whatever happened to photography

[samstevens]

I often see 'corrections' as part of my pre-visualization process, when time allows. I think of it as consideration of the limitations that are part of the photography experience.

Thanks for bringing up the two ideas of pre-visualization and limitations.

 

On the occasions, more frequent as I gain experience, when I pre-visualize a result as I’m shooting or even just looking at something before shooting, the post processing comes into focus as much as setting my exposure and adopting a shooting angle. So, it’s not (always) like the post processing is the afterthought. Sometimes, it’s the intended post processing that may help determine the exposure itself.

 

And, limitations, working with them, respecting them, defying them, can be a photographer’s (artist’s) key. The camera is not the human eye, and doesn’t itself have a brain to constantly interpret, supply context, and resolve issues of perception. Even when one wants to accurately represent a scene or thing, some post work may be necessary to account for the camera’s or lens’s limitations. And especially when one wants to express something personal, one doesn’t have to limit themselves to what the camera produces. One can make, not just take, a picture.

 

Unfortunately, some people are too quick to think of post processing as cloning in objects or pushing slider bars to the max to achieve cartoonish and over-the-top results when, in fact, good post processing, hours of nuanced post processing, can often result in a photo that doesn’t have that post-processed-to-death look at all, but simply infuses what the camera put out with subtlety, grace, expressiveness, and a bit more emotional depth.

[rodeo_joe1]

"The negative is the score. The print is the performance." - Ansel Adams; photographer and one-time accomplished concert pianist. Who was also a huge proponent of 'pre-visualisation', combining the subject, exposure, filtering and whatever darkroom manipulation might be required to fulfill that vision.

 

Photoshop has simply replaced and expanded upon the enlarger and array of dodging and burning tools and developing techniques available to the darkroom printer.

 

Using such tools to acheive a pre-conceived visualisation is in no way 'cheating'. In the same way that a painter altering tonality, colour and perspective, or including or excluding parts of the subject that don't fit their vision, isn't 'cheating'.

 

All of which is entirely different from rescuing a crappy and ill-considered snapshot in post. It'll still look like a rescued crappy snapshot.

[je ne regrette rien]

what happened to photography? It evolved, as it always has. It moved on but is still connected to the past, it's a choice. With new tools, techniques and means of expression there are fewer limitations. From beginning to end of the process you can choose your level of involvement and degree of craft.

Photography, in all its aspects, including the ones related to "the little buttons we can push" is a reflection of society, including the documentary part, the hobby part, the professional aspects, and the technological tweaks as well, the craft and art, the tools available.

We certainly take account of the works and the authors of the past, but photography is now and what it may be in the future. Nothing excluded.

And then we evolve our approach, the way we see, the way we photograph, our craft.

[samstevens]

photography is now

Sure, but doesn’t now significantly include the past? We have today’s tools to work with but some still continue to work with yesterday’s. And, more important to me than the tools is the idea that, by the time we see the finished photo, it is of a moment of the past. But the photo is also seen in the present moment, bringing that past into focus. This is why, aside from current event and social relevance, photos are so tied to memory, nostalgia, homage, and tribute. Nevertheless there is a present the photo offers all its own as well.

 

In a sense photography, like all art, becomes a dialogue in time, perhaps open to a more non-linear interpretation than time often is given.

[je ne regrette rien]

Sure, but doesn’t now significantly include the past?

Yes, absolutely. We are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants.

We have today’s tools to work with but some still continue to work with yesterday’s.

I do. I use two cameras that are over 20 years old.

And, more important to me than the tools is the idea that, by the time we see the finished photo, it is of a moment of the past. But the photo is also seen in the present moment, bringing that past into focus. This is why, aside from current event and social relevance, photos are so tied to memory, nostalgia, homage, and tribute. Nevertheless there is a present the photo offers all its own as well.

 

In a sense photography, like all art, becomes a dialogue in time, perhaps open to a more non-linear interpretation than time often is given.

I am an absolute supporter of non-linearity. By no means I intended to dismiss the past and the memories, which the photos present us.

 

What I meant was the creation of photography, which I think needs to be forward-looking in its conception of visual communication, precisely for the purpose of documenting and testifying the current for future memory. My point is therefore: I appreciate the great photographers of the past, but I believe that photography today should absolutely avoid photography à la ... [Lange, Cartier-Bresson, Herzog, Weston, Smith, Koudelka, ... you name them].

[samstevens]

My point is therefore: I appreciate the great photographers of the past, but I believe that photography today should absolutely avoid photography à la ... [Lange, Cartier-Bresson, Herzog, Weston, Smith, Koudelka, ... you name them].

