jeremy jackson

I actually like the less active moderation. It tells me something about a person or critique when I ask for x and get y. If we

never see the y's we loose something. For instance, I asked Fred and Arthur for examples here and was given arguments

instead. I could have just been indulged, that would not have been difficult and would have helped me. Despite that, I still

learned something about them and their points of view when they declined. Let us see it all I say, and as Fred has said so

many times, pass over the critiques you don't find helpful.

 

Getting back to Fred's point, there are many ways to achieve breadth. One might be an objective method. There are 25 or

so categories of images on pnet. Each week, select randomly from 1 category until all 25 have been chosen from and

then start again. That would give us an objective, complete representation. Would anyone want that?

 

Thanks for the thread Fred....interesting to me. JJ

Thanks Steve. The images you selected have the same two qualities I saw in older POW's from 2008. They are good and they are not

hyper-manipulated digital illustrations. I would not say that they are very diverse though. I would think Arthur and Fred have something

else in mind. I'd appreciate their thoughts on the issue.JJ

<p>Actually Fred, I do see fairly frequent complaints about hyper-manipulation. I just think we don't allow these complaints to go anywhere in the POW thread. You are suggesting we discuss the range of selections (which is fair), I was suggesting we discuss whether we want digital illustrations to be part of that range (which is also fair, judging by the number of posts complaining about them).</p>

<p>I get the sense over the last few years that digital HYPER-manipulation has become so popular that it has displaced other more traditional forms of photography. I agree range is an issue, I just get the sense that the range is closing in on digital illustrations rather than opening up to more traditional forms of photography (such as photojournalism for instance). So, I agree with you in a sense Fred...fewer digital illustrations, more of all the other good old photography stuff. JJ</p>

Hi Fred, I started this in a sense with a much more trivial complaint about the POW selections. My complaint was (a few weeks ago) that

the Elves were not even choosing photographs, never mind interesting ones. The response to my initial concern was a basic rejection by

you and Arthur. Now you and Arthur are complaining that the Elves are not selecting the right kind of photographs. How on earth are we

supposed to get anywhere with this complaint if we can't even agree on what a photograph is. So I was thinking that rather than

explaining, defining and describing (which is what we all tend to do) maybe showing would help us move forward. I understand your

reluctance to do this but John has in the past linked one if my images to the POW thread without much concern.

 

Fred, I think your complaint is reasonable. I went back to 2008 and earlier just to have a look at previous POW selections. I noticed two

things immediately. The images were better and they were much less manipulated in post. I'd be happy just to return to that. What we get

now seem to my rather simplistic tastes to just be hyper-manipulated ordinary images. JJ

<p>Arthur I just wanted you to SHOW us not tell us. JJ</p>

Ok guys, why don't you show us what you want. JJ

<p>Good topic Fred. As an academic, I'm afraid the idea of performance is misleading to me but I feel I do understand the issue you raise. I would just say two things here.</p>

<p>At first I used to try to make my prints conform to my web image. So the process was one of copying not creating. That I gave up after realizing that a screen depicts light in such different ways to paper that it's just hopeless to try to make the two look and/or feel similar. In this respect I feel as if I miss a lot of opportunities to make paper prints by assuming they will never live up to the web version, or at least my sense of what the image should look like. I just feel like the extra contrast of paper and the vastly different type of luminosity make the printed image much more challenging. This makes me not try when perhaps I should. In fact, just as with the old days of the dark-room, I now feel I have a good sense of whether a paper print will work when I take the photograph. Perhaps there is a fear of failure at the root of this. Perhaps I feel as if the web image as as good as I can do so I quit before starting.</p>

<p>The other thing I sense deeply is that print making is highly non-linear. What one does in step c depends such a great deal on what was done at step b. If one follows one's emotions, senses, feelings in making the print, (which vacillate hourly, daily, weekly, etc.), it follows that the process of print making will likely be different each time an attempt is made. So I generally expect that my prints will never be the same when made on different occassions. Often they vary dramatically. Often, weeks need to go by before I can separate myself enough from the printing decisions I have made to really evaluate the results honestly.</p>

