Character

Norma Desmond · August 25, 2010

Addition: The guy in the dark jeans who is walking away and appears tangent to the man in the light suit may set up more dynamic tension, may be a matter of bad timing, or . . . What do you think of his presence and place?

luis_g · August 25, 2010

In Arthur's Divided Lives...

The location appears to be that of a boardwalk and/or pier for tourists. There's a victorian-style pavillion in the upper background left. In the middle-ground right there is a gazebo with several people sitting under its shade. Leading the eye into the picture is a row of the backs of people's heads as they look away from the camera. A little after the end of the bench(es) and before the gazebo, there is a man in a light-toned jacket walking towards the camera, hands behind his back, looking pensive.

The image looks like it was done in infrared (or PP'd to look that way). Yes, at first glance, the people look somewhat isolated, or is that prompted by the title? We also realize they are at a tourist venue, elected to go there, and most probably went with someone else, although we cannot tell from this photograph. Solo tourists are the exception, not the rule. Almost every figure in the foreground and middleground is juxtaposed with another. This does not speak to me of division. The people on theforeground bench seem to be sitting at what one would consider intimate space, closer to each other than strangers would sit. Under the gazebo, there is a bearded man sitting next to what is probably a woman (from the hair length). On the bench in front of the gazebo, there's two people sitting, one with their arm around the other.

Does this give me a feeling of divided lives? Not at all. The punctum of this photograph (and what I suspect Arthur identified with) is the man in the suit, but his pictorial impact is drained by the figure of the man behind him edging in. Worse, there's something on the floor in front of the two people on the bench in front of the gazebo that also breaks into the outline of the man in the jacket. In fact, almost every figure in the foreground and middle ground is partially superimposed on another. This speaks to me of connectedness, not division. Without the suggestive title I would not have remotely thought about division from what can be seen in this image. There is visually more sentimentality here than sentiment.

Street photography, although superficially easy to do, is quite difficult to do well. As this picture illustrates, and someone recently mentioned in another thread, one has to prepare, anticipate & project a little bit into the future while intuitively (there is almost never time for linear inner-narrative thought) taking in the entire frame.

This would have worked better visually if the guy in the jacket had been photographed a few instants later, closer, larger in the frame, and hopefully divorced from the distracting superimposed elements.

Take a look at Martin Parr's work. Yes, the emphasis is different from Arthur's, but there's volumes to be learned there.

http://blog.magnumphotos.com/martin_parr.html

aplumpton · August 25, 2010

"the character of the photograph as created by the photographer" and "[t]hat of the photograph, as the photograph"?

Fred, I'm glad you were curious about that. I mean by my comment that the character of the photograph as created by the photographer is intimately related to his approach, how he perceives his subject and how he transforms that perception into an image. If the photograph had some thinking identity, it would no doubt consider its character as having to do with its material (paper, texture, tone) presence, its two dimensional structure, its size and how it is housed. In other words, what it physically is as a photograph. The two are quite different characters for me, which is why I am more impressed by the first character and less so by the second.

The why and way I photographed the boardwalk image is mentioned in my reply to Luis below. I may confuse yours and his welcome comments, but I hope my answers are relevant.

Luis,

Martin Parr and Arthur Plumpton have differing objectives. One is a photojournalist with specific objectives related to his client and then to what the intention of his reportage may be (showing an arms fair, developing a conscience of the atmosphere of such, providing some humorous images for the readership, or whatever else his project entails) and that is great, and you are right, we can learn from how an experienced photo reporter records that for publication. The second photographer is more interested in a quiet reflection on places he knows well, and the people that inhabit them. Like Fred's portraits of friends or others that interact with them.

