divepeak
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by divepeak
-
-
<blockquote>
<p>If I have a lens aimed in the right place at the right time, a photo happens.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Last night I found myself next to 4 TV cameras and about 10 other photographers. We were all in the right place at the right time, and lots of photos happened. The question is, why will the subjects of those photos seek out the photos that I and two or three other guys took, and reject the others?<br>
Yes, some of it is the right place at the right time (and the difference can be a fraction of a second and a fraction of a meter), but some of it is technical skill (and in stress situations, having enough experience for that skill to express itself as an almost automatic reaction), and - if the subject is human - some of it is people skills.</p>
-
<p>Paul wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Does the "truth" matter?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The first time I saw the movie "Black", I thought it was a true story. The next time I saw it was after someone told me that it was completely fictional. And the last time I saw it was after reading that the first half of the movie was "based on" a true story.<br>
The general themes or lessons I took out were the same in each case, but the way I related to the characters was different in each instance. So I think that the truth, or at least our understanding of the truth, makes a difference to our perception. But perhaps it doesn't always matter. Maybe it's the difference between <strong>a truth</strong> and <strong>the truth</strong> . A parable or fable, for example, can communicate a truth without being the truth. However knowing that something really happened (or what we understand to be <strong>the truth</strong> ) may touch us at a deeper emotional level.</p>
-
<p>From a practical point of view, many of the images produced would be redundant - for example for a particular image there would be numerous other images that could be thought of as the identical image with the exception of having a slightly different exposure. Perhaps it would be possible to limit the domain by not saving "useless" images. A programmer could define "useful" images - limits of contrast, averaging to approximately 18% grey, looking for edges or blocks of similar shades, or passing mathematical tests of non-randomness. As has already been pointed out, today's computers would take an eternity to iterate through all the possibilities, even with thumbnail sized images.</p>
<p>But imagine it's 2015, and we now have mega q-bit quantum computers that can discriminate hundreds of billions of thumbnails per second, saving only the thousands that meet set parameters.</p>
<p>Now fast forward to 2020 where the next generation of quantum computers can do the same with higher resolution (or perhaps can be seeded with the previous generation thumbnails to produce high resolution images).</p>
<p>Returning to the original philosophical question, where would these images stand? Could the owner of such a computer be charged with posession of child pornography if the image was selected by the computer from the realm of all possible images that meet its programming criteria? How would public life evolve in a world where "compromising photos" were indistinguishable from the kind of photos we take today? How would photography evolve beside such technology, and how would it merge? I have some ideas, but it would be nice to hear some other thoughts before I share them...</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>Life is not perfect, so why should the photograph be?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why? <i>Because </i>life is not perfect. Isn't there already enough ugliness in the world without me adding to it? There are so many images of war and disasters and accidents and crime scenes and human suffering - isn't it okay for some of us to want to make pretty pictures instead?</p>
-
<p>It's fascinating to watch what happens when a painting in a gallery attributed to a famous 17th or 18th century artist is proved to be the work of his student. Why does the value suddently drop from millions of dollars to thousands, and find itself taken off the gallery wall? Doesn't it have value as a work of art regardless of who made it? Perhaps we have a tendancy to both over-value and under-value works based on what we know of the author.<br>
Years ago (when I was still a kid) I travelled interstate to see an exhibition of "150 Years of Photography". I knew nothing of any but a couple of the photographers, and as I wandered around I kept thinking to myself, "This is crap - I could do better than that!" I bought a book of the exhibition (hey, I needed a souvenir of the trip), and came to appreciate some of the works I'd earlier derided as I learned more about the photographers.<br>
A few years later, I went back to the same gallery for an exhibition of Monet and Renoir. I'd only seen reproductions in books before, and liked Monet more than Renoir based on that. But when I met the paintings in person I reversed that opinion - some of the Renoir works were so rich that they just couldn't be reproduced in a 4-colour process. Even now, when I see reproductions of those paintings, I try to substitute the real colours and textures - that is, what I'm "seeing" in my mind is a blend of what's before my eyes and my memory of the original.<br>
What do you do when you walk into an exhibition without knowing anything about the artist/photographer? Do you look at the picture first, and try to interpret it, or be moved by it, or have some kind of response to it? Or do you read the title and the blurb first, and then step back and look at it with that knowledge? Do you have a preference or habit? Do you think one way is "better" than the other (at least for you)?</p>
-
<p>As others have stated, Error 99 is any unspecified error. I once had a lens with a stuck aperture. Worked fine full open. Gave error 99 as soon as I tried to shut down. Perhaps your problem, too - doesn't work outdoors (where it's light), and then works indoors (where the lens is full open)?</p>
-
With respect to Ellis, I would argue that there are (almost?) no exceptions and that every photograph is subject to interpretation skewed by culture, knowledge, and experience. Smiling can be happiness, or fear, or a threat. Tears can be happiness, physical hurt, emotional hurt, slicing onions, or simply turned on because it's culturally expected under the circumstances or might garner some sympathy. And I've only spent time in three cultures - I'm sure there are more interpretations that can be placed on just these two items.
