rules are made to be broken? and others...

eydryan said:
i admit it's a nice picture but i fail to see the genius. it is clever but i don't think he actually vcould think the last layer. if he could then indeeed he's good, very good...
I doubt if he read everything in to it that I have - mine is a modern analysis done well over 100 years later.
But it is quite obvious that the position of his body to the face in the doorway is no accident. He would have seen the reflection of the camera and himself and it would have been a simple matter to move slightly and get rid of it. He chose not to. Instead he carefully positioned himself with the face in the window - you would be lucky to get that happening that well by accident. You must remember that he used a plate camera which took some setting up and he would probably have only taken the one shot.
Given that the juxtaposition was done on purpose you have to ask the question 'why?'. I know what would have gone through my mind in that situation. I don't see why it shouldn't have gone through Atget's.
If this were an isolated image then I would, of course, hold a different view. But it fits in perfectly with all of his other work, and by looking at his other work you can get an overall feel for the man.
The juxtaposition was entirely purposeful.
If you want further proof, try taking a similar shot and see how much work you have to put in to get it right.

eydryan said:
but thinking again i must disagree. opening your mind may in some cases actually diminguish the quality of your pictures and/or inspiration. thing is, if you are used to taking photos which are supposed to conform to say an idea or some society cliche an open mind may confuse you as opposed just obeying the rules... it's hard to say of course what an open mind and maybe those few cases are indeed very few. but without knowing for sure what you arelooking for, and just opening your mind to everything i have realised i can't focus because i don't know on what.
You misunderstand me.
I meant that you should keep an open mind when viewing photographs.
When taking photographs a different approach is needed - but then, they are two different and distinct acts.
Taking pictures requires that you have some idea of what you want and what you are trying to achieve (why you are taking the picture), if only in a general way. You should try to remain receptive though. Circumstances might offer you a better way or a clearer view. Or dictate something else.
 
hmm, true, but also when looking at a picture some standards must be kept. as you said, landscapes are defined somehow. and you cannot look at a picture without at least making a closed mind decision about what it is and only then can you actually see what the picture has to say. well, anyway i feel like i'm not making very much sense so let's leave this for tomorrow pls because i'm in a very weird mood right now... not very intellectual today:D
 
You keep an open mind by being aware of what you look for in a picture and how you look. If you are aware of your own preferences then you can make allowances for them. Just because you don't care for an image does not mean that it is not any good.
That's enough for Sunday morning - agreed ;)
 
“i have not really studied the history of photography cuz my parents decided economy is more important that photography”

You don’t need to go to school to learn some history. I don’t know what type of resources you have where you live, but I highly suggest, The History of Photography by Beaumont Newhall. Any decent library should have it, or a used book site, or auction site. Other good book, just to learn and expand the mind, Photographers on Photography, out of print but easily found used, and Weston’s Day Books still in print, although in crappy soft bound now.

Photography as art is very much about personal growth and experience, not just those you have with a camera, some of the most influential experiences on my photographic vision were far from photography related… or were they...

“as i see it the money in this art comes from adverts, pics in magazines which impress the viewer instantly either with cliches or with stunning new cliches photographical art does not sell.”

If you are interested in making money from photography, fine art photography is not for you. Unless, you are ready to starve, be rejected, laughed at, be confronted with stiff competition, etc. and still continue to pour your heart and soul into your craft to produce the best possible work you can day after day.

I don’t know a single fine art photographer that goes out to specifically make a photograph with the intent to make money.

“it has to be urban, and i really need a theme,”

Why do you need a theme? Just go and make photographs, do what feels good, if it means just going and watching and taking no photographs, you have still succeeded in experiencing something new, the pictures you make in the end are just a bonus. Don’t worry about rules either, be aware of them sure, but don’t let them limit how you interact with your environment, just be more conscious of what is in your view finder or on the ground glass, patterns, space, light, etc. things that occur naturally around you, not just the moment of the subject or dismiss everything else around it. As you make photographs and produce a body of work themes will just appear naturally in your photographs, sometime it takes others to point it out to you, but it will surface.

