stephen_hipperson

<p>The last film I take will be buried with me - then no one will ever know whether I got it right at last.</p>

<p>A set of portraits of the ones you love - not worth wasting your last film on something else. Just take the portrait as if it were going to be the last time your saw them.</p>

<p>"<em> If you feel usurped by gays having appropriated the word "gay" to describe themselves, imagine for a moment or two how gay people feel at having been forced to hide in closets, drummed out of the military, beaten in schoolyards, and even executed in other countries." .... </em>what the f has that got to do with Christmas. You made a point about language using an example of chair versus table and I countered with a few solid examples where words functional meaning were skewed by culture. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, if a discussion concerns a subject, it seems fraught with difficulty if the parties involved in the discussion have varying understanding of the meaning of the subject word - what I would call lack of calibration. Difficulties will arise if one person things everything produced by man is art, while another will only accept something as art where they perceive 'soul' (what the heck is that anyway) to be present, another who will not accept art can be produced by mechanical means and a fourth who accepts verbatim what ol' matey and his cronies tell him. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>An off the wall thought - the sun seems to be behind you, I'm guessin you're in the shade so direct light across the front element shouldn't be a problem, but how about reflected light getting onto the flat face of the filter? This will give the appearance of slightly lower contrast, which in turn means wishy washy colours.</p>

<p><em>"No we wouldn't. It's not up to any one person. That's my point. Not up to somebody and not up to Stephen"</em> - yes it is, whether anyone wants to agree with me is up to them as individuals. If not, at the very least, individuals would not be able to determine whether their own work is art or not.</p>

<p>Of course, to some extent there is some truth in your point. Take a work, you determine it has a value measured in 'art', I think it's just another photograph of a flower in a vase, the 'art' has no value - you can purchase it for next to nothing. A second work, a man sitting on a sofa, the title "Man on Table" - we both think the work has 'art' value - we both want it - the price goes up and the value of the 'art' is then reflected in the price - we have created a market. To this extent I would agree it takes more than one person before a market in art is formed (we both agree there is 'art' in the work), and this is reflected in the higher price. You're happy that the first piece had value you, and I'm happy the first piece makes me happy and I don't own it.<br>

Although I consider myself in my own universe, I think of it more in the sense of a venn diagram type situation. In some instances we might occupy the same space (perhaps slightly out of phase), in others we do not. At this moment in time this discussion occupies space in my universe and yours, but I don't know your neighbour any more than you know mine. You may be better read than me and in your argument you may put forward a point that I may have to consider and following reflection I may or may need to adjust my universe to acknowledge it, either way my universe will be affected by the interaction.<br>

I appreciate your point regarding language, but I'm not sure it's really valid - one of the reasons dicussion on subjective meaning continues as it does. Some words and/or phrases will have slightly different understanding between us. Words are dynamic. "Bad" e.g. seems to have two opposite meanings in youth culture, "gay" - a great word for description of mood - has been usurped by the homosexual community (where the word homosexual seemed to be perfectly adequate to me), 'pussy' (can I use that word here?), "sublime" - one I will have to research further - Edmund Burke seemed to suggest that source of the sublime is the opposite to what we generally take the sublime to be today. (Will the act of putting cushions on a coffee table make it a bench?). <br>

Communication/discussion is what it's about, comparing notes, coming to agreement/disagreement - without it we become automotons, devoid of independant thought, believing what we are fed. <br>

Experts in subjectivity...mmm...not really given any thought to the concept before..... whatever happens, I will prefer not to like something because somebody else says I should. I'm certainly willing to listen to rationale behind somebody's view, I'm often swayed to change my mind, but ultimately I will not blindly accept group definition. <br>

As to solipsistic - I had to look that up when you first used it, not a word I'd seen - to be honest, in the strictest sense, I don't think I am, as I acknowledge other universes of other people, I willing bump into them, in the hope enrichment/learning. I willing accept others have their own point of view and encourage everyone to establish their own judgements of whats what.<br>

