the great schism of photography

[dpurdy]

Great one Vaughn. 1975 Whoa.

 

[frank]

Veering away from the sports analogies and stories, and back to the innate genetic potentials:

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Meanwhile, back to our photographic programming..............

 

[blansky]

Saw this today. Of course Francis may be full of shit but it's interesting.

 

[removed account4]

Anyhow, way off topic here. Apologies.

no worries with me about off topic, i can see how skill and agility and athleticism in basketball ( or any sport )
are similarto photography or how people are able to think creatively outside the box
to see things differently conceptualize things differently. even though some may argue athletics are a physical not mental
exercise .. there are similarities. i have seen s 3 year old kid skip rope like a prize fighter, and then ride motocross bikes ( same age ) like
he was in the xtreme games .. like with anything, some people "have it" and some people don't.
one might even say there are certain aesthetics + grace involved with sports, but to me at least
the( aesthetics+grace) not really the same as asethetics in creating a piece of artwork ( plastic arts or 2D arts )
maybe someone who is all technique in sports has no grace like someone who might be all technique in the arts and not able to have the created piece breathe on its own .

not sure though, cause its hard to be a re-animator..

 

[blansky]

I've always thought sports is a great metaphor for life. It's just compressed into a very small time frame.

It has it's lessons, it's pitfalls and it's beauty.

It takes hard work, it takes luck, sometimes it's your turn to win and sometimes it's not. It takes thought, concentration and you excel when you free your mind.

Arts and photography is the same.

 

[MattKing]

I've always thought sports is a great metaphor for life. It's just compressed into a very small time frame.

It has it's lessons, it's pitfalls and it's beauty.

It takes hard work, it takes luck, sometimes it's your turn to win and sometimes it's not. It takes thought, concentration and you excel when you free your mind.

Arts and photography is the same.

The critical word here is "metaphor".

It is an analogy - a useful and entertaining one, but it can be dangerous if you treat it as equivalent.

Professional sport in particular, because it tends to over-reward excellence, and under-reward long-term, valuable competence.

Much like modern financial markets :munch:

 

[blansky]

The critical word here is "metaphor".

It is an analogy - a useful and entertaining one, but it can be dangerous if you treat it as equivalent.

Professional sport in particular, because it tends to over-reward excellence, and under-reward long-term, valuable competence.

Much like modern financial markets :munch:

Yeah, my point of view was not from the spectator but from the participant.

And why I guess why playing sports can be a great learning experience for kids.

Of course not counting the horror show of parents getting crazy.

 

[gzinsel]

But you Know. . . . .. . the real crime here is "NOT" the sports analogy, (which, by the way, is horrible) but "the REDUCTION of(in) meaning. I find that main problems in life and photography are very nuanced, interrelated, complex. Its easy to reduce all answers to. . . . say, the number "2" ( presumably 1+1). But the challenge is to account for, in meaning and in understanding -more than, just one plus one.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

But you Know. . . . .. . the real crime here is "NOT" the sports analogy, (which, by the way, is horrible) but "the REDUCTION of(in) meaning. I find that main problems in life and photography are very nuanced, interrelated, complex. Its easy to reduce all answers to. . . . say, the number "2" ( presumably 1+1). But the challenge is to account for, in meaning and in understanding -more than, just one plus one.

What? :confused:

 

[pdeeh]

It seems entirely clear to me what gzinsel is saying.
People often seek perfect clarity where sometimes only the fuzzy is available.
This applies to forum posts as well as philosophic discussion of course.
A bit of effort is required

 

[blansky]

We could debate the meaning of metaphor and analogy and which is more correct, although they are at times somewhat interchangeable in meaning and nuance.

As for whether they are helpful or not depends on the person. Sometimes clarity is achieved by looking at a simpler example, and extrapolating its "lessons."

Sometimes when everything looks extremely complicated, they are in fact not. Sometimes people enjoy the complicated, so they aren't forced to see the simplicity.

"My problems are so complex", when in fact they are not.

We live in a world, on a planet, in a solar system etc etc, that is so massively complex we don't even have the mental hardware to comprehend it, let alone interact with it in any way other than to submit to it.

And yet, we have the power to exist in it with the tools we were born with, to enjoy and flourish in it.