<p>You mentioned a comparison to music in your original post. As a classical musician, I would expect my musical performances would vary much less from day to day than photographic prints. Perhaps a jazz musician might feel very differently. In classical music it seems there is much more of a clear, well-defined "way I want something to be done" which I would practice over and over to ensure I could repeat when a performance demands. A jazz musician might allow momentary emotion, etc., to take the performance in a new direction. I think different images are different in this respect. Some images seem to have more of a singular direction while others seem pretty malleable and admit of numerous different interpretations or approaches.</p>

<p>I hope the show goes well Fred. One thing is certain, it will be challenging and enlightening for your patrons. I must say, I envy those that will attend. Best, Jeremy</p>

<p>For what it's worth David, my wife, who uses the 5D mk 3 and mk2 for wedding photography (and in my obviously unbiased opinion is very good with both), feels that the mk 3 is a significant improvement over the mk 2. I agree with her. I would much rather have a mk 3 than the new 24-70 for wedding photography. For landscape work the mk 2 and mk 3 are too close to make much of a difference I think. For landscape photography I may go for the new 24-70 instead of the mk 3. Best, JJ</p>

<p>John, I don't expect you to agree. But I would say that the ability to use basic common sense in a social system is in no way whimsical and is not characteristic of dictatorships. </p>

<p>We are simply arguing about whether a system should see a case like this as an actual dispute. The system does. And once we make this move it is just a matter of pursuing the dispute within whatever system we have - the details. The interesting question is how we can develop a system that sees such cases for what they really are. </p>

<p>I think an appropriate description of my position might be that it is idealistic. Perhaps. But I am just trying to point out that spending our efforts on the details does allow us in some sense to avoid the bigger, more difficult questions. Best, JJ</p>

<p>Better to loose ourselves in the technical details than recognize the sad fact that judges are now incapable of swiftly and quickly doing the sensible thing. Of course, it's not just judges that suffer this affliction. I've seen my fair share of it in science as well. Best, JJ</p>

<p>This is the one Izzy. How does it look in B&W?</p>

<p>Since it's nearly Christmas.....I have another little tip that might help. Use a 70-200 2.8 for formals. Get far away and stick your camera on a tripod with a cable release. Then you take your formal shots and after 5 or 6 exposures just say "hang on a moment, relax, spend some private time with each other while I replace my card" or something like that. Turn away from them but keep holding on to the cable release. Then take a bunch of shots when they think you aren't looking. The trick is to get them to engage with each other, not the camera.</p>

<p>About other photogs and 2nd shooting. There have been a few threads on pnet about becoming a second shooter. Look on the web (facebook may be good as well) for second shooter groups and get yourself in the group. On your first job, do a very good job of carrying bags, changing lenses, setting-up tripod's and lights, etc. and you'll get hired again.</p>

<p>Best, JJ</p>

<p>Hey Izzy, I think I got confused about what pictures belonged to what wedding. Sorry. The second wedding is good IMO. But what's the difference between the Maru images that you said you liked and yours?</p>

<p>There are two things that Kim-Maru taught me that may help you...they sure helped me:</p>

<p>1) It's all about emotion. To be emotional a shot has to be authentic. So expression, believability, and reality matter an enormous amount. The viewer has to believe that they are looking at a real moment. So how do you get real expressions (your images sometimes show self-conscious expressions or what I would say are "forced" or "emotionally bland" expressions). One trick is to get far away and take a lot of shots quickly. Go on motor drive. Half a second can make all the difference in the world. Then when you edit, all you do is allow the images to speak to you. So Kim-Maru will look at 30 images of the same moment very quickly and say "that one"....."that's the one". 29 won't work, 1 will. That's Gold my friend -:)<br>

2) The second thing Kim taught me is to shoot when it feels right, not when it looks right. To do this, you have to get tuned in to what your subjects are feeling and thinking. You have to look at their faces, their body language, their mood. Chase mood around the room, not composition. </p>

<p>There are lots of other little tricks to creating emotional shots that you will learn over time but if you work on these two things, I think this will elevate your work a lot. Add a little more technical expertise (sharpness seems an issue, reading of light could be better) and experience and you'll have it all.</p>

