Brutally Honest Critique Section

[mysteryscribe]

Now I'm going to have to do a confession thing. Most of the pictures I take these days, I take to test cameras I have reassembled. So they are sort of illustrations. By the way I thought the lady who retured the pic because it didnt match her bathroom was a moron.

So, the difference I hope is that when I shoot pictures to test cameras, they come back looking, not just okay it doesnt leak light, but okay I can use it as a sample. That is if I can manage the festival thing this year. I shoot not with any preconcieved idea, but just bringing all the elements together to make something someone else would like. Something that will appeal to the festival goer, or at least match their bathroom colors.

I'm no longer driven to express myself, I'm just driven to show off now. If that sounds confusing I'm sorry. I spent thirty years shooting to sell it's hard to shoot any other way.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

So, the difference I hope is that when I shoot pictures to test cameras, they come back looking, not just okay it doesnt leak light, but okay I can use it as a sample. That is if I can manage the festival thing this year. I shoot not with any preconcieved idea, but just bringing all the elements together to make something someone else would like. Something that will appeal to the festival goer, or at least match their bathroom colors.

I'm no longer driven to express myself, I'm just driven to show off now. If that sounds confusing I'm sorry. I spent thirty years shooting to sell it's hard to shoot any other way.

Pre-conceived means, essentially, thought of before-hand.
If you were taking pictures purely and simply to test the camera you would be better off using a standard test target.
But you don't. You have already decided that you wish to combine checking the camera with taking pictures that you can use for another purpose.
So what 'elements' do you bring together?
Presumably they are items that you have found and arrange, or a view that you have seen.
In both cases there is a fair degree of selection going on. And as you have the intention of maybe selling the results at Festivals then the selection of elements, and all else that follows up to the production of the print, is coloured by this intention.
But this all takes place at the subliminal level. Which is why nothing that we do is anything other than pre-meditated, and also why most people are not aware of it.
Once you do become aware of it you can harness it and use it to your advantage, because the viewer likewise responds to things at the subliminal level.
This is where true art begins.



(I have been a Scientist, an Artist and a professional Photographer so I have seen it from many more sides than most )

 

[mysteryscribe]

Im sure as heck no scientist but the other two I think I say I have been. Plus a few others that have nothing to do with photography but do have somethng to do with human nature.

I will grant you that 30 years of experiences and training that never ends does come into play without me doing a lot of thinkings about it. I grant you that when I do a still life I set it up using the rules of composition that have been hammered into me.

My idea of light usable has changed over the last year, I all but tossed my 283 and studio lights, but I still don't think I have anything in mind but to make a picture nothing more important or earth shaking than just to shoot a picture. they work or they don't work, film is cheap. (Not as cheap as digital files but still the cheapest think in my case.) and there is always tomorrow to do it again. A new way of thinking for me so I am not so intense any more.

I think there are shades of differences. I think people are totally unpredictable and those who think they can shoot pictures that are universal are fooling themselves. No offense intended. I don't think they every mean the same thing to two people. I see them and think one thing and someone else sees them and thinks another and thus will it always be. In my opinion which doesn't count for a hill of beans in this crazy world. Sorry couldnt resist that one.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I think people are totally unpredictable and those who think they can shoot pictures that are universal are fooling themselves.

People are all too predictable - and generally easy to manipulate, especially their emotions.
If this were not so we wouldn't have Advertising and Politicians.
Film and Literature wouldn't work either.
Study Psychology and Communication Theory and you will see what I mean.

Great Art is Universal - try standing in front of Michaelangelo's David, one of Monet's water-lilly paintings or watching Lean's Lawrence of Arabia. You'll have pretty much the same experience as the person next to you.
And if it works in those media than it can - and does - work in Photography.

