can shoot randomly, then search through your negs and discover something that looks interesting and consider it art. I think to make a legitimate abstract is even harder and requires intention more than even straight photography. So although this is interesting I doubt you could build a portfolio around it. I would be delighted for you to prove me wrong though.

ok Van Gogh. sweet.

Hi - I'm pleased the image is interesting...

 

Kent. I took the old Leica out to shoot the harbour at night - prepared to have to crop any images that might have been worth it. The distance across the harbour - and having to shoot more than I wanted with the old 50mm lens - made that inevitable. The long exposure shots were taken - either hand-held or propped against something near at hand - in this case a low wall between two boats - making it extremely difficult to see anything much through the old finder. Sometimes I couldn't see at all - and just pointed the camera in the general direction. At others I deliberately 'shook' during exposures of 1 or 2 seconds - aiming at streaks and 'washes' of colour.

 

Over the last few months I've used this old camera to make 'images' - often deliberately out of focus - hand-held - even looking for and expecting movement and blur; - and have won some - and lost some. I've rarely looked to take straight 'photographs' - no sharp in-focus images; - on the contrary, concentrating on capturing light and colour - shapes and effects - and for this I've often use badly scratched and damaged lenses. This is not everyone's concept of 'photography', but sometimes I've been able to make images that approximate my paintings - especially those I can manage with watercolours - and occasionally I've been delighted with what seem to me to be 'abstracts'.

 

Come to think of it, it is a bit like watercolour painting - never knowing how the washes are going to turn out. A bit hit-and-miss... and I love that.

 

With this image I needed to crop from the right hand side anyway, and because I have another photo with a red buoy - an image taken further along the harbour - I took a longer look at a similar buoy in this image. That's how it came about... just a much larger crop than I at first intended - making a couple of images from the same negative.

 

I have made a small collection of these images - don't know about a portfolio - and people sometimes ask if they are really photographs. Whatever - it's fun!!

 

Rob

Isn't your process a little like this?<BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/chamber/61566">art produced by complete randomness</A>--

I've done it too Rob. Jumping in a field of Marguerites<div></div>

Kent - have a good day...

Maybe I took your question the wrong way. That's a great image... don't care how you did it.

Rob - It was a fun experiment but I would only do it once. The straight view of the field of Marguerites looked boring to me so I set a ong shutter speed and jumped, opening the shutter in mid-air.

With respect to large amounts of randomness in a photograph an idea of Walker Evans was brought up last month. His idea, in order to remove himself completely from the photograph was to rig a camera on a pole over a street and let it fire automatically and randomly. And he is a Master. I think often in a shot there is some unplanned random element that makes the shot even more interesting. And both sides of the argument are interesting. My mind is definately not made up even though I lean toward photos with strong intention.

Here's one that looks random but actually the artist took many, many tries before finally getting what he intented.<BR><BR>

<A HREF="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:FtJ_rKgaklUJ:www.luhring-design.com/information/essays/dali-atomicus/philippe-halsman.html+Dali+jumping+with+cats&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3">Philipe Halsman</A>--

intended

A small crop of a Kodachrome that, frankly, looks much the same.

 

I intended to "show," rather than "capture," the effect of substantial wind through colorful fall

trees. I did everything I could think of to keep the "shutter" open.

 

I'm not convinced it is "art" but it was, 100%, intentional.<div></div>

Thinking about Walker Evans' idea: isn't that exactly what security cameras are doing?

Kent - you asked me about the whole frame from which the thread image was taken.

 

This was one of the 'intended' photographs, having walked along the harbour wall and selected the images I wanted to have on film. My best guess for exposure was 'about' two seconds - I knew the film had good latitude, and allowed that I would have to crop some from the right side. I was stuck for anywhere else to have the camera between two boats on shore.

 

We accept that a camera is just a tool with which to begin to create or capture - or make - images. The negative is the first step - then the developing - and then the printing - or scanning. As in the darkroom, we can now work with the basic image to complete the making of the final image.

 

I wanted the yacht - the bow of the djasa - and the brilliantly lit building on the other side of the harbour behind - as far as possible - to create a light background for the yacht. In the negative, it is just too bright - but still acceptable. I like the hot burn effect - others won't.

 

But I think enough's been said. It was fun - I like the images - and that's what matters to me. If it encourages anyone to do something different - I'm happy.. If not - it doesn't matter.

 

Rob<div></div>

"]^|-|"<div></div>