Favorite symbols?

[alan_zinn]

<p>Thinking about Wouter's comments about formal elements - formal qualities don't ,on their own, have much general symbolic value today. Contemporary use would be limited to reference to a symbol not a symbol per se. They don't do any symbolizing they just organize space. In the past they often indicated literal, hierarchical order such as: reserved use of color (<em>Royal</em> purple), and ascendance towards heaven or majesty. Circles, as well as other geometric shapes had all kinds of mystical properties. <br>

I suppose there are quasi-symbolic graphic conventions in cartoons that connote things and might be adapted to photos. <br>

In a photograph a bright, blown-out circle in the center of someone's forehead <em>has</em> to be a symbol of something, or it is just a mistake? A red smear on the wall of an empty room IS blood. </p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Overuse of symbols in photography is much like their similar overuse in some advertising, art, cinema, political statements, and other communications. This can easily tend towards cliché visual statements or too often seen complicities between symbol, subject matter and intended statement.</p>

<p>I believe that many of us have a mental toolkit that we apply in our photography and which can include, amongst other variables, favourite compositional approaches, lighting preferences, subject matter, personal values vis-à-vis our society, and symbols. How to use these and other aspects of our photographic approach and still create images that are fresh and challenging for the viewer? This is a mainstream consideration for successful photography, and I believe that here, as in the creation of other art forms, a subtle use of these parameters can lead to images that are more intriguing to the viewer.</p>

<p>Overuse, or too evident use, of symbols often leads to a closed statement, a period or exclamation mark, rather than a comma and a continued appetite for what we are viewing.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>It's not just overuse, but the <em>way</em> they are used. The result can be something akin to blunt force trauma or a big yawn.</p>

<p>The thing about the preferences, and this really should be a separate thread (so I will not go deep into it), is not limited to the viewers, but how do we keep ourselves from becoming desensitized to our own "tools" and tropes? </p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Luis, I do agree with the way being important, but didn't go as far as to elaborate on the various aspects of use or overuse of symbols as that would take more time than I had. Preferences and maintaining or not one's approach is an important subject, as I think you infer, and I would look forward to seeing that discussion sometimes.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Black and white and grainy a symbol. It stands for "Serious mood shift ahead." There has been nothing like digital's ability to radically change an image post exposure. Anybody can do it with a click. Have we a way yet of talking about that? What is it analogous to? I'll confess right here to having uncomfortable feelings about my Facile Finger of Fix. I'm loving my BW stuff too much for its "Classic Look" if for nothing else.</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>Anybody can do it with a click. Have we a way yet of talking about that?</em>>>></p>

<p>Here's my way of talking about it. Anybody can seriously delude themselves into thinking all it takes is a click. Good black and white conversion takes more than that, though I understand there are programs doing it in a more and more refined manner. Consider the importance of the image one starts with, the lighting, depth, and detail, not to mention content. Are there people using cameras and viewers who would be fooled into thinking a black and white is somehow a serious photo simply because it's black and white? Yes. So what? There are also people who see the symbol of the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Alan,</p>

<p>Black and white photography is not just a simple click transformation from a color file, it is a WAY OF SEEING. Whatever system of color you choose (additive, subtractive), seeing in black and white requires an understanding of how black and white represents color. If you had a panchromatic rather than an orthochromatic film, you interpreted the scene differently. With a digital sensor and the way different colors yield greyscale rendition (some very different colors yield similar greytones, which you then need to differentiate from each other by post exposure color filtration), you need to underrstand how certain color combinations appear in B&W and how to modify one or more of the three primary color channels to achieve a desired B&W tonality and effect.</p>

<p>Just clicking B&W transformation from a digital file may fortuitously give a palatable effect in some cases, but not universally. That is why we see so many ordinary transformations. B&W has to be mastered, whether you use color filters and B&W film, or whether you pre-visualize your digital image as a black and white one and do a multi color transformation later to obtain what you saw, or to create something tonally appropriate to your purpose.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p>Correction: Black and white and grainy <strong><em>is</em></strong> a symbol.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Post processing such as converting to BW for the effect of further abstracting an image may reduce the image information content but concentrate the artist's intentions with a new version of the picture. What is eventually produced stands on its own merits. <br /> Superficial decorative <em>effects,</em> are judged by some as unworthy of serious art. Everything the author includes in a picture, performance, or literary work must <em>inform</em> the work. That seems too harsh. Caprice and love for fortuitous events are also essential to art, particularly photography.<br>

