david_smith110

<blockquote> <p>Can you name something we experience that doesn't move the human soul?</p> </blockquote> <p>Waiting for the bus. A completely mundane experience that usually does not in and of itself move the human soul. However it can be argued that once we board the bus then both our body and our soul will be moved along to our destination.</p> <p>But what we can do is use photography to make an otherwise unmoving, normal act into an image which can then generate powerful emotion. Imagine a dark and overcast rainy day, thunderclouds roiling in and puddles on the ground. Standing in the rain next to the bus stop sign is an elderly person with a small push basket of groceries beside them leaning heavily on a cane. They clutch their flapping jacket tight about them to ward of the chill, wet wind. Shoot this in black and white while exposing the worn and haggard face and any number of emotions can be generated. Why did this frail elderly person choose today to venture out? The food suggests hunger and an empty pantry. Necessity is most likely that drove them from a warm comfortable abode. Viewers will look upon this scene and might fell pity, or hope, or triumph over adversity. It may remind them of a loved one or make them think twice when they pass the old fellow down in 2c....maybe ask him next time they see him if there is anything they can do for him.</p> <p>No...not everything moves the human soul. But photographs should strive to.</p> <blockquote> <p>I agree that there are differences between painting and photography. But I disagree with the overall message in this paragraph and, as importantly, I think there are many similarities between painting and making photos that can be understood and utilized to great creative advantage.</p> </blockquote> <p>I am glad you brought this up Fred, though I feel we may still disagree. And also to David for bringing up music and how it relates to photography. So lets see how music and painting relate to photography.</p> <p>They dont.</p> <p>Keep in mind that the following thoughts are coming from someone who's only artistic ability is photography. I cant play any instruments, I cant carry a tune in a bucket, and I have little to no painting or drawing ability. Having admitted all this, I will be the first to say that among the grand and ancient Arts of humanity photography is little more then a charlatans trade, a parlor trick. It was late to the party, came in thru the back door and was only let in because it knew Painting, and Drawing reluctantly vouched for it.</p> <p>As long as there have been people there has been music, and dance, and scribbling s on cave walls. I firmly believe that Music is woven into the fabric of the universe and I have always envied those who can master it and bring such beauty into the world with sound. Music has made me break out in goose bumps and, at times, cry. It is one of the fundamental Arts of our species, followed closely by painting and dance and prose. These are true arts, that require little more then the most basic of tools, and sometimes not even that.</p> <p>Photography was not possible until man reached a certain technological level. Thru dangerous and poisonous alchemy (at first) and then later thru circuit boards photographer have been snapping away and proudly exclaiming that they have "captured the moment" and 'stopped time". But unfortunately a camera only captures a small slice of reality in a tiny, broken 2D way. I feel the best way to describe a photograph is to call it a poor recollection of an unclear memory. To much is removed in the taking and to much added in the viewing. Dont get me wrong, it is this very transient nature of the image that lends photography its magical nature. But in reality it is little more then a trick of the light, a poor copy of something that wasnt there. We are not beings who are designed to break the infinite stream of time down into a single sliver. We are meant to experience it as continues headlong rush into a raging river. When you hold the flat, two dimensional photograph in your hand you can remember back to the event and old feelings can be stirred. But all to often the photograph will actually warp that memory...until you original feeling are gone, replaced by what you feel when you look at the photograph. </p> <p>Insidious to be sure, but the human mind is a crazy place. Dont get me wrong, Photography is most definitely an art. But (and these are just my personal musing) I rank it very low in the pantheon. It is a technical thing, and understanding of how a little mechanical device sees light. Yes, artistic and compelling results are possible and happen all the time. Is it related to Painting and Drawing? Yes, in an long distant, kissing cousins kind of way. But I think it is very telling that anyone who has the innate ability to paint or draw can pick up a camera and in very little time start producing art, especially thru the modern trickery of PS. But conversely, the best photographer in the world will have a devil of a time trying to learn how to paint if that skill is not in them to begin with.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Sure, sure...believe what you will.</p> </blockquote> <p>I will, and I do.</p> <blockquote> <p>Ironically, this sounds like one of those rules that don't exist.</p> </blockquote> <p>A reason is not a rule.</p> <blockquote> <p>More importantly, it's false. A forensic photo doesn't usually move human souls. It represents something, as accurately as possible. Now, a forensic photo might move the human soul in the way any stimulus would, but then that's just a fact of living and not a unique property of photos.</p> </blockquote> <p>It is hard to imagine something more compelling and moving then photos that document the violence and crime of one person against another, or one person against themselves. It is only through years of exposure to such things that we get jaded and turn off that part of us this is moved or effected by this. This is especially true of those in law enforcement or the criminal justice system. I dont quite understand how you attempt to separate the moving the human soul the way 'any stimulus' would and the way a crime scene photo would. They are in fact one in the same.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Full of myself? Quite possibly. Correct in everything I said? Most definitely.</p> <blockquote> <p>There are many more bad images on Flickr than good, as judged by, "would anyone not involved with the image want to see it?"</p> </blockquote> <p>You make the mistake here of assuming the worth of a photo is only from the point of view of the viewer. Or, more accurately I believe, from the point of view as yourself as the viewer.