when you know a photo is there ???

[Lex Jenkins]

Lately I seem to find myself in the position of wondering why Michael's statements seem to provoke ire. I'm not sure what the problem is.

While I don't have the expertise to advise folks authoritatively I'll agree that sometimes we're better off looking with our eyes rather than through a camera. There's something often alienating or distancing about that lens and focus screen. It can distort our vision.

A typical example of not *seeing* occurs when newbies are surprised that a polarizing filter sometimes turns skies nearly black. They've never actually scanned the entire horizon. If they had they'd recognize that at certain times the sky is naturally polarized. Add an ultra wide angle lens, polarizer and Velvia and you have a recipe for blue-black skies. But they never take that camera away from their eyes to simply *see*.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Well, I see that some of you out there in photography land simply don't get it. There is no such thing as a subject that would not make a wonderful photograph if it were seen in an exciting way. No subject matter is out of bounds. I am willing to bet you guys, and anyone who feels as you do, that a good photographer can make a fine photograph anywhere. I know I can. That's the easy part and is really rather uninteresting. The point of making photographs, as I see it, is to challenge oneself and to thereby grow, not just to make good pictures.

Just the other day our assistant, having a few hours off, wandered over to a place where we are doing some construction and made a wonderful photograph of a rough concrete slab. This slab was something I would certainly walk right past, and I warrant everyone reading this would, too, without even vaguely considering that it was worthy subject matter.

if you are somewhere that moves you to photograph, and you cannot get a good photograph of it be asured that it is you, not the place or subject that is the problem. Always.

Now about "practice," I'm not against using lots of film. The way anyone learns the most is from their own mistakes. But Ader wrote that the problem he was having was a continual problem. At a certain point, if you are not getting it, there is no sense in using more film. something else has to change. That is what I was talking about. It appears you (Thomas and Bob F) took my comment about practice out of context--out of the context of who I was responding to.

When you are stuck (as a photographer or at anything else) it doesn't make sense to keep repeating the same thing--in this case making more bad pictures--something else has to change. When you are spinning your wheels you don't keep doing it, you get out, find a board or something, or if you cannot get out of the rut yourself you get a tow.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Lately I seem to find myself in the position of wondering why Michael's statements seem to provoke ire. I'm not sure what the problem is.

Guys...

Provoke ire? Why? Does the idea that someone else has a different point of view, or different modus operandi seem somehow not acceptable?
I'm not suggesting that anyone accepts anything on its face value... we all should listen to what was said; and consider that even wholly different points of view can possibly contain SOME truth in them.

I'll toss an idea into the arena: It is true that at times we try too hard. In pencil sketching, it is called "overworking" - and considered as a mortal sin. The antidote is the "one-minute poses", where all the artist has TIME for is to get lines on the paper, without squeezing the living hell out of themselves in an effort to be perfect. The results are invariably surprising - weighted heavily to the "good" side. It is amazing, literally, how well we can do if we let ourselves be directed by our pre-conscousnesses.
Those statements can only be considered with due attention to degree. The quest to learn is a noble one, and must be maintained.., but the "moment of truth" is NOT the time for practice or learning. At that moment, we have to DO ... let our "innards" take over - and NOT think or try, but let the idea of getting the image to the film be the only thought.

There is a parallel exercize in photography. DO NOT use the viewfinder. Hold the camera at arms length and press the shutter release.
I've taken panoramas where I've held the camera overhead to clear parked cars) and simply pointed the camera in the general direction of "across the street", and tripped the shutter on every third or fourth step. Developed and printed, and then mounted in sequence, these can form an interesting and successful image.

This is one of the most difficult assignments for neophytes. Losing control, without the security of that viewfinder, is a frightening thing. But - why? Some strange and bizaare image *might* be the result, but I haven't heard of an explosion, or grave physical harm to anyone yet.

The neophyte usually does "burn film" in his/her enthusiasm. Expensive, but not necessrily a "bad thing". I've yet to meet anyone involved in photograhy who didn't care about their work... and no matter how much film we burn, or how rocky the road is, we will all learn - whether we WANT to or not.

We can hope to smooth the way, and eliminate some of the pain, if we try to help, gently ... n.b. "GENTLY". Suggesting a different way of "seeing" ? Interesting. Why not? Will there be an explosion ... or might it just work?

 

[BobF]

"Provoke ire"?? I have noticed many attacks on Michael but I sure hope that wasn't refering to me as there was absolutely no sarcasm in my admiration for Michael's experience and knowledge. I love his work and wish I could afford some examples of it to help me on my learning curve. And maybe decorate a wall.

