beeman458

Let's see, where to live and what pics do I want to see or make.

http://www.nps.gov/lavo/

or

http://www.camerairaq.com/terrorist_tapes_photos/index.html

"Goose' thought holds."

No they don't but since only a child's argument, void of historical insight is allowed, of course they would be expected to.

The world's governments are headed towards a world war collision and like the Sub-Prime mess in the USA today, the best anybody will be capable of doing is point fingers because greed and ego (Ex. Greenspan's book) prevents the truth from taking center stage or the right steps being taken.

Houses of cards "must" be allowed to fall.

Instead, the rich will be considered as the poor will continue to be subjugated due to the privileged excesses of the rich. The solution, shoot "all" the world's leaders and don't ever allow another leader to surface (anywhere) and sixty percent consensus be the deciding factor.

"Yes, I'm going to the country,..."

Yes, there's good reason why I'm going to the country. Three years before semi-retirement and we're both (wife included) counting. :)

As cultures collide and wane, there's a hated country today who's existence is being challenged. And when gone, who will the world turn to, to separate the madness which exists today as much as it did seventy years ago? Will photos even be allowed in the aftermath?

And there are those so naive so as to think that the only thing which exposes the truth, is photography as opposed to a willingness to recognize reality.

Is too.

Is not.

Is too.

Is not........

"Telling that all SS and Waffen-SS were bad people is just not right, even if a part of it was evil enough to kill millions of innocent civilians. And if you do so then you not better then those who hated Jews and other minorities."

Yes, I'm going to the country, to get away from this sort of immature, head in the sand thinking.

"one can look at a flower and recongize the beauty without getting arroused, why can't one do the same with a woman?"

Aaahh, because of an obscure thing called genetic reproduction.

"We have to be careful never to do that!"

It's happening this very moment, openly, today, in front of the world's eyes as most are blinded by their bias' and few have what it takes to do what needs to be done; the taking of the bull by the horns. So blatantly, out in the open it continues, the UN refusing to do what's needed to intervene; (Darfur, blood diamonds, child warriors, North Korea and the Middle East), never to be stopped cause the power brokers around the world are too into themselves making money off the dead. And then, like now, the people are without either the will or the means for hate is being taught to the children, encouraged, from the womb of innocents.

Go figure.

"What about you?"

I read and don't peek at the images of the notables I'm reading about as the genesis of all images, even those in front of you, come from with in.

As one becomes more familiar with their photographic self, they'll come to grips with their photography as significance is a subjective term.

Many here will consider me the worst photographer in the world (their opinion, not their fact) but for me, I've created many significant images this year, without their approval. The point, one needs to challenge who and what they're about when it comes to the term significant. Aside from a few personal images, I haven't taken the camera out and made an image since 16Feb07 but I made many significant, for me, images in that brief month and a half.

"I need to see that I'm advancing somehow beyond my current reach."

One shouldn't look for approval, so jumping off a mental cliff (courage) and doing stuff, completely foreign to one's current style is a surefire method. It'll look like crap, cause it's foreign but as one works with this totally foreign visual language, it'll begin to take on a life of it's own and the mind will make sense out of it cause the sub-conscience is a terrible thing to waste.

"Should I be working on my images after I take them?"

Absolutely. Check out the efforts of the likes of two gentlemen who put great effort into their darkroom efforts; Ansel Adams and Edward Weston. By learning about their efforts, you'll learn how important the manipulation process is to the final image or print.

"Using photoshop to bring out emotions, etc I want to? Or is it all in the composition..?"

It's both as when the shutter is tripped, we have two things going on, the one in front of us and the one going on in our head; the mind's eye. Using Photoshop helps bring out both what's in front of us and that which we have going on in our head. Composition/perspective helps map out visually, the thoughts we have going on in our head; point, line, plane; geometry; visual steering.

"Basically, I'm searching for my purpose for taking pictures."

