Norma Desmond

And I think, importantly, the same can be said of photography. Photography can function both literally—accurately or at least narratively representing our world—and it can also function more metaphorically and poetically and, as you say, by implication. I tend toward appreciating language for its living qualities rather than its fixed definitions and I tend toward appreciating photographs for their expressive capabilities more than their strictly representative qualities. The London researchers I referenced are studying the common usages of "serendipity" which are at least as and probably more important than the dictionary definitions of it, because language lives. Words are not bound by what a particular book says they mean but rather they live by how people use them. Langauge, IMO, is not a fixed structure imposed upon the world from without. It's a fluid system that's related to our everyday practice and use. Similarly, photography isn't just proof that I've got a really sharp lens or that I was there at the right place and time. It's also using that lens to show that I'm alive, that the world is multi-faceted, and that imagination is as important as fact.

That’s possible. In either case, I’m talking about something more than a nature photographer, out to shoot . . . nature, coming across a rare and special but eminently natural scene of a food chain event, something not happening by chance but of very well understood natural necessity. I characterize it as special, rare, and lucky, but not terribly accidental, coincidental, or providential.

I think the triple whammy aspect makes it rare and more special but not serendipitous. Serendipity generally has an element of surprising connectedness, something that seems like an aha moment. If the photographer who took this special and rare shot had had a girlfriend way back in college who he hadn’t seen for decades and she turned out to be a nature photographer as well and they ran into each other by chance on this nature photo shoot and rekindled their love affair, that would be serendipity. Serendipity is not just a happy accident, it’s not just a rare photo, it’s not just any chance meeting. The randomness or chance has some underlying connection which makes it serendipitous. This is not to take anything away from the specialness of this capture. It’s just that it’s not serendipitous, IMO. I just read about a group of London researchers looking into serendipity. A nice example they provide for serendipity going beyond just special occasion, incredible luck, or happy accident is an architecture student watching a BBC documentary on honey bees and getting the idea of using the hexagonal shape of honeycomb to create a novel building design. Here’s where the importance of connection in serendipity is exemplified. The accident and luck is that he’s watching the BBC documentary. He’s in the right place at the right time. The serendipity is in the connection he makes between what he’s watching, by chance, and something seemingly unrelated, a building design. It’s when a significant, meaningful, and beneficial connection is made through otherwise random events.

I don’t think whether the photo is staged is a settled question. Various accounts I’ve read make different claims. Ms. Craig seems to have denied it was staged to her dying day. The degree of staging almost remains a question and one account says the walk first took place candidly and was then simply quickly repeated to be caught on film with no particular intervention other than askin Ms. Craig to retake her initial walk down the street. In some street work and in photojournalism in particular, staging might make a big difference in my reaction to a photo. The candidness or serendipity of some scenes seems significant. At the same time, street photography doesn’t automatically assume a lack of staging. Though many street photographers don’t practice staging, many do to varying extents. In the case of this photo, whether staged or not doesn’t seem to make much difference to me. If it was staged, it was done extremely well and props to both photographer and model for pulling off such an authentic moment with such effortlessness. Well done theater is no small feat and can consolidate life while zeroing in on moments and emotions in very cathartic and human ways. Staged or not, there seems to be an important truth in terms of the carefree attitude of the woman walking down a street surrounded by men in those times, the truth of the liberated and almost defiant narrative being told. I think a lot of truth can be found in the gestures, dynamics, and relationships in the picture that transcend the debate between whether it was candid or staged.

I mostly agree with what David is saying, as I hear him saying that there are many things more important than serendipity in photography and in nature photography specifically. Here’s a straightforward definition of “serendipity” from Merriam-Webster: “the faculty or phenomenon of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought for.” Those who’ve talked about nature photography have mostly talked about doing things over and over again and being out there in search and hopes of these kinds of special moments (special and rare moments aren’t necessarily serendipitous, it’s important to note). Serendipity is about NOT seeking certain types of events but rather the world fortuitously aligning to create beneficial events that were NOT being sought. The thing about mindfulness is that it can be very helpful in all kinds of noticing. Mindfulness and serendipity don’t have any kind of unique relationship but rather the same relationship that being aware of any event or situation has. Mindfulness will make me be more aware of others’ feelings, more in tune with my own emotions, perhaps more understanding of my mate’s anger, more present at the birth of my child or the death of my parent and more concentrated on the music I’m listening to. And, sure, it may help me notice serendipitous events. But, in that sense, it’s about the noticing, not about the serendipity per se. As a matter of fact, unlike some more subtle things that mindfulness can help us be in tune with, it’s kind of hard to miss serendipity, at least for me, since it’s usually such a blatant and shocking surprise.