</p> <p>I gave the very same response to an earlier post about what makes a good photograph. "A good photograph is the sound of one hand clapping". All the reasons I listed above ring true here as well.</p> <p>To label a photograph as 'good' or 'bad' is the beginning of what I feel is a completely erroneous way to approach photography. And unfortunately we as humans do this in almost all aspects of our life. Without ever once admitting to ourselves that nobody has been able to answer the age old good/bad dilemma in any conclusive manner. The best I have ever experienced can shared by reading <em>Zen and the Art of Motorcycle </em><em>Maintenance </em>by Robert Prisig. That 'inquiry into values' is an amazing piece of work and I highly recommend it to anyone.</p> <p>How does one define a good photograph? Is it from the perspective of the shooter? Or the perspective of the subject? If professional paid work is it viewed solely from the point of view of the client? Or possibly from the point of veiw from the young girl who sees the ad in a magazine and makes a purchasing decision based on said ad? What about the grieving mother who recently lost a daughter who sees the ad and is reminded of her loss because that is the make up her child used? Or should we view it from the perspective of the grocer from whom you purchase bread with the money you made from the photo. Im sure the grocer would think it a very fine photo indeed since it puts money in his pocket. The grieving mother may think quite differently.</p> <p>The point is that every photograph is both good and bad. A photo is nothing more then an image that stimulates a reaction in the human brain when viewed by our eyes. In that sense every photo ever taken is exactly the same. Yet sometimes an image can create powerful emotions that delve deep into the conscious or even sub conscious mind of the viewer to generate remorse or humor or pain or love or whatever. While I believe that photographs such as this are what we as photographers should strive to create with every breath and every click I in no way believe that other, 'lesser' photos are bad. It is just that I simply cannot in my given place and time make a reference to them that allow them to effect me in a powerful way. Is this because of a heightened sense of artistic acuity? That is probably what my ego would say.</p> <p>What I see when I view an image you would probably classify as 'bad' is an attempt. I am seeing the result of a fellow human being either thru purpose or chance making an attempt to tap into the powerful well of emotions that a photograph can generate. It is this very outpouring of human creativity that prevents me from pointing at it and saying 'Wow, that is a bad photograph".</p> <p>Much like the path one follows when trying to understand Zen the path a photographer must follow is dimly lit and convoluted. But one should always recognize and praise the attempt, no matter how small the result when viewed from our much further place on the path.</p> <blockquote> <p>I looked at your referenced images. I didn't see where you are breaking rules. Why don't you link to a specific image?</p> </blockquote> <p>I think you missed my point. I dont shoot with rules, therefor I break none.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You cannot fail to follow the rules of exposure and stop-action, when applicable, and expect a good image. However, these day, the camera will get it right 90+% of the time. Although the image may not be optimal, it'll be acceptable to most people.<br> About composition, many of us learn from looking at the images of others and just absorb and adopt the "rules" subconsciously. Other, like me, learned composition as a 12-year old student, aided by rules and examples that our instructor showed us. Fifty-four years later, without a checklist, I'm looking for something of interest in the foreground, or out on the extremes on an ultra-wide; I'm placing the horizon somewhere other than the middle (unless it's a reflection), etc., etc.<br> Could a gifted artist shoot very attractive images without any express knowledge of the rules of composition? Yes, of course, but I'd say that such people are the exception rather than the rule. Go to Flickr and pick out a random user that's not "Explored" or "interesting" and you'll likely find someone that needs to learn a few "rules."</p> </blockquote> <p>What a load of drivel. </p> <p>The fact of the matter, as I alluded to in my original statement (The rules of photography is the sound of one hand clapping) is that there are no such things as 'rules' in 'photography'.</p> <p>Photographic procedure cannot be classified in the same way as, say, the laws of physics. Or the Rule of Law. Or anything actually that can be quantified. The existing so called 'rules' of photography are simply agreements between esteemed practitioners of the art who thru the years have attempted to codify the mystical into the mundane. Or by art critics who like to sit around and discuss the artistic merits of composition or color or blah blah blah whatever. Or by teachers of the craft who try to instill in eager students a basic set of 'this good, that bad' mentality. Years later these very same students will look back on their body of work and have the epiphany that their best photos were the very ones that broke all those 'rules'.</p> <p>Photography is about this and nothing more.....the creation of a compelling image that can move the human soul. There are no rules at all that apply to that. Photography is Art. Photography is Love. Photography is the cry of an anguished human spirit or the grand triumph over adversity. NONE of these things can ever have rules applied to them.</p> <p>"What is the sound of one hand clapping?" This is a famous Zen koan. It doesnt have a singular answer as its purpose it to gauge ones journey along the road of understanding Zen. The answer I have come to believe fits the best for me is...The sound of one hand clapping is no sound at all. So the question in effect is really asking "What is the sound of Nothing"?</p> <p>Thus, the rule of photography are....nothing. "Do what thou wilt, that is the whole of the law", to quote Mr. Crowley.</p> <p>I have never once, not even one singular time, ever given the slightest bit of thought to a supposed 'Rule' as I have swung my camera up to my eye to capture an image.</p> <p>Here are some of my flickr sets for those who dont know my photography from previous posts. And from my discussion with flickr friends and other photographers I can guarantee Im not an exception to any 'rule'. Huh...there is that word again.</p> <p>https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157641534772013/<br> https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157629936411965/</p>

