cyanatic

May 12, 2016

lkka Nissila – When objects or people are removed (and replaced with something from the imagination of the person doing the changes) in order to make it look cleaner and prettier it loses its authenticity and becomes less interesting.

</blockquote>

Ilkka's comments in this regard echo my own feeling toward manipulation of photos in which the fact that manipulation took place is not clearly disclosed or evident. This is an extreme example, but imagine looking at Russell Sorgi's photo, Genessee Hotel Suicide, and then finding out that the figure of the falling woman was inserted from a photo of a model jumping on a trampoline.

<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZpW_yMZ-oeg/Uxil5e5USqI/AAAAAAAAATA/OtlpsUc1gYg/s1600/SorgiSuicidePhoto.jpg">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZpW_yMZ-oeg/Uxil5e5USqI/AAAAAAAAATA/OtlpsUc1gYg/s1600/SorgiSuicidePhoto.jpg</a>

"But McCurry clearly stated that his photos were not bla bla bla!"

That's not the point. I'm not bashing McCurry for what he did, or for what he allowed his studio team to do. I'm just trying to elaborate on Ikka's personal feelings (which I happen to share), that manipulations which alter the scene for the sake of symmetry or "prettiness" make the photo less interesting. But that's all it is: a personal feeling. It's not an ironclad law by which I think judgment should be passed.

Dick Arnold: Who the hell am I to judge and if I did judge who the hell would care? As long as a photographer does not break the law i.e. misrepresent to the point of fraud all you all are expressing is self-righteous moral outrage. As a combat veteran I save that for my 58,000 comrades on the Wall or the doctors that just got bombed. You all are not going to change anything. As I said, I do not know whether McCurry was careless or whether his altering of pictures was deliberate and, all things considered, I don't care.

</blockquote>

Dick, this is the Casual Conversation forum and we are having a discussion. No one here is trying to equate the importance of what we're talking about with the deaths of 58,000 soldiers. Nor do I think anyone here is trying to change anything. You don't care? In the big picture, neither do I. But it's a topic related to photography and we're having a conversation about it. Who are you to judge what it is that we choose to discuss? I don't think anyone here is morally outraged. I am aware of the fact that many people find discussions like this one lengthy, boring, repetitive, and pointless. And they are free to ignore it or join in. Unless it involves a purchase that I plan to make, I find technical discussions (this lens vs that lens, this brand vs that brand, which 3 lenses would you bring to a desert island, etc.) boring and repetitive. So I don't take part in them.

Fred G: Steve's and others' criticism of these photos as "approaching a work and its aesthetic on the basis of what I like or don't like or what and how I would have photographed it." I think in their cases, as I understand what they're saying, it's not as simplistic as just "how they would have photographed it."

</blockquote>

True, thank you Fred. Again, I expressed a momentary irritation with what I thought was the underlying motivation for the manipulations in question. That does not mean I approach all photographs based upon whether I like the aesthetic approach that was used. Different photos, styles, and genres require different approaches. This is not an anti-manipulation, "Photoshop is cheating!" rant.

It would require a whole other discussion (Lord help us!), but I do have my own personal standards for what I consider documentary to be. And basically they roughly follow the same Reuters guidelines that Dick Arnold posted. There's nothing wrong with personal photographic expressions of a place, society, or culture. But I do not put them in the same category as documentary. Picasso's "Guernica" is a powerful artistic expression of a historical event, but it is not a documentary of that event. The movie "Fur" is a (poorly done) expression of Diane Arbus' life, but it is not a documentary of that life. But that doesn't mean someone else can't disagree and say that documentary does, and should, allow for manipulation as a means of personal expression. If someone posts or exhibits a photo that has added or removed a major element and calls it "documentary", I'm not going to descend into an apoplectic fit of rage and indignation.

May 10, 2016

Phil S -- So now you're describing HCB - the quintessence of the unmanipulated and of what you see in the photograph is exactly what was framed at the moment of taking the picture - as "soulles" and "McDonald's"?

Funnily, a lot of the reasons that many call HCB's pictures as being "soulless" have to do with the fact that they are processed very neutral and without heavy image manipulation ( like dodging and burning ). Any HCB picture can be made "edgy" by using a different processing technique ( for example, slap on a Daido Moriyama processing on a HCB and you can see what I mean ).

