Let's Discuss: The Perfectionist

[._._z]

<i> a belief that anyone spending huge money on photo gear (e.g., Leica equipment) is

serious about photography </i><p>

 

That reminds me of Hemingway's retort to F. Scott Fitzgerald's comment, "Let me tell you

about the very rich. They are very different from you and me." <p>

 

Hemingway replied, "Yes, they have more money."

[Allen Herbert]

That reminds me of Hemingway's retort to F. Scott Fitzgerald's comment, "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are very different from you and me."

 

Very good, clap, clap. Mind blowing comment! Something to do with stating the obvious, methinks. Actually his most insightful comments, so he said, was when he was passing wind. The simple minded of course would not understand that thought.

[Alex_Es]

Very good hearbreaking story, Al. What did Balzac say? "There goes another novel."

 

Speaking of literature, this discussion brings to mind a story you've got to read--Bernard Malamud's "The Magic Barrel." A rabbinical student thinks he needs a wife to help him find a congregation after he graduates. But then he realizes he wants Love and searches for perfection. In the end he chooses a woman who is, we are led to believe, the opposite from perfect but who is perfect in his mind. If you haven't read it I won't spoil it for you by saying more.

 

There is a lesson about perfection there, I believe.

 

Balzac has a story somewhere about a painter who spends a lifetime trying to paint the perfect painting. The painting turns out to be an utter disaster except for a foot on one of the subjects. It is judged that no one has ever painted a better foot than this painter. Which I think is a lesson on the aesthetic validity of cropping.

 

The Che photograph was a crop. Not only that, it was a blow-up.

 

The story Al told of the guys tossing stacks of photographic paper sounds familiar. I do something like this when I write stories and essays and I knew that is what I'd do in a darkroom, which is why I used to rely on the kindness of strangers when it came to printing. Now with Photoshop all that is changing (though I am still a PS beginner). With PS I feel as I felt when I could exchange the typewriter for the computer--liberation.

 

A final thought. The best cure for obsessive perfectionism is a deadline. Nothing in the world is better than a deadline to get your creative juices flowing and to getting organized and doing it rather than brooding.

[mike dixon]

I don't think the silly story at the beginning of thread relates in any realistic way with editing or critique.

 

My own experience is that people who are really good or who improve quickly are ones that are motivated to do their best because they're passionate about what they do. The role that critique plays in their development is that it helps them understand how and whether they're comminicating effectively through their work. Approval and accolades are nice but relatively unimportant.

 

Maybe the question of "Why are we so serious?" should be directed at people who aren't serious about the work itself but only serious about the praise they expect for doing it.

[beau 1664876222]

I just don't know what "perfection" is in the context of photography, I really

don't. It's more a matter of having a feel for what's special about oneself and

developing that instead of following some misguided notion.

 

One thing I learned producing records was that there's a big distinction

between having talent and having an understanding of the talent one has.

Certain successful artists are not very talented, really, they just know exactly

what they have to offer and edit themselves into the absolute best

presentation possible.

 

On the other hand, there are those supernova talents who have the ability to

just call down the angels, but then their notion of what's good about

themselves is just tragically off; like, they'd do a performance in the studio that

would have me and the engineer practically weeping in the control room, and

then on playback they'd say, "god that sounds like crap." Later, when they'd

eventually do a take that had none of their usual charm and originality, they'd

say, "now we're getting somewhere." My job was to keep the earlier version

and talk the artist into using that instead of their favorite.

 

My point is, "editing" and "self-editing" are not the same thing. Some talented

people really shoot themselves in the foot in terms of how they understand

their own talent and uniqueness. Those people need someone else to edit

them.

 

Travis, I think of you as someone who has more raw talent than awareness of

what your talent is. You seem to be very proud of pictures that are not your

best, and then casually toss off a masterpiece without seeming to know it. I

think at some point you'll find a teacher who inspires you, or an editor that you

trust, and then the sky's the limit. (I hope you don't take this the wrong way,

because I really love your stuff.)

[al_kaplan1]

Beau, I agree with you that a lot of us are not the best editors of our own work (or others', for that matter). As I've said in the past, we shouldn't be so quick to discard our files of old negatives either. Tastes change, what's in the news changes, and otherwise mundane images take on new importance.

[travis1]

Beau, thanks, you wrote well. It's true, sometimes we really don't know what is good of ourselves. It's through the public eyes that we see where our strong points are..and of course our weaknesses.

