What is your Philosophy of Photography?

[THORHAMMER]

this is simplistic awnser, but im a visual person so thats how i like to communicate to a point. Also It allows me to help others (clients) communicate to their audience in an effective manner so Im doing what I love and enabling others to be effectve in their presentations/advertisments. etc

Besides that when I do nature stuff, Im just really recording some of the majesty of God's creation..thats my philosophy in a nutshell...

 

[Alpha]

My biggest photography influence is Caroline Vaughan, who does mostly portrait work, which is my real passion. Once, I asked her how she knew when to trip the shutter. Her answer, which has become sort of my goal in portrait wok, was something to the effect of the following: "They [people] have to be connecting with the camera. You take the photograph when that connection is there. You're trying to capture someone when they're at most themselves. This becomes increasingly difficult when you photograph more than one person at a time. Then you not only have to catch both of them connecting with the camera at the same time, but also connecting with each other."

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Are you requesting an epistomological analysis of the photographic image as it relates to the 'real' world?

Are you sure you don't mean 'ontological'?

 

[Alpha]

I second that. Epistemology and photography is a pretty convoluted combination.

 

[Torus34]

No, I did mean epistemological, though ontological also points in an interesting direction for discourse. A photograph, for most of us, is a representation [or mapping, of sorts] of outer reality. The relationship between our senses and 'reality' leads to the question of whether, and how well, we can know this reality. That question falls into the bin labeled 'epistomology.' The abstracted 'slice' of reality embodied in a photograph is simply reality presented to our senses one step further removed.

Incidentally, a photograph at it's best is also a representation of the inner reality of the photographer. [cf. Arbus vs Adams.]

One could also note that outer reality is best described by science, while inner reality is best described by art. Philosophy can link the two, most notably in the branch called aesthetics.

 

[ThomThomsk]

A photograph, for most of us, is a representation [or mapping, of sorts] of outer reality. The relationship between our senses and 'reality' leads to the question of whether, and how well, we can know this reality.

It isn't just our senses and 'reality' though, is it? What about visualisation, or to use the Ansel Adams tautology, pre-visualisation? If the successful photographer is one who creates an image that matches his or her visualisation, and that is different from a purely documentary record, then the photograph is rather more than a representation of outer reality, more an expression of the photographer's inner reality, if there is such a thing.

Who here visualises before they release the shutter? I try, but it is a difficult skill to learn.

 

[Torus34]

Thom:

You're beginning to think this through! Bravo!

What links our senses and 'outer' reality is our mind. And you're absolutely correct in that a truly good photograph, as opposed to a snap shot [Is the current vernacular a 'chimped' shot?] is a comment by the photographer on the 'documentary' image.

Ansel Adam's mind was very different from that of Diane Arbus. They both saw outer reality, but were able to bend it to their will.

And if you think documentary landscapes and street shots are tough, think of the work of a great portraitist; the final print doesn't simply show the subject -- it tells us something important about the person. Check out the portrait of the justice in 'The Family of Man' as a primary example.

Keep trying. In that direction lies the few really great prints you'll eventually make, and treasure.

Visualizing such a final print is darned hard work. There's no easy road to success. I work in B&W, so I abstract from what my eyes see into shades and shapes, minus color. My absolute successes are few, but IMHO worth every bit of the effort.

 

[Dave_D]

Who here visualises before they release the shutter? I try, but it is a difficult skill to learn.

A simplistic answer to your question would be: everbody that uses a camera. If you never saw anything that gave you the inspiration to capture the moment on film (or whatever) then you would never release the shutter in the first place:er::lmao:

 

[danalec99]

Cultivate a relationship with your instincts. And let it be the guide while shooting and post processing.

 

[ThomThomsk]

Keep trying. In that direction lies the few really great prints you'll eventually make, and treasure.

Visualizing such a final print is darned hard work. There's no easy road to success. I work in B&W, so I abstract from what my eyes see into shades and shapes, minus color. My absolute successes are few, but IMHO worth every bit of the effort.

This is exactly what I'm trying to achieve. I realised last year that I had been a camera owner for more than 20 years, but was yet to become a photographer, and this is one of the big reasons why. I also shoot mainly in b&w, and I think I'm making progress.

Thanks for your reply; it has given me lots to think about.

 

[ThomThomsk]

A simplistic answer to your question would be: everbody that uses a camera.

Do you really think so? I'm not at all sure about that. As Torus34 says, it is very difficult to do, and although I had been taking photographs for a long time, I hadn't even heard of it until last year.

If you never saw anything that gave you the inspiration to capture the moment on film (or whatever) then you would never release the shutter in the first place:er::lmao:

Well of course, but visualisation is about knowing how you want your final print to look, seeing it in your mind's eye and taking steps to ensure that is what you get.

Seeing an inspiring scene and pointing your camera at it may give you what you want, and that's fine. But visualisation is about controlling the limitations of your equipment and materials and making decisions so that your print matches what you saw in your head before you released the shutter. How many people really do that?

 

[Torus34]

David D:

Sure, everyone 'visualizes' before they trip the shutter. But what you are doing is trivializing the process.

One could also say that everyone thinks, but [and you may have to trust me on this one], there is a real difference between thinking about which foot to move next when walking and exploring the epistemological implications of the special theory of relativity [Yes, I've done both.]

But we're now getting away from the original question heading this string: how do we relate philosophy to photography? If I were to attempt a short answer [deep breath], it would be this: our inner view of outer reality is modified by our individual philosophies. In all probability, no two people see reality exactly alike. To the degree that we have purposely shaped a final print to conform to our views, the print has been influenced by our philosophy. Previsualization and darkroom/digital processing are parts of this process.

Colormesilly: hope this helps. My very best wishes to you in your studies [and photographs.]

 

[Jeff Canes]

Cultivate a relationship with your instincts. And let it be the guide while shooting and post processing.

I agree 100% with Daniel on this definition of Philosophy of Photography.

 

[Irminsul]

I'm doing a college paper for my Philosophy class and I wanted to ask others, what their philosophy of photography is. If you have one.

Thanks to any replies. Also you can leave your name (first or last, or last initial) in case I happen to use your quote, so I can properly credit you.

I'm a newbie in this forum but have been around for many, many years.
By the way, this is my first posting in this forum. Hello everyone; happy to be here among fellow shutter enthusiasts.

But I digress. Back to topic. A long time ago, I read a book by Cartier-Bresson, "Le Moment Decisif." I believe that it is there that you find the following quote, which encapsulates for me the concept of photography as something that must become instinctive, absorbed by the subconscious. Part of life itself. so you don't have to think about it.

"The simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as the precise organization of forms which gives that event its proper expression... . In photography, the smallest thing can be a great subject. The little human detail can become a leitmotif." — Henri Cartier-Bresson

I've chosen yet another Cartier-Bresson quote for my signature.

 

[2framesbelowzero]

I'm doing a college paper for my Philosophy class and I wanted to ask others, what their philosophy of photography is. If you have one.

Thanks to any replies. Also you can leave your name (first or last, or last initial) in case I happen to use your quote, so I can properly credit you.

it can be hunting without killing - a physical and sensory stimulating activity. it gives me a purpose. it takes me amongst the people and gives
me a way of interacting with an environment. it changes the space-time
experience of my life. allows me to re-experience places and things over again. the collation of different work juxtaposed is yet another satisfying aspect of photography. i get a buzz out of other peoples successful 'forays' with a camera also. it's a great activity...'a soul journey'. the purpose of existence, time, life on earth is mysterious and a photograph is a uniquely magical momento somehow wrapped up in all of that.