LensWork - July/August

[jimcollum]

now THAT'S some of the buggering good stuff being done out there

agreed! John's one of the better landscape photograper's out there today

jim

 

[tim atherton]

As a photograph this image may succeed (debatable), but as a landscape photograph it doesn't - boring.

and

As to the photo that your quote regards, way too busy and not impressed in the least. Not successful and fails as a Landscape.

now why am I not surprised...!

 

[roteague]

agreed! John's one of the better landscape photograper's out there today

jim

Oh yeah, right up there with Dykinga, Muench, Cornish... :sarcasm:

How can you tell one of his images apart from another? His work in nothing more than street photography done under some trees. A landscape photographer has an affinity for his subjects that comes through his images - in John's work it doesn't.

 

[naturephoto1]

As a photograph this image may succeed (debatable), but as a landscape photograph it doesn't - boring.

and

As to the photo that your quote regards, way too busy and not impressed in the least. Not successful and fails as a Landscape.

now why am I not surprised...!

Tim,

You may wish to look at Eliot Porter's book Chaos.

Rich

 

[tim atherton]

Oh yeah, right up there with Dykinga, Muench, Cornish... :sarcasm:

who?

 

[tim atherton]

Tim,

You may wish to look at Eliot Porter's book Chaos.

Rich

You mean Nature's Chaos? I used to have it

 

[roteague]

who?

Oh, just a few people who are recognized masters of the landscape genre.

 

[naturephoto1]

who?

Tim,

If the names Dykinga and Muench (3 or 4 generations depending upon how you look at it) are unfamiliar names in Landscape Photography you are showing your ignorance.

Rich

 

[Jorge]

Tim,

If the names Dykinga and Muench (3 or 4 generations depending upon how you look at it) are unfamiliar names in Landscape Photography you are showing your ignorance.

Rich

It is not ignorance, it is just that they are not mentioned by the artiste critics Tim admires, and of course their prints are not huge ink jet prints of crappy shots....liky Gursky's

 

[tim atherton]

Tim,

If the names Dykinga and Muench (3 or 4 generations depending upon how you look at it) are unfamiliar names in Landscape Photography you are showing your ignorance.

Rich

I'm pulling your plonker

though it should really be "if... are unfamiliar names in a particular genre of Landscape Photography"

There's much much more to contemporary landscape photography than just that single strand, which is of course really the essence of this thread from its start

 

[bjorke]

You may wish to look at Eliot Porter's book Chaos.

Stuart Rome's Forest (which I paid good US money for just recently, so I'm not just waving around web pages) is imo closer, but what's happening in JB's pix is something verrrry different from the easily-ordered look of an Ansel or a Weston or even Strand landscape. Or more to the current point, to an Alan Ross.

The comments that these pictures "fail" at beng something they don't attempt to copy is... well, something of an accidental compliment.

 

[roteague]

It is not ignorance, it is just that they are not mentioned by the artiste critics Tim admires, and of course their prints are not huge ink jet prints of crappy shots....liky Gursky's

True, and they are not on Flickr ... the ultimate test :rolleyes: :sarcasm:

 

[naturephoto1]

Stuart Rome's Forest (which I paid good US money for just recently, so I'm not just waving around web pages) is imo closer, but what's happening in JB's pix is something verrrry different from the easily-ordered look of an Ansel or a Weston or even Strand landscape. Or more to the current point, to an Alan Ross.

The comments that these pictures "fail" at beng something they don't attempt to copy is... well, something of an accidental compliment.

Bjorke,

You may feel that my comment of the term "fail" was in reference to ..... and was an accidental compliment because they don't attempt to copy.....

But, for me the reason I made the comment was there is so much in the image. Personally, and I stress the word personal, I believe the image needs to be distilled down a bit because it is so "busy".

Rich

 

[tim atherton]

I believe the image needs to be distilled down a bit because it is so "busy".

Rich

and nature isn't? Sounds more like you are discussing graphic design - the viwer needs to "get it" in the first few seconds or it's failed?

