Why I take photos.

[Grandpa Ron]

Boy after 60 plus years of taking pictures, I hate to think I am part of an "amateur subculture", that is really funny.

I am by profession an engineer, and by habit an incessant tinkerer. I naturally have developed rather firm views on what I like in a picture. For the most part I leave the "artistic" merits of a photo to those who like to ponder such things.

In this case, the OP indicates that a picture communicates what was seen. Basically documenting with photography. It is my belief that once you start altering and/or enhancing a photo, you are creating what is seen. The question is; if I stood next to you and took the same picture, would it have looked the same?

Hence, we have moved on from photography to photo art.

 

[zulu42]

It is my belief that once you start altering and/or enhancing a photo, you are creating what is seen. The question is; if I stood next to you and took the same picture, would it have looked the same?

Hence, we have moved on from photography to photo art.

By that logic much of the work of A. Adams is not photography

 

[thedingo0099]

Boy after 60 plus years of taking pictures, I hate to think I am part of an "amateur subculture", that is really funny.

I am by profession an engineer, and by habit an incessant tinkerer. I naturally have developed rather firm views on what I like in a picture. For the most part I leave the "artistic" merits of a photo to those who like to ponder such things.

In this case, the OP indicates that a picture communicates what was seen. Basically documenting with photography. It is my belief that once you start altering and/or enhancing a photo, you are creating what is seen. The question is; if I stood next to you and took the same picture, would it have looked the same?

Hence, we have moved on from photography to photo art.

Laugh all you like Grandpa. That’s the way it can be seen.
Amateur you are, no doubt. It’s a culture, like engineering. It has its own internal structure, dialogue and behaviours. Like all cultures, there are subdivisions within, distinguishing different phases, genres, behaviours.
Such is the way of social classification.
It’s a human construct so don’t feel you have to comply or agree.
But let’s assume you are an engineer who does photography for 60 years. Then assume you’ve taken interest in specific genres, used certain camera types, followed some stereotypical behaviours, such as contributing to photography forums. Not everyone does and those that do might have a different agenda.
With your vast experience and expertise you might take on a more instructive or mentoring role. I might be doing some research into social substructures, others are still finding their way.
And how easy it is to encompass or reject a new member depending on their type of contribution, manner and assumed skills.
Having preferences within any interest isn’t avoidable. Having knowledge is. Such is the case when someone focusses on what they like and discards, even rejects as in your case, something they don’t understand or have little or no knowledge of.
Still, as you suggest, it takes all kinds.

Here’s something for you to consider in the light of our conversation.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Zulu, Dingo,

I have heard this argument before and it come down to what is photography and what is photo art. In some cases it is clear easy to see.

An example of photography is a picture on the evening news of a car crash scene etc.
An example of photo art where the so called "Trick shots" of dogs sitting at a table playing poker
However, in most cases there is no clear cut boundary between the two.

Was Adams creating a wilderness scene or was he just and extraordinary photographer and darkroom technician. A few but not many have equaled his work.

Are the cropping, adjusting exposure, using filters to enhance contrast, dodging and burning method used by Adams; the same as adding clouds or other objects, removing unwanted tress branches and such, texturing a surface and a host of other things available to the modern photographer?

From an artistic standpoint, I have to agree, a photograph stands on it own merit no matter how it was produced.

But I like to think that "I could have captured that shot". If that put me in a sub-cultures of amateurs, then I will proudly stand by my preference for "as shot" photo tweaking, rather than "as created by".

Photography is a big tent shared by many different opinions and disciplines, that is what makes it so interesting.

 

[zulu42]

Well stated, and let me say I respect your opinion as much as my own.

I am too easily drawn into this argument because my bias show as much as yours. Maybe I take a slight offense when you classify things as 'not photography" based on whether you would have come up with the same image. Though I know you mean no offense at all.

An example of photography is a picture on the evening news of a car crash scene etc.

I disagree, that is an example of photojournalism. Held to a standard of zero manipulation even if a photographer was really tempted to increase the contrast on those dramatic flames. Adams' work would be rejected! I have great respect for photojournalists, and those who choose to shoot like one. Good thing there are other types of photography, of course.

Was Adams creating a wilderness scene or was he just and extraordinary photographer and darkroom technician. A few but not many have equaled his work.

I think using a filter to turn a bright daylight sky black is an example of creating within a scene. I also think he was an extraordinary photographer and technician.

Are the cropping, adjusting exposure, using filters to enhance contrast, dodging and burning method used by Adams; the same as adding clouds or other objects, removing unwanted tress branches and such, texturing a surface and a host of other things available to the modern photographer?

In some ways, yes. Consider that they are all examples of using the latest technology to manipulate an image, or parts of an image, to create the artists intended presentation. Adams was obsessed with advancing the technical side in order to get closer to his pre-visualized idea. I wonder what tools he would use today.

I consider the famous civil war photographic composites to be photography. I think if I take a picture of a cloud and a picture of a tree and combine them, it's still photography.

More importantly, it's all fun and sharing with brothers and sister - no matter what. Doesn't really matter what you call it.

 

[Warhorse]

I like this photo, and I do not find it important as to why I like it, it is an interesting image.

 

[Designer]

Right now, at this very moment, I want to demonstrate to others how an idea can be demonstrated with the use of a photograph.
It's a simple idea.


This is a man I met. He has a bike and lives in a green house.
The photograph can be taken as simply descriptive.
Many photos we take are like this. We communicate a description of what we saw to others.

Photography can be many things depending on the purpose and who made it.

When I was doing remodeling design, I would take what I call "record" shots, so I would have a visual reminder of what was there which served to save me another trip to the site. Non-artistic, un-inspiring, but very valuable to the project bottom line.

