|
Can a little camera take a big picture? Part 1
 |
I’ve had my new teenycam velcroed onto my belt from morning till night for over a month now. In all that time I haven’t once picked up my digital SLR. This is a big deal. I’m someone who pays as little attention as possible to the strictly technical aspects of photography, but any change in my physical relationship to the camera – any change in what I need to DO to take a picture or in how that change is perceived by others – is huge. I’ve decided to write about how the tiny new camera seems to be changing my own personal photography. I hope it will spark a larger discussion of the radical changes going on in our culture’s ability to make & show images -- & what those changes might mean.
Not surprisingly, with the little camera on my hip, I’ve been taking more pictures. What’s more, these pictures are different – in both subject & quality – from the ones I took before. How different? Well, are you someone who frequently passes up possible pictures & then feels guilty? I am. I always have been. I don’t shoot because I’m traveling; I’m on an errand; I’m with a friend; I’m hungry; I’m tired; I’m disgruntled; I want to get where I’m going. Hey, it’s just too much trouble. I carry my camera with its annoyingly entangled strap stuffed down in my pack with my newspaper, two notebooks, a subway map, my jacket, my cellphone & what’s left of the sandwich I bought for lunch. I get as far as half-swinging the bag off my shoulder, then – “Naaah” – it’s not worth it; it’s probably a lame picture; it’s not quite right, not really there; it’s gone already; a better one will come along soon. I let the pack settle on my shoulders again. Back to business.
Does this sound familiar to you?
Well, all I have to do now is reach down to my belt, rip two velcro tabs apart, pull out the cam, sweep my thumb across the “on” switch, feel/hear the lens extrude & raise my hand. I always holster the new camera to come out correctly oriented. I always leave it set at the 28mm wide-angle focal length. I’m ready in five seconds, impulse to exposure.
So do I shoot different stuff? Not exactly. I do shoot ADDITIONAL stuff. For me, this is good, even if I shoot badly. A number of years ago I saw an exhibition of early pictures by Andre Kertesz, who, as a poor young man, had to limit himself to only 8 exposures a day. Kertesz was (& is) a hero, & I adopted his edit-before-you-shoot approach as my ideal, though I never actually restricted myself to any arbitrary number of exposures (once he could afford more film, neither did Kertesz, as far as I know ).
This past winter, working on my Saints & Madonnas series, I began to work differently. Using my Nikon, I shot religious statues displayed in the windows, porches & yards of private houses as generously – in terms of exposures – as I could make myself. I had been trained to shoot that way, to “burn film,” as a photojournalist and photographer-for-hire, on the theory that you weren’t shooting for yourself, you were “covering” an assignment for a client. But I only did that – usually in a state of high anxiety -- because I was getting paid. With the saints I did it for myself. The D70 is digital, of course, so, instead of film, there were endlessly reprogrammable memory cards in the camera. The images were essentially free. But there was more to it than economics. The idea was to catalog the saints & madonnas without judgment, to take a kind of photojournalist/anthropologist approach. I didn’t understand my own attraction, nor did I know the motives of the people who displayed the statues. I wanted to record the mystery I sensed in the statues. All of them. I had a strong point of view. I just wasn’t sure what I was.
With the little camera this catalogging impulse has become even easier to follow. For the saints & madonnas, I had to go hunting on special weekend expeditions to working class neighborhoods in the outer boroughs. But with this camera on my hip I’m able to explore more mundane mysteries in my daily round of work & neighborhood. For example, what is it this year with the explosion of spray painted day-glo diagrams/instructions -- for (I presume) streetworkers laid down by (I presume) highway department supervisors -- all over the streets & sidewalks of New York City? These strange words & arcane symbols are everywhere. Are they going to dig up the whole city? (I know that, whatever they do, they will wait for the hottest, grittiest, most miserable part of the summer, so they can crank up the jackhammers at 7 am.) Anyway, here are a couple of “street runes” from the hundred or so I’ve shot to date:
Other repeating motifs: subway stairs with or without people climbing toward the light. Dogs tied up, waiting for their masters.
What’s the point of making these records? Well, I won’t be Jewish & answer the question with a question: What’s the point of taking pictures at all? I don’t know. Perhaps such projects really just provide a frame to explore patterns in the world. It’s been something photographers have done for a long time (think Lee Friedlander), but in recent years, with the advent of small digital cameras, it has mushroomed (you can see it, for example in the recently publshed Fotolog.book). Still, I'm worried that this kind of photography has no logical place to go. Don Burmeister, who takes pictures of ancient Indian mounds, suggests that we may need to find new uses, such as one-a-day computer screen savers, for such imagery . In the meantime we have Flickr sets (see, for example, our friend and Positive Focus group member Bruce Grant’s chainlink fences). Do you have any ideas for other destinations?
