Not every photo is of a trapeze act. Some photos are of chess matches.
True it is more personal preference sorry to not having stated it. I prefer more the "instinctively" way of doing it vs contemplating for an hour about an image
The genius of photographers like HCB isn't because they react instinctively to a highly photographable scene.
It is that they can both appreciate that scene for its photographic possibilities, and take the necessary steps to turn it into a successful photograph.
HCB worked well within what has become known as the "Street" photography, which some misunderstand to be limited to quick, instinctive reaction photography. That limitation really isn't the case at all, because the "deliberateness" of the Street photographer is immaterial - it is their preparation and ability to visualize that ensures success.
There really is no fundamental difference between HCB, Geoffrey Crewdson, Garry Winogrand, Karsh, Fred Herzog or Jeff Wall. Their fundamental power comes from how they saw. They just use/used different approaches to bring the results into being.
I have always held that taking an hour to set up, compose and expose a sheet of film is as spontaneous as photographing the street with a 35mm camera.
The spontaneous moment is when the brain decides to make (or take) an image. How long it takes to carry out that decision is of no great importance (as long as one has enough time to complete the task.)
YMMD
Well he was instinctive. He instinctively recognised a nice composition that would be perfected with a figure in that spot, so he waited. Would you criticise the painter Claude for putting figures in his landscapes?
You've learned to add the 'humble opinion' clause. Now ask yourself whether that solves it. Hint: it's not like applying curly braces to your C++-code and hey presto, it compiles.
It is more than that. Painting is additive, photography is subtractive. The creative part of photography is in cropping composition and recognition of light and pattern and emotion in a scene. And not everything photographed is gone forever afterward.No because in painting you create something from an empty canvas in photography you dont create anything. You merely record a shadow a trace of time and space that is gone forever.
You merely record a shadow a trace of time and space that is gone forever.
in photography you dont create anything.
This tells me you don't print much.
No because in painting you create something from an empty canvas in photography you dont create anything. You merely record a shadow a trace of time and space that is gone forever.
I don't think he was a genius. Sorry.
Photography can be practiced as the art of seeing...where the art becomes the selecting the slice of time, shadows, and space that define a place. Where the who or what in the image is not the subject, but what is defined by the light and shaped by the space.You merely record a shadow a trace of time and space that is gone forever.
This tells me you don't print much.
Or work with Alternative Processes.
Or encaustic materials.
Or emulsion lifts.
Or create the fascinating work I saw years ago from a photographer who made use of bee carcasses to make images.
It is more than that. Painting is additive, photography is subtractive. The creative part of photography is in cropping composition and recognition of light and pattern and emotion in a scene. And not everything photographed is gone forever afterward.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?