Unfortunately, that's a question you'll have to work out for yourself. Why? Photography has too many facets to it, so the answer is going be a complex effort of eliminating that what doesn't work for you as much as personally, finding out what does work for you; sports (what kind), portrait, journalism, commercial, wedding, etc., etc., etc.

"Do I always have to have an agenda?"

Depends. Are you a blind man, without a clue, just tripping the shutter cause you like the sound of the shutter and the concept that you've captured something visually, that you'll never see? Same sort of thing when one shoots without an agenda.

Let's see what "you" have to say on the matter. :)

"This sort of thinking is causing me to reconsider where I stand on Photography."

Yeppers, that's what happens, sans an agenda. :)

"How should the nature photographer feel?"

Get up early in the morning an hit the road, by yourself, an hour before sunrise. Drive to a location overlooking a field, water, the ocean, city streets, a garbage dump; wherever. Get your gear out, set it up on tripod facing the location of the rising sun and stand in abject silence, drinking in the light (and sounds) changing in front of you. Let this experience seep into your soul, where you live when nobody is looking when there's only you and what's in front of you.... that's how a nature photographer feels. :)

"What is his purpose for taking pictures?"

To interpret and record the event in front of them. It could be to make money or inspire so as to communicate their dissatisfaction with the way things are as it really is pot luck, depending upon both the photographer and their current state of mind.

"Is it just to show others how cool some particular landscape was that I saw?"

Nothing wrong with that. It's would be pretty darn hard to blow a shot in "Monument Valley" and it sure would be a darn shame not to share this same said photo with those around. :)

Hi, I went to Monument Valley and got all these great shots..... but I'm not going to show them to anybody here cause I just don't want to.

Sounds like a great way to get thrown out of the workplace. :)

"or, is it to show him how well I could capture the essence of a particular landscape I saw?"

Now you're into biased thinking. What one person loves, another might just blow off or worse, hate. Besides, maybe your audience is nothing more that a bunch of unappreciative creations without your sense of style or taste. As the saying goes; "There's no telling for taste." :)

"To paraphrase: Is photography concentrating on the skill of the photographer, or the beauty of the subject??"

Both. To paraphrase; "There's nothing worse than a poor rendition of an excellent subject." :)

"If it is concentrating on the skill of the photographer, I would like to know to what extent I have control over my image? can I alter its colors in Photoshop? Can I take out a bird I don't want? Can I create a mood that wouldn't have been there had I not photoshopped?"

Anything you want. Yes, yes and yes as it's your light painting. You have "full" control over the process from start to finish; your rules. Do remember to take the time to build your skills and acquire the equipment to make it so and please, don't make it look like mud. Why? Hard on the viewer's eyes. :)

"All these questions are weighing heavily on my mind, I would be extremely grateful for any discussion that could shed light on my ideas, or give me the answer to at least some of the questions I've asked."

Hope my above comments have helped lightened your mental burden.

Allow me to share two words with you; originality and impact. Please give personal meaning and life to these two words.

Wishing you well with your discovery learning curve as photography and the learning process is a lifetime journey, not a brief snapshot in time and then you're done.

:)

"That's why I followed the first quote you selected and responded to with "That is, of course, an opinion." The fact that you chose not to acknowledge that qualification in your response (and instead only quoted me in part and then suggested I was making a more objective pronouncement) reeks of intellectual dishonesty at worst and an intent to flame and thereby derail the discussion at best."

Not at all as I was working with the conversation. You're getting upset because I didn't follow your unstated rules of engagement. Not my intent, just having a conversation here.

"That you are now changing the dynamic, suggesting that the comparison was between the four Beatles individually instead of the Beatles as a group and Elton John is another trick I won't fall for."

It was your suggestion to compare to the collection of the Fab Four to the singularity of Elton John as I was only listing talented acts that we're all familiar with, not attempting to single anyone group or individual out.

Thanks for a stimulating dialogue.

Siiiiigh! As I can only wish that you hadn't ended it with discourse. Wishing you a well day.

"...and has throngs of adoring fans will never make him as talented, as culturally significant, or as "good" as the Beatles."