Arthur,<br>

Anticipating how a scene might look is much easier because of the preview. Really good BW plug-ins have a ton of options. One has to know what a really good BW looks like, of course.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>One has to know what a really good BW looks like, of course.</em>>>></p>

<p>Yes. That was kind of my point. It has little to do with a single click. I'm not sure what your point was. Black and white does not stand for "serious mood ahead" except in the most shallow and superficial of contexts, IMO. Like I said, many people probably delude themselves into thinking converting to black and white creates an automatically "serious" photo. The vast majority of the time they are wrong. It does nothing of the sort, for someone who knows "what a really good BW looks like, of course."</p>

[andrew_molitor]

<p>I sense a little diversion into religion, here. The relatively recent advent of insanely complicated tools for converting color images to b&w has given rise to an audiophile-like approach to it. Everyone knows what a "truly excellent" conversion looks like, but when you get up close you find that nobody agrees on it.<br>

One wonders how so many people muddled along with a couple different films and a couple different papers and managed to make so many compelling and powerful images, without the ability to tweak the blue channel down a hair in the mid-tones to make the watchamacallit really pop.<br>

B&W *is* a symbol, I think, in a loose sort of a way. And it *does* telegraph "serious image here". Whether it succeeds or not is irrelevant. Whether or not the aficionados can tell that it's a Really Good Conversion or whether it's a proper Good Black And White is irrelevant.<br>

What matters is that the viewer, who is generally not a Silver Efex 2.0 wonk, sees b&w and reacts in a particular way. More viewers than not will see b&w and say 'ah, this is meant to be artistic and serious' and THAT is what semiotics is all about.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>More viewers than not will see b&w and say 'ah, this is meant to be artistic and serious'</em>>>></p>

<p>Probably so. The paintings of Thomas Kinkade got "more viewers" as does American Idol. How does that affect what I do?</p>

<p>I don't convert to black and white because I think more people will take my photos seriously. I do it if that's I how see the final image or print.</p>

<p>Believe me, I barely know what Silver Efex 2.0 is. I use Photoshop's color channels to convert. I don't do it because I think Andrew or anyone else will care and I certainly don't do it to compete with what was done throughout the ages or not. I do it because I like getting photos that work for me, and controlling my b/w conversions helps that process along.</p>

<p>As for most viewers, I don't believe most would consciously be aware of the quality of the black and white or the conversion. I don't believe most could articulate how different black and white images are affecting them. But a good conversion, known or not, recognized as such or not, has an effect. Many can't always say why one performance of a classic piece of music gets to them and another doesn't. Many wouldn't even notice the difference between a great and a mediocre performance. That doesn't stop the great classical musicians from achieving the nuances and subtleties that they feel to be significant and it certainly shouldn't stop photographers from doing so either without being condescendingly referred to as religious for caring about such things.</p>

[andrew_molitor]

<p>You're quite missing my point. You can and should do whatever you like, whatever makes you happy. Symbols are things that stand in for other things, they carry meaning. They carry meaning to a viewer -- dismissing the viewer as an ignoramus is to dismiss the entire question of what is a symbol. A cross carries meaning to many people, and whether it's in-focus or not doesn't matter for the purposes of carrying that meaning. For the purposes of the symbol, the quality of the image doesn't matter.</p>

<p>To be sure, the overall effect of the image on the viewer is going to vary a lot based on a lot of things. Is the composition strong? Does it hold the eye? Is the subject matter interesting? Do the semiotics, if any, work?</p>

<p>To be fair, I suppose if people want to wander off and talk about all those other things I should let them and not get cranky about it. I apologize for my tone.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, this thread was originally about the symbols, which exist apart from the other qualities of the photograph, and in this particular instance I maintain that "b&w" as a symbol, something which carries meaning, is completely distinct from any of the qualities of the conversion. It is the lack of hue, alone, that carries the meaning.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I should add, of course, that history of creating good black and whites isn't as simple as a couple of different papers. The development, processing, and post processing was often done with great care, detail, and nuance and choices galore were made. Of course, many sent their film out to a lab and didn't particularly know all the choices that were being made for them or that were defaulting and not even really being made. But those who worked long hours in the darkroom, I suppose, were as religious about their black and white details as some are today. And those guys had to put up with all the fumes!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'd agree that the very use of b&w and grain tends to be regarded by many viewers as a symbol or signifier. It doesn't mean we need to agree that merely converting a color raw file to monochrome and slapping on some film grain in Picasa makes it "art". But there's no denying that a lot of viewers will regard it as artistic and appealing regardless of our opinions.</p>

