Faking Reality

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't delete. I find, going back, that there are quite a few images where I change my initial assessment, both ways.

[Advertisement]

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

[pedaes]

7 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I don't delete. I find, going back, that there are quite a few images where I change my initial assessment, both ways.

So true - me to!

[pgk]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I actually do have a personal dividing line between two groups of my own images: it's how I decide whether to delete an image or not - about 2/3 to 3/4 of all those I shoot. Whether the survivors are 'good' I leave to others to decide. 

Interesting. I never delete images. They remind me of my decision making processes if nothing more. You are deciding on good or bad then. My hit rate is very much lower, and for photographs I consider that I have 'made' well, its minuscule - that said I am the absolute determiner of which of my photographs are good or bad, and the good images will sometimes end up on the wall. Other people's opinions are interesting but at the end of the day it is not their decision that I am basically interested in, because I consider that once I have started on the good/bad decision making process, then it is up to me to finish it.

[01maciel]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb Jeff S:

Adams reinterpreted the printing, as shown here over a 34 year period, continually introducing more contrast and drama.

https://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/anseladams/arrington/arrington_adams.html

The images are too tiny to get an impression how the scenery look like. Are there any larger photos apart from the gallery? Visiting the gallery is not an option these times.

 

vor 18 Stunden schrieb Gerbs:

Although I try not to post process much, my goal is nearly always to try to recreate what a scene or subject felt like

IMO this is a very good approach.

 

vor 18 Stunden schrieb adan:

Which is all that you did, 01maciel.

Thanks for this!

 

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Ouroboros:

most of this debate comes down to the fact that there are two kinds of photographer;

1. Those who are inherently creative.

2. Those who might need to find their creativity

Put me into the second drawer. My Leica M10 helps me a to get an idea of the interaction of light, aperture, time, ISO and the specifics of the lenses.

 

vor 7 Stunden schrieb BlackBarn:

I think Leica try and make the best possible tools to make us smile

agreed, except the prices which make us cry

 

vor 7 Stunden schrieb pgk:

I do 'make' them.

Yes, I do 'make them, too. Making photos is much more fun than viewing them afterwards;)

 

vor 5 Stunden schrieb rob_w:

Sharpness is all. 

Personally, I don't care a lot about sharpness. As Gerbs already found out, I am fan boy of of shallow depth of field. The Summicron 35 ASPH feels sometimes a bit to techical and too sharp at f2 IMO.

 

vor 1 Stunde schrieb pgk:

vor 2 Stunden schrieb LocalHero1953:

In the end, as I implied, I'm not that interested in defining whether someone is a photographer or not, creative or an artist.

You may not be but any viewing of photographs necessitates context. Otherwise, as I have said before, there are no bad or good images and there is no point driving to produce 'better' imagery.

I guess what's really important is to get some nice photos to share and what makes me resp. YOU happy.

 

Thanks everyone answering my opening question. What I understand so far from the discussion above is that every epoch has its own post processing tools. Anselm had his darkroom, we have digital apps. The darkroom had some hard limitations, e.g chemicals or resolution. These days there are no limitations to Photoshop and its cousins, like ART. But what makes us (Leica photographer) different to a committed point and shoot smartphone photographer?

[Jeff S]

21 minutes ago, 01maciel said:

The images are too tiny to get an impression how the scenery look like. Are there any larger photos apart from the gallery? Visiting the gallery is not an option these times.

 

 

The gallery exhibition is long gone. As a collector (not of Adams specifically), I’ve had the privilege of viewing his prints, spanning decades, in various private and public settings.  There’s no substitute for viewing actual prints, but that’s true of any quality print vs screen shots.  But a nice, big monitor might help you here to at least get a sense of lightness vs dark, contrasty renderings, especially in the sky. There are also countless books that reproduce Moonrise, but print quality is variable (and so frankly are Adams’ vintage prints, and in many different sizes).

