complicated photography

[markbarendt]

knowledge and experience based knowledge can easily be re-acquired
an eye like hcb can't

Actually re-acquisition wouldn't be that important IMO.

Part of what I admire about HCB is his business model, it doesn't require the tech knowledge. It requires a great eye, a forgiving medium to capture the shot, and skilled help to do the grunt work.

 

[LAG]

knowledge and experience based knowledge can easily be re-acquired
an eye like hcb can't

You have your own eye, haven't you?
Enjoy your gift!

This is probably wasted ... Anyone can be taught technique, masterful composition cannot.

Composition IS technique

 

[Gerald C Koch]

HCB and "the decisive moment" are similar to the trapdoor spider's method for obtaining food. You wait for something to come by and then pounce on it. One day it could be a fly and the next a grasshopper.

 

[blockend]

You have your own eye, haven't you?
Enjoy your gift!
Composition IS technique

The question isn't one person's sense of great composition vs. another person's great sense of composition, all such unique talents should be rightly lauded. The thread has come down to the practical application of exposure, compared to the eye of a great photographer. In other words being a stop and a half out when releasing the shutter on a timeless classic photograph, against a nailed on exposure of a photographic banality. Unless someone has a densitometry fetish, there's no comparison. One is a talent that sells for thousands in the market place, the other is a technique you can pick up in an afternoon.

Clearly, exposure can be implicit to the aesthetic value of a shot, but composition is never superfluous to its aesthetics.

 

[removed account4]

You have your own eye, haven't you?
Enjoy your gift!



Composition IS technique

i wouldn't do it for long, being in someone else's head is enough to send the asylum, look what happened in being john malcovich !

i think it is a bit different than composition being technique, maybe i am wrong ..

sure i have eyes but i don't do anything even remotely associated to what he was doing, for me at least it is more like walking a few steps
in someone elses shoes and seeing/understanding what they are seeing / understanding.

unlike him, i have been exposing film all over the spectrum and printing my bad negatives for decades. i have printed street trash to be a better printer too,
the correct exposure doesn't really mean much to me because i gave up on the idea of perfection a long time ago, but to see the way someone else sees
would be pretty cool, even if it was for 20 mins...

 

[LAG]

In other words being a stop and a half out when releasing the shutter on a timeless classic photograph, against a nailed on exposure of a photographic banality. Unless someone has a densitometry fetish, there's no comparison. One is a talent that sells for thousands in the market place, the other is a technique you can pick up in an afternoon.

Where are these rules of distintion written? Where are these rules of definition written?

Clearly, exposure can be implicit to the aesthetic value of a shot, but composition is never superfluous to its aesthetics.

Both are inseparable

sure i have eyes but i don't do anything even remotely associated to what he was doing...

Why not? ... Wait! I already have your answer, look:

... my bad negatives ...

Well, self-criticism is good John, but if that is not a heaping dose of humble pie, and it's really your opinion about yourself, about your work ... or even worse!!!: If that bold (own) definition is the (wrongly) result of comparing yours with his, this conversation between you and me should be over. That's not how things are valued.

 

[removed account4]

Why not? ...

i don't do street photography, he invented it...

 

[LAG]

i don't do street photography, he invented it...

...???

 

[blockend]

Where are these rules of distintion written? Where are these rules of definition written?

Experience has shown that people who don't know the difference between art and craft cannot be taught it.

Both are inseparable

Clearly not, or claims of HCB's poor technique wound render his work unprintable and unsaleable.

 

[LAG]

Where are these rules of distintion written? Where are these rules of definition written?

Experience has shown that people who don't know the difference between art and craft cannot be taught it.

Thank you! (Do not ask but I expected that) I guess if I ask you what art is, your answer will have more or less the same ink as this.

Anyone can be taught technique, masterful composition cannot.

Composition IS technique

Clearly, exposure can be implicit to the aesthetic value of a shot, but composition is never superfluous to its aesthetics.

Both are inseparable

Clearly not, or claims of HCB's poor technique wound render his work unprintable and unsaleable.

Where is the exact point where a work is unprintable? Is it money that separate exposure from composition?

