SARTMADJIEV

<p >Some photographic genres (particularly portraiture and street photography) are revealing the most intimate essence of their subject. This is makes the enchantment of these genres. Sometimes I have a feeling that nude photography is less revealing the intimate essence of the models than a talented portrait or a successful decisive-moment-type of a candid photograph. This is related solely to the intimate world of the object. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The real intimacy in the art (and photography in particular) we may see exposed only when the image reveals the emotional connection of the photographer to his object. This blending of emotions and care that go in parallel with the emotions depicted represents the real revealing of the essence of the object, the utmost act of intimacy. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >According to WEBSTER intimate comes from the Late Latin <em>intimatus,</em> past participle of <em>intimare</em> to put in, to announce, from Latin <em>intimus</em> innermost. Thus there are two interconnected meanings: </p>

<p ></p>

<p ><strong>1</strong> <strong>:</strong> to make known especially publicly or formally <strong> </strong><br /><strong>2</strong> <strong>:</strong> to communicate delicately and indirectly.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Therefore the attitude of the photographer should openly be expressed in his work. This guarantees elimination of any hint of sappiness, alienation or voyeurism in the photograph. </p>

<p >The notion of J. R. Hudson that '<em >a random image from outside a car window is not art'</em> touches the initial idea of this post. For me it is just the opposite. It is not needed and also, not possible a deliberation in the act of photographing. The photographer has to have the inborn ability in a fraction of a second to recognize the exact moment when elements are distributed appropriately and push the shutter. This magic moment is too short for deliberation. It is a question of intuition to anticipate, get ready and take the photograph while the painter has ample time to compose the image (shape, texture, color, etc.), This was what I meant with “the moment when 1 + 0 becomes 10”. With other words, this is the moment when all things get fit and all of a sudden the “image opens” or according to the Gestalt theory the image becomes “pregnant”. (<em>Gestalt </em>is a psychology term which means "<em >unified whole</em>"). In my opinion that was the famous “decisive moment” of HCB. And this is what makes a photographic image art. </p>

<p >I was not aware that time ago in a song of Frank Zappa there has appeared a similar idea. I also do not know if the guys that made the advertisement with “1+0=10” new about that song. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The point that I wanted to raise is that there is some sort of “magic” – the way how things are composed (distributed, arranged), that make the image interesting or dull. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1686580">Rene GM</a> speaks “of touching images that keep the viewer watching, thinking and busy in his brain and fantasy. Something, that touches.“ This is what qualities the photograph has to have. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The point is how to achieve that. IMHO art appears there, where form becomes an indispensable and major part of the content. The more the form prevails, the more abstract the art is. The amalgam of form and content makes the image “touching and keeping the viewer watching, thinking and busy in his brain and fantasy”. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >As to the time as ultimate judge, what gets lost through the times and does not survive, does not inherently mean that it was not art and was less valuable than what has come to us through the time. Chance has extremely large role for an artist to succeed. Tremendous amount of valuable photographs in PHOTO.NET are even now neglected and will get lost as time passes. Only some will get lucky to survive. </p>

<p >Recently I saw a very interesting advertisement which was having the following inscription - <strong >“1 + 0 = 10”</strong>. It struck me that this was the shortest formula describing the concept of the <strong >GESTALT PERCEPTION</strong>. The idea of composing the elements on the plane of the image (and in particular - photograph) in such a manner that the image becomes enticing and the observer gets a desire to look on it over and over (“pregnant” image or Grastalt). Slightly different distribution of the elements of the image turns it dull and boring. The lack of this feeling both of the photographer and the viewer makes the majority of the posted images mediocre. By the same reason some images are underrated. The aesthetics of many viewers is limited to colorful landscapes, sunsets, flowers, etc. They are sort of blind to this “pregnancy” of the image that turns it into art. I would be interested to here your opinion on this subject – what makes the image art?</p>

Somehow unnoticeably I also got involved in gathering of old film cameras. Similarly I try to get cameras at almost impeccable and fully usable condition. Some of these cameras are a real gems, a pleasure and grown-boy-toys. I am also buying additional lenses for my film cameras. So far I have used only a few of these acquisitions. For instance I have KIEV-88 with a full set of very nice lenses including the fish eye Arsat 3.5/30 lens that I never tried yet. In any case with the advent of the digital, these cameras have become affordably cheep and it is a real joy to have them.

I am considering buying CANON Powershot G9. Currently I am using PENTAX K10D as amateur. Taking into

account the small matrix and the 12 mega pixels, my question is � will I be disappointed by the image quality at ISO

above 200 ? Is it worth spending about US$800 (that is the price here in Bulgaria)? My idea is mostly to use the

camera

for candid shots, street photography and similar, when it is good to be unnoticed with a large camera. Nowadays the

people are suspicions and hate being photographed. Suggestions for other options are also welcome? Thanks in

advance�..

 

Atanas Sartmadjiev

Hi,

 

All suggestions as explanations are clear to me exept the "DRAGANIZATION". Sorry for my ignorance.

 

From what Roger Smith wrote above I get it that in a long run this is not as attracting art as it looks in the beginning. When I think it over it seems to be the case. In particular if printed.

 

Anyway, thanks for your kind responses.

 

Atanas

Some photographs posted in PHOTO.NET have a very strange and weird appearance

giving a surrealistic atmosphere. E.g. is http://www.photo.net/photo/5765281 . My question is how to get it using PS. Are there some

filters/plugging of some other technique? Thanks.