Is it really just about the image?

Far from true for me

The whole experience of getting out and finding something that stimulates me to take the effort to find the very best camera location to set up my tripod and choosing the most appropriate lens focal length to render the the size relationships of objects in space and the filter choice to vary tonality are the the heart of the creative process for me. I tend to intellectualize a great deal in my prhotography. When printing I first establish the correct overall contrast and I do not do a great deal of dodging or burning. I tend to be clumsy with my hands. I find it much easier and satisfying to provide a negative thru exposure and development that does fight me. OI wosh to retain as much as possible the original tone relationships that I captured in exposing and developing. Of course trees, rocks, buildings here in Wisconsin tend to stay in place and not to become impatient with a fussy old geezer. Even my still life photos the objects tend to stay put, as long as they are not in my wife's way. If I were involved in street photography with less predictable conditions I might find myself doing a song and dance number on the darkroom...watch your feet, I said I was clumsy.

It being all about the image is the concern of editors and art directors. For me, as a photographer, the means and the end are equally important.

I screw up a lot when I shoot pictures. I get nothing but stories and memories when this happens. Sometimes that's pretty close to good enough. When I actually accomplish something nice, it's icing on the cake.

The fishing metaphor is much more apt than it might appear on the surface: If you fish for a living, depending upon it to feed, clothe and house your family, then of course the amount of fish you catch - or your results - are the only really important thing. If for you fishing is an activity, and you are not dependent upon your catch for dinner that night, then the experience - or process - is the thing.

As far as photography is concerned, if it is your profession - even a part time one - then the final image is the most important thing because that is what the client or patron is buying, which allows you to feed, clothe, house you and your family. If you don't depend upon it for a substantial portion of your income then you have the luxury to focus upon the process and explore the outer and inner world through that process.

This is not to say that a working photographer does not also enjoy the process (or a working fisherperson does not also enjoy his/her process), but the bottom line for them will be different - they have to be paid for the fruits of their labor. It's not really an either/or proposition. Each person decides for themselves what is most important, and if it feels right and true then that is the only validation the individual requires.

Joe

roteague said:

Someone mentioned in another thread that what we do is about the final image, but I ask "is it really"? I would be willing to bet, there are alot of people who find the total process fascinating; the final image is just one aspect.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Robert,
I would guess that there are many different answers, as each of us examines our internal processes.

Of course, the final image is important; but I think one thing that distinguishes most of the APUG group from a more commercial group, is an emphasis on process, as well as result. In thinking further about it, if there were one thing that what we do is "about," that would be emotion. The important thing in any good photograph is emotion; all the rest is merely stuff; glass, metal, plastic, paper, chemicals, etc.

Personally, I enjoy the process of looking for the world to reveal itself to me in the form of perfect little rectangles that hold still for me. Even if there is nothing tangible to show for the day, I love it. When the process is ultimately successful, and there's a finished image to share, I look at the silvery, luminous object I've made, and I feel like I've been given a second gift.

I think this is about the most fun you can have with your clothes on!

The fishing metaphor falls apart when we compare two aspects of picture making: creating and using images. If images are to be presented to others, then their consideration - monetary, peer appreciation, educational, whatever -- is likewise a factor. One may be satisfied with lazily watching the mayflies while you troll across the pond, but is there a benefit for others, or is it just expensive navel-gazing? It may be satisfying to struggle against a junk fish, or even an old boot from the lake bottom, but would you serve it to your friends?

If the maker is the only consumer, then they should by all means do whatever doggoned thing they like (and even then, there may be external issues, such as society's bias against even private use of some forms of pornography -- not that it's an APUG issue, but there are such circumstances). But this is almost never the case.

If we are sending/presenting/talking photos to others -- burning up their time to look at our images -- then the image is what they get. If we give them more: "this pic was so easy," or "this pic was so hard, I burned my fingertips on ferricyanide" or who knows what -- that's extra. But to give them the image without anything else? Then yes, the image is all they get and the only thing that matters. To treat the eye and mind of the viewer otherwise is to treat them with a kind of self-involved contempt.

Another issue in some posts to this thread is the mistake that digital and analog means are exactly equivalent. They are not. A digital print may be "better" or "worse" than a wet print but it is clearly different. Every aspect of image-creation, including the presentation medium, has potential and nuanced meaning. Sometimes we can ignore these layers of meaning, other times not. But they are so obviously evident. Heck, look at Life is Good and Good for You in New York. Would it have been different if it wasn't reproduced/produced on a Xerox machine? You bet.

kb
all formats, all the time

I think most people will find in most enterprises that the path they take to get to the end result will be reflected in the end result. If you love working in the darkroom or on the computer the product will show that or you will be inclined to practice more or be more thoughtful/careful etc and the resulting product will reflect this.