 

[Original katomi]

I have many reasons why I take photos, tonight I was photographing a fox playing. Why, I have not seen one as close as this before, to capture the moment, a record of at one time we did have animals like this walk this close to the house. A record to pass on to others, assuming the can open the file format currently in use. But that’s another debate

 

[thedingo0099]

Some interesting reflections here.
As for Ansell Adams, (not to be confused with all the other Adams photographers) he definitely had an agenda.
He was a naturalist, first and foremost. His photographs were a way of him expressing his love for the Pplaces he frequented. The impact of those images was less about their quality and more about the beauty of the places.
So much so, the images and the passion of Adams changed the way Americans saw their country. Those in power were influences so mush that Roosevelt proclaimed such places as national treasures and declared they be protected.
Hence, the first National Park was consummated.
Of course, his technical expertise is recognised as well, but that was all to do with recording the subjects in the best possible way. He needed to show these places of beauty in a way that would knock your socks off.

On the other hand, his namesake and associate, Robert Adams had a different point of view. There was another side of America that needed attention. Less beautiful in its presentation but, none the less, significant in its existence.

THE NEW WEST by Robert Adams

Then there are others, each expressing an idea, a concept, that is quite beyond the technical quality.
Jungjin Lee does a pretty impressive rendition of Miami that tells us as much about the photographers thoughts as it does Miami itself.

Jungjin Lee

Steven shore calls all this the Mental Level of photography.

We all have a mental level. That’s what makes our images different. It’s what we start with and finish with.
Whether it’s for the purpose of recording or changing the world it’s what we do.
How much emphasis we place on the mental level is up to the individual.
If you consider any photograph you value you are most likely to find some aspect of the mental level of the photographer.

It’s why I take photographs.

 

[Original katomi]

I wonder how much that land sold for then and the cost now

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I will be the first to admit I have my biases when it comes to photography and probably many other things. It comes with age.

However, also with age come the understanding that these are just my opinions and others folks have theirs. It would be a very dull world if we all thought the same.

I believe that when we look at a scene, whether it is a distant vista, a person or an object etc., we form a mental image, perhaps several. When we shoot that scene, we soon discover that the camera does not have the latitude or ability to capture what is in our head. So we try to extract our mind's image from the image the camera captured.

In the case of Ansell Adams, he extracted what his mind saw, from the latent image of the negative through his photographic and darkroom skills. But, he did not add or erase objects. One can only guess what he might have done if he worked in color.

I suppose my opinions can best be summed up by my recent visit to an art gallery. There were several theme rooms. I spent a lot of time with the Maritime and Hudson River schools of art but while others swooned over the Impressionist and other such techniques, their meaning was lost to me. As they say different stoke for different folks. So to with photography.

 

[zulu42]

Edited to add: I should say that I agree with just about everything in your post @Grandpa Ron, but I have to call you on this. I just can't help myself it seems.

But, he did not add or erase objects

Where'd those clouds go Ansel?!?!

 

[thedingo0099]

I will be the first to admit I have my biases when it comes to photography and probably many other things. It comes with age.

However, also with age come the understanding that these are just my opinions and others folks have theirs. It would be a very dull world if we all thought the same.

I believe that when we look at a scene, whether it is a distant vista, a person or an object etc., we form a mental image, perhaps several. When we shoot that scene, we soon discover that the camera does not have the latitude or ability to capture what is in our head. So we try to extract our mind's image from the image the camera captured.

In the case of Ansell Adams, he extracted what his mind saw, from the latent image of the negative through his photographic and darkroom skills. But, he did not add or erase objects. One can only guess what he might have done if he worked in color.
.

ANSELL ADAMS Snake river. Print from transparency. Smithsonian Institute.

Sorry to say, Grandpa. Adams did quite a bit of work in colour.
Some of it was even for earning a living taking advert photos.
Unfortunately his fruit and veggies shots didn’t make him famous.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Interesting color shots Dingo I must admit I have never seen any of his color work. Thanks for posting. It makes you wonder why if it was good enough for advertising, why there is not more of it. It might be a right time and place thing?

As for Zulu's question of where did the clouds go, one would have to ask Ansel. My first guess is by the time he adjusted the contrast to display the sunset, scenery and buildings, the clouds structure had darkened completely. He chose not to dodge or burn in any of it for reasons known only to him. I believe he printed what his mind saw. Who knows?

This goes to the my previously mentioned point. All photographers are limited but the latitude of the media they are using. The human brain is not.

Let me relate a short tale. In Iceland recently we went out to shoot the Aurora. I was just a gray cloud to the eye and at an 8 sec. exposure. A fellow shooter said to try 30 second and increase your ISO. "Viola" I had a green glow streaking across the sky the eye could not see. Then he said to use the same exposure but turn the flash on and have someone stand in front of the camera under the Aurora, then walk away after the flash. Like magic, I had a picture of a person with the Aurora behind them. So, is this a case of artistically enhancing a photo or using your knowledge of the mechanics of digital technology to capture the shot?

Well, there is no right or wrong answer to my question, because it is asking for an opinion and also because the two areas often overlap.

When I look at a photo, it stands on its own merit. How it was produced is unimportant; but, a little part of my psychic says "gee I wish I would have been there to capture that moment".

My apologies to the OP for drifting so far off topic, but the conversation has been very interesting and enjoyable.

 

[Soocom1]

Edited to add: I should say that I agree with just about everything in your post @Grandpa Ron, but I have to call you on this. I just can't help myself it seems.

But, he did not add or erase objects

Where'd those clouds go Ansel?!?!

View attachment 177299

View attachment 177298

ive been to that church several times.

More buildings in the area now.
San Juan pueblo area, chamita, Pueblita, Espanola, wonderful area, but you'll get chased off if you set up a camera now.