"Dividing Lives" is a clumsy title (as many are) and you may recall my mentioning what I think of that dilemna of titling in a preceding post. What I am trying to do in this particular image is to show the diversity of persons in this place and how their lives peacefully interact at one well known and well frequented place, but really don't mix. It is 3 o'clock on as Sunday afternoon in mid summer. The film is IR (Kodak's late lamented high speed B&W IR film, recording as high as 1200 nM - we see up to about 700 nM), a nice film that helps to block what might be perceived as too real, too precise. It is the long boardwalk in front of the Chateau Frontenac, at Québec, looking southeast down on the lower town (a couple hundred feet below) and the St. Lawrence river. Those at right are both tourists (the white lady) and locals, having a look over the cliff, but occasionally (as here) people watching on the boardwalk. The Victorian belvedere, one of many along the long boardwalk, is a place where young musicians group to play and entertain children and adults. The bearded guy is one of them, they are enjoying a break out of camera to the right. The couple sitting in front are probably either on a date or recently married. The guy in the jeans, going in the opposite direction to the man in the suit jacket, was clicked at that moment, as he was seen in contrast and is not likely to have much in common with the other (The nice thing about the VF of an RF camera for street shooting is that you can see what is coming into the frame before it does). I am partcularly happy with that contrast, and with the "islands" of others.

Fred,

the man in the jacket is looking at me or at the seated lady in white, who I assume was looking at him. Hard to see in a low res monitor image but more evident in my large print. He is someone I see often within the walled upper town - a quiet introspective individual who takes walks frequently but whom I have never seen interacting or accompanied by others in his path (having crossed him a number of times on the sidewalks of the ubiquitous rue Saint-Jean) - I tend to think of him as a quiet intellectual, or college professor, but may be wrong. In my image, I wanted the apparent contrast between him and the gent in the jeans. Luis is right about the gent in the suit jacket being the punctum of the image.

In a city of mixed cobblestone and paved streets, a wooden boardwalk is a very different place, which is the reason for the low angle of my shot. It denotes informality to me, at a spot where a lot of tourists and locals gather and walk up and down from one end to the other, looking out at distant vistas, a bit like Dubliners on their main thoroughfare, Sundays. The boardwalk represents the life in my city pretty well, and my thoughts when making the photo, which is meant as a quiet reflection on the city I adopted as a young person.

Norma Desmond · August 25, 2010

Arthur, I'd add a third character which would be about the photograph itself . . . what it conveys, how it looks. Even as photographer, one of my roles is to stand back at some point and be viewer, take an objective stance, to distance myself from what I knew the situation to be and even what I knew about my own feelings at the time and see the photograph as a viewer might. Its character in that sense would pertain to more than its physical character and be less about me as photographer.

Reportage vs. quiet reflection: I appreciate John's comment to me above: "[M]any of the images you've shared have more potential than as simple photographs or even as 'body of work..they seem half-way to photojournalism or theatre." I've known my work has a running theme. Seeing them as somewhat photojournalistic could serve as inspiration and his words help me see the work differently.

There is freedom when the distinctions between genres are overcome or at least when some of those lines get blurred. I'm not convinced that your photographic goals (how you tell a story, see composition, capture some of the essential elements of place and personality) are that different from many of the goals of a photojournalist, though your methods, limitations, and expectations will be different, and you have no client.

luis_g · August 25, 2010

Arthur - "Martin Parr and Arthur Plumpton have differing objectives."

Yes, they do, and if you read what my concluding remarks, you'd have seen:

"Take a look at Martin Parr's work. Yes, the emphasis is different from Arthur's..."

Do not underestimate or overlook the fact that Parr is perfectly able to assess a complex situation unfolding in real time and photograph it in a way that is clear, and allows the form and content to work in a synergistic manner.

Plumpton's picture simply lacks that awareness and ability. It's got nothing to do with what you or Parr are saying. It's got everything to do with the ability to say whatever it is you want to say no matter what that is, including "quiet reflections" on places you know well, and "the people that inhabit them". It's a photographic skill, being able to work in real time on the street (or boardwalk), one AP is fairly inept at (as are a huge majority of photographers), and obviously needs to hone -- for this type of photograph -- and it comes in handy in many different photographic situations, unless you treat everything as a still life under unchanging, controlled conditions (and many people do).

Arthur - "The boardwalk represents the life in my city pretty well, and my thoughts when making the photo..."

Perhaps to you, but...Arthur, not to your viewers. I had no idea whether this was your first time ever at that location or not. I would have never guessed that it was a familiar haunt. These things get lost in that picture.

"BTW, I don't think of Fred's portraits as "quiet observations".

FG - "I'm not convinced that your photographic goals (how you tell a story, see composition, capture some of the essential elements of place and personality) are that different from many of the goals of a photojournalist, though your methods, limitations, and expectations will be different, and you have no client."

Exactly what I was saying above. Arthur has what should be the toughest client of them all: Himself.

aplumpton · August 25, 2010

"I'm not convinced that your photographic goals (how you tell a story, see composition, capture some of the essential elements of place and personality) are that different from many of the goals of a photojournalist, though your methods, limitations, and expectations will be different, and you have no client."

Fred, there are similarities in the objectives and practice of all of us, whether they be related to photojournalism (which, while an approach, also can have a journal or publication or TV documentary or film as a raison d'etre), or nature photography, or abstract photography, but what is important is our own "signature", which may or may not lend character to the photograph. Often repeated forms or approaches (that is, types of images that we have seen before) do not have real character in my mind, or at least not a unique character, as that character (unique quality) belongs to the originator of the approach.

The fact that a number of my images have been published to date does not (necessarily) make me a photojournalist. While my methods, limitations and expectations are certainly there, as you say, I thankfully do have a good number of paying clients, in different countries, that I owe in large part to the ready avaliability of my prints in a gallery each summer.

My real client is myself, not the paying ones who walk away with a framed image, a description of method and materials and a certificate of authenticity. Depite that, I photograph to express myself and communicate my vision of a small part of our world.

aplumpton · August 25, 2010

"Perhaps to you, but...Arthur, not to your viewers."

Luis, I can understand that you do not think highly of my work, but it might be wise on your part to not refer collectively to "the viewers".

Not having seen a single one of your photos, I cannot comment on your own images, but I have previously impressed others about a number of my own, not just those who have purchased, but I have previously won our top provincial honour on three occasions (a professionally juried annual competition of about 1000 photographers from our fairly small, 7 million population, province) and have had several images published, including two in a volume celebrating the 150 years of photography. Because it is not my principal occupation, I do not expect to ever have the experience or reputation of Mr. Parr.

luis_g · August 25, 2010

Arthur - "Luis, I can understand that you do not think highly of my work"

It's not true, or that simple. I commented on one and only one work, not your entire oeuvre. At least I can tell you in a clear manner why something does or does not work for me. It doesn't matter to me whether your work is in the Louvre or your living room. It doesn't change the way I see it.

A little earlier today, you remarked, among other things: "What is missing from such ratings or "critiques" is the "why", which is ultimately the most valuable to the photographer."

....and that is exactly what I delivered. You can accept or reject it, of course.

aplumpton · August 25, 2010

Luis, You stated "clearly" only that the image does not work for you. The rest of your "why" is buried in vague qualifiers. That I cannot seriously respond to, or even learn from.

aplumpton · August 25, 2010

Fred,

I have been following your work and feel that the character of your photographs is related to your ability to portray the situation of the homosexual male in the United States in a convincing and very human manner, communicating the strength, the fraility and the to some degree defense mentality of the people photographed. Few are smiling in the images and most are intense (strength, frailty, defensiveness?). I am going to a garden party this weekend hosted at the house of some gay friends who married here last autumn. They are a happy couple and very actively involved in our community, as their frends. I see them differently than many of the subjects you photograph. Am I completely out of it; does my above notion of the strength of your images make any sense to you?

