SJP Posted November 7, 2011 Share #41 Posted November 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Scotty, Great that you replied & I would feel that including such (garbage picking) photos would be appropriate, in fact it would add to your work. What is wrong in depicting the sometimes really hard circumstances that people have to live in/survive in? I thought that was photojournalism, quite a serious and worthwhile endeavor. Anyway, I cannot see them so I cannot judge either way. Personally I much prefer less color rather than more & I do not like HDR at all in general. But that is a choice and sticking to a certain style also provides a photographic signature. In my case style is all over the place, so I have little right to comment anyhow. Keep visiting, we are not all horrible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 Hi SJP, Take a look here Great article on '14 months with an M9'. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Ivan Muller Posted November 8, 2011 Share #42 Posted November 8, 2011 Scotty, Without mentioning a specific image, my take is that as soon as technique becomes more visible than the 'content' of the image then one has to ask, what am I looking at..... IMO in the best images out there the technique becomes invisible... I think you have some superb images, especially your street shots, but when I look at them the first thing I see is, is the HDR technique... whether it is an actual HDR image or not, that's what I see first, the HDR 'look', that and the borders and the typeface of your titles.....the contend comes last..... But the reality is that you are selling hundreds of images, so it works! I bet most of us serious 'leica look' B&W grainy street photographers don't sell that much in a lifetime. I had a look at Stephen Wilkes work and I don't actually think they can be called HDR photography at all... I think he takes pieces of the image and blends them together into one image that moves from daylight to night. the HDR look as I see them in your images is totally absent. The problem is that one cannot expect to put images on the web and then demand that the viewer not have a go at your style, motives etc etc. Unfortunately its just not going to happen... David Goldblatt told me a long time ago that the famous photograph of the head of the Krupp dynasty taken by Arnold Newman was in his opinion incorrect because Newman used harsh side lighting to make him look evil. He photographed him not the way he was but through his technique made him look like the evil person the photographer wanted him to look like.....Technique shouldn't get in the way of ones vision, it should enhance it, make it stronger or else it becomes what Uncle Ansel said 'a sharp image of a fuzzy subject' (or something like that). With digital we have all these tools available to us but we have to be careful that the tools don't take over and becomes the image....and that's were the danger of HDR lies, the technique is so visually strong that it is difficult for the educated viewer to see past it......and I think that is the reason why you got such a strong and polarized response to your article and the images....and of course the 'sin' of having used a 'Leica M' of all cameras to get there! Regarding the 'leica look' well I would like someone to explain it in a bit more detail to me....I didn't realize that certain cameras were only meant for certain types of images and that some lenses only had to be used wide open.......I go through my Leica life shooting mostly at F11, auto shutter and face recognition so I guess that makes me a philistine...... Good luck Scotty and may you prosper.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottygraham Posted November 8, 2011 Share #43 Posted November 8, 2011 Cheers, Ivan. I appreciate your well thought out response. It is constructive criticism like yours that helps me better my craft in the long run. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted November 8, 2011 Share #44 Posted November 8, 2011 Great post Ivan, Just a couple of observations, for the sake of conversation. Scotty, Without mentioning a specific image, my take is that as soon as technique becomes more visible than the 'content' of the image then one has to ask, what am I looking at..... IMO in the best images out there the technique becomes invisible... I refer you to many, many artists past, present, famous or otherwise. Andy Warhol's Marilyn Prints spring to mind. The problem is that one cannot expect to put images on the web and then demand that the viewer not have a go at your style, motives etc etc. Unfortunately its just not going to happen... I disagree. Scotty didn't demand anything, far from it. One cannot expect everyone to like your images, but one certainly can expect civility. Lack of civility, yob-like behaviour is as reprehensible online as it is off, though more common due to the anonymity afforded. There is no "right" to "have a go". I offer Ctein's excellent article on The Online Photographer: What Artists Have a Right to Expect Kind regards, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 8, 2011 Share #45 Posted November 8, 2011 This thread is an eye-opener to me. HDR, contrast and color manipulation, advanced photoshop techniques, it is all part of the photograpic scene nowadays, cutting edge to mainstream. More en vogue in DSLR and even cellphone circles than with Leica users it seems. Are we really a bunch of conservative old fogies that react to