How do I get the viewer to experience what I am experiencing when I take the photo?

[lachaine]

<p>I'm tempted to say the closest you can come is to use B&W, and use the appropriate darkroom or imaging techiques to emphasize the mood of the photo as closely as you can. Also suggest using a lo-fi camera of some kind (or perhaps some kind of image degrading filter). Just straight, sharp, highly-saturated colour photos out of the camera will never convey much of the experience you felt that made you want to take the picture. Those special feelings usually result not just from the straight subject itself, but from the lighting... usually something that cannot be adequately recorded without some extra work. For me, colour never works at all for this, except when it's on the dark side and not too sharp. Ultimately, whatever technique you use, you have to take a picture of the lighting, rather than one of the subject, and of course, you have to be there when the lighting is.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Subjectivity in photography is far from dead. Experiences themselves are only available to the subject.</p>

<p>Its opposite, objectivity, implies "seeing" the universe exactly for what it is, free from human perception and its influences, from human cultural interventions, past experience and expectation of the result.</p>

<p>In science, objectivity is my (difficultly attainable) goal. In photography, subjectivity is my muse. My own vision, that other may wish to share, but are not compelled to do so.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I won't be surprised if some disagree and some prefer the photo of Daniel. That won't change the fact that expression is not a purely subjective matter. --Fred Goldsmith, posted 2:57 a.m.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Fred. My first reaction was to say that the other photo was better, but upon reflection (and reading your analysis) I can appreciate your own point of view.</p>

<p>I agree with you that expression is not a purely subjective matter, although it is clear that you have given all this a lot more thought than I have.</p>

<p>I put your posted time so that others might be encouraged to go back and read your entire post.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Without the accompanying Rosetta Stone of context-providing written material, the photograph <em>by itself</em> shouldn't be expected to do the heavy lifting of universally conveying the photographer's personal experience while shooting. Lannie, you must have already known the fundamental truth of that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely, Matt--with qualifications.</p>

<p><em>Contexto es todo. </em></p>

<p><em> </em>http://www.oppapers.com/essays/El-Contexto-Lo-Es-Todo-Margaret/159171</p>

<p>On the other hand, culture, not words, can often provide the context, as can knowing the photographer if one is the viewer. A long verbal elaboration of one's feelings is typically not necessary to get the main point.</p>

<p>In addition, I will not rule out the possibility that what is universally human is often context enough: the beauty of mountains, oceans, the human form, suffering, joy, etc.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, when I malign subjectivity, I do it with this in mind: "Art is whatever I think it is." "It's great art if I say it is." "As long as my photographs please me, they're art and they're wonderful." None of that works for me. It all reads like an excuse to blow highlights willy-nilly and not learn about exposure, to use bokeh unthinkingly and call it expression, to think that because one feels deeply about something they photograph that they have automatically imbued the photograph with significance, to avoid facing one's own deficiency of craft and instead calling that deficiency Art. There are, alternatively, many times when I would use "subjective" (and "personal") myself to describe a part of my own approach and process. But I use it cautiously and with qualification. I tend to like where contemporary Philosophy and Science of Mind and Consciousness have gone with this, which is to attempt to do away with subjective-objective dichotomies. I'm not sure it's appropriate to suggest that what's being put forward currently is a more "holistic" way of thinking, but it's a start for my own undermining of a subjective-objective distinction which has begun to feel quite false to me over the last several decades.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Nah. Decided not to. Sorry.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, you weren't about to come after me for using this phrase, were you: "what is universally human"?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>No, Lannie, not at all. Actually, I was hoping that you would talk about one of your own photos in terms of how you see it expression-wise, but I didn't want it to come across as a challenge, more of an invitation.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>I saw <a href="../photo/10415973&size=lg">this picture</a> of yours Lannie, on the bottom row of this thread while reading it on my cellphone. When I came home I went searching for it in your portfolio to give it a better look.<br>