<p>On album design, I think you have done fine. The right design will emerge when you get tuned in to the couple...that is their relationship, feelings on the day, their story, history, etc. Remember that you are doing this for them so you have to understand them. That's another reason to go to the Maru website. Watch the slideshows. These shows really reflect the quality and character of the couples. That's why they work.</p>

<p>You are doing well so far. Your work is good for having done 2 weddings. Good luck in the future. Jeremy</p>

<p>Hi Izzy, if there is one thing that strikes me right away, it's the way you handled light (the TSE thing you already know about). Inside, the shots look good because the light is soft. But outside you struggled with light. You had a tough day for sure....bright sun, early in the year, but that's when you need to be very careful.</p>

<p>On days like this, try putting the bride by an inside window and doing some tight head and upper body and head shots (check out www.maruphoto.ca for some very good examples of this kind of shot). This will be way easier than trying to get something good of the bride outside. When outside, try to put the sun behind the subject as well. Or you could look for some shade if the sun is just too bright.</p>

<p>Wedding photography done well is a big learning process. It sounds like you learned a lot in this shoot. The more you shoot, the more you will learn. Best of luck in the future. Cheers, JJ</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I agree with Scott here with the slight, possible exception that I think one could go lower in mp than 21. I would, overall, favor say a Nikon D3 or D3s over a 645 film camera in the final print (upres software can be very good). But I would say that a lot depends on the kind of look you are after. I have made the decision to shoot digital not 645 (or bigger film). In the end, I think my results have overall a slightly higher quality than had I chosen the 645 film route. Just my opinion...others will surely disagree.</p>

<p>I would say though that I think it's so close that other factors tend to be more important. Lens lines, speed and accuracy of auto-focus, size, ISO range, convenience, etc., all played a very important role in my own decision. Best, JJ </p>

<p>John, I have read through these posts again and I can see that I have crossed the line on a few occasions. I apologize for this. When speaking about Wittgenstein, I'm trying to talk about what he actually said. I believe what I say about his work is factual and it does have enormous relevance to discussions about what things are. But, as I seem to have done more upsetting than anything else, I think you are right John that I should shut up and let the artists talk. Best, JJ</p>

<div></div>

<p>OK Mark, I should have been more clear. Wittgenstein showed that the logic of Rosch's prototype theory is flawed. The notion of family resemblance has nothing to do with the notion of a prototype. The logical problem with prototype theory is this....it is not possible to identify a prototype if one does not already know the meaning of the concept that defines the thing itself (that's the point of my example....give me an example of a blorkfit...it can't be done because you don't know the meaning of the word blorkfit). Wittgenstein was clear and correct. Meaning is not discoverable, it is given by word use. But Rosch and many others have misunderstood what Wittgenstein meant by word use. It does not mean consensus or what people say when asked in a survey. Word use includes ways in which the meanings of words are taught and learned, how a word is used in authoritative sources, the identification of correct and incorrect uses, etc. It does not matter what a scientist shows in a research study about prototypes. This does not establish word meaning. As I said, Baker and Hacker (1982), Language and Communication. Peter Hacker is a world-renowned expert on Wittgenstein and is one of the few scholars to have correctly explained Wittgenstein's often highly obtuse remarks. If you are interested in language and meaning this is a very good source.</p>

<p>Arthur, you are talking about a private language. Definitions are not private things. I'm sorry but that idea has been shown to be wrong a long time ago.</p>

<p>Yes Fred, words don't dictate...they couldn't, that would not mean anything. As I said before, we lay down word meaning. We are in control of what words mean. We can decide to make them mean anything we want them to. We can make photography mean anything we want it to. BUT, once the meaning of the word is given, then we must use the word in accordance with this meaning otherwise we are breaking linguistic rules and speaking nonsense. Now, as you said, word meaning does change. We are free to lay down new rules for the use of a word if we so desire. Scientists do this all the time. For instance the word planet does not mean the same thing today as it meant 10 years ago. The community of astronomers decided to change the technical meaning of the word. The new rules for the use of the word planet are now public, codified in authoritative sources, taught to (technical) language users, etc. If I say Pluto is a planet now, I am wrong, not artistic, creative, thinking outside the box or any other such thing. </p>