The image is not isolated from the process, nor does the viewer need to know the process (easy, hard, loving, hateful) to be able to experience the impact of the process.

To create images for others to view is something that comes up often here. I think, and it is bourne out by many of the responses here and in studying artests throughout time, that some create images because it is the process of creation that they are interested in or moved to do. I also believe that this is reflected in their work and as a consequence makes their images all the more interesting to others.

When creating art often it is done for love or need to create. It is not done for other people, but other people have enjoyed the results.

Folks, This is a dandy thread! I am enjoying it very much! It would be next to impossible for me to add to the excellent comments already posted by all.


The majority of my life in photography I had to please others and not necessarily myself. The R&D person had their idea of how the image should represent the product. On the other hand I had the art directors with their own ideas how the mage should be done, so pleasing myself was not a viable factor.

Only since leaving the "rat race" have I been able to do images I liked. Waiting 4 hours for the light to be just right is no fun for me. I also do not enjoy the time spent making a "display" print in the darkroom. I enjoy the whole process right up to the actual moment of entering the dark room. I actually am most happy when I see the negative that contains all of the information I meant for it to contain hanging up to dry. Especially if someone else developed it for me. I guess the whole process is not what I enjoy about making pictures, I think I fit in the catgegory of the minority who
is interested in the final print when executed exactly to my taste. Digital has failed in every opportunity it has had to please me. The only way I can achieve the results I am looking for is if I do it myself in the darkroom. Unfortunately I hate the darkroom.

I believe that the majority of commercial photographers and many of the recent art photographers did not or do not work in the darkroom. The process for them often paused at the development stage and picked up again at the edit and presentation stage.

Charles Webb said:

... I enjoy the whole process right up to the actual moment of entering the dark room. I actually am most happy when I see the negative that contains all of the information ...

Click to expand...

At last someone else that feels the way I do these days. I do enjoy developing the negs myself though as I want them as near to the way I intended to get them as possible. After that if I had the free cash to pay someone else to print them to my instructions and do the mounting I'd be a very happy bunnie.

mrcallow said:

I believe that the majority of commercial photographers and many of the recent art photographers did not or do not work in the darkroom. The process for them often paused at the development stage and picked up again at the edit and presentation stage.

Click to expand...

Helmut Newton
Maplethorpe-Really did not do much from what I hear in the way of anything more than tripping the shutter

I can understand not wanting to develope the film. I find that the worst part. What happens before that and after is a place of peace and enjoyment for me.

Then there is this situation:

I was watching a fashion shoot on some strange channel one night and the "photographer" had a million assistants, sat in a chair and really did nothing. Someone metered the shot, called the readings to the guy at the camera, the guy at the camera took a polaroid, called to another guy who adjusted a light and another polaroid was shot, and another person adjusted the models outfit. Film was put into the camera and the shot was taken. Every one then patted the "photographer" on the back and talked about what a wonderful job he did. Maybe it was his idea and the rest of it was just too technical.

I have a friend who spent time in NY assisting A. Leibovitz. He spoke highly of the people he met, the opportunity, learning, camaraderie, pace, everything, but Ms Leibovitz photographic acumen or involvement beyond 'tripping the shutter.'

Could be sour grapes on his part.

Maybe that is how you know you have "made it" in the world of commercial photography.

mrcallow said:

I have a friend who spent time in NY assisting A. Leibovitz. He spoke highly of the people he met, the opportunity, learning, camaraderie, pace, everything, but Ms Leibovitz photographic acumen or involvement beyond 'tripping the shutter.'

Could be sour grapes on his part.

Click to expand...

I suppose it's just the way things change out there in the big wide world. Remember that many of the icons of photography that worked for Life, Picture Post and Magnum (to name just one agency) went out and found the pictures, captured them and then supmitted them to their publisher for processing. A darkroom was a place to sleep to them.

It's true I like the whole process, I also enjoy knowing how to do the process, using the skills, and indeed teaching them to others. I do a lot of archaeological air photography and I also love just being up in the plane, seeing new features, and again I enjoy having and using the skills needed to recognise what I am seeing.

David.

mark said:

I was watching a fashion shoot on some strange channel one night and the "photographer" had a million assistants, sat in a chair and really did nothing. Someone metered the shot, called the readings to the guy at the camera, the guy at the camera took a polaroid, called to another guy who adjusted a light and another polaroid was shot, and another person adjusted the models outfit. Film was put into the camera and the shot was taken. Every one then patted the "photographer" on the back and talked about what a wonderful job he did. Maybe it was his idea and the rest of it was just too technical.