<p>To return to Alan's earlier observation about the overuse or misuse of symbols, I'm reminded of a photo.net post a couple of years ago in which a fellow asked for feedback on his business card design. He'd used a coat of arms as part of the logo for no particular reason other than he liked the look. It had no significance to his family or ancestry. And even after being informed of the history of the coat of arms, he wasn't concerned. He simply liked the look.</p>

<p>The overall "look" of a photograph does symbolize at least some vague notions of how we perceive life in general or subjects in particular. Notice, for example, the "lifestyle photography" genre of portrait and wedding photography. It's typified by a low to moderate use of contrast, subdued color with pinkish or warm hues, bright highlights to minimize flaws and emphasize a glow and generally appeal to an idealized, romanticized notion of Life-Lite.</p>

<p>Another, somewhat unrelated thought...</p>

<p>Consider the "flashed face distortion effect" <a href="

in this video</a>. Our perceptions of visual cues are so subjective that it's likely we're also perceiving other objects and shapes in photographs in ways we may not consciously recognize.</p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>"But those who worked long hours in the darkroom, I suppose, were as religious about their black and white details as some are today. And those guys had to put up with all the fumes!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, we need to seriously talk B&W darkroom work sometime, although obviously this isn't the place (symbolically or otherwise) for an extended discussion on the subject.</p>

<p>Just a few brief points that are important to state: I don't really spend much more time, and sometimes less, than that required to post exposure treat a more demanding digital capture. Performing similar types of manipulations (dodging, burning) on the computer can be lengthy.</p>

<p>Effort is not an exclusivity of darkroom work. On the contrary, getting a very good quality B&W digital print is not easy unless you have considerable experience, a specialised B&W multi ink printer or the capacity to do that with a normal high quality printer and suitable paper profiles. Until I spend some time to calibrate and harmonize my monitor and printer I have little interest in wasting any more highly expensive digital papers and inks because there is visible bronzing on some B&W prints or less than ideal chromatic or brilliance to the color prints. I admit that I have much more experience in the B&W darkroom than fine digital printing, but I am probably not alone in that regard. Consequently, until I can get up to speed on printing digitally, the work will go to a custom lab.</p>

<p>As someone who has indicated that he hasn't already worked in a printing darkroom you cannot realize how easy and satisfying the workflow is. Also, you are manipulating the light physically rather than letting some software do it, and there is some subtle pleasure in doing that in a different way (not to denigrate the pleasure of computer post exposure treatment, which I also do with Silver Efex Pro or other software). From the workflow point of view, my enlarger is retro-fitted with a computer light head that speeds the initial analysis of the negative before I contemplate any further modifications and that really takes the exposure determining test strip drudgery out of the equation, at least at the start of the creative process. The modern German computer light source costs much less than many better digital cameras and, as you know, enlargers are dirt cheap these days.</p>

<p>On the question of smells, they are virtually non existent and especially so with certain products sold by some of the smaller chemical companies in the US. I work without any mask or even gloves, and never had any problems using the normal types of very diluted chemicals.</p>

<p>Your reaction is typical of many who have not had the black and white film developing and printing experience and entirely comprehensible.</p>

<p>Symbolism associated with darkroom work include Luddite analogies, antiquated practice andother similar qualifications. Nothing could be further from reality.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>Your reaction is typical of many who have not had the black and white film developing and printing experience and entirely comprehensible.</em>>>></p>

<p>Well, smell that!</p>

<p><<<<em>Effort is not an exclusivity of darkroom work.</em>>>></p>

<p>If you're talking to me or responding to something I said, I certainly didn't say or imply this. I work very hard on my digital images and prints.</p>

<p><<<<em>As someone who has indicated that he hasn't already worked in a printing darkroom you cannot realize how easy and satisfying the workflow is.</em>>>></p>