And by who's standard (bias) is this pronouncement made? :) One must remember that Elton John was but a single person as opposed to the collective nature of the Fab Four. How singularly, do each of The Beatles, stack up against the singular talents of Elton John, one at a time as opposed to when their collective efforts rat packs him?

The smiley face is because you interject B&W characterization and yet miss the gray of my comments.

"Not all artist who achieve mass appeal are equally talented or equally moving."

That's sorta like asking the guy's question, Ginger or Genie? :)

"Not all artist who achieve mass appeal are equally talented or equally moving."

Mozart or Loretta Lynn? Who spoke to whom more and who are you willing to declare the talented Vs not so talented one? :)

A snippet in regards to Loretta and the weight she had to bear up under.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Miner's_Daughter

One of eight children born to Ted Webb (Levon Helm), a coal miner raising a family despite grinding poverty in Butcher Hollow, KY, Loretta married Doolittle "Mooney" Lynn (Tommy Lee Jones) when she was only 13 years old.

Let's see about the gifted and talented Mozart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

"Mozart's father Leopold Mozart (1719?1787) was one of Europe's leading musical teachers.

How would Mozart have done if born under the same conditions as Loretta? Hmmmmmm. :)

The above are examples of my complicated, mixed up B&W by which I create my unnoticed gray.

"For me, it's a matter of knowing that context greatly affects substance but they are still distinguishable."

Now the conversation digresses into the question of who's cultural context; more shades of gray. :)

Thoughts. Answers will expectedly be guided by taught bias'.

Is Jack Kerouac's substance superior to that of Charles Schultz. And in the same vein, is Diane Arbus' substance superior to that of Galen and Barbara Rowell?

A thought....

I saw a man on the TV the other day, begging for a cup of electricity. So I sent him a light switch. What did he do with this light switch? He built another manufacturing plant. ;)

"What was that you were saying about arrogance?"

Wishing you well with your fishing (trolling) expedition Mike. :)

Just to clean up any possible misunderstanding on my choice of words.

Most of what we think, do and say is based upon what we've been taught, going back to our first choice of words, in what ever language, we're brought up with; "ma ma" or "da da." From there the race for taught superiority (bias) is on.

We're taught that intellectualism is superiority and yet unacknowledged, depend upon the uneducated masses for our daily survival (trash pickup and sewage disposal) which is what I based my comment on in regard to arrogance and ego. Let the intelligentsia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia

shovel their own and see how fast they become willing to change their wage structure. Where my comment came up short, it wasn't intended as a personal attack and my apologies for it coming across as such as that wasn't it's intent.

When one hears of the likes of Mozart or that of other past musical "greats," we've been taught that these are the epitome of musical superiority. Hero worship. What we're not taught is that these were nothing more than gifted contemporary musical entertainers of their time, no better and no worst than that of any other time. Today it could be a blues creator such as Thelonious Monk or a pop icon such as Marilyn Monroe (marketing), Elvis, Beatles, Stones or Elton John.

Due to taught thinking, generally, intellectual society is "taught" (bias) to look down on the likes of Britney Spears, ego, (choose pop icon of one's choice) and worship at the alter of cultural icons; arrogance. So I expect one to hold Mozart and Co. in higher esteem than that of Britney, even though they equally share the same gifted and talented stage; entertainment of the masses, during their contemporary times. One has to admit (unwillingly or otherwise) that Britney can bust a move (last presentation excepted) and sing a tune, far superior to that of Mozart or Beethoven. :)

A thought, how often do you find yourself grooving to the sound of a bubble-gum tune (as a simplistic example), a bit embarrassed for others to know that you occasionally like this sort of "intellectually inferior sound." "You like that!?" :) Nobody is immune to this sort of societal condemnation of our guilty pleasures. :)

I hope the above helps clarify any offense I might have created.

"The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks."

When one answers their own question, in detail, it becomes rhetoric as the follow-up to the question becomes the thesis and the question, is nothing more (trivializes) than an intro.