<p>The problem in photography today is that a NEW PRACTICE has been invented and linguistic rules have not been changed to accommodate it. We have the old concept of photography and a new set of practices that many people argue (and reasonably so) are not encompassed clearly by the old concept. This is a problem physical scientists encounter all the time. By suggesting a revisiting of the concept of photography in this new context, I am only doing what physical scientists do on a regular basis. There is no need for fatuous comments about this. It's not controversial, silly, uneducated or logically flawed. In fact, it is a perfectly reasonable, logically coherent response to such situations.</p>

<p>What I have suggested is that the concept of "processing" an image is now unclear given all the new image processing capabilities we now have. If we want to speak clearly about what is and is not photography, we need to clear-up this ambiguity. By the way, this is exactly what Einstein's great discovery amounted to. He showed us that our concept of time (or simultaneity as some prefer) did not have clear meaning in the new contexts physics was beginning to discover.</p>

<p>In artistic, philosophical and social science communities (but not in math, statistics, chemistry, physics, astronomy and engineering communities) there is often strong objection to this idea. Most want to shove it under the rug, some make fun of the idea without really trying to understand it and some try to belittle or diminish the messenger. We have seen all three of these responses here. But....Wouter, point taken...my mistake. </p>

<p>So how about this. Those, like Dieter, who want to get on with a serious discussion about what the criteria for the use of the concept of photography should be....let's talk. The others can just do what artists and philosophers do so well. Talk with no hope of any resolution because, as Wittgenstein so aptly put it..."problem and method pass one another by". But, please don't tell us that there is such a thing as good and bad photography on the one hand and that photography is only a word on the other. If you can't say clearly what photography is, you can't say what good photography is either. Again, as Wittgenstein so beautifully put it "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent". </p>

<p>So, what should we consider to be photography? Should the photography community say to the world that photographers are artists and so are averse to being placed in metaphorical boxes (so in other words..photography is whatever one wants it to be). Or should photographers help the world understand that the meaning of the concept of photography should or should not be changed to accommodate new practices. How much image manipulation is allowable? What kinds of manipulation are allowable? Must a camera be involved? </p>

<p>So far, we have two positions:</p>

<p>1) Photography is doing anything conceivable to record light waves and modify those light waves in any way conceivable.<br>

2) Photography is the process of using a camera to make one or more images and processing those images by combining them and/or manipulating the amount and frequency of light in those images.</p>

<p>Position 2 would be mine. Most people seem to prefer position 1. If one adopts position 1, then all sorts of practices that involve no photographic skill whatsoever would have to be called photography. If one adopts position 2, then photography still significantly involves the skill of making in-camera images. Are there any other (serious) positions? Thanks Dieter for getting us back on track. Best, JJ</p>

<p>OK all, I used the idea of definitions to convey the point about rules. As I said in my previous post, definitions do not give the entire meaning of a word. Wittgenstein did war against this idea and he did use the analogy of a game to make his point. What does give the entire meaning of a word is word use. The dictionary definition is part of the use of a word..as is the teaching of the meaning of a word to language users. So, many of you are right that the definition does not necessarily come first. Typically, in the development of a concept, symptoms and criteria fluctuate. Mark, you seem to understand Wittgenstein better than I thought...I'm sorry for the wrong guess. But I did not mean to imply that lexicographers lay down definitions. You are right that dictionaries do describe not dictate word use....I'm impressed. But Mark, prototype theory was decimated by Wittgenstein. Even psychologists that used to support it now see the problems. There is no need to get in to it here, but Wittgenstein showed definitively that meaning does not come from prototypes and that the concept of a prototype in establishing meaning is flawed. Wittgenstein developed the idea of family resemblance to, in part, show what is wrong with prototype theory.</p>