 

[markc]

I think I get where each of you are coming from. Mysteryscribe, I don't think Hertz is trying to say that this is the only way to do photography, but that it can be a medium with a much more powerful message than simply letting someone interpret an image any which way. I think the Rorschach comparison is a good one. Shooting an image with the intent to let the viewer have their way with it is very similar to shooting an abstract. I see a landscape, portrait, or still life without intent or direction as being very much like a photo of oil drops on water. They can be very beautiful and wonder images, but the most that they say is, "Look at this. Pretty!" There is nothing wrong with that if that is your goal. It sure can be a lot less frustrating.

If you want to have a message, then choices need to be made to direct the viewer to that message. It's doesn't have to be anything earthshattering. If you want a tree to be a magic tree, then you might dodge and burn to bring out a glow, or boost it's contrast or saturation compared to the background. You would do something that says "this tree is magic."

Here's two images of my own. One to me is just pretty (and very open to people's imagination), the other means something to me. It seems to have been at least partially successful, as people seem to get out of it some of what I intended. One of my frustrations right now is getting so that I make the choices that emphasize my intent even more.

 

[mysteryscribe]

No arguements on either score but frankly what you see in one and not the other I ant tell by what you shot. They both have the same impact on me. That was my point I think. But I'm glad to see someone else weigh in.

 

[markc]

Then I guess I failed, at least partially. At it's what I want to develop in order to get a better success rate, so that more people see what I see. I don't want to write a drama that someone laughs at or a comedy that makes someone cry.

Again, that's my goal. I don't want to imply that it should be anyone else's.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Marc there are two different moods shown each is shown fully... I can't image that one is better than the other. One shows a child in thought and one in play. Both are real emotions and you show them as real. I don't know what more you could have done.

 

[mysteryscribe]

by the way you are one smart guy. and I mean that as a huge compliment. Most of the people I know who have as much knowledge about this are as old as me.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Photography can also be a medium for self-exploration - trying to work out what makes yourself tick.
My point was that pictures can just be seen as 'eye-candy', but that is taking a very narrow view.
Whether we realise it or not, everything we do says something about us - and that includes the pictures we take.
I just come at it from the direction of being in control of the medium, rather than having the medium control me. Using a brush to paint what's in my head rather than just chucking the paint at the canvas and hoping for the best.
If you want to communicate you have to learn the language


(And you'll find that on here if you tend to stray into the more 'conceptual' side of Photography then you usually come up against Mark and/or me )

 

[mysteryscribe]

I copitulate except to say this one thing. If you always have a point and if you always bring it to every photograph and every photograph has this "Great point", then why the judgement on the two girls? Wasn't it just two different well make photographs, taken from two different places.

And trust me on this, Im way past trying to make earth shattering concept photographs. I just want to make pictures using all the tools from my tool box, if i can rememeber what all is in the box.

 

[markc]

I'll spill the beans.
One of the ways I like to describe my photography is to say that I want to photograph the way Neil Gaiman writes. That doesn't quite work if you aren't familiar with him, but his stories often have the element of the supernatural or unreal just under the surface of the everyday. Most people go about their business unaware, but the special few... Tim Powers is another good example of an author who uses this, but he's probably even less known.

It's a bit ironic but my "message" is that different people see the world differently. However, I'm not content to let them see my work just any old how. I want to try to create this awareness by giving them one specific view: the one I create! Odds are, it's going to be different than what they are used to, so while it might make them a touch uncomfortable, they will be seeing things differently than if they had been there. Part of the problem comes from the fact that they weren't there, so there's no direct comparison. I have to hope that the image can do it on it's own.

In the case of the two girls, there are two very different intents. The first one is meant to be just nice to look at... cute. There are many of the elements I use there (my "style"): b&w, short DOF, higher contrast, larger areas of dark and light... These are all things I've learned help me in my goal. I was unaware of that during this shoot; it was mostly subconscious. I just picked what I thought I liked looking at. It wasn't until later when I took a class called "Finding Your Style" that I became aware of this simple yet often elusive idea.