 

[removed account4]

...???

i was respponding to your question.
i don't do street photography, i have never done street photography
HCB was a master and hte INVENTOR of street photography, sure
i would gladly give up knowing how to read a light meter to walk in his
shoes and "understand" street photography, it has nothing to do with his eyes
and loosing my "vision" but gaining perspective and understanding.

 

[LAG]

i was respponding to your question.

And I was questioning your comment John, because I couldn't believe my eyes

i don't do street photography, i have never done street photography
HCB was a master and hte INVENTOR of street photography, sure
i would gladly give up knowing how to read a light meter to walk in his
shoes and "understand" street photography, it has nothing to do with his eyes
and loosing my "vision" but gaining perspective and understanding.

Even if I disagree with your capital letters, even if you & me have opposite opinions about an authorship or whether this is a important element or not for the personal growth of everyone, that does not change the global concepts of having ability to see at all. I appreciate your point of view (to be in his place) however I disagree again "For everything you have missed, you have gained something else, and for everything you gain, you lose something else".

I do not want to divert your thread, so I stop here.
Best

 

[Steve Smith]

About fifteen years ago, I got more interested in film photography. Before then, it was just a means to take snapshots.

I started reading about 'finding your personal film speed' and noticed that people were doing quite complex testing involving a variety of exposures and a variety of development times and checking all of the possible variables.

As I read the reports from those doing the tests, there was one obvious common conclusion. Almost all of them ended up rating the film at half the box ISO and reducing the development by 20 - 25%.

Rather than do all the tests myself, I just tried this, liked the results and used it as my method.

No need to overcomplicate things if others have already done the tests.


Steve.

 

[blockend]

Almost all of them ended up rating the film at half the box ISO and reducing the development by 20 - 25%.

For many years Tri-X at 200 ASA was the closest thing to a universal default among photographers I knew. Another rule of thumb I use is sunny day, 100 ASA film, f8 at 1/250. That exposes for the highlights pretty well, only white surfaces in full sun blow out, and still offers shadow detail to work with. Another one is 200 ASA colour negative, summer full daylight, f2.8 at 1/2000. Down a notch to 1/1000 morning or afternoon. Nice when working with old rangefinder lenses which are slightly soft wide open and people are moving quickly, and the camera lacks a meter.

Once you've nailed what works, the technical side of photography is simple. Making great pictures is as hard as it ever was.

 

[markbarendt]

Where is the exact point where a work is unprintable?

Is it money that separate exposure from composition?

Well, that's one way to measure.

The important question is "why are you/they taking the picture." For example, is it to be part of a news report? To sell in a gallery? Just to enjoy the craft?

It also depends on "your/their point of view." If you are a business owner and you are hiring photographers to take pictures of babies at the local big box store, consistent exposure keeps your costs down. If you're Ansel Adams and you need to get the camera setup and 'moonrise' into the camera before the light is gone, exposure accuracy isn't the highest priority.

 

[LAG]

The important question is "why are you/they taking the picture." For example, is it to be part of a news report? To sell in a gallery? Just to enjoy the craft?

It also depends on "your/their point of view." If you are a business owner and you are hiring photographers to take pictures of babies at the local big box store, consistent exposure keeps your costs down. If you're Ansel Adams and you need to get the camera setup and 'moonrise' into the camera before the light is gone, exposure accuracy isn't the highest priority.

There are lots of important questions with the things we're talking about. You can enunciate some and I can do as many. But the examples go into personal values or work preferences and is a narrower field to talk about (No problem), but maybe in another thread (if you open it) you can count on me. I think this is already too far off from the OP question ...

Well, that's one way to measure.

​

... and yes, "money" is the measure of everything, but there was a time that man was that measure. Happily there are other people with other values.

Best

 

[removed account4]

I do not want to divert your thread, so I stop here.

divert/derail enjoy yourself

 

[markbarendt]

I think this is already too far off from the OP question ...

Giggle, have fun with that.

 

[faberryman]

Clearly not, or claims of HCB's poor technique wound render his work unprintable and unsaleable.