newer styles like Mozart fans at a Penderecki concert? Leica photography indeed.. Scotty, Thanks for your article, it shows the M9 is a more universal tool than many think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted November 8, 2011 Share #46 Posted November 8, 2011 Great post Ivan, quote 'Just a couple of observations, for the sake of conversation.' You have a point!... but no 'great photographer' springs to mind where the 'technique' becomes the image. Not even Jerry Uelsman, imo because his images just look so 'normal' regarding his technique. (the same goes for, Herbert Bayer, Man Ray and the whole Bauhaus movement etc) Not sure if Warhol is considered an artist or photographer. A quick look at some of my photography books and he is nowhere to be found...But I am really not an expert on art and I have probably made a fool of myself already!.....I only had one year of 'art' classes at photo school and that was such a long time ago that I have forgotten most of what we were taught...! What I have noticed is that the better the artist's craft the more I like the work. In the 90's on my first(and only)trip to London I saw an exhibition called 'Belgium impressionists' and what struck me was how much the absolute mastery of their craft enhanced the viewing pleasure of their art....and the same goes for photography. I still remember how disappointed I was when I saw how badly printed and spotty Fay Godwin's prints were as opposed to George Tice's magnificent prints. What I can say is that when I look at a Warhol, I don't 'see' his technique but rather his 'vision' Some HDR images remind me of the graduated orange to 'darken the sky' filter crowd, I just don't think I have ever seen that technique used where I didn't think it would have been better without... or the over saturated colours one often sees here on the forum... all these techniques are noticeable when they 'dont' work but invisible when they do.... Regarding the civility on the net, of course I agree with you totally, I was merely trying to point out that as much as we may hope for it, its not going to happen.....that's the reality....unfortunately. Scotty's original article clearly stated that hdr and bright colours were his 'thing' and I respect that.....I only wrote my previous post because Scotty invited us to....and he deserved a reply. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 8, 2011 Share #47 Posted November 8, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Everyone is talking about his HDR images, but if you reread what Scotty said-only 4 of the 30 photos were HDR. That;s like a little over 1%! OK then, so the rest? He even said he does minor adjustments in LR not PS. So is minor change too major for some? Guess so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted November 8, 2011 Share #48 Posted November 8, 2011 You have a point!... but no 'great photographer' springs to mind where the 'technique' becomes the image. Bruce Gilden's technique is arguably pretty obvious. It's certainly not hidden! Whether he's "great" is certainly open to opinion! Regarding the civility on the net, of course I agree with you totally, I was merely trying to point out that as much as we may hope for it, its not going to happen.....that's the reality....unfortunately. Of course I understood your point and wouldn't suggest you implied anything contrary. I will not however accept any slide towards the lowest common denominator as "that's the way it is!" It's stops happening because people stand up and say no. We're seeing living proof of that around the world as we speak! Scotty's original article clearly stated that hdr and bright colours were his 'thing' and I respect that.....I only wrote my previous post because Scotty invited us to....and he deserved a reply. Quite so. Amen brother! ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted November 8, 2011 Share #49 Posted November 8, 2011 Hi, dwbell... I had to google Bruce Gilden quickly to see what his images looked like - shows you how ignorant I am - I see what you mean... maybe this whole 'technique' thing is past its sell by date..! I will have to think about this subject a bit more carefully before I open my mouth again.... go on a short re-education course or something... Coming back to Bruce, I looked at his work on the Magnum site and I must say I actually quite like it although I don't think I can be quite that 'in your face'....Looking at his work reminded me of the 3rd year student that posted her street images here a while ago and I started wondering if her 'personality' might not be the biggest obstacle in getting her images, as its probably the case with most of us. I would presume that Scotty is not the shy type either(like Bruce) and that it shows in his photographs......bright over the top and colourful...and why should we be criticized for that...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Skinner Posted November 8, 2011 Share #50 Posted November 8, 2011 When done incorrectly (which is most of the time IMO) HDR images just explode and ooze hypercolor, and rarely capture the "decisive moment". HDR would seem to be the antithesis of Leica as I regard it. Personally, Bruce Gilden is in my Top 3 All-Time Favorite photogs, yet other "Leica guys" on this forum shun him for using *gasp* a flash gun. To each his own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d2mini Posted November 8, 2011 Share #51 Posted November 8, 2011 I love how the whole tone of this thread changed once Scotty posted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 8, 2011 Share #52 Posted November 8, 2011 Personally, Bruce Gilden is in my Top 3 All-Time Favorite photogs, yet other "Leica guys" on this forum shun him for using *gasp* a flash gun. No, for behaving like an asshole. His pictures have a uniform startled look. Hardly a "decisive moment", more fear and loathing, or perhaps disgust. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted November 8, 2011 Share #53 Posted November 8, 2011 I love how the whole tone of this thread changed once Scotty posted. This is exactly why there is a thing called an 'artist's statement.' This is exactly why when you view images at an exhibition you interpret them within some kind of context (even the fact that you are viewing them in a museum versus a gallery has its own connotations.) This is exactly why some people who do not know (or take any time to learn) the history of art have difficulty reacting to conceptual art. Out of context, all we are left with is the surface of the image. We interpret that surface based on our own perceptions, or own world views. We can only rely on convention and on certain codes, i.e., the connotation of the image. What the image denotes to us is based on that exercise. This is why it's so imperative to be aware of what is in the frame and to understand what is being connoted within conventional codes and within the context of the history of image making. (This is basic semiotics and something we all employ on a daily basis while often unaware that we are doing so.) And technique always enters into the coding of the image. It cannot be avoided or dismissed. And often those techniques take on new codes of their own. Therefore a technique becomes part of the language of the image. And this can also include framing, borders, text, or whatever is there for us to see (a title or caption next to the image also has an affect since it serves as a guide to interpreting the image; imagine a newspaper running an image without a caption.) In addition, one must not be too thin skinned if one is showing images to a viewer. By showing his/her images, the image maker allows the viewer to interpret the images based on their own visual conventions and to utilize the codes that appear in the image. If those employed codes change the image maker's original intent, then the image has failed and/or has been transformed into something outside of its original purpose (which isn't necessarily a bad thing; we all have come to appreciate an image we once disregarded only to appreciate it later as our perceptions and/or conventions change.) This is why critique is such a valuable tool to an artist. Artists will often ask other artists for a critique of their work before contemplating an exhibition. It's an important part of the process of exhibiting work. For the most part we do not make images in a vacuum, we share images as a way of sharing the same experience we get from them ourselves. And if one is hoping to convey those same feelings and experiences (as in storytelling), then it's imperative to be conscious of everything that's on the surface of the image and to understand the connotations of the those images that may arise from a viewer's interpretation. The surface of the image is all an artist has as their voice outside of a written or verbal 'artist's statement' of intent, or a known historical context of the artist and their work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d2mini Posted November 8, 2011 Share #54 Posted November 8, 2011 This is exactly why there is a thing called an 'artist's statement.' Huh. And here I just thought it was a case of online anonymity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted November 8, 2011 Share #55 Posted November 8, 2011 Seriously, with images like those, I can't really take the man's words on photography seriously. with an attitude like that I suggest that Uni is something you can cross of your list of 'to do' items. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted November 8, 2011 Share #56 Posted November 8, 2011 so glad I checked out this thread. I absolutely love these images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 9, 2011 Share #57 Posted November 9, 2011 me too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottygraham Posted November 9, 2011 Share #58 Posted November 9, 2011 Thanks guys....I was really perplexed with the comments I received on Steve Huff's site and in this thread....just couldn't understand how the comments could be so polarized. Then a reader sent me a link to an article written by Alain Briot on the Luminous Landscape website, and everything made sense...a really good read if you are interested... Understanding Criticism-Part 1 and here is part 2... Understanding Criticism-Part 2 Scotty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 10, 2011 Share #59 Posted November 10, 2011 If you read this site long enough Scotty, you'll need Part 3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted November 10, 2011 Share #60 Posted November 10, 2011 The point of the article is that the M9 is a great tool. It has decended into an argument on style. Its the versatility, clarity and colours of the M9 in such a small photographer's tool with such a beautiful build, that makes it unique. If it could only do gritty B&W pictures of badly dressed grizzled people I would be worried! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.