That's why I can empathise with the OP. So many sites claiming so much 'art' which simply doesn't move one - but because everyone posting on these sites plays the same game, i.e. this is art - of course it must be.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred G - <em>"In other words, are there any cases where it's not up to you to determine what's art?" </em>- this going round and round. I can determine what is art or not - but that's in the context of me in my universe. If you determine that something is art, who am I to disagree with you in your universe? However, I refuse to accept somebody telling me I must accept something as art when my reaction to a work is complete indifference - e.g. many landscape photographs leave me as such, you know the thing, rock in the foreground, mountains in the background and a blue lake surrounded by trees in the middle - it's just a photograph, a technical exercise - the only thing at work is craftsmanship. </p>

<p>Otherwise, we would have a situation where if somebody decided something was art we would all have to agree with them wouldn't we - if not would some people have more authority than others to decide whether something is art or not and we would all have to accept this authoriative decision - oops, of course that's where things seem to be in the universe outside mine - after all if ol' matey said it's art it must be. (I'll leave that option to you, if you want it.) </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred - "<em>Is there no work from all the centuries of art, from the Renaissance to religious paintings to Realism to Expressionism to Surrealism to Pointillism that you don't like and yet can still recognize as art, understand why it would be in a museum?" -</em> I don't think I'm saying that if I dislike something it can't be art, it has after all 'done something to my head'. The pieces that I don't consider art tend to give me a feeling of complete indifference, I just shrug my shoulders. However, I may still admire craftsmanship, I have the utmost respect for good craftsmanship. I see no reason why museums shouldn't show works simply because of their superb craftsmanship. Museums are full of furniture, pottery, metalwork which shows craftsmanship.....<br>

I recently went to a museum dedicated to the work of Dame Barbara Hepworth, it included examples of work in progress and plaster models - development pieces. the question that occured to me was whether all the pieces were art, and if not, when did a piece cease being a model/work in progress and become 'art'. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think you need to do some experimenting for yourself. Pick a single subject, maybe a park bench, kiosk, road crossing. Then photograph it using the suite of lenses you have - getting the image of the subject about the same size - which will mean walking towards and away from the subject. You can then see what works best for you.<br>

Intuitively, I feel 50mm on full frame is about right and I would move my position to give the frame fill I required. The critical issue is the angle of view, for me anyway, ie it's not the main subject but what is included in the background (whether that's in focus or not, is pretty irrelevant for a sense of scale/distance).</p>

<p>Fred G. - "<em>Stephen, why are you the center of the universe in terms of deciding what is art (even what is art for you)?" </em>- ....er.. because I <strong>am</strong> the centre of my universe..... as you are of yours. Frankly, I'm fed up with being told what is art and what isn't, I now decide for myself. Whilst I may not accept a piece is art, I can, nevertheless, appreciate any craftsmanship that is evident (and I can accept that there may be a lack of craftsmanship in any piece that I consider art). This doesn't mean I am not open to persuasion or a change of mind. I will often read 'the notes' that come with a piece of art, thus enlightened I may review my assessment of a piece - but I will not be told 'This is art because I say so.' <br>

Of course, I do have a dilemma - as art is a market - so I have to accept that anything thing traded in that market must be art - otherwise what are these people buying?</p>

<p>Mine is always set on Av - nature of the type of photography I normally do - lots with a tripod. However, I always aware of what I'm shooting and will use manual mode when and if. I rarely use shutter speed priority- if I'm worried about shutter speed I just open up the aperture as wide as possible and take the fastest speed I can get. I've had my dslr for about 5 years and couldn't tell you whether it has an Auto ISO feature.</p>

<p>For me, from a fundamental level, there is only one thing I use to decide on whether something is 'Art' (aside from the commercial aspects) and that's whether it 'does something to my head' (soul?). Most of the photography I see is about craftsmanship, process or standards, these alone do not make 'Art' or give 'soul'. </p>

<p>As I've already said, it's the baggage I bring to the piece that differs from what others might bring to the same picture. That's why some photos I consider art where others don't and, presumably, vice versa. What I don't quite have a handle on yet is whether the more I see photographs the less they do something for me - ie familiarity breeds contempt - or my life experiences/learning is such that some things no longer move me - or I don't have the breadth of experience/understanding on a personal level to understand the point, so to speak. </p>

 

<p>flame on top of ball could create a tiny hole sufficient to allow air to jet from the ball and blow lighter fuel up into the face of the model - not a nice scene. The youtube example showed how quickly people moved in to stop things getting out of hand.<br>