<p>Now Mark, at some point you were taught the language. How did the people that taught you the language teach you what a chair is? Did they make-up their own meanings, theorize about it, ask you to imagine a prototype of a chair, etc? Actually, they did none of these things. They taught you the rules for the use of the word chair. They explained how the word is correctly used.<br />In part, the rules for correct use are codified in a dictionary. Dictionaries play a very important role in explanations of word use. When a disagreement arises, they are a significant and important tool that is used to settle such disagreements. Let me claim that a luddite is a technologically sophisticated person. Is this OK? How about my claim that a chair is a furry creature with 4 legs and a tail? Am I right? Without authoritative sources, it is not possible to settle such debates. It is also not possible to determine if I am using the language in a coherent manner. To make the point perhaps more clearly, imagine the prototype of a blorkit. Go ahead...do it now. It is, of course only possible to do this if the meaning of blorkit is already given. That's basically what is wrong with prototype theory.</p>

<p>Fred, I hope that using language clearly and correctly...that is according to the rules...will show me to be respectful of word meaning, coherent in my use of language and not someone to engage in base rhetorical maneuvers to get people to think what I want them to think. It is the art community that wants to debase (disrespect) word meaning so that they can call things anything they want to call them. Base rhetoric is a powerful force. It is a marketers most dangerous tool. Do you have any idea how much money drug companies have made by calling depression an illness? I would recommend Thomas Szasz to anyone that doubts the power of breaking linguistic rules on the ability to make money.</p>

<p>The value of having a clear definition of photography is that we can speak clearly, correctly and coherently about it. We can stop others advancing practices than are not photography as photography. In this way, we can stop people that are only artists (and not photographers) passing themselves off as photographers. For those of us that care about the technique, skill and practice of photography, that matters.</p>

<p>What we call something matters a great deal. Some things have more economic value than others. Imagine that X is worth 3 times more than Y. If I can call my thing an X when it is actually a Y, I can make 3 times more money that I would have, had I called it what is actually is. Some things are much harder to do than other things. Imagine that X is 3 times harder to do than Y....you get the point.</p>

<p>The criteria are established as part of word use. No individual defines them - in the case of commoner garden concepts. In science, individuals often do lay down criteria. If that individual is the discoverer or developer of the phenomenon, they will be he definer. Now I have to go.....Best, JJ</p>

<p>Fred, the definition of thin is not disrespectful to fat people. We disrespect something when we use a wrong word to describe it. Call a thin person fat, for example.</p>

<p>Others.... definitions are not categories. The two words mean different things. Definitions are also not stifling. Definitions allow us to communicate. Without them, what we say means nothing. The existence of a definition for photography does not limit one's creativity. One can do all sorts of things that may or may not be photography and the definition still exists.</p>

<p>Different dictionaries do contain slightly different definitions of words. Like all things, there are good dictionaries and bad ones. The reason I cite the Oxford dictionary is that it is a good one. It is a dictionary written by people that understand how language works. Some dictionaries are now sadly written by people with a misconceived idea about the nature and role of language. It is now so bad that some dictionaries actually contain theories and descriptions, not definitions. By the way, this state of affairs exists now because of the awesome influence of social science in the everyday thinking of language users. Social scientists, like philosophers, have a miss-conceived idea about how language works. They think that definitions are idiosyncratic, private, discoverable, etc. All things that Wittgenstein showed to be false. Physical scientists, interestingly, do understand how language works.</p>

<p>As Mark seems to be indicating, Wittgenstein did not claim that a dictionary gives the full meaning of a word. It doesn't. But this still does not make it meaningful to claim that dictionaries do not contain rules for the use of words. They do. It's just that the rules are usually more complicated than can be stated in a single-sentence definition. I think though that Mark may have the same problem that many interpreters of Wittgenstein have had. My guess is that he does not understand what Wittgenstein was actually saying. Wittgenstein was not advocating prototype theory and he did not think philosophical problems can be solved by thinking in terms of categories. I would suggest one read Baker and Hacker (1982) in "Language and Communication" for a correct introduction to Wittgenstein's thoughts as expressed in the "Philosophical Investigations". The blog post Mark cites contains a number of misunderstandings about how language works that were actually pointed out by Wittgenstein. Interestingly, Mark seems to think that I might be "looking for" a definition. This would imply some form of empirical investigation to determine the meaning of the word photography. But Wittgenstein showed that the meaning of a word is not discoverable. One can not look for and discover a definition. Definitions are laid down, made-up, not discovered. This was precisely Aristotle's problem. He thought that it was possible to theorize about and discover the meanings of words. This error is one that now exists widely throughout philosophy, social science and art.</p>

