fotografr Posted October 1, 2007 Share #1 Posted October 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I posted this on the Digital Forum, but thought I'd post it here as well since a lot of people don't stray too far from the M8 sub-Forum. A Conversation with Stephen Shore (Conscientious) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 Hi fotografr, Take a look here Interesting Interview. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
punktum Posted October 1, 2007 Share #2 Posted October 1, 2007 Thanks, very Interesting! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted October 2, 2007 Share #3 Posted October 2, 2007 Interesting, I thought. The difference between spontaneity and simply hoping for chance is an important one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSee Posted October 2, 2007 Share #4 Posted October 2, 2007 Interesting, I thought. The difference between spontaneity and simply hoping for chance is an important one. Yes, always good to read(not so much see) what others are working through. Despite the digital re-working, or better, re-keying with the M8, after some use(10 months), I find /more/ images using digital kit... never really "hoped for chance", yet I get the gist: "hey, get this volume of light and objects therein,NOW!" So, Walt, what do you mean by: "Interesting.(period) I thought.(period)"? The "interview" turns inward, here: the "difference between spontaneity and hoping for chance" means, what? How fast/quick one is, or how "lucky"? Or is it the idea proposed in the interview; that shooting digital, one may lose (true) focus on the subject in the massive volume of data? Either way, the photog draws the curtain, shut. Gosh darn DNG files just keep the barn door open to post-proc, and the "spontaneity" of that craft! rgds, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share #5 Posted October 2, 2007 The "interview" turns inward, here: the "difference between spontaneity and hoping for chance" means, what? How fast/quick one is, or how "lucky"? Or is it the idea proposed in the interview; that shooting digital, one may lose (true) focus on the subject in the massive volume of data? Either way, the photog draws the curtain, shut. rgds, Dave Spontaneity: "Seeing" the photograph in your mind, then reacting by focusing and tripping the shutter at the optimum moment. Hoping For Chance: Walking around all day with your digital camera shooting here, there, everywhere--then downloading and plowing through a bunch of images with the hope that there will be something there worthy of turning into a finished photograph. This is what a lot of people are referring to when they talk about the "dumbing down" of photography that has been brought on by digital imaging. Since the digital photos are basically free, once the camera has been purchased, there is a tendency to turn out volumes of junk without thinking much about why the shutter was pressed in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 2, 2007 Share #6 Posted October 2, 2007 Spontaneity: "Seeing" the photograph in your mind, then reacting by focusing and tripping the shutter at the optimum moment. Hoping For Chance: Walking around all day with your digital camera shooting here, there, everywhere--then downloading and plowing through a bunch of images with the hope that there will be something there worthy of turning into a finished photograph. This is what a lot of people are referring to when they talk about the "dumbing down" of photography that has been brought on by digital imaging. Since the digital photos are basically free, once the camera has been purchased, there is a tendency to turn out volumes of junk without thinking much about why the shutter was pressed in the first place. All of this varies with the photographer. When I was a teenager, I used bulk loaded b/w film and processed the images myself. The film cost about $.30 a roll and chemicals were very cheap. I used to shoot with little regard for film cost. Many times I would go to what I would think was a photo rich environment and shoot and shoot and shoot. (Maybe 3 or 4 rolls.) If I was lucky, there would be a gem here and there. A lot of photographers worked this way with film and continue to do so with digital. Action and street photography is sort of like boxing where your reactions need to be reflexive not contemplative. If you are expecting to totally pre-visualize your results, you better be shooting static subjects. And even for static subjects, I'll often "work" the subject shooting many variations as part of the exploration process. You need to be open minded and keep looking for creative options as you work. "Locking in" is almost a guarantee that the images will be mediocre or repetitious. Here is an example of what I am talking about. I was about 16-17 when I shot it. The rest of the images on the rolls that I shot at this fountain had some OK shots, but this is the only one that "popped" for me. I could never have anticipated this action but was fortunate to be ready and reacted to it. I was gratified that it was selected by ASMP to be included in the book "10,000 Eyes" that was a celebration of the 150th anniversary of the invention of photography as illustrated by ASMP members. In my opinion, if you don't shoot a lot, there is almost no chance you'll get much. Digital capture gives more people more opportunities. Part of the processes is to study your results and learn how to edit. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/34741-interesting-interview/?do=findComment&comment=367704'>More sharing options...