Norma Desmond · August 25, 2010

Arthur, no you're not out of it. Were I describing it, I'd probably use some of the same words you have. I wouldn't include "United States." Perhaps some would and I understand that. If anything, I'd say "San Francisco," because my experience is that gay people in San Francisco are a bit different than in other places, including the international cities I've traveled to. I certainly didn't set out to show anything about gay men in the U.S. in particular, though I do show something about older gay men specifically. That I may have wound up showing something about American gays wouldn't surprise me, I guess, but I really hadn't thought along those lines. I also don't see my work as quiet observation, but I wouldn't tell others how to see it, and I'd be curious to hear why someone might see it that way. Though I photograph gay men a lot, I consider much about aging that is not exclusive to gay people by any means. I observe some level of both strength and frailty, and "defense mentality" doesn't ring a bell for me.

luis_g · August 25, 2010

Arthur -"Luis, You stated "clearly" only that the image does not work for you. The rest of your "why" is buried in vague qualifiers. That I cannot seriously respond to, or even learn from."

This is exactly why it's a dimbulb idea to have reviews in parallel on yet another forum where members would be excluded, as if entering a private club, by Arthur in bouncer guise. Arthur...you're simply denying what I wrote. I clearly stated why. Here's a few examples:

"Almost every figure in the foreground and middleground is juxtaposed with another. This does not speak to me of division."

LESSON: Accidentally superimposed figures often create noise-level secondary associations that sap attention away from what the photographer intended. Do I really need to tell you what to do?

"The people on the foreground bench seem to be sitting at what one would consider intimate space, closer to each other than strangers would sit. Under the gazebo, there is a bearded man sitting next to what is probably a woman (from the hair length). On the bench in front of the gazebo, there's two people sitting, one with their arm around the other."

"Does this give me a feeling of divided lives? Not at all."

The people in the picture look more intimate than isolated. Here you are clearly told again why the idea of division isn't working.

AP - "The punctum of this photograph (and what I suspect Arthur identified with) is the man in the suit,"

The one thing Arthur didn't, or couldn't, deny or protest.

"but his pictorial impact is drained by the figure of the man behind him edging in. Worse, there's something on the floor in front of the two people on the bench in front of the gazebo that also breaks into the outline of the man in the jacket. In fact, almost every figure in the foreground and middle ground is partially superimposed on another."

LESSON: Timing and composition matter. Complex street scenes require a practiced, heightened awareness in order to even have a veneer of clarity. What to do? Become more proficient at it. Practice.

"This speaks to me of connectedness, not division. Without the suggestive title I would not have remotely thought about division from what can be seen in this image. There is visually more sentimentality here than sentiment."

The image does not convey the intimacy you claim to have with the space. people, or any deep feeling towards either. Maybe it's a very restrained feeling? You kept a safe distance from any person who could see you. This is a common thing among beginner street photographers. PN galleries are jammed with this cliche'd type of avoidance strategy. Parr's work isn't.

What do you want? To be told where to stand? What settings to use? Focal length? Film? Those are your creative decisions, and no one else's. There's really nothing you can learn from what I wrote? Fred very diplomatically agreed with the why behind the Parr suggestion. Vague qualifiers? Geezus. Here I was worried that they were too pointed/direct/blunt!

_____________________________________________

And while I'm at it, one more thing: Alienation/Isolation/Loneliness are the most-repeated themes in street photography. This doesn't mean it is verboten, of course, only that if you're going to do it make it your own.

_____________________________________________

Fred - "I also don't see my work as quiet observation"

Feels like a breath of fresh air, Fred. One thing about your work is that in spite ofgenerating the gay content/context, it is first and foremost about what it means to be human. Gender orientation is obviously a nearly equal part of it, and in some instances the most important. This is what makes it so accessible to others, particularly those outside the gay community/culture. Your better portraits are intense, hot-wired stolen moments riding on several human issues, including, for the many straight viewers, what it's like to be both on the inside -- and the outside, but you do not patronize your viewers into peepers/voyeurs (in the vernacular sense). Senescence, mortality, vitality, individuality, the plurality of strengths in all of us, being an aging gay male, and other themes interweave throughout the work. And it is not uniform, nor intended to be, but is at times inconsistent. Some of the more frozen/stilted/contrived ones are too rigid for me, depriving me as a viewer of breathing space and potentials for generating a multiplicity of meanings. Too sententions. For me, Fred's at his best when trying to hold more fire than he can possibly deal with, and vectored accidents literally enter the picture.