<p>John, I'm trying to say that our language is not sufficiently evolved to speak coherently about the work of the artists you mention. Suppose I use a hammer to bash a print I have made full of holes. Is this photography or is this construction or is it something else? Construction workers would rightly be upset if we were to call this a construction project. Why? Because it implies that the individual that did it has construction working skills or is, at least, a construction worker. This is why so many photography competitions ask for the RAW file. The people that run the competition want to identify photographic skill, not digital art skills.</p>

<p>Thanks John for the references to the artists you cite - interesting. Let's consider John Pfahl. He may be important and the art community may have rallied round him, but this says nothing about whether or not he is a good landscape photographer. It just says that the art community likes his work. To suggest that his work is special because the art community respects it would be art snobbery in the highest degree. What I see is a person that takes pretty ordinary, mundane images and then employees a fairly rudimentary set of post-production procedures to create something unusual. So I see a pretty ordinary photographer that is also an artist. Is he a good artist? What are the criteria? Give them and we can easily say whether he is good or not. I suppose this is the upside to having no criteria. Even a very poorly made and processed image can be called great art.</p>

<p>I'm not objecting in any way to using a camera in new, unusual and creative ways to create art. What I would like to see is the photography community calling a "spade a spade" so to speak. Just call it what it is, and everyone is happy. You don't see people running around upset at the limiting nature of Thursday. And this is simply because no-one is trying to call Wednesday, Thursday, for instance.</p>

<p>I wonder, why do people want to call a digital art project photography? What's the benefit? What's the upside here? Just call it digital art. What's the problem? Could it be that it's easier to sell photography than digital art? Hmmmm, I wonder. Best, JJ</p>

<p>Thanks John, I think we agree more than I thought at first. First let me deal with this internal/external criterion thing.</p>

<p>Saying "I like that" is vacuous in and of itself. As soon as one articulates reasons why, one is beginning the process of developing criteria that may become external. I admit now, I have used unclear terminology to express what I mean by internal and external. So let me just say this....any feature of an image or the process of making an image that have been be clearly articulated, codified (written down somewhere) in a public forum (dictionary, text, art book) and are NOT discovered is an external criterion. The discovery thing is important. This just means that we can not establish a criterion for a good image by doing a survey of artists, for instance. The fact that 90% of people are moved by Lady GaGa can not be used as a criterion for good music.</p>

<p>Post hoc justifications and rationalizations are not external criteria because they have not been codified. They are just stuff one comes up with when one indulges oneself in rationalizing why one likes something. If you can't say what you think is good now...before looking at an image, then you don't have external criteria. If you don't have external criteria, then you should not be called a serious art critic or photography judge.</p>

<p>So, for example, John has just listed as a series of external criteria for determining whether or not an image is a good one. He is saying....images are good if they meet some combination of the following X criteria. This makes the criteria external to him in the sense that they are now public. This is important because it allows us to hold John and the community of photography judges accountable. To be doing sound image assessment judges must first know the criteria (they must have some provable expertise) and then they must be bound by them - they can't just indulge themselves and call any old thing good if they happen to like it. This also enables artists to engage in a coherent attempt to produce good images. They now know what it is they are supposed to be doing. Of-course, these criteria are not limiting, they simply define what good is. An artist can do things that are new, creative, insightful, etc., and still be doing good photography. The criteria John has given do not disallow such new and creative forms of expression.</p>

<p>Exactly the same thing is true of judging whether or not something is photography. For the word to have any meaning at all, it's meaning must be given by external criteria. John gave one...it was:</p>

<p>"Photography is more encompassing than even whether a camera has been used or not--it is purely the writing with light and so includes photograms for instance." </p>

