tonmestrom

Thanks. missed that one. Impressive

"I'd love to be able to go straight to the work and wisdom of older/wiser filmers and learn from them"

 

Just a thought. A lot of them went digital. But most still posess a lot of knowledge on filmbased photography. Apart from that there's always the Film & Processing forum

Let's put it another way. How many different people upload photo's here and where are they from?

Try Lee Miller.

 

Not so long ago I was in Berlin and there where quite a lot of books on Berlin in WWII. Maybe you could try a internet search on German cities like Berlin or Dresden

 

I checked the site of Taschen Verlag (publisher) for you but didn't find anything worthwhile on the subject. But you're right, there's tons of the stuff.

 

Don't know where you're based. If it's the US try Nobles & Barnes, people there could point you in the right direction

anybody know how many photographers are active here and what's the demographic

spread?

It's a matter of personal choice of course, but personally I wouldn't go so wide. 20, 24 and even 28 mm seem more than sufficient to me.

maybe you should specify what you have in mind shooting, I know Germany pretty well. A 20mm should fulfiil all your needs however.

"I visit this site to observe, admire and also learn"

 

Than do. whenever you get a critique, take a step back and review your work once again. That's how you learn. Most are given with the best of intentions.

 

Also and very importantly: develop a thicker skin

Good technique doesn't make a good photo but a good photo needs good technique

 

A good photo, whatever technique is used, will always stand out.

 

Just remember, quality always will flow to the surface

I switched to digital completely some years ago. I never shoot in b&w. I only shoot in RAW. Most will end up as a b&w conversions. But mostly is just a preference against the background of the kind of photography you do. There is nothing you can't succesfully convert into a striking b&w image although admittedly some subjects tend to look better in colour in the perception of most.

 

Mood or "message" isn't depending on colour or b&w. That has more to do with the quality of the photographer and if he is able to convey that to others.

 

 

"One thing I really can't stand to see, though, is thoughtless B&W digital conversion. I see a lot of, "this shot was boring. So I converted it to black and white and now it's artistic."

I agree in sofar that what looks crappy in colour will look equally crappy in b&w and vice versa. That's also true of heavily filtering software.

 

The basis for whatever you choose should always be a good photo. Apart from that there are no guidelines or a rle of thumb.

If you all photograph as well as cook I guess all hope is lost ;-)

"Fine art photography refers to photographs that are created to fulfill the creative vision of the artist. Fine art photography stands in contrast to photojournalism and commercial photography"

 

Thanks a million. Since I'm neither a photojournalist or working as a commercial photographer and fulfill my creative vision everytime I press that shutterrelease that means I only produce fine art. Gotta wake my wife and tell her.

"There is no shortcut to reality. The brain is all we have."

 

So let's do what we do best. Create our own reality

No, it's definitely not like that and believe me I know that from experience. A surgeon or any healtcareworker for that matter sets out to do a positive thing and sometimes fails trying. That's an integral part of a job which you learn to cope with.

 

I'm not a war photographer so I can't speak from my own experience but as such you just register as a bystander. There is no real outlet and they of course learn to cope to some degree. But looking at the personal story's from people like Don McCullin, James Nachtwey and many others there are two obvious things to be found. In their own words, it's addictive and life changing. You can't keep on photographing famine, the most horrid atrocities and misery without changing from it.

Ellis, it's good work indeed. Given the dramatic background though I wonder if it wouldn't look more so in b&w.

Easy:

 

1. street; nothing more interesting than humans and human interaction on the street in endless variety. Always in search of THE moment

 

2. urban landscapes; the places where we live after all, for either graphic or sometimes nostalgic and atmospheric reasons,

 

3. portraits, especially of women; infinitely mysterious creatures. Not a man I know who truelly understands them

 

4. cemetary's; not only the place where we will all end up but also a place where great art can be found

 

lots of succes with your paper

Seems I'm a bit late here but well...

 

I never put titles on any of my photo's.....except here were I sometimes do.

 

And the reason for that is a very simple one. While I really suck at making up titles for my photo's I have the distinct impression that if a photo is titled it seems to attract more viewers while in the critique forum.

 

"I guess if it needs a title, then it's failed to convey what it's about visually - which is the point of a photograph"

Although I'm not religious about it you can find me definitely in this corner.

Fred, thanks.

 

We both know that it's not a definitive answer. That aside, it's a really good answer, in fact a better one than we formulated when I was at art school.

 

Sure it's suggestive but maybe that's what art really is. Part craft, part (historical or cultural) context and part projection.

"Van Gogh is an artist who wasn't considered one in his own time. That doesn't render the term "artist" arbitrary"

 

Fred, with all due respect. It is by definition arbitrary because there is no definitive answer as to what art or an artist is. Sure I can answer those questions about Duschamps and van Gogh and believe me I have thought it over, a long time ago in fact. But that's the point, that would be my definition of being it art or not while for someone else it can be something else altogether.

 

Of course it's more than just a way of verbally pointing to something but then when you point to something and call it "art" explain to me why it's art.

 

You state that no one yet has answered your question why one would call something art. The answer to that is real simple. There is no answer, at least not a definitive one.

 

Therefore I believe that art is mostly defined as such by popular consensus rather than you or me calling it art.

 

(btw while I enjoy this discussion I've got about two hours left here before going to Milan)

Still the best but increasingly hard to get over here. Requested a new one at work which was refused because they wanted uniformity!

The LaCie is indeed very good. At work I use a 24" of HP which costed about Euro 720,00. It's also very good.

"The reason calling it art worked in those cases is precisely because there were OTHER reasons why we allowed it to be the case in those instances. There was, at least, a willingness to accept the statement involved"

 

Fred, thanks for the link. Tell me, isn't this basically proof of what I'm saying? What I mean is this. Whatever the underlying reason it's all a matter of choice. When Marcel Duchamps put a pissoir upside down on the wall it was called innovative and great art by some. Vincent van Gogh was considered a very mediocre painter when he was alive (and still is by some). During his live he sold just one painting. Why, because we chose to call it art.

 

Back to photography. I can only speak for myself but to me photography is first and foremost a craft. And yes, it can result in art but that's not something you or I decide as individuals.

 

Also the decision can be based on very random circumstances. If I know the right people and get accepted or even invited to exhibit in an art gallery my work then will go on as art while physically my work hasn't changed. It can be as simple as that.

 

The mere fact that I think you're an artist doesn't necesarilly make you one nor does the fact that I call myself an artist (which I don't)

 

I'm not being cynical here merely realistic.

"Some snapshots do make the transition to art"

 

that's the key point here. Art is called art because we choose to call it art. When I pick up my camera I never set out to make art but I try to get more than a mideocre result. That's called craftsmanship. For me that's the basis of, in this case, photography.

 

When you combine craftsmanship with something fluid as creativity it can well result in something we call art. But that is defined by other people.

"Just sit on a stoop/corner/chair and learn human nature."

 

I've been doing this profesionally (in another field) for the last thirty years and therfore know from experience that concerning streetphotography this is likely to be the best advice you're ever gonna get

 

"First, don't ask just shoot"

 

And this is the second one. Works well for me

We all make mistakes. But to answer your question you gave her the right to use your photo's for her own use. Problem is you should have written this all on paper and let her sign your agreement. That would have been a big help.The copyright however remains yours. That's always as long as you don't sign it over to her. She has no right to use your photo's other than what you agreed upon or for her own benefit. I'm not from the UK but if you do a quick internet search it probably isn't hard to find. Confront her with that and she most likely will retract.