ted_fisher

<p>I walked down Broadway a while back. I found myself worried about the length of the hike, and in the end walked so fast photography became secondary. At the end of the trip I had a lot of photos -- but certainly not my best.</p>

<p>"Should photographers strive to accurately represent reality or to offer others their individual interpretation of that reality?"</p>

<p>Well, I keep telling reality to freeze and fit into a rectangle. It laughs and moves on.</p>

 

 

<p>I love both Van Gogh and Munch, but without a pause I would put the work of a number of photographers forward as more sophisticated than the best work of either artist. Don't get me wrong -- I've stood before Van Gogh's and felt how masterfully they communicate emotion. It's just that I don't think that's the only measure for art.</p>

<p>I'll quickly draft a quick list for argument's sake:</p>

<p>I would put the work of <strong>Sophie Calle</strong> forward for its examination of personal, complicated psychology and identity.</p>

<p>I would put the work of <strong>Elliot Erwitt</strong> forward for its observation of human nature.</p>

<p>I would put the work of <strong>Mary Ellen Mark</strong> forward for its insight into human society.</p>

<p>I would put the work of <strong>Harry Callahan</strong> forward for its perception of beauty in the everyday.</p>

<p>I would put forward the work of <strong>Sebastiao Salgado</strong> for his response to human suffering.</p>

<p>I would also note that Van Gogh and Munch are considered, generally, painting by painting. Photographers tend to work at the level of the portfolio, the series, the book. While both Van Gogh and Munch did examine some subjects over time, they left no particular longitudinal work of importance comparable to their single pieces. All of the photographers I've named above have works that should be seen in series -- and that become even stronger than their individual pieces.</p>

<p>I'm not sure I'm understanding the initial poster's question. It seems to set up a "straw man."</p>

<p><em>"... a school that deals with issues such as cropping, lighting style etc...Well that's where I put my foot down and say an unequivocal NO, Nein, Non."</em></p>

<p>I expect most people would agree: a school that taught there's only one way to do these things would not be very good. Except I don't know of any schools like that. Anyone teaching photography today most likely teaches with some flexibility, introducing students to various techniques, various approaches and various ideas.</p>

<p>How could a good photography school or program or class not address, in some way, cropping or lighting styles? These are elements that are part of photographic practice, so they need to be addressed in some way. What the heck kind of class / course / program / school wouldn't address these?</p>

<p>It's sort of like saying "I hate exploding meatballs! that's where I put my foot down and say an unequivocal NO, Nein, Non." The exploding meatballs, in this case, seem to be imaginary. There's no shortage of bad photography teachers. I've had many students tell me they'd taken a class before and didn't learn what they needed -- but that they learned in my class. I doubt that the key difference had to do with cropping or lighting styles.</p>

<p>Hi Tommy,</p>

<p>I think the main thing I would recommend is to also include the forces that really drove the popularization of digital photography. The high-end / professional world was really the rear guard.</p>

<p>The bigger story was that once cameras were inexpensive enough for the general consumer, digital photography became driven by an intense social use. Once a person could take photos of the family and send them by email, a rift started between the conventional processes and digital processes. Flickr, the growth of blogs, and the increasing ease consumers found in digital moved the field forward -- all strongly fueled by social factors such as the ease of sharing, a sense of community, and pure speed.</p>

<p>I remember a slow process from 1997 to 2000 that was about the public's discovery that digital photography could be instant, could be social, could be a form of creativity many had never experienced -- merged with increasing use of digital media in general (meaning you could send the family photos to Grandma -- she now had a computer). There is a connection back to the Kodak Brownie -- sold on its use as a family camera -- and the family album (now online at smugmug.com). </p>

<p>From a teaching point of view, I would also consider what the digital boom has meant for the "meaning" of a photo. At one time, making a single photo was a completely professional endeavor. Then a craft, then a high-end-art practice, and only now is it really even more common than the snapshots / 1-hour photos of the 1980s. So, if one comes home, posts 100 photos from the kids soccer games, and makes endless copies of those, and if one photographs almost every social thing that happens and instantly shares it, photography becomes a different practice. And that forces us to ask: why photograph? What is the value of the single photo? How does it communicate? When does it become art rather than social documentation?</p>

<p>One last thing I would consider: the current shift from still image to video.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Ah, Jacob, now I understand. You posted those same links in your only other post. Unfortunate.</p>

<p>Hi Jacob,</p>

<p>I'm not sure I understand why you've posted those links. Are the photographers blind or do these relate to the topic?</p>