<p>John has given a definition here. This definition serves as a public rule for the use of the word photography. If we were to have a debate about whether John is right about what photography is, all we would have to do is compare this definition to what it says in the Oxford Dictionary. If the two correspond, John is right. If not, he is wrong.</p>

<p>And, sadly, he is wrong. And I know this without even looking in the dictionary. I know this must be a wrong definition because it contains a metaphor. And the Oxford Dictionary would never define with metaphor. The phrase "writing with light" is a metaphor. It is not what photography actually is but rather a figure of speech used for illustrative purposes.</p>

<p>So what is photography then? It is the taking and processing of photographs. The question is, what does processing mean? Does this word mean, the digital alteration and addition/removal of subject matter within an image?</p>

<p>Now here is where we have a problem with dictionary definitions from time to time. Whenever a practice changes dramatically and quickly, or whenever new discoveries are made that make old definitions ambiguous, the dictionary often lags behind (this is a common occurrence in science because science is in the business of making new discoveries). I contend that we have just this state of affairs in photography. I suggest that processing was originally intended to denote the kind of processing done in a darkroom. Now that we have digital tools of image manipulation, I think this definition needs attention.</p>

<p>Frankly, I think the art and technique of photography is devalued by allowing in all sorts of drastic digital manipulations of images. I think it is disrespectful of photography to call digital painting in photoshop photography, for instance. The solution to this problem is simple. Leave the defintion of photography as it is with processing having its original meaning (whatever we did with light and color in the darkroom) and create a new concept for all those drastic things people are doing in Photoshop. This way, the art and technique of photography is retained and a whole new art form is born.</p>

<p>Thanks John for your careful responses. I apologize if I have misrepresented your position. I'm trying to understand. Best, JJ</p>

<p>OK good Matt. Then the process is:</p>

<p>1) I like it<br>

2) Post hoc rationalization about why...this may or may not have anything to do with why you ACTUALLY do, in fact, like it. I am a psychologist by training and trust me, we are often very wrong when we attribute a cause/reason to our feelings about something. For instance a person may say, "I like Coca-Cola because it is sweeter than Pepsi". We then do a blind taste test and the same person picks Pepsi and says they like it because it was sweeter than the other drinks. This happens a lot. Attribution theory is the experimental area of research.<br>

Now, if we accept that our attribution of reasons for liking something may or may not have factual grounds, then the basis for liking something, in this case, still comes down to the simplistic avowal "I like it". That bothers me simply because it allows anyone to say any old thing is good no matter what it is. This makes the statement, "I like it" or "it's good", very empty IMO.</p>

<p>BUT, as soon as we articulate our criteria/reasons for liking something and say something like....I will say images are good when they are in focus, aesthetically simple, tell a story, etc., then we make the criteria external/public. Now we have more than simply "I like it' and some post hoc rationalizations as to why.</p>

<p>If we put the criteria FIRST and then make a judgement based upon the criteria, then we are doing something more than saying "I like it". But if we say "I like it" first and then conjure up reasons why, we are doing something I think is problematic or at least vacuous.</p>

<p>But really, I'm not against the idea that liking something is important. Of-course it is important. But liking something and claiming it is great photography are two different things altogether. The question is, what does the claim "X is a great photograph" mean? Does it mean, for example, that I have spoken internally to myself for half an hour and decided I like it because it's yellow. I want to say no. I want to say that it must mean more than this. Otherwise, a great photograph is a decidedly trivial thing.</p>

<p>In any case, I don't really want to take this particular issue on. What I'm really opposed to are points 1 and 2 made by John and many other art types I have met.</p>

<p>Ellis, I think the analogy of beauty assessment you use is not exactly right. Certainly, the particular images we find beautiful will vary from one individual to the next, but the question is....is aesthetic beauty a criterion for a good photograph? If one says ahead of time, I will claim that an image is good if it is aesthetically pleasing to me, then one has established an external criterion. That is, IMO, a sound basis of assessment because it makes public the grounds for judging an image to be good or bad.</p>