I like the experience it gives me, <em>it has the smell of autumn attached to it</em>. And somehow the upper window on the left, the way the window-drapes are composed, that's a picture almost all by itself.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, I know of very few great artists and photographers (OK, perhaps the Bechers apart) who do not recognise their own subjectivity (it is hardly alien to art - and creativity is a personal thing) and the importance it plays in making images of any sort, from line drawings through sculpture. Objectivity is by definition free from human cultural interventions, past experience and expectations. Approachable perhaps, but unattainable. Subjectivity and objectivity are all important polar counterparts in art and life, helping us to situate our place in the universe and how we create.</p>

<p>I am really quite disappointed that nobody else has felt the desire to "take a chance" and place their images before our colleagues in the manner according to the LKelly-Plumpton modified model of seeking the thoughts of the viewer (as opposed to the doer) before revealing the reason why they made the image. Perhaps even more so that nobody has responded to provide that perception, which might reveal something, albeit limited, about the viewer-photographer relationship.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I saw <em><a rel="nofollow" href="../photo/10415973&size=lg">this picture</a></em> of yours Lannie, on the bottom row of this thread while reading it on my cellphone. When I came home I went searching for it in your portfolio to give it a better look.<br /> I like the experience it gives me, <em>it has the smell of autumn attached to it</em>. And somehow the upper window on the left, the way the window-drapes are composed, that's a picture almost all by itself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Phylo. Here (in black and white) is the "upper window on the left" to which you refer--which indeed has been posted as a picture itself.</p>

<p>Actually, the shot was made in late February, which is almost spring in South Carolina, where it was shot. The wind caught it and flipped the curtain up, I suppose.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

[jtk]

<p>I think Lannie asked for responses...something Minor White assigned to make his students more aware of what might arguably "in" their images for people other than themselves: the responses of others may be more meaningful than what the photographers anticipate.</p>

<p>Photos of old buildings, no matter how well done, are rarely more than illustrations of objects... often <em>romanticized (</em>as in Phylo's cropping and re-titling of Lannie's) <em>. </em>Labeling with "weighty" titles (eg "Ghosts") is done to manipulate responses...often to aid sales.</p>

<p>Lannie's original color image is among the strongest non-people photos he has online (IMO)... he labeled it sparsely, minimally, the way I prefer: <em>the photographer didn't try to tell me how to respond. </em></p>

<p>While Lannie has expressed concern about the way others do or don't respond, I think he might be more appreciative of those responses and non-responses (I tell myself that). It's tough to be little-appreciated (believe me), but maybe that's got more life juice to it than wide appreciation.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>as in Phylo's cropping</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But I did no such thing nor would I want to for this particular picture. I was considering the window as a picture all by itself, <em>within the picture, </em>not without the picture ( the original ).<br /> Perhaps the window striked me as the pictures' *<em>Punctum*.</em><br /> <em><a href="http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/39823.html">http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/39823.html</a><br /></em></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>That's such a significant idea, Phylo. The pictures within pictures that affect the bigger pictures. Strange that it was mistaken for a suggested alternate crop. We obviously don't have a good shared language for talking about visual stuff. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thanks, John, but that was my crop. The photo of the window is posted in my "All of my digital life" folder" on this site, along with several photos of the house and an outbuilding.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks, Phylo.</p>

<p>Barthe is an amazing intellectual and non-photographer and one that makes us consider photography in a much different light. It is frustrating how photographic talk is so riddled with paradigms that were either invented many decades ago (often associated with worshipped photographers) or are parts of avant-garde modern movements. The repetition of these same paradigms remind me elsewhere (in relation to my other interests) of the shallow research that has gone into the recording of our local vernacular architectural history. The same statements, often erroneous, abound and are repeated endlessly in new books, simply because their authors have bought into certain paradigms of interpretation and are not interested enough in doing the real analysis necessary to uncover new facts and thoughts. As....in adopting a different language.</p>

<p>"Punctum" and "stadium" are both important concepts or ideas in the construction or deconstruction (decomposition) of photographic images, and hopefuly will gain more ears than just yours in future.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>AP - "</strong>As....in adopting a different language."</p>