</blockquote>

Phil & Fred – To be honest, I have done a poor job of explaining what I mean, or of what it is that I find irritating. (I don't want to use the term "objectionable" because that implies some overarching "rule" that must be satisfied, and it is precisely the notion of there being any "rules" that irritates me.)

"Irritating". What a word to use. How depressingly petty, judgemental, and possibly snobbish, I am being. I am also being very fuzzy in trying to explain what it is that irritates me. I'm like an extremely myopic man tilting at windmills that may not even be there. Or if they are there, I constructed them myself and they are made of straw.

[specifically in regard to HCB and the "Decisive Moment" -- It is not Bresson's work itself that I find soulless, it is what I believe to be a popular, and incorrect, interpretation of "The Decisive Moment" that leads to a McDonalds-like homogeneity. A rigid and one-dimensional interpretation which, in its own way, seeks to reduce the concept to an application as simplistic as viewing a given photograph to see if it meets, for example, the "Rule of Thirds" criteria. A "checklist" approach so to speak. It is the checklist approach itself which I object to based upon its severe limitations.]

What helped bring this more in focus for me was actually a post on a different thread that was recently started on this board. This was Oliver Racz's thread entitled, "Annoying aesthetic trend in photography"

<a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00dvMQ">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00dvMQ</a>

Oliver Racz: The way I see it is I might not see what the criteria are, but they are there. For example, compositionally, leading lines work. The rule of thirds works. The human brain perceives it as balanced. And when you break the rule of thirds, and put your subject in the dead center, it might still work because there is symmetry, and for that particular picture symmetry might work. It doesn't mean you need to take pictures by a rulebook, but these "rules" are based on experience. If you can invent a wheel that is not round, yet is more efficient than than those that are, more power to you. However, wheels aren't made round because a book says they need to be, but because that's what has worked for ages, and if you want to design wheels, the knowledge that wheels should be round probably helps you in the process. I think the "rules" of photography should be interpreted in a similar way.

</blockquote>

I understand what Oliver is saying, and I think that the type of rules he mentions are good general guidelines and starting points, but they fail when used as the primary criteria by which we judge the merits of a given photograph. They are rudimentary starting points only.

What does this have to do with McCurry's photos and the type of post-processing that was done on them? I interpreted the manipulation as expressing the belief that there were objective criteria that had to be met in order to fulfill a perceived aesthetic: color and light must be a certain way, balance and placement of subjects must be a certain way, etc. (As opposed to letting the beauty of what actually transpired come through, despite its lack of classic symmetry.)

Now here's the rub -- What I've just said implies that I believe that imperfection, lack of symmetry, and a "warts and all" approach can appeal to a more sophisticated aesthetic and requires greater skill and intuition because it does not allow for there being a simplistic checklist of criteria which needs to be met. It implies that you must go beyond the comfort zone of leading lines, straight horizons, rule of thirds, tack sharp resolution, color balance, etc. This is not actually what I am saying, I am just making the point that someone reading my comments could just as easily assume that I am coming from that standpoint, could just as easily be "irritated" by it, and just as easily make the claim that such a loose guideline is just another kind of "checklist", albeit a more loosely structured one.

The point is that my initial post was actually based on a momentary irritation with what I perceived to be a "checklist" mindset. (A perception that could very easily be incorrect.) Such a "drive-by" posting hardly merits much discussion except for that fact that other people have successfully gone beyond that simplistic irritation and expanded the discussion into more interesting areas.

May 7, 2016

Phil S: Not every documentary photographer should strictly follow or aspires to the Cartier Bresson ethos of the 'decisive moment' in which everything that's in the scene and final photograph has aligned perfectly at the moment of taking the picture.

</blockquote>

Phil, I think you make some thoughtful observations, but here you're ascribing an opinion to me that I did not, and do not, express. "The Decisive Moment" is a compositional cousin to the "Nat Geo Aesthetic", and I personally dislike both of them. In my opinion, they both often lead to a kind of soulless, homogenized "McDonald's" kind of photography.

