Art X Photography

<p>The rumour mill is rife with forum threads relating to Nikon's unofficial announcement of the D800 as an upgrade from their recently released D700. Having spoken to some photographers over in Europe, it seems the rumour is in fact, fact. I haven't explored, in detail, the features of the new D800 and Nikon have kept somewhat quiet about the whole thing, so I'm wondering if anyone reading this post has actually used the camera and if so what their thoughts on it are. Is the added cost justified by the features normally associated with the D3? Are those who bought the D700 justified in their annoyance that Nikon released the D800 so soon after the D700? (I know that some are)</p>

<p>Truths and lies?, what facet of everyday life doesn't carry with it both, all be it in unequal proportions! Why then should photography be any different an expression of the truth we know and the lie with which we express it. I find the struggle between truths and lies to be evident in almost every photograph, why, because the photographer's perception is ever present.<br>

Fred Goldsmith: "Photographs tell deep truths". I agree Fred. They reveal the truth of ever present lies (an oxymoron that works much like a Greek tragedy)<br>

I think in a way I take your words.."So, you get a truth, but not necessarily a truth that took place when the photo was shot" to express that very notion of a filtered reality and an expression of truth which is nothing more than a subjective interpretation of reality and thus may very well be the lie of a realist (food for thought and a good topic of discussion)</p>

<p>Yes, absolutely, unequivocally, we can learn much about who and what we are through the images we take and the manner in which we present them. That manner is like an imprint or stamp of our psyche, all be it in a less obvious way. One can undertake a variety of photography genres and independent of knowing who they were created from, the viewer can often point to who the photographer is/was. In much the same way as the viewer learns about the photographer, the photographer can also learn about themselves. Whether it's in retrospect to comments made on one's work or a process of self awareness, our photos give us insight in much the same way as words spoken, actions performed and thoughts expressed do.</p>

<p>Sure, we start of with a specific goal and yes the image, through its progression, can take on a 'life' of its own. But that 'life' is ultimately governed by who we are as individuals, what we want to project and how we choose to be perceived.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred, I think your use of the word 'subtlety' hits the nail on the head. It's the subtlety that impacts on the viewer more so than the blatantly obvious. There in lies the balance of subtle information versus blatant sensory overload. "More" can often be perceived as such over time rather than instantly (I think that's also what you're suggesting but i dont want to put words in your mouth)</p>

<p>A good point for discussion and one that photographers, I believe, often struggle with (less is more..or less). For me, I try hard to only showcase what I feel is important in a shot, while placing context at the same time. This is a struggle and only after I look back on my work do i sometimes recognise I have made an image unnecessarily 'busy'.</p>

<p>Fred, looking at both your images I find their impact equally appealing because both express the humanism of your subjects. Less is more and more is equally balanced in both images. I thrive on the ability to never reach, what I consider the holy grail of artistic expression, the ability to look at a completed work and be wholly satisfied with the end result.</p>

<p>If I am ever satisfied completely with an 'finished' image I will look for something better to do :) I hope never to fully judge when less is more..or less in any of my work</p>

<p>As a suggestion....<br>

although it may be an overcast day, I would suggest a neutral density filter (or a sheered grey fabric held in place with elastic bands making sure not to effect the auto focus) over the lens. This will help separate the skin tones from the surrounding snow (colour tones). In addition you may want to consider a tripod so as to decrease shutter speed and capture as much natural light as possible (I also realise this is a difficult task when asking people to stand still). Over exposure can also assist here but it may create unnecessary high key tones (if you increase exposure setting and use a filter the resulting high key tones can be reduced significantly)... best of luck</p>

<p>"</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2116036">Rebecca Brown</a> </p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons">"</a>It's the Western fascination with violence, especially the violence of rust."</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I agree completely. I think this subject can be psychoanalysed till the cows come home, but at the end of the day it's simply about our fascination with anything that represents destruction, decay..and of course, decadence. An "inexplicable visual attraction"? possibly. A deep seeded or profound connection with our own inevitable deterioration? who am I to deny it's influence:)</p>