<p> Yes...and sometimes you should not adopt, and give birth to one of your own (along with its acnestry). I thought the quote from the Bechers, where they claimed they were creating a <em>new grammar </em>as part of their work (in my long post in the conceptual thread) was telling.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>That </strong>Lannie found a photo-within-photo was of course up to him. He did produce something far weaker than the original, IMO. <strong> </strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>I recall Lannie's anxiety about responses: </strong> I think that as a fine fellow-photographer he deserves more than withered rambles about formerly trendy theoreticians.</p>

<p>The "photo within photo" is a <strong>cropping</strong> in photographer's terms ...I'm one and in the interest of effective communication choose to use the photo lingo most would use. Barthes ("<em>intellectual and non-photographer</em>" a disco-era literary theoretician) is irrelevant to me, but some still relish his obscurantism. Me, I think more in Leslie Fiedler's even more ancient Sixties terms. Somebody else here once claimed to be a Grateful Dead fan, which is puzzling.<br>

<strong> </strong><strong> </strong><br>

This viewer's response (Lannie claimed concern about responses): The <strong>cropped</strong> is not nearly as strong as the uncropped, it is a cliche'. Everybody's done it, many of them knocking-off Ansel Adams' relative original version. That's my personal response as an experienced <strong>viewer</strong>, not a mere analysis. This viewer won't comment on <strong>quality or taste of the B&W conversion</strong>, other than to draw attention to it. Whoever gave it the "Ghosts" title evidently wanted to force an interpretation..didn't trust the viewer.<em> Viewers sometimes notice ploys like that. <strong>The original, from which it was cropped, seems an exceptionally fine photograph.</strong></em><strong> </strong></p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>JK - "</strong>Somebody else here once claimed to be a Grateful Dead fan, which is puzzling."</p>

<p> How so?</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Matt,</strong> that abstract of the back of a dog, from above, with the spots, is my favorite picture of yours.<br>

___________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Jeff Spirer - "</strong>If I wanted them to experience what I experienced when I was making the image, I would have taken them with me."</p>

<p>I understand what you mean by that...and they still would not experience what you experienced, because although the event might have been the same to both of you, the neurology, background, experience, POV, etc. are not.</p>

<p>____________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>Photographs use a visual language, which can be shared, if we let it."</p>

<p> Like all languages, it can only be shared with those who are somewhat fluent in it, and most photographers are not. And... photography is not a single, monolithic, language.</p>

<p>________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>FG - </strong>"It's great art if I say it is." "As long as my photographs please me, they're art and they're wonderful." None of that works for me. It all reads like an excuse to blow highlights willy-nilly and not learn about exposure, to use bokeh unthinkingly and call it expression, to think that because one feels deeply about something they photograph that they have automatically imbued the photograph with significance, to avoid facing one's own deficiency of craft and instead calling that deficiency Art."</p>

<p> Is Fred claiming that there is deliberate deception, self-delusion, fraud and technical <em>incompetence</em> in the work of others (though <em>not his own, of course) ?</em> Is it also saying that there's a technical high road and proper, specific signifiers to an artwork?</p>

<p>Fred is, in effect, telling us: "It's not great art if <strong><em>I</em></strong> say it isn't."</p>

<p>How about blown highlights? Check. Stygian blacks? Check. No mid-tones? Check. Hamfisted, overt burning and dodging? Check. Great art? Check.</p>

<p>Meet Mario Giacomelli, one of Italy's greatest photographers.</p>

<p>http://www.mariogiacomelli.it/</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Mario+Giacomelli&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=xv1XTIGQJYH78Abmj5mlCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQsAQwAA&biw=792&bih=396</p>

<p>____________________________________</p>

<p> There are two kinds of photographers: Those who regard the photographic transaction as an aesthetic DNA exchange, and those for whom it is an exact copy of their intentions.</p>

<p>Think of it as the difference between having children the old-fashioned way, versus <em>cloning. </em></p>