I simply wanted to understand what he was saying as it didn't make sense to me but the second post clarifies it and I have nothing to dissagree with. APUG is a forum for exchanging ideas and if you don't "get it" ya need to ask, so I did.

Bob

BTW Ed that's a good Idea, just do it and see what happens. Reminds me of learning tennis when I was told to quit thinking and just react, my game improved immediately. But of course I had already learned some basics first.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Ed Sukach]

"
BTW Ed that's a good Idea, just do it and see what happens. Reminds me of learning tennis when I was told to quit thinking and just react, my game improved immediately. But of course I had already learned some basics first.

By George!!! He's GOT it!!!

 

[Donald Miller]

An interesting thread. Perhaps if Michael and others would care to weigh in, I would certainly appreciate your opinions on this and perhaps this is what Michael is addressing.

For the purpose of this discussion I will eliminate commercial and portrait photography since my knowledge of how the following applies to those areas is limited. My focus is making photographs based upon my own motivation.

When I began to photograph I began making exposures of "things". After a certain period (several years), I began to make exposures of "things" in relationship to other "things". Lately I have been thinking more along the lines of making exposures of "things about things". Does this make sense? What do you think about this and have you noticed this tendency as well? Thanks for any input that you may be able to share.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Well, I don't understand "things about things."

All artists deal with space. As I have said before (quoting my former wife, a painter), "Art is about space. Illustration is about things." Photographing things IN SPACE is art. Just photographing things is not. It makes no difference what one photographs--things, things in relationship to other things, or things about things--whatever that is.

Weston's still-life photographs are always about things in space.

I heard it put this way once. " Put a peanut on a table and you have a peanut. Put a peanut in a small matchbox and you have a piece of sculpture. The difference, obviously, is the space around the thing.

When photographs fail, it is usually because the photographer did not see the space, but only the thing.

 

[Donald Miller]

Michael,
As I recall EW is reported to have made a quote (and I probably don't have it correct). Something about photographing the thing about the thing itself...I always took to mean that he strived to capture the essence of the object itself. I believe that he succeeded in accomplishing that in a number of his images. I would guess that is why his and Bretts images have always touched me in ways that some other's work have not.

I sense that quality in most of those images that you have created. Additionally Paula has a quality about her work that is different from yours. It seems her images have the capacity to more effectively portray the organization in what at first appears to be disarray within the environment.

If I have the EW quote wrong, please report it as it was...I am sure that you have heard it before. Thanks.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

You raise other points entirely, Don. These threads do wander.

Edward Weston wrote this. It was a statement for an exhibition of his work.

"Clouds, torsos, shells, peppers, trees, rocks, smokestacks are but interdependent, interrelated parts of a whole, which is life.

"Life rhythms felt in no matter what, become symbols of the whole.

"The creative force in man recognizes and records these rhythms with the medium most suitable to him, to the object, or the moment, feeling the cause, the life within the outer form. Recording unfelt facts by acquired rule, results in sterile inventory.

"To see the Thing Itself is essential: the Quintessence revealed without the fog of impressionism--the casual noting of a transitory mood.

"This then: to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be more than a rock.--Significant presentation--not interpretation."

Note what he wrote was photographed: "these rhythms." NOT the things.

At another time Weston wrote that what he photographed was, "the me of universal rhythms."

Essences are another matter entirely. Things do not have essences. Definitions do.

The reason Weston's work, and all great art, touches so many of us, is that by connecting with universal rhythms, it stimulates our own connection to those rhythms and we truly feel a part of the cosmos.

Eliciting these connections is what art is ultimately about if it is about anything at all.

At another time, and elsewhere, I wrote: "Working in a traditional manner with large view cameras and making only contact prints, I have attempted to extend the potential of photography as a medium for connecting ourselves to the world in which we live and to each other."

The only way this can be done is to somehow hook into the universal rhythms. How to do this? Beats me. One cannot TRY to do this--to connect with universal rhythms. If one is connected oneself, it possibly may happen--given the talent and the skills to do execute the work. All one can do is live and work as fully as possible. Connection in the work happens or it doesn't, and people are touched and respond or they do not. All of the words and the theories and the philosophies are ultimately supremely irrelevant.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Donald Miller]

Michael,

Thanks for sharing those quotes and thoughts. I will copy and paste those to a file so that I may contemplate those in the time ahead.

My immediate reaction when I read what you had written was to recall a memory of a quote from Lao Tsu's work entitled Tao De Ching..."Ever desiring one observes the manifestations, ever desireless one observes the mystery".

I have taken that quote to mean that to be free, so much as is possible, of ego considerations and then one can observe the mystery, the rythmns, the flow of life.