If there are any complaints about this than it's nearly always complaints from photographers who want to impose their own method of working unto other photographers ( if I play by the "rules" then you should to ).

</blockquote>

"If you complain about X, then you must be, or believe, Y." I see this kind of argumentation more often in political discussions than in aesthetic discussions. My opinion on the type of Photoshop alterations shown in the article is, again, quite opposite to what you are ascribing to me. The photographers who do this sort of thing in "documentary" (personal or not -- whatever the heck "personal documentary" is -- "artistic fiction" then?) are the ones following "rules". "If I add or remove this element then I am meeting a perceived aesthetic need which improves the photograph". I think Marc Todd hits the nail on the head in regard to what's really going on here:

Marc Todd -- ...altered photographs are now the norm and we will be seeing more of it from Magnum which seems to be re-inventing itself these days as more of a fine art agency.

</blockquote>

Exactly. This type of after the fact manipulation creates fine art. Depending on how something is marketed or presented it makes a great deal of difference in terms of whether "it's done in the moment of taking the picture or after the picture was already taken."

He is no longer a journalist doing documentary and specifically rejects being assigned that title

</blockquote>

I must have missed that announcement. I suspect that a lot of people who viewed some of the photographs shown in the original article did as well. But that's not really what I'm trying to get at, anyway. It's the underlying aesthetic which may be at play here, the thought process which thinks this is necessary, that I'm talking about. I am not fond of titles and strict categories, so good for McCurry for rejecting them.

Fred G: Cloning bricks on pillars or removing a "distracting" light post or a couple of extra heads from a background or a disembodied arm from the edge of a photo of a group of kids playing ball wouldn't qualify for me as deceptions in documentary work.

</blockquote>

Fred, I would be shocked if you did something like this in your Plowshare series:

http://www.fredgoldsmithphotography.com/gallery/PlowshareFarm/

Depending upon what the alteration is, Fred, I think it does matter a great deal. I find it hard to believe that you would add or remove, a person, a pillar, or a post in "Plowshare". Maybe deception is the wrong word to use. I don't think it is done to intentionally mislead, but it is probably done to make the photo "better". Within the confines of documentary, I don't think it makes the photo "better", it diminishes it by having altered what was there. I know we could engage in lengthy metaphysical discussions about the nature of reality and how a photograph is not "real" anyway. Of course. But there is a common sense, down to earth understanding of the difference between what was in front of the lense at the time, and what was not. We each have to make our own choices (in documentary) as to what is fair game for removal, and what is not. It's a gray area and subject to many interpretations. It's only my opinion, but if there is a lamppost, a power line, or an errant arm at the edge of the frame, remove it by cropping, if you can, or let it ride. What is served by "removing extra heads in the background"? A perceived aesthetic which says such removal makes the photograph better.

But whether or not there is deception is not really what I care about. What I question is the notion that there is some aesthetic need or requirement to make these kinds of alterations. As if there is some sort of aesthetic rule or guideline which must be followed. "What I photographed is not quite good enough, I must make it better." That's an admirable goal in the sense that we should never be satisfied and always seek to improve our work. But there is also the courage to not follow the Nat Geo aesthetic (for lack of a better way to categorize the aesthetic mindset I'm talking about) and have the courage to show the world warts and all, the imperfections in a moment, the slight imperfections in a given photograph. Not as a catch all to allow an "every photo is great" mentality. There must be rigorous and careful editing to seek such photographs, I am not promoting a "everything is great, we are all winners!" mentality. But there is such a thing as trusting the moment to speak for itself.

I am probably not doing a good job of explaining what I mean.

Going back to the original article, and the sample photographs, Leslie Cheung alludes to what I'm trying to get at: "The three pics aren't that good with, or without the photo botching"

Yes. Yet the individuals working in the studio who chose to make the alterations that they did must have believed that they were necessary. In so doing, they were serving some kind of aesthetic, call it what you will, that caused them to believe that it was necessary. I don't object to PS manipulation, per se. This isn't a "photoshop is cheating" rant. It's about having the courage to trust what was really there, and not serving some false populist notion that there is a higher perfection to be achieved. I'm not saying that there are rules they should have followed, or that they must agree with my position. I would only point out that the adjustments they made appear to have achieved little, if anything. So why were they compelled to do it?

