non-photography

[thebeginning]

just found this site that has loads of street photography. They have a section on 'non-photography' and how they are taking the rules of photography to their limits (or passing them). i think it is awesome...
here is the site:
http://www.skylightweb.com/imagine/

here is the section on non-photography:
http://www.skylightweb.com/imagine/about.html

 

[j_mcquillen]

They're great shots, but like any art-form, photography has no rules - only guidelines as to what tends to make a pleasing image most of the time. As long as a shot 'works', it doesn't matter if it breaks these guidelines - its still photography! :mrgreen:

 

[Hertz van Rental]

We were doing stuff like this in the 70's and 80's. When I was at College we all armed ourselves with half-frames and as we walked we pointed the camera at random - not using the finder - and saw what we got later. We stole the idea from Dada - and that started about 1910.
As I have said before - there are only three rules in photography and none of them concern composition.

 

[thebeginning]

As I have said before - there are only three rules in photography and none of them concern composition.

what rules?

 

[Unimaxium]

Hertz probably won't tell you. He's been secretive about this stuff before.

 

[ksmattfish]

Why not just stick a digital camcorder on your hat and walk around all day filming everything, then pick out the stills later? Actually, I think that this is where the future of photography for the masses is heading. Once they come up with virtually unlimited storage, and micro cameras why not shoot the whole vacation or B-day party, and sort the good pics out later? Heck, pay someone with a better "eye" to do the sorting.

The site is interesting, but I don't think the author is as free of technical influence as she would like to believe. I think that "anti-consumer photography" would be a better description than "non-photography".

As Hertz said, it's all been done before, a lot.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Why not just stick a digital camcorder on your hat and walk around all day filming everything, then pick out the stills later? Actually, I think that this is where the future of photography for the masses is heading. Once they come up with virtually unlimited storage, and micro cameras why not shoot the whole vacation or B-day party, and sort the good pics out later? Heck, pay someone with a better "eye" to do the sorting.

Thanks for that thought, Matt. I've just lost the will to live...
The footage will probably end up on cable as reality tv shows as well.

As for the site: if the pictures posted on it are examples then I'm afraid they are talking b*llocks. The pictures chosen to illustrate the 'breaking' of one 'rule' still conform to different compositional values. I think the error lies in choice. Nothing is random if you select it - it conforms to your visual values and these are dictated by things you have no control over (and you are not always aware you are doing it). The choice is always of the ones you like and therefore....
The only way to avoid having the pictures conform to compositional values is to print everything and pick them at random, blindfolded. And even then the laws of chance are against you.
It's a 'fill your gas tank with water and add this pill' scam. A nice idea that can't possibly work.

As for my three unbreakable Laws... :mrgreen:

 

[Rogue Monk]

The site is interesting, but I don't think the author is as free of technical influence as she would like to believe. I think that "anti-consumer photography" would be a better description than "non-photography".

As Hertz said, it's all been done before, a lot.

Yup.

I believe that the section on "make your first non-photo" would fall under rules or guidelines (what ever label you decide to use).

I'd be careful about the "non-consumer" label too. This sort of "zero-composing/limited-control" is becoming a fad and people (the consumer) actually like what they shoot--hanging it on walls and such. It borders on abstraction.

Here's another link. This one called "lomography".

With the continued decrease in digital P&S prices, its only a matter of time before this is considered "mainstream".

 

[santino]

I agree with Hertz and Matt.

 

[ksmattfish]

Thanks for that thought, Matt. I've just lost the will to live...

I don't mean that we have to do it that way, but it would be very convenient for the folks who aren't into photography, and just want the "memories".

 

[oriecat]

Matt, you'd better patent that camcorder-hat while you can. You'll make a bundle.

 

[ksmattfish]

Matt, you'd better patent that camcorder-hat while you can. You'll make a bundle.

It probably won't be a hat, more like a broach

EDIT: I changed my mind, it'll be a sinister orb that hovers over your left shoulder :cyclops:

 

[Wade2go]

I think the non-photography site is a great inspiration. :thumbup: it is no doubt a refreshing change from the traditional approach which some of you seem to be stuck on.
maybe you just don't get it. maybe you don't want to get it.
either way, check out her photoblog the streets are alive she talks about street photography and it makes sense. remember to keep an open mind!
-W

 

[doxx]

the kid just needs a name. Whatever you call it, there are
limited approaches with a camera... use of viewfinder or
not - the outcome is important. A photograph is more
appreciated if the composition is nice - the viewer might
not be able to tell why, but it's all based on the 'rules' of
nature (referring to DaVinci here)

I'd say 'one can't re-invent the wheel'. Nice stuff nonetheless.

 

[chris]

You can only go so far with ignoring the rules, especially when they apply to exposure. We are now used to colour negative films with very wide exposure latitude which encourages the view that accurate exposure is not necessary. However, get too far away from the correct exposure that you will end with nothing to print - maybe that is non-photigraphy, more like a non-event though. The correct exposure may depend upon what part of an image you want to see detail in, as in exposing for shadows, midtones or highlights.

When it comes to composition there are rules which will usually give a visually pleasant inmage but not necessarily an outstandingly striking one. For example the rule of thirds will normally result in an image that is easy on the eye but a severely symmetrical image can sometimes have much more impact.

I try to keep an open mind about other peoples perceptions but non-photography seems to be a case of not bothering to make any effort beyond just shooting off pictures at random and then selecting the best, and of course, as stated in previous replies, the process of selection negates the randomness of the approach and makes it subject to rules.