Relieving photographers of a burden

[atournas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In Ian Jeffrey's short book "Photography", there is a comment on late 19th century's stereoscopic photography mania:

 

"[...] The process relieved photographers of the need to think hard about synthesis; stereographic space was sufficiently intricate and rewarding in its own right. [...]"

 

Perhaps, similarly, extreme sharpness and vibrant colors in current post-processed images do relieve some today's photographers of that burden, too.

 

Paul

[Peter H]

..............

Perhaps, similarly, extreme sharpness and vibrant colors in current post-processed images do relieve some today's photographers of that burden, too.

 

Paul

 

I often think its the other way round: there's no question in my mind its easier to make a striking B&W photo than a genuinely good (whatever that means to each of us) colour photo. So converting to B&W, or even starting out with a camera that only makes B&W images, relieves photographers of a very real burden of imagination and creativity.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[azzo]

 

I often think its the other way round: there's no question in my mind its easier to make a striking B&W photo

 

.. So converting to B&W, or even starting out with a camera that only makes B&W images, relieves photographers of a very real burden of imagination and creativity.

 

 

Most definitely not, IMO !

[Peter H]

Ivan, seriously, do you believe it's easier to make a good colour photograph than a comparably good B&W one?

 

I think it's incredibly hard to make a colour photo with the same direct impact that a B&w photo can achieve.

 

(And PS, that's the photographic challenge that interests me the most.)

Edited May 8, 2013 by Peter H

[azzo]

Ivan, seriously, do you believe it's easier to make a good colour photograph than a comparably good B&W one?

 

...

 

 

No Peter, neither are easy to do, IMO.

 

The way I see it, it is all about the photographer and how s/he sets the mind.

For me, there are two types of photographers. Those that can do colour and those that can do B&W. Only a small percentage can do both simultaneauosly.

 

 

Personally, I set my mind to B&W.

So, when I'm out shooting, what I'm looking for isn't colour but other things.

 

But again, neither are easy to do IMHO.

 

 

ps Quite probably, I misunderstood the purpose/meaning of this thread. ..

..... Not sure what's been happening to me recently! ...

[Peter H]

I try to take good colour photos, but I don't look for colour. Some people look for colour as an important element in their photos, perhaps even the main element and the reason for the photo, but that's not really my approach. I try to deal with colour as I deal with the other elements of a photo: they are there, I don't Photoshop them out, I try to incorporate them in a photo that will be as accurate a reflection of what was there as I can make it. At least, that's my ideal. I don't always stick to it!

 

As for what's happening to you lately Ivan, I think it must be a lack of whisky. Pop over. I have a cure.

[azzo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...

 

As for what's happening to you lately Ivan, I think it must be a lack of whisky. Pop over. I have a cure.

 

Sounds like a good idea. Cheers brother. ..

[M9reno]

The book cited by the OP seems to strike at the problem of what makes a good photo, and to leave only two possible answers available: realism OR illusionism/art.

 

Did stereography appeal to the same "fetish" that eventually brought us colour, and in the digital age encourages pixel-peeping and über-sharpness? The worship of realism, and all an abrogation of photography as "art"?

 

Conversely, is B&W photography by definition abstract, essential, and, somehow therefore, "artistic"?

 

Leica management seems to be taking close account of how photographers differ in this discussion, and playing it safe: the APO Summicron for the realists, and a B&W MM for the illusionists/artists...

 

This is how I see the theoretical argument, at least, though I'm not at all sure where I stand.

[Peter H]

The book cited by the OP seems to strike at the problem of what makes a good photo, and to leave only two possible answers available: realism OR illusionism/art.

 

.......................

 

Interesting, but again I take a contrary view.

 

I don't see realism as in any way the opposite of art, or illusionism any closer to art than realism.

 

Look at the popularity of the MM: one of the many reasons cited for its popularity is its great resolution and ability to reproduce much finer detail than the same sensor with a colour filter over it. In other words, more realism. But you see that as being at odds with the abstraction of B&W, which you suggest may be less realistic (I agree) and therefore more artistic (I don't agree).

 

I think its a question of what it is you're trying to say with a photo. Is it primarily something to do with the world out there and the thing you pointed your camera at, or is it more to do with producing a beautiful new two-dimensional thing? Both are valid, both can be highly artistic. I don't feel that the distinctions work in quite the way you describe them.