Click to expand...

This is some schlock Iwrote back in 2003 about Ansel Liebowitz.


Everyone knows the stories of Ansel Adams and how he camped out for hours and days to get the incredible photographs that he is famous for.

However, there is a hot new photographer named Ansel Liebowitz doing the same type of work. He is commissioned by Landscape Incorporated to produce the covers for the magazine called Terra Faire.

The progression of his cover shots are as follows:

Day 1. Executive meeting in New York with editor, photoeditor, art director, location director, 2 writers, Ansel Liebowitz and his assistant , the stylist, and two interns. The discussion, the cover for May, two months away. Apparently there is a movie coming out on May 5th that features a lot of locations shots in and around the Sierras. We need that for the cover.

Day 2. Meeting with Ansel, his four assistants, stylist, art director, location director and 2 location scouts and 2 interns. Find the perfect location, check on snow, moon location, time of day etc and report back to Ansel by early next week.

Day 9. Meeting. Same group as day 2. Location scouts report that they have helicoptered around the area and have 3 locations that could be perfect. They produce photographs showing the entire area and included are the position of the sun, moon and at what times. Snow may be a problem.

Day 11. Meeting. Same group. Location is decided upon. Two assistants are sent to the area to camp out and report back when conditions are perfect. The other assistant is sent to round up rental equipment for the shoot. The location manager is sent to arrange for transportation air and ground, for Ansel and his group as well as for equipment, for the day the shoot is decided upon.

Day 19. Sierras. Weather is perfect. Using their satellite phone the assistants contact New York. The shoot is set for 5pm. The equipment has arrived and has been set up. Ansel jumps in a limo and heads to the private airport. He arrives at the nearest airport to his destination and jumps on a helicopter to take him to the staging area. A Hummer then deposits him at the site at exactly 4:30 PM. Unfortunately the driver doesn't stop in time and runs smack dab right into the catering truck. The doughnuts are OK but the capiccino machine and one intern is ruined. Oh well. Luckily the stylist arrived yesterday, in time to hire 3 local Sikorskys to drop 500 tons of fresh snow in patchy areas to even out the flats before the mountains. The valley floor is alive with the rhymthic whine of the six semi trailer generator trucks pumping power to the 126 strategically placed strobes filling the valley with light as the assistants tweak the set up working on polaroids. Ansel, wearing his new trumpeter swan down jacket jumps out of the Hummer and looks at the polaroids and yes it's perfect. He trips the shutter and just to be sure trips it twenty more times as his dutiful assistants skillfully switch the film holders in and out. Whew. The shoot had to be stopped once, while the stylist shot a pesky bear cub that kept edging into the shot. But right on schedule, ten minutes later, Ansel is back in the Hummer heading for the helicopter to take him to the airport. He has a gallery opening to attend later tonight.

Day 45. Executive meeting New York. Editor, photoeditor art director,
2 writers, Ansel Liebowitz and his assistant, 1 intern. Ansel, freshly tanned, back from the Bahamas, looks over the pictures which have been photoshopped and printed. They naturally, are admired all around. Ansel - another perfect shoot.

Day 60. The magazine hits the newstands to rave reviews and Ansel has done it again.

Another book is in the works. Just in time for Christmas.

Critics rave that this new Ansel could even be better that the old one, but purists cry foul. Ah, what the hell do they know.

Michael McBlane

mrcallow said:

I have a friend who spent time in NY assisting A. Leibovitz. He spoke highly of the people he met, the opportunity, learning, camaraderie, pace, everything, but Ms Leibovitz photographic acumen or involvement beyond 'tripping the shutter.'

Could be sour grapes on his part.

Click to expand...

Could be real insight. Ms. Leibovitz is not really an artist. Her work sells in galleries because the subject matter is famous people, and we have an obsession with fame.

The news is dominated by stories of Martha Stewart, Michael Jockson, and the CEO of Boeing. These are not really news stories; certainly not anything worth more than a quick, passing mention. Yet we don't see in-depth reporting of the administration's real plan of dismantling social security, while proclaiming they're saving it.

To be less political, and closer to the arts, do you hear much in popular culture about string quartets, or about "50 Cent" or Britney Spears?

One of the things I love about photography, is that it is accessible. Unlike the sculptor who makes monumental works by creating a small model, and then finding the funding to have some foundry create their work, a photographer can just go out and see; and then bring home a lovely artifact that validates what they've seen.

SLNestler said:

Could be real insight. Ms. Leibovitz is not really an artist. Her work sells in galleries because the subject matter is famous people, and we have an obsession with fame.

Click to expand...