<p><em> And it is the same with the process. </em>For some, it is an interactive transformation. The photograph is a transform of the thing(s) that volleyed photons our way, what we see, etc. For others, it's all a form of cloning. Neither is right or wrong. Just different ways, and different results. <em><br /></em></p>

<p><em>_________________________________<br /></em></p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>That </strong>Lannie found a photo-within-photo was of course up to him. He did produce something far weaker than the original, IMO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, John. That implies that the original had some worth. I only wanted to give the viewers a close up of some of the detail in the original. I did think that the curtain pulled out and up by the wind gave it a unique twist, but a masterpiece it ain't, as you correctly noted. The most "artistic" thing I did with it was to convert it to black and white (gee whiz), although I did try to get at least a decent crop within the limits of a photo shot from the ground fifty feet away and twenty feet below. (There was a no trespassing notice on or near the door which deterred me from going inside. I have no idea what I would have found. Going up creaky old stairs might have been an adventure, especially if I had suddenly found myself landing in the basement.)</p>

<p>As for a title, I was just playing around with that one, as I often do with titles. As you know, some kind of title is required for in-line images. Don't take mine too seriously. I don't.</p>

<p>(By the way, John, what is with all the emphasis in your writings?)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Photos of old buildings, no matter how well done, are rarely more than illustrations of objects.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess that I could try to get creative with Photoshop, John, but when I see old structures I become more the documentary photographer. Thus do I include places and dates in the "Details" box. Nobody wants to see my artistic vision anyway. I don't really have one most of the time. My mediocrity as a photographer has been oft noted.</p>

<p>So. . . when I find old buildings and houses, I usually try to give a pretty accurate historical record. I might shop out a bit of trash or a "no trespassing" sign, but that is about it. (Well, once in a while I will warm the image <em>ex post facto</em> in Photoshop. Wow. The skill, the skill!)</p>

<p>I'm not trying to be something I ain't, and a great photographer I definitely am not. I'm just having fun here.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I recall Lannie's anxiety about responses:</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, John, but I don't remember it myself. Maybe I am getting old and senile.</p>

<p>John, sometimes you can be a hard person to converse with, but I still welcome your comments. You obviously know a lot more than I do, and I am not being sarcastic in saying that.</p>

<p>--Lannie<strong><br /></strong></p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I will venture one more post on the old house. Attached is another slice that shows more detail.</p>

<p>What did I <em>feel</em> upon finding and photographing the old house? Well, first and foremost, I felt very lucky, especially since I had driven around for a couple of hours and had little to show for it but a few shots of the rapids in the Saluda River.</p>

<p>Since there was an out building (in the same folder titled "Windows" or "Regress," I believe),</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/5227505</p>

<p>and a long extension on the back (shown in yet another photo with a bit of warming),</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/5227313</p>

<p>I include them here as part of showing my documentary mission in how to shoot this old house, although I did do some shopping on the out building as well as warming in a couple of shots, not being quite true there to my primarily documentary mission.</p>

<p>I enjoyed being out in very mild winter weather on a piece of property that was quite old but safe (for me, traipsing around the grounds, feeling happy) and pretty well-preserved (the house, not me). My only intention was to document the photo and try to get as many angles as possible so that viewers would get a sense of what it was like to be there. I wanted to share that actual experience but knew that it would be impossible, and so I made as many shots as I could.</p>

<p>This was one of my "You oughta see this!" photos. No art. Strictly documentary.</p>

<p>Thanks to Phylo and John for giving the original the attention that it has received. Here it is again for those who missed it:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/10415973&size=lg</p>

<p>Here is another angle on the same house, warmed slightly:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/10432997</p>

<p>I am going to err on the side of posting too much rather than too little on this one, not because persons necessarily want to hear from me, but because I like to hear from others when they describe a particular shoot. I also happen to like the shot--and the house that was the main subject of the shoot. So, I hope that what I experienced comes through a bit in all these photos and comments. If not, I am sorry to have bored you.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>One last point is that I provided so many shots as a way of trying to convey my own experiences while shooting the house because sometimes context gives a better sense of both the house and my feelings (I hope) than can a single image alone.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>