I have a lot more to say, but I’m going to stop here because this isn’t supposed to be a monolog, it’s hopefully a dialog. Please, join the conversation.
Originally posted at 2:42PM, 20 May 2006 PST
(
permalink
)
colorstalker edited this topic 42 months ago.
|
 |
[this] [account] [has] [been] [deleted] says:
The technology is not the issue/ but it is. I gave up about 20 years ago and worked with wood for way too long. And stopped thinking about making art, but in the end that's all there is. Thank god for digital, to get stuck in the minutia (sp) of the media is irrelevant. All that one looks for is truth///////hopefully and it ain't pretty or it is, but nothing else matters.
I don't work in the way you're talking about but it doesn't matter. Make work in whatever way you do. Just make work. That's all there is.
The foolishness of life is fodder and nothing else. The problem that we all have is our own problem, and that's the gift. Fools have no problem and are endlessly looking for one.
such blather.......whewh!
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I agree there's a wider freedom with a smaller camera. I saw what looked like a small heron, , very slender & under 3 ft tall, on the sidewalk outside an apt bldg as I drove home tonight.
I wondered how it got there, what was it, etc. when I should've
have been instinctly reaching for my camera.
I backed up, got the camera out of the bag & turned it on,
popped the flash up & focused out the passenger window...on nothing.
I guess the bird flew. I was too slow.
A missed shot that haunts me.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Really like the way you're raising issues here. I wish I could come back in two hundred years and get a better take on what's going on now historically with digital photography. The sheer quantity of people looking, snapping and performing their world views on an internet stage; the cataloguing, the tagging.
I guess I worry a bit though about small cameras and what they could mean for social relations in general. The camera is a piece of technology like any other; they change how people inter-relate.
On the other hand, who could imagine the ease of feed-back on one's work- like on Flickr, for instance. I see people from different cultures and backgrounds considering each other's views. Taking account of differences..
Re. your religious icons- it would be interesting to do a photo-essay where you interview the people who have their front yards full of madonnas and cement lions. What's at play there, etc.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I love my small camera, although I keep it in my bag and have to get it out in the way you describe with regard to your DSLR. Nevertheless I love its lack of bulk and weight, and its relative discreetness in a public place.
At the moment the thing of having a camera available at all times and posting scenes and details from one's daily life on flickr etc. is a newish and exciting phenomenon. Is it not inevitable that it will become boring (both to do and to view)? I suppose it will evolve but at the moment I can't quite see how.
I think the exploration thing is key. Some people will be interested in looking at the results, others not, but crucial is one's own impulse to do it in the first place. I think it becomes more suspect when the person photographing knows there is an audience and shifts towards being primarily interested in feeding the audience with more pictures, rather than just taking the pictures for their own satisfaction. Of course the photographer seeking only to satisfy an audience may yet reveal things they hadn't intended.
Originally posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
dubmill edited this topic 42 months ago.
|
|
Terri Lynn [deleted] says:
I just got a new digital slr for my birthday, but I sure as hell am not going to give up my little olympus. I've been shooting with it for almost 4 years now, and agree with your statements in regards to the convenience and ease of portability in a small size camera.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Can a little camera take a big picture?
In a word, yes.
I’m with a friend; I’m hungry; I’m tired; I’m disgruntled; I want to get where I’m going.
These are the really the only times I *do* shoot. I have a big old G2 and I take it everywhere. I dislike the idea of "going out to take pictures." I find the best photos I've taken have been when I'm out doing errands, on the way to the gym, work, walking the dog, etc., maybe because my style leans more toward the revelation of some irony, interesting juxtaposition or narrative in the mundane scenes we all see everyday. The majority of my stream, I think, has been shot in a five or 10 square block radius of my apartment.
The photogs on flickr and elsewhere that I find the most talented are *not* those that prattle on endlessly about the type of camera they have, what lens was used, how they bounced the flash off their second cousin's unusually high forehead, and so on, but rather those who have a vision, a unique way of seeing the world.