Jeff

[Gerbs]

50 minutes ago, 01maciel said:

But what makes us (Leica photographer) different to a committed point and shoot smartphone photographer?

The best answer I have is that we have Leica equipment, LOL. 

The heck with it, just keep up the good work!

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Interesting. I never delete images. They remind me of my decision making processes if nothing more. You are deciding on good or bad then. My hit rate is very much lower, and for photographs I consider that I have 'made' well, its minuscule - that said I am the absolute determiner of which of my photographs are good or bad, and the good images will sometimes end up on the wall. Other people's opinions are interesting but at the end of the day it is not their decision that I am basically interested in, because I consider that once I have started on the good/bad decision making process, then it is up to me to finish it.

Since you actually quote what I say, I am surprised that you say I am deciding on good or bad. I took particular care to avoid saying my choice was on the basis of 'good' or 'bad'. I am dissatisfied with many of those I keep, because I know I could do better, but I keep them (e.g.) because of their content. Some I delete because I have taken a series with slightly different settings, and I keep the best, with no need to keep the near duplicates even though they might be acceptable if I hadn't taken a better.

Edited October 15, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[pgk]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Since you actually quote what I say, I am surprised that you say I am deciding on good or bad. I took particular care to avoid saying my choice was on the basis of 'good' or 'bad'.

I cannot figure any other basis for such decision making. If something meets or fails to meet a criteria then it must somehow be 'good (meet) or 'bad' (fail). There doesn't seem to be an intermediate grey area. 

[pippy]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

...I am the absolute determiner of which of my photographs are good or bad......Other people's opinions are interesting but at the end of the day it is not their decision that I am basically interested in...

I'm slightly similar in my approach except that in my case I'd modify the wording to;

'I determine which of my photographs I like and which I don't...other people's opinions, whilst perhaps interesting, will not influence my thinking unduly'.

Just four days ago, as it happens, I was in conversation with a long-time friend who is a gallery-represented fine artist and he was surprised when I commented that I don't care one iota whether people like my personal work or not. But the questions;

"Do you take photographs to please others as well as yourself and, perhaps, sell some prints?" or; "Do you take photographs for purely selfish reasons?"...

...are for another separate thread entirely.

Philip.

Edited October 15, 2020 by pippy

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

I cannot figure any other basis for such decision making. If something meets or fails to meet a criteria then it must somehow be 'good (meet) or 'bad' (fail). There doesn't seem to be an intermediate grey area. 

The image may be interesting for its content? A family shot but poorly composed/exposed/focused? That's one reason I might keep it.

 Here's a crap photo. I might take something like this if I was at a military re-enactment weekend and dropped my camera in the assault course mud pit. I might then delete it. But its context (why it was taken, how and where) makes it one of the most famous photos out there. Is it 'good' or 'bad'? That's just a pointless question IMO.

Edited October 15, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[pgk]

20 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The image may be interesting for its content? A family shot but poorly composed/exposed/focused? That's one reason I might keep it.

 Here's a crap photo. I might take something like this if I was at a military re-enactment weekend and dropped my camera in the assault course mud pit. I might then delete it. But its context (why it was taken, how and where) makes it one of the most famous photos out there. Is it 'good' or 'bad'? That's just a pointless question IMO.

In another life I sometimes am asked to identify the subject of a photo. When I can't then the photo is bad - because the purpose for which it was taken has not been fulfilled. 

[Guest BlackBarn]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

When I can't then the photo is bad

I can certainly see that point of view although reflecting on some of the visual stuff I have seen. More often or not I have no idea what the artist / photographers / composers intent was so I just respond one way or another to what I experience. A photo which ‘failed’  your litmus test might be a wow shot to other eyes for completely unrelated reasons. 

I appreciate this moves from your specific to the general but may be there really isn’t a clear ‘good and bad’ but more of a ‘good and a learning opportunity’.

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

In another life I sometimes am asked to identify the subject of a photo. When I can't then the photo is bad - because the purpose for which it was taken has not been fulfilled. 