Sometimes the incomprehensibly complex, can be dealt with, with the answers that are the most simple.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It seems perfectly clear to me what gzinsel is saying.
People often seek perfect clarity where sometimes only the fuzzy is available.
This applies to forum posts as well as philosophic discussion of course.
A bit of effort is required

It was an analogy. Not a direct comparison. Assumptions are made that you understand how to read analogies. That they are not literally equivalent cases, but illustrative cases of a more generalized principle. A parent principle that sits above the equivalent child cases, where those children each possess some elements of that parent principle. Analogies are invoked to assist reader comprehension by switching to a context that may for some be more familiar territory.

This should not need an explanation...

Ken

 

[removed account4]

It seems entirely clear to me what gzinsel is saying.
People often seek perfect clarity where sometimes only the fuzzy is available.
This applies to forum posts as well as philosophic discussion of course.
A bit of effort is required

except for when people expect perfect clarity, fuzzy is available
and while fuzzy is perfectly fine, they expect clarity ...
it is like using a soft focus / portrait / vintage brass lens and then
correcting the aberrations and the softness in photoshop ( or through some enlargement
or reproductive method that naturally will sharpen the negative ) ..
it is perfectly fine by me to let it be fuzzy, leave something for the imagination ..

 

[pdeeh]

I knew it!
My lenses are all too sharp, that's why my photographs are so crap.

Where's the Ajax?

 

[removed account4]

I knew it!
My lenses are all too sharp, that's why my photographs are so crap.

Where's the Ajax?

i used a brillo pad, works wonders !

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Beginning to sound like a political convention around here.

 

[gzinsel]

good news! I'm off to Spearfish Canyon S.D. for two weeks. I WILL NOT BE ON APUG. so to all my friends, talk to ya later

 

[Paul Verizzo]

good news! I'm off to Spearfish Canyon S.D. for two weeks. I WILL NOT BE ON APUG. so to all my friends, talk to ya later

People spearfish in S.D.? Whodda thunk?

 

[Sirius Glass]

good news! I'm off to Spearfish Canyon S.D. for two weeks. I WILL NOT BE ON APUG. so to all my friends, talk to ya later

Why would anyone want to spearfish a canyon? What did the canyon ever do to you? :confused:

 

[markbarendt]

Sometimes when everything looks extremely complicated, they are in fact not.

Absolutely.

What is "complicated" about any new-to-me concept I learn, especially a concise one, is adjusting my understanding, words, and behavior to match.

 

[Mateo]

Hey John,

I think you're right about the two different types of people posting here. Technical vs artsy fartsy.

I also think there's another way of dividing this little world into two camps: those who find importance in the photos they or others make vs those like me who are too dim witted to even know why we make pictures. If I have ever stopped to ask myself what I see in something that compels me to trip the shutter, then whatever it was has gone. Put the camera away. If I question why print this negative this way, then forget it put the chemical trays away.

I can't ever change the camp I'm in but I do save of quotes from Mr Blansky so I can fake my way through openings.

 

[blansky]

Hey John,

I think you're right about the two different types of people posting here. Technical vs artsy fartsy.

I also think there's another way of dividing this little world into two camps: those who find importance in the photos they or others make vs those like me who are too dim witted to even know why we make pictures. If I have ever stopped to ask myself what I see in something that compels me to trip the shutter, then whatever it was has gone. Put the camera away. If I question why print this negative this way, then forget it put the chemical trays away.

I can't ever change the camp I'm in but I do save of quotes from Mr Blansky so I can fake my way through openings.

Thanks. ........I think.

An interesting thing about unconsciously doing things, is that as we have talked about on this and another thread, is muscle memory or ability to do something without really thinking about it. We learn how to drive a car. And do it for years and at times we are completely present when we drive. But I think all of us can remember times when we are driving and we completely forget a few of the miles we just traveled because our unconscious or barely conscious took over. If we had been presented with "danger" we would have snapped out of it. But we weren't so while we were processing something else, our semi conscious took over the driving part.

It's much like the "being in the zone" thing. We are working at a certain level that's beyond thinking, or at least conscious thinking.

My hockey analogy is the natural goal scorer. Some guys are called that because when they come down on the best goalies in the world, they can process, and find the holes and score. When asked how they do that, they say usually, "well I just shot it and it went in".

The problem is the rest of the players on the team that aren't "natural goal scorers" shoot all the time, and it doesn't go in like that for them. Their shooting percentage is way down, compared to the "natural" guys.

So what it happening is, the "natural" guys, their brains process differently, perhaps faster, or in a different manner. That was actually said of Gretzky. That his brain slowed everything down and he saw in slow motion. He disagrees, and says he just practiced and practiced. But he has nothing to compare it to. The fact is these guys do something different, that the other ones can't. Even the very top guys, can't do this. Just maybe a few dozen in the world.