[M9reno]

 

Look at the popularity of the MM: one of the many reasons cited for its popularity is its great resolution and ability to reproduce much finer detail than the same sensor with a colour filter over it. In other words, more realism. But you see that as being at odds with the abstraction of B&W, which you suggest may be less realistic (I agree) and therefore more artistic (I don't agree).

 

Agreed, and it is something I find puzzling about the MM. I have wondered whether the increase in resolution was a happy by-product of making the sensor colour-blind, rather than the original aim. Also (and I think this has been discussed here many times before) I have wondered whether such higher resolution does not ultimately undermine the output's resemblance to B&W film, hence requiring software to compensate by adding grain etc. All in all, I find the MM a rather paradoxical camera and (perhaps for that same reason) fascinating, though I have not opted to buy one.

 

Lastly, I agree with you broadly that there need not be any contradiction or polarity between realism and illusion/abstraction/art. It is forcing those two ends to meet in a single work that, for me, creates really compelling photography.

[250swb]

The meaning of the original post is that the stereoscopic photographers didn't pursue any greater ideals in photography (and therefore didn't advance stereo imaging) because it was enough that the visual effect on the viewer of the stereo image got them their adulation, not the subject photographed or the individual photographic style.

 

In the modern age it is a similar situation. Sharpness and pixel peeping and concerns about the exact representation of colour are the goals that often get the accolades, not the content or photographic style. It is the demarcation line where the equipment is adored more than the individualism of the photographer, where the viewer is shown the detail and not the bigger picture, where technique is everything and vision nothing. Try and find an exciting stereo image from the Victorian era, try and find an exciting daffodil picture from a Leica M, but both fulfill the brief of having relieved the photographer of the burden of being creative.

 

Steve

Edited May 9, 2013 by 250swb

[k-hawinkler]

Well, craftsman and artist, two sides of the same coin, it seems.

[azzo]

...

 

Steve

 

 

Very well said Steve!

[Peter H]

Steve, I agree with you, except for the colour bit, as I've said.

 

I understand the popular preference for B&W amongst many photographers, but I see so many photos that are B&W for no good reason other than

 

1) They remind us, even subconsciously maybe, of old classics, and

 

2) They have removed the complicating and distracting inconvenience of colour

 

that I can't help but maintain that B&W photography has at least an equal tendency to "remove the burden of being creative" as colour photography.

 

I do agree that many photographers are happy to be relieved of the burden whatever their B&W or colour preference, but as the OP demonstrates, this has always been the case, because its always been a common human characteristic to take the easy route where possible. Commmon, but not universal, fortunately, and that's where art comes in.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Peter H

[250swb]

You raise a good question Peter, but don't agree that using B&W can qualify as a means to ease the burden, or that once the burden is eased it makes things any easier.

 

I think the that if we take the burden is creativity, then the use of B&W is at least an opinion on display. The photographer has decided to go with B&W and presumably felt that the abstraction of the image contributes to a more effective visualisation of the idea. And having an opinion is what is lacking in the chase for fidelity above creativity.

 

The quest for fidelity is a relatively recent thing in the detail it is pursued. Once a photographer had to choose a colour film, and each film would have its own character, so the choice to some extent reflected the photographers opinion. Think of all the Velvia landscapes with eye hurting colour,... somebody had to decide to do it. But I think we are at the point with digital that many photographers are scared to take a stand and have an opinion about colour rendition, or to use their lenses at any aperture their peers deem to be inferior.

 

The search for greater fidelity is the only way many photographers evolve, if it can be called evolution. The next new camera, the next new lens, these are the things to un-burden them of an opinion. And after photographing a chart, discussing colour, putting life on hold for a firmware update, they may losen up and take a real photograph just before the next camera is released. And fidelity is hard work, it is a slog wanting everything to be perfect above anything else, and particularly a psychological soul destroying slog if at the end of it the photographer has done it all in the name of Leica, or Nikon, or Canon, and not himself.