Gerald may not be one what I see as Fred's strongest portraits, but it is intense. Not because of the ball in the air, though I think more and more that it works metaphorically well in various ways, and gives (true or not) cues as to the sitter's and photographer's character. Gerald's face is a focused, direct, intense, penetrating gaze. It breaks the fifth wall, by which I mean our emotional safeguards, and pours inside, initially unmediated. The small, subtle and information-loaded facial gesture of the picture of your Father belies what we are seeing of his body. It is a strong affirmation of life.

To Fred, for advice, I'll resort to one of the things I've been criticized for many times, a quote. One of my favorites, from a great book (and perhaps even greater movie).A good thought for almost any photographer:

"Dare and the world always yields" --- William Makepeace Thackeray, from Barry Lyndon.

aplumpton · August 25, 2010

Luis,

My reaction to your ungracious comments referred not to your observations on a previous page, which unfortunately I had not fully seized (while reading Fred's constructive comments, mixing them up perhaps with yours, while working simultaneously on a report for a client at the same time) but to:

"Plumpton's picture simply lacks that awareness and ability. It's got nothing to do with what you or Parr are saying. It's got everything to do with the ability to say whatever it is you want to say no matter what that is, including "quiet reflections" on places you know well, and "the people that inhabit them"."

That is way over the top, ungracious and uncalled for (and your "bouncer"comment is perhaps acceptable for grade schoolers ). As an apparent "armchair quarterback" you interpret the images as you wish and then would seem to suggest that you are speaking from a position of authority as a player.

Your initial interpretation of the image is fixated, it is really only related to the image title (not to what is seen, without reference to a title), "Divided Lives", which I had already mentioned is a type of photographic label I am uncomfortable with.

It is an image of a cross section of citizens, each different, but co-existing together in this place. The jacketed man is purposely contrasted with the apparently different appearing man walking in the opposite direction, almost touching but remote. For me he is in the right position, as are the nearby but distinct couple on the bench (who cares about the case on the ground?) and the bearded guy behind them, or the tourist (or tourists - I bow to your superior knowledge about whether people travel singly or in groups...) on the bench watching others. The mood of the scene is what I was looking for and may or may not have obtained, but you have made it quite clear that you have not understood it for what it is.

May I suggest that you consider posting a few of your photos on Photo.Net, such that I and others might have a better idea of your abilities to understand and critique the work of others, in whatever sense? Then perhaps your comments about other photographers "lacking awareness and ability" and requiring more practice might be more easily respected.

luis_g · August 25, 2010

I thought I'd made it clear several times that I'm never going to put my pictures on PN, thank you. If that makes my advice ill-received, so be it. This week alone, I have received no less than two letters from people I don't know on here (who are lurking on this forum) thanking me for my contributions.

As to: "Plumpton's picture simply lacks that awareness and ability. It's got nothing to do with what you or Parr are saying. It's got everything to do with the ability to say whatever it is you want to say no matter what that is, including "quiet reflections" on places you know well, and "the people that inhabit them"." AP - "That is way over the top, ungracious and uncalled for."

It's accurate and reflects what I see in that picture. I realize I wasted my time writing a review for you.

AP - (your "bouncer"comment is perhaps acceptable for grade schoolers ).

Not at all. It is exactly what you have in mind for your imaginary forum. It's your desire to create an elitist space within the forum, excluding members based on a criteria of your own making that is a lowbrow and at best, undemocratic, if not outright fascist, notion.