Moral to the story. Everyone processes differently. Some people just can do things better. Some don't have to analyze it, they just innately do it.

The rest of us try to analyze it, because we can't get even close to it if we don't.

 

[removed account4]

Hey John,

I think you're right about the two different types of people posting here. Technical vs artsy fartsy.

I also think there's another way of dividing this little world into two camps: those who find importance in the photos they or others make vs those like me who are too dim witted to even know why we make pictures. If I have ever stopped to ask myself what I see in something that compels me to trip the shutter, then whatever it was has gone. Put the camera away. If I question why print this negative this way, then forget it put the chemical trays away.

I can't ever change the camp I'm in but I do save of quotes from Mr Blansky so I can fake my way through openings.

hi mateo

i know exactly what you mean, im in the same boat as you, i takes'em cause something got me to ..
and i agree, mr b has some very good quotes !

Thanks. ........I think.

An interesting thing about unconsciously doing things, is that as we have talked about on this and another thread, is muscle memory or ability to do something without really thinking about it. We learn how to drive a car. And do it for years and at times we are completely present when we drive. But I think all of us can remember times when we are driving and we completely forget a few of the miles we just traveled because our unconscious or barely conscious took over. If we had been presented with "danger" we would have snapped out of it. But we weren't so while we were processing something else, our semi conscious took over the driving part.

It's much like the "being in the zone" thing. We are working at a certain level that's beyond thinking, or at least conscious thinking.

My hockey analogy is the natural goal scorer. Some guys are called that because when they come down on the best goalies in the world, they can process, and find the holes and score. When asked how they do that, they say usually, "well I just shot it and it went in".

The problem is the rest of the players on the team that aren't "natural goal scorers" shoot all the time, and it doesn't go in like that for them. Their shooting percentage is way down, compared to the "natural" guys.

So what it happening is, the "natural" guys, their brains process differently, perhaps faster, or in a different manner. That was actually said of Gretzky. That his brain slowed everything down and he saw in slow motion. He disagrees, and says he just practiced and practiced. But he has nothing to compare it to. The fact is these guys do something different, that the other ones can't. Even the very top guys, can't do this. Just maybe a few dozen in the world.

Moral to the story. Everyone processes differently. Some people just can do things better. Some don't have to analyze it, they just innately do it.

The rest of us try to analyze it, because we can't get even close to it if we don't.

YES!

 

[dpurdy]

I guess there just aren't very many people who approach their work like I do. Most of this thread is off topic or moot when I apply it to my own working methods.
I always start with the end result in my head and then try to figure out how to get to where I want to go. Take for instance that wire series I shared a bit with you. That was in my head in my imagination for over a year before I did anything. I didn't analyze why I wanted to do it or see it, only how to do it. I knew I wanted to use the wire in a series and I knew that I wanted strong lines and curves and energy. That was the easy part. The background and lighting was what I had to figure out how to do. I knew I wanted a sharp reflection but I wanted it in a blank white environment. I knew I wanted it to seem bathed in light. I actually wanted the finished print on the wall to look like a light source. I wanted it to seem to glow with light and then within that to have the crazy abstract energy of the wire. I finally found what I thought would be perfect for the reflective fore ground that would allow me to avoid horizon lines or reflections. At that point I could set the camera up and get the wire and start the series. But I had to figure out how to get the glow into the wire and the sense of light so I had to experiment not only with the lighting and focus but with different developers.

In the end I was unable to get exactly what was in my head. I shot the entire series and processed the film 1 sheet at a time after every exposure and tried to judge if I was getting what I wanted just by examining the negs on a light box. I kept adjusting things and shooting different arrangements and trying for different energy until I got to the point that I was done with it and didn't want to do any more. In the end where I failed was in the glowing whiteness of the background. It always printed with tone. If I tried to adjust the contrast of the platinum prints too much I ran into print quality issues with grain and mottling.

So I had to let it be what it was rather than what I intended it to be. I had to forget the light source affect I wanted and instead work with the seemingly smudgy background... almost a charcoal drawing affect. In the end I decided it is "good enough". I lost control of it and it took on a life of it's own. It does satisfy the need I had to create it. I am left with the feeling of being done with it. I like it, it is part of my family.

Every aspect of it was a technical challenge but was never about technique. It was about trying to create the thing in my head. Then of course the final kick ass problem I ran into is that they don't scan very well... or I need a new scanner, because my scans are way off.

It is actually the same thing for me when doing landscape or portraits or what ever. I see the finished product before I make the photo.