jonk

All my 4/3 lenses (Olympus and Panny-Lica) work well with the adapter. The EM-1 11 freezes (goes black) with the 50-500 attached when I half-press S focus. Since I have to remove the battery to recover, the camera’s software reboots and apparently is the issue.

Thanks for the reply. I’m using a MMF-3 adapter on both EM-1 models.

My Sigma 50-500 (Big Ma) works well with my EM-1 Mark 1, but locks up the Mark 2 when I switch on the lens autofocus. I have to take out and re-insert the camera battery to get the camera to work. Any ideas/solutions?

 

JonK

<p>Last week I was able to see the two Shore street photographs at the San Francisco MOMA. On the wall, the "structured" photo definitely had a mechanical feel. Shore's "preferred" photo had energy. </p>

<p>I now think how we perceive a photograph has a great deal to do with the media in which it is presented. On the wall, the photograph is independent and has a presence. Surrounded by type in a magazine or book, the photo must struggle to disengage from the page. Maybe a photo with a familiar structure has an easier time rising from the page. </p>

<p>On a separate note, SFMOMA's Francesca Woodman exhibition consists of small, extremely beautiful prints. They reminded me of B&W egg tempera paintings. In contrast, the exhibition book consists of oversize, muddy, low dynamic range pictures. Looking at the book, you probably would not be inclined to go see the prints.</p>

<p>Fred, your Shore and Duchamp quotes are very helpful. Since Shore picks the time of day and vantage point for his heightened awareness, there is a limit to his chaos.</p>

<p>I happen to love Paul Strand's work. He certainly had heightened awareness in his large format "straight" photography, but was able to convey (for me) an empathy between the photograph and viewer.</p>

 

<p>Julie,<br>

Involuted, convoluted, or whatever - When I look at Shore's preferred picture, all I see is an uninteresting repeat of Duchamp's urinal.</p>

Julie, thanks for your helpful response.

 

With my limited knowledge of theories of comprehending visual information, I have the impression that comprehension is

based on modeling what we see. If there is no model, we interpret the scene as chaotic or repress it. So....... how do we

describe the subliminal model Shore wants to use?

<p>Luis G's comment <em>People are not photographically/visually fluent</em> gets to the heart of my original question. Without "artspeak", can the context of history, philosophy, and physiology of seeing help inform us about what Shore and others feel they have achieved - even if the photographer can't verbalize it?<br>

In short, if the Emperor does have clothes, what tools can we best use to describe them?</p>

<p>I personally do not enjoy (understand?) New Topographic, Becher, etc. photography and feel that I may be overlooking something useful to my own development as a photographer.</p>

<p>For copyright reasons, I can't reproduce Shore's well written article, however, his decision that an apparently banal and unremarkable photo was preferable to his prior composed photo indicates to me that he comprehended something which I cannot. Thus my question if Shore represents (perhaps inadvertently) late 20th century theoretical discussions of the image in art.</p>

<p>PS: I know it's OK not to like something</p>

<p>Shore writes about trying to remove conscious or unconscious pictorial models from his photographs. He even argues that only painters/sketchers can compose; photographers structure an image. To consciously use perspective is adding "art sauce". You have to photograph what the scene speaks to you. His sample photographs are helpful in making his point.</p>

<p>I get a much better understanding of what Shore is trying to achieve in his "New Topography" photographs, but does his philosophy inherently limit comprehension by others? Amazon is full of books by Panofsky, Arnheim, and Gombrich on visual thinking, perspective as symbolic form, etc. Any comments on how they relate to Shore would be appreciated.</p>

 

<p>I recently attended a talk given by a photographer who is also in love with 8x10 photography. Her photographs of (clothed) children were unintentionally unnaturally static and forced. Because of the relatively long exposures, large format photography seems to require more active participation between the subject and photographer in setting an attitude. The best of Nadar proves that long exposures needn't limit emotion.</p>

<p>As an official geezer, I've found that belonging to salon groups (not photo clubs) has kept me stimulated. I also collect photography books with an emphasis on 1890-1960 photographers. Getting acquainted with their approaches to photography is always an inspiration.</p>