<p>The assumption (if that's what it is) or suggestion that popular and good require some correlation with each other is false. What is 'good' is subject to individual tastes, interpretations etc.. this applies equally to photography (art) as it does to fashion, food, music (the list is endless). Popular on the other hand is self explanatory. Popular can be based on curiosity as much as appeal, on collective meaning as much as technical nous. A popular photo may very well have good technical, artistic, creative, applications, and each of those applications may appeal to different collective groups, but it may also be popular simply because of the message being conveyed, or because it symbolises a pivotal moment in history. There are far too many defining parts of the popularity puzzle to suggest one piece fits best. Equally, there are far too many individual interpretations and perceptions to apply a generic/broad definition of 'good'.<br>

So in answering your question Jeremy popular and good are not one and the same but they can be intertwined and often are</p>

<p>Interesting topic for discussion... The fact that Yasmine Chatila tries to disguise her subjects suggest to me she is conscious of the boundaries of privacy and within those boundaries she tries to convey their humanistic moments be they shared or individual. Like anything, intent is an important part of the equation and so I feel it also has it's place here when judging Yasmine's work. I can take a photo of a homeless man, woman and/or child with the intent of exploiting their sorrow for some hidden narcissistic agenda (making others think I am 'aware' of the world and appear to be making a statement of sorts) or I can be genuinely trying to express the sorrows life sometimes bestows on us. To the viewer the image is perceived "as is" but my intent makes all the difference to it's appropriateness. Equally, Chatila's works can be placed under the same scrutiny which brings me back to my original point. Her efforts to disguise her subjects suggests an appropriateness in her work, much the same as say, street photography or documentary work.</p>

<p>it seems to me that to answer this forum question you need to account for the photographer's intent. What he/she is trying to convey and their ability to creatively express that intent. One can express much with a word, or two, and one can equally express too much, like flogging a dead horse (pardon the metaphor), and yet express no more that those few words.<br>

I've often found innuendos or suggestive metaphors act like subliminal messages filtered and understood instinctively by the viewed. That's the 'significant power' of a photo as I see it</p>

<p> </p>

<p>'considering only what i see before me' and 'without knowing how it was made' I see a black triangle and so thats also what I would call it.<br>

whether it's a photo or not isnt as important a question as HOW WAS IT MADE? Since that information is not available I cannot call it anything other than a black triangle. if you used a camera then its an edited photo if you created it in the absence of a camera by definition it cannot be. The term 'photography' implies the use of drawing with light through the use of a mechanical device capturing that light. as I see it thats the only criteria by which a definition can be applied</p>

<p>"I engage in, or evoke feelings of, fantasy only at special moments, certainly not always....triggered in my imagination when certain things "align"." (Arthur Plumpton)<br>

I see where you're coming from here Arthur, I guess I see fantasy as a "precious companion" (well said btw) more often than not in my perception of my immediate world. You say it's something you experience "only at special moments". More than likely, but do you think that no matter how we perceive the world, whether in or out of those 'special moments', an element of fantasy (which to me is influenced by past experiences, culture, social and economic factors etc...) is ever present? i guess what i'm implying here is that for me, fantasy and realism often interact with each other in how i perceive the world and so that perception is expressed in my photography.</p>

<p>I think fantasy is part and parcel of who we are as individuals and as 'artists' (including photographers). To deny it's influence in our photography is to lose a part of the photo's essence. As I see it, the perception of our immediate world is governed by our interpretation of it (and so an element of fantasy is inevitable). Fred, you ask what a fantasy feels like...to me it feels like an expression, a release, a interpretation of my perceptions. Its the feeling of creating something that may be obvious, in it's interpretation, or sublime, yet always present in how I see my immediate world. Do I feel it in my work? yes always, I choose to make it a part of it unless of course I decide to use photography to document the world say....like a photojournalist would, but even then the element of fantasy is ever present all be it far more sublime</p>

