reed_caster

<p>O.K. I've read most of the responses and they all address the digital SLR question - great. You prefaced your inquiry by saying you were expecting your first child. Here's where I'll pick up the thread. I love photographing my kids. I've gone the SLR route and taken beautiful photos. Sometimes in the most innocuous situations I don't want to pull out the big gun for what ever reason. There are times when carrying an SLR is a pain in the ass - Disney, Sea World - juggling strollers, diaper bags, bottles - or when activities like birthday parties and family get-to-gethers are constantly moving and errupting and the brick hanging on your shoulder got put down some place and isn't right there when you need it.<br>

I did not want to give up the quality of an SLR for a compact digital until... I purchased the Leica D Lux 4.<br />24-60mm focal lengths with 2.0-2.8 aperture. Great camera. I won't list all the features but the quality of photos is so outstanding that I never consider taking the SLR anywhere. If big zoom is important, well you got me, but with 24-60 I'm shooting in the range I love. And a big plus to this camera - your wife will love it too because she won't be indulging you with a toy that seperates you from the action and is so convenient you'll actually be included in the family photos because she will want to use it as much as you. 'nough said.</p>

 

Les makes a good point. The thought that I might get a return on my camera investment has never occured to me. The quality of the image is all that matters. I'm not troubled by the digital movement. What Delacroix would think of Picasso. Evolution baby, it's all the rage.

Photography has taught me to see the world in a way I hadn't before.

And a happy Easter to you.

w/nm (2nd try)<div></div>

w/nm<div></div>

There really isn't much going on here. It's an O.K. snap shot but not much of a story. The hand gesture does little to carry the picture and the fear you experienced by being there is not conveyed by the mood of the picture. The guy looks quite affable. I think your experience of being approached after the fact may have heightened your appreciation of this photo.

I purchased the Minilux for my wife. She wanted a point and shoot and I wanted a possible second camera that would give me great shots when I didn't want to lug around my SLR. I've also used the T3. They are both wonderful cameras. There are gives and takes on the size issue - compactness vs. stability. There will be those that have mechanical problems with one or the other. Some complain about the size of the view finder on the Leica. Others will compare manual focus features. The bottom line...

Your wife wants a point and shoot camera for a reason...she just wants to point and shoot!

She doesn't care about manual focus. She won't have an issue with size (all women say that) because it will either be in a case hanging around her neck or in the bottom of her bag but it won't be in her pocket. She will adapt to any view finder. And...with either one you will both get some pretty amazing pictures.

My wifes Minilux blows me away. The image quality is amazing. My friends T3 is equally good. You can't make a bad choice.

There seems to be a funny little prerequisite for something to be considered art - that the maker had some sort of intent in that direction. Family photos are not usually taken with that goal in mind but should they happen to pull together all the elements that "elevate" them to that level are they not art?

 

Reed

Steve, there are two lines of understanding taking shape in this discussion; 1. the "documentry value" of the the family photo as an important record, and 2. the "artist value" coincidentally captured. I believe you are questioning #2.

 

Bob is onto something when he talks of "hangability" as a gauge of artistic merit. The photo you posted has that. That it happens to have it is accidental genius and not often immediately recognized. It is because these photos are buried within the mass of photos relegated to "the family photo album" that they are summarily dismissed as bad photos. This is where my thinking differs from Bob. "...these kinds of images usually need to be seen in context. The supplied images don't do a lot on their own" - this is actually the problem with being able to honestly see the individual genius within a single photo. It is usually seen as part of a story line or the documenting of an event and not seen as "the" story.

 

Case in point: Your posted images speak volumnes about family - many families - my family. It's "american gothic".

 

Ralph posted a wonderful image of his "dad explaining reality" and one of his grandparents, but I think misunderstands the direction of your inquiry. When he talks of "formal" vs. "candid" he places a filter on the evaluative process by which we judge the naive genius. It can be either way. The genius is by accident and only needs to be seen for what it is.

