Henry Holmes Smith on routine images

[h._p.]

"Harvey's most colourful bashing of one of photography's champions "

 

Oh dear, misunderstood yet again...

 

I commented on the quote. I really have no idea who the chap is and despite the patronising comment of the being formerly known as A..Z I see nothing wrong in admitting that, nor in stating that, if the quote is typical of the man's attitude, I do not wish to know more. It's a simple statement of fact, not something to try and create a holy war over.

 

We really must learn that none of this matters. Certainly not enough to try scoring points off other contributors. If someone says something you disagree with, say 'I don't agree with that'. No need to pretend to intelectual superiority or a higher moral position.

 

<steps off soap box>

[steve_swinehart]

My favorite quote from any photographer is from William Eggleston. "I am at war with the obvious." That is as direct and succinct as it gets. It doesn't matter what photographer (your favorite) you want to talk about - that quote says it all.

[._._z]

Erin, your opinions on online politesse do not gybe with the rules of this site.

[._._z]

<i> just because you find an image "routine" doesn't mean someone else does </i><p>

 

We are not discussing our opinions of what is or is not routine; the subject is extant routine

photos.

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

<P>Bailey- The photo.net ratings standard page does not mention anything about politness. I would appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of the "rule" that says it is more polite to not rate at all than to rate and comment?

 

 

<P>And; it's all relative. The thread seems to be about how all these people are bored with what they consider "routine" images. I'm simply stating that what is "routine" is in the eye of the beholder. The thinking seems to be that people shouldn't post their pictures of things that might possibly be considered "routine". The issue of "routiness" should be decided by each photographer. Not anyone else. Ansel Adams spent most of his life shooting; and eventually I'm sure some shots and subjects became "routine" or just practice for him. Obviously those same subjects aren't routine to other people. People who devote time and energy to photography should feel free to shoot any subject that interests them; they shouldn't be pigeon holed into one place simply because some might feel their pictures "routine".

 

<P>As far as Mr. Smiths observations; I think it's a sad pass at being wise. If you view the images that you see as "routine" or boring, etc. Perhaps you are not appreciating the beauty of the everyday life; and possibly the beauty of the image.

 

<P>The issue of originality is a far different thing.

[._._z]

The point is that there are no rules about politeness, yet you insist on using that criteria.

Don't.

[b_kosoff]

I think you see many "routine" images because the vast majority of people

doing photography are not really professional, highly trained or even full time

photographers. Photography in it's very nature has become something quite

easy to do at a basic or reasonable level, and is very difficult to do at it's

highest levels. There is a plethora of imagery that we are bombarded with,

especially on the internet where many photo hobbyists have their work

appear in online "galleries" or have their own web sites in which they attempt

to sell their work. It's no wonder that nowadays people might agree with

HHS's comments from the 70's.

 

It's not until you master it that you can really be free to originate.

 

www.kosoff.com

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

You are the one who brought up not rating as releated to being polite. I simply stated that that is counter productive as most people post images to PN so that they can gain ratings and comments. And that it would be far more polite to rate with a comment than not at all.

[._._z]

I don't care what individuals think is polite or not. I merely described why some people

choose not to rate some photos. Clearly I do not subscribe to their philosophy, nor their

dictates on what is or isn't polite, or what is more or less polite than something else.

[root]

"If you view the images that you see as "routine" or boring, etc. Perhaps you are not appreciating the beauty of the everyday life"

 

Thank you for the reminder. You mention that originality is something else entirely, but I'm sure you would agree that one might use an unusual perspective to draw the viewer's attention to the beauty of the mundane.

[root]

As a fan of rhythm shots, I have to say that the one you posted is indeed pretty boring. When someone suggests that everything is more or less boring, I have to wonder if they have really seen the potential in the world around them, yet thought it not worth recording . . . or that they really don't see some of the more interesting possbilities and are focused instead on another direction.

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

Well, of course Carl- that is originality. The different perspectives one can take on the same subject. And; y'know I think it's dead, I'll quit beating it.

 

<P> *goes off to look through landscape book and pick out all the "routine" pictures whilst she pouts*

[sallymckay-lepage]

Hi Carl. I would suggest that it is not for me to suppose or post-suppose

exactly what Mr. Smith was thinking when he made the statement. My original

question was 'Do you think the same can be said today?'. Meaning , what are

the current thoughts,as perscribed by the photographers of today.

 

You are dead right the rhythm shot I chose to highlight is boring. I am,

however, in no way implying that all rhythm shots are as dull. I find your work

for example very interesting and thought provoking. Within that context all

works cannot be painted with the same brush.