<p>"Enough of this philosophical claptrap!"<br>

exactly what part of philosophy of photography forum dont you get george????</p>

<p>"Should photographers strive to accurately represent reality or to offer others their individual interpretation of that reality?"</p>

<p>I think in answering that question one needs to make a distinction between a photographer (in the clinical sense) and an artist (who uses photography as a medium for their artistic expression), and of course between the two lies the photojournalism which, although claims to be an objective observer, cannot help but be governed by their own moral interpretation.<br>

Like Fred, I believe our interpretation of reality is guided by cultural forces (at least that's what I think he's suggesting) but also by social and historical influences as well. That's not to make one's reality any more significant or accurate than another's, but it is to say that the reality that surrounds us can, and is, interpreted subjectively (I'm not suggesting that I see the sky as black when in fact it's blue, and I'm not talking about surrealism either).<br>

So the reality we see around us can be photographed accurately but that doesn't mean we should strive to do so in a clinical/forensic way. I think we can present a photograph accurately in it's context but individually in it's composition. Our emotions or moods can influence the time of day we choose to photograph, capturing different angles and light. It can influence the level of editing we perform in the digital dark room. However, as observers of that work we can also interpret it differently and so the reality the photographer intended may vary from the reality the viewer interprets. Even photojournalism relies on the photographer's ethics and moral judgments to capture the 'story' that will make news and not necessarily the reality that exists in that scene.<br>

Forensic photography does capture reality in it's most accurate form (I use the term "accurate" as intended by the initial question posted by Douglas) however beyond that I don't see individual interpretation of reality as being any less accurate. The initial question posted suggests there is a generic 'holly grail' of reality a photographer should strive to achieve....I much rather subscribe to the view that individual interpretation or reality is what defines us as a photographer</p>

<p>"I also realise that art should not be limited by tradition"<br>

I agree completely with this statement Anatole; and in that context I see nothing wrong with the progression of film, photography etc.... Each has its part to play. Btw, I also see film photography as having as equal a role to play today as it did before the digital revolution. Adaptability is a fundamental process of human existence and evolution. Why should the arts be any different!. That said, the timing of a photo remains one of the most important components of photography particularly documentry/ photojournalism or sport photography</p>

<p>I think a lot depends on the type of photo being shot. Photojournalism, food/ fashion photography (as a profession) offer limited representations of the photographer's self (although they can clearly represent their style/skill). They often rely on their client's needs to determine the parameters of the shot and end result. When a photo is not restricted in this way, it relies on the photographer's creativity to develop, and in that context it can and does represent them ('You"). Although I believe a photo can represent part of who "You" (we) are, it is the viewing of collective works that exhibit the whole of a photographer's self more so than a single photo (Johnny Martyr has touched on this: "Most of these items are very subtle but become increasingly apparent as one looks over the body of my work"). Photography, like other art forms is as much about the artist as it is the art work. I dont think you can create an image without having some of you in that work. Consciously or otherwise, I hope that through my photos the viewer may come to, at the very least, appreciate my style, and at best, understand what I am trying to convey.<br />This then leads me to your question about whether I would prefer my works to be displayed anonymously or named in public and whether feedback was important. The mere fact that I am a member of PN clearly answers that question.</p>

<p>Hi Fred<br>

yes the historical past is the reference I make when talking about continuity of time (past present and future)</p>

<p>Recently, I came across some of Edward Weston's works, and it got me thinking (scary I know) that for me, photography is like a message sent into the future connecting the distant past with the immediate present and into the imminent future. It doesn't matter what your subject matter is; a person or animal, a building, a landscape or seascape etc... in taking that photo, the photographer saw something he/she wanted to convey. Consciously or subconsciously, I think I've always felt that and so in answering your question Fred, I'd have to say that consciousness and intention play a significant role in my photos. I try to pre-visualize how that message is conveyed (in a technical sense i.e. perspective, tones, exposure etc...) and I intentionally choose those parameteres of technical application. Although consciousness is a primary driving force behind some of my works, there are also occasions of subconscious spontaneity, what I like to call instinct. But then the question remains, is this still a level of consciousness shaped and formed by cultural, environmental and developmental forces? More than likely. </p>