While processing this shoot, some of that came to the surface for me. It was after taking the images, so there was only so much I could do. The first image would pretty much have to stand as is. At the time, I was only consciously thinking of getting something "nice". The second I could do more with. My subconscious was more successful with the capture. While I was hitting the shutter, a different feeling bubbled up and I knew I was getting something I really wanted. While working on it, I could do more with the contrast, dodging, burning, etc. It's one of my favorite images now because I feel out of everything I've done, it most successfully represents what I want to expand and concentrate on in the future.

What I see, and what I hope others do, even if it's just subconsciously, is an etherealness or otherworldly feel. And hopefully a bit of spookiness. A cute young girl, the glow in her hair, the white dress, her playing... that's all happiness. But the dark bushes/trees, the blurred background, grey sky, her expression, the disjoint of her dress in this setting... that has the effect of adding something a touch off-kilter. Nothing too terribly sinister, but something along the nature of Puck or pixies. Pranksters that aren't out to hurt you, but aren't exactly safe either. I'm not going for something that literal, but of that feeling.

One of the reason that I think I found myself shooting children so often is that they spend so much of their time in their own little worlds. That lends itself well to what I'm doing. This probably wasn't at all what was in her world at that moment, but it makes it very easy for me to place her their. I used to spend my time thinking of a world of dangerous magic and sneaking creatures. This is my attempt at putting that into imagery.

My big frustration right now is that in order for me to be more successful in making the kind of images I want to make, I have to be much more directed in my shooting. I've always just been the observer, trying to put myself in the right position, making the right choices, and hitting the shutter at the right time. To get what I really want, I'm going to have to start taking a more direct approach when dealing with the subject, which isn't something I'm very comfortable with yet. It's one of the reasons I'm shooting more with adults now, in sessions with more intent in them. It's been a step backwards as far as what ends up on paper, but something I have to get comfortable with before I can more forward.

Anyway, lots of babble. Hope that made some sense.

And thanks for the compliment.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Actually it all makes sense just not what I think. Mark, if you can find it and I doubt that you can any more, there is a book called the daybooks of edward weston. You really should try to read them. Weston was a man driven to do what you guys are talking about. There is a lot in them you will like. I enjoyed them on a totally different level, but there is a great sense of struggle with himself and the art that you should enjoy. I gave my set to my son in law when he took over my business. Not sure he ever read them. He is a lot more materialistic than I am even.

Anyway I think I get it, but I didn't agree with weston and I dont really agree with what you guys say, but I do recognize it as a ligitiment persuit. I wish you luck in it and i am not being flip or sarcastic. I don't understand the mind set, but that doesn't mean I cant respect it.

Both pictures were equally good to my eye by the way. You took your tool box and did an excellent job but in the end, you have to satisfy just one person YOU... Let the others see and take whatever they want from it... that shouldn't really effect you, not on the bottom end of it all... you can not make us see. You can try to educate us maybe, but you can't force us to see your vision. That vision is based in your own experiences and our vision limited though it is, is based in ours.

At the end Weston would shoot pictures that he thought were great and then sell them to people who thought they were something different. He still had to eat the peppers he shot, in order to survive. There is something in that. And he shot women on commission just like anyone else in order to survive. But none of that changed how HE saw his work. In the end it's like writing. You do it for you, and hope someone else will like it one day.

Style, I write in southern dialect ms word, where a lot of people try to read it, lights up like a christmas tree. I have learned to say, "Hey I don't write like your high school english teacher." Then just let them think what they want to think. Nothing I say is going to change their minds. When you have to explain it, they aren't going to get it. I think that is what has happened here. I know what you are saying, but it just doesn't work for me.

 

[markc]

That's cool. I don't want to try and convince you to do things differently, but just to explain. It sounds like we understand each other.

 

[mysteryscribe]

funny think is I was sitting outside building a film older for a retro I am working on when I had a thought. This is about viewers not photographers. Over the years I have found that when I show at different places I get different reactions. If Im at a craftshow sale, I get more of the match my bathroom colors. At gallery or sidewalk art shows I got more of the wonder what that really means.

No conclusions, just a passing observation.