Big picture? None of this matters. They do what they do. I do what I do. You do what you do. But the point of this board is to have casual conversations related to photography and I thought this article might spark an interesting discussion.

May 7, 2016

I found this article interesting and frustrating. We had a discussion on this board not long ago about an article comparing McCurry to Singh. How ironic. I do believe that someone of McCurry's talent and notoriety would not intentionally deceive his viewers, but he has to bear some responsibility for those who sought to "improve" his photographs. It actually kind of shocked me that his photos needed improving, or that someone thought they did. That's the interesting part to me.

The frustrating part is that what occurred with these McCurry photographs exemplifies what I call the National Geographic aesthetic (rampant among a lot of photographers) which is a seeking after a highly polished vision of perfection. But these are not a fashion shoot or a Gregory Crewdson creation. They are documentary photos so leave them the hell alone and let the viewer see them without alteration.

That's it. End of rant. Have at it.

http://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botched-steve-mccurry-print-leads-photoshop-scandal/

April 14, 2016

rajmohan fotograf -- Wonderfully said. I appreciate the way you described your reaction to McCurry and Singh.

April 13, 2016

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3885114">Julie H</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 13, 2016; 11:37 a.m.

"Most people would not use a cherry wood view camera for street photography ... " ... Sternfeld (switching from his Leica), Goldblatt (both using 8x10, not sure if they were cherry) ... Mann is pretty agile with hers, though not on the street. But Sternfeld switched to his cell phone for his (good) book iDubai. He did it for several reasons, which make good sense and which I will not repeat because I have reason to believe that Brad et.al. break out in hives when I talk theory. :)

</blockquote>

But I like when you talk theory, Julie. Or provide some thought-provoking quote that I was unfamiliar with, which acts upon me like a zen koan.

April 13, 2016

<blockquote>Wouter Willemse: I think the comparison between Singh and McCurry is interesting and relevant.</blockquote>

Based on the reasons you have given (learning from what we do appreciate, but also being open-minded enough to learn from things that we do not care for), I would agree with you. It is all a matter of opinions.

But the problem with opinions is some people do not like them when they are not in accordance with their own. Particularly where very famous, very popular, photographers are concerned. "...the article seems remarkably uninformed." Why? Because he does not reference the galleries you have linked to? Given the clarity, composition, and vivid color of those images, they may only make Teju Cole's case. You -- and I -- may find those galleries impressive and possessed of "awful clarity" (good term). But that doesn't mean Cole can't make the case that such clarity, vividness, and composition has a contrived "boring" feel to it. The possibility that Cole is taking a contrary position for the sake of readership has not escaped me. However, I tend to appreciate it when someone questions conventional wisdom and photographic popularity. Doing so does not automatically equate to envy, incompetence, or sitting on a cushion playing on the intergoogle. You think Cole is uninformed. I think he makes some interesting points that are worthy of consideration. So be it.

April 12, 2016

<blockquote>Looks like we took a little detour here... :-)</blockquote>

Patrick, I applaud your efforts at trying to keep things civil and on track. But this being photo.net...

This is not intended as a knock on your thread, but I'm willing to bet that on a website that has been in existence as long as this one, some variation of "the perfect camera" theme has been played out on these pages thousands and thousands of times. And I'd bet further that somewhere in those other threads, two or more posters butted heads over one another's statement or opinion.

What camera for what purpose?

</blockquote>

That probably hits closer to the mark. Most people would not use a cherry wood view camera for street photography, and most people would not use a cell phone camera for birding. I'm pretty much in agreement with those who have already stated that the perfect "kit" is the one that works for you. For me, the end result (the photograph) is what matters. What you use to get there doesn't matter. (Unless what you use will not get you the results you, a client, or a specific audience, desires.) But that doesn't mean that some theoretical musing on the topic can't be fun or instructive. I just don't have a whole lot to add to what has already been said.

April 7, 2016

David Stephens -- Storage is cheap, but time is not. I shoot wildlife and birds, so it's not unusual to shoot 1,000-shot per hour, or more, trying to get attractive wing positions, head angles, etc.

