Would you process a photograph to this degree?

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>the limits that we follow are the ones that we impose upon ourselves.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Advancement in art, and in most areas, usually comes from the people who don't impose limits. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Advancement in art, and in most areas, usually comes from the people who don't impose limits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I kind of agree with the spirit of Jeff's statement, but there are some important caveats I'd make.</p>

<p>Sometimes, self-imposed limits are very much part of a creative process. Hitchcock was famous for setting limits to work within. <em>Rope</em> has unprecedented long, continuous takes by design. <em>Lifeboat</em> was limited to the lifeboat for the entire film. Ravel famously wrote a piano concerto for left hand only, written specifically for Wittgenstein's brother Paul who had lost an arm in WWI. Now, Ravel's is a case where there was a practical reason for the limits. So let's take John Cage's <em>Four Walls</em> for piano, in which he limited the piece to the playing of white keys only. There are many other examples. I've done photography projects where I've imposed all kinds of limits on myself, which actually can enhance my creativity rather than diminishing it.</p>

<p>One key for me is not imposing whatever limits I may adopt at a given time on anyone else. And that doesn't just mean paying lip service by saying everyone's entitled to do what they want. It means not suggesting that you're welcome to do whatever you want but if you don't set the same limits as me you're not being honest and it means not suggesting you're welcome to do anything you want and if you don't work within the same limits as me what you come up with is not called a photograph.</p>

<p>Another key can be knowing what the limits are and being honest to yourself, to the extent possible, about why you're abiding by those limits, if you are. Even if you devise arbitrary limits, the consciousness you have of those limits is significant.</p>

<p>Accepting others' limits unthinkingly can undermine creativity.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Fred: I think you make a very good point. One of the things that it is fun to challenge yourself with are those self imposed limits and then push the envelope to the edge. I used to have my students do assignments with these sort of constraints. For example -- "get the best image you can that is underexposed by three stops."</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>It would seem to me that the answer to the question posed by the OP would be a simple "yes" or "no". In my case it's a "no", but who cares? It's an image that's all, you either like it or you don't - it's not pretending to be anything it isn't - it's not being used by a travel agency to attract tourists to the castle.</p>

<p>I'm unsure why there is so much distain, chest beating and superiority being thrown about over something as simple and unthreatening as the way someone else chooses to process his own images. There is no right and wrong unless there is deliberate deception or fraud. I'm guessing Salvador Dali would be in serious trouble with this crowd! </p>

<p>As has been previously stated, every photograph is merely a two dimensional representation of a single moment in time, and as such reality has already been distorted and altered by the photographer. If the aim is to create art and not be subjected to the banal, endless questioning of "Is it real" (?!) then who cares what someone else does? You like it or you don't, but questioning its viability or legitimacy seems shallow and pompous at best.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>John: Nail, meet hammer head.</p>

[dan_south]

Fred, good point about limits inspiring creativity. Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

Thanks for the notable examples. Robert Fripp produced a couple of Peter Gabriel's early albums. On one of them he refused to use

any cymbals. He wanted the other instruments to fill the high frequency range that the cymbals typically dominate. Bruce Springsteen

recorded his Nebraska album in a spare bedroom. There's a story about one of David Bowie's recording sessions where he made his

band members switch instruments to see what would happen.

 

The scene from A Hard Days Night where the Fab Four are running around in a playground was filmed on a day when John was

committed to appear at a book signing. The footage was filmed from far away. Had all of the Beatles been present the cinematographers

might have filmed the scene very differently.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Robert Fripp produced a couple of Peter Gabriel's early albums. On one of them he refused to use any cymbals. He wanted the other instruments to fill the high frequency range that the cymbals typically dominate. Bruce Springsteen recorded his Nebraska album in a spare bedroom. There's a story about one of David Bowie's recording sessions where he made his band members switch instruments to see what would happen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These aren't particularly good examples of "limits" being used. Gabriel's album wasn't ground-breaking, some good songs, but nothing special about the sound. Most people other than drummers and people who read about it have to be told that there are no cymbals.</p>

<p>Springsteen's album is more an example of not setting limits. The normal "limits" for recording pop albums rarely extend beyond the standard studio setup. By ignoring the "limits" for pop recording, Springsteen did make something more notable. By the way, the same was true of "Street Fighting Man," which was recorded ignoring the normal limits of studio recording.</p>

<p>Bowie's example is also one of ignoring "limits." It's yet another example of someone who went completely outside what is normally done. And all are different than the idea of sticking to the methods of twenty or fifty years ago, which refusing to test the bounds of creativity with the interaction of computers and photographs does. That's a limit, and one which ultimately will bring no advances.</p>

[jgalyon]

So you don't like Dan's examples, Jeff...how about Fred's?

[jcuknz]

<p>The manipulation/anti-manipulation should have been burried in the last century but it keeps on raising its head .. again ... and again .... and again ... urrrgh!</p>

[johne37179]

Why are so many here approaching this like there is a right or wrong answer? Let me pose an equally important question:

which is better, Mozart, chocolate or the Green Bay Packers?

[john_bellenis]

<p>Thank you John - finally an easy question. The answer, of course, is chocolate.</p>

[johne37179]

John: it was a trick question. The correct answer is beer.

[jgalyon]

Must be beer. Ya can't get tanked on chocolate,Mozart, or the Packers.

[dan_south]

Yep, put me down for beer as well, especially since I'm a Steelers fan.

[Spearhead]

<p>John G, thanks for your enlightening opinion.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I'll drink to that. What I want to know is this unfiltered beer, or has it had a lot of processing?</p>

[jcoffin]

<p>Assuming it was really dark, I'd take the chocolate -- and eat it along with a good Cabernet, which will get you just as tanked as beer if you drink enough, but in my opinion tastes a lot better.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>you're so funny, Jeff. you just slay me with that wit of yours!</p>

[jgalyon]

Steelers fan as well, Dan! Got a favorite NFL team, Jeff?

[johne37179]

I still want to know if beer has tone natural and unfiltered, or if it can be heavily processed and still be beer?

[jgalyon]

John, I've found that most advancement in the brewing of good beer has come about as the result of the brewmaster

not imposing limits on the process...so I'd think you could process the living hell out of it and it would be just that much

better! Of course that's coming from someone who's seldom met a beer he didn't like.

[jgalyon]

John, I was just reading your bio and found that you spent a month in Yosemite with AA! We have to talk sometime.

I'd love to listen for as long as you'd care to talk about your time spent with "the master"!

[johne37179]

John, beer is a close to nature and all natural product. It has been brewed for thousands of years with out any processing.

Beer is meant to be natural and should not be tampered with by those using modern technology.

 

I'd love to talk to you. I had both knees replaced ten days ago and am doing a lot of hanging out.

[jgalyon]

Yea, John...my "processing" remarks were made with tongue planted firmly in cheek ;). Sorry to hear you're laid up,

but I'm sure the surgery will be for the best...although recovery is no fun. I have bad knees myself but have been able

to avoid surgery thus far. My wife is a physical therapist at a sports medicine clinic & works with patients just like you

on a daily basis, so if some day if the knees finally wear out, at least I'll have the luxury of my own personal therapist!

I'll get some sleep and I'll drop you an e-mail about our AA chat. I look forward to talking with you. - JG

[johne37179]

<p>John: I'm glad we can all treat photographic discussions as if they were matters of life and death. However, beer is much more important than that and requires special reverence! ;-)<br>

Drop me a line at johne37179@tds.net</p>

<p> </p>