instant or instants

removed account4 · Nov 25, 2017

the other day someone told me they were an instant photographer
they didn't photograph anything in particular, but instants, moments in time.
i thought they were trying to mess with me so they showed me their portfolio
which was as they described instants, nothing more, nothing less, and a cohesive portfolio
to say the very least !
seeing most photographers could suggest they photograph "instants" but in essence
they photograph much more than that, what is it that they photograph ...
instants that are photogenic? instants that are composed and hopefully anticipated?
ir random? what if the instant means nothing to anyone involved ?
or it is more than one instant can there be instant photographs that they take more than an instant .. ?

and does any of it matter ?

jbrubaker · Nov 25, 2017

Can you reference some examples of this type of photography? I'm not sure I understand what it is. thanks, john.

bvy · Nov 25, 2017

Prof_Pixel · Nov 25, 2017

Yes, still photographs capture an instant of time - so what's the big deal. Does the person mean he only shoots still images and doesn't shoot moving picture clips?

removed account4 · Nov 25, 2017

the person said they only photograph instants .. the portfolio
was instants, cohesive .. not stills, not clips, instants ..

Prof_Pixel · Nov 25, 2017

Any still photographer captures 'instants' and a frame out of a movie is an 'instant'

It sounds like he is talking 'double talk' that makes no real sense

removed account4 · Nov 25, 2017

naaah it wasn't double talk
it was more real than reality itself
hard to explain .. but instants not
stills or street or frames ...

NedL · Nov 26, 2017

this was now here

- Ann Banfield

(but don't ask me what all that other stuff means

TheRook · Nov 26, 2017

By "instants", do you mean taking random snapshots of stuff one encounters throughout the day?

AgX · Nov 26, 2017

Prof_Pixel said:
Any still photographer captures 'instants' and a frame out of a movie is an 'instant'

It sounds like he is talking 'double talk' that makes no real sense

I assume what this discussion is about is that a still photographer wants to put a story into that still, whereas an instant photographer just wants to capture a moment in time with no effort for further references.

BrianShaw · Nov 26, 2017

For instance...

Billy Axeman · Nov 26, 2017

I guess an instant shooter doesn't judge images in his/her viewfinder before pressing the button, so they are meant to be neutral recordings, and when by accident a marvelous frame is captured it is rejected.

It's an interesting state of mind actually and worth an experiment when you go out shooting.

removed account4 · Nov 26, 2017

i think that's it billy axeman !
it was hard to explain the set as a whole
he was telling me his methods and it
seemed like a state of mind thing ..
i had been telling him about how
i have a handful of cameras i can't
focus with, i can't even see whats in the
view finder ( box cameras useless milk glass )
and i just point and count to like 4 or 6 or 12
and he smiled and showed me his stuff ..
and it made me think about photography in general ..
how people with cameras try to organize instants
when ... they don't really have to..

BrianShaw · Nov 26, 2017

Shooting without thinking?

Shooting without seeing?

Shooting intuitively?

Billy Axeman · Nov 26, 2017

NedL said:
- Ann Banfield
(but don't ask me what all that other stuff means

Are there any discussions about Ann Banfield's work you can point to?
I can only find a short description in Wikipedia.

Lee Rust · Nov 26, 2017

BrianShaw said:
Shooting without thinking?

Shooting without seeing?

Shooting intuitively?

Bypassing the conscious mind, the visual cortex points the camera. Seeing without thinking and shooting without thinking, so point & click in the most literal sense. The advent of digital technology has made this approach practical. Heretofore, film was too expensive and cumbersome.

BrianShaw · Nov 26, 2017

... but then consciously evaluating and selecting for a portfolio????

removed account4 · Nov 26, 2017

i don't think the images were edited, but i didn't ask

Lee Rust · Nov 26, 2017

Sure. The unconscious mind snaps the pictures and the conscious mind decides which ones are interesting. It's like walking along the beach and picking up seashells that catch your eye, then deciding which ones you want to keep.

Billy Axeman · Nov 26, 2017

I have ordered 'Still Modernism: Photography, Literature, Film', by Louise Hornby.
As a good reading about this, suggested by NedL in post #8

BrianShaw · Nov 26, 2017

Lee Rust said:
Sure. The unconscious mind snaps the pictures and the conscious mind decides which ones are interesting. It's like walking along the beach and picking up seashells that catch your eye, then deciding which ones you want to keep.

I get it. But the closest I’ve ever been is:

The unconscious mind snaps the pictures of interest to me; the conscious mind decides which ones are interesting to others.

Which is what you say with your seashell analogy. I’m just not too sure that the capture is as unconscious as one might think. Intuitive, for sure, though.

Lee Rust · Nov 26, 2017

The key word... "instant"... is not physically possible. The photographer still has to react and raise the camera, but the time between impulse and action is intentionally minimized. I would guess that most of us here prefer to deliberately choose our decisive moments by pre-visualizing the intended result or by predicting how a developing situation will unfold. The 'instant' concept leaves out all those preparations, so the result is always a surprise.

I'll have to give this a try.

removed account4 · Nov 26, 2017

i think the analogy of the beach and shells is off
it would be more like putting a blindfold on and taking a shovel
full of "stuff" and showing the "stuff" un-curated (edited)
if the satchel or bag has a hole in it, or it is sifted
to let some stuff out and retain other stuff, its still being
curated by artificial means like if the lab that might process
the film has someone take images out of the drop off and discard them
randomly, or if the machine was broken and damaged the film
so frames were not printed...
i don't think the person who showed me the instant photography picked and
chose what he was showing me, much like people who have a direct feed
from their phone to their facebook account don't edit their oeuvre.

the photographer can be removed from the process.
i used to do obnoxious street photography on newbury street in boston like this
all i did was wander around with a camera around my neck letting the camera take pictures
on its own by winding the film advance and setting the self time
no clue who or what would be infront of the camera...
ill try to find the person again and ask him about sorting/sifting through
the images and asking how the shutter was tripped.
it does not seem impossible ( seeing i have done it myself ) to photograph
without being involved in much more than transporting the camera from place to place
thanks for the required reading misters axeman and nedl
i read it and it seemed a bit religious.. and then mr google wouldn't let me read more

eddie · Nov 26, 2017

I like the idea of setting the self timer as you move. It would be even better if there was a way the timer could randomly go off at different intervals.

blockend · Nov 26, 2017

One of the hardest skills to learn is editing, or curating ones own work. It requires commitment to your work, and a certain distance from it. On deciding which "instant" to capture, I find it's sometimes about recognising a composition passing in front of the finder, rather than a "subject" as such. The composition can be people moving through space, or a combination of people and objects, or objects alone , but when it's right something sparks. I don't think it's about thirds, or the golden section, but recognising attractive chaos.

instant or instants

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency