Can photographic "vision" be taught?

Haven't we all been busy on a Saturday afternoon in the summer? Me, I went for run this am, did some work and went fishing, caught nothing. Still, not a bad day.

As for returning to the same spot to redo a shoot, to say something as absolute as never is over blown. How many versions of Yosemite Valley did AA shoot from the same vantage point? Just how definitive can one landscape photograph be from the same vantage point be? Certainly if nothing is working where you are at the time, move on. But to say something will not happen at some other time is denying the absolutes of changing weather and seasons. How many versions of Horseshoe Bend on the Colorado River are there? I saw a glorious color shot on a poster. Barnbaum has two versions I enjoy, shot at the same vantage point, in different seasons in b&w. Two of my finest landscapes of the NJ Pine Barrens were done after repeated visits to the exact same spots. There is an essay on my web site entitled "Home Town Safari" about how I caught what I like to call, "A Once In Eternity Image" of the Sandy Hook Lighthouse. I have photographed that location many times over the years, many have been published. However, this was one of those situations when time, weather and circumstance all came together and I was richly rewarded for my patience and perseverance.

As for arranging elements of a landscape, that is a matter of speaking. A photographer works with what is in front of the lens, but can minimize, hide, accentuate elements by changing camera positions, vantage points, waiting, driving around till the relationships between the elements are arranged the way you want them to be. Composing great landscapes can often be like composing great music. Both have drawn their inspiration from what they found in nature. Both have to perceive the rhythms before them. Both have to know what they want to say and then translate it to the composition. One of the attributes that made AA's landscapes so great, was his training as a concert pianist. Open your eyes and hear the music?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Mike, it's RAP!

Yes you can teach composition, but only to certain point. You can train your local portrait wedding, commercial photographer certain poses, lighting techniques so that he is proficient to please his clients. Sure, it will never hang in a gallery or museum. But you can teach only to a certain point. If the student just doesn't have it, have you done them a disservice by teaching a certain level of proficiency ? But if a student does have that natural sense of creativity, then they will break free to create what they want no matter what. It is up to the teacher to perceive talent and nurture it accordingly. What do they teach at RIT? Some of the greatest artists who ever lived never had any formal training.

Rules of composition? No there are none. Like I said, only vague, gray area principles. Lately, I tend to think of composition more in terms of Rorschach tests and Gestalt. How we as individuals perceive the world around us based on backgrounds, nationalities, culture etc.

I must say, this has been the best discussion on a photo board anywhere!

THANKS!

Michael A. Smith said:

Ed: "Am I gaining the understanding of your "visioning process" somewhat?:
I should first view my entire studio as a whole ... then narrow my virtual "frame" to include only the model... and ... If the position of her hands is to me, not the most expressive, I should ... do what?"
Sounds like you are getting it, Ed.
Ed: "If the position of her hands is to me, not the most expressive, I should ... do what?"
How would I know? "Hold them!" would be my best guess, especially if you are single and find the model attractive.

Click to expand...

"Hold them"? Never. I will *NOT* touch a model in a working session.

Interesting answer. I was, you might be suprised to know, really trying to understand this concept of "Photograhic Vision" .. even at the price of being labeled "Ignorant"... but then, "ignorant" means "uninformed" ... and the primary mission of a teacher is to "inform".

From this answer, my problem in trying to grasp this concept might be that this "Photographic Vision" is a ...what is it ... a tool, mindset, technique? ... that is rather tightly restricted to "landscapes" ... and not particularly useful for those among us whose primary interest is "Fine Art" of a different nature - figure studies, portraiture, abstrations.... or whatever comes down the pike.
Yes, no, or what?

Now... "Compositional Rules". I agree that there is a mis-labeling here. These represent studies of the works of art that have been regarded as ... "great", "fine", "successful" -- arbitrarily, biased, possibly grossly inefficiently ... looked upon as "good work" - in order to determing factors common to the majority of them. Those factors, and their strengths and frequecies of occurance are areas of interest, in a secondary role. Perhaps there is some sort of shared vision among those that are considered "great".
These are certainly NOT meant to diamond-hard requirements that *must* followed and slavishly incorporated.
These really should be called "Soft and Optional Compositional Suggestions".
But they DO exist.