Isn’t mindfulness a focused attention on the present/current moment and experience? This includes an awareness of one's physical as well as emotional states, in this moment. I actually think preparation for serendipity would be a distraction to mindfulness. Thinking one can somehow prepare for serendipity would be a projection into the future, not an attentiveness to the present, IMO. I'm in favor of preparation and having a prepared mind. That has served my life and my photography quite well. It hasn't affected my experiencing serendipity. The thing I love about serendipity is that it happens when I’m LEAST prepared. It shocks my system. Serendipidity feels to me like it comes from without, not within. It’s the universe aligning in a certain way, regardless of me, not because of me.

I'm guessing that if it were the most important event of the 21st century, someone will have made prints of it and most living people will already have seen them. :) In terms of my own photos, I expect people will know which I most value by the ones I've had printed and framed and are hanging on my walls. Maybe I'll put a little piece of tape on the back of my favorite prints with names of the friends and relatives I'd like to have them. Hopefully, before that time comes, I'll have given away prints to friends and family so I can share in their enjoyment of them while I'm alive. Thankfully, "monetary" value is not the only kind of value.

Something I think PN and its members would benefit from is an “Alternative” forum, which would be comprised of photos with intros and discussions that don’t fit the popular mold. While PN obviously needs to appeal to a broad spectrum of photographers and viewers, that doesn’t mean that only the most “popular” type images should get the most visibility. Basing too much on popularity, in the world of photography, art, and other pursuits with strong aesthetic foundations, is a sure way to miss opportunity and risk appealing to a most common denominator at the risk of not exposing membership to more esoteric and unique yet significant voices and visions. For this, I would suggest a committee of volunteers who have an interest in a more non-mainstream approach to photography who could submit their own photos and those of other members they’ve found, who could offer intros and insights into such work, and try to make it both fun and educational for people not as familiar or comfortable with this type of work. There is a lot of cutting-edge or at least alternative photography happening that is not as popular as a lot of the more traditional work, maybe a little harder to digest, and is not at first as appealing as more mainstream photos. In the end, these photos can be very rewarding to engage in their own right. A site that would welcome and feature some less popular but provocative and/or thoughtful stuff would create a richer experience overall and might invite a more varied and yet untapped crowd.

I'm not surprised by it. Framing is a craft. Science and details should matter, as it does to most craftspeople. Everyone I've ever sold a print to has paid more for the framing than for the print. It's a bit of an irony, but one most people are used to by now, especially those who buy art and photos. Just as there's often a qualitative difference between, for example, DIY wedding photography (why pay pro prices when I can get Uncle Henry to take the pics for me) and professional wedding photos, there's often a noticeable difference between a pro framing job and a non-pro job, to discerning eyes. No one should buy what they don't want. But we often get what we pay for, in many walks of life. Those who will inevitably be tempted to misinterpret any of this as my saying that the frame is as or more important than the art . . . well . . . go right ahead. I won't bother to set you straight! :)

Scott, there are actually some interesting frames and display boxes being made for metal prints. Some are pretty nice looking but not cheap. Google and ye shall find.

I’d be very careful with this advice. It works quite well in some cases and would be bad advise in other cases. Sometimes, what might seem like extraneous stuff actually can add texture to a photo if handled well. A wedding picture full of closeups with no background details or sense of party or stray bottles here and there would be boring and sterile to me. Now, you don’t want to include details in an unthoughtful or haphazard manner, but you want some sense of spontaneity and surrounding texture to offset the more formal portrait moments. So, it’s good to develop a feel for how to include more space and details in various shots without them seeming messy or unnecessary. It should feel like these things are part and parcel of the event and the photos. The guy eating food should remain a guy eating food if you already have enough headshots of him or others. There was nothing wrong with showing him holding a plate of food with fork in hand. Your post work or your lighting at the time could have made the food a little more secondary, but it’s an appropriate detail at a wedding party. Again, cropping down to a portrait might work for that shot if that’s what you want, but do that to everyone and you’ll zap the life right out of the party. I think balance is important when shooting events, between longer shots with more information in them, somewhat more spontaneous in nature which provide context and closer shots which are “cleaner” and more focused.

Most official Nature photo contests and groups don't allow that kind of photoshopping. Likely both. In many senses, yes. In some senses, no. If you're taking it purely as a photo out of any context, it might not matter. If you're thinking of it as a traditional sort of nature photo, which has always tended to have a sort of photojournalistic in addition to aesthetic bent, then, yes, it would matter. Just as one wouldn't stage a news or photojournalism photo, for the reason that fidelity to what actually occurred is important, one wouldn't (in most instances) stage a nature photo for want of as most natural an occurrence as possible. Having said that, I would hope there's room for staged nature photos as well, though not in these particular more strict contests, and think that the staging should be declared in those instances to avoid confusion.