I was a film student in college. I learned to shoot with a Bolex and made LOTS of 16 mm films (and some videos). I spent half the time playing with lenses and light and pushing and pulling film. I spent the other half studying theory and aesthetics. Guess what? The equipment doesn't matter, to me anyway. If you don't have an eye, a personal philosophy that comes through in your work, it doesn't matter what kind of expensive camera, lenses or lighting you have. You will take technically sophisticated snapshots or postcard pablum, and nothing more.
Viva la teenycams!
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I push the button and the little magic box makes a pretty picture.
Seriously, for me it's all a matter of intent, no matter what equipment I have, time and/or budget. Either I am making stuff or I'm not. Any limitiations I find usually lie within myself.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
SO well put Aaron, edited to add:which is the reason you are one of my fave photogs on Flickr.
Originally posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Ingrid! edited this topic 42 months ago.
|
|
These are the really the only times I *do* shoot.
This morning I went out to walk my dog Charley & shop at the corner fruit/flower stand. On the way Charley took his discreet little shit on the sidewalk & I scooped it up with my trusty blue combination NYTimes wrapper/poopbag. So there I am, Charley's leash in one hand, bag of dogshit in the other, & I see a picture. Two beautiful women are picking out flowers against the blazing yellow & purple straw mat that has been strung up to protect the fruit from the morning sun. My teenycam quickly in hand, I move in, compose the shot, start to squeeze the shutter---.and suddenly Charley decides to dive under the fruit counter for a squashed banana (he loves fruit). I take a tilted picture of melons & sidewalk. Annoyed, I jerk back on the leash. Charley looks up at me, big brown accusing eyes. The shitbag swings back & forth. Now the women are glaring at me.
Which is more loathsome, a horny old man paparazzi or a brutal dog abuser?
I put my teenycam back in its holster.
Originally posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
colorstalker edited this topic 42 months ago.
|
|
Ok, it's all about balance, Tim, ha, literally! Or maybe teach Charley to sit and stay? I was able to squeeze this one off with Tony and my cane in tow, while leaning against and resting the cam on top of a plastic Village Voice kiosk.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
i've been frustrated lately. everyone taking photographs of everything. it makes me feel like a jerk to be a photographer. never mind my non-photographer friends gripes. even though i love taking pictures, the joy is being robbed from me more and more by every digital camera peeping up. take a concert. i found myself at last month's editors show at warsaw with more people taking pictures than watching the show. it lessons the life experience somehow. or being at the mermaid parade with more photographers than mermaids or the easter parade where i waited for a twelve year old to take the same pic i was with her pink cell phone.
the oversaturation is just too much.
it just may be the death of photography.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Jenene, I hear you. I just wrote the following in response to earlier posts, but maybe it applies.
I agree, “Vive la teenycam,” but I also don’t want to diss technique. There’s a danger of getting too passive. I admire the photographers who get it right – the ones who are there at the right spot at dawn with the right equipment for the wonderful light. The ones who have the right lens when it’s necessary. The ones who work to control tonal range & depth of field, who really want to get their images sharp. Check out any of the “best of the best” groups on Flickr, (e.g. this one) for examples of fine technical photography. Often the pictures are truly striking, compelling, powerful. The problem is that many of these pictures don’t feel true to me anymore. I don’t think the photographers would agree with me. Their pictures are their way of connecting to the world spirit, & I have to respect that. But to me they are at best an ideal & at worst a misrepresentation. I agree with Aaron & Ingrid. Without a unique personal vision – no matter how dazzling -- they’re warmed-over versions of what someone else has already seen. They’re boring.
In an essay called “Truth in Landscape” that Robert Adams published in 1981 he was already hinting at why. “…scenic grandeur is today sometimes painful. The beautiful places to which we journey for inspiration surprise us by the melancholy they can produce…Our discouragement in the presence of beauty results, surely, from the way we have damaged the country, from what appears to be our inability now to stop, and from the fact that few of us can any longer hope to own a piece of undisturbed land. Which is to say that what bothers us about primordial beauty is that it is no longer characteristic. Unspoiled places sadden us because they are, in an important sense, no longer true.”
My idea is that the new cameras – with their amazing convenience & access -- have a better chance of skipping past all that. But that doesn’t mean that true images – whatever that means – have to be sloppy, muddy, out of focus etc. And it also doesn’t mean they have to be totally diaristic -- my day, my vacation, my goldfish, my fucking 8,000th boring meal (sorry, cypher). In fotolog.book the writer Nick Curry cites his friend Jip’s photoblog as an example of the new & exciting direction photography is taking with digital cameras & web sharing . “An important function of Jip’s photoblog is to document his ‘nieuw haar.’ Look, that blond cut is the fourth radically different way he’s had it this year!...Could it work on my head? Why do I identify so readily with his his quest for an interesting ‘hair identity’? Why do I so implicitly trust his hair restlessness?”