Back to "Photographic Vision" ... Am I correct in understanding that it is permissable to subtract elements - but not add them?
Now... we do not usually have control of the scene (talking about landscapes here) in the sense that we would not erect or raze a building for the sake of the photograph ... not usually. We still have control over our images, though - limited as it may be, in that we can include the image of an existing building by swinging the camera a few degrees to the right or left - and exclude it in the same manner. We can modify the perspective, apparent size, and relative placement of the building or fountain, or mountain in the scene ... but this is not "composition"?

I missed this discussion on Saturday as I was in the swamp taking pictures. I've had a nice Sunday morning reading the posts.

I think something one of my music composition teachers told me is applicable - an artist creates art only within the restrictions he imposes on himself.

In photography, we impose limitations by our choice of camera, film, developer, paper, etc. Also, whether we shoot landscapes, or people or outdoors or in studio.

Ed asks - Is this not composition?

As a landscape photographer, it is not to me. When I compose music, I begin with a small element - a rhythm cell, a melody, or, perhaps, the colors of instruments. I build up a compositon from the tiny elements - notes, rests, colors, etc.

In my landscape photography the process is almost the opposite. I find the idea within the clutter of the world. I don't consider it adding or subtracting - only finding.

But, I did a little studio work at one time. I worked for a TV station that did commercials for a large supermarket chain. We had to shoot various foods on a light table. We would build up the shot by placing the foods, adjusting the lights, etc. That was a very similar process to my music compositon. (And no, I'm not suggesting it was art - just describing the process.)

Perhaps Ed and Michael (and all of us) have imposed different limitations on their work, resulting in a different way of arriving at photographic vision.
juan

Hey, Ed, I was only kidding about holding the model's hands.

I sense now that you are quite serious about trying to understand this stuff. I'll try to do my best to make it clear.

"Vision" has nothing to do with subject matter. Not with landscapes, studio setups, portraits, etc. Others have said very clearly what "vision" is. To paraphrase their fine answers--it is what is behind your way of looking at the world. Your way of looking at the world would be your "style."

Now, style and vision are not something one ever tries to incorporate. They are things that, over time, emerge from the work you have done. Whereas a photographer's style can be articulated, discussed and analyzed, vision is less amenable to those things. There would readily be consensus about a photographer's style, but not, in all likelihood, about a photographer's vision.

Let's think of the work of two well-known portrait photographers, Richard Avedon and Arnold Newman. (This will be brief--let's not get bogged down in arguing about particulars of my comments--the general point is, of course, up for discussion.) Newman's style is to place figures in the context of their environments, his pictures are sharp and clear, there is a strong structure and sense of abstraction underlying each picture. Avedon's style is very different--from his mature style his figures are generally center seen centered against a white background. They are also sharp and clear. I don't think any knowledgeable viewer would ever mistake an Avedon for a Newman or vice versa.

Now what about their vision. I would say the Newman sees people as being at home in their worlds, which would reflect that he feels at home in the context of his surroundings. Avedon, on the other hand, sees people as being alienated, cut off from their surroundings. This would reflect an alienation he himself feels.

Others may have a different take on these last few sentences--my very brief and not comprehensive analysis of their vision (which may be right or wrong--please let's not get bogged down in particulars--it is a general point I am trying to make), is open to contradiction, interpretation, rebuttal, etc. it is not, nor could it ever be definitive--it is my opinion based on my understanding of human functioning, Again, it may be right or wrong.

So the difference between "vision" and "style" is clear, yes, Ed? Now how about "composition." Avedon composes so that his sitters are centered. That compositional device determines his style. Newman composes so that there are visual tensions carooming back and forth throughout the picture space (this is very general--there are lots of exceptions in individual pictures). These compositional strategies (though they are not intellectualized they can still be called strategies) determine the style, which in turn defines the vision.

Now, as I said above and this is a point too important not to repeat, especially for those who are trying to find their way: one does not choose either compositional strategies, style, or vision. They are things that emerge as a function of the working process. They are nothing that one tries to adopt. After one has been working for a number of years, you look back on what you have done and you see, readily or not, what all those things are. To intellectually choose one or to follow so-called compositional "rules," would be fine for a commercial photographer (I agree with you somewhat here RAB), but not for an artist or for an aspiring artist. These things come from who you are in the deepest sense. They choose you, You do not choose them.