<p>Damon, that's a good point. If someone is going to dedicate themselves to a project that might take years, they usually do have a strong viewpoint on it, or develop one in the process.</p>

<p>Martin, that's a great point. I wish we had been able to visit them during their working sessions, and maybe an opportunity to do so will come up sometime. We were restricted to a five-day window for making that film, though, so were just happy to meet them and get a sense of what they do.</p>

<p>It's always good, I think, to see that there isn't just one "photography" but instead many ways of working. I know some sighted photographers I would say put emphasis on the process of photography rather than on the image created, for example, and I find that fascinating also.</p>

<p>Bill P. said:<br>

<em>"It seems like we're talking here about people who are 'legally' blind, not completely without sight.</em><br>

<em>I think 'vision impaired' would be a lot closer to the truth, but 'blind' is a lot more dramatic."</em></p>

<p>The photographers in the video I started the thread with are blind rather than legally blind. As far as I can tell, all or most of the photographers we interviewed / followed for that film had been sighted at one time, then lost their sight.</p>

 

<p>First, for Buffy: that's a very interesting point. I was once told by photographer who meant well that I was using the wrong eye with my camera. He very aggressively insisted that I was doing it wrong and should correct how I was working. I can only imagine what reactions you experience from people. That must be very strange.</p>

<p>For Bruce: yes, I am hoping to catch that film on cable sometime soon. I noticed that by coincidence the thread you pointed to (from years ago) also had a reference to the "Seeing With Photography Collective."</p>

<p>Hello, Harry.</p>

<p>The definitions of documentary photography, photojournalism and street photography are all somewhat difficult to pin down, and opinions will vary greatly. But here are few ideas to start with, in a simplistic form. Keep in mind these are complicated topics, so take what I say and go on with your own research to find out more.</p>

<p>First, we generally think of documentary photography as photography that has a connection to real situations and that attempts to represent those situations with minimal distortion. We know, of course, that even though we think of photographs as honest evidence, they can lie in many ways -- but here the distinction is that we expect the documentary photographer to attempt to present work that minimizes this, or at least doesn't purposefully misrepresent. Walker Evans said that the term should be "documentary-style" photography, because it was really meant to be art, where true "documentary photography" would be photographs that served a function. That is, if you were in an auto accident, you might make a photograph of the damage to the car as evidence for the police or for an insurance company. Someone doing a documentary photography project on auto collisions on a dangerous stretch of freeway, however, wouldn't really care if their image was great evidence for those purposes -- they would be more concerned if it worked for the project they are doing, and perhaps about its aesthetic qualities.</p>

<p>A great place to start looking at documentary (or documentary-style) photography would be the work of Mary Ellen Mark. She has many books you can find in any local library or bookstore. Often they involve immersion into a particular culture or activity or place, and reveal at a very deep level how people live and often something about human nature. They are also usually amazing when appreciated as visual art.</p>

<p>Photojournalism, on the other hand, tends to be a visual extension of journalism and connected to the concerns of that field. Except for a very few photojournalists who can pick their topic and spend significant time on it, most photojournalists are connected to gathering news, working within journalistic ethics and delivering images that communicate information about a story that words alone cannot. Often this is daily news and events, sometimes this is stretched into larger projects. The emphasis tends to be on communication of a story in an intense visual way. There are many awards given for journalism each year, so a great way to start would be to search for "Pulitzer prize photos" or similar terms.</p>

<p>Street photography tends to be more of a private and individual practice of photographing in public places. Usually, though not always, the interest is connected to urban life, since that's where so much happens on the street. Elliott Erwitt and Garry Winogrand are well-known for their street photography. Usually their best images are of people in candid moments doing something that reveals human nature. </p>

<p>Keep in mind, these practices tend to overlap. But if we followed a photojournalist for a day, they would usually be sent out on assignment with a specific goal connected to a known story, and often cover many stories in a single day. A documentary photographer would usually start out interest in a place or people and would immerse themselves to find a story -- the goal often being a book rather than photos in the next day's newspaper. A street photographer would be most likely to follow where chance might lead rather than to work with a preset goal.</p>

<p>Hope that's of some help. And DO NOT even think of copying or pasting any of it. Take these ideas and develop your own. That's what college is for.</p>

<p>Hi Buffy,</p>

<p>Are there times when that leads to photographs that by chance, or happy accident, or just by exploration, are better or more interesting? If I'm remembering right, Chuck Close said that photography is "the only medium in which there is even the possibility of an accidental masterpiece." Do you sometimes get unplanned results that are surprising and good? </p>