"Neither Brittany Spears nor Mozart has anything to do with pop art."

Nor did I say they did.

Pop is nothing more than short for popular. Mozart was popular in his time and Brittany is popular in her time, therefore, she "is" Pop.

"...is a statement I will leave to stand on its own."

Do you now? :) Most, due to taught bias', are incapable of understanding the brevity of the comment. I won't act surprised at a most predictable of response. :) In the simple, some entertainers are more aggrandized then others cause it serves the aggrandizer's purposes, making them feel better than others; arrogance/ego.

I wonder who's more popular among the young, then and now, Brittney or Mozart and I wonder who's pulling down more dough, concert for concert, inflation adjusted; Mozart or Brittney? Brittney ain't hurting for money. Shall we delve into Mozart's finances?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

"He earned about 50,000 florins per year,[35] equivalent to at least 142,000 US dollars in 2006, which places him within the top 1% of late 18th century wage earners,[35] but he could not manage his wealth."

Today, 2007, one wouldn't qualify for a median priced Silicon Valley home ($805k USD) with that sort of income let alone a Malibu home. The point, entertainment is a money making business which depends upon appeal, not intelligence. :) Intelligence aside, they are, first and foremost, entertainers, unless one chooses to aggrandize. :)

"I said the question at the begining and the rest is my own answer..."

Then, no disrespect intended, it's a rhetorical question as you answered your own question.

In the simple, the creator of the image has to decide what they're about and then go for it.

An aside, Britney is Pop Art, of popular commercial appeal. As she slides from social graces for what ever reasons, so goes her popularity; commercial appeal. There really isn't any difference between Mozart, who liked to entertain the masses (and the royals) and Britney who also, in the beginning, liked to entertain the masses, (before she became a "f'ng celebrity"} and the royals of the Hollywood entertainment society; commercial success.

One makes a decision and goes with it.

Maybe if the shot was accompanied by another portrait, I wouldn't think that the shot, considering the paper it's attached to, wasn't a political hit portrait.

One has to consider politics when considering a shot of this nature because context demands that one do that in order to stay intellectually honest and genuine.

Here's a countering shot from Rudy's political web site. Note the difference; negative vs positive tone.

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/

"Video and photography are not enemys, but complementary."

A thought, in regard to stars of radio, assuming the comment refers to radio shows such as "Fibber McGee and Molly."

http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/agirard/fibber/79.htm

Locally, we now have Stern on satellite, Ole Rush-bo on syndicated AM and PBS, daily, all day long on the FM, taking the place of "Fibber McGee and Molly" as HD radio is currently making it's Rock-n-Roll debut. :)

http://www.howardstern.com/

Vinyl? Now being down loaded to your favorite MP-3 player at a buck a download but it's still music to our ears. Classics? Folks are still, and will continue filling concert halls so as to listen to live presentation of the "real" oldies; Beethoven, Bach, Brahms and Mozart. The Bard? Still as relevant today as when quill was put to paper, way back then. The "Snap Shot" aesthetic? Still quite alive and well at all tourist spots around the world; video cameras are welcome.

The point of my above, yes, I agree, video and still photography have been, are and will continue to be partners, not adversaries, well into the "far" seeable future. :)

"The rest has just as little credibility so I won't even bother to comment."

The rest has lots of credibility in regard to the OP's question, it's just not what you, personally, might consider important. The question I responded to was... "My point being, we know video killed the radio star, but will it kill photography too?" Not sure who the "...radio star..." is, assuming the likes of "Fireside Chats" but radio is quite alive and growing in popularity in the likes of satellite and commercial AM/FM radio. Radios stated demise is very premature. :)

Photography is not just sports but is also a wide ranging verb. Photography is growing in popularity and is in "no" threat of being eliminated by video, now or in the far future and this is borne out by the facts presented so although you desire to trivialize my comments, it's doesn't cause the comments or information posted to come up lacking in credibility. One only needs to look to sales figure being presented by the likes of Nikon, SONY and Canon to get a feel for how popular photography currently is. One can also look to how popularity in the older, wet darkroom has continued.