If you choose them you would only be doing something more superficial than might otherwise emerge. You may get something clever and catchy--and you may make good pictures and get noticed (it happens all the time), but because they are from the mind rather than from the heart or soul, because they do not emerge as part of an ongoing organic process, it is likely that the resultant pictures made by choosing a style or a vision, will not last nor join the galaxy of great art that has persisted through the ages.

(Apologies for my earlier comment about "those who are ignorant." When I am the target of comments meant to disparage me, I do react. I did not mean to use such a broad brush. These discussions should be good natured, even if there is serious disagreement.)

Michael A. Smith

Ed:

Michael Smith's comments are very interesting,comprehensive, and to the point. When my daughter was taking an art class (lots of years ago) I read her text and only then realized the many elements involved in composition of the graphic arts. Almost all of them are applicable to photographs. None of them are applicable to photographic vision, as I understand your implied definition.
There was a recent article in Photo Techniques magazine targeting "style" and attempting to highlight some of the false ideas perpetrated by some self-sophisticated art critics. The message(s) was a parallel to Michael Smith’s recent post. I agree 100 percent with both person’s conclusions. Do your “own thing”, employing such “rules” and concepts of artistic composition and let “style” evolve naturally.
To narrow this subject a little, there is a technique of aiding the photographer’s “vision” using a frame proportioned to the camera’s format. Howard Bond wrote an article explaining the construction and use of such a device in another Photo Techniques article. I have tried this and found it not useful to my personal visualizations, but it could be of benefit for others. The idea here is to eliminate distracting elements and assist in selecting focal lengths.
No, I do not think one can teach visualization but it can be learned. There is nothing to beat experience and competition to hone one’s photographic visualization. There are individuals who have inherent talent for this while others never “get it”. I struggle with it. But always remember to take criticism for what its worth, and that art critics are to artists as pigeons are to statues. Or, in the words of Ogden Nash’s commentary for Camille Saint-Seans’s “Carnival of the Animals”, “When it comes to mules – there are no rules”.

Truly, dr bob.

"To narrow this subject a little, there is a technique of aiding the photographer’s “vision” using a frame proportioned to the camera’s format. Howard Bond wrote an article explaining the construction and use of such a device in another Photo Techniques article. I have tried this and found it not useful to my personal visualizations, but it could be of benefit for others. The idea here is to eliminate distracting elements and assist in selecting focal lengths."

Paula and I do not recommend use of such a frame. It limits the photographer to what he or she already knows and from what I have seen over many years, those who use this kind of thing then to make very conventional photographs. (So do many others, of course.) There is, however, a use for such a frame, and that is when photographing moving things such as people moving around or waves, to take two examples. After the edges of the photograph are determined and after the holder is in and the slide drawn, then use the frame as a viewfinder. It will help you to place the moving things in exactly the right positions within the picture.

Michael A. Smith

dr bob said:

Ed:
Michael Smith's comments are very interesting, comprehensive, and to the point. When my daughter was taking an art class (lots of years ago) I read her text and only then realized the many elements involved in composition of the graphic arts. Almost all of them are applicable to photographs. None of them are applicable to photographic vision, as I understand your implied definition.
There was a recent article in Photo Techniques magazine targeting "style" and attempting to highlight some of the false ideas perpetrated by some self-sophisticated art critics. The message(s) was a parallel to Michael Smith’s recent post. I agree 100 percent with both person’s conclusions. Do your “own thing”, employing such “rules” and concepts of artistic composition and let “style” evolve naturally.

Click to expand...

I did not attempt to define "photographic Vision", only to re-state it slightly in order to understand it through a "feedback" process.

Mr. Smith has done an admirable job of "leading" into the understanding of what is necessarily a *very* (nearly impossibly daunting) complicated subject. I do not mean to suggest that these ideas will be "The Banner on my Lance" in the future ... I'm still not completely sure I "am there" in understanding them, but the assimilation of them into my subconscious will probably be useful in my future work... as is the contact with all art is.