</blockquote>

David reminds me of something I thought of earlier but did not mention. "Delete policies" are not one size fits all and may vary depending upon the photographic genre. For a wildlife photographer like David, it makes perfect sense to take a lot of photographs and then take the time to delete the ones that don't fit the bill (no pun intended). The standard for what makes a good wildlife or landscape photo is relatively clear cut. There are always creative exceptions, but in most cases blur, OOF, poor exposure, etc., just won't cut it. There is no point in keeping such photos. Same applies if you're doing specific work for a client.

The standard for documentary, street, intentional experimentation, historical shots, abstracts, certain photojournalist situations (think of Capa's blurred D-Day photographs), impressionistic or pictorialist, etc., may not be so clear cut and is more fluid and subjective. Keeping a higher percentage of such photographs may make more sense. Just a thought...

April 6, 2016

As you say, Sean, storage is cheap. I do some deleting, but I keep most of my street photos and all of my family photos. I have dived into archives and occasionally found gems I did not recognize at the time that I took them because my taste and outlook was different and less sophisticated. It's not a common occurrence but it has happened enough that I leave a lot of the photos. Conversely, some of the photos that I thought were "good" 5-8 years ago I wouldn't even share today. I don't consider deleting to be editing, to me it's more like housekeeping. I edit individual photos by how I choose to process and present them, and I edit overall by virtue of what I choose to print, publish, post, or share.

April 5, 2016

Chicago, naturally.<div>

00drx7-562162884.jpg.1c8163a30230e3a67732670e669de831.jpg

</div>

April 5, 2016

Fred, you are putting me in the "astonishing" position of defending McCurry against being considered "astonishingly" boring. You know (or I think you know) that I am not a big fan of McCurry or the National Geographic aesthetic of which he is a prime exemplar, but adding "astonishingly" to boring does not seem supportable to me given McCurry's work. At the very least, I don't think the author of the article offers enough support in the article for "astonishingly" to be much more than hyperbole. Although anything may go in the context of art criticism, don't you think that it needs to be supported? I could say, "Ansel Adams sucks" but I'd better explain and support that if I expect it to be taken seriously as a critique of his work.

April 5, 2016

Robin Smith: I reckon this was somewhat patronizing and denigrating myself

</blockquote>

To be fair, yes. How does he know they are staged? (I honestly don't know one way or the other.) And "astonishingly boring" is admittedly over the top. Selective reading on my part because I concentrated more on the writer's theory of "messiness" vs "perfection" than on his claim that McCurry is "astonishingly" boring. But it has made for an interesting discussion. I'm not so sure I would even categorize his work as boring (unless only his color work is viewed for extended periods of time, but who would not suffer in such a test?). I just prefer the slightly "messier" approach that is alluded to in the article.

April 5, 2016

Anders Hingel: I don't know what "middle-brow eye candy" refers to, but it pushes me to say that his <a href="https://sugarbritches.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CandyGrid-Bulk.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">candy like view of the world </a>

</blockquote>

The photos you linked to could actually be considered "high-brow" eye candy by virtue of the artfully inherent chaos and messiness of their arrangement.

;-)

April 5, 2016

Alan Klein: ...always find it disheartening when photographers denigrate the success of other photographers.

</blockquote>

I understand your point, Alan, and unfortunately that type of bashing does occur. Become popular, become famous, and as sure as the sun rises each day someone will come critically gunning for you. But I don't think the main thrust of the article was to denigrate McCurry. It was to offer an alternate viewpoint that says, "Hold on a sec! Let's step back and think about McCurry's work from a different point of view." Taste in photography is subjective and there is no right and wrong, no greater or lesser. If someone likes McCurry, there is nothing wrong with that. But neither is there anything wrong in someone saying they do not like McCurry. In the case of the author of this article, they are not denigrating McCurry's success, they are questioning his approach and style and by way of contrast they are presenting a photographer (Singh) with an alternative approach to the presentation of similar material. In so doing, they are saying that maybe Singh's work is a little more artful and closer to the real subject by virtue of allowing some "messiness" to creep in at the edges. Some people like chaos, ambiguity, and messiness in their art. Other people do not.

Patrick Thrush: One of the troubles I find in dialog about photography--and in critique--is the focus on how necessary it is to develop a recognizable style and subject mastery. If one does not have that, they are accused of lacking vision and style. When one finds that niche, they are often accused of pandering to monotony or populism. Is there a win here?