So, here we disagree. I think there’s still plenty of room for work and style like Lange, Weston and the rest. That leaves room for innovation, but not everyone is going to come up with completely original photographs and what those historical photographers did was in many ways timeless enough that emulating them today can successfully co-exist with new ways of seeing and photographing. You may want to avoid them, and that’s your choice, but asking for photography to do so is not something I’d go along with.

[inoneeye]

“In a sense photography, like all art, becomes a dialogue in time, perhaps open to a more non-linear interpretation than time often is given.“ ss +1

 

 

I can relate to the perception that picture taking, shutter release, and often viewing and what is communicated are representing the now, (that immediately passes by) but the vision the photograph and the communication are not restricted to the now. The technology and object are of the present if you choose... but all are temporary & fluid and we make choices informed by the past even as we attempt to consider A future.

Much of the photography we see is stagnant or frozen in time but there are also those photos are outside of a moment in time. Many of the photos and photographers of the past worked outside of a timeline.

Much of my work has no relationship, no connection to the present. I make some photos that are more than a single moment when conceived or post processed or considered and worked over a long period of time.. So for me photography is of the now but not restricted to it and capable of being much more.

 

edit. sam i just saw that you posted while i was typing my somewhat repetitive response..o_O

Edited April 28, 2022 by inoneeye

[je ne regrette rien]

@samstevens now I realise, it seems to me that we are talking about different things:

• You think of photographs,
  
• I think of the act of photographing.
  

The first is the result, the second is the set-up to obtain the result. They are not equivalent, even though related.

[rodeo_joe1]

Regarding this time-dependence thing; let's not forget than an object must pre-exist in order to be photographed. Therefore 'instant photography' is essentially an oxymoron.

The vision may be contemporaneous, but the subject cannot be, therefore photography is (always?) a reaction to the subject, whether pre-contemplated or not.

[je ne regrette rien]

Regarding this time-dependence thing; let's not forget than an object must pre-exist in order to be photographed. Therefore 'instant photography' is essentially an oxymoron.

The vision may be contemporaneous, but the subject cannot be, therefore photography is (always?) a reaction to the subject, whether pre-contemplated or not.

Sure, but the object/subject/action photographed, in the widest sense possible, may be created a fraction of a second before or even at the same moment it is photographed.

[samstevens]

Photography can be the reaction to an object, but much photography is also more active. It often is the creation of rather than a reaction to the subject. What the photographer frames and zeroes in on and how the photographer’s perspective and choices impact what is before the photographer determines the subject. Not that I necessarily agree completely with her, but it’s worth noting Sontag’s view that photographers in some way violate (murder!) their subjects, which is well beyond reactive. As she says, “attention is vitality.”

 

Photography also doesn’t have to be subject/object oriented. Just as time can be experienced in a non-linear way, photos may escape the subject/object paradigm, either via the vision of the photographer or the orientation of the viewer or some combo of the two.

 

Rather than reacting to elements in the world, the photographer may go out with an idea or feeling already in mind—for example, poetry, sadness, rhythm—and shape objects and lighting and textures and angles and colors into the expression of an idea or feeling or even a looser mood, etc.

 

There are more and less proactive and reactive ways to photograph and the two are often combined in a dialogue or even a struggle that achieves a photo.

Edited April 29, 2022 by samstevens

[je ne regrette rien]

This suggests to me a quote by William Eggleston: “people ask me what I photograph. The best answer I can come up with is ‘life today’”.

 

Photography is life, today. It is based on life, today.

 

This includes

• Documenting the present and the past
  
• Creating
  
• Manipulating
  
• Techniques and craft
  
• Commercial relations
  
• Political statements
  
• The truth
  
• The falsehood.
  

In most cases it uses what’s before us, anywhere in the universe. Anybody can think they can do it themselves but I would say that elements, factors and instruments are so manifold and connected in complex ways that achieving it with a meaning and punch is not obvious at all.

[samstevens]

And I would say Eggleston is a good example of that. But I take what most photographers say about photography with a grain of salt. Certainly, I give each the weight it deserves and many ideas about what photography is are worth considering as part of the dialogue, but I don’t know that I’ve ever heard one that covers the gamut.

 

So, an alternative to photography being life today is, for example, JDMVW’s work right here on PN, much of which documents ancient archaeological and various historic sites. In significant ways, it’s not about life today. Of course, the history he photographs has relevance today and what he photographs is technically here today to be documented, but the ties to the past in some sense can transform our current perceptions of what’s being photographed. I think focusing on photography and today doesn’t quite describe the historical and memorial aspects which are so vital to photography.