<p>Timely graphic war footage before the Vietnam war was unusual. IMO its novelty/shock (and the draft) was responsible for its impact forty years ago. Today, without mandatory military service, we have generations which have been desensitized by a torrent of these images and violently realistic video war games.</p>

<p>Eberhard Grames in his book "Broken Spirits" has a wide variety of interesting still lifes which border on the surreal.<br>

<a href="http://www.artnet.com/artist/7286/eberhard-grames.html">Grames Pictures </a></p>

<p>I appreciate all the thoughtful comments. Happily, nobody has the last word.</p>

<p>I'm a big fan of Ernst Gombrich's views on art and art history. In his article "Tradition and Expression in Western Still Life" he writes:<br>

"Still life could never have come into existence but for the surprise the early collectors experienced in seeing a painting transcend the expected limitations of the craft and conjuring up the very texture of objects. What moves the <em>trompe-l'oeil</em> into the vicinity of art is precisely the connoisseur's vicarious participation in the artist's skill."<br>

"It is really a matter of historical accident which type of human activity becomes a vehicle for the communication of emotions. There is no inherent necessity why, for instance, this should have happened to calligraphy in China but to still life in the West"</p>

<p>Allen - To a collector or museum, prints will always be relevant. Assuming, however, that the photographer will become known chiefly through books or the internet, I suspect that 99% of the people who see the image (especially if it can be found on internet) will never see the print. Perhaps I should have asked if the technical achievements of a photographic still life can be recognized and appreciated in imperfect reproductions or on computer screens.</p>

<p>In painting, the still life was a means of demonstrating an artist's skill in re-creating texture, color, and form. Earliest photography used the still life as a demonstration of the camera's ability to capture fine detail. Given that we rarely see a photographer's crafted original prints and are usually aware of images through imperfect reproductions or computer screens, what can be the modern intent of a photographic still life? Is it more than provocative combinations or playfully illuminated objects? An image not created for general viewing?</p>

<p>Arthur,<br>

I doubt it's unintentional that the chairs are not shown upside down.</p>

<p>As someone who is really interested in the history of photography, I tend to see "rules" as the conventions of a period. Knowing them helps me understand the motivation of a photographer in producing a specific print. In addition, the field of the psychology of art and representation has been well documented (e.g. E.H.Gombrich and Rudolf Arnheim).</p>

<p>A while ago I posted a question about what Frederick Evans knew that made his cathedral pictures so much more powerful than what is generally published today. He was a London bookseller by profession and was very familiar with art theory and, I assume, John Ruskin. Some responses were thoughtful, others seemed to be generic rants against intellectualizing photographs.</p>

<p>Since we are bombarded constantly with images that define current conventions, I doubt that anyone is not influenced by them. Ignorance of the "rules" is not a anti-intellectual virtue; it implies that you are unwilling to put something in context and work from that.</p>

<p>Here is an article on an experimental camera at Stanford which may be what we see in 3-5 years:<br>

<a href="http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2010/sepoct/features/camera.html">experimental camera</a></p>

 

<p>I posted this article in its entirety earlier tonight, but apparently it was taken down by an administrator for some reason. At any rate, here is an article appearing in the Aug. 10 NY Times that gives the perspective of someone being photographed in an African slum:<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10odede.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=slumdog&st=cse">Slumdog Tourism </a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I highly recommend Terry Barrett's <em>Criticizing Photographs - An Introduction to Understanding Images</em>. His viewpoint is that photo criticism is not stating whether or not you like a photograph, but being able to accurately describe what you see, interpreting, understanding its context, and then evaluating its success.</p>

<p>With practice, the "all hat and no horse" cowboys will become apparent.</p>

<p>Paul Strand and "Time in New England". I have the folio prints of "Mr. Bennett" and "Susan Thompson" and look at them regularly. The grace, beautiful detail, and close seeing of his prints always inspires me.</p>

<p>I like to think of photo projects as a form of discovery.</p>