<p>Martin I think youre right, with that interpretation of intelligence:)</p>

<p>emotional intelligence is the ability to view the world and be 'aware/reflective'. It is not something that can be read and learnt in a book. You can appreciate (intellectualize) form, technique, composition, discuss it and agree or disagree in its presentation; but the meaning of what IS art is a personal experience, and one based on the emotional filters applied to it. Discussing a painting/photograph etc... isnt what makes it a work of art, understanding it's meaning based on its history (why it was conceived and created) and its personal appeal (internalizing what is peceived) perhaps does IMO. To be 'educated' academically doesn't automatically imply the ability to intellectualize art. I have know great artist who have not finished beyond 6th grade. </p>

<p>for me it was, yes. the course begins with an understanding of lens use for certain shoots, progresses through the use of light metering, some post processing work (not a lot but some) and finishes off by helping students understand the use of lighting equipment/ all other equipment useful to someone looking to become a professional photographer. All that said, another option might also be to go to some camera stores near your area which often offer night classes in camera use and basic photography. I use the term 'basic' loosely here because the reality is these courses can be very useful in understanding your camera. Once you have this understanding and play around a little with photoshop, you might find that's all you need to get you going rather than working through a whole course where only some of what is taught is useful Also, you'll find courses run by camera clubs/shops are much much cheaper than the photography institute course.<br>

ultimately what i suggest is this, if you plan on a career in photography then the course is well worth it. if not, it's still a great course but there may be cheaper options out there. I have to say though the online assistance was good, and being able to work at my own pace was also handy, rather than physically having to attend a class (which also has benefits i guess).<br>

if online is your only option seriously consider this course and compare it with others. send emails and get an understanding of what they all offer before you decide.<br>

good luck Zach</p>

<p>Hi Zach,<br>

not sure if its the same course that youre looking at but here is a link to a course i recently completed:https://www.thephotographyinstitute.com.au/index.cfm?content=home<br>

its a good course that i recommend to all interested in understanding the technical aspects of photography. That said, its a course geared towards those interested in a career in photography as well. the last 2-3 modules (12 modules in all) are designed to help you get started as a professional photographer.</p>

 

<p>Before you can begin to place intellect and art in the same sentence one needs to be clear what form of intellect is applied to art. Emotional intelligence is the fundamental basis on which art is born and bread. Rational thought/ academic intellect serves as nothing more than to blur artistic intentions and to detach the audience from the artist IMHO.<br>

I fail to see how intellectualism (as applied in this forum) is necessary to express or understand emotions, thoughts, desires etc... on canvas, in stone, in words or melodies, or in any other genre of art.<br>

Art has been the basis by which civilizations have defined themselves throughout history (there are countless examples). Born out of the ebbs and flows of collective emotions, 'art', throughout history, may be viewed with 'intellectualism' (I use this word very loosely here), but that doesn't imply its necessity for art to exist in the first place, or for that matter its appreciation</p>

<p>For the most part I agree with Hansen on this, however i see valid points in Daniel's views as well. One can not judge another by the words spoken or written by third party 'intellectuals'. But one cannot deny that the beliefs of Pol Pot or Che or even God and the Devil themselves (assuming you believe in organised religion) resulted in acts of murder and torture. Man has always used ideology to impose his own beliefs, to exploit and to gain power. Perhaps Che and Pol Pot simply provide a face for our blame or perhaps they carry the pen/sword that instigates it all. I cannot say one way or the other, but what I do know is that the irony in Korda's photo has not been lost on me. A symbol of socialism dressing in captitalism.</p>