Transcendence and Transformation

[Julie H]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, something like this?:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"… the invisible does not conceal everything from vision; it reveals itself as an active pressure upon vision and the visible …"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>[Read more in that vein, <a href="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/in-visible/">here</a>.]</p>

 

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Luis G,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it also has to be said that the hit ratios of some of the best street photographers runs about 1:300 (for Robert Frank, a little higher)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What do you mean by 1:300? One photo out of three hundred is good? And good according to which criteria?<br>

Can you give me more details on this approach to appreciation, it interests me.<br>

L.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>No, it has <em>zero </em>to do with appreciation. Nor was I saying it was good, bad or indifferent. It merely <em>is, it is not an approach, and</em> it does not make a very strong case for previsualization. It does have everything to do with his saying about photographing to see what things look like photographed.</p>

<p>_______________________________________________</p>

<p>I have a friend who always claims that his hit ratio is 1:1. He is so ego-bound that he really can't tell the difference between his better and lesser pictures. Nor can he edit! I must have drank a gallon of coffee at the last slide show he gave. <em>Several hundred</em> images.</p>

<p>_________________________________</p>

<p> <strong>Julie - </strong>Thanks for the quote. Yes, along those lines. I'll have to re-read the full post when I have more time.<br>

_______________________________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Luca - "</strong>One photo out of three hundred is good? And good according to which criteria?"</p>

<p> The photographer's own. YMMV.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, my hit ratio seems to be similar to Winogrand and fellow photographers who have much more experience and are more astute at previsualizing and exercising control (while also using their instincts and being spontaneous) than I am tell me that their hit ratios are similar as well. My hit ratio with portraits is better than with street work and a lot of that is because I'm less practiced and experienced at street work.</p>

<p>I think hit ratios have nothing to do with control or previsualization. I think it's got to do with what pictures wind up having a photographic spark when we edit and what pictures don't. As you seem to recognize, your friend's story suggests the importance of editing one's work, a practice I find to be a great fine tuning mechanism.</p>

<p>One can previsualize at the same time as one transcends their own limits and preconceptions. A previsualization is not anything like a preconception. (I'm not suggesting you said it is, just wanting to make the point.) One can break free of many, many chains of preconception, strike upon something unique and new, and still previsualize the photograph from the shot in an imperceptible instant.</p>

<p>Control of one's photographic resources and tools can go hand in hand with an unbounded (uncontrolled) vision. And even a very controlled vision can be transcendent. Picasso didn't continue to explore cubism with anything approaching a lack of control or a random approach to style or genre. Yet there is liberation and transcendence in his paintings.</p>

<p>I experience the tension between control and randomness, between intention and accident, between preparation and spontaneity. That tension allows me the freedom to roam a very long way in-between the extremes. There are many, evidently including Winogrand, who prefer to explore deeper and deeper into one end of the spectrum. I can be just as compelled by their work as by someone who works differently. My photographic Gods continue to change. Who I'm in the mood to look at and who, if anyone, I'm in the mood to identify with, changes with my mood and my current situation and surroundings.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"The photographer's own."</p>

<p>In other words, it's a moving "target." Self-defined. By definition, the better you get, the harder *it* gets therefore 1:300 stays 1:300 if that's already *part* of the definition of a "hit."</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>What about photographing a street scene after having been witness of it, staging ( transcending / transforming ) it afterwards while being <em>in control</em>, like this Jeff Wall image.</p>

<p><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Jeff_Wall_Mimic.jpg">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Jeff_Wall_Mimic.jpg</a></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Great point, Phylo. I've read countless times in the street forums about how uninteresting staging and posing are because they're not spontaneous. That can only be said if you don't understand staging and posing and if you restrict your interests to one quality-god. What you're expressing goes back to the point that what's happening at the time of the shutter being snapped is not the same as what's happening in the photograph.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Elliott Erwitt:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>Judging one's work is really the work of other people. You cannot. Obviously, if you judge yourself you rather have an interested opinion. I think a true opinion has to come from other people.</em>"<br>