</blockquote>

In the way you present it, probably not. We can all find a way to criticize almost anything by viewing it from a different perspective. I think, however, that taking an absolutist view that recognizable style and subject mastery is the only criteria for greatness is too rigid. I understand that that is not what you are proposing, I'm just saying that I don't think it is a black or white, either/or, proposition. This is just my personal belief, but I think the best criticism allows for a flexible approach which takes each artwork or artist into account individually, rather than judging them from a single standpoint (Traditionalist, Marxist, Feminist, and Post-Colonial critics, for example, come to the table with loaded preconceptions of what standards must be met. )

Edward Ingold: Dislike of the "perfect" works of McCurry speaks more to the nature of the critic than the quality of the master photojournalist. Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach, Those that can do neither, criticize. McCurry is able to extract simplicity from chaos, the essence of what we should remember, rather than what we prefer to forget.

</blockquote>

Do you honestly think that this is all true? How depressing to think that by expressing an alternative aesthetic opinion (one not necessarily held by a majority), one is automatically going to be dismissed as being bitter, jealous, or suffering from "sour grapes". Neither the author of the original article, nor anyone here that I can recall, bashed McCurry for being a hack or unworthy of the fame and attention that he has received. But I see nothing wrong with appraising McCurry's work according to a slightly different standard than the National Geographic aesthetic. The author of the article lays out his case quite intelligently in my opinion and I think he has a point. That does not make me right and you wrong, or vice versa. As I stated earlier, some people like a little chaos, ambiguity, and messiness in a photograph and some do not.

As for the rest of your comments, I am neither a teacher nor a critic, but I think you do both professions a grave disservice. It is far too easy to spout dismissive and simplistic platitudes in place of earnest discussion.

April 4, 2016

Interesting article from New York Times magazine, though it may be heretical to some people. The article touches upon a number of interesting concepts, not the least of which is akin to the Joker's comment in The Dark Knight: "introduce a little chaos."

...let in messiness at the edges of their images — a messiness that reminds us of the life happening outside the frame as well as within it)."

</blockquote>

Is McCurry boring? Or is that too harsh? Middle-brow eye candy? And is technical and compositional perfection the ultimate goal, or only a stepping stone to true personal vision?

And then there is the notion of how best to document a country, a culture? A lot of food for thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/magazine/a-too-perfect-picture.html

April 2, 2016

Tim Lookingbill: Appropriate is a form of conformity to a vision that points back to the source of what is considered appropriate which suggest at least for me copying a look that has come before it, placed in the mind to become the familiar. Once that thought or version of conformity is planted in the creative's mind it can't be removed and thus what the creative person thinks is original and unique is really based on a standard way of looking/interpreting what is appropriate.

Using the same process that everyone else uses is a guarantee it will look just like the other guy's sense of appropriate since they took the same path to get to that point. How about plow your own path?

</blockquote>

Tim -- It's unfortunate that this thread has turned snarky, but I do not say this to pile on or criticize you, I just think that in this case you are misinterpreting what I mean by "appropriate to the image". It means exactly what you seem to criticize it for: "plow your own path". You selected one small section of my post, without considering the other words which elaborated upon it. It does not mean appropriate based upon some imaginary, collectively agreed upon standard (there is no such thing) so that everyone's work conforms to the same unoriginal look, it means appropriate to the personal vision of the individual photographer. As the taste, ability, style, and experience of a photographer grows and matures, their post-processing becomes more sophisticated, subtle, and serves their own personal vision. Some of us believe that for black and white work, Silver Efex Pro gives us the tools sufficient to meet that personal vision. As I stated, it does not mean pushing one slider, or using someone else's presets so that everything looks the same. It is plowing one's own path.

March 31, 2016

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=299288">Barry Fisher</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 31, 2016; 04:50 a.m.

Is that your standard, new and unique? I suppose it depends on how you use it. Working in LR, its not any big complexity in workflow. You rt click, edit in silver exfex, do your conversion and save, it ends up right next to the original image in the film strip. Depending on how often you convert to b/w it does take up more space. But the complexity of workflow is basically in your mind. I try to take interesting pictures, I don't need to create unique and never before seen b/w conversions...I prefer good tonality appropriate to the photo.