DaveSee Posted October 2, 2007 Share #7 Posted October 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Alan, Thanks for the post(and pic too... Flatbush? Prospect Heights area?)... you, and foto describe my original question well: it's "hoping" something will come of all this "free" digital capability... I do appreciate that some believe digital cameras alleiviate the cost-per-snap pressure; however, it is not at all free, and there are new concerns to replace the old, like, which de-mosaicing(RAW data translator) software works best or which computer and operating system is best, "where's that shot of Cindy?", etc. As to the pre-visualize v. street sparring, "seeing" through the /whole/ image making process is in the both of them, whether one tends more toward C/PS post, or that certain "signature" the lens has at f2. In your shot, a fast shutter, I get the impression that you made 4 or 5 shots prior to this one... and drew the subject toward you once he knew you were making images of him! rgds, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 2, 2007 Share #8 Posted October 2, 2007 Hi Alan, Thanks for the post(and pic too... Flatbush? Prospect Heights area?)... ...In your shot, a fast shutter, I get the impression that you made 4 or 5 shots prior to this one... and drew the subject toward you once he knew you were making images of him! rgds, Dave It is at Union Station in Washington DC. I was there to pick up my Grandmother and shot the photos while I waited for her train. I posted the contact sheet so that you can see that there was nothing similar prior to this shot. It simply was a mtter of taking a lot of shots and observing until everything happened to come together in one shot. It was only after I developed the film that I had any idea tha I made a pricture that I really liked. Who knows if there were other really good images that I missed? Lately, I've been going through my old images and scanning them. As I wasn't much more than a kid myself, it was pretty easy to engage the kids and seem unthreatening. I think I shot a total of about 3 or 4 rolls there. Sorry for the orientation of the images on the contact sheet, but I was a pretty crude worker back then. (I just threw the negs under a sheet of glass and held it down with my fingers.) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/34741-interesting-interview/?do=findComment&comment=367794'>More sharing options...
fotografr Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share #9 Posted October 2, 2007 Alan--I don't disagree with you at all, and the process you describe of exploring a subject by shooting a lot of angles, etc., is not at all what I was referring to. My reference was more to the tendency of some people who have digital cameras to just shoot without thinking, then hope later to find something that works. Look through the Photo Forum and you'll see a lot of examples of that kind of shooting. I approach shoots the same way you do. When using film, I'd never burn through less than 1 or 2 rolls for an environmental portrait. With digital, I probably shoot the same number of images--perhaps more--to get a shot I like. I would hasten to add, however, that I can't count the number of times that, after looking through an entire shoot, it has turned out that the first frame was the best one. Great shot, by the way. It certainly deserved to be in 10,000 Eyes. Cheers, Brent (fellow ASMP) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnastovall Posted October 2, 2007 Share #10 Posted October 2, 2007 Spontaneity: "Seeing" the photograph in your mind, then reacting by focusing and tripping the shutter at the optimum moment. Hoping For Chance: Walking around all day with your digital camera shooting here, there, everywhere--then downloading and plowing through a bunch of images with the hope that there will be something there worthy of turning into a finished photograph. This is what a lot of people are referring to when they talk about the "dumbing down" of photography that has been brought on by digital imaging. Since the digital photos are basically free, once the camera has been purchased, there is a tendency to turn out volumes of junk without thinking much about why the shutter was pressed in the first place. I guess then we can accuse Winogrand of 'dumbing down' photography given the volumes he shot even with film? I think our art is large enough for both "Seeing" and "Hoping for Chance." It takes a trained eye to find a picture in a mass of 'random' shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 2, 2007 Share #11 Posted October 2, 2007 Alan--I don't disagree with you at all, and the process you describe of exploring a subject by shooting a lot of angles, etc., is not at all what I was referring to. My reference was more to the tendency of some people who have digital cameras to just shoot without thinking, then hope later to find something that works. Look through the Photo Forum and you'll see a lot of examples of that kind of shooting. There have always been lots of poor shooters. Remember all of those unedited family slide shows? The problem I see when I observe many people shooting (amateurs usually) is that they don't shoot enough to have a good chance of getting anything really special. Since digital costs them nothing to press the shutter, they will learn a lot more if they shoot 10 frames instead of one. They need to work on framing, interaction, expression. Sometimes this takes many shots. Of course they also need to review their work and discard the vast majority of it. I did that with film too. Because it is so easy to shoot and post digital images, we see that a lot of people are pretty early in the learning phase. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share #12 Posted October 2, 2007 I guess then we can accuse Winogrand of 'dumbing down' photography given the volumes he shot even with film? Those are your words, not mine. When one is in the mood for debate, it seems possible to twist anyone's meaning in order to accomplish that end. I'm not playing that game today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSee Posted October 2, 2007 Share #13 Posted October 2, 2007 No, that's not a fun game, but twisting words sure is! Like, the short-sighted "dumb-downed digital photog": as there are many more unintentional "junk shots", so too fantastic shots... unintentionally, vis-a-vis the "viewfinder". As John and Alan suggest, just getting the images from which to select, and really looking at them, can teach a person loads about the practice of pre-visualization... and the imaging equipment and software too! It still tickles me that nearly two months of "looking at" M8 pics before someone yelled, "Hey! The Emperor's rendering magenta clothes!" Why? Well, few were looking for it, looking for something some other digital rig taught them to see... not a baseball cap! One of the other things interesting about GW was /when/ he looked at his film--well after the shots, if at all --wonder if he would chimp? rgds, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 4, 2007 Share #14 Posted October 4, 2007 I guess then we can accuse Winogrand of 'dumbing down' photography given the volumes he shot even with film? I think our art is large enough for both "Seeing" and "Hoping for Chance." It takes a trained eye to find a picture in a mass of 'random' shots. The difference, as you may agree, is that Winogrand was intentional each time he pressed the shutter. It wasn't random, he just kept experimenting. Stephen (Shore) is my former professor at Bard College. I worked very closely with him and printed some of his work made in Andy Warhol's factory. He's always been very thoughtful about photography and has enormous respect for Winogrand, BTW (I add since both of these seminal photographers have come up in one thread). Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSee Posted October 4, 2007 Share #15 Posted October 4, 2007 The difference, as you may agree, is that Winogrand was intentional each time he pressed the shutter. It wasn't random, he just kept experimenting. [snipped] Cheers, Sean And of myth, it is known/suspected GW was intending of his shots... yet I'd be very happy to hold the door of random and chance for him because he so often placed himself, in urban settings(that means moving people places, not studios) to gather his images. Oh, and studios have their random scenes too! Had he digital kit, would he chimp? I don't think so... at first use It would seem his point of "departure"/choice was well after the shots were made, en masse. Yes, the shots were intentional, yet not chosen until many, many more had followed. Perhaps this aided in his critical observations of "the work", to remove "near memory" of the scene? Same lens, same film... dunno... but I would disagree that he was without randomness, hope or chance. Wouldn't wish that on anyone! rgds, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 4, 2007 Share #16 Posted October 4, 2007 Winogrand was a good friend of my friend Ben Lifson. So, my comments are not based on myth or suspicions but, rather, on Garry's conversations with Ben. Hope and chance are very different from randomness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_tanaka Posted October 4, 2007 Share #17 Posted October 4, 2007 There are good points on all sides but they are not necessarily connectable to outline universal "truth". Shore mainly shoots inanimate objects and scenes. He has time to be deliberate regardless of medium. (And who would recognize that he "missed" his shot, anyway? <g>) Alan's (excellent) example represents a diametrically opposite type of photography; live action. Luck, anticipation, and probability all play a role in getting good images in this type of work. You can't improve luck. With experience you can improve your anticipatory skills. But digital photography's 'free' mass exposures enables you to really push that probability curve in your favor. The caveat, as others have noted, is that your editing time (and selection dilemma) increases with the number of frames you shoot. These two photography circles are largely independent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted October 4, 2007 Share #18 Posted October 4, 2007 .......It still tickles me that nearly two months of "looking at" M8 pics before someone yelled, "Hey! The Emperor's rendering magenta clothes!" Why? Well, few were looking for it, looking for something some other digital rig taught them to see... not a baseball cap!....... This is how myths start. Within 24 hours of my getting an M8 in the UK on the very first day they were available to the public the excessive IR sensitivity, and all the other significant problems, had been identified. Within 48 hours sample DNG files with all the major faults of those very early cameras were on a CD and in the hands of Leica UK. Within 72 hours this forum was in ferment – go and check – some of us, and I was far from being alone, were right on top of this. It is history and of no significance today but the events of that time should not be distorted to support spurious arguments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSee Posted October 5, 2007 Share #19 Posted October 5, 2007 Originally Posted by DaveSee .......It still tickles me that nearly two months of "looking at" M8 pics before someone yelled, "Hey! The Emperor's rendering magenta clothes!" Why? Well, few were looking for it, looking for something some other digital rig taught them to see... not a baseball cap!....... This is how myths start. Within 24 hours of my getting an M8 in the UK on the very first day they were available to the public the excessive IR sensitivity, and all the other significant problems, had been identified. Within 48 hours sample DNG files with all the major faults of those very early cameras were on a CD and in the hands of Leica UK. Within 72 hours this forum was in ferment – go and check – some of us, and I was far from being alone, were right on top of this. It is history and of no significance today but the events of that time should not be distorted to support spurious arguments. Yes, this is how they start... I refer to Sept (DNG of a tradeshow participant) and Oct, you're writing of Nov events... or did you receive your M8 prior to 6 Nov? Thanks for this post as it shows that we see what we want to see It wasn't the IR issue, really: your post also demonstrates that the "free" volumes of data digital kit permits does not neccessarily "dumb-down" the medium... does not overwhelm the critical eye... in fact, it may extend the critique! rgds, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted October 5, 2007 Share #20 Posted October 5, 2007 ...... or did you receive your M8 prior to 6 Nov?......... Yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.