From a documentary filmed in the Netherlands in 2009.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I tend to agree. I also guess some - Allen Herbert for example - will not.<br>

But it's a free world, you know.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Luca</strong>, I'm not sure exactly what point you're addressing with the Erwitt quote. Can you expand? If it has to do with doing one's own editing, I don't see editing necessarily as judgment. I see it as honing a vision and as part of a learning process, part of the photographer's own evolution. Self awareness does not have to be judging oneself. It can be as much about desire as about judging. What do I want from a photograph or body of work? I look at my work periodically and put certain photos away and may bring certain photos out of hiding. That's not because I'm worried about how "good" they are. I look for things like fluency. It's because I'm developing contexts and relationships and I'm nuancing expressions. Some stuff, of course, just plain sucks and I come to realize that. </p>

<p>I agree with Erwitt to the extent that I recognize that a lot of other people are into judging, both me and my work. I am mindful of an helpful expression: <em>"What other people think of me is none of my business."</em> I'm much more interested in folks' reactions to my photographs and even like hearing various interpretations, etc. I do hear judgments but they don't move me as much as they once did. So, yes, it does seem to be, to a great extent, the work of other people.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Fred,<br /> a premise: I believe that reasoning on these matters, researching around, is very helpful to structure my photographing frame of mind.<br /> In the end, photographing is about seeing. Learning to see helps (me) learning to photograph. These days I have scanned lots of photos, back into the 1970s and retrospectively I see changes, improvement in technique (which is absolutely necessary), different eyes, different approaches, different consciousness.<br /> What I need from others is what you mention:</p>

<ul>

<li>"<em>folks' reactions to my photographs and even like hearing various interpretations</em>" to understand how the elements of the visual message actually impact on the viewer - beyond my individual perception; and, maybe</li>

<li>some technical suggestion (please, not on post-processing, it's not my business).</li>

</ul>

<p>Both for the purpose to - as you so well put it - "<em>honing a vision and as part of a learning process, part of the photographer's own evolution</em>."</p>

<p>For example my shop window series: I did only think of using the window frame as a frame for people passing by. It was the people I was interested in (<em>and it is people I am interested in</em>). Now, reading the comments and looking at the result I would make some adjustments in the way I would take the photos, improving the concept.</p>

<p>I would not have been able to develop further if it was not for people's reactions.<br /> I need these reactions by people I trust. And I gain trust reading what they write, how they write it and looking at what they photograph and how they photograph it.<br /> Erwitt's quotation supports my idea that we need reactions by others <em><strong>we trust</strong></em> to widen our horizons.<br>

I have huge difficulties - and you and me already discussed it - with the widely diffused attitude that "<em>this photo is good just because I like it</em>".</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"Great point, Phylo. I've read countless times in the street forums about how uninteresting staging and posing are because they're not spontaneous. "</p>

<p>It would be naive to assume all street photos are unposed. Some are posed, some are of moments that repeat (like skateboarding) and might as well be posed. Even though I photograph in the street, I'm not a street photographer and do not read nor post to the street forum here. Street is not necessarily documentary as I mean it which requires provenance. A lot of street photos' destiny is the dump. </p>

<p>As for driving a truck through the loophole of photographic coherence:</p>

<p>This coheres<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/11056792</p>

<p>and this does not</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11080431</p>

<p>If you can't see it, Julie, just ask any first year photography student.</p>

<p>This will get you started:</p>

<p> </p>

"Cohere" intransitive verb

<p ><strong >1 a</strong> <strong >:</strong> to hold together firmly as parts of the same mass</p>

<p><br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p><br /></p>

[don_essedi]

<p><strong>Luca - "</strong>One photo out of three hundred is good? And good according to which criteria?"<br>

<strong>Luis: </strong>The photographer's own. YMMV.</p>

<p>2008-2009 I shot 3362 photos. Out of that I've selected 181 as possible candidates for a print. In the final cut I'll print 20 or so.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>"I've read countless times in the street forums about how uninteresting staging and posing are because they're not spontaneous."</p>