</blockquote>

Exactly. At least for me (and from the sound of it, Barry as well), using Silver Efex Pro isn't about mass producing the same (or a "special or unique") look. I have many custom presets in both Silver Efex and LR, and none of them can be used universally. Some of them can be used as starting points to achieve a desired look, feel, or tonality, but it still requires further work and refinement to best serve a given photograph. Quality post processing requires work, thought, experience, and instinct. It is never about pushing one button, slider, or preset and being done. I think Barry hit the nail on the head with these words: "appropriate to the photo".

The work flow is very simple for me, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to use it or believe in it.

When it comes time to make prints, specifically for B&W, I have found that Silver Efex Pro gives me a much more satisfactory result than LR alone. I have my high end prints done at Digital Silver Imaging and they highly recommend using Silver Efex before getting the prints made. I do so not because they said so, but because after some trial and error I believe they are entirely correct in making that suggestion in terms of the quality of the final print.

I also sometimes use Analog Efex Pro and Color Efex Pro depending on the final result I am trying to achieve.

February 12, 2016

I couldn't possibly say. Even if I wanted to select just one, it would have to be restricted within a genre. If any of them were alive today, how could anyone possibly say of Bresson, Ansel Adams, or Walker Evans that one of them was better than the other two? And even within a particular genre I could not select just one photographer. Among living photographers, William Klein, Igor Posner, and Yasuhiro Ishimoto come to mind. The "polished" National Geographic aesthetic doesn't do much for me.

February 12, 2016

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred G.</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 11, 2016; 05:01 p.m.

Steve, one thing I was going to add, and I'm sorry you're so down on street photography, including your own, is that sometimes what I see in various genres of photography is a strained avoidance of meme or convention and that can lead to uninteresting and uninspiring photos as well where the avoidance of meme actually becomes a meme in itself.

</blockquote>

Just a momentary, self-indulgent reaction to a feeling of being in a slump. It's probably safe to say that we've all been there at one time or another. I should stick to the topic, contribute something, or not post at all. As for street photography: capturing nanoseconds of the human condition, being immersed in the energy and excitement of being out on the street of a major American city, the hundreds of stories, moments, and mysteries that unfold around each corner -- I don't see myself abandoning that any time soon. I enjoy it too much.

As David already mentioned, your observation on meme avoidance is insightful and can often be observed in some photographs. Reminds me of a discussion we sort of touched upon, but never quite began, that is roughly connected to that thought, or the flip side of it. Breaking out. Exploring different regions, genre boundary zones perhaps, where you kind of ask yourself, "What is this? Where does it fit? Does it need to fit?"

February 11, 2016

Lannie -- I am also sitting here wondering how we would have labeled such things before the new word came along? Simply "imitations with variations"? Or simply "imitations"? "Copies"? Some other word as pithy or concise as "memes"?

</blockquote>

"an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture. A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes..."

Fred -- convention

</blockquote>

"Convention" seems more related to a commonly accepted mode of behavior, or the manner in which something is done, as opposed to a common style or theme that is replicated by many. Meme, to me at least, is a more nuanced way of describing this phenomenon. "Trope"? But that seems to carry a more negative connotation denoting an overused or common theme or device.

In the street photography example, the light and shadow style/meme/trope/convention seems to be accepted within much of the internet SP community (as expressed in "likes" and "favorites") as a kewl type of photograph. A lighting situation to be looked for most earnestly. Off topic, but I have gotten to the point where almost all street photography, good and bad, strikes me as one big, mind-numbingly repetitive meme. My own work especially. Time to go off in search of something inspiring again. The creative batteries need recharging.

February 11, 2016

Landrum Kelly , Feb 10, 2016; 10:07 p.m.: "are there memes in photography?"

</blockquote>

Lanny, I would say that there most definitely are memes in photography. How many times have any of us seen some version of the following?