 

[naturephoto1]

and nature isn't? Sounds more like you are discussing graphic design - the viwer needs to "get it" in the first few seconds or it's failed?

Tim,

No that is where the photographer has to put in some effort to extract a subject and composition from the Chaos of Nature.

Rich

 

[tim atherton]

Tim,

No that is where the photographer has to put in some effort to extract a subject and composition from the Chaos of Nature.

Rich

ahh - so the subject isn't the chaos of nature itself then - I see

 

[naturephoto1]

ahh - so the subject isn't the chaos of nature itself then - I see

Tim,

Sometimes it is sometimes it isn't. Many times it is making order out of the Chaos of Nature.

Rich

 

[bjorke]

That's what I meant when I said "easily-ordered" - the false notion that the world is orderly, teleological, and graphically reducible (or the images are not worth looking at). For many (ME) those sorts of pictures are a lie.

..as they were for Robert Adams, as they were for Weegee, as they were for Eggleston, as they were for Sally Mann, as they were for Minkinnen, and Hosoe, and yes, even Minor White. I think these battles were well-finished long before, oh, 1970.

(Which despite robert's oddly misplaced attempt at character assasination by association, is also the worst sin of flickr -- its reduction of everything to trivial forms that are easy to read from a web pic at 75x75)

 

[tim atherton]

Tim,

Sometimes it is sometimes it isn't. Many times it is making order out of the Chaos of Nature.

Rich

And if there isn't really any order? (which is kind of what chaos is...) - presumably you'd have a hard time photographing it?

 

[tim atherton]

(Which despite robert's oddly misplaced attempt at character assasination by association, is also the worst sin of flickr -- its reduction of everything to trivial forms that are easy to read from a web pic at 75x75)

I loved that Flickr assassination of the lovely HCB photo though...

"it's kinda blurred"

"you didn't follow the rule of thirds".. etc!

 

[naturephoto1]

And if there isn't really any order? (which is kind of what chaos is...) - presumably you'd have a hard time photographing it?

Tim,

No denial to the difficulty. I would have to decide for myself whether or whether not to take the photograph at that point.

Rich

 

[jimcollum]

Tim,

No that is where the photographer has to put in some effort to extract a subject and composition from the Chaos of Nature.

Rich

but i can see both subject and compostion in the image that was posted (as well as many of his others).

the same thing that draws me to subjects, light and composition that say something to me, draws me to photographers with similar aesthetics. i've heard of dykinga, muench, cornish, etc.. but their work doesn't speak to me as much as misrach, izu, horne, caponigro or kenna. i don't own a print by any of the former.. but i have a print by brownlow framed and hanging on my wall... i do have a choice of who's work i'd have hanging.. and john's work won out over dykinga, muench or cornish.

jim

jim

 

[naturephoto1]

but i can see both subject and compostion in the image that was posted (as well as many of his others).

the same thing that draws me to subjects, light and composition that say something to me, draws me to photographers with similar aesthetics. i've heard of dykinga, muench, cornish, etc.. but their work doesn't speak to me as much as misrach, izu, horne, caponigro or kenna. i don't own a print by any of the former.. but i have a print by brownlow framed and hanging on my wall... i do have a choice of who's work i'd have hanging.. and john's work won out over dykinga, muench or cornish.

jim

jim

Jim,

I can appreciate what your saying and I too saw the subject, light, and composition. But for me, and I stress me, I find the image busy. Everyone looks at and interprets things differently. For you you prefer this image. It works for you and you prefer it. I am not going to suggest that either you or I are correct or incorrect. It is not my preferred style. And this is where we all basically get to a point where we agree to disagree.

Rich

 

[tim atherton]

Jim,

But for me, and I stress me, I find the image busy.

Rich

so do you look the other way when you see something like that? are your eyes/brain unable to deal with it when you see it?

 

[naturephoto1]

so do you look the other way when you see something like that? are your eyes/brain unable to deal with it when you see it?

Tim,

No I would not look the other way and my eyes and brain would have no problem dealing with it. However, I would and as I stressed previously decide whether I would or would not take the image.

Rich