HAVEN’T BEEN AT MY COMPUTER FOR A FEW DAYS while recovering from a very nasty icy sidewalk fall. However, Also haven’t been inclined to make any pictures but I did spend some time making Lego flower arrangements. And while I was wiling away the time, I did receive a notice that one of my photographs was accepted into a REMAINS-themed exhibition.
# 6864-67 / common things • still life ~ good is as good does
WITH ALL OF THE ATTENTION GIVEN TO COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY, most notably on TOP, I must admit to being rather flummoxed, aka: confounded, or, simply confused, re: the idea of what is color photography and/or who is a color photographer?
It would be simplistic to write that / everyone who makes photographs with a device or materials capable of rendering reasonably accurate colors of the real world-as seen by a healthy human eye-is; a) making color photographs, and, by reasonable extension, 2) a “color” photographer. However, it would seem that in some quarters, just making color photographs is not enough to qualify one as a “color” photographer.
Apparently there is some other criteria that must be meet in order to be consider as a color photographer”. And, therein is where my confusion resides.
iMo, making color photographs makes one a color photographer. To my way of thinking, it is as simple as that. However…..
….I believe it to be indisputable that there are good color photographs and…gasp…not-so-good color photographs. iMo, the difference between the two is very easy to identify. A good color photograph is, quite simply, first and foremost, a good photograph.
My definition-influenced by my bias(es)-of a good photograph is summarized by this Cartier-Bresson quote:
“To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition in a fraction of a second the significance of an event, as well as the precise organization the forms that give that event its proper expression. And this organization, this precision, will always escape you, if you do not appreciate what a picture is, if you do not understand that the composition, the logic, the equilibrium of the surfaces and values are the only ways of giving meaning to all that is continuously appearing and vanishing before our very eyes.”
I would substitute the phrase moment in time for the word event (a moment in time could include an “event”). However, that written, to my eye and sensibilities, the overall form seen in a photograph derives from the organization of the visual elements-line, shape, space, color and value-as framed and presented in the photograph. That organization is, in essence, balancing act. All of the visual elements must conspire to create a congruous whole-congruity determined by what the photographer wishes to express.
And, when it comes to color, I think it important to understand that the colors as presented in a photograph are just one visual element of any number of other visual elements that might be found in a good photograph. In my experience, I have found that color photographs that are saturated with color-or color(s) that has been over saturated-for color’s sake tend to slide over into the category of kitsch and dreck.
ASIDE Nevertheless, kitsch and dreck rarely fail to elicit fawning praise from the unwashed masses. cuz, ya know, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. END OF ASIDE
All of the above written, I would guess that therein could be found my definition of what constitutes a good color photograph and that a photographer who makes good color photographs is a good photographer. Although…
…I’ll stick with the idea that there is no such thing as a good color photographer, or for that matter, a good monochrome photographer. iMo, there are only good photographers as defined by their making of good photographs of any variety.
# 6854-57 / common things ~ perfect color (no such thing)
all photos ~ (embiggenable)
AS THE IDEA / CONCEPT OF COLOR IS BEING BATTED AROUND on TOP, the topic, as is most often the case, devolves into the malarky and flapdoodle world wherein the need for understanding the interaction of color, both a practical and a theoretical understanding, is consider to be de rigueur for the making of a “perfect” color photograph. Ya know, so you can use color as a colorist, rather than as an incidentalist.
In the entry, examples of good ‘great color photographers are given by many. Amongst the names, Saul Leiter is mentioned repeatedly. iMo, very good example but….I doubt that Leiter ever gave much of a tinker'‘s damn about understanding the interaction of color, both as a practical and a theoretical matter. Consider Leiter’s own words:
“I think that mysterious things happen in familiar places…I like it when one is not certain of what one sees. When we do not know why the photographer has taken a picture, and when we do not know why we are looking at it, all of a sudden, we discover something that we start seeing. I like this confusion…I think that I learned to see what h see and do not see. One of the things photography has allowed me is to take pleasure in looking. I see this world simply. It is a source of endless delight.”
iMo, the nano-second that you starting thinking about color when making a photograph, that is the moment that you screw up the process, i.e., you lose the delight of simply looking and begin making a photograph according to the rules. iMo, ya gotta just look and feel it.