Thanks again for sharing those quotes and your thoughts.

 

[Alex Hawley]

I see tons of stuff that I think look great, then when I've taken them and printed them, they look very plain !!!!!maybe I should just be more discerning

I've certaily been through that phase. I called it "snap-itus". It was most contageous when carrying a 35mm. Carrying an all-manual TLR, it wasn't so bad. Using a 4x5 went a long ways to ending it yet it can still relapse.

I found that the real key is photographing the thing within the thing and looking for the rhythms. I've shot lots of frames filled with "things". Only when I got the thing within the thing, or found the rhythm, did the photo strike a note with anyone.

That and photographing something you have a feel for. I used this approach when I started my Hardworker series. Given that farm tractor engines are not nudes nor postcard sunsets, and never will attract the audience of the former two, I sought to frame the subject within some context of its shape, form, lines and textures. I shot each one with the same view and elements so there would be similarity between each photo yet each one having obvious differences when looking at the entire series.

I think I succeeded in a small way. The guys who own the tractors love the prints. So have several others. One of the wives asked me why I didn't shoot the whole tractor? I said "Well, uh, you know, uh, backgrounds, clutter, uh,uh" and she said "Yeah, its a guy thing". Guilty as charged!

Have to give credit where credit is due. A few converstions with Michael A. Smith changed my whole viewpoint. Then APUG member Lee referred me to the work of David Plowden. Both of these masters have shown me one can be successful photgraphing what one loves. Shooting what people will love on postcards does it for some but not me.

Bottom line - shoot what you have feeling for but seriously study before you press the shutter. Fine Art photography ain't a basketball game. Don't mistake the quantity of film you shoot for improving your chances of making a good picture. I've hardly touched the 35mm since I got the 4x5. And the 4x5 may give way to an 8x10.

 

[Jorge]

YOu all are making this very difficult.....if you have a photograph that just wont come out as you envision it, move on! take other pics and then, if possible go back to it.

I am sure you have found yourself in a situation where you cannot solve a problem and give up...and as soon as you relax and think of something else the solution just springs to you mind, well photography is the same, as the saying goes, stop beating a dead horse......

We all fall into a rut now and again, also we sometimes fall into what I call format syndromes...for example I "suffer" from the "lanscape photographer syndrome" I want everything pinpoint sharp, when in some cases (of course after I have traveled hundreds of miles) I realize that if I had used selective focusing it would have made for a better photograph.

You are not alone, I think most of us have gone through a similar phase, which only tells me that you lack practice and perhaps confidence on the materials you are using.

Just stick to it, pick a developer and film you like and get to know it backwards and forwards and you will see that with time and practice your photographs will start to appear as you envision them, after all Michael has been using super xx and ABC pyro for more than 20 years, Sexton has been using TMX and Tmax RS and now Xtol for more than 10 years, there most be a reason...no?

 

[RAP]

So Sexton uses Xtol now? I have been toying with the idea, but I think I will work with PMK for now.

Here is something I started last night:

Rhythms of the world? You have to bring in music into the discussion. What makes one a photographic Mozart, Beethoven per say?

Apparently Mozart could compose music without making a mistake, without erasing anything on the manuscript, to hear in his own minds ear, what the symphony, sonata, would sound like. Then just write it down so others could play it.

Beethoven was stone deaf for most of his life. He never, ever heard much of his music that he composed in real life. Can you imagine the complexities of composing his incredible, intricate, full orchestration "Ode to Joy" in all its movements, instruments, horns, strings, percussion, voices and never ever hearing one single note! All was done in his head, his own minds ear. He just wrote it down so others could play it and hear it as he did in his mind.

I wonder what sort of photographs they would have taken if they had cameras?

I would think that an image either works or it doesn't, period. I would think all serious, true artists have plenty of those images in that category. Sexton stated essentially that if a print was not his best, it goes into the garbage. Who's to know? But not necessarily the negative. Some negs I do shred. Almost all get filed. How many negs have we rediscovered after a number of years that now print wonderfully? Is it just new materials, or do we finally understand what we shot years ago?

Artists have to be not just true to themselves, but their own worst, ruthless critic. Being able to discern that the image says exactly what you want to say, regardless what the auidience thinks.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Well, RAP, no, not exactly, where Beethoven is concerned. He had already been studying, composing, and performing for over twenty years by the time he bacame near-deaf. He was only truly deaf for the last dozen or so years of his life.

For me, the answer, if there is such a thing, to the original question is to not overanalyze and not second-guess too often. Then again, I shoot very intuitively and emotionally. If I were shooting Ansel Adamsish landscapes, my approach would be different.