You know what, Nick? I don’t really care.
Originally posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
colorstalker edited this topic 42 months ago.
|
 |
trivia. jip's hair and 99% of the photographs being taken today, including my own, are pretty much trivia - to someone. conversely, they're important only to the few people who share aesthetics (in a wildly varied multicultural deconstruction) or social interests (e.g. haircuts?) or whatever it is that attracts anyone to any image. and i think it's a good thing, from both cultural and historic viewpoints - if that the trivia is as available for future reference (as a record of the life and surrounds of our age) as it is today (mini-memes in the swirling meme pool). the grand events are all recorded as a matter of course, depending on the winds of history. it's the small events that remain a mystery to archaeologists and historians, and which are best served by the mundane ubiquity of photography today. in a nutshell: trivia is not always a dirty word.
assuming that any of this trivia is either accessible or of benefit to those who may most want it, today or in a hundred years. assuming that future historians will have the knowledge and the means to access the digital media left behind after our civilisation falls. assuming that the media don't all decay and degrade over time until our cds are nothing more than drink coasters. they call that big doom theory the "digital dark age." got a catchy ring of truth to it, alas.
in the meantime i think we've just gotta keep making images that will communicate our own view (which is the essence of the craft, after all). take photos of the photographers if it all gets too much (like at your concert, pixietart), or just keep a sharp eye on our own personal vision, filtering out other peoples' intentions from our own (are you the secret lovechild of rauschenberg, ingrid?). yes, it's damn tricky to keep to the line amid the spaghetti of modern practise and meaning, but that's half the fun, right? ;-)
my biggest problem is that it leaves me with so many more images to edit and keep track of. the ease and convenience of digital technology should make that easier to deal with, but somehow the tasks just keep mounting higher ...
(oh, i could go on, but i must run to work now. shall let it brew as i head out and try to find some useful trivia.)
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Great post, mr walker.
Admin detail: Lisa, did you get in? I went to accept you & it said "no members pending." so i think that means that ron or lionel did. let me know. sorry, can't figure out the new flickr mail system. how do you email someone back? Grrrr. Going to bed. good night.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Mr. walker, BLESS YOU for the Rauschenberg reference.
Pixie, sorry to be a part of the joy-robbing masses, but we (me, the twelve year old with the pink cell phone, the people at the concert) are not going to stop taking pix. People who call themselves "photographers", will have to focus on their own intentions, their own personal visions. It is not the death of photography, it's the democratization of it.
I've gotta go now, my camera is done charging and there is some interesting light in the bathroom that is calling my name.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Well, I only have a teeny cam. I love the concept of a serious camera that actually allows me to take the photograph I want, and I am frequently frustrated as I flip through the scenes and basic settings of my little camera knowing that the image that I have in my head is not going to happen because I don't have enough control.
On the other hand, I am not convinced that I would actually get that image if I used a serious camera either. And I do know (having tested the theory by borrowing a friends camera) that a large and heavy camera gets left at home 99% of the time; it's just too heavy. And even if I do have it, I end up half the time pissed off because the moment I want to capture (like the girls picking the flowers) has passed by the time I've got the camera set up for it.
I've ended up accepting that for me, it's teenycam or no photographs. On the other hand, I'm not particularly trying to make an impact on the world with my photographs so maybe I'm a bad example.
When I first started looking at fotolog, I looked at the seriouis images - shadowplay immediately comes to mind. It took me a while to notice that in the quagmire of boring snapshots, there was the occassional image that made me say, "hey, that's neat."
I also learned that a single "hey that's neat" image didn't necessarily mean that person had other interesting images.
These days, I won't really go through all the other snapshots to try to see if there is another one unless that person has gained my attention at least twice. It's pretty quickly clear whether the snapshot was luck or someone who really has a good eye for a good image. Often, I do feel that images in the latter category should be redone with a "real" camera.
To use the original example, I enjoyed colorstalker's Madonna series a lot, this isn't a single lucky grab, this is a series of intriguing images which he went in search of and "burned film" on.
What I would love to see at this stage would be a second series where colorstalker goes out again with his "real" camera and a view of high quality portraits, and does the best of the madonnas again.
