Naturalism - An Orphaned Photographic Subject?

[short1]

There are many, many talented photographers on PN...and I recently commented that I'm reluctant to criticize

anyone, given my own lack of skill. Often, there are so many good studies that I'm overwhelmed...since as I

mentioned, I only choose 4 photos to rate, give them 7/7, and comment on - or inquire about - aspects of a superb

photo. Yet, I don't often see what I most enjoy...the natural, spontaneous, candid photo, captured with expertise.

They are here, but vastly outnumbered by Playboy- like nudes ( nothing wrong with that...and it's a great deal less

expensive to view beautiful young models here ), and painfully exacting portraiture. I of course realize that

professionals are inclined towards the "studio" style of photography...yet the photos I find to be most moving are the

candids..not necessarily of the indigent, but of parents and children, the elderly, or a subject expressing genuine

emotion. Even the landscapes are often overly stylized, not poorly, but unnaturally, with intense saturation - almost

unearthly. Does anyone else find that there is too much emphasis upon contrived stylism, and not enough on

naturalism? I admit that I come from a different era of photography, when the spontaneous capture was the most

lauded and iconic, while the contrived was regarded as somewhat commercial. Now, however, it is contrivance which

seems to reign. Just curious if some other old timers from those days of grainy black& whites of real people and

things are nostalgic for the old approach... and I do admit that it's only recently that I've attempted to return to the

candid myself. Most of my previous postings were as derivative and carefully constructed as those which dominate

the site...having recently returned to photography in retirement, I simply copied what I thought contemporary imaging

should be. Now, I'm not so sure...

Craig

[RobertChura]

I like photos that are real or natural as you say,but I think the mass of people that aren't photographers look

at an image and only see the initial impact of an image. Classical musicians probably think rock bands play crap

as well. Rock bands get the glory praise and big bucks but aren't better musicians necessarily yet they appeal to

the masses.

 

That said I feel there is a place for both and I choose to represent photos I like and if others appreciate them

I am pleased.

 

BTW, I like a variety of music and photography because it takes all choices to make a decision .

[jay a. frew]

Hello Craig:

 

I think it is just a matter of the natural desire to explore/learn new tools. No different than tinting B&W or

the generous use of a new fish-eye lens. We will get over it in time.

 

I shot Provia for many years mostly because the colors/tones seemed more natural to me. I now shoot digital as

well and find myself producing images that more closely resemble Velvia. In fact, when I scan my Provia stuff

now, it too comes out of the digital vent looking like Velvia!

 

I know how it happens (Picture Window Pro has a very good Color Correction widget), but, I can't seem to STOP.

 

;~))

 

I've started shooting B&W again in my 35mm film cameras, and it was that move that made me realize what I was

doing with digital and E6.

 

I haven't fallen victim to HDR though...to me that is over-the-top and unless it is very well applied, I believe

HDR images fall into the category of "Illustration" rather than "Photograph".

 

Cheers! Jay

[lex_jenkins]

When rating and critiquing photos just choose the categories that appeal to you. I tend to stick to the street, documentary, humor and other categories where spontaneity and directness are the most important characteristics. When viewing the entire pool of photos I simply skip over those that don't interest me or engage my attention.

 

There are plenty of folks who can't wait to see the next nudie cutie or purty orange sunset. They don't need us to lavish further praise on 'em. Folks who submit photos to those other categories that appeal to us do need and deserve the attention of viewers and critics who lean that direction.

[timkeller]

When I browse the top-rated photos, I see few that appeal to me, Craig, and I guess it has a lot to do with what Jay said: everyone's

exploring the new tools so easily available through digital photography. Styles evolve. I prefer a photograph not scream

"Photoshop!", but rather convey its subject artfully and naturally. Those are gems.

[bernie moore]

Naturalism. I really don't know what that means, however I would surmise it has a lot to do with spontaneity in something like a portrait or in street photography. I would have to think that a great or even good spontaneous photo has more to do with serendipity than with skill. I think the good photogs are arranging things in their minds as they wander about seeking subjects and try to make them look spontaneous. If you are going to produce good images that look spontaneous on a regular basis you have to do a lot of planning. I saw a video of a street photog who was quite renowned. He was buzzing around intersections in Manhattan looking for something about to happen. He produced images that were the natural confluence of subjects in an interesting congress. It looked like a serendipitous capture, but he was spinning around like a whirling dervish trying to set up for that "lucky shot" that may or may not materialize for him. He was able to produce a lot of "interesting" interactions.

[jpo3136b]

No, it doesn't bother me. One man's spontaneity and naturalism will be another man's parade of flaws. Some folks are self-conscious

about posting their mistakes here. And then there are a bunch of reasons to post or not to post; nope, doesn't bother me. I end up making

my pictures my way, anyway. Mistakes and all. Just part of the process; part of the "vision", if you will. J.

