What's up with the blur and grain?

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
What does this discussion hope to resolve? Do photographers not have artistic freedom to do whatever they want with their pictures?
Stop trying to categorize everything, putting them into neat descriptions of things we can understand. Just appreciate the art for what it is, and take what you can from it. Maybe do some research on the photographer, or even contact them to ask questions. You may find something you didn't expect to find. Most importantly - keep an open mind.
Finally, look at the amount of discussion this created! That in itself makes the photograph of the truck successful.
 

horacekenneth

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
515
Location
MD
Format
Multi Format

"Representing the actual conditions of the situation" is tricky. Here's two ways of describing how cold it is outside: 8 degrees F or 'so cold your nostrils stick together when you breathe in'. You might say the most accurate and realistic way of describing the temperature is by 8 degrees Farenheit, but that is actually describing what mercury does in an arbitrarily numbered container, and doesn't actually communicate any information about how cold it is to me, unless I remember that last time it was 8 F, it was so cold my nostrils stuck together. You're actually adding in an extra step to communicating the temperature when you use Farenheit or Celsius. They are very helpful descriptors, but not more realistic.
Sometimes the less scientific and less technical description is more accurate and more realistic. Which would be my argument for blur being perfect in the truck photo - there was a lot of motion and vibration at the time, your technically optimal photograph would be less realistic, wouldn't it?

Just appreciate the art for what it is, and take what you can from it.
Click to expand...

That's what we're working on. Don't get so uppity about our art criticism.
 
OP
OP

Felinik

Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
541
Format
35mm

Curiosity, it started with me finding it very odd, and a bit sad, that documentary photographs were produced with a far from "perfect" process. I'm not driving this to categorize or put things in boxes, I try to understand and find the origin to this in a bigger picture, philosophy, history, etc.

And as artists indeed have artistic freedom, philosophers can enjoy the freedom to discuss and speculate, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

Felinik

Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
541
Format
35mm

I think you get my point about "realistic" and "optimal", and yes, I agree with you for the rest, hence the added "dimension" I'm talking about, this is definitely the way I look at this too, now, after having this debate during the last days...

 

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
horacekenneth said:
That's what we're working on. Don't get so uppity about our art criticism.
Click to expand...

Not uppity. Just sharing what I feel this discussion is. May I participate with my opinion?
 

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format

You can philosophize all you want. I am a natural born devil's advocate, because I usually think in different terms. There is a very large percentage of the audience that view photographs that don't care about process at all. The only thing they care about is the picture.

So, my question is: Why does it matter so much whether a picture is in focus or not? Why does it matter so much that there is grain or not?
The point being: It is possible to look beyond the surface of the print, and look further into the picture and discover it by other criteria. There's emotion, memories, social aspects, the photographer's intent, history, etc. In my opinion those aspects are far more important.
 
OP
OP

Felinik

Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
541
Format
35mm


No doubt about that! But as with all things there's always someone asking "Why?" and this is what we are doing in this thread, the simple answers may be enough for you, but that's not the case for all of us, hence why this thread goes on!

Your addition to this thread returns to another interesting perspective, though you bring it up from the other side; The audience. It's indeed interesting and it would be even more interesting to find out how affected by the styles of the different times (read fashion) the audience is, and how this possibly may drive the artists as well!

 

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
Good luck with your quest. I mean it, and not facetiously.

Usually when I am at museums, or galleries, looking at prints, eavesdropping on conversations, or talking to other people, I don't hear them talking about grain, sharpness, resolution, etc. It has a lot more to do with the genius of the idea, how the picture affects them, how they like the composition, and how they react to it. The only ones I hear doing so are other photographers. No rule without exception, but that's been true in my experience.

I do what I can with my pictures to express myself to the best of my ability, as I hope you and everybody else does. There's something inside, a feeling, a situation, something we wish to share and tell the world about that is special. How we let it out is individual, and a choice at an artist's discretion. Either they make pictures for themselves, how they feel it fits what they wish to express, or they make the picture to sell, listening to their audience and understanding what they want or need, commissioned or otherwise. Or, more likely, it's a combination of both.
Anything goes, basically. Some like a cool idea, others a more refined approach. Some like to make small photogravures, and others like to make 40" by one mile long inkjets. Some like grain, others dislike it, and a third category don't care (that's the category I'm in).
 