I really identify with Edward Weston's "Not adhering to ANY philosophy - not even his own ... and merely photographing whatever "excites" him."
I've done a lot of introspection over the years, and I delight in the discovery of the "aesthetic insides" and modus operandii of other photographers and the links betweeen all that and their final product. Discovery and study, yes. Complete understanding? - Uh, no, not by a long shot.

Now ... In clarification, this is how it happens when I photograph:

1. The most important part: I somehow get a desire, from somewher deep within me (or maybe not all that "deep") to make a photograph ... My "intent" varies only rarely ... To capture and freeze in time a visual record of an exciting scene - one that has stirred, awakend, aroused, triggered - some sort of emotional reaction - from wild lust all the way to serene tranquility... and to share that with the hope of inducing the same reaction in another.

2. I will prepare. That may mean something a simlpe as raising the camera, or as complicated as extensive socialogical interaction with a model to establish rapport.

3. Immediately before the "Moment of Truth" - tripping the shutter - I will *TRY* to clear my consciousness - to "lose" my narrow image of myself .. and sort of "be one" with the surroundings - and the subject. "Rules" and thoughts of "Composition" will not be there. Not consciously ... hopefully not.

All that is the procedure leading to the capture of the image. There is much more to come in the darkroom ... in the presentation ...

More to come later. I'm out of time right now...

jdef: "Hi again, Michael. I see that you dislike any challenge or disagreement, and like any great artist resort to threats of censorship to curb it."

I think it has been abundantly demonstrated that I relish challenge and disagreement.

jdef: "My comment s were certainly NOT off topic as the difference between composition and "photographic seeing" are surely relative to "vision". I intended to clarify the terminology to which you responded with:"In point of fact, for those, like yourself who are ignorant of how one makes a photograph: one does not compose a photograph."

I believe I have dealt with this. That comment of yours was certainly not off topic. What was off topic was your snide comment about our workshops costing close to $600. That was way off topic and I think it was clear to everyone (though maybe not you), that is what I was referring to.

jdef: "Being myself, ignorant of how one makes a photograph, I awaited anxiously for your wisdom to trickle down to my lowly station, and sure enough in a later post you wrote:" Avedon composes so that his sitters are centered. That compositional device determines his style. Newman composes so that there are visual tensions carooming back and forth throughout the picture space (this is very general--there are lots of exceptions in individual pictures). These compositional strategies (though they are not intellectualized they can still be called strategies) determine the style, which in turn defines the vision."

Now I AM confused. Which is it Michael? Does one compose a photograph or not?"

There are compositional devices and strategies. With some photographers they are consciously determined, with others they are just what happens--it is just the way they see. When referring to these it is difficult to avoid use of the verb "composes." I could have used the verb "sees" but then the following sentences would not have made sense since the phrases "this compositional device" and "compositional strategies" would have come out of nowhere. That you are confused may not be such a bad thing. Out of confusion enlightenment may come.

jdef: "To clarify my position regarding your business interests, I couldn't care less."

Well I certainly hope that is true and that you won't be bringing them up again. Since you have continually brought them up I had no choice but to assume otherwise.

jdef: "What annoys me is your endlessly pretentious, self-important pronouncements."

Then be honest, man, and say so, instead of being sneakily subversive by constantly referring to our Azo sales and now our workshops.

jdef: I encourage you to contact the moderators and have me silenced.

If you continue your snide and off-topic comments about our Azo sales and workshops, I shall indeed do that.

Jdef: "A great artist and teacher such as yourself should never be bothered by the opinions of the ignorant."

You are certainly right about that. Hey, you found me out, I'm not perfect.

Michael A. Smith

Hey Mikey, do you still hate everything??!! I hate Quaker Oats too! Please, it's RAP as in Robert A. Pietri, not RAB, as in rabble-rouser. This discussion has been great. So let me throw out a curve ball, what is the difference between commercial and purely creative work? To me, commercial is anything done with somebody or anybody else in mind. Be it a client, teacher, mentor, idol, anybody. Where as purely creative work is done for the pure gratification of the artist, with absolutely no one else in mind, save for the artist himself, or herself, if that is possible. Just how much originality is there left in the arts? What is left that has not been done? It seems just about every subject the world has to offer has been touched upon. Is there anything left?