“thing is, if you are used to taking photos which are supposed to conform to say an idea or some society cliché”

I mentioned this on another post, but you need to let go of the idea that a visual art such as photography for the intent of art, is about ideas. As a visual art, it is open to interpretation of the viewer and if you are trying to communicate an idea you will ultimately fail.


In reference to the Atget photograph:

This is a very deep photograph, it compels the viewer to wander throughout the photograph in search of something new, a perfect example of a photograph that asks a lot from its viewer and has an innate complexity. The only issue I have is the title, it is to specific for a photograph that is about so much more.

Much of how a photograph is seen is dependent on the photographers vision and the viewers impression. Without experience on either side of the photographer to have a deep vision, that goes beyond a “pretty picture”, pretty defined having value on the surface only, and experience on the side of the viewer who has not developed enough ability or depth in there own seeing, how the photograph is viewed can often be a mismatch. The difference is in the seeing of either and independent of subject matter.
 
ok, i need to get some coffee before i start to read this... :D
of course, there is no coffee in the house. well, that leaves me to choose between milk and a fine assortment of alcoholic drinks. i'll do the bad thing. milk, it is:D

all right, let's debate:D

first, about the history, i have seen from experience that what you learn from a teacher is invaluably better than what you learn by yourself. the learning is easier and fits better in. as for books i usually get them from the british council but they don't really have that many really worth it books, only a few (from about 20-30 just 5-6 are really interesting). i'll search for those books too but i doubt i'll find them... :(

i know that photography teaches you how to see, or is it the other way around? :D well they're interlinked, so if you learn how to see life, you learn how to make photos.

hehe, fine art photography. now that's a goal. but who knows what they really want? i know i don't...

when i go out loaded with cameras and junk i always have a little problem: i sense the scenes, i can even touvch them in my mind, but i can't unlock them. it's as if i went blind all of a sudden when i know i want to takde the photos. you're right too about ignoring the photograpphy and concentrating on the rest but if i do that i'll really end up with no photos :D ever :D

i know that photography is one of the finer arts and like any art it must be made with real liife and real soul, but i just can't seem to enjoy life in the past year. it's all just gray to me. even in the best of times something is missing. and that just doesn't let me see what i should. i just go out there and i start to piece up a puzzle but it only reveals itself when i'm doing something else with no intention of shooting. and then it goes away again... a photographer's block i'd say, but it lasts for quite some time now... :(
 
Well, eydryan, I wish you the best of luck, sincerely. Perhaps the best thing for now is to just observe, but that is for you to decide.

"hehe, fine art photography. now that's a goal. but who knows what they really want? i know i don't..."

It is not about what anyone else wants beside yourself, don't worry about what others think of your photography, trust and confide in your mentors and a few close peers to aid in your growth, but worry little about what the general public wants.

Yes, it does help to learn from a talented teacher whether it be history or technical side of things. Although, all to often I see stundents emerging from the art schools, trying too hard, trying too hard to be different from everyone else and not following what comes naturally to them and invariably ignoring their best work. So, teachers who "get it" are of a rarity to me.

I know you don't know me for a hole in the wall, but I would be willing help you get some books if want.

I wish you the best of luck in your endevours.
JC
 
i honestly thank you a lot for your support and for you lessons i really do, they are inspiring to me, i have seen today that if you do not search for a theme it comes to you naturally...

and you're right about observing, maybe not acting can generate knowledge. in photography as well as in real life.i've never really looked at it like this before... i have always thought that in order to achieve something you must actively make it happen, but you can also make it come your way... confusing, but i get the hang of it, very nice:D

oh and that's one more thing, i don't have mentors, never in my life have i had a role model or such since i can remember. and my close peers don't really do it for me, it's maybe because i am dissatissfied with my friends that i have this attitude towards everything. i'm a boat without a paddle... eh, but that's just my melancholy speaking, i'm usually a very cheery and fun guy... oh, well.

teachers often present their side of the story i admit, but it is better to hear that side and understand it than take your side and not understand anything. the problem with students ius that they are very eager to fulfill their education that they forget what art is about... may be.