My recommendation would be a two shot photoshop solution. In that way you can get the exposure just right, a perfect flame, and a library of flames you could use on future work. Trying to work with model and flame and getting synchronisation of expression and flame is going to be very difficult. Of course the fundamental difficulty in this approach will be the lighting of your model's face and how much warmth derived from the flame light her face needs to show. </p>

<p>Although it very much depends on what your aims are, I would recommend against using a very wide lens as your subjects will suffer from significant distortion - great for arty farty shots but may not be useful for journalism. Do you have an option of attending outside open hours?</p>

<p>Khajuraho Temples?</p>

 

<p>I would look at this issue from different directions.<br>

For most part it's difficult to get any photograph past the technique elite if there is the slightest 'error' in composition, techinique (exposure/dof), etc.. Unfortunately most critiquing seems to be based on these criteria and adherance to such has a tendency to remove 'soul' as images tend to have the appearance of being contrived/formulaic. I wonder sometimes if photographers really look at other people's images other than with a 'does it conform' (I'm not excluding myself). Of course this is a slight exaggeration(?) but that's the path of righteousess preached by most of the photographic media.<br>

On the other hand, I would suggest that because you can't see 'soul' in a photo doesn't mean a photographer didn't try to put it in. Our perception of any image is significantly down to our own life experiences and perhaps on an individual level your (or my) particular 'baggage' doesn't support a deeper understanding of any particular image.<br>

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that 'art' is a somewhat useless contrivance which attempts to load images with a little whhooooo charisma to boost the ego or big up the capability of a particular photographer. The two most 'popular' debates I see are 'What is art?' or 'Is Photography Art?'.<br>

As an aside, I'm beginning to wonder if websites are particularly good at presenting photography for real engagement and the place to see it is in the flesh as a gallery presentation or similar.</p>

 

<p>"The frame numbers and film identification are exposed at the factory." - I'll remember that for the future, thanks.</p>

<p>Fundamental questions I would ask - what camera are you using, what are the chances that film 3 didn't actually get exposed in the first place?</p>

<p>I fill the frame with the composition as I want it, accepting that some will need cropping to non-standard format in post. I don't generally allow any leeway, as I know my viewfinder doesn't give me 100%. As far as I'm concerned I want as many pixels as I can get allocated to the subject. </p>

<p>I'd have thought the only thing to worry about is if the said 'professional photographer' excuses his poor(?) work with - 'it looks as if the lab screwed them up'.</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Don't look at others' pictures</li>

<li>Take your picture, print it out, delete the digital file.</li>

<li>Get a (more interesting) life.</li>

</ol>

<p>For photo critiques it's nice to have at least an acknowledgement that 'you' have taken the time to offer some comment - it's why the contributor put the picture up after all. I'm surprised at the numbers who don't acknowledge and because of that I tend to limit my critiques, why should I waste my time - I'm not saying that my comments should be taken as some great insight, but that 'hey guy, thanks for taking time'.<br>

On 'technical' questions, it seems a straight case of good manners to me, acknowledge contributions - not individually perhaps but as a final post. <br>

On general banter, I think it's fair for the OP to perhaps contribute secondary or a sequence of posts in conversation but that such posts should be left open ended - we all know how conversations take on a life of their own - a sort of 'starter for ten', so to speak.<br>

to send individual PMs to say thank you seems overkill. It is nice to see on the post that a solution has been successful.</p>

<p>You mention CDs, and that many students may not have access to pc/internet. - I believe there are programs that will construct 'slide shows' for use as DVD delivery on TVs. Maybe this is an option - you would perhaps have the added benefit of being able to add the spoken word/ music (perhaps an introduction by the head teacher as pictures roll through, or individual teachers speaking about their classes, the possibilities seem endless).</p>

<p>I've always used Aperture Priority - but I keep an eye on the shutter speed, if it starts going to where I can't hold it still or there's signficant subject movement, I adjust the aperture away from what might be my ideal. </p>

<p>Do you know, I've never used EV, only stops. Reading the above I'm happy with stops and I'll continue to leave EV alone.</p>

<p>Serendipity doesn't come to those who wait for it? Routine is not conducive to serendipity? Serendipity is an intimate thing?<br>

At present, 50-60% of all my photography is down to serendipity - I might know where I'm going, but what's going to present itself for my photography is anybody's guess. Having said that the slope of the graph is going down - perhaps I'm just becoming a miserable cynical old sod - been there, seen it, photographed it.</p>