<p>You'd be surprised, Arthur. Where in the world do you get this stuff and what in the world are you projecting onto what I've said here?</p>

<p><<<<em>On the question of smells</em>>>></p>

<p>I've spent enough time around photo chemicals (I was a typesetter by trade and had to develop the galleys of type with film developer and fixer) and enough time in and around a darkroom (though not as a photographer myself), in the past, to know that they can smell and have smelled. What I said about smell above was said tongue-in-cheek, which I guess didn't come through in my writing. It wasn't meant to start a controversy over chemicals smelling or not. You're reading a hell of a lot into my post and are being incredibly defensive for no reason. I wasn't pitting darkroom work against digital work in the way you're taking it by any stretch of the imagination. I know enough incredibly gifted darkroom artists to have the utmost respect for them, and I've learned an incredible amount just by talking to them at length as well as by watching them do their thing. You seem not to realize that many of my comments were in direct response to Andrew and are taking things WAY out of context. GEEZ!</p>

<p><<<<em>Symbolism associated with darkroom work include Luddite analogies, antiquated practice andother similar qualifications.</em> >>></p>

<p>What I'd like to say in response to this would get me tossed from the forum, so I'll let you think about the deserved response instead of spelling it out. Let's just say you're being boorishly condescending.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Anybody can do it with a click. Have we a way yet of talking about that?

 

I've yet to experience a single click "effects" color->B&W post-processing conversion that pleases me. Though over the

years the manual tools I use (color filtration to accentuate/deaccentuate elements, local

exposure/contrast/sharpness adjustments, etc), in the past with photoshop and over the last four years using LR, have evolved

considerably making pretty quick work of the process. So much so it's second nature, no doubt from doing

tens of thousands of conversions and knowing where I want to go.

 

If "anybody" can do it with a click and get results they are happy with, I have no issues with that.

 

My camera phone gets close by itself. But not totally...

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, two things incited my extolling of black andwhite darkroom work, firstly your mention of "long hours", and secondly, the putting up with the "smelly fumes" context.</p>

<p>Now, I agree that I may have taken your comments out of context, and I apologize if I have and I am sorry if you have misinterpreted that as some sort of aggression or disrespect.</p>

<p>Of course, none of that was intended. Instead, your statement simply provided me with a springboard to tackle a subject that bothers me, which is the simplistic attitude some dispose (and not you, as is evidenced from your reply) about traditional photography and the darkroom art. I am quite tired of hearing darkroom photography categorised, by many who haven't experienced making B&W silver based prints, as some sort of slavery to time and something accompanied by an offensive environment, as "long hours" and "smelly fumes" (or the like) certainly seemed to imply.</p>

<p>I am surprised at your rather heated reaction to my defence of darkroom photography. That latter aspect is all that is important to me in regard to your quote, not some sort of personal discussion.</p>

<p>On the other hand I absolutely stand by my comments on darkroom photography and some of the frustrations of digital photography (which I can readily accept as I do both) and I can only hope that some will be enticed to enjoy that marvellous activity, as well as the pleasures and sometimes frustrations of digital photography.</p>

<p>If a few decide to take up darkroom photography, then bravo to them! They will not have been derided by the popular and unwarranted perceptions about it.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Brad, I am aiming to eventually get where you are now in digital post exposure modifications. I am relatively happy with PS and Nik software manipulations and my computer monitor image result, but not so much with the B&W print quality. Have you mastered that part of the process as well, or do you concentrate mainly on a digital image at the monitor rather than as a print? </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Getting back to black and white as symbol, I wonder if we can take the "black and white means serious photo" discussion a bit further . . .</p>