Well it has been a nice day, run in the morning, finished some work in the afternoon, some Russian Vodka with a leg of lamb cooked to perfection on the grill. Wish I could catch a striped bass though.

My "photographic vision" is 20/20 if I wear my contacts. Yesterday my photographic vision enlightened me with the knowledge that I need to lose some weight and quit smoking if I want to carry heavy cameras up and down steep hills.

Seriously, though, does photography need to be deconstructed so much? I'm not asking that as a rhetorical question, either. Can all great photographs be reduced to a formula, that equals "photographic vision"? If so, then I need to take up painting. If not, then what?

Sorry if I'm derailing a perfectly good flame fest, but it seemed to be a good time to jump in.

..

Wow Aggie, that was great! Can I put you on a pedestal and worship you? :roll:
Seriously, you cut that right to the bone and I like it. Thanks.

quote="RAP"] What is left that has not been done? It seems just about every subject the world has to offer has been touched upon. Is there anything left?[/quote]

For every Man, Woman and Child that picks up a camera for the FIRST time, there is a new VISION to be explored. For those who pick up that camera for the um-teenth time there is a whole universe of NEW subjects that haven't had the benefit of THEIR vision. MY GAWD MAN, the historical world of photography has not scratched the surface of NEW. That's what VISION is all about. Thats why we go back tomorrow to redo the images we made yesterday -- "Just a little more/less exposure", "Maybe an orange filter instead of a red", "I want just one PERFECT negative" and I will define it, no one else can. Because it is my vision of how it oughta be that counts.

There is a LOT left to do, and the visionary photographer will do it.

After 20years in this business I almost had my " first" vision this morning. On sunday mornings Karen and I go the this little cafe at the beach for breakfast.We did as usual food, coffee on the boardwalk then a walk along the bluffs. then we head home as the summer traffic is carpooling itself into town. Today however like Percival and the grail I could see " it " VISION" first oncoming about 50 cars away then 20, then 10 I could see I'm getting closer this forum has saved me. Like a moth to the light I'm almost their, then suddendly out of my fog I hear my wife Tom? why are you ? watch out! and pulled me out of the path of the Vision. Once my head had cleared I realized that trying to assimulate myself headon with a moterhome called vision was probably trying to hard so from now on I'll let my vision be a passenger and ask my wife to drive home from breakfast.

RAP: "What is left that has not been done? It seems just about every subject the world has to offer has been touched upon. Is there anything left?"

In J.S. Bach's time they thought he was a great organist, but not much of a composer since baroque music had been done.

Aggie: "Vision is not just our sum total of our experiences, it is not just what rules we adhere to, or break, it is not our techniques that we employ, it is a very simple thing. It is so simple we miss it. It is and will always be........."What do YOU have to say with that photograph!"

I always thought that asking that question led nowhere. It might be possible to answer it and yet still not be able to make better photographs. Better photographs would be those that were more clearly seen (and printed, though that part is easier and secondary--ultimately seeing and printing go together, of course). Let's say that a photographer says that what he/she is trying to show in his/her photographs is the universality of humankind. Fine. But does that help make better pictures? Not necessarily. There can be bad pictures that show that and there can be good pictures that show that. (Let's all agree that not all photographs are equal and that some are good and that some are bad. What makes a picture good or bad is a whole other question--another topic entirely.)

Aggie: "Moonrise over Hernandez" How many of you know that it was printed very differently in the beginning? That with time Ansel experimented with printing until he finally hit upon a way to make that picture communicate the feelings he had when he viewed it."

Ansel printed this picture a number of ways and finally figured out how to make the best print of it. This may or may not have had anything to do with the feelings he had when he made the negative. In fact, they probably do not, because, limited time though he had when he exposed the negative, if he had wanted the sky to be black he would have used a red filter--something that he was no stranger to doing. Since the earlist prints from a negative generally do best reflect the photographer's intentions, it is likely that his earliest prints of Moonrise most closely approximated what he felt when he made the exposure.