Now possibly it would lose something in the process, part of the appeal of that series is, I think, the grittiness and transientness of a snapshot rather than the technical design of a serious photograph. Or maybe it's just the bulk, I don't know that a single image of a single madonna would ever actually attract my eye: I didn't notice colorstalkers images particularly until I spotted the repetition in the thumbnails.
And there is clearly, in my mind, multiple categories rather than simply "real camera" vs "teenycam" -- I can take a snapshot with a real cam while someone standing next to me takes a stunning photograph with a teenycam. Mr Walker can do snapshots that are interesting meanwhile George (making it up, I don't want to use real names for negative examples) can do real photography that is boring.
I have a feeling I'm edging around without a conclusion in sight, I need to think about this some more. I'm also deep in thought about the commenting for comments thing, but I think that's enough thrashing about aimlessly in public for a moment. :)
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
_Ingrid_ , i don't mean to attack you or those who are taking photos, i know that it is not going to stop... it can only become more rampant as technology becomes more accessible. i dislike that photography is being democratized... but that is my opinion, it takes away a specialness it once held for me. and i certainly have no control over it. all i am saying is that i am losing my excitement over photography because of the surplus of photographers everywhere. i just can't be bothered to push through everyone, or even witness what they are photographing, because all of the photographers are blocking what is actually happening (this is mostly true of the public events i attend like the mermaid parade, etc. ). it's the age old question of shoot it or live it? buy you don't even have a choice of that anymore in some instances. i have a new rule for myself that i made: to shoot an event, you must participate. i think this keeps the life flowing.
"People who call themselves "photographers", will have to focus on their own intentions, their own personal visions." this i agree with and have found to think this way is the only way to continue (and enjoy) shooting. i find myself shooting more and more analog, trying to make more and more mistakes, finding some emotion that lies behind my vision. perhaps it's the ultimate exercise and what will truely bring my photography to another level... being challenged by the masses.
i find less and less joy in documentation, even though i carry around my little "purse cam" as i call my tiny digital. sometimes i get lovely shots with it, but when it comes to putting together a book/portfolio i tend to chuck these shots in a not-usuable pile because of the file sizes/grain quality. that said, i am itching for a new purse cam: the canon s80.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
this discussion makes me want to buy that S80..
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
No, “…trivia is not always a dirty word” & it’s a hopeful thing that more than “the grand events” are now being recorded. After all, it only takes an audience of one to fulfill the purpose of a photo, so if Nick likes to look at Jip’s new hairstyles, why should I complain? On the other hand, I know where pixie is coming from. A lot of us seem to be saying the same thing: the sheer volume of all this image-making & image-viewing is exhausting. We have to be gatekeepers – of what’s coming in & also what’s going out (mr. walker said “…my biggest problem is that it leaves me with so many more images to edit “) -- on a scale that didn’t exist before. It’s probably a good thing that cultural arbitrers like museums & prestigious magazines are losing power, but it means we each have to set our own standards – all the time. This is a huge expenditure of energy that doesn’t get talked about much. It can be depressing. It can be deadening.
My guess is that most of the people madly snapping away at parades & concerts would have no idea what the hell I’m talking about. I think a lot of them are shooting as a kind of social gesture – a way of belonging & at the same time a kind of camouflage – like smoking used to be or like reading in a public place. What you do. They look at their pix afterwards, sure, enjoy them, share them, but they certainly don’t worry about the things we’re talking about here. (N.B. Before anybody accuses me of being an elitist snob, let me say I’m not assigning value here – just noting that attitudes toward taking & using pictures can be VERY different).
I think it’s sad because – though fine art trends & movements come & go – photojournalism has managed to remain fresh from the earliest Speed Graphix to the present. In my opinion there really is no substitute for a pro (paid or not paid) shooting for a general audience with the simple aesthetic, “Let me show you.” But with all the frantic clicking of shutters going on that kind of record is now becoming atomized into thousands of low-grade cellphone snapshots that say nothing more than, “Here I am.”
