Opposing Conceptions of Photgraphy

[Petraio Prime]

Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?

But the saddest part of all is that these people don't seem to realise that all sides of the argument are wrong and the only true form of photography is the form that you yourself believe.

This discussion appears on this forum every few months. It appeared here 4 years ago. It likely appeared here when TPF first was born. The discussion existed before digital cameras became widespread. It exists in "The Darkroom Handbook" published in 1981. It existed long before then when people were still painting colour onto their prints.

We'll see this discussion again in 2 months time. It'll be brought up again next year, and in 100 years time when the human race can simply tweet or squirt or whatever the communication flavour of the year is, right between our own subconsciousness there'll be photographers looking like mental patients banging their head against the wall while shouting abuse at themselves (or so it'll look to passers by) simply because whoever is on the other end of the line simply doesn't get Photography.

We go nowhere as a collective species.

And every photo will be tonemapped regardless if it's a HDR or not.

What irks me to no end is the fascination with one fad technique after another. People think this or that gimmick makes their photos more interesting. It doesn't. I have lived through the Tri-X in Rodinal fad (printed on Agfa Brovira grade 4, of course); the posterization fad; the pushed Tri-X fad; the Agfachrome fad; the sandwiched slides fad; the zoom during exposure fad; the multiple exposure fad; the squeezed Polaroid print fad; the cross-processing fad, and now the digital HDR fad, and so on infinitum.

Why don't people realize that using these techniques does nothing for your photos? I have used some odd techniques once in a while, but only sparingly, and for special purposes.

99% of what I see today bores me to tears.

 

[table1349]

(Lost is space. TV show from the 60's):mrgreen:

Ha false! It's a movie from the late 90s

The movie was a poorly done attempt at a re-make. This is the Real Deal:
"Lost in Space" (1965) :thumbup::thumbup:

Of course it might have just been in the last year or two that the TV show from the sixties made it down under. Never thought of that. Sorry. :lmao:

 

[Garbz]

Of course it might have just been in the last year or two that the TV show from the sixties made it down under. Never thought of that. Sorry. :lmao:

Ok I'll pay that. Great comeback

 

[table1349]

Of course it might have just been in the last year or two that the TV show from the sixties made it down under. Never thought of that. Sorry. :lmao:

Ok I'll pay that. Great comeback

Give it a go. The episodes are free on Hulu. This one is a good one. Notice the reference to "ARTISTS" at the beginning. :lmao: If I remember correctly, Dr. Smith was a Dr. of Philosophy.

IMDb Video: Junkyard of Space

 

[DennyCrane]

That tin-plated ninny was always causing him trouble.

 

[table1349]

My gift to all those down under.

http://www.hulu.com/search?query=Lost+is+space&st=1

This should keep Garbz busy for a while. :mrgreen:

 

[Garbz]

Give it a go. The episodes are free on Hulu.

I know, I know. I actually have the entire series here on DVD, I was just ****stiring
By the way Hulu is Americas only.

 

[table1349]

Give it a go. The episodes are free on Hulu.

I know, I know. I actually have the entire series here on DVD, I was just ****stiring
By the way Hulu is Americas only.

What a crock of Wallaby walnuts. What is with this regional viewing C#@&?

I love British comedy, but can I get the BBC here on my computer? NOOOOOooooooo! I had to purchase the entire set of Faulty Towers and Black Adder. Both outrageously funny.

There are so many great older shows out there around the world, but the viewing is so limited. Perhaps there could be more peace and understanding in this world if we were able to share our television shows (particularly the comedy shows) with other cultures.

 

[DennyCrane]

Do a search on proxy servers. They're intermediaries that can make you appear to be connecting from somewhere else.

 

[meccalli]

Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?

But the saddest part of all is that these people don't seem to realise that all sides of the argument are wrong and the only true form of photography is the form that you yourself believe.

This discussion appears on this forum every few months. It appeared here 4 years ago. It likely appeared here when TPF first was born. The discussion existed before digital cameras became widespread. It exists in "The Darkroom Handbook" published in 1981. It existed long before then when people were still painting colour onto their prints.

We'll see this discussion again in 2 months time. It'll be brought up again next year, and in 100 years time when the human race can simply tweet or squirt or whatever the communication flavour of the year is, right between our own subconsciousness there'll be photographers looking like mental patients banging their head against the wall while shouting abuse at themselves (or so it'll look to passers by) simply because whoever is on the other end of the line simply doesn't get Photography.