Speaking of grade school (if not kindergarten)...AP -"I bow to your superior knowledge about whether people travel singly or in groups.."

Aside from singles cruises, tourists traveling by themselves are the exception, not the rule. You're just picking nits now.

At least you came out of your own closet and had the courage for once to clearly identify me as the "armchair quarterback". You explicitly want my voice stilled/censored so badly (unless I do what you want me to, which PN clearly allows me the right to not do) that you'd have PN create a Luis-free forum? Do you really see nothing wrong with that?

matthew_tyler · August 26, 2010

Gentlemen... (Luis and Arthur)....

While I understand your viewpoints, opinions, and differences within this thread, I would like to say "thank you", because,

through my following this thread, I have been seeing (in a new light) how people see, think, act, and react. This, to me,

has been a lesson regarding personality within photography. Through my years as a young adult, I have always learned

the most by looking between the differences that two (or multiple) people may share. This correlates to photography and

general life for me as well. I truly value then content in these forums that you spend the time to contribute--and that

statement applies to everyone else as well.

Fred --- regarding your portraits that appear to aging gay males --- what I love about them is that I see youth within these

people. Elements within themselves which are irrelevant to time, which is how I like to perceive youth -- elements of our

souls untouched by age. Its difficult for me to provide the titles of the photographs as I'm currently typing on a mobile

device, however, they truly made a lasting impression. As for "Gerald"', Luis provided a description of his face which

perfectly describes why that photograph (as many of yours) has found a place of permanency within my mind.

So, as the newbie, for my closing statement, I would like to express my gratitude for all the work, time, and effort that this

community places forth in the photo.net forums. The experience, for me, has been priceless.

Norma Desmond · August 26, 2010

Luis, one minor point, and it was likely just a slip of the tongue (so to speak). I consider being gay to be about sexual orientation. I think gender orientation is a different matter, one I wish there were more awareness about and acceptance of, even within the gay community.

I do agree with your "inconsistent" comment and with the key differentiation between not uniform and inconsistent. Much of my passion goes into developing these contrived portraits. I say this not looking for advice in particular, but just to say that I am right now in the stage of development, as I experiment with it and fine tune it. I am working especially with my posing and gesturing (feeling quite a bit more in tune with my staging) to find that right balance, or imbalance, for myself. In some of those types of photos, I think I'm close but not quite there. Some are not that close. And in some, I think I've gotten just what I want. (Not all that I post to PN would make it into a gallery show and I have several of the contrived type that I would include in some other venue that I likely won't post to PN.) The more contrived work also greatly informs the less so. While clearly not as obvious or blatant, there is contrivance in that photo of my dad and I brought to it many of the same considerations I bring to the more "forced" portraits.

[Matthew, we wrote simultaneously. Your words are evidence that in youth there can be wisdom and grace.]

aplumpton · August 26, 2010

Matthew,

Thank you for your thoughts amidst a polarised debate that has become much too personal. The forum is not exempt of occasional sniping for whatever reason it is done. I have talked by email with one senior contributor on a number of occasions about such a problem, which has also bothered him (in fact, he was the one who initiated the reflection). I think he has come to the same conclusion as I have that the best recourse is to either take a break once in a while for one's integrity or to continue but ignore the comments. My life may not be exemplary to date, but one of the things I have inherited from my family and training and have applied in my career is that gentlemanly conduct is important and always wins. There are some opinions and some types of photography that I have little taste for, but I don't wish to destroy those approaches and seldom critique those works or ideas in the photo critique or in this forum. If I don't like it for personal taste reasons I would rather say nothing (unless it is a clearly immoral or offensive image). If I see some interest in it, but think it can be improved, then I try to say to the author how it might be improved, albeit from a necesarily limited photographic viewpoint. I am proud, like I am sure Luis and others are, of the time spent to offer advice to others, in other forums, and this one.