You don’t need coverage to take a pic with a cell phone.

Speaking of photography, haha, the model’s skin is unfortunately burned out to a pretty serious degree.

Hard to imagine there will be any event, from a birthday party to a Martian landing, that there won’t already be cell phone pics of. I mean, isn’t every lunch already being documented? How could photos of any event be discovered that there wouldn’t already be a bazillion pictures of?

I think sometimes serendipity just happens, regardless of what I do or how I am. I’m all for being prepared to take advantage of various situations and being prepared can make one a good observer as well. But I don’t think in terms of preparing for serendipity. As a matter of fact that seems counterintuitive to me. I think more in terms of appreciating and even seizing those kinds of fortuitous moments, but not so much preparing for them. For me, it’s being open to them but not so much about preparation. That’s just me. To each his own on these things.

Interesting to consider the relationship between and the relative merits of serendipidity and creativity in the making of photos in various genres.

Glenn has mentioned over the months that though active participation may seem down to many of us, site traffic, which includes people who are looking at our photos and reading forums but staying mum while doing so is at an acceptable pace or at least at a pace unknown to many of us. This is problematic on so many levels but perhaps not on the bottom line. It means this has become a lopsided community, where our photos and thoughts are attracting clicks enough to please advertisers but not really helping foster that community spirit that gets talked about but has not really been supported let alone encouraged in any meaningful way with PN2. What’s encouraged is that our photos and thoughts are being used to generate revenue but not too much discussion, critique, or interactivity. This is the biggest loss I’ve felt about the reshaping of PN into an often-passive site seemingly groomed as much for passers by who don’t give much more than clicks to the site as for photographers who miss the special place it once was. I’m not talking about going back to the old design or the old functionality or software. I’m talking about finding some of the old photographic sensibility and interest PN once had. The site is now modeled for maximum social networking, meaningless interaction and minimal photographic depth. It’s lost its luster and part of that feels due to bad design and ill-conceived features and functionality as well as a lack of vision on the photographic side of things. We’ve got LIKES and photos getting thrown up into a Photo of the Day soup—superficial and hollow contemporary notions of sharing—and not much that actually speaks of a love for good photography, or an understanding of photographic history and aesthetics or much in the way of a non-gear-oriented bent on our personal involvement with this ever-changing but still vital medium.

Hmmm. I think the winter storm that comes along once in a few years is unusual. I think happening to dream about a winter storm the night before when one hasn't occurred for years is serendipity.

Sometimes I do have a plan of where to go and it's an adventure still! :)

IMO, it's an icon chosen because it's cute and obvious, maybe in the hopes that it will make people feel like they've won something when they've won nothing at all. The point of POTD, as I see it, is just to provide a clickable feature that will draw some attention. I seriously doubt there's any "merit" involved in the choice.

If I were taking one, I'd take the 18-140, since it's got the widest range. I wouldn't even consider which is the sharpest, as long as they're all reasonably decent lenses. Flexibility would be much more important to me than sharpness, which I think is often over-emphasized anyway. Also, if one of the lenses is one you feel most familiar and/or comfortable with, you might want to take that one.

Just like soap and shave cream companies are telling men if they use their products they'll have the body and looks of Brad Pitt from 15-20 years ago. Now, thankfully, that happens to be true of my boyfriend's soap and shaving cream, but not for any other men I know! :) Maybe this is a conversation about advertising, I don't know anymore. But advertisers convincing consumers of things that are untrue are not unique to cell phones and digital cameras. In any case, even though my boyfriend buys the right soap and is clean-shaven with a ruggedly handsome smell of menthol, he still pays a trainer at the gym. Go figure! :rolleyes:

Perfect!

And my sense is that the only so-called “image culture” associated with digital photographers is the one some film photographers seem to fabricate for whatever variety of nonsensical reasons. The myth is that because people shoot digitally for their own amusement and occasionally get a decent enough photo of their kids to show off to friends that they’ve all suddenly lost their minds and think they’re of the caliber of a professional. Well, it’s a lot of malarky is what it is. Folks still go to museums to see photo exhibits and they still hire pros for weddings and family portraits. They’re not quite as stupid as the old-time film aficionados would like to make out. That they can take a decent picture themselves does not mean they can’t recognize the skill of and better results achieved by talented, experienced photographers. The idea, as expressed by JDM, that non-photographers think everyone with a digital camera is an expert is both ludicrous and condescending. Then again, it comes from an old-time photographer so it’s not that astounding.