So abstracts don't exist in your photographic universe?
I find this a rather forensic view. If a photograph evokes emotion, the subject becomes irrelevant.

[pgk]

9 hours ago, BlackBarn said:

..... may be there really isn’t a clear ‘good and bad’ but more of a ‘good and a learning opportunity’.

In order to learn then you have to be able to evaluate which in turn means determining good and bad points .....

8 hours ago, jaapv said:

So abstracts don't exist in your photographic universe?
I find this a rather forensic view. If a photograph evokes emotion, the subject becomes irrelevant.

It is a forensic view. I took an example that I am familiar wit. But abstracts like anything else may elicit a positive or negative (or worse, no) response. I have to say that I see no problem in holding an opinion on an image but I would much rather it was a strong opinion than a weak one. And I am happy to determine my opinion of my own photographs. But I do not believe that all photographs are of similar 'value'. Many today are part of the social media 'conversation' and have merely ephemeral merit to be used and seen within a fleeting context. As permanent images they most have no value. Things are changing, and such imagery has a different impact and should IMO be viewed very differently to imagery which is intended for longer scrutiny. Perhaps what we are discussing is more about value judgements. An image which works well on social media may not be viable elsewhere. It may be good within its context I suppose but its context is ephemeral. Its value is time dependent only. That said, many images I see on social media are of little if any ephemeral value either and would probably have been best never taken in that they don't even add anything to the flow of conversation.

I feel that we discuss photography in technical terms but rarely in terms of how we perceive or enjoy photographs. It appears to me that critique is a dirty word.

Edited October 16, 2020 by pgk

[willeica]

All 'reality' is perceived. A photographic image can be what you saw or what you thought you saw or what you wanted to see and so on. Tastes and perspectives are all subjective. Judges and critics usually dodge these issues by critiquing on technical grounds instead of just saying whether they like the image or not. There is a lot of puffery and nonsense spoken about photography. Of course, the worst question you could ask a photographer always has been and remains " what type of camera/lens did you use to take that photograph?". 

William

[jaapv]

Time and context matter. Many historical photographs that were no more than equivalent to our social media ones when they were taken have withstood the test of time for photographic quality as well. We need only look at the photographs from the trenches in WW1  for instance. 

[pgk]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Time and context matter. Many historical photographs that were no more than equivalent to our social media ones when they were taken have withstood the test of time for photographic quality as well. We need only look at the photographs from the trenches in WW1  for instance. 

I would doubt that such imagery is revered for aesthetic reasons, but is of interest for its historic content. Similarly, a text book's content is of value, but it isn't critiqued as literature.

[Guest BlackBarn]

29 minutes ago, pgk said:

In order to learn then you have to be able to evaluate which in turn means determining good and bad points

Not in my world. In order  to learn you have to be far more aware of interrelationships and the dynamics of improvement. The binary construct of good and bad blocks out potential and suppresses growth, it’s an outdated linear construct and doesn’t belong in a learning environment. In a learning environment trying is the engine and failure it’s fuel. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[250swb]

1 minute ago, BlackBarn said:

Not in my world. In order  to learn you have to be far more aware of interrelationships and the dynamics of improvement. The binary construct of good and bad blocks out potential and suppresses growth, it’s an outdated linear construct and doesn’t belong in a learning environment. In a learning environment trying is the engine and failure it’s fuel. 

Sounds like a modern school sports day where taking part is more important than winning.

[pgk]

50 minutes ago, BlackBarn said:

Not in my world. In order  to learn you have to be far more aware of interrelationships and the dynamics of improvement. The binary construct of good and bad blocks out potential and suppresses growth, it’s an outdated linear construct and doesn’t belong in a learning environment. In a learning environment trying is the engine and failure it’s fuel. 

Fine. That's a lovely concept. But the real world is a rather tougher place than this 'learning environment'. In my world a poor photograph means no pay and its consequences.