In the genre of Street Photography: "people highlighted by shaft of light while surrounded by shadows" meme

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/acommonthief/22953174482/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/acommonthief/22953174482/</a>

In the genre of Wildlife Photography: "osprey with fish in its talons" meme

<a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/12/article-0-1B6A7B2700000578-287_964x596.jpg">http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/12/article-0-1B6A7B2700000578-287_964x596.jpg</a>

In the genre of Landscape Photography: "cave canyon with shaft of light" meme

<a href="http://wallpaperbeta.com/wallpaper_1024x768/nature_cave_canyons_sand_light_rays_luch_usa_1024x768_hd-wallpaper-329686.jpg">http://wallpaperbeta.com/wallpaper_1024x768/nature_cave_canyons_sand_light_rays_luch_usa_1024x768_hd-wallpaper-329686.jpg</a>

In the genre of Portrait Photography: "close up of old person with accentuated wrinkles" meme

<a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/57/be/55/57be55fdcd5812816492678b92967323.jpg">https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/57/be/55/57be55fdcd5812816492678b92967323.jpg</a>

And the ever popular, "Abandoned vehicle with gel lights at night" meme (abandoned buildings are also quite popular)

<a href="http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.6/international-car-forest-of-the-last-church/car-1-jpg/image">http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.6/international-car-forest-of-the-last-church/car-1-jpg/image</a>

February 10, 2016

Sandy Vongries: " How much are we influenced by current "memes" in photography and feedback? Thinking specifically about this site, which, by the way I much enjoy."

</blockquote>

Sandy -- As a number of people have similarly indicated, I am more "inspired" than "influenced". And when I am inspired it is rarely by that which appears to be most popular on PN. One has to dig past a lot of populist eye candy to find photographs with some soul, or with some meat on their bones. And who knows how many gems I might overlook along the way because I don't recognize their worth? But that is a different topic.

And when we talk about being influenced (or inspired) by current memes in photography, it appears that we could almost draw an imaginary line between the populist and the artistic (a line which I admit is arbitrary, artificial, and can even blur or disappear between the two).

Popular photographs on PN (or other social media) might stand as an example of the populist sensibility. "Cool!" "Wow!" "Awesome!" "How can I get this same look!?". Mimesis. Something popular to be imitated.

But the so-called "Art World" also has its fashions. I don't know if there is a current fine arts school aesthetic du jour, but I have often seen similarities of tone and presentation in the photos, photo-essays, and juried exhibition selections made on sites like LensCulture, Burn, Jan Bekman, etc.

What inspires me is often something that makes me both feel and see a little differently. I rarely want to imitate the content or style, but it influences me to attempt to elicit the same response in a viewer. If that makes sense...

The correct use of "meme"? Not sure what that is, but if it does not encompass the likes of "Y U NO", "Sweet Brown", and other such internet silliness, then it is a "correctness" that is outdated. That is not the type of meme under discussion here, but meme it is, like it or not.

January 29, 2016

Anders, thanks for sharing these.

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=423641">Landrum Kelly</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 28, 2016; 05:22 p.m.

When I viewed the first photo (one of the best, together with the bus service one) I imagined it almost as if it was a throwback to the time of the image of the flatiron building of Steiglitz (the dark colored bicycle to the left and the antique tram or bus to the right, except of course for the color.

</blockquote>

I had precisely the same thought, Arthur. That was one thing that impelled me to ask how it would look in black and white.

--Lannie

</blockquote>

Well that makes three of us! It is a lovely photograph, but as an urban photographer I am attracted to photographs which show unique views of a city in unusual conditions. And that is basically the attraction of these photographs for me. It's not about the magnitude of the snowfall. If New York had received only 8 inches of snow, but the storm was such that it yielded the same photographs, I would find them just as interesting. On the other hand, I can see why the storm itself would underwhelm people from an area in which large snowfalls are a matter of course. Although I love the city of Chicago, the less snow the better. I hate the stuff.

And ice storms!? I agree with Gup, as much as I hate it, I'll take the snow. We rarely get a true ice storm in the Chicago area, but we had a small one earlier this winter and it was a nightmare. When you attempt to drive through what appears to be only 3-5 inches of "snow"...well, if you've experienced this you know what a mistake it is.

January 19, 2016

Thanks, Anders. I don't even know what to say beyond feeling sad and sorry for all the families and victims of violence like this.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by cyanatic