...as opposed to, say, Raphael, whose works went up because of people's obsession with eternal damnation or salvation

The reason I mention Rafael is that many of his works, especially later ones, were indeed executed by assistants who he trained and who worked from his sketches -- for example, sketches dating as much as a decade earlier were later found to match figures in his assistant-executed Transfiguration:


The strong impression is that parts of this painting were sort of cut-n-pasted from ideas in his sketchbook.

Art historians care about this stuff, but for the many millions who simply consider this a canonical masterpiece of Catholic art, is there a difference? (One wonders if there have been papal rulings on the redemptive qualities of such "redirected inspiration," but I digress)

Now, I personally do think that Ms L is a calculating sycophant whose works are excessively art-directed and as fawning as Graydon Carter's excessive use of the word "legend" (but without the redemptive sarcasm). But let's not let that sentiment overshadow others. The fact that someone works as the lead of a group should not automatically disqualify them as "artist," any more than it has disqualified Jeff Koons, Rembrandt, Balanchine, or some guy hiring a guru to teach yoga to Verushka

bjorke said:

The fact that someone works as the lead of a group should not automatically disqualify them as "artist,"

Click to expand...

Bjorke,
I quite agree.
I don't think Annie Liebovitz is an artist because I don't think there's any real feeling in her work. I think she is well known merely because her subjects are well known.

bjorke said:

...as opposed to, say, Raphael, whose works went up because of people's obsession with eternal damnation or salvation

Click to expand...

As is Raphael for his time so will or may A.L. (or someone similar) be used as a measure of our culture.

It is really pretty sad that the more recent generations may be defined by an ever declineing crop of artisans (Bach v. the Beatles or Madonna).

mrcallow said:

It is really pretty sad that the more recent generations may be defined by an ever declineing crop of artisans

Click to expand...

On the other hand, we can see a number of us who are keeping craftsmanship alive; whether our number declines or increases, and whether anyone uses us as a benchmark to define our time, at least some of us are still out there thinking and feeling.

History may be kind to us. In the 1950s, popular culture had everyone laughing at the antics of "beatniks" on popular shows like "Dobie Gillis." Now, 40 to 50 years later, much of that crap is forgotten, while the poetry of Gregory Corso and Allen Ginsberg are remembered. The music by John Coltraine, Dizzy Gillespie and Jackie McLean is remembered and studied.
Hopefully, in the future, the schlock music of Brittney Spears, as well as the schlock photography of Annie Liebovitz will be forgotten, while some of the sincere and deeply felt work being produced now will still live.

Steven,
There have been and are greats among us, but from a longer wider view I suspect historians will say "Western culture at the turn of the 20th century was driven by and/or best represented by <pick any self involved status seeking celebrity>" They might also recognize the great talents and minds of our time, but as a culture we don't.

mrcallow said:

Steven,
There have been and are greats among us, but from a longer wider view I suspect historians will say "Western culture at the turn of the 20th century was driven by and/or best represented by <pick any self involved status seeking celebrity>" They might also recognize the great talents and minds of our time, but as a culture we don't.

Click to expand...

It's a damned good thing that most of us on this forum don't represent the dominant culture. Thinking too much about it is enough to cause one to take a dose of Kool-Aid and end it all.

And speaking of transfigurations and Veruschka in the same post...

Dead Link Removed

ISBN 0-8212-1637-6

I'm fascinated and inspired by this work.

SLNestler said:

Hopefully, in the future, the schlock music of Brittney Spears, as well as the schlock photography of Annie Liebovitz will be forgotten, while some of the sincere and deeply felt work being produced now will still live.

Click to expand...

Maybe it will; it would be nice to know that it is. But don't forget that much of Shakespear's writing pandered to the less culturally refined masses of his day, and now we teach his work in school literature classes.

mrcallow said:

"Western culture at the turn of the 20th century was driven by and/or best represented by <pick any self involved status seeking celebrity>" They might also recognize the great talents and minds of our time, but as a culture we don't.

Click to expand...

For the sake of debate - perhaps this is the real comment of AL's work. Not the images themselves, but the fact that they are revered.

mrcallow said:

Steven,
There have been and are greats among us, but from a longer wider view I suspect historians will say "Western culture at the turn of the 20th century was driven by and/or best represented by <pick any self involved status seeking celebrity>" They might also recognize the great talents and minds of our time, but as a culture we don't.

Click to expand...

I am afraid this might be the truth. My generation has already been given a heroin addicted weenie who could not hack it and blew his brains out(cobain) for an icon, to describe the "angst we feel" and our "search for identity".
Just about puked when I heard that one.

Maybe reality TV shows will change this attitude.