We go nowhere as a collective species.

And every photo will be tonemapped regardless if it's a HDR or not.

...................................Ownage....:thumbup:

 

[table1349]

Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?

But the saddest part of all is that these people don't seem to realise that all sides of the argument are wrong and the only true form of photography is the form that you yourself believe.

This discussion appears on this forum every few months. It appeared here 4 years ago. It likely appeared here when TPF first was born. The discussion existed before digital cameras became widespread. It exists in "The Darkroom Handbook" published in 1981. It existed long before then when people were still painting colour onto their prints.

We'll see this discussion again in 2 months time. It'll be brought up again next year, and in 100 years time when the human race can simply tweet or squirt or whatever the communication flavour of the year is, right between our own subconsciousness there'll be photographers looking like mental patients banging their head against the wall while shouting abuse at themselves (or so it'll look to passers by) simply because whoever is on the other end of the line simply doesn't get Photography.

We go nowhere as a collective species.

And every photo will be tonemapped regardless if it's a HDR or not.

:thumbup: The whole complexion of WWII changed in the minds of Americans from one very famous photo. Joe Rosenthal's photo of the raising of the flag atop Mount Suribachi. It was years before the world knew that the photo had been in essence been staged at the marines that were in the photo were replacing a smaller flag that had been raised with a larger one.

Does the fact that Rosenthal's photo was staged change one little bit the drama or memorability of that photo. Not one little bit.

 

[magkelly]

Actually I see it as being both? A photo captures a moment and time AND it can lead to artistic expression and making a statement depending upon how it's shown and what you decided to do with it. I just don't think you have to choose one or the other.

The reason for the "heat" in some of the discussions seems to me to be different conceptions of the nature of photography.

Some seem to define photography as "capturing a moment in time" while implying that using filters, postprocessing etc. is distorting the accuracy of the "moment" and therefore somehow changing photography into creative design with no relationship to reality. Another way of expressing their view is: accurate content is more important than visual impact or photographic method.

Others see photography as creating a visually attractive/artistic image that emphasizes or makes a "statement": emotional or otherwise about some aspect of our world. Making us see things, we would not ordinarily see, or feel emotions that we might not ordinarily feel. Their view would be that the visual effect of the image is more important than depicting the reality in the original scene. To put it another way: A beautiful image is a beautiful image irrespective of how it was created and irrespective of the reality in the original scene. Filters, postprocessing, HDR, solarization, panoramas, etc. are all means to creating an image with visual impact and that is the objective.

Needless to say, the first side cannot communicate with the second side very well because their concepts of photography are so totally different.

skieur

 

[skieur]

And every photo will be tonemapped regardless if it's a HDR or not.

Out of curiousity, assuming that it is done well, what is your problem with tone-mapping?

skieur

 

[skieur]

Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?

But the saddest part of all is that these people don't seem to realise that all sides of the argument are wrong and the only true form of photography is the form that you yourself believe.

.

Somewhat contradictory, Garbz, if the only true form is what you believe than the two mentioned, could include one that you believe. You should be experienced enough to know that photographers like anyone else rationalize their attitudes and their actions and you have seen how strong those rationalizations or beliefs are in their arguments.

I am sure you are also well aware that there are a lot of emotional indealists/artists in photography as well as the practical realist/business types, so why should you be surprised that they look at photography differently. If they have their head up their arses, then so do you, since I am sure that you have some perspective on photography or you would not be expressing yourself so forcefully.

I am just suggesting that the reason that some issues come up every few months is because of different basic views of photography. If you realize that someone is according to your view ...way off base on their view of photography, then perhaps they should be either ignored or gently pushed to a more appropriate view. Senseless arguments in the wrong directions don't work.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Actually I see it as being both? A photo captures a moment and time AND it can lead to artistic expression and making a statement depending upon how it's shown and what you decided to do with it. I just don't think you have to choose one or the other.

I suppose the difference is whether you are trying to accurately capture a moment in time, which may be visually boring and ineffective and your rationalization for a poor picture, or whether you are trying to artistically express that moment using your creative talent as a photographer.

There is a difference. The first picture may be more realistic but ineffective, with less visual impact and the second may be more effective and more memorable but less realistic.

skieur