I have written about this kind of thing elsewhere and will quote myself in part, with additions:

Although it is the reality of the subject before you that captures your attention, the feeling one has while photographing is determined by myriad factors. The physical reality before you—the very real three-dimensional space, the light, the colors, the sounds, the smells, the weather—is of course a major factor. Of the others, some are more or less stable, such as one’s world view and the general state of one’s psyche and health. Other factors are more fleeting, such as the time you have available (it is hard to be calm and contemplative when rushed, whether by quickly changing light or the need to be somewhere else), the other people who may be present, your dreams from the night before, or a conversation you may have just had. All of these factors contribute to determining your mood, which in turn may affect how you feel about what is before you. Your whole prior life experience goes into it, too.

Realizing the absolute impossibility of trying to create for others and to recreate for myself, in a two-dimensional black and white photograph, the feeling of the multi-faceted experience of having been at the scene photographed, my goal when photographing is simply to try to make the best picture I can. I take the emotional response (if there were no emotional response I would not have bothered to take out the cumbersome camera) as a given and assume that something of it will find its way into the photograph.

Making prints is simply an extension of this process. To try to make a print that reflects what you felt is to miss the point entirely. In the darkroom, one's job is to try to make the best print one can, and thereby to provide, both for onesself and for the viewer, a new experience—one of the photograph itself, one that may lead the viewer to new feelings and an expansion of their world, not an understanding of yours.

Aggie said:

Bruce Barnbaum asked one of the people taking is course once, "What are you trying to say?" The person pondered this for a moment then said, "I don't think I am trying to say anything. I think I am just trying to listen."
May you all listen to the muse inside of you, and experiemnt like Marcello and try to find the best way to say what you want to communicate.

Click to expand...

The idea that we do what we do in a "lstening" mode instead of "trying to tell someone something" sounds pretty darn good to me. It well may be that an efficient method of making art is to "listen" (could this, in effect, another name for "seeing"?) and recording that which has a profound effect on our consciousness.... for later "communication" to another.

Brace yourselves, gang. Here comes an *opinion* (fair game for discussion - Principles are not.)

I do not consider photography - either my work or the art of others - as excusively, narrowly, confined to the box of "communication". While communication is (may be?) an element in art, it is a part of a much greater whole. I can write, "I went to buy petrol"... I am communicating... but *I* would NOT be satisfied calling those five words, arranged like that, "Art"- at least not *MY* art. A great work of literature is to me *definitely* a geat work of art. It may well communicate ideas, emotions ... but its "mission" is far more than simple communication.

"What am I trying to communicate?" I think this is a valid question, but not the best ... a tad too complicated. To me, "What are you DOING" is more succinct and to the point: It engenders introspection, an examination of our "selves" and our internal workings.

There will be a time - I think it has probably happened to all of us - where a photograph turns out to be far different - far "better" than what we had intended - call it an conveying an entirely different "message". Ansel Adams called these "Fortunate Accidents".

If the critique of these works is, or can, only be coherent in terms of "What we intended to communicate", we stand the grim chance of producing wonderful, expressive, emotion-inducing works that must be necessarily labeled as "failures". What to do with those? Wonderful, beautiful "failures" ... do we throw those away?

I will not. Whether they a products of random good fortune, or (most probably) the results of our over-riding preconsiounesses, or effected by magical spells ... they are MY work, and I will exhibit them wil relish, and not one iota of guilt. Translation: "All gifts gratefully accepted".

"What are you trying to communicate?" - and the "other end", for me, the experiencer: "What message was the artist trying to communicate?" How would one answer that about Michaelangelo's "David", or Renior's "Torse au Soliel"? Or Adams "Moonrise Over Hernandez" ... would it be, "The moon is rising?" .. Or Westons "Pepper"? ... "Here is a pepper"?.

And what about Magrittes, "This Is Not A Pipe"???

..

No matter how one comes to his own personal vision, it is something that evolves and matures over time. I think a theme that seems to be central to the discussion is the ability to "listen" or spend time seeing before getting the camera out. I read an essay somewhere that quoted a photographer as saying the most important photographs are the ones you don't take.

It is easy to expose film, but much more difficult to have a certain amount of discipline and be able to say something does not fit your vision, or just does not work.