 

I’d also want to include the future. Photography is also possibilities, a future-oriented quality. In many ways, photos have looked to the future, have represented the future, and have opened a door to it. Photos can project …

[Allen Herbert]

;))

[John Seaman]

Some years ago I did an essay which attempted to explore the way photography and time are related. Here are some ramblings from it:

 

We cannot photograph the past, only the present, but all photographs are images of the past. From the moment we press the shutter, time moves on and the scene which was photographed begins to change, and the beholder also changes, whilst the image itself remains the same. The meaning of an image is seen to stem both from the intentions of the original photographer, and from the later viewer’s contribution to it, suggesting that we should continue to record these scenes although we may not fully understand what will be important in our pictures to future generations.

 

"It is the notion that a photograph stops time … that makes us overlook a more global concept: photography may have altered our very ideas about time. What if photography does not stop time but rather lets us see through time? What if photography somehow makes time transparent?". Estelle Jussim (1989).

 

Nigel Warburton suggests that meaning lies at least partly in the mind of the viewer, who is forced to contribute to the interpretation by what the image implies rather than demonstrates:

 

"In other words, we are not simply passive interpreters of images whose meanings have been fixed by the moment of exposure, but rather active creators of their meanings to some extent". (Warburton, 2008)

 

Photography can be seen as a way of stopping time, and its introduction had implications for the way we perceive time itself. Looking at old photographs gives us the opportunity to see through time to an earlier age and the original intention of the photographer does not limit the meaning and interpretation of the image in the mind of the present day viewer.

[rodeo_joe1]

It often is the creation of rather than a reaction to the subject.

My argument is that:

1. The subject must have physicality in order to be imaged. Therefore it must pre-exist before the moment of photographic capture. Otherwise we might as well leave the lens cap on our cameras and hope that something luminous materialises out of the blackness.

2. The subject must also exist physically or in concept in order to be part of the creative process. We build our thought patterns, and ergo creativity, from a mental library of things, or concepts that already exist and have impinged on our consciousness.

 

I would argue that nobody invents or creates something out of a complete vacuum. We are what experience has made us. Likewise our creative concepts. Therefore everything we do or think is reactive.

[samstevens]

Objects physically exist. Subjects are created by humans. If there’s a ball in a room full of items, the ball and the other items all exist as physical objects. If I light and focus on the ball with a shallow depth of field so everything else is blurred, I’ve made it the subject. I could have made the tennis racket, an object somewhere near the ball, the subject, but I chose not to.

 

Love, sadness, poetry, and jazz are not physical objects one points a camera at. Nevertheless, love, sadness, poetry, and jazz can be the subjects of photos.

[samstevens]

John, I was writing as you were. Obviously, my post was not a response to you. I’m on the road and will read carefully what you said. Looks interesting.

[je ne regrette rien]

My argument is that:

1. The subject must have physicality in order to be imaged. Therefore it must pre-exist before the moment of photographic capture. Otherwise we might as well leave the lens cap on our cameras and hope that something luminous materialises out of the blackness.

2. The subject must also exist physically or in concept in order to be part of the creative process. We build our thought patterns, and ergo creativity, from a mental library of things, or concepts that already exist and have impinged on our consciousness.

 

I would argue that nobody invents or creates something out of a complete vacuum. We are what experience has made us. Likewise our creative concepts. Therefore everything we do or think is reactive.

That is absolutely correct. Nevertheless, I would also say that photographs are not only physical objects that obviously must pre-exist, they also can portray things that happen. Two come to mind right now: Philip Halsman’s jumping Dalí and Jacques Henri Lartigue’s racing car. These certainly portray pre-existing objects but also actions in the moment in time, which are over and past when the shutter closes. But there are many many others.

[je ne regrette rien]

So, an alternative to photography being life today is, for example, JDMVW’s work right here on PN, much of which documents ancient archaeological and various historic sites. In significant ways, it’s not about life today. Of course, the history he photographs has relevance today and what he photographs is technically here today to be documented, but the ties to the past in some sense can transform our current perceptions of what’s being photographed. I think focusing on photography and today doesn’t quite describe the historical and memorial aspects which are so vital to photography.

Yes, but would you convene that the act of JDMVW photographing is life today, i.e. at the time he was standing in front of the sites he intended to document? The fact that the objects he photographs were of the past in my mind does not make the act of photographing in the very moment it happens an act of the past. He, all photographers, make their photographs now (meaning the very moment when they conceive the photograph), based on present decisions, stimuli and facilities. Time passes, photographs may stay, the subjects may stay or vanish, any action vanishes and can’t be repeated.

 

Somehow, I believe, in the line of what @John Seaman is saying.