ASIDE While I consider Leiter’s work a forerunner of fine-art color photography-inasmuch as he did use color film in his picture making-nevertheless, my thinking is rather conflicted, re: the idea that he was as color photographer. It seems, based upon the fact that he was an experimental-ist when it came to what color film to use. He regularly “explored” the color distortions of expired films and the unpredictable color renditions found in the emulsions of small-manufacturer’s films.
To my way of thinking, Lieter was not utilizing the actual colors of the actual world in the making of his pictures. Rather, he was sorta playing around with the color renditions of one of the tools of the medium, aka: film. So, does that make him something other than a color photographers? A color distortion-ist photographer, perhaps?
That written, his color work-whatever one wishes to call it-is a delight at which to look.
# 6780-85 / landscape ~ hilly, but flat as a pancake
All photos ~ (embiggenable)
Val d’Orcia view from the bedroom balcony of Pope Pius II’s summer residence ~ Pienza, Tuscany
Val d’Orcia view from the bedroom balcony of Pope Pius II’s summer residence ~ Pienza, Tuscany
WHILE RUMMAGING AROUND IN MY PHOTO LIBRARY LOOKING for street photography pictures-pictures which are most often made (by me) in cities in foreign countries (see my new street photos folder on the WORK page) ~ Tuscany-I was snared by a handful of Tuscany landscape pictures that were made with a long focal lens. For whatever reason, most, but not all, of of my Tuscany landscapes were made with that lens. Apparently, to my eye and sensibilities, that is how I was inclined to “see” it. In any event, it seemed logical to post these pictures-culled from many-for your viewing pleasure and as a follow up to my recent entry, re: making pictures with a long focal length lens.
On a different topic: re: “…the ever growing feeling that everything I photograph just seems derivative anymore” - a quote from a comment left on TOP. On that topic, consider this:
For the first several years one struggles with the technical challenges, making sure and steady progress - a learning curve and growth process that is rewarding, stimulating and self-renewing. But, eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. It is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit. ~ Brooks Jensen
We have certainly reached a plateau, technical wise, were the making of a “technically good photograph is relatively easy.”. A fact that seems to concern-some might even say “threaten”-those “serious” amateur photographers who have arrived at that plateau after a long and concentrated effort to reach it. iMo, at the very least, I believe it pisses them off that the un-serious picture taking rabble can make pictures which-to the average viewer’s eye and sensibilities-rivals there own pictures.
Well, iMo, those “serious” makers have been skating on thin ice, status wise, cuz it was only a matter of time until the march of technological progress, in this case re: the ability to make technically good photographs, washed away their claim to picture making fame. I believe that situation might cause a significant number of serious amateurs to to think, if everyone can do it and I don’t stand out, what’s the point? Hence, their reaction to this situation has been, almost across the board, to claim that their pictures are technically superior to those made with an iPhone (the device at the top of their derision list).
However, whether they are aware of it or not, that epithetical pronouncement exposes their obviousness to the fact that the average viewer, much more so in the fine art world, doesn’t give a crap about technical perfection. For the average viewer, a decent depiction of a person, place or thing is more than good enough for them. In the fine art world, a decent depiction is good enough as long as a photograph is about more than just what is depicted.
All of that written, it brings me back to my first quote “…the ever growing feeling that everything I photograph just seems derivative anymore”….
…inasmuch as most serious amateur photographs make photographs that are, primarily, referent-centric and are made, more or less, according to the “standard” rules and conventions of the medium, it is no surprise that many might end up feeling that their photographs are derivative. Given that most of their referents are those which are considered by the average viewer to be “beautiful” or interesting, it is only a matter of time until they either run out of such referents and start to repeat themselves, or, that they realize that their pictures look an awful lot like everyone else’s pictures.
And, it is at that point that their enthusiasm for making pictures wanes, cuz, if you don’t stand out (cuz everyone can do it), what’s the point?
# 6772-76 / landscape • rain ~ reaching way out there
All photos ~ (embiggenable)
WOKE UP TO RAINY OVERCAST DAY. AFTER MY morning wake-up routine, I was overcome by an unusual desire…the need to get out and make photographs with a tele-only zoom lens. An activity which would, gasp!!!, require the use of a “real” camera.
I can write, for a fact, that I have no idea what came over me. Nevertheless, I pulled out one of my Olympus µ4/3 cameras and my Zuiko 50-200mm e100-400) f2.8 lens, donned rainy weather gear, and headed out the door for short, 3-4 mile picture making drive around the “neighborhood”.