The bottom line is, something in the scene moves me and makes me hit that shutter. That doesn't make every image a keeper, but it keeps the waste under control while preventing me from missing critical moments. Over time the 'reaction' has converted to 'anticipation', which is much more efficient and trustworthy.

 

[bjorke]

Surely the basic bias in the question that began this thread needs to be revealed -- the notion that there is some fairly-objective "there" to which all photos aspire?

This is of course silly. The goals, methods, and purposes of a Weston seaside tree photo, or an Avedon fashion layout, are miles away from, say, the portraits of Salgado, the news photos of Natchwey, or adverts by LaChappelle. The "there" for each of these different forms diverges widely (and "personal vision" doesn't cut it either, as any news shooter will be quick to remind you. f/8 and be there!).

Photography is still new, and we tend to lump it all together so thoughtlessly. Compare to music -- would we mistake Beethoven for Eddie Van Halen or Ludakris?

 

[DKT]

I get stuck in ruts--I bottomed out pretty much a couple of years ago. Got to the point from doing the same types of shots at work that when presented with an opportunity outside I came up with all sorts of excuses why it wouldn't work. It was all from the limited perspective of the types of assignments I do --which have to fit a narrow definition. There's not alot of artistic interpetation for historians or researchers, They want to see the piece clearly or accurately reproduced even if that means estethically it's not very pleasing.

I just had to force myself to create personal assignments and one way I did was to burn film with impunity. Shoot anything and everything regardless of what my brain was telling me otherwise. I just tried to forget all the stuff that I had learned worked...even if it meant I didn't really get anything out of the excercise. sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I don't get too worked up about it...

I've done some shots at work that for whatever reason, events seemed to conspire against me and I was stuck with having to do a salvage job and use it anyways. Those are the kinds of images that will haunt you for a long time. Everytime you see it in print, or hanging on a wall--you see all your mistakes right there plain as day.

I once had to shoot an interior "in-situ" shot of a chair used in a gas chamber inside a prison. oh joy. That was one of the worst mixed lighting, uncomfortable rooms I've ever had to shoot in for a variety of reasons beyond the technical end. I knew looking at it as I went into the room that it would be tough--I knew I didn't have the time or the gear with me to do it, but had no option otherwise. Had to make do. No reshoots...no going back....the scene changed anyways, it's part of history now. The piece sits in a temp controlled storage vault crated up, the film sits in a filing cabinet. Someday someone will use those photos and my hope is they understand I tried--even though it might not look that way.

Earlier this summer we had to shoot one of the first Carrier AC's in the southeast. It was a bus sized behemoth sitting in the mechanical room of a an office building. Lit by a mix of dingy fluorescents and some 60 watt type bulbs. There was water on the floor everywhere and the floor itself was vibrating from the other HVACs down there in this room. The museum actually acquired parts of this beast and had planned on making a 1:1 repro of it *perspectively* corrected. Talk about a nightmare. We had to shoot it on 35mm and light it with 8 vivitar 283s and shoot 400 speed film. There was so much water on the floor, we didn't feel safe using the strobes and the vibration was too much to drag the shutter....to shoot on 4x5, our 90mm wasn't wide enough, but we would have had to do it in one-pop, which meant probably 4800 watts or more of juice down there. Guess what--2 days after we shot this, they ripped out that unit. It's gone--history. I don't even want to think about this thing when it gets made....

Everyone I've ever met who has been a working photographer has a long list of horror stories or ones-that-got-away type stories. Happens to everyone. I still haven't gotten out of my slump yet, but have loosened up quite a bit and just decided to shoot as much as I can while the materials I like are still being made. I'd hate to think I missed the opportunity sitting around analyzing every little detail.

My opinions only/not my employers.

KT

 

[RAP]

There was a part in the movie, "Immortal Beloved" where it showed the boy, Beethoven being brutalized by an alcoholic father, who would hit the boy repeatedly in the ear until it bleed. Such an injury would indicate a broken ear drum and deafness. The movie indicated he went deaf very early in his life not even being able to hear his own piano playing. When he tried to conduct an orchestra, it was chaos because he could not hear the instruments.

The point being, that great creative genius has the ability to hear, see in their minds completely what they want to say, compose, paint, etc, before they even begin the creative process. For them, the creative process is more to benefit the auidience, to share what is in their minds, more of a formality.

For the photographer, it is the previsualization of the finished print in your minds eye, what the illuminated subject before him will become. The creative process is just the means to that end.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

The movie exaggerated to make the story more dramatic (being a half-deaf musician myself, I know the whole Beethoven thing) but I get your point, and I agree with it.