<p>The rules of photography are the sound of one hand clapping.</p>

<p>Then I suggest you open your eyes and look around.</p>

<p>A good photograph is the sound of one hand clapping.</p>

<p>Louis, congratulations on your Sonyfication. The city riverscape is lovely.</p> <p>And finaly, A7 with Konica Hexanon 35/2.8. </p> <p><em>the fisherman's net</em><br> <a title="the fisherman's net by f/otographer, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3878/14298939788_bfda1bcf04_c.jpg" alt="the fisherman's net" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>Same combo.</p> <p><em>listening to the world</em><br> <a title="listening to the world by f/otographer, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3919/14537557153_8d38e1329c_c.jpg" alt="listening to the world" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>A7 with Biotar 58/2 on tubes.</p> <p><em>a whisper</em><br> <a title="a whisper by f/otographer, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3875/14334728419_37183f00e2_c.jpg" alt="a whisper" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>Classic Manual Cameras, hands down.</p>

<p>Well, if a picture is worth a thousand words then here are three thousand words.</p> <p><em>high contrast</em><br> <a title="like tiny bubbles the dreams of a child fly free by f/otographer, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7214/7271072652_8067d85f2c_c.jpg" alt="like tiny bubbles the dreams of a child fly free" width="800" height="534" /></a></p> <p><em>hi key</em><br> <a title="portrait of a boy by f/otographer, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8466/8088539770_48bc18b3a6_c.jpg" alt="portrait of a boy" width="534" height="800" /></a></p> <p><em>low key</em><br> <a title="a self portrait by f/otographer, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7315/10702284074_2d358eb4d7_c.jpg" alt="a self portrait" width="534" height="800" /></a></p> <p>It could be argued that my hi key example is a little more hi contrast then hi key, but its the best hi key image I have. It should really be more over exposed but works for display purposes I suppose.</p>

<p>When and if this makes it to an interchangeable lens camera then Sony (and any other maker) would be completely justified in making an entirely new line of lenses. A new sensor technology like this <em>requires </em>a new line of lenses to exploit it. As a matter of fact, I can think of no better reason in recent years for a company to design an entirely new batch of lenses.</p> <p>A design like this has the possibility to significantly change the way sensors and glass work together to create images. This isnt just some new mount design that is a knee jerk reaction to swiftly changing camera fads. This has the possibility to be a paradigm shift of massive proportions.</p> <p>If there are major advantages to using a curved sensor with lenses designed specifically to exploit this technology and the results show noticeable benefits (sharper edge to edge, less CA, etc) then I believe we have just witnessed the event that will justify Canon and Nikon developing a whole new line of mirrorless cameras, now that they truly have a reason to justify the expense of a new set of lenses. That is, depending on how many patents Sony owns on this new tech.</p> <p>Time will tell. This looks promising and I personally hope it is.</p>