<p>Two interesting examples, John.</p>

<p>Have you seen anything on the "Sight Unseen" exhibition out at UCR / CMP? (A couple of the photographers in my short film are in that show.) There seem to be a range of approaches.</p>

<p>http://www.cmp.ucr.edu/exhibitions/sightunseen/</p>

<p>I get the sense that human beings often thrive when given limits.</p>

<p>Glenn said,</p>

<p><em>"Ted, I feel intent has little to do with art. Intent creates a photograph, painting, etc. It takes an outside agency or individual to define a work such as a photograph as art. The photographer doesn't get to make that call."</em></p>

<p>Hi Glenn,</p>

<p>I wish I had used a more accurate word than "intent" there -- after all, when we look and think about someone's art "intent" no longer matters. (I know many will disagree with me there, but Wimsatt and Beardsley will back me up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy for details.) What I was getting at, though, is that when we work as a photograph-maker, we're probably concerned with all the technical characteristics of the field, and the standard practices and concepts we already know about what makes a "quality" photograph. That's fine: yesterday I did a gig shooting for a plastic surgeon -- the measure of success being a photo that seemed beautiful and flattering to the client but that accurately depicted the face. In another mode, one could certainly make a portrait and work within the concerns / standards / aesthetic of portrait photography.</p>

<p>But if someone decides to work in art mode, all constraints are gone. They can do whatever they want, then evaluate it any way they want. Others might not agree. I was a museum curator for five years -- I generally disagreed with how artists self-evaluated. But that didn't mean they weren't free to be artists even if when I thought the work wasn't great.</p>

<p>It also meant, in my opinion, that the standards we know from technical photography, from the various crafts within photography, and from the photography world might go right out the window in the pursuit of art. Which is why I said "intent" -- it is easy to find many works where if we evaluated the photos based on the tradition of photography, it would be weak photography but when we shift and evaluate what showing the work in a certain context does it could very well be great art. </p>

<p>Glenn asked,</p>

<p><em>"Now there are those who feel their work deserves to be recognized as "art," but aren't they after all just inflating their egos to some personal end?"</em></p>

<p>I don't think the term art is used in that case to indicate quality, but to indicate intent.</p>

 

<p><em>"That knowledge is founded in our genes and therefore people nowadays like to look at images of that type of landscape."</em></p>

<p>Except I don't. I rarely choose to look at images representing landscapes, given a choice.</p>

<p>Up until now, I had assumed I was a fine specimen of evolution. Perhaps I have a faulty ancestor.</p>

<p>I think there are many different approaches, but most of the photographers I spoke with had previously been sighted. So the process was one of imagining what they'd like to create, then -- usually working with a sighted person -- setting up that situation and photographing it. In the video, one of the photographers illustrates a portrait process that is basically a "painting with light" situation -- shining light over the features of the subject in a long exposure. There's a little more info on these specific photographers at: http://www.seeingwithphotography.com/</p>

<p>(I'm aware of photographers who work in other ways, or course, so I think this shows just one possibility.)</p>

<p>I think you've hit on one of the key questions. While there seem to be blind photographers working in many different ways, the group I met work closely with a sighted artist, and there's an element of collaboration.</p>

<p>As you mention, though, the process of learning is different than for those who are sighted: I find my photo students, if everything goes well, see the world differently at the end of a course. The process of looking, making a photograph, considering that image, and starting again is a very powerful one. And it doesn't seem to be part of the practice of these blind photographers. I get the impression there is a feedback circuit that happens, but it isn't the same as the one most sighted photographers experience. It may be more internal / mental than visual. It's difficult to know for certain.</p>

<p>Of course, there are "blind photographers" who work in other ways, and some who are sighted to some degree and may experience more of that visual cycle.</p>

<p>Thanks for watching!</p>

<p>Our response to art is always partly influenced by how we receive it -- in a human body, through our senses. So I expect there's a kernal of truth here, but I think it is a very limited one.</p>

<p>Scientists do find that men are most attracted to a specific hip-to-waist ratio, and it turns out that may be helpful in selecting an appropriate healthy mate. And they find people are most attracted to symmetrical faces -- again, a trait corresponding to health.</p>

