chris_waller Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 In my case I'm an incorrigible hoarder. I have an overwhelming urge to record and document in an attempt to preserve for posterity. My former home town, an old industrial town of coal-mines, brickyards, pipeyards, potteries and iron-foundries, has now disappeared. Only the photographs remain to show people how it looked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickhilker Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 Exploring, finding, exposing, controlling, protecting, sharing . . . loving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico_digoliardi Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 bkaz iyam dickselectric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maris_rusis Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Who is the "we" that makes photographs? Most people credited as photographers don't make anything but exposures. Exposures are not photographs. Last time I went to a "Professional Photography" convention I was only one of two there with photographs (gelatin-silver, fibre base) while the others had DVD or CD files for display via a monitor or LCD projector. Their pictures had never been in a physical form so I am not sure in what sense some "thing" had been made. Out of a relatively broad circle of aquaintances in the photographic (sic) industry I can rely on just four to make a real picture out of light sensitive materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 <i>Out of a relatively broad circle of aquaintances in the photographic (sic) industry I can rely on just four to make a real picture out of light sensitive materials</i><p> Sensors are light sensitive materials.<p> <i>Last time I went to a "Professional Photography" convention I was only one of two there with photographs (gelatin-silver, fibre base) while the others had DVD or CD files for display via a monitor or LCD projector.</i><p> Sounds like you are talking about people who make prints, not photographs.<p> Photographs come from something inside, or from commercial demands, or from a desire to share, not from some specific set of materials. That's a ridiculous elitist view that was discredited years ago. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Why ask why in the first place? Could that have a undesireable effect on whatever it is that makes us photograph? Sure on the most simple level we can remark it's for relaxation and such but it goes deeper then that. How deep does one need to explore before arriving at a satisfactory answere? Aside from mental masturbation I can't see this being of any importance. Technical issues aside, photography like most creative endevours is mainy a right brained activity. The left side of the brain may want to apply logic and make conclusions based on output from the right side but again I don't see any point to it and I also think that to intellectualize things may have a harmful effect on ones creative sensibilites. A photographer should try to keep things as simple as possible and let those who view his/her work to apply their own ideas about the photographer as they see fit. Some things are just better left unknown I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich_ullsmith1 Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Thank you Maris. And thank you, Jeff, for that "...photographs come from something inside . . ." Funny, every time I'm in a coffee shop there's an "artist's" bio on the wall talking about how "...I mine the depths of human existence and beauty through the art of photography, quack-quack-quack . . ." Out at the overpriced local seafood joint tonight, all the post-grads pointing their cellphones at each other, hoisting drinks and hugging for the camera (phone). Excuse me, young lady, what is your philosophy on these photographs you are making? It's a constant argument here over what is and what is not a photograph. Hmmm. Wonder why. I make prints. The print has to be good, because somewhere in there is the sublime reason why I pushed the button in the first place. And the best prints, that reason is always there, but I just can't put my finger on it. Walk by it six times a day, and it's always new. Oh, and validation and recognition? I think I would be frightnened and confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maris_rusis Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Jeff, sorry but I submit that you are dead wrong on all points. The fact that a light sensor is at the front end of a process does not make every picture downstream from the sensor a photograph. Just think,the commonest light sensors are eyeballs but that does not make paintings and drawings photographs. On the other hand if we make pictures out of the light sensors themselves then we might have a chance of a photograph. Photographs are not prints and prints are not photographs. The print/photograph amphigory has been a tragic misnomer too long. Making a photograph of a film negative using paper backed photographic emulsion is photography pure and simple. That's what happens under an enlarger in a darkroom. Yes, photographs are made from a specific set of materials....light sensitive ones! Nothing discredited or elitist about that. Good debate aids a necessary and timely reaffirmation of photography to distinguish real photographs from those things which merely resemble them, however closely. Thanks for the challenge Jeff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich_ullsmith1 Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Aye, well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 There are millions of images every month printed in magazines which have never been in the form of a light-sensitive emulsion on film or paper. When people see those images, they consider them photographs. Check a dictionary for the <a href="http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=photograph">definition of photograph and photography</a>, and those images fit the definition. The only ones who don't consider them photographs are a very, very small set of people who, for whatever