<p>And same again.</p> <p><em>exploring the world with daddy</em><br> <a title="exploring the world with daddy by f/otographer, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5117/14440033155_2ed269d475_c.jpg" alt="exploring the world with daddy" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>Same combo.</p> <p><em>my beautiful daughter</em><br> <a title="my beautiful little girl by f/otographer, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5500/14410132236_52f956892f_c.jpg" alt="my beautiful little girl" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>Howard, thanks for the tip. That seems to do the trick. Lex, the drag and drop worked for the HTML code, I assume that is what you meant. Thanks for the tip.</p> <p>A7 with ML 50/1.7</p> <p><em>changing lenses in the park</em><br> <a title="changing lenses in the park by f/otographer, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5523/14243467518_7eff51a42c_c.jpg" alt="changing lenses in the park" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>Well, I wanted to post but cant figure out how to get the new flickr code to post photos. I swear that site is one stop forward, 5000 steps back.</p>

<p>This is very interesting indeed. Hopefully it is a valid new technology with real world applications that Sony will learn to exploit in the future for true advancements in photography. In other words, I hope that its not just curved for the sake of being curved. I am pretty excited about this although it probably wont show up in an interchangeable lens camera for a while.</p> <p>But on this note of innovation, Sony just seems to be on a roll recently. You can tell there are people at that company that are serious about bringing new technologies and advancements to the world of digital imaging. It really make one thing about the 'apparent' lack of innovation on industry leader Cannons part. </p> <p>No, Im trying to start a "Sony is better then Cannon" flamewar. Its just that Sony seems to be pushing for change at a frantic place. Of course if you are not one of the big two and you want market share then I suppose this is what you have to do.</p> <p>Kudos to Sony for thinking (and producing) outside the box. Every shooter everywhere can only benefit from this in the long run.</p>

<p>Tired of daddy taking pictures of her at the park, Chloe summons a deluge to drench daddy and his camera.</p> <p><em>water witch</em><br> <em><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3861/14366821671_2b36f4f6fe_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></em></p>

<p><em>the stillness of the memory</em><br> <em><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2925/14321576851_da1349b231_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></em></p>

<p>Louis, nice shot with the bellows. I have that same combo (not sure which Minotla bellows version) and have never really used it. Need to give it a try.</p> <p>All shots this week on the A7 and Minolta MC Rokkor PF 55/1.7 (version II).</p> <p><em>a dream realized</em><br> <em><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5506/14345101093_2f9c57cf24_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></em></p>

<p>Some shots from my co-workers grandsons 1st birthday party. All shots on A7 with Minolta MC Rokkor PF 55/1.7</p> <p><em>the stillness of the memory</em><br> <em><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2925/14321576851_da1349b231_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></em><br> <em> </em><br> <em>dreams of string and air</em><br> <em><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2934/14138258369_419c65f16a_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></em><br> <em> </em><br> <em>photography's golden age</em><br> <em><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5311/14323136492_f22ecd0e90_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></em><br> <em> </em></p>

<p>Thank you Bethe. :)</p> <p>That photo was taken the same time as the fifth photo down. We were out driving on beautiful Hwy 1, way north of San Fran, past Bodega Bay. I stopped at a little beach so she could go play in the water. I was still quite cold but she managed to splash around for about a half an hour before I decided to take her shivering little self out of the water and back to the car. In the photo you mentioned she was jumping up and down in the shallow surf, over and over, having the time of her life.</p> <p>Her are a couple more from that outing.</p> <p><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7302/12558764745_a145907aaf_c.jpg" alt="" width="533" height="800" /></p> <p><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3831/12707437854_e4161c2ffa_c.jpg" alt="" width="534" height="800" /></p> <p>That last one there is quickly reaching snapshot status. :)</p>

<blockquote> <p>Chloe's a cutie. Nice shots David.</p> </blockquote> <p>:)</p>

<blockquote> <p>Either that, or I would do a straight-up B&W film image of children finger-painting and I would title the image, "Digital imaging."<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Lol. Just freakin lol. :)</p>