[bobcossar]

Photography, like any other art form, requires intention and design in most cases. Successful candids and grab shots are very pleasing. But are they art? If art is the visual or auditory expression of thought and emotion, then planning, design.....many factors are needed to achieve the results intended.....and such things are not often too spontaneous...regards, Bob

[seismiccwave]

If you are looking for spontaneity look no further than Bob Kurt on Photo.net. His portfolio is one of the most viewed.

 

As far as street photography is concern it is alive and well. You just have to look for them. The number of "photographer"

has increased substantially in time. It seems like everyone has a digital camera in their purse/pocket nowadays. So

when your vision is bombarded with numerous snap shots, the spontaneous image is no longer "rare" or "unusual". If you

turn your latest digital camera to "machine gun" mode and blast away you will capture a spontaneous image eventually.

The question will be if that spontaneous image is just as contrive as the deliberately staged "playboy nude".

 

Also in recent years photography has gotten a bad name after 9/11/2001. If you lurk in a corner of the street with a

camera waiting for the unusual to occur you may be accused of being a terrorist or pedophile.

[starvy]

there is a difference between seeing a good picture, seeing the light and having the ability, or application to capture that picture. i believe that i know much about the former but lack in talent when it comes to the latter. with this in mind i always offer critique where i feed the need. some pictures are awful. i tell the person they are so. some can be breathtaking. i say so as well, especially when not many others had seen it. some pictures are merely interesting. i comment on them too. much depends on subjectivity.

[allen_r1]

Craig, I couldn't agree with you more. Naturalism is something I strive for in my photography and the increasingly artifical, overly-photoshopped photos here is one of the reasons I find myself spending less and less time on PN.

[stp]

Craig, I'm in your camp, along with Allen and others. My goal is to capture what the eye sees, and to capture something

that is aesthetically pleasing and shows the essence of a place. Not everyone has this goal. Unless I know what a

photographer's goal is, it's hard for me to comment on neon-bright colors that simply did not exist when the photograph was

made. Maybe "over-the-top" was the photographer's intention. However, I have a feeling that many folks are after a more-

or-less realistic depiction of what they saw, but get caught up in the notion that if a little bit of digital manipulation is good,

then more digital manipulation would be even better. I can't get inside another person's head, so this is just a guess on my

part. For me, my mantra is 'just because you can doesn't necessarily mean that you should.'

[Spearhead]

<i>Just curious if some other old timers from those days of grainy black& whites of real people and things</i><P>I like those kinds of photos, but I would hardly call them "naturalistic." In fact, if there's one thing that is true about photography, historically speaking, it's about manipulation and striving to make photos look like photos rather than their subjects. There's a quote by the fantastic late Clarence John Laughlin that sums up photography for me: <i>The physical object, to me, is merely a stepping stone to an inner world where the object, with the help of the subconscious drives and focuses perceptions, becomes transmuted into a symbol whose life is beyond the life of the objects we know</i> Laughlin said that at least fifty years ago, so it's certainly not any new concept tied to Photoshop.

[akinliat]

Craig,

I know exactly what you mean, but I'm not sure that there is an answer to the question you're posing. Mostly because I'm just not sure that the "natural" image has any intrinsic value, <em>except to the photographer</em>. No viewer really know what was in your head before you tripped the shutter, so the only person who can evaluate how close you came to that imagined shot is you. The other problem is there is photographic technology that can compare to the Mk I eyeball, so you can do a great deal of image enhancement and still not end up with an image that was as good as what you saw. I know that for me, I constantly go back and forth about how much enhancement/manipulation is too much -- when does the image stop being what I originally saw and start being dominated by the processing. It's not that I think you shouldn't cross that line -- but I do think that it can be a useful referent in deciding what your final image will represent.

[lex_jenkins]

Eh, naturalism ain't always what it appears. Sometimes I wonder whether Terry Richardson is playing an elaborate practical joke.

[bobcossar]

LOL Lex

 

 

....when I was a kid, Naturalism referred to a bunch of folks running around nude. And playing table tennis too.....Bob

[william l. palminteri]

Craig, I totally agree with you. I came up on 'Life' magazine, and the grit of shooters like 'Weegee', etc. I do either very 'natural' street scenes, or heavily manipulated graphics. My unretouched work is just that, unretouched. I did a series of store window reflections which was titled 'Reflections' (no 'Duh') and was shown in NYC this spring. I got arguments about all the layering and retouching. There was none. Period.

 

Here's a link to the photos from that show, all but one are 2 mPix.

 

http://palminteri.carbonmade.com/

 

I'm still pushing the envelope on street naturalism, unretouched, as it happened.

 

Bill P.