if my photographs more accurately reflected my memories

[newrmdmike]

then they may look more like these. I think about how distorted in one way or another our memories are, and how they are full of 1/2 truths. then i think about how i push one reality with photographs and looking back found some that i felt were distorted in a way that lent to the purity of my memories rather than a more decisive photograph . . . or more CLEAR and defined.

all 3 of these are for me vey clear, or at least the memories i have associated with them, and perhaps its because of the vagueness. somehow these photos all taken over a year ago, still manage to evoke a very strong memory from the time they were taken, even though i knowingly took them out of focus, or with very selective focus. could it be that the less detail we give ourselves, that with only enough detail to rely on our brains - that we are able to evoke a more emotional response in ourselves?

 

[Torus34]

You've the start of a concept here: can we get across the idea of time-warped distortion of memory in a photographically-derived print? You're on the right track when you include the word 'emotion'. Let's peek a bit deeper.

Our memories tend to distort, true. Details fade. Eventually, only basic overall conceptual constructs remain, sometimes including specific objects or settings.

Cameras can be used in ways which distort and blur the image. Digital post-processing adds a 'tool kit' which goes beyond film's capabilities here. The 'machinery' -- the gear -- exists to attack the artistic problem you've described. So it becomes a matter of what you want the final print to say. It should be a 'statement' which the viewer will grasp.

I think the first rough cut should center on universals. The print should evoke a generic memory common to almost all viewers. Once that particular memory is recognized, the way in which the distortion of the print affects it should also be quite clear.

Ain't easy. A print which says something beside 'Isn't this beautiful?' has always been the serious photographer's Holy Grail. Transferring a concept from one medium to another [intellectualized memory to graphics, in this case] is just plain hard to do, much less do well.

If you'll indulge me in an old man's folly of self-quote:


Resources

I try to take what my eyes see here and mold it, shape it, transpose it into words.

But eyes have no dictionary and can't spell very well.


Good luck. Do post your progress.

 

[Torus34]

Hollywood has provided a 'memory' cliche. Think of a child in period clothes blowing out a candle on a birthday cake. Shallow depth of field blurs everything except for the central image. Tone it sepia and you've got it.

But, as I said, it's a cliche. I don't think that's what you're after.

 

[WimFoto]

interesting posts. in this way images become very personal, so personal that no else appreciates their beauty or aesthetic quality. your three photos are prove of that.
we then entirely take these photos for ourselves?

 

[MasiKast]

A good friend of mine once said, "My memories are like a wallet fold out of overexposed negatives and bubbly beer soaked pictures. I can kind of see whats going on, but I'm not sure who it was or where it happened. I just know it was a s**t ton of fun..."

But for me personally, I have a crappy memory, so all I can trust are the photos I take. Blurry or not they do seem to help!

I dig it!:thumbup:

 

[skywalker]

Some photos are successful not because of the technic of author,, but we always emphasis on that point and ignore the more precious contents inside the photos...