<p>Which is a principal reason why so many photographers are afraid to go anywhere near art and its manifest challenges. The spontaneousness comes from the mind and not the object. I often feel like a stranger among fellow photographers, and I think it has something to do with Fred's observation and my reaction to that sort of thinking. For me, transcendence is not a property of the object photographed but mainly created by the photgrapher's (or, sorry,...artist's) subjectiveness.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"<em>Judging one's work is really the work of other people. You cannot. Obviously, if you judge yourself you rather have an interested opinion. I think a true opinion has to come from other people.</em>" Erwitt</p>

<p>The first sentence is true. People do have such jobs. He assumes the other opinions are not "interested" ones. Why does he assume that? That's their job, so they have an interest, right? What makes their opinion "true"?</p>

<p> </p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Don</strong>,<br>

this comes from a video interview. Erwitt intends to say "the author is not the best judge of his own photos, you require a third party input. Work is not intended in strict sense, but more in the sense of "activity". So they should not have a personal interest in promoting or rejecting a photo.</p>

<p>As to my own "hit rate" it depends. If I think of those pictures of mine which</p>

<ol>

<li>have an "objective" aesthetic value</li>

<li>have a visual message close to the one I felt when I pressed the shutter</li>

<li>don't have marked flaws technically or physically (scratches, etc)</li>

</ol>

<p>out of around 6000 photos in the last 7-8 years about 40-50 would pass the cut. Means 120:1. About the same ratio as yours.<br>

But it's a long way before it will be completed. I'm still busy scanning.</p>

<p>I have to say that I'd rather not press the shutter rather than press it. Last Saturday I "saw" four shots and I took one. But got an idea for a project of mine.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"Erwitt intends to say "the author is not the best judge of his own photos, you require a third party input...So they should not have a personal interest in promoting or rejecting a photo."</p>

<p>Maybe, but I've not found many people without an interest in photography who have much to say about any photograph. So, there is an "interest" involved. An outside party, may have something of value to say, and it can be enlightening. I'm just throwing out a caution about an absolute statement. Szarkowski didn't take GW's photos, but he had an interest in them, perhaps a "vested" interest. GW had some interesting things to say about curators, donators, and collectors.</p>

<p>My hit rate depends on the specificity of the subject, and whether I think the photo coheres which is I think much like your " "objective" aesthetic value". My specificity may be close to your second bullet "visual message". The third goes without saying.</p>

<p>"I have to say that I'd rather not press the shutter rather than press it. Last Saturday I "saw" four shots and I took one. But got an idea for a project of mine."</p>

<p>Me, too. I don't make as many exposures as I might if I were trying to copy GW's style of shooting.</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Are we taking photographs or <em>making</em> photographs, in the latter concepts like ones hit rate are pretty much useless, much like hit ratio would be useless for a writer, painter, sculptor,...maybe only for a pop star the notion of it comes in really handy. The camera after all is not a gun, and photography might very well be exactly <em>the art of not pushing the button</em>. How else would we be able to truly transcend it ?!</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>Phylo, I think Luca and I were just discussing "<em>the art of not pushing the button" . </em></p>

<p>A making vs taking discussion would be tedious...mere words. Luca and I were talking about making prints, after all. "writer, painter, sculptor" -- they have different tools and they work with them.</p>

<p>A photograph is not the photographed, and neither is it a novel, painting, or sculpture.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p>Phylo, we were talking about previsualization, and about Szarkowski's and Winogrand's stand on that subject (as it related to T&T, of course). In painting, we have drawings and sketches, sometimes dozens or more. In sculptures, drawings, models. Writers? You have to be kidding. Tons of drafts, corrections, revisions, alternate versions, etc. Not as different as you might think if we leave out the numbers and allusion to the Yang-ish "hit ratio" terminology. The creative process is rarely a laser-like line from beginning to end, without variants, vacillation, exploration etc., but you know all that.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>I think hit ratios have nothing to do with control or previsualization."</p>