i admit i do not know you and you might just be a total psychopath :lol: but it is in the nature of my people to trust in strangers. any stranger is just a friend you haven't discovered... :D because no one will come from somewhere just to steal from you. so they mean well. i for one do not like meeting new people but once i do i make friends with them instantly. it may be my biggest flaw: having many friends, i cannot really get attached to any. but enough about me! :D

about the books, well right now i've just borrowed what i could find off the british council mainly "Complete Idiot's Guide to Photography like a pro", "Photo retouching with adobe photoshop" and "digital photography hacks". and believe me, they were quite the best in there so... i hope next month's book will be better (they buy one of these every month). right now i'm not going into any bookshops because i;m low on cash and my girlfriend's birthday is this week so i'll just leave it for another time. but when i get some cash, thank you for your very kind offer, i'll speak to you and maybe you can buy me one from there and i'll mail you the money :D ok?

so thank you again for all you've done and for wishing me luck, i seem to have some these days :D

ok, now let's see what the rest of my mailbox contains :D
 
eydryan said:
when i am on the street mainly doing nothing without my camera i see all kinds of brilliant shots, however when i take the camera it all fades away

When you don't have your camera your mind's eye is not limited by reality. You combine the visual aspects of the scene with many other senses and feelings; a camera merely records the visual aspects of the scene. One of the first things any visual artist must learn is see what is actually there, instead of seeing what you think is there. Reality often doesn't live up to our imagination.

To create an image that captures not only what is there visually, but also what you felt, you must pre-visualize your finished photograph. Very often the final image may not be completely accurate with reality, so you must be familiar with all the steps between seeing the scene and creating a final print (or whatever your intended output is). This way you can alter the image to provide the viewer with the feelings you felt that made you want to take the photograph in the first place.

Ansel Adams is often credited with the concept of pre-visualization. I have to believe it's too basic of a concept to be truely any one person's creation, but his books are a good resource. Particularly check out "The Making of 40 Photographs". It's 40 photos, and his thoughts about creating them. Here are a bunch of Ansel Adams quotes ( from www.photoquotes.com ) to inspire you.

"In my mind's eye, I visualize how a particular . . . sight and feeling will appear on a print. If it excites me, there is a good chance it will make a good photograph. It is an intuitive sense, an ability that comes from a lot of practice."

"When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my minds eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without."

"I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching - there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster."

"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter."
 
that could be one thing, but it's different, i actually see frames when i don't have the camera. i see angles, exposures everything comes naturally, but when i've got the camera it all freezes.

i've just downloaded the work of the masters off the lan and they're quite impressive, especially for those days. i haven't quite had time to see it all, it's quite a lot. ansel adams for example, for 1930 made some extraordinary landscapes, even for today...

what he says in those quotes is the point of view as a master, a man who has so much experience that to him things just click into place with no or little effort...
 
eydryan said:
what he says in those quotes is the point of view as a master, a man who has so much experience that to him things just click into place with no or little effort...

Before he was a master photographer, Ansel Adams enjoyed the great outdoors: hiking, camping, etc... He brought along the standard point-n-shoot of the day to record the majestic scenes he was seeing, but when he got the pics back they were crappy snapshots, not at all conveying the intense emotions he wanted to convey. So began his passion for photography.

No matter how good you get, it is unlikely that you will make great photos "with no or little effort". The difference between master and novice is rarely talent as much as it is effort.
 
It escapes me at the moment where I read or heard this, but later in life Ansel admitted somewhat that previsualiztion to the extent of seeing the final print was a bit of an over statement.

I would personally hate to be able to visualize the final print, sure I have a good idea of how things will be recorded on film, but I never know what I truely have until I print the negatives. Afterall, if you could see the final print, what would be the point in taking the photograph? To me that would be boring.

Also, I forgot to ask eydryan, what rules you were refering to in the subject of your first post? I mentioned being aware of them in one of my responses, but what I consider rules are most likely completley different than most would. I speak in terms of perspective control, understanding exposure more of the technical... and nothing to do with suposed rules of composition.
 
ksmattfish said:
To me it is fascinating, almost like magic.

I ask this out of curiosity:

Why do something when you know exactly how it will turn out? The sense of discovery throughout the process would then be lost.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top