I will admit to it feeling kinda weird hauling around what felt like a large brick, looking through a viewfinder, making aperture-mostly wide open cuz I was not looking for maximum DOF-and shutter speed adjustments, and checking for critical focus. FYI, most of the pictures were made with the zoom set to focal lengths somewhere between e300-400mm.
Despite the fact that using a “real” camera felt somewhat old-timely, I can write that I have always enjoyed making pictures with the use of long focal length lenses. That’s cuz the so-called perspective compressing effect captured by-but not created by-long focal length lenses helps emphasize the flat 2D field of a photographic print. To my eye and sensibilities, an emphasis that, with careful framing of selected sections of the real world, reveals the purely visual 2D viability of that 3D world. iMo, an emphasis that elevates a picture into the arena of fine art because it gives the eye and visual senses something to view, consider and appreciate beyond the mere literal depiction of a section of the real world.
# 6665-70 / landscape (ku) ~ a mistake was made
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
WHILE GETTING THROUGH THE PUSH TO THE FINISH LINE, re: An Adirondack Survey ~ in plain sight project, it occurred to me that I had made a rather grievous omission, picture wise.
That is, in my desire to keep the subject matter focused on the quotidian landscape as seen here in the Adirondacks, I deliberately did not include any pictures of the natural world, grand scenic genre wise. My thinking was based on the fact that I did not want the work to bear any resemblance to the typical cliche-ridden, sappy Adirondack ain’t-nature-grand books, calendars, post cards, and the like. However…
…quite fortunately, my brain kicked me in my butt when I realized that, in fact, ain’t nature grand is very much a part of everyday life in the Adirondacks. More accurately, what I realized was that while all of the hand-of-man picture evidence in the body of work was made over time during my daily just moving about the place-as opposed to heading out for the purpose of making pictures-I had made quite a number of ain’t-nature-grand pictures in exactly the same manner. That is, just driving / walking around the place and being “confronted” with such a picture making opportunity. Ya know, just a part of everyday life here in the Adirondacks-as opposed to going out and chasing the light.
So, I am now faced with a dilemma of sorts…my submission of the work to galleries / art institutions is 2-fold; a 12x12inch, 50 picture book (sans ain’t-nature-grand pictures) and a companion 15 print folio of additional pictures from the body of work (to illustrate the print quality of the work). I have printed a few ain’t-nature-grand pictures for the folio, but…the question is, should I re-edit the book to sprinkle about some ain’t-nature-grand pictures?
That idea gives me stomach cramps cuz getting the book just right required quite an effort-original editing, a first book that didn’t feel right, a second editing, a second book that looked right but had a couple pictures that needed color corrections, a third book that was, thankfully, “ perfect”. The idea of yet another go-around has little appeal but, it all has to be “perfect” so…
All of the above written, I have asked myself how in the hell did I make this mistake? What was I thinking? Well, the answer is quite simple - I have very low esteem-some might even say, extreme dislike-for camera-club, calendar “aesthetic” grand landscape photography. Or, as Sally Eauclaire wrote in her the new color photography book:
[work in which] the lust for effect is everywhere apparent. Technical wizardry amplifies rather than recreates on-site observations. Playing to the multitude of viewers who salivate at the sight of nature (in the belief that good and and God are immanent), such photographers choose such picturesque subject matter as prodigious crags, rippling sands, or flaming sunsets…they burden it with ever coarser effects effects. Rather than humbly seek out the “spirit of fact” they assume the role of God’s art director making His immanence unequivocal and protrusive.
Consequently, I did not want to “pollute” the book with anything even remotely resembling camera-club, calendar “aesthetic” grand landscape photography. However, the fact of the matter is, here in the Adirondacks the natural world is fully capable of getting in your face with some very sublime visage(s) that are difficult to ignore, picture making wise. Visage(s) that require no technical wizardry / coarse effects to amplify its (their) ain’t-nature-grand appearance. And, since I always strive for the “spirit of fact”, I should feel no guilt / have no qualms about including some un-effected ain’t-nature-grand pictures in the body of work.
FYI, I have added an ADIRONDACK SCENICS gallery to the WORKS page.