<p> Let's assume Fred is right, and say they don't.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>I think it's got to do with what pictures wind up having a photographic spark when we edit and what pictures don't. As you seem to recognize, your friend's story suggests the importance of editing one's work, a practice I find to be a great fine tuning mechanism."</p>

<p> Am I misreading Fred to be saying that control and previsualization are unrelated to the sparky quality of a successful picture? If that were true <em>what </em>causes "sparkiness" (this is too close to P-ness for comfort) ? How can one infuse their pictures with it (breathing life into mud), or seduce it into alighting there? It certainly precedes editing.</p>

<p> For that matter, how does previsualization (PV) manifest itself in a print. How could a viewer know whether the photographer believed in/used PV or not? Or is it something invisible?</p>

<p> Jerry Uelsman coined the term post-visualization for work relying heavily on post-processing (back in the heyday of analog).</p>

<p> Finding out Fred previsualizes is a revelation. It's the first time I've read Fred locking into something without retaining a multitude of options, escape routes and alternate possibilities.</p>

<p>_____________________________________________________</p>

<p> Fred, besides editing my own over the years, I've been hired to edit others' work on many ocassions, for publication and exhibitions, so yes, I am somewhat acquainted with the editing process.<br>

_______________________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Don, </strong>"tedious"-ness in this forum? :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, I wasn't questioning your familiarity with editing. What I meant by the line about control and previsualization not having to do with hit ratios is that I know far more experienced photographers than me who, even with a lot of control and previsualization, still have very few keepers out of very many shots. I think there's something more at play in choosing the keepers. The more control and previsualization one has, it may be the higher expectations one also develops of one's own work, so the ratio of keepers often doesn't increase. I'm not minimizing control and previsualization. I simply don't know whether developing those skills will increase one's ratio of keepers. What I was saying was that the ratio of keepers doesn't have to do with control and previsualization. The sparky quality of keepers has a lot to do with control and previsualization. The ratio of keepers doesn't.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"It's the first time I've read Fred locking into something without retaining a multitude of options, escape routes and alternate possibilities." </em><strong>--Luis</strong></p>

<p>I appreciate your acknowledging that I try not to be an ideologue in these discussions. I prefer to take, or at least try to take, the stronger stands in my photos.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>I've understood 'pre-visualization' to mean making decisions about composition, exposure, etc at the taking, with the final print in mind. It's the final print that's pre-visualized..</p>

<p>"For that matter, how does previsualization (PV) manifest itself in a print."</p>

<p>I guess that's what everything between the taking and the final print is about.</p>

<p>"How could a viewer know whether the photographer believed in/used PV or not? Or is it something invisible?"</p>

<p>The only way they'd know is if they'd been at the taking. Ansel made that point in The Negative, just because his photos were "optically plausible" didn't mean that's what it was like at the taking. He said viewers who thought his photos were "realistic" would be shocked if they saw the scene at the taking.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p> The ratio of keepers usually, as Julie mentioned, <em>worsens </em>with expertise -- but not their quality. This is not to say that if a one-exposure type of fleeting situation develops that the odds go down for an experienced photographer. They do not. I think it's because as people become more experienced, they work harder, take more chances, explore further, make more variants, keep working until they feel they've got it... and the personal bar gets raised, so to me it makes perfect sense when Fred says that very experienced photographers have few keepers out of many shots. It's an inverse ratio.</p>

<p> A funny thing is that previsualization and control don't guarantee anything. Adams had plenty of conceptually drab, decorative photographs that amounted to little more than finger exercises of the Zone System. And Winogrand, who did not believe Adamsian previsualization was possible, certainly seemed to be able to (Intuitively? Subconsciously?) previsualize in spite of his philosophical position. I also suspect that Winogrand had one of the worst hit ratios in <em>all</em> of photography (save for some Flickr members, LOL!).</p>

<p>[sometimes I think Fred and I are like two moths dancing around a flickering light bulb.]</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>I want to see photographs in the dynamic scene in my viewshed. It's not pre-visualization per AA because between the recognition and releasing the shutter is a time-lag during which I have no control of anything. It's a moment of uncertainty as to what is captured, and a big reason why there's that "ratio"</p>