Originally posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
colorstalker edited this topic 42 months ago.
|
 |
this is a great discussion. "here i am" snaps are like graffiti that leaves no trace.
i think that "trivia" is not precise enough for the explosion of accessible visual noise. there are many things going on that can seem pretty trivial. some trivial shots are cliches; i just read some san franciscans griping about all the tourists with bridge pictures tagged sanfrancisco on flickr, but deborah lattimore and john curley walked over the golden gate and brought back fresh images. some are trivial to outsiders, because they are meant to have a small audience -- my cat, my baby, my car, my haircut and the like are often more successful in that context. some are just unedited, such as "pool flooding" here or the historical problem of the interminable unedited vacation slide show. some seem carelessly composed & exposed, through carelessness or ignorance of design "rules," though that can sometimes be misconstrued experimentation. those can all be trivial chaff.
one thing i want to break out as mundane but non-trivial is visual conversation. it's not quite like the solo photographer's collection. that response to another's image, and then another's response to yours is one of the best things that the internet brings to digital photography, and it's still a user-driven style of play rather than a site designer's planned interaction. i believe that is the most important new thing in photography, and it seems like the difference between a world with a few scribes and an illiterate populace, and a world with people who can write letters, diaries, memos and email to one another. it's radically different, but there still will be expert technicians, and artists who speak for and to many others with their work.
snapping away is indeed an action that can be an act. i don't use my flash much but i have used it as "applause" or for mild intimidation depending on the context. i confess it. but i delete those shots, because i have become interested in the photographs, not just the tools or the gestures.
Originally posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
fotogail edited this topic 42 months ago.
|
|
Excellent points made, FOTOGAIL !
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Yes, excellent. Thank you all. I tend to forget sometimes how important words are for understanding pictures . For me -- & I suspect for many of you -- words were the 1st art form, the 1st struggle to make sense of the world. I need them to understand how & why & what is the meaning of what we all do with pictures. How could I skip past that one? Not sure. But I sometimes do.
And while I'm on the topic, any New-York-area-ites, esp Brooklyneers who don't have plans tonight: I'll be hosting a Positive Focus critique by Nelson Hancock at his gallery in DUMBO at 7 pm. It's #204 at 111 Front Street . Worth it for me just to see the work there. Nelson is a photographer/gallerist with a particular interest in anthropology. The show, called Traces of Devotion by Lisa Ross shows sufi burial sites in central Asia. It got a really postive review a few weeks ago in the Sunday NY Times & it looks fantastic.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
dear colorstalker,why people have to write in such long sentences?why not?the ink is free.my history is completely opposite to yours as i started as a photographer about a year ago but bought my canon slr 5d in october 2005.the large camera (however inconvinient it may be) allows you to do shots superior in composition and scale than a small one.
static.flickr.com/31/58382501_3fc855b02f_m.jpg
since then(that was taken just two weeks after i got my new camera) i moved to more pronounced social issues.i thank you for pointing me to andre kertesz pictures for he may be the brother that i have never known.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Crater, It's a fine shot.
So glad you discovered Kertesz. I understand when you call him "brother." His pictures inspire me every time I go back to them.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
nice street rune up today... are all of those from nyc?
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
fotogail, i love your visual conversation notes. i have always been interested in the way words and images and sequences happen. when i was younger i obsessively traded zines and mail art - clipping other peoples pictures up and making a new conversation, with both text and images. (surprise surprise, i'm a designer now! ha) then i started creating my own on top of that in high school. i think you are right about the visual conversation being the most important aspect of this revolution: the people you meet, the responses you receive encourage the photographer to try harder, to make it better next time (esp. if you respect the other person's work). you are not your only audience. which for me, is very important. post art-school, where are the critiques? or the venue to put your stuff out there. the web gives us all that, with conversation.
speaking of visual conversation, for awhile i was part of this insular photo group on the web that would post a theme once a week and then we'd all photograph and come back and judge the best of the pack. it was fantastic to see how each photographer took the assignment in a different direction, no two were alike.
i recently started entering contests and what not and i find that jarring me in positive ways. when you have to think of how to edit these huge archives of photographs it makes you stop and really think of how and why you are shooting and what your goals are. how is your stuff different or more interesting than the masses? i have been happily snapping for years post-college now, without any specific goals in mind, just because it made me happy and kept me visually sharp. but now i think it's time to concentrate on pulling stories together.
(sorry that i've gone off on a tangent from the original thread topic btw, but i love these free-flowing conversations. )
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I just got an SLR, the 5th move up from a very small nikon p/s to progressively larger cameras. If anything, my amount of shooting has increased with each larger camera and I never have it (and a backup camera) much further than arm's length away. I have little sense of self-consciousness so even a big camera hanging around my neck in public places is not an issue for me. I hate not having an eyepiece viewfinder, some weight in my hand, and menus I can read so larger is more comfortable for me. The "easiest" and most comfortable camera I've used is the Canon S2 IS; nice medium size, great stabilized lens, 12x zoom, my backup and still best for driveby shots or less obtrusiveness.