Dali

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,866
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Multi Format

OK but is it what you are looking for in a picture? Is the "most realistic and technically optimal way possible" the ultimate goal in photography? To me , you make a confusion between the mean and the goal (or between significans and signification if you prefer).

Take care.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
sometimes the answer is ...
there is no special reason
no hidden agenda
no buck the system
no try to be different
no tick people off
its just-because ...

that is why i asked you about your work
because the reason you photograph the way you do, is just because you do ...
 
OP
OP

Felinik

Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
541
Format
35mm
In a discussion around a subject like the one in this thread, the reasoning about facts, theories, and the reflections and analysis around those, will lead to an interesting development of the discussion.

That I/you/we just "do" is not adding anything, it's like asking why do we love, a thing, a person, etc. The answer can be "because it feels good", OR we can instead find out more about the psychological and physical things that brings us to that mental state, and analyze them in order to find out how it works... In a bigger picture...

 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,381
Format
4x5 Format
Felinik said:
... let's define "perfect" for the discussion then: A picture representing the actual conditions of the situation in the most realistic and technically optimal way possible.
Click to expand...

My working definition of perfection has been approximately what you propose.

But recently I have been challenging my definition of "perfect".

I'm not changing my definition permanently, but instead see it as expanding my range.

To continue a project I started to help tkamiya, I picked up 3 rolls of Tri-X Saturday to continue exploring graininess. The core of the idea was to throw out the traditional definition and create a new definition. The changed definition is clear: Instead of trying for minimum grain, try for maximum grain.

It was such a pleasure to review historic texts and find scientists were "always" working towards the other goal. So when I found passages saying what "not to do" I just took note to do the exact opposite. My test results tell me to use lower EI (e.g., 250) and "look" for scenes which are primarily medium gray. Then develop in Dektol 1:9 for a "less than normal" time.

Now you throw out an additional challenge I had NOT originally considered. I was still planning to make perfectly sharp, well-focused images. But it intrigues me, and I think that it will add to the overall impact of images to make shots deliberately blurry, unusually focused.

tkamiya holds a very high standard of quality, spending hours to print a specific negative and throwing out many results that I would find aesthetically satisying. I hold a high standard of quality (similar to yours) as an ideal, but then I accept what results I get as-is. Mistakes are noted and corrected for future images. Prints I get, remain what they are. I reserve the right to make dramatic future improvements. But for the most part, I stop when I reach a realistic look.

Documentary photographers work at a bit of a disadvantage compared to landscape photographers. They witness an exceptional situation, with little control over it. People in the photograph complicate matters by their changing facial expressions. Many important things happen in dark shadow. Even if they were to hold a high standard in mind, there may be many shots that do not live up to the ideal, but which satisfy the moment they wanted to show.

I'll grant that sloppy practice and uneducated darkroom technique can also lead to the exact same result. This might be what irks you.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
richard albertine told me once to " let it vignette "
===
bill, your methodology is perfection !
john
 

canuhead

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
832
Location
Southern Ont
Format
Multi Format

I'm not sure there can be such a thing as perfection re: such as you use as an example. Movement and feeling could be considered a more realistic representation of that moment than something frozen at a high shutter speed. One's definition of realistic and technically optimal can be very broad.

Following that, who's to say that moments in time *need* to be frozen and can't be allowed to flow in time ?
 

horacekenneth

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
515
Location
MD
Format
Multi Format
It seems that the consensus is (without actually saying or agreeing on this) that any technique that better communicates the message of the moment is good. The point has been made a couple times about blur that at times it may be a more realistic representation. Could something similar be said about grain?

Now the original post's reaction was probably not to photos where the grain and blur flawlessly combined to communicate the moment. What about photos where large grain & blur are merely for stylized purposed and not adding anything? I guess that would just be bad art, bad, not because of grain & blur in the picture but because of poor composition and communication.
 

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format

I think that whatever the picture needs, shooting conditions dictate, or a photographers chosen tools dictate is what translates into how the final picture shows in terms of technical quality. Whether we end up liking it or not is entirely subjective. One man's ceiling is another man's floor; either a picture grabs our attention, or it doesn't.