 

B&W isn't totally absolved, in that when the Leica MM was released there were many users saying how wonderful the native image quality was, when in truth it was at best a canvas waiting for brush stroke. But overall B&W gives the photographers full reign to say what they want to say because it can't be wrong. Simply deleting colour puts them into a rich history of 'interpretation', where the viewer already understands the abstraction that has taken place, and where the viewer automatically delves for signifiers. It can be badly done like anything else in life, but for the photographer it can be the first step to creativity, and even if an accident the viewer may read into the image something they find rewarding. Done well and B&W can be transformative, and so can colour, but I don't think it will ever be as powerful as it was in the days of film (and I'm not being nostalgic) unless the fetish for fidelity can be thrown off by the amateur.

 

It may be a momentary revolution but fortunately digital has taken a new turn, like film did in the Lomo revolution, with the iPhone. Fidelity has taken a back seat to expression, and I hope enough people can embrace it in a new generation of photographers before the camera phones get too good.

 

 

Steve

[Peter H]

Steve, I heartily agree with what you're saying about photography. Its just that I feel the same things that reduce creativity afflict photographers who use B&W and colour absolutely equally.

 

So I am honestly surprised that you don't think "using B&W can qualify as a means to ease the burden" when it appears to me that in a huge number of photos, that is exactly what is happening. I honestly believe many photographers use B&W as a slightly more respectable equivalent of some of the instant filters you get in software packages. Far from being creative, it is often the very opposite: a substitute for creativity.

 

Creativity and the the things that I value in photography don't often depend on the choice of the medium, or the format or the process or the technique or the equipment, but on the imagination that is BY FAR the most important ingredient in any creative photography.

 

To be honest, I'm getting tired of B&W photography. I see so little that isn't just a regurgitation of something I've seen already. I do not believe there's much of artistic as opposed to technical interest left in the majority of B&W photography. Colour is a vast and vastly under-utilised resource and a natural phenomenon that we can't deny and I sincerely hope more serious photographers explore its possibilities and challenges and stop shying away from it by taking refuge in the familiar comforts of simple abstraction. And rise to the challenge of raising colour photography to the heights achieved by b&W photographers a few generations ago.

 

__________________

peter h

Edited May 11, 2013 by Peter H

[earleygallery]

The quote in the OP is suggesting that the novelty of a stereoscopic image is enough, in that the actual image is of less importance. Viewers are looking at the effect rather than the content.

 

I don't see how one can compare this to a colour or B&W image. It would make more sense to compare it to say a modern 3D image (remember that new Fuji 3D system a few years ago, whatever happened to that ?) or perhaps a hologram.

 

Or a 'test' image that someone posts from their new Leica!

[wattsy]

Colour is a vast and vastly under-utilised resource and a natural phenomenon that we can't deny and I sincerely hope more serious photographers explore its possibilities and challenges and stop shying away from it by taking refuge in the familiar comforts of simple abstraction. And rise to the challenge of raising colour photography to the heights achieved by b&W photographers a few generations ago.

 

I largely (though somewhat reluctantly) agree with your central point, Peter, that the abstraction involved in black & white photography is often lazily used as a route to "art" but I get the impression that you are making another broader value judgement that there is something intrinsically hackneyed about the B&W medium (you hint at it when pointing out that you are getting bored with B&W photography) which I can't agree with. I'm also not convinced that work has to be wholly or even partly original to qualify as art.

 

As for "serious photographers" working in colour, I'm surprised you feel that there has been a shortage of it or that it is a medium still in any kind of infancy. Virtually all "art" photography that attracts the attention of contemporary galleries and academic discourse seems to be in colour and I think it has been this way for many years.

[Peter H]

Ian, you are absolutely right, at the very highest level colour photography has been the focus of nearly all critical and academic attention for some time now, as is natural.

 

But I suppose I was addressing people like us. I'm not sure how to describe us, the majority of people who take photography seriously but hesitate to describe ourselves as artists.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sblitz]

Are we trying to capture an image from reality or create out interpretation of reality? Capture an image it's digital color right out the camera or phone. The modern snapshot of family around the table. Move from there to interpretation it starts to get a little tricky. Some people apply hipstamatic to make it look like a crumpled photo from an old Polaroid or instamatic and call it art. As boring as lots of bw. My own two cents is this from my days of painting. Color is like chess and bw is like checkers. They are both hard to master but mastering color has so many more dimensions to make it good. To me bw is for showing the essence of a face or scene where only gets in the way of the message. Personally I enjoy trying to make color work and here is where scanning color negatives is fun. So much easier to shift colors around to make the statement the interpretation I am looking to make. I prefer chess to checkers