What's the point of taking all these pictures? For me it's no different than the point of anything else one is driven about...the search for the nugget of gold in the morass, or the pony in the pile as an old mentor used to say. I don't really give a whit about the glut of photos in the world, or that what I do has probably been done before. I'm actually not very competitive and care less and less about making a mark on the world. The bulk of what little of that stuff I have goes into my Science. The point for me with photography is the high from an image that makes me proud or happy or glad to be alive. It may have been done before, but not by ME. Just like climbing a hill that has been climbed by others. The view from the top is there for everyone but on that particular day it's mine and mine alone. What I see with my eyes (or camera), linked with my momentary feelings are utterly unique.
Finally, being always on the lookout for images helps me see better and as I get older I'm more and more driven to see and feel as much as I can of this world before it's all over.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Rushing out the door but wanted to post a quick thought.
"Trivia" got me thinking -- there's an analogy in printed (edited) material by serious writers vs blogs and everyone being able to say what they think (whether they are a good writer or have an eye for "interesting" or not).
This goes back to my earlier comment that you can set me down next to a professional photographer, show us the same scene, give me a bells-and-whistles camera and him a mobile phonecam. He's still going to take the better photograph.
Take the equipment out of the equation, is trivia not just trivia regardless of what was used to create it?
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Sylvia, Trivia is probably the wrong word here. It's a belittling word. I don't think that's what we're talking about. Perhaps ephemera would be better. Or the word Johanna Neurath (or maybe Andrew Long) came up with for the fotolog.book -- domestica. It's the idea Ingrid talks about elsewhere in this thread -- that your subject matter is already right here; you don't need to travel outside your neighborhood for good photos.
The problem, which mr. walker touched on in his "trivia" post, is that ephermera or domestica, unfortunately only seems to grip our imagination when it's gone. When it's history. Look at any fading-to-sepia picture from the 40s say, as long as it's competently made, & you can feel the magic. Gone. Never to return. E.g. I remember an image I saw somewhere -- who knows where -- of a man in a freshly pressed white long-sleeved dress shirt sitting at a wooden table in a plain room lit by a single bulb hung from above & he is looking down into a white mug of steaming coffee. That's it. I imagined a whole story. A furnished room & a kitchenette, a trolley ride to an office full of big wooden desks, etc. etc. Who was the man? Who was the photographer? I have no idea. But that image has lived in my brain for 30 years.
Do I see the ephemera pix on flickr the same way? No. It should be emphasized that the photog of the man w coffee cup was not a typical flickrite shooter snapping hubby across the breakfast table either. She, or more likely he, had to light that scene to make it APPEAR that it was natural (much is gained but, arguably, much is also lost with these utterly amazing little cameras). And , maybe because of that extra time & work, but I believe also because of who he was, that photographer had to have some sense of the generic, iconic power of that image. Maybe not consciously. Photographers are rarely intellectuals. But I believe he must have had some sense of a moment in history that had weight -- however little weight . He had a clear intent OUTSIDE THE MOMENT. You can feel it. Or I thought I could (I'm talking about a pattern of neurons firing in my brain).
There's so much thoughtless snapping going on now -- well, I don't know if the story above has anyhting at all to do with it. It seems to me that we're all under pressure now to regard a photo as the object of a single glance, to be banished from our consciousness forever as soon as we've registered it.
At the critique I participated in last night our gallerist Nelson was looking at the work of a talented young photographer. He started talking about the FSA photographs of the 30s & the young man looked blank. "Walker Evans," Nelson said. "Dorothea Lange." "Ben Shahn," I added. "Russell Lee. Gordon Parks?" Nothing.
If I had to guess, I'd say the guy probably knew who Henri Cartier-Bresson was. But, say, Andre Kertesz? Forget it. B & W. Old. Gone. Never to return.
I'm trying desperately to slow down again. To find my intention.
Originally posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
colorstalker edited this topic 42 months ago.
|
|
"i think you are right about the visual conversation being the most important aspect of this revolution: the people you meet, the responses you receive encourage the photographer to try harder, to make it better next time (esp. if you respect the other person's work). you are not your only audience. which for me, is very important. post art-school, where are the critiques? or the venue to put your stuff out there. the web gives us all that, with conversation."