It is true as Luis says (despite the personal comments about fascism) that I have previously proposed separating philosophical discussion from personal photographic approaches. The reason for this was that much of the discussion on this forum was then of a nature that many of us could not easily follow, in the realm of those used to discussing more advanced philosophical or social ideas, and that a lot of the discussion continually centered on photographers not part of Photo.Net.

While realising that such discussions are very important, there was little discussion on personal philosophies and aproaches to photography, which for me is a strong raison d'etre for being part of a photography discussion group. I therefore suggested that we create a forum for that purpose, more in depth than that of the photo critique forum. I am not so sure now that that such a complementary forum is necessary. In recent times, some of us have sought to describe our personal approaches, Fred being to my mind the most elegant poster in that sense, so probably the present forum is the best place for those personal discussions of approaches.

luis_g · August 26, 2010

Fred - Yes, a slip of the tongue. You're right and I know better. Sorry! Contrived/staged/directed portraits have been part of the current trend in portraiture, and you've taken this to a place where it is rarely seen. Besides the portraiture aspects, what you are doing will also end up a document of SF gay cuture.

_________________

Matthew, thank you.

__________________

Arthur, You used the plural, but I only made one comment about fascism, and I used an "if" before it. :-) ____________________

In spite of the current contretemps, I personally like Arthur, look forward to reading his posts, and think good things about his work in general. What makes this forum worth my time is not ths person or that one, but the entire active membership and even the lurkers and newbies whose wonderful letters appear in my mailbox. I don't have a Miss Congeniality or Most Gentlemanly award for anyone. If you know anything about the history of art and artists, (not to mention the internet) what we see here is not uncommon. I'm not saying it's a desirable ideal to strive for, or an eternal condition, but it certainly happens.

I do not rank the members or impose a hierarchy. Whether obviously experienced, knowledgeable, creatives and crafters, hobbyists, kamikazes and pros, raw newbies, the smooth and the cantankerous, extroverts and introverts, regardless of the type of photography they do, no matter wha, the sum of all of us makes this forum what it is. Everyone here matters.

jtk · August 26, 2010

How about this: Relegate THIS forum to ornate and windy "philosophy"... start a new forum for goals, intentions, and the experiences of photographs and photographing.

That would free many from having to weed through the incoherence and "reflections" that dominate here, allowing them to converse about meat and bone.

"Philosophy" is catnip, leave it here.

How about "Photos: The Work and Works" ?

luis_g · August 26, 2010

John - "How about this: Relegate THIS forum to ornate and windy "philosophy"...

"That would free many from having to weed through the incoherence and "reflections" that dominate here, allowing them to converse about meat and bone."

"Philosophy" is catnip, leave it here."

I have a question for anyone who thinks this forum is as useless, absurd and inconsequential as John makes it out to be, why are you here? Everyone is free from having to read any part of PN. Why would you waste your time on something so irrelevant, negative and repulsive? Why would you post so often in such a forum? You and Arthur want a new forum? Go for it. I'm sure Josh and the Mods will be happy to add anything within reason they feel will add value to the PN experience. There's no need to poop on this or any other forum to emphasize the imagined need for any new forum.

jtk · August 26, 2010

"You and Arthur want a new forum?"

Luis, That was "just" a thought. I think the more "philosophic" participants here were drawn ("catnip") by the opportunity to "reflect" at disorganized length, rather than the opportunity to ask questions or to test ideas with others: the navel gazing would probably stay here and the communication would go there.

I'd mostly abandon this "Philosophy" forum if another existed that primarily dealt with personal takes on Work and Works. Meat and bone.

Since you asked: I'm here for the same reasons as half of the participants. You seem to be as well, much of the time.