<p>Usually, however, when the idea of evolutionary pressures is overlaid on our contemporary practices and human behavior, the discussion goes off the rails. In pop culture, for example, we find the idea that aggressive, violent male behavior must have a survival value -- but when anthropologists study indigenous people, they find there's generally much more value to those able to create a cooperative relationship at the level of the tribe rather than heroic aggression individually, and that often as not there's at least some form of female leadership.</p>

<p>In art, we tend to see that there are basic relationships that people react to -- for example, the generally positive reaction to composition based in the Golden Rectangle. I expect that it's significantly more likely that those "popular" landscapes get a reaction because of composition, balance, color, harmony, etc., not because of some imagined positive reaction to a survival-supporting location. Would this mean that the descendents of those in other climates would dislike this imagined "romantic landscape" and have an innate preference for a different one?</p>

<p>Why does the landscape mentioned in this article match the painting we see in European art history -- if there truly were an evolutionary preference involved, wouldn't we see landscapes that looked like Africa, where we think our earliest ancestors evolved?</p>

<p>A few years back, the artists Komar & Melamid did a series of shows based on the idea of surveying people on what art they love and hate. Usually the results were hilarious.</p>

<p>Here's the link:</p>

<p>http://www.diacenter.org/km/</p>

<p>In 2007 I was fortunate enough to meet some members of the "Seeing With Photography Collective" on the last day of an exhibition they were involved in. From interviews with the group, I co-directed a short (7 minute) documentary. It's been out on the film festival circuit, and is now available online for free.<br>

 

<p>http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/blind_faith/</p>

<br>

I'm curious how people view the concept of photography by the blind, and I would love to know what you think of the specific ideas these photographers discuss in the piece. There are a number of related projects and exhibitions out right now (and coming soon) on this topic, and I think it makes us consider our basic assumptions about the field. I'd love to hear your thoughts.</p>

<p> </p>

On that idea of saving JPEGs, I would try this:

 

Open the file in Photoshop. Choose IMAGE > DUPLICATE so you are now working with a

copy.

 

Choose IMAGE > IMAGE SIZE then make sure the "resample image" and "constrain

proportions" boxes are checked. Set the resolution to 72, then choose your width or height

(the other dimension will be set automatically). At this point, you may wish to sharpen if

the image has softened in the resizing. If so, FILTER > SMART SHARPEN is probably your

best bet. In older version, you might choose FILTER > UNSHARP MASK.

 

Now, choose FILE > SAVE FOR WEB > then use the preset "JPEG HIGH."

 

You'll get very good results, and the filesize will be very reasonable.

 

tf

Great posts, everyone.

<br><br>

I post at: <a href="http://newyorkportraits.blogspot.com/"

target="_blank">http://newyorkportraits.blogspot.com/</a>

<br><br>

Some weeks it is mainly street shots, though I make a lot of text posts also.

<br><br>

Scroll down a bit and you'll see a shot of Elliott Erwitt, and just before that a number of

street images...

<br><br>

tf

Hello Aaron,

 

As long as you are not blocking the way you are very unlikely to be hassled -- and you

definitely don't need a permit for basic photography. If you were using a tripod, or

shooting with a crew you would want to look into that, of course. There are controversial

new rules under review about potential restrictions -- but even those don't seem to

regulate single photographers without tripods. There have been photographers given very

bad times -- but the majority of those instances seem to be related to bridges, subways

and other areas where the police may have good intentions with (possibly

unconstitutional) bad results....

 

I would make one stop first, however: take the subway up to Union Square, walk over to

Strand Books and spend some time in the photography section upstairs. You'll find a long

tradition of wonderful New York street photographers on those shelves -- learn from how

they've shot, and take it one step further.

Hello Andy,

 

If your choice is between full-sized JPEG and sRAW files at 1936x1288 pixels, definitely go

with JPEG files. You can do very well with a properly-exposed JPEG image. Online forums

have been gripped with a snobbish attitude that JPEG files are somehow totally unusable

and inferior, and it simply isn't true.

 

RAW gives a photographer more potential quality, and makes it much easier to rescue

images with problems -- but there's no question that a well-shot JPEG from your camera

can produce museum-quality images. Could a RAW format image of the same shot

potentially be better? Yes. But often the difference is tiny, and surprisingly often it is not

visible at all.

 

As well, remember that any image you capture in JPEG that you would have missed in RAW

format is 100% better -- because you have the picture.

 

I hope that's helpful, and good luck for the shoot. Your best best: shoot some test shots

before the event itself, perhaps at rehearsals, and you'll be able to get excellent exposures

-- and then your JPEGs will be very usable indeed.