 

The example of his dad's photo represents to Ralph the remembrance of his father and his mannerisms but it does not represent the accidental art that you are refering to. A good photo but it does not tell a more universal story to its audience. Yet the photo posted by Ralph of his grandparents as an example of one that doesn't work comes closer to the mark of "hangability". It has a historical context to help push it in that direction.

 

Richard talks of "historical record" and the family as models. It is that which drives so many of us to take an excessive number of "bad" pictures and it is for this reason that in all likelihood each of us is probably sitting on a treasure trove of "priceless" photos. The filters - rules - I use to take "good" photos prevent me from seeing my "native genius". To be able to seperate accident from expectation and accept the final result at face value is the merit of a good critic.

 

Steve, a most excellent posting.

 

Reed

William, I love the joke. To qualify my statement I refer to the critic, in this case, as an individual without malice who understands more completely the process at hand.

 

And yes, the making of art does open the window to insight, but...understanding what you like or don't like, most often, comes from studying those recognized as being successful. Sometimes the window doesn't open until someone shows you the window.

 

The "professional" critic I usually sneer at. The teacher as critic, the knowledgeable practitioner, I pay attention to. And ultimately, when someone has a solid understanding of what they are trying to achieve and feel they have succeeded, then other opinions don't matter. Most, on this sight, are seeking approval as an indication that they have attained a level of achievement in understanding and skill. Not all photos are good even by the best of photographers. How do we judge that?

Right on Ralph.

Are there any standards by which good or bad can be judged? If yes, then there are those you can possess superior understanding, aka: the critic. If no, by what standard do I measure success or failure within my own work?

 

If it only matters that I understand things from my own personal perspective then aren't I potentially putting up walls to communication rather than opening windows to insight.

Martin, the "stamp" seems like a good way to distinguish authenticity.

I must confess my competitive nature when I see a truely great authentic shot being judged on "content" along side a beautiful manipulated shot. But I look to photography more for the story within than the shine of the finished product. I would hold <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1313703">Richard van Hoesel</a> up as a stellar example of a complete photographer. A master of planning and performance that achieves an honest, unmanipulated image. If I found out that his images were contrived there would be little awe for me. What impacts me most about his photographs is that the content tells a very big story about this amazing world around us. It makes me want to find it because now I know it's out there!

I love this discussion. "I don't see a problem with more extensive modifications as long as the image remains "honest" within the context of its usage". I think this statement by Ralph says a lot.

 

There are times when extensive modification is neccesary to deliver the right message. Outside the world of "art" photography images are just a means to an end best served by the "perfect" image. Ralph's example was the product being sold.

 

Lee's statement, "Unless you are a journalist who is supposed to be presenting a factual account in the photograph, why should you not improve a photograph by whatever means available?", sounds like a way to excuse yourself from abiding by a rule that you feel, in your gut, you should abide by but because your not a photo-journalist - it's O.K..

 

I think the end result - the print - should be what ever brings the photographer the greatest pleasure. But...all photographs should be judged on a level playing field. I think "extreme" modification by the removal of objects within the image or "gross" modification to substantially alter what was photographed positions the picture taker as a "cosmetic surgeon". I use that term not to offend but to take issue with Joe's analogy, "It�s like saying that insemination is all there is to having a family". I'm sure Joe is not suggesting that after the child is born it is O.K. to perform a transgender operation on them because their particular sex doesn't work well for your image of the "perfect" family?

I say you get what you get. If it's all about the "end" your not spending enough time thinking about the beginning and what it is your really looking at and for me that brings the greatest pleasure. There is something artificial about the overly enhanced print. It reminds me of Dick Clark.

 

I like looking closer at life in hopes of capturing what is really there, not what I wish was there. If I don't capture it this time the hunt is still on. How sweet can it get when all things fall in place because it was all there.

Tallyho!

We all kick ourselves for the missed shot but we have done so living in the moment rather than outside the moment as a visual recorder. That you only see it without recording it I realize is a disappointment but how many never even see it. Odds are in your favor that you will get another chance at something else.