reason, insist on much-more restricted, specific definition which makes sense only to them. I think it's fair to refer that as an elitist position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich_ullsmith1 Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Mike, those images are crapola as evidenced by the way they fill our recycling bins daily. And please stop using "elitist" as a dirty word. An elitist is one who bases accomplishment on merit. The antonym is "egalitarianist." Short explanation. In an elitist footrace, everyone starts at the same line. Whoever crosses the finish line first wins. In an egalitarian footrace, every racer is staged such as they all cross the finish line at the same time. Actually, the process of reaching the finish line matters a little bit to me. Sorry, I am an elitist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich_ullsmith1 Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 BTW, Mike, I think it's a wise and healthy thing for a person to rely on an online link to define an evolving concept. I'd hang my hat on it. But according to Hoyle . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 <i>Mike, those images are crapola as evidenced by the way they fill our recycling bins daily.</i><P> The question isn't whether they are good photographs; it's whether they are photographs. According to conventional definitions and the way the term is used by the vast majority of people, yes, they are photographs.<P> <i>And please stop using "elitist" as a dirty word.</i><P> I'm not using it as a "dirty word." I'm using it as a relatively-accurate description for a small group who presumes to define a term, not according to the way it has been used by the vast majority of people throughout photography's history, but according to their very-narrow views on what it should mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 When people start hiring wedding imagegraphers to imagegraph their weddings, and news magazines and papers start relying on freelance imagegraphers and staff imagegraphers to supply their pictures, and advertising agencies hire commercial imagegraphers, I'll stop refering to your prefered definition as being "elitist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 I don't think there's anything wrong with being elitist...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 That's funny, H.P. In every other thread where it's come up, you've been comtemptuous of elitism or an elite. Wonder what caused the sudden reversal . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 We take photos to prove we exist in time and space. A noble but anxiety producing endeavor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Sorry, Mike, I see my sarcasm was a little heavy handed. I promise to try harder next time... :-)))<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico_digoliardi Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Why make pictures, photogaphic or otherwise? The reasons are necessarily different among us, and I hope the following is a taken in the spirt of acceptable diversity, at least tolerance. Life is short. Let me be brutally honest. My motive to make images in general arose from mental distress, cripling clinical depression since childhood. (But "I am better now", as they say, thanks to modern pharmacology, and alive. Given the risks I took earlier it is unlikely I'd be alive today if untreated.) I made pictures to order the world in terms other than the hell I saw, to use things in pictures as forms, but iillness and pain colored everything so that instead of forms in the abstraction they should have been (made by hand) were situations in front of the camera, an instrument tightly coupled with my daily life. I destroyed a lot of stuff, and probably lost nothing important. Here is a scan of one print that typified a period of work in its original dusty, poorly printed form. It escaped being burned. I still mildly freak when I look at it. It has been published and copied by others in drawings, a poster and at least one painting. It carries my real name in the original credit line. (HP take note - therein may be the source of your earlier complaints.) Another question remains- does it make a diffence if we know why we make pictures? I might post that as a new subject.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Pico, Lovely photograph of a beautiful lithe woman and a bike, classic. What's the original title? To me it makes no difference if I do or don't know why I take photos. I don't know why I do lots of things really! Maybe it's more important to know that you CAN make photos, etc. As far as destroying things we make, I've been there. Took me a while to relaize that being self destructive is not a good idea. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico_digoliardi Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 <b>Ben:</b> <i> Took me a while to relaize that being self destructive is not a good idea. </i><p> True. When a person manages to do it right, he's done forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 So photographs that are not printed are not photographs? Is randomly exposed and printed film a photograph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Not a bad shot, Pico. Have some flowers...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico_digoliardi Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Thanks, HP. I love this shot. It's within the space I tried for. Much better. See: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=3903068 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomreese Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 When I look at my body of work as a whole, I see very few shots that have any evidence of the presence of man in them. I suspect that I take photographs as a way to cope with my frustration at what I perceive to be overpopulation. I can make all those people go away for a while. I love nature. I always have and I enjoy trying to create beauty and order (and art) out of all that chaos. Tom Reese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now