Edited April 30, 2022 by je ne regrette rien

[samstevens]

John, I like the idea of seeing through time via photos and time’s being transparent. Those are cool ways to think about things.

 

Je ne regrette, it’s an act of the present or today like any act is. But it seems trivial to say photographing is an act of the present precisely because every act, whether scratching one’s nose or writing or speaking or singing is. I think the significance of photography is that it’s a tool of memorialization, a tool for stilling time in the moment, and a tool guided by what the moment will look like in the future. I don’t see the benefit of asserting that it’s an act of today, since every other act is an act of today when it’s performed.

[John Seaman]

My contribution was prompted as the essay I did chimed with the way the discussion seemed to be going. I admit I hadn't been following the thread too conscientiously, deep musings aren't my sort of thing, but I was pushed into investigation this topic during a course project which kind of expanded into unfamiliar areas. Another prompt was boredom at being confined to the Leicester General Hospital recovering from gall bladder surgery, which also expanded beyond its expected boundaries.

[inoneeye]

Photography is very capable of defeating the now, a single moment in time. Multiple exposures, time lapse photography, montage creations that can take more then single moment to capture and create a photo that may take as much time as a painting to complete. A single shutter release is only a moment but the exposure may capture a long period of time minutes, hours, days... Sugimoto comes to mind as does Hockney's collection of moments. And so many others with various techniques using a collection of moments that can span time. Many fine photographers are not restricted to the one moment of a single exposure.

.

So unless one considers all life, or in this context, art is of the now... meaning the moment they conceived their work and not accounting for it slowly evolving as you work, then why limit photographers. Shutter releases is often just A first step even while photographing.

 

"It is the notion that a photograph stops time … that makes us overlook a more global concept: photography may have altered our very ideas about time. What if photography does not stop time but rather lets us see through time? What if photography somehow makes time transparent?".:)

 

Now that the medium has been further democratized with the continuing rise of snapshot and digital photography. What a thrilling time for looking through the mainstream releases in the hope of unearthing something unique, something that stands out. Occasionally finding the photographer whose photographs are a slap in the face, the photographer that has that rare talent.

 

ps, @John Seaman I hope recovery goes well

Edited April 30, 2022 by inoneeye

[je ne regrette rien]

Je ne regrette, it’s an act of the present or today like any act is. But it seems trivial to say photographing is an act of the present precisely because every act, whether scratching one’s nose or writing or speaking or singing is. I think the significance of photography is that it’s a tool of memorialization, a tool for stilling time in the moment, and a tool guided by what the moment will look like in the future. I don’t see the benefit of asserting that it’s an act of today, since every other act is an act of today when it’s performed.

Yes Sam, but, as I was trying to say, we are talking about different things, to me it seems: I talk about the act of photographing, you talk about the result of photographing. In the OP there were clear references to tools and techniques in photography, which I link to the act of photographing more than to the actual result.

 

The act of photographing, as any human act, is always a result of all the present influences, which flow and merge into the same act. If I may paraphrase a sentence by a photographic expert and curator "if you want to go to California, the importance is to get there, not how you get there (photographically)".

 

Btw, your remark about post-processing is spot-on: the appearance of my photo, including all the adjustments I want to make, are part of my process. Absolutely correct! That does not mean that the in-camera picture does not need to be right to begin with.

[samstevens]

I talk about the act of photographing, you talk about the result of photographing.

I’ve been talking about both things.

In the OP there were clear references to tools and techniques in photography, which I link to the act of photographing more than to the actual result.

Why? The tools and technique not only affect the act of photographing, they very much affect the photograph.

"if you want to go to California, the importance is to get there, not how you get there (photographically)".

I don’t agree. Who said it? Maybe the context would help explain it. I’m on my way home from a trip from San Francisco to Portland and back and, believe me, how I get there is an extremely important part of the trip. It’s as much the journey as the destination. Whether I take the coastal route with warmer weather or the more mountainous inland route with snow (did one coming and the other going) is very significant.

The act of photographing, as any human act, is always a result of all the present influences, which flow and merge into the same act.

Right, as any human act. So, how can you boil photography down to “an act of today”? That makes it no different from any other act. Aren’t we talking about what is significant about the act of photography. Wouldn’t you want to say something about what makes it stand out from other acts such as scratching our noses? True, some would not. Some would consider it no different from any other act, as mundane as swatting a fly. Interesting approach but I wouldn’t limit my way of thinking about photography to that.

 

And, as inoneeye points out, the act of photography can be and often is much more a series of acts, a process, than a single act, traversing the universe from initial thought through setting exposure, through interacting with the world, through post processing, photography can be a complex process that may take months and often occupies much more time and influence than today.