When I began to leave my cameras at home or in the car and just spent time looking at things I began to gain a new respect for my subjects and in turn a better understanding of how I wanted to show them. I think you need to have a sense of the origin or creation of the subject, the effect of the years on it and the poeple who used it or the lives of people themselves. it is a reverence for the subject that comes out in the final image that is the difference between a "snapshaot" and beauty in photography.

You feel this reverence in Adams work, and it radiates from Weston's. Why is the work of Eugene Smith so powerfull? It is the respect and near adoration for the subjects he shows in his prints. Even the abstracts of Brett Weston or Strand demonstrate a devotion to simple forms of light and shadow.

If you don't respond to the subject in this way you will waste your film and paper. Some may say that vison is all about how you see the world or how you bring some of yourself into the image. I think what the good photographer does is to recognize something that resonates with him and then be willing to say, this photograph is my effort to pay homage to you.
Maybe its a person, a mountain range or a cigarette butt on the street. Whatever the subject matter, out of this respect will evolve your technical methods and tools. I agree with Michael that it is not important that you follow any set rules. It is more an attitude and a state of mind. It is in all of us and I see it in a lot of the work in the galleries.

Interesting points. One thing about the Barbaum workshops that turned me off was that question: What are you trying to say with this picture? In my case I don't think I am trying to say anything, I am merely presenting to people something that caught my attention and I found attractive, not necessarily something that I thought needed to be "said." What I find most contradictory is that IMO Barbaums pictures don't say anything. I find them beautiful, I find them very well made and crafted, but they don't "communicate" anything to me. What is there to communicate about a slot canyon? the light and shadows are beautiful, the contrast range is great....but what else?

I fail to understand this obsession with "communicating", why cant pictures be just something that caught your attention and found interesting and worth while to capture?

On the subject of flame wars, as a moderator I have to judge when to step in. I have discussed this with Sean and we have agreed to make it a joint desicion, but as wars go this one was pretty "light" so to speak and I was hoping that it would fizzle out as apparently it has done. OTOH make no mistake I think one of the reasons we have a nice exchange of ideas without the frequent occurence of flame wars is because I have taken a hard stance on this one issue.
I will not tolerate this site to become a mirror of "that other site" and will not allow flame wars to go on and on. Unlike some other sites we have promised the APUG membership to give the reasons why a post was deleted or edited, as such I was getting ready to just remove all the answers not related to the topic with an explanation. But sometimes is good to see if the memebrship regulates itself and demands a return to civility and frank exchange of ideas, as it has happened in this case. So in the future for all involved if you perceive a slight or offense, just ignore the post, it is the best way to finish the "fight" and prevent giving credence to the accusation or offense. OTOH if you feel like posting a personal comment, write it down, count to 10, re read it and if you still feel you absolutely have to do it, then post it but be aware that if it is removed for being off topic it is nobodys fault but yours.

I have had the misfortune of being involved in some hellatious flame wars and one of the things that always amazed me was why it was not stopped by the moderators. With that expereince trust me when I give this advice, it will make your enjoyment of this site better, and it will make APUG one of the best sites to exchange ideas and knowledge.

[quote="Jorge. One thing about the Barbaum workshops that turned me off was that question: What are you trying to say with this picture?

I suppose Jorge that in these circumstances you have to say that "I like this subject/image and I want to share it with you." I have to agree with you in that it does not have to be a statement any deeper than that. You take a picture because it does something for you at the time, however minor.[/u]

It might not be for the artist to say what he or she is trying to communicate in any way other than through the work itself. Most writers and artists, I find, even if they are perceptive and articulate interpreters of the work of others, are not really able to explain in a coherent, convincing, or complete way "what they meant," and that is probably a good thing. If they could easily translate their work into words, they might have done better to have written an essay. It's often that thing that can't be so easily explained that makes the work interesting.

I was once asked to explain what I wanted to communicate with a specific picture.

I answered (after long thought) that "if I thought I could explain that in words, I would have tried poetry instead of photography - the materials are a lot cheaper".

That is a good one Ole! You are right, you shouldn't need to explain your photography. It should speak for itself.

..

..