I recently saw an exhibit of 60 or so of HCB's images at the SF Leica store. The prints were beautiful. Exposure originally might not have been spot on, but was clearly close enough to allow for very good prints. And they were selling for $25,000-$35,000 each. That doesn't mean that there are not HCBs photos where exposure was so bad they couldn't be printed. The world may have been deprived of even more iconic photos due to poor technique; we just have no way of telling.

 

[LAG]

divert/derail enjoy yourself

Giggle, have fun with that.

I am, I am having fun! (I do not want to be annoying, that's all)

 

[blockend]

I recently saw an exhibit of 60 or so of HCB's images at the SF Leica store. The prints were beautiful. Exposure originally might not have been spot on, but was clearly close enough to allow for very good prints. And they were selling for $25,000-$35,000 each. That doesn't mean that there are not HCBs photos where exposure was so bad they couldn't be printed. The world may have been deprived of even more iconic photos due to poor technique; we just have no way of telling.

That's a fair point, but street photography was HCB's chosen discipline, and playing the odds may be the only way he could do it. Win some, lose some. As Garry Winogrand said, "when I'm re-loading, there's nothing going on".

 

[markbarendt]

That's a fair point, but street photography was HCB's chosen discipline, and playing the odds may be the only way he could do it. Win some, lose some. As Garry Winogrand said, "when I'm re-loading, there's nothing going on".

That's a good summation, IMO anyone who shoots live action human activity finds a 'hurry up and wait, hurry up and wait, hurry up and wait' pattern; one tries to be ready to shoot pictures and avoid reloading when life is in hurry up mode.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

as we are all people who use cameras, photographers, how complicated do you make things?

in its most raw sense, photography is a very simple process. it is focusing and exposing a negative
depending on the light and what a general meter reading is. it is developing the film to make negatives
and it is exposing the negative onto paper and again developing it to make a positive print.

but it can be more than that. one can test the film, which is a stable media and doesn't really change much
it is just the light tha changes ) to learn in what light conditions how to expose the film to best catch the light.
and then test the developer through a variety of techniques and methodologies to find out which development
method works best with which film depending on the light and scene / subject, and then
how to best use available papers and develoeprs with these negatives.

it could just be point, shoot, develop, print. most people for decades did just that and they delivered
the film to a minilab, or mail order lab &c and got pretty good photographs, or pictures of memories
( kodak moments as they were called )

and as one goes up in format things become more dire and rigid because the effort and cost of materials increases.

it is obvious when we take pictures we get used to our cameras and know how they work, and if the meter inside exposes a certain way, and if we send out who prints the way we like it, or if we print ourselves what works best

but how complicated do you make it ?

i am always in awe at how complicated a simple process can become and in awe at some of the results
that come out of what could be just a simple point+shoot process.

i try my best to keep things simple but sometimes things are never as simple as you would like them to be
so you have to make-do...

what about you ?

Ilike it to be as complicated as possible.If it's easy anybody can do it and then we don't need APUG.

 

[removed account4]

Ilike it to be as complicated as possible.If it's easy anybody can do it and then we don't need APUG.

good to hear complicated is your thing.

i like to attempt to keep things simple.
sometimes i do extremely complicated and then
streamline it and it becomes simple again ..
the extra stuff was uneeded fluff ..

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Well, I've been using the same printing paper and print developer for the last ten years, Ilford MG fiber matte and replenished Ethol LPD, so I know what is needed from my negatives.
I used TMax-400 for a while, and switched to Ilford HP5+ as my main film when I thought Kodak was going to go under. I used too many film developers and need to settle on one, which will probably be PMK Pyro once I've used up what I currently have in the house, or Rodinal.

I plan on using HP5+ moving forward as I really like that film. I'm also in the process of selling most of my cameras, keeping my Hasselblad 500 Series cameras, a Rolleiflex, the Zero 2000 6x6 pinhole, a Holga, and one 35mm camera system (probably my Canon EOS3 + battery pack + Pentax screw mount lenses), plus my grandmother's old Minolta P&S 35mm.

I'm tired of picking cameras and want only 6x6 from 120 and full frame 35mm.