What evidence do you have that Weston "struggled" with his own sexuality, or is that a projection of what you see in his pictures?
I think a lot of Weston's works were struggles with his own sexuality.
If it's boring and doing nothing for you, why waste film? Sometimes it's interesting, but the lighting is bad. Same thing. Of course, with the latter, you can wait for the light to change. Of course, sometimes, boring things become interesting in the right light.its an age old question i think.
person has camera,
person makes a photograph of something .. but
that something is super boring, i mean a telephone pole, a water plug, a used car lot, street scene a >fill in the blank<
but how do we photograph it to make it well, not so boring? or is the mundane, boring-ness so mundane that it overcomes
the boring-epitude, and makes it interesting ?
i mean we all have seen photographs or mundane streetscapes or scenes from "whenever" and even though
they are of a scene that probably was as interesting as watching paint dry, now, 5, 19 or 80 years later, they are interesting.
is that the point ? hope that in 80 years someone will find our boring photographs and be enthralled? or ... do we make them interesting now ..
The first is too busy for my taste. But I like the second for its simplicity, shape, and form, perfect for BW photography.IDK, I got a lot of compliments on these and one is basically just a water spigot and the other is a chair in front of a wall. The background, the sky, the lighting, the choice of filters etc. all are part of the image. We are painting with light.
View attachment 237898 View attachment 237899
Here's how 2D can look like 3D.It is actually an age old question in commercial photography. Someone beings you a product that has nothing interesting about it but wants an interesting photo. The answer to that is the background and the lighting. There is the problem in real photography of seeing something that interests you but it only makes a boring subject even though it seems very interesting or compelling in life. That is because some things are interesting in 3 dimensions but not in 2 dimensions, like it should be sculpture not flat art.
What evidence do you have that Weston "struggled" with his own sexuality, or is that a projection of what you see in his pictures?
My contribution to boring hydrants. I suppose it raises the question as to what is it doing in the middle of a field in NYC Central Park?It looks like fire hydrants have become a common theme in this thread. Here's my entry:
I had to stand on a busy street in San Francisco to shoot this. Apparently I found the scene/subject matter worthy of almost getting run overI'm sure others will just see a bunch of boring, everyday objects but it's a photo I enjoy looking at, for some reason.
Peppers may be more interesting to us. But I bet his niece was more interesting to him.I happen to be rather fond of the Peppers by Edward Weston, both for the back story, technique, lighting and image itself, which I see as another version of his nudes, with his niece, et al.
My wife just gave me a tiny, 'LED Studio', 7 in. side to side, and I have some pears, etc, to play with, using it.
I won't me making Edward's quality photographs with this, as I play with it (it should be a great travel unit, with a portable supply or DC LEDs also installed) and see what works best in front of the cameras.
Below is a link to this foldable kit on Amazon, and you can get it in larger sizes as well, so get one and have some fun, too.
Godspeed to all and all your Loved Ones.
Stay Warm,
Eli
https://www.amazon.com/Portable-Lightbox-Photography-Backdrops-Lighting/dp/B081LW9TXP/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=7+inch+portable+LED+studio,+folding&link_code=qs&qid=1610301618&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-2&tag=mozilla-20
You aren't really photographing the "boring" something. You are photographing the interaction between the light and the "boring" something.
And light is rarely boring.
A picnic table, that some might find boring:
View attachment 237901
Just so you know, that was taken in the midst of the then current Monthly Shooting Assignment. The theme during that particular two month session was, IIRC, "Geometry".This something that I would probably totally miss. I'd walk right by it and not give it a thought because, well it's just a picnic table and a shadow. But the way you've captured the interplay between the table itself, and it's own shadow is great. I find a lot of visual interest in that photo.
That is a great question as I sometimes do take on the trend to express and use the look for a certain subject.But are they enough to stand the test of time. Will they demand such accolades 3, 5, 15 years from now? Or are they just a passing fad like the latest fashion trend? And are those younger demographics just producing things other people like to look at, or are they producing things that they truly and honestly like?
How's this!There are many ways already discussed, but simply changing perspective almost always results in taking something boring and making it interesting. Try this: Go out and take a photo of a street electric pole - your basic pole - boring! Pick another one maybe with two or three transformers hanging off of the top = still boring! Now get on the ground on your back with your head by the base of the pole looking straight up - now you have something interesting - maybe a radial composition. Give the viewer a perspective they typically don't see.
MFL
...
Agreeing that shooting and printing can be totally distinct forms of art in photography (there should be a quote somewhere of who said this) but a deep dedication for printing IMO means elevating the purpose of one's photography.
I like to challenge them, as many just scan, why do you go through all the B&W shooting and developing and then you leave the potential of printing out by scanning with the flatbed?
Prints can be scanned and look wonderful.
I agree, and in a way that is how I shoot color nowadays. However, doesn't the involvement im printing relate towards the intended long term purpose of the photograph?Couldn't the same argument be made for film itself? If you're going to scan to create a digital image, why not drop film and just shoot digital to begin with?
Nice, but my point was a the view from ground level looking straight up the pole from ground level would be a view no one hardly ever sees - and also quite interesting, but I like the backlit/silhouette effect too.
If it's boring and doing nothing for you, why waste film? Sometimes it's interesting, but the lighting is bad. Same thing. Of course, with the latter, you can wait for the light to change. Of course, sometimes, boring things become interesting in the right light.
I just thought it amusing that I had a telephone picture ready, when you were just using telephone poles as a hypothetical example!
He was a womanizer. I don't necessarily see him struggling with that in his photos, he's pretty straightforward. And more artistic than Steiglitz in that manner.What evidence do you have that Weston "struggled" with his own sexuality, or is that a projection of what you see in his pictures?
You should stray from your "usual style" more often, Bill. Those are great. I hope you do more in this style.I added a picture to the galleries. A straight print in my usual style was impossible ...
I often find Polaroid pictures worthy of a long viewing, even the mundane can look interesting.
Part of it for me is the low quality output being less distinct than the modern hyper clean digital counterpart. Similarly, film with loads of grain can look artistic, sometimes the grain can be the star of the show. I’m sure there will be many who disagree, but it’s the way I think about it.
Well, think about one Weston nude, wrapped tightly with her own arms, legs drawn in, at an angle, rounded and posed with her dark hair head, down and to the viewers right hand.
Now look at the curves, contorted, twisted, and the mystery of the combination of the lighting, the pose and especially the subject and the man who took the photograph and the questions that arise.
Then look at the pepper, contorted, folded, rounded, mysterious and with the same basic questions on the topic, the photographer and composition.
It may be that you are analyzing life with the articulated Left Brain side, which is always in a hurry, fills in data with it's own shorthand and leaves your ability to "see" from the creative side of your mind, the Right Brain, silent, tied up in a dark corner, as the Left side doesn't want to slow down and listen to anything more than what IT can see.
As to my perspective, you may never see what I see, but that's OK, because we were never meant to be anything else but Individuals with our own view points.
I hope this helps, you or someone else to understand my points.
Cheers
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?