-
I've been on both sides of this story, and I don't fret about it like I used to.
If I'm not "the" photographer then first I try to introduce myself and assure them I'm not there to interfere or sink their ship. Only twice (out of more times than I can count) have I had any objections. Some have actually appreciated having me there!
I tend to take shots that are complimentary to his/hers. For example, if they shoot colour, I might shoot B&W, or if they are doing formal poses, I'll cover informal shots.
Basically, I try to ensure that the other photographer is not being disadvantaged by my presence, and that includes not giving the family my free photos until they have finished ordering from the paid pro.
If I'm the one being paid, then all I expect is to be able to do my job without undue interference. If I'm good at my job, then I'll get the shots I need and get paid. If another pro is there, I find it actually helps relax me a little knowing that even if I screw up the job completely the B&G will still get some good shots.
A few weeks ago, I was at a 3-day wedding where the bride's family hired me, the groom's family hired another photographer (and a video crew as well)! We all managed to keep our egos in check, swapped tips and ideas (and even equipment when the video guys blew a halogen and I had a spare hot light in the car), and got along fine.
-
If the picture were complete we'd all have exactly the same reaction??? So men and women would have the same reaction? People from different cultures and backgrounds would all have the same reaction? We'd suddenly all aquire the same political leaning? I guess all we need is one complete picture - suddenly the entire world will think the same thing, all differences will evaporate, and we'll finally have whirlled peas!
-
<p class=indent>Anyone remember the movie "<a href="http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/dead_poets_final.html">Dead Poet's Society</a>"?</p>
<p class=indent>Substitute "photography" for "poetry"... (emphasis is mine)<p>
<hr>
<p class=indent><i>Neil (reading from the introduction of a poetry book):</i><br>
A sonnet by Byron may score high on the vertical, but only
average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other
hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding
a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be <em>truly
great</em>. As you proceed through the poetry in this book, practice
this rating method. As your ability to evaluate poems in this matter
grows, so will - so will your enjoyment and understanding of poetry.</p>
<p class=indent><i>Keating:</i><br>
Excrement. That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard.
<em>We're not laying pipe, we're talking about poetry.</em> I mean, how
can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? I like Byron,
I give him a 42, but I can't dance to it. Now I want you to rip
out that page. Go on, rip out the entire page. You heard me, rip
it out. Rip it out!</p>
<p class=indent><i>Keating again</i><br>
Thank you Mr. Dalton. <em>Armies of academics going forward,
measuring poetry. No, we will not have that here.</em> No more of
Mr. J. Evans Pritchard. Now in my class you will learn to think
for yourselves again. You will learn to savor words and language.
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the
world.</p>
<hr>
<p class=indent>Does it really make sense to try and measure art? I looked at the <a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/salgado/salgado_covers.html">Salgado image</a> Bob Todrick offered as a "the universal photograph", and personally it doesn't work for me. If I took that photo, it would have ended up in the bin, unless I had some connection with the people in it or it triggered some memory for me. Bob, I'm glad for your sake that it didn't end up in the bin and that you've been able to enjoy it, but it certainly wouldn't get my vote as a great photo.</p>
<p class=indent>As others have already expressed, sometimes I take a photo and think to myself, "wow - that's great", only to find others I show it to disagree. So, I'll keep that image to enjoy myself, but won't keep showing it to other people. And other times I'll give people a photo I think is average, and they say, "Wow - that's great!"</p>
<p class=indent>I understand the dictionary definition of the word "great", but what is the context of comparison? In everyday usage it's very rarely "compared to every other photo ever taken in the whole world". If I take a portrait and the subject says it's great, the implied context is "compared to every other photo of me I've seen". As far as I can see this does not destroy the meaning of the word. If you disagree, then my counter-argument (with tongue firmly in cheek) would be, "Fine, let's remove all restrictions on context - but how can you really say Shakespeare is great compared to what the aliens in another galaxy were producing 2 million years ago?"</p>
In the end what have we gained?
in Casual Photo Conversations
Posted