<p>John and Stephen...where are you? Cheers, JJ</p>

<p>Matt, we have been through this before. You don't know what I mean by internal. Perhaps it would be better for me to say private rather than internal. A private/internal criterion isn't really a criterion actually. It's a basis for judgement that can not be expressed. It is a simple avowal such as, "I like it". As soon as one says WHY they like it, for instance, the image tells a story, makes me feel something, etc, the criteria are no longer private. One is expressing their criteria PUBLICLY and so they are not INTERNAL or private any more. It is my understanding that John wants all criteria removed because they are limiting. That's what I find problematic. JJ</p>

<p>This thread is designed to provide a more appropriate place than the POW thread to discuss issues relating to the nature of photography and its relationship to art. As I see it, there is a basic disagreement between John A and Stephen P and myself about the nature of photography and the role of digital manipulation in what seems to be (in my view) a fundamental change in what photographers are doing and whether this new way of doing things should be rightly called photography. Obviously, the three of us are not the only people that engage in this debate, but it has become evident that we are the ones that talk most about it on the POW thread. Hopefully, this thread will allow us and any other interested parties to bash out the issues without disturbing others that want to get on with talking about the POW itself.</p>

<p>Now, for lack of a better way to kick this off, allow me to paraphrase some of the things John has said that, in varying degrees, I find problematic (this is not personal John, it's just that you say it most clearly and effectively that you provide a good place to start). Here goes:</p>

<p>1) One is limited in some important way if: a) one does not consider all practices involving a camera to be photography and b) one has public/external criteria for judging/determining an image to be a photograph and/or a good photograph. This has been said in a number of ways but some examples are: a) an image must be evaluated on its own terms, b) judgement of an image must be based upon whether or not it works in the absolute. </p>

<p>2) There is good photography and there is bad photography. </p>

<p>3) Descriptive images are JUST descriptive. When an image does not involve some obvious/clear form of artistic interpretation on the part of the photographer it has, in some sense, less value/depth/interest/?. </p>

<p>Let me start then by giving an admittedly superficial critique of the 3 points above:</p>

<p>1) By analogy one might say that a scientist is limited if he/she rejects astrology as a scientific practice. Being limited has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is simply, what does the word science mean and is astrology encompassed by the word. This problem is related to the issue of external criteria in the judgement of an image. If one has no external criteria, then determining whether an image is a good one is no deeper than "I like it".<br>

2) The problem I have with this point is that it is inconsistent with point 1. To determine whether an image is good or bad one must have external criteria of assessment. This is simply because "I like it" (an internal assessment) is not the same thing as "it is good". There can only be good and bad photography in relation to a set of external criteria. <br>

3) I'm willing to accept point 3 with a proviso. As long as we don't cross-over into artistic snobbery, point 3 is reasonable. In some sense though, I do object to the high-horse the artist wants to ride upon. If there are no external criteria of assessment, great art can only be something lots of people like, something lots of people can be convinced to like or something some people can be convinced to pay a lot of money for. More people like Britney Spears than Mozart. Does this make Britney a better artist than Mozart? Of-course not. How do we know? Because there are external criteria of assessment for music. </p>

<p>In short, I think John represents a position in which it is desired to have things both ways. No limits AND good and bad photography. OK, let the debate begin. Cheers, JJ</p>

<p>Just my experience Masaaki but here are a few things I've noticed about working in the cold:</p>

<p>1) The biggest problem I have is with my tripod. Keep it dry. If not, it my freeze so badly it will take forever to get the legs undone.<br>

2) Make sure to cover your camera when you change lenses. It's not very easy to get ice and snow out of your camera body once it's blown/fallen in. Most likely, you will be your own worst enemy here. Moving a foot, arm, or a branch can all cause headaches.<br>

3) Don't exhale around your camera.<br>

4) Carry at least one spare battery in an inside pocket.<br>

5) Once you take your camera out in the cold, don't take it inside for warmth again and then go back out. Once the camera is out, it's out.<br>

6) Pray.</p>

<p>Happy shooting. JJ</p>

<p>Some years ago my wife bought be a workshop for Christmas with Marc Adamus. It was worth every penny she spent. Not because of what I learned about photography but because of what I learned about the business of photography. Oh, and I also had a blast. Thanks Marc. JJ</p>