<p>This is a photo I did in a low-rent oasis-like part of San Francisco, in the midst of a fairly congested area right near the downtown SF Giants Ballpark. In color, and done relatively straight, it would have been postcard-like, perhaps with a twist because of the decrepit nature of some of the houseboats. Converted to black and white, in a relatively straight manner, it might have come off, as people are saying, as a little more serious than a postcard, maybe even convincing some that it was art. I didn't choose to do it the way I did it for conscious reasons but rather the image and my feelings about it and the place just took me here, to this very graphic, two-dimensional, hard contrast view. Looking at it now, the black and white work flouts the black-and-white-as-symbol-of-art-or-depth view while also utilizing it to take it out of the realm of the touristy postcard which the content might otherwise suggest. Maybe this was my way of rejecting the need to do "postcard" even with a scene lending itself to that. Maybe it was my way of expressing the decline of an otherwise idyllic area of the city. Maybe it was the noise of the dense traffic going by above on the overhead freeway just out of view, that put this vision into my head. What does a hard contrast black and white photo symbolize? How does a lack of depth and dimension read, darkness without detail? Does an association of this type of photo with a woodcut, for example, have a visual or emotional impact? For me, yes. And, for me, there's some kind of play with the notions of kitsch, snapshot, postcard, more "serious" photography, and what a scene can hold. Most, if not all, of that comes after the fact, when I'm thinking about it. Taking and processing the picture was much more a matter of gut reactions and visualization without much specific thought to meaning or symbolism.</p>

<p>Do you have a black and white that in some way or aspect recognizes, addresses, or plays with this notion that black and white is more serious or must be art?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Brad_]

>>> Have you mastered that part of the process as well, or do you concentrate mainly on a digital

image at the monitor rather than as a print?

 

Hardly "mastered," but I am pleased with the prints that I make. In the past, ie in the early 2000s, when

decent digital B&W prints were the exception, many times viewers would assume my exhibition prints

were darkroom-produced. Today it's relatively easy to make great looking B&W prints digitally with the

right printer (any Epson with K3 inks). Most Costcos now have Epson 4880 professional printers where

16x20 prints go for $6, and 20x30 for $9. The resultsI get are excellent. Of course that's driven from

the beginning by good post processing and file prep.

[zack_zoll]

<p>My favourite symbol is the hat on the bed. A not-so close second is the phone in the background, which doesn't work so well these days thanks to cell phones. Both are unobstrusive, and can add a layer to the present or future of the story, without disturbing the initial reading of the image.</p>

<p>That said, it's a bit like asking the composer what his favourite chord is; you should be selecting the symbol for the photo, and not the other way 'round.</p>

<p>To add to the B&W photo conversation ... it has been mentioned that grainy black and white can be symbolic. A corrolary: does using fine-grained black and white film have any symbolism over colour? And is grainy black and white film still symbolic if it is used out of necessity?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>To me, black and white is not more artsy, and if other people think it is, they're watching quite superficially. That does not exclude it from maybe being a symbol, but the implied meaning of the symbol isn't one I'd easily generalise.</p>

<p>Why I use black and white a lot is for a completely different reason typically: devoid of colour, the shapes, forms, lines, points - the 'structure' - of a composition renders more clearly. It's indeed a way of seeing, B&W, but to me because it shifts attention to a more abstract reading of the image. It's also my reaction to Fred's example above - by eliminating colour and mid-tone greys, the image starts to become a 'framework' of itself, a 'bare essentials' version.</p>

<p>Where it touches on the original topic for me is this: if there are symbols in the image, I think with B&W they're frequently easier to spot, unless obviously when the symbol is a colour.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p><em>...the most shallow and superficial of contexts, ...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who said symbols needed to be profound? The point is everybody usually gets them. They are often self-referencing. B/W stands for a specific style which stands for... and so on.<br>

BTW see today's MSNB RE B/W cinema:<br>

<a href="http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/47780741/#47780741">http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/47780741/#47780741</a></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>Who said symbols needed to be profound?</em>>>></p>

<p>No one. Well, at least not me, and that was me you quoted. I was talking about how we talk about symbols, not the symbols themselves. I was suggesting, Alan, not that black and white doesn't have profound character or symbolism to it . . .</p>

<p><<<<em>The point is everybody usually gets them.</em>>>></p>

<p>No, they don't. Most, even among those who read Shakespeare, don't get them. Yet they have an impact, often because they are a visual aid (which photography is good at!) I don't think of symbols as self-referencing, though some can be. I think of them as referencing something else. A cross references the suffering of Jesus. It often references religion. It can reference the church. Most people "get" the cross. But I'll bet there are plenty of subtle crosses put into paintings and photos that many don't even see, let alone get. And for every symbol in literature and painting that everybody gets, I'd bet there are 3 or 4 that everybody does not.</p>