Pixie, I'm glad for you. I adore your work, as you know. I wish this was happening for me. Sometimes it does. I guess I'm one of those people who's very hard to satisfy. Like, I don't get the groups. I put my pix in them when I'm feeling ambitious cause I want more people to see them, but it's all so unfocused & the work is so uneven. I sort of shrug & wonder what next? Every Friday I do the Friday challenge & that's good for me, but then I get discouraged when I see who the vox populi have chosen for the winners of the last challenge. The winners are for the most part so boriingly literal-minded -- classic top-of-the-line well-made cliches -- I can barely stand it.
Uh oh, getting confessional. Well, what can I tell you? I'm the middle child of 6 & the middle boy of 3 & I am so hungry for accolades it's completely ridiculous. At the same time I can be totally crushed by a flickr contest turndown by a group of people who know half as much as me (see, there's the arrogance creeping in). And as for conversation? I'm either WILDLY social or a total misanthropic loner. You need to SUSTAIN a conversation. I'm all over it, then I disappear completely for a week.
Where were we?
(P.S. Hope this is making you laugh).
Originally posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
colorstalker edited this topic 42 months ago.
|
|
P.P.S. While I'm manically typing instead of doing my work.
Gail, Yes, the runes are all over Manhattan & Brooklyn. I actually can't remember if they were here last summer. Now that I have the teenycam they're easy & fun to shoot. I seem to have way more than I can post.
CA, You are amazing. Things I admire & desperately envy:
"I have little sense of self-consciousness so even a big camera hanging around my neck in public places is not an issue for me. "
"I don't really give a whit about the glut of photos in the world, or that what I do has probably been done before. I'm actually not very competitive and care less and less about making a mark on the world."
Bless you. You want to give me private lessons?
Originally posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
colorstalker edited this topic 42 months ago.
|
|
Last thing, I promise.
My idea for slowing down & paying attention is something I 1st did , oh shit, 30 years ago (yes, Virginia). I made a book. If you're interested, what's left of it can be seen (along with a 10-year-old essay) here.
I'm using the QOOP book link for starters cause it's easy & cheap & I can do it from my computer. My 1st book will be this one. Just click "View the slideshow" & sit back. There are no words or even page numbers. It's all about the order & the juxtaposition. The 1st & last pix are alone; the rest are paired on spreads.
I have more books in mind. I'm not sure I know how, in the post-mod, digital age, to "concentrate on pulling stories together" but I know about books.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
would a book unsold be the same as a contest not won, a post not faved?
just being difficult here. i can relate to your concerns, oh can i ever!
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Being a painter, or a fallen painter who now takes pictures this is a most interesting discussion. I started to take pictures because I did not know the rules. I still do not know the rules and I want to be lawless. The rules of paint had become too restrictive and with photography I could "play". Embracing new tools to create images changes the way I see and communicate, it alters me and I can not go back. I have found that it is not the act of taking the pictures that is profound but the editing of them This is what photography and painting share and it is the familiar patch of ground I work from. Rules and fear are often part of the equation in editing and I think that new tools can bust apart old patterns. They can help you head towards fear and I think that is where the best work is generated. A teacher I had once said that you must use the tools you fear or hate because they inform the most. He was talking about the palette knife and all the evils it has imparted upon paint, but I think you can expand this concept to just about anything. Tim's new camera has changed him. It has informed his image making in a new way and this can only be a good thing.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
[this] [account] [has] [been] [deleted] says:
Really glad I checked back,
All the snappers out there wildly clicking away are a great thing. Their shots...mm..,probably not. But the fact that they're all clicking, and more importantly buying equipment, drives the r&d that benefits us all. I don't care about someones new bowl of soup with their old hair in it either, not even a close friend's. Then again people are not the subject matter of my work.
The Adams quote is great I'll have to track that down. My neighbors are large format, serious, b/w landscape photogs who make their living with print sales and book publishing. That quote is precisely what I've always felt when looking at their work.
There are still "true" landscapes, but they're not necessarily beautiful.
I don't know if truth ever equalled "beauty", but it rarely does now. Or it does and I'm just a cynical bastard.
As for the tools of the trade thing. I was and sometimes still am a custom furnituremaker. As such I have a shop crammed with machines....tablesaws, routers, planer, jointer...all that heavy metal.
I also have a chainsaw, an axe, and an adze. They are two very different sets of tools whose commonality is that they both work wood.
The results will necessarily be different. The mindset for using them is also different.
Posted 42 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Positive Focus /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Positive Focus discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