# 6621-23 / common places • common things • people ~ a public pageantry of people on parade
street lights ~ Saranac Lake, NY (embiggenable)
mode de rue ~ Paris, France (embiggenable)
Old Montreal, Canada (embiggenable)
IF COMMENTS FROM THOMAS AND DENNIS ON my last entry are any indication, I apparently created confusion, re: my idea of street photography. While I thought that the pictures in the entry might make my what is street photography? idea fairly clear, I believe the confusion culprit is the phrase “…can be done anywhere and people do not have to be present in the photo”. So, let me give it another go using my own words, as opposed to quoting those from some else. Smiply put…
iMo, to my eye and sensibilities, street photography is the surreptitious act of making candid pictures which depict people, in public places (primarily man-made environments), displaying gestures, expressions, body language, including quirky / spontaneous / curious situations and relationships to others and/or their immediate environment, and the like.
No. I do not believe any of Sir Ansel’s pictures of the natural world are street photographs. They are landscape photographs. While I appreciate-and make-street scenes devoid of people, I do not consider them to be street photography. No. They are urban landscapes.
All of that written, it should go without writing (as he writes it while writing it nevertheless) that street photography can be many different things to many different people. Ultimately, that’s OK with me cuz, I don’t give a damn what a picture might be labeled as. I care only about whether, or not, any picture (any genre) is, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities, a good picture.
# 6616-20 / common places • common people ~ on the street, or not
from my single women body of work ~ (embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
BEFORE ADDRESSING TIPS FOR PHOTOGRAPHING IN PUBLIC, I thought I would address the idea of what is street photography. It seems that the answer is open to question for some-the purists would say that it is pictures of people made while standing on an actual street using BW film in a camera with a wide-angle lens attached. Anything else is, well, quite simply, not street photography.
That definition is a little too tight-ass for me. Consider this from a more modern source:
“Street photography at its essence means candid photography of humanity. A street photograph is a real moment….Street photography can be done anywhere and people do not have to be present in the photo….It is a way of connecting with the world and bringing back the moments that stand out. ...It can be likened to a visual form of poetry – while beauty and form are important aspects of street photography, great street photographs often have something going on beneath the surface….There are hints, feelings, ideas, stories, or questions…”
That definition more closely aligns with my idea, re: street photography. However, I would suggest 2 other points; 1) color of BW, your choice-whatever works for your intent, 2) if people are not present in the picture, it should illustrate evidence of places / things that suggest a past or future human presence.
Re: tips for photographing in public. The first thing you should know is that I do not consider myself to be a street photographer. Rather, I am just a guy wandering around various streets around the world with a picture making device of some kind and my eye and sensibilities perpetually attuned to picture making possibilities. That written, I have managed to make quite a number of pictures that many would label as street photography. Be that as it may be, the fact remains that I have never consciously developed a street photography strategy.
On the other hand, I have relied upon simple common sense procedures. Assuming that one wishes to imitate the proverbial, somewhat inconspicuous fly on the wall, the operative word is “simple”, as in, keep it simple. It ain’t rocket science. Ya know what I mean? Say, like:
Simple # 1: Gear. A single, small, unimposing camera with small, unimposing WA lens. Preferably with standard metal trim cuz most people know that pros use black cameras.
Simple # 2: Clothing. No fashion statements or bright colors. If you can not blend in to the crowd, try not to stand out too much.
Simple # 3: Body language: Do not stand in any one spot too long. Act natural. Be casual. Look around, especially at things you have no intention of picturing. Ya know, cuz you are just a naturally curious sorta person.
Simple # 4: The act of making the picture. Point and shoot. Your picture making device must be set and ready to go. If you have to hesitate to make an adjustment, you risk alerting the subject and the decisive moment will probably be missed.
On an added note, in my experience, I have only one time ever been waved off by a subject while making a street photo. A simple shake of the head and a wave of the hand and that was it. Which leads me to believe that there is nothing to be anxious about when making street pictures. Especially so when one has mastered the art of being a fly on the wall.
An example: I am not small person - a reasonably fit 6’ 3” / 220 lbs with long (8 inches below my shoulder) very wavy light grey hair, most often seen wearing a black baseball cap with a bright KODAK logo on the front which nicely compliments my weirdly stylish eye wear. When out and about, it is SOP for me to hear, “Nice glasses.” or “I love your hair” - almost always uttered by women. All of which makes the following somewhat interesting….
….if you check out my single women gallery on the WORK page, none of those subjects ever knew I was photographing them. That despite the fact that 90% of the photographs were made relatively in close with a street photography “standard”, moderate WA lens. A prime example of discrete fly on the wall, point and shoot, and then disappear into the wind picture making.