 

Don't write anyone off just yet.

[nesrani]

" It's more a matter of having a feel for what's special about oneself and developing that instead of following some misguided notion..."

 

What if there's nothing special?

[Allen Herbert]

What if there's nothing special?

 

Good point Applebury. With your experience, in a practical sense, maybe you are the best qualified to answer that thought.

 

Sorry, could not resist;) Did try!

[ray .]

I was going to ask Rob if his mother never taught him that

<i>everyone</i> is special, but I like yours better Allen!

[travis1]

Nothingness is special. Evryone tries to be someoneone but HE tries to be no one.

[sliu]

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=17297684">

<p>

The last frame of the first two rolls through Holga, and one of the only 2.5 keepers ;-)

<p>

Digital macro shot of the negative on a light table. Inverted in Photoshop and minor level adjustment. Cropped in iphoto. (I have to retouch this time, unfortunately ;-)

[._._z]

That's a keeper?

[sliu]

This is exactly what I want when I push the shutter, what I envisioned a "perfect" Holga street photo. I edited in my mind, not on contact sheet.

 

It is going to be very challenging to make a photo like this with a Rollei or Hassy. It is also a tough job to make the natural blurs and light leaks in your Photoshop CS.

 

I do take photography seriously even the camera is a toy. This photo tells lot about an ordinary day in a crowded sideway in Brooklyn. If I can explain it with words, there is no need for the image.

 

I don't care if any of you appreciate it or not, that is not my job.

[mike dixon]

<i>I edited in my mind, not on contact sheet.</i><P>

Kind of the photographic analogue of the difference between

talking to yourself and talking to other people.

[._._z]

<mutter, mutter>

[sliu]

Mike, editing on the contact sheet is still talking to myself since I don't work for anybody and I don't have any photography homework to hand in either ;-)

 

Seriously, there is a difference between being a photographer and an editor. Editing on the contact sheet makes you a better editor but not a better photographer. Editors (and critics like AZ) have seen too many photos that seeing a new photo, they always compare it with other photos and give a grading on the new photo. Usually on the print quality. There is nothing wrong with them but that shouldn't be how photographer works.

 

Creative photographers don't work this way because being creative means that what you see is always new. Photographs have seen too many photogenic situations and their job is to decide whether to capture or not and how to capture with the tools they have. A creative photographer makes judgement on the scene, the same way that an editor does to the print.

 

Although I have a low standard for technical value but my standard for emotional value of the image is very high. If one day some of my images become publishable, the publisher could find some expert to photoshop them. Until then, I will concentrate on capture.

 

Histogram isn't everything.

[._._z]

<i>that shouldn't be how photographer works </i><p>

 

Bollocks.

[sliu]

AZ, everytime I see your post, I have to run to get a dictionary. Obviously a man of words would be a perfect critic. Fortunately I don't need to understand those graphic words to make photographs.

 

A photographer works with eyes, not mouth or fingers (except for tripping the shutter.)

 

Since this is a forum not a classroom, we shall expect more than one voice.

I respect your knowledge on photography but that doesn't mean I have to be your student.

[._._z]

rofl.

[ray .]

S. Liu,

 

In general in your photography right now, I don't think you're communicating clearly. Whatever you have in mind isn't really translating to the viewer very well. Unless your work is completely personal, in which case you'd have no reason to post it, criticism is something to pay attention to and take into consideration for the benefit of your own growth. You're involved in a visual language, so you need to know that language first before you try to manipulate it. What seem like clever ideas now maybe won't appear that way once you live with these things awhile.

 

With due respect to you, it seems you have the cart before the horse in putting your authorship and copyright on your photos. Of course you have that right, but it shows maybe a little too much ego involvement and not enough love of study at this point.

 

Be open to learn and don't be so protective with what you've produced, and you'll do better... We're all learning here.

[mike dixon]

"Bollocks" sounds like a fair assessment. Defining creative

photographers as those who don't do post-exposure editing is

not only arbitrary and unsupported by history, it's more than a

little silly. Editing is such a fundamental aspect in creating the

message you want to convey, it's bizzarre to argue that it

impedes creativity.

[ray .]

... btw, I've seen a couple decent photos from you, but this isn't one of them.

[travis1]

one man's Leica is another man's ricoh 500g..

[steve_bingham]

Artists who seek perfection in everything are those who cannot attain it in anything.

 

Eugene Delacroix (1798 - 1863)