 

[SteveGangi]

I have the opposite problem sometimes - I take a photo that I think will be great, and then when printed it's crap

 

[Lex Jenkins]

Steve, you might try my "raspberry" editing method.

When I see a negative that obviously didn't turn out as well as I'd hoped I reflexively blow a raspberry. The saliva droplets that land on the negative then effectively kill any notion I might've had to go ahead and try a print anyway.

I have lots of raspberries in my files and only a few cherries.

 

[SteveGangi]

I like that raspberry method. Too often, I tried to "save" a picture that was just not worth all the paper that was burned (except as a learning experience". But then, if I said every shot was good, you all would know I was lying. Let's just say I have a high "rejection rate". It's like fishing... difficult enough to be a challenge, but with enough keepers to keep me going.

 

[Ed Sukach]

One thing is irritating ... the topics "Photography: Art or Craft"; When do you know a photo is there"; and MAP ... What do we photograph?" are so closely related that it is difficult to choose just one place to reply. I'm placing this here - and risking "bridging" the other two -- or more.

The world has *very* few instances where a "black *OR* white" answer is close to the truth. Certainly "Art or Craft" is one that lies solidly in "Black, shades of grey, and white ... and a myriad of CMYK colors".
I don't think it is possible to have any work of art completly devoid of all craftsmanship; nor is it possible to have any craft work devoid of ALL artistry. Dipping the paint brush into the oils on the pallete to create an abstract work of art requires "craftsmanship" or something closely similar. Deciding to build a purely functional, simple table requires a decision from our inner being ... clearly a prerequsite to all "art".
Where the lines of demarcation are ... I'm not sure.

I do not, and will not, pretend to know waht art is ... I simply DON'T. The more I study and ponder the question, the further away I seem to be from THE answer. The *BEST* I've been able to come up with is the "Encrypted window into the "being" of the artist"... and what is most important here is the ARTIST, not the "window".
I can make a few observations on the effect of art ... something akin to vapor trails in cloud chambers. I have seen people ("experiencers") moved to altered emotional states: enraptured, elated, saddened, shocked, outraged, "blissed-out"; uh ... "hornied"... nearly everything in the emotional lexicon. One reaction I have can identify the "successful" works of art that *I* produce: As inured as I am after many moons of doing photography, occasionaslly it will happen - I'll rush upstairs (my darkroom is in my cellar) with a dripping wet print, and my wife will hear, "Look at this!! I *nailed* one!!"
In truth, that is my indication that I've made what is to me, a work of art. Others may not agree ... but ... I've GOT to please myself.
That "process" applies to other's work as well... "Look at that! You've nailed --- made an exceptionally good - one!" That happens a LOT in cruising the galleries here on APUG.

Art, again, is an intensely personal, individual expression. It *must* come from the "being" (a.k.a. "Soul", spirit, innards) of the one creating it to be really effective... and that should, *MUST*, never be corrupted by the value judgements of another. We may, in a critique, SUGGEST another point of view - our point of view - but we are bound to invariably respect and encourage the other guy to "speak as s/he he will.

 

[Jim Chinn]

Why does every piece of film that is exposed have to be perfect and a keeper? Most painters, sculpters, architects, etc go through a fairly extensive series of sketches, drawings, models, and maybe several versions of the same subject with only one usually recognized as superior.

How many canvasas, or sketches do you think Mark Rothko, Georgia O'Keefe or Hopper did in their lifetimes not counting the work that is actually in existence today. Thousands!! I believe O'Keefe has about 2000 works catalogued that are known to exist today. In 70 years of creating do you think she sat down and made a masterpiece everytime, or even had it in her mind that this one is going to be hanging at the National Institute someday? NO she studied, experimented, painted and then if it did'nt work she painted another canvas.

Phtographers are constantly trying to say their work is equivalent to all the other visual media, and try to play down the mechanical, and chemical aspect of the craft. Yet at one time or another we feel that the camera, or the particular lens or developer or paper should allow us to create perfection.

Instead of approaching poor quality images as a waste, we should use the opportunity to think of them as sketches and experiments. Learn from them, and try to figure out what they are telling you about how you work.

One final question. How long would you continue with photography if every time you released the shutter, your pre-visualization was perfect, every idea and concept spot on? Wouldn't that get boring over time?

 

[SteveGangi]

One final question. How long would you continue with photography if every time you released the shutter, your pre-visualization was perfect, every idea and concept spot on? Wouldn't that get boring over time?

I would get very bored and would quit. If it was that easy, what would be the point?