It's probably safe to say that the cream tends to float to the top, and if you consider what represents 'the cream' you see everything from wild and crazy exposures by famous documentary and street photographers, happily existing alongside meticulous artists and printers who pay a lot of attention to the technical quality from beginning to end. Different priorities.

I find it interesting to note that printers like Sid Kaplan, Gene Nocon, Pablo Inirio, and other printers like them, did everything they could to print every negative that passed through their darkroom on commission to print with the very best of their ability, whether it is a meticulously exposed and processed negative, or quickly exposed, grainy, and push processed 35mm neg. Why is that? Because they are all good photographs, in one way or another (or several), and they demand respect and attention.
Look at this masterpiece of James Dean, by Dennis Stock: Link
Now consider how Pablo Inirio had to fight the negative in order to get what he thought would be enough visual impact to impress: Link
Why would such attention be paid to a grainy photograph where not much is in focus?

I guess I feel that the grain can add to an image as much as someone else might think it subtracts, but in the end it just IS, and we live with it. We all have different opinions of what we like and dislike.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid

there is no such thing as perfect ... look at all the silver bullet chasers, look at all the people trying one film one developer one paper after another
look at all the people who buy 7 or 10 cameras a year to find which one suits them best ... there is never something flawless, it is the
flawlessness where one finds beauty, otherwise people would just have everything made by a prototype machine. japanese have something
called wabi-sabi that touches upon this ...
 

Rudeofus

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
5,084
Location
EU
Format
Medium Format
Thomas Bertilsson said:
Whether we end up liking it or not is entirely subjective. One man's ceiling is another man's floor; either a picture grabs our attention, or it doesn't.
Click to expand...

We often make the assumption that people understand and care about the expensive pieces of art they are buying. You can kill any technically sound image by calling it kitsch, regardless of its aesthetic and artistic merit. If you are rich and want to impress your peers with your (non existent) sense of art, you throw big bucks at something that looks like the truck image brought up by Felinik.

Art galleries are bound to account for that.
 

rbultman

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
411
Location
Louisville,
Format
Multi Format
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
I guess I feel that the grain can add to an image as much as someone else might think it subtracts, but in the end it just IS, and we live with it. We all have different opinions of what we like and dislike.
Click to expand...

The best images to me are the ones where the grain disappears, not in the print itself, but in your mind. In other words, the composition and other aspects of the images are so strong that you don't even see the grain. Some perhaps can't get past the grain to see what else is there.

-Rob
 

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format

Yes. I personally don't really care about the grain. It's what's beyond the grain that matters.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,690
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Getting a "real answer" does not appear to be the goal. He/she is interested in chatting about the topic with no real goal in mind. Unfortunately the discussion started with that singularity about the essense of what makes good or bad or popular photography.
 

horacekenneth

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
515
Location
MD
Format
Multi Format
Michael R 1974 said:
I don't think you're going to get any real answers. ...Either you dig it or you don't. And any reason is valid. That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Of course we like something for a reason. You just don't like banana bread because you just dig banana bread. A 5 year old might say I just don't like Claude Monet but if you're actually studying art you should be able to discuss why you do or don't like something.
Like I said before, we don't say that some seafood is good and some seafood is bad because there are a bunch of people out there that just happen to not like seafood. There actually is a bunch of standards including freshness and preparation that distinguish good seafood from bad seafood. The red herring is the person who comes to a cooking contest and says "I just don't dig seafood."
 

horacekenneth

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
515
Location
MD
Format
Multi Format
Michael R 1974 said:
I just think there are many, many valid reasons one might have for enjoying something they see, and in the end standards are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Honestly this doesn't make sense to me. You believe there are many valid reasons for appreciating art, and then you say reasons are irrelevant. If they're irrelevant, then how are they valid?

Are there good reasons for appreciating one work for art and not another, or is what you put up in a gallery just a crap shoot, or the results of a democracy of meaningless opinions?
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,690
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
I just don't dig bananas. Banana bread is OK, but the raw fruit... I just don't dig. Don't know why either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…