Julie H · August 26, 2010

Fred,

Somewhere back a few hours ago, in one of your posts, you said, "I am right now in the stage of development, as I experiment with it and fine tune it." I'm sitting here toiling away at one of my composites (as usual) just pondering what that means and I'm not sure ... It occurs to me that I could ask ... so, I'm asking. How, or to what extent or in what way, where, when (you see what I've been pondering ...) are you / do you fine tune. It seems to me it could only refer, in advance of the shoot, to a generic focusing of concept; during the shoot to a muscle-memory prompt. After, in post, there is much more literal room for fine tuning.

(This is not a "trick question." I'm not doubting or skeptical. Just musing.)

Norma Desmond · August 26, 2010

Julie, I usually respond well to the staging choices I make. I find locations, often as I'm walking around town with the person I'm shooting, sometimes in advance. I make the most of these surroundings and the lighting, sometimes by predicting the lighting because I know the city and its light and times well, sometimes by having a good sense of how to position myself and my subjects relative to the light, etc.

I want to work more on poses and gestures. (When I use "pose," I can mean position/posture. I talk about it as pose even when I don't pose someone or ask them to pose.) Sometimes the balance is off. I can feel a little let down by the relationship between the construction and/or just the capturing of a pose and what the pose is actually accomplishing or whether it is ALSO saying something genuine. It's that combination of directing and wanting a subject to reveal something. The tension between contrivance and spontaneity or, as I prefer, genuineness.

I was thinking in terms of the shooting itself and not the post processing.

In this photo of <a href="../photo/11376572&size=lg">Ian and John</a>, I like the theatrics of the staging. I gave myself room for the kind of color work I'm into (that was a combination of shooting and post processing). It was early afternoon and the sun was unusually strong for San Francisco but I think I handled it well. I exposed for Ian so as not to lose him too much in the shadows and was OK with it strengthening John because I knew that could be dealt with as long as I didn't blow him out. I'm much more OK with Ian here than I am with John's pose. John's putting on his shoes like that does suggest a story and all, but I think this could have been more compelling or intriguing. What if his back were to us and he seemed to be glancing toward Ian (or not) as he tied his one shoe? Or, what if he was facing us, but had stopped and just leaned back to rest for a moment while the shoe dangled from his foot untied? In a way, that latter would be even MORE directed and contrived, but it might strike me as even more genuine a moment, or at least a more compelling one to look at. As is, I think his pose is lost somewhere between casual and not and that bothers me some.

These are things I think about while I'm in the shower, while I'm lying in bed waiting to fall asleep, while driving to the grocery store. I tend to think about them less intently when I'm in a shooting situation but I will still consider them or at least hope that my thoughts at other times have an influence next time I go out to shoot. It is not so much to second-guess myself. (I wouldn't have posted the above picture if I didn't think it had enough of what I want out of a photo.) It is more for the next time.

Norma Desmond · August 26, 2010

Addition: Since I much more frequently don't know my locations or situations in advance, my "planning" is usually done on the spot, as I see what I've got and figure out what to do with it. They are by no means "candid" but they are not planned in advance, per se.

Julie H · August 26, 2010

I really like your "what if" description of the Ian and John picture. Have we done that before, because I don't remember it if we have (in this forum). Made me think for quite a while, trying out your suggestions in my mind's eye.

It's so interesting, how you work as compared to what I do because I don't do people (or do them only rarely). The only controllable living thing in my pictures is me; fine tuning, therefore means possible long term meditations on the varieties of natural light -- including, obviously, times of day -- and weather.

Mildly, or even comically comparable to your fine tuning of poses is my self-coaching when shooting birds for composites. I have found that I have a strong instinct or attraction for the classic side profile. This happens to be the least useful posture for composites -- it goes nowhere. There is no motion. What I want/need is the bird equivalent of contrapposto. So while I am sitting there, an hour or so every day all winter, shooting birds, I am muttering to myself, "Bent birds!!" I want the lines of their bodies off the plane. Body going one way, head another; rotation, turns, arches, twists ... anything but flat. Bird-shooting is so fast, that it is very much muscle-memory, anticipation, so I do have to harrass myself in advance and throughout the process.

Sign In

Character

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in