 

Do people generally miss the beauty within? Absolutely Carl and I think you

are right in assuming that those people don't see the potential and chose not

to record it. But, when we find ourselves producing and reproducing the same

'sanctioned' material over and over again I would suggest we become just as

stagnant.

 

I questioned earlier the validity of sanctioned 'how to' material to point out that

such dogmatic steps make us all sluggish. At the same time I fully realize that

not everyone has the same motivation for taking and recording images. I am ,

however, as I believe you are far more interested in pushing for something far

more remarkable!

 

Sally

[root]

One step in that direction would be presenting a variety of like kind images where the same subject is interpretted in many ways. Use a progression starting with the obvious record shot. From there, move in as many different directions as possible.

[sallymckay-lepage]

I agree. Photography is perhaps the medium of the masses and therefore

subject to many levels of interpretation. I'm not sure, however that I

completely agree with your last statement as it is.

'It's not until you master it that you can really be free to originate.' I would

argue that 'the desire' is missing from this equation. If one aspires to be

mediocre then one is. If one chooses to push the envelope and strive for

something other than the usual then one has begun the journey for that

which is truely original and not like any other......your own vision and voice. I

visited your web site and would suggest that you have that vision.

 

Sally

[sallymckay-lepage]

You are a puzzel. Before I comment on your comment I want to understand

you fully....Who's doing the interpreting? The viewer interpreting the image or

the photographer interpreting the subject. I think from previous discussions

we agree they are not always the same..... my head is starting to hurt :) but

that's a good thing in this case!

 

Sally

[root]

The answer to your question is . . . YES. :-)

 

Seriously.

[jbs]

>>"Carl Root , mar 29, 2004; 03:05 p.m.

One step in that direction would be presenting a variety of like kind images where the same subject is interpretted in many ways. Use a progression starting with the obvious record shot. From there, move in as many different directions as possible.<<

 

Sally, I think Carl means something like this...

 

Humbly...;)....J<div></div>

[gib]

Most people take routine images because they don't understand that they are routine, or because they take comfort in them being routine.

 

How does one know that they "take comfort in them being routine." Crystal ball, tea leaves, seriously how. Sounds like the imposition, projection of how someone else feels. An imperial proclamation. You have the photo and then their comments, or their silence. Just seems like a conditioned reflex to believe and utter a sweeping generalization. But quick judgement is internet standard mode.

 

BTW since I dont live by a mountain on a lake, I see nothing routine in mountain-reflection-in-lake photographs. Those photos take me and my imagination somewhere I'd like to go.

[._._z]

So go. Please.

[gib]

I know where to go.... do you know where to go? If not, I am sure a lot of people could tell you.

 

But seriously folks, someone may take photographs because they are well, ill, recovering, grieving, having fun, tyring to improve, make an artistic statement, record some personal history (hopefully on film not digital - sorry, wrong thread). They may be trying to see their world more closely. Trying to enjoy their routine, rather than fighting it and putting all there chips behind two weeks vacation. There doesnt seem to me to be anyway to know from the photo. There is wide range of taste. And there is nothing wrong with a wide range of taste. For me a mountain lake reflection photo is more interesting and non-routine than water running down the drain of a metal sink. but that is my taste, certainly not everyone's. And as has been said many times around here, do the photography you like, enjoy it, try to improve, be open to other things and if you dont get someone else's work, dont stick your thumb in their eye. For a non-essential tangent, whenever I see flower photos, I think of the photographer in Harrison's Flowers and the photos he used to make before concentrating on flowers.

[._._z]

<i> There is wide range of taste. And there is nothing wrong with a wide range of taste.

</i><p>

 

Deep, man.

[._._z]

<i> I know where to go.... do you know where to go? </i><p>

 

So go. Please.

[sallymckay-lepage]

Hi Jay. I won't presume to speake for Carl but I don't think he had that kind of

series in mind. I would qualify his comment as more of an investigation into

how images can, through subtle manipulation, take on different meaning for

both the viewer and the composer. He said ,'a variety of like kind

images'.....which I take to mean similar(pick the criteria for yourself) but not the

exact same object. What you have done here is IMO something different.

 

I do remember this image of your wife and daughter, and I do recall it took

quite a beating. I believe you commented on the sentimental value of the

image and your refusal to round bin it because of it. I for one give you credit

for attempting to challenge the usual and try something different.

 

Sally

[root]

Actually, I don't mean that at all. Although there are certainly good reasons to consider various approaches to post processing (I have three versions of a single capture of a piano uploaded at the moment), my comment refers to different ways of capturing the subject - lighting, lens choice, angle of view, framing, filters, DOF, (film?), etc..