Again, textiles, sailing ships and pottery have been around for thousands and thousands of years and will continue doing so for many millennia into the future. I see no reason to expect, based upon past histories, to see still photography (writing with light), in what ever form it takes, to not continue to be actively pursued well into the next millennium. :)

So I, a gifted nobody, declare the act of still photography to be alive and well with no threat on it's life, now or in the far future, long after we all are no longer able to read these words. :)

Maybe the venerable Mark Twain's comment will sum it up best.

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" as we still read his words.

:D

Correction.

"MF digital is the main form factor in advertising, fashion and sports,..."

Remove sports and it's the 1DMk II and now the MkIII that's the current sports form factor.

Doh! :)

Jeff, maybe you, or I, missed the point of the question.

"My point being, we know video killed the radio star, but will it kill photography too?"

Life moves on but photography will be here long after this century plays itself out.

Working with a few of your points.

"What most here don't seem to realize is that these are increasingly stills taken from video capture."

MF digital is the main form factor in advertising, fashion and sports, irrespective of your personal experiences. Not trying to kick over a pissing contest but photo galleries at football and golf are dominated by Canon white glass; even with live video telecast present.

"People always mention painting as an analogy. Painting is a good analogy - it's moved from a prominent place in society, before photography was widely available, to a rarefied art."

And yet, as a service provider, I see painterly art in most of the thousands of homes I go into (prints of painterly art if they can't afford the originals), just south of your SF venue; Los Altos/Los Altos Hills, Mt View, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Los Gatos, San Jose, Cupertino, Santa Clara and Milpitas. :)

"...but being unwilling to see that new tools may become the way to do it only means the desire to communicate isn't really all that strong."

Life moves forward, always, into the next century (waiting for the asteroid to shake things up) but we still have many things, common to the 14th/15th century, in daily abundance.

"I think it's important for photographers to not stick their heads in the sand, but to see that there are ways to work with new visual technologies."

I didn't see the OP's question as a question of adapting to, or embracing the next generation of technology as much as I saw it as a question, would photography become extinct, for what ever reason, as did the Dodo bird. Don't see that happening and the web has made photography more popular then ever because of the ease in which images can be stored and shared, hence the Google links. 461,000,000 blog hits is a lot of interest for a potentially out of favor endeavor.

Phase One or Leaf? A mighty pricey product for something that's out of favor.

http://www.phaseone.com/

http://www.leafamerica.com/products.asp

I'm not being myopic in my above.

Google "Digital Backs" and one comes up with a paltry 2,530,000 hits.

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=Digital+Backs&btnG=Google+Search

"What do we do, as photographers, to keep photography a valid and valuable medium? Will advancements in technology and society at large render photography a dead medium?"

Share our passion as does everybody else who has a Jones.

Potting, sculpting, quilting, dance, art, charcoal, pen/ink, trains are quite alive and vibrant. The operative I took away from the question was "valid" as if video supplants the validity of photography via "image grab" from the video stream, then so be it as "value," to me is based upon "need." If the need's not there, then let video, or what ever technology take it's place but there will always (a thousand years/two thousand years) be some sort of photography (writing with light) available to the general public just as there are still horses, clothing material, calculators, forms of written word, boats/ships, plays, concerts and anything else you choose to throw on the pile of useful artifacts from two, three, four or more thousand years ago. :)

Me? My opinion, based upon my above, I think photography is just getting started and is many years from it's zenith, which it will eventually reach and then level off, but not because of a lack of interest but due to market saturation because interest in stills, irrespective of developing technology (8"X10" view Vs Cellphone camera), is here to stay.

Opps on the link.

Correct link.

Photo Blogs: 461,000,000 hits.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Photo+Blogs&btnG=Search

Again, no shortage of international interest. :)

Now we'll Google "photo blogs."

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=Photo+Forums&btnG=Google+Search

Nope, no lack of Pop-Culture interest here either. :)