jaapv Posted November 26, 2008 Share #81 Posted November 26, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is that because you don't believe the rather uncontroversial point that given an infinite amount of time, anything that is possible will happen, or is it that you don't believe that a work brought about by accident can be art? In other words, does The Tempest as written by Shakespeare have more literary value than the exact same arrangement of words as written accidentally by our chimpanzee friends? I suppose the last- but we are getting into intangibles here... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 26, 2008 Posted November 26, 2008 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Very Low Light Stuff. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted November 26, 2008 Share #82 Posted November 26, 2008 Agreed. You only have to look at any of Robert Frank's books - I was looking at Paris (Steidl) only yesterday - to see how unimportant technical excellence can be. None of the photos are remotely sharp and the exposures are all over the place yet nothing is lost because of this. I can't see how any of the photos would be any more compelling had they been shot with sharper lenses using 'better' technique. In fact, looking at the book made me feel a bit embarrassed to think how much money I've spent ensuring I have the latest ASPH wunderlenses. But I am sure that Robert Frank did not make them unsharp because he was unable to take sharp images. He took them that way because he was beyond that technical consideration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 26, 2008 Share #83 Posted November 26, 2008 There are, IMO, two ways of breaking a "rule"; ignorance and intent. Breaking a rule by ignorance - let's keep this simple - might be to place the main subject of your photo centrally, because you have no understanding of the Golden Mean. Breaking a rule intentionally requires an understanding of that rule - what it is, what it means, why it is, and what the likely consequences of ignoring it are. Experience and training should not teach blind adherence to rules, but do give us the wherewithal to bend - or break - them if we wish in a consistent, practical and aesthetically pleasing manner. Creative, passionate and meaningful art seldom comes from following the rules, but in it's execution it may require an understanding of them to deliver a durable and practical finished product. Regards, Bill Thank you for making my point more lucidly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted November 26, 2008 Share #84 Posted November 26, 2008 For all the undoubted quality of the 24mm Elmarit the photographer would have been better advised to have used a 28mm Summicron. Not necessarily. There was an earlier comment in similar vein suggesting a summilux. Your composition still requires a depth of field, wide open is rarely the best option. Also have to appreciate how the light is falling. There is a tendancy for people to expose off light available, and if the subject hasnt been managed or arranged to be facing that light then the chances are essential elements are in, or towards teh shadows. Now if you are shooting a summilux you are in serious trouble. Goya is good. Summilux and summicron bits underexposed particularly (from what Ive seen posted) on the m8 sensor, are not good. Elmarit will write the midtones and the shadows more evenly, and, bonus, give you a more even file to photoshop later. For what its worth the 35summilux is great further down the f/stops. Still, the sheep are migrating ... that a way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted November 26, 2008 Share #85 Posted November 26, 2008 But I am sure that Robert Frank did not make them unsharp because he was unable to take sharp images. He took them that way because he was beyond that technical consideration. The point is however that even these "technical monstrosities" hit the point of admiration and I sincerely doubt if this level of admiration would of been reached by Robert Frank using the M8.2 plus a surplus of M-lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 26, 2008 Share #86 Posted November 26, 2008 Breaking a rule intentionally requires an understanding of that rule Of course, but that's like saying painting a fence white requires white paint. Creative, passionate and meaningful art seldom comes from following the rules, but in it's execution it may require an understanding of them to deliver a durable and practical finished product. But then again it may not. I'm not sure from your argument if you think that "knowing about the rules" is a prerequisite for art (whether the rules end up being broken or not). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 26, 2008 Share #87 Posted November 26, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) But I am sure that Robert Frank did not make them unsharp because he was unable to take sharp images. How do you know and, besides, what difference does it make? Are Robert Frank's photographs more valuable as art beacuse he could have taken a sharper photograph if he had wanted to (or used equipment that was technically 'better')? Why do the photos not stand on their own merits? It somewhat brings me back to the question about chimpanzees and The Tempest (and, I think, the point that Bill is suggesting). Does it matter whether something is intentional if it's to be art? Are Robert Frank's photographs great because, although they are not remotely critically sharp, he presumably thought it was okay to break the "photographs must have sharpness in them" rule; or are they great simply because they are? When you look at those photographs do you think "okay, these photos are unsharp but it doesn't matter because I know that, in different circumstances, Robert Frank can take a sharp photograph"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 26, 2008 Share #88 Posted November 26, 2008 I suppose the last- but we are getting into intangibles here... What's intangible? It was a simple question requiring a yes or no answer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 26, 2008 Share #89 Posted November 26, 2008 Ian, you are saying exactly the same thing I am. He takes art, because he is beyond the basics like sharpness, not because he does not know the difference. Or are you suggesting he does not know how to use his tools? Now if I were to take an unsharp image of a similar subject in the same spot it would be just a grotty photograph. That is the difference between an accomplished artist and a plodding craftsman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 26, 2008 Share #90 Posted November 26, 2008 What's intangible? It was a simple question requiring a yes or no answer? Maybe a simple question- not a simple answer... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 26, 2008 Share #91 Posted November 26, 2008 I'm not sure from your argument if you think that "knowing about the rules" is a prerequisite for art (whether the rules are broken or not). Fair enough. Let me have another run at it from a slightly different direction. Imagine a naturally talented and creative musician who performs like an angel. They are entirely self-taught, their talent raw, and untrammelled. Ignorant of the "rules", they nevertheless produce music to touch and feed the soul. But they have no understanding of musical notation, of how to document their thoughts. Everything is a one-off, every performance, however inspiring, however brilliant, is unique. It can be recorded, but never repeated. The musician, ultimately, is constrained by their ignorance of the rules - they have no ability to document their work, nor to communicate it to others in any form other than by direct performance. Do they produce art? Maybe. That is subjective. One can produce a "work of art" - something intended to be regarded by others as art - but one cannot force others to think of something as art, no matter how you label it. In my example above, I have referred to performance art - something intangible - you have to experience it to appreciate it. My hypothetical musician may be an artist, but he has no means of making his work consistent or durable - it cannot outlast him. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted November 26, 2008 Share #92 Posted November 26, 2008 This is not a comment on the work of this photographer. There seems to be universal urge to shoot pictures in the dark. Not considered, planned night shots as found on the Nocturnes web site in the style of the great Michael Kenna, but hand held grab shots. All in the name of no flash and no tripod and see what this Nikon will do that the Canon won't....... It's a manufacturer's marketing thing that's undermining the craft of photography, IMO. Presumably, the above pics don't represent the original scene well and I don't belive the effect is purposefully produced - I assume that there was some light for people to see each other. I wasn't there, but I suspect that skillfully placed bounced flash would easily produce memorable images from similarly lit, memorable scenes. The images above may well delight the photographer, but I have no doubt that my wedding clients would not be looking for reprints of these for a paid job. For decades, wedding photographers have been facing these conditions like these with nothing more than 400 iso films, f1.0 lenses, a tripod and a flash gun and have had to produce images of some quality. The banding is atrocious. Sorry that these are not positive comments, but the final result doesn't work for me. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 26, 2008 Share #93 Posted November 26, 2008 For what its worth the 35summilux is great further down the f/stops. Still, the sheep are migrating ... that a way. I disagree that it has anything to do with a herd mentality. There are plenty of forum members who are obsessed with shooting wide-open because they can ("look at this bokeh, blah, blah") but for the kind of photography in question (social phootgraphy in low light conditions), Summiluxes really come into their own. Given the choice between more DOF (F2.8) with slow shutter speed (1/15-ish) and less DOF (F1.4) with more usable shutter speed (1/60), I'll take the latter all the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 26, 2008 Share #94 Posted November 26, 2008 The point is however that even these "technical monstrosities" hit the point of admiration and I sincerely doubt if this level of admiration would of been reached by Robert Frank using the M8.2 plus a surplus of M-lenses. What on earth has the equipment to do with the artistic merit? As long as it suffices to allow the artist to express his intention, it is totally unimportant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 26, 2008 Share #95 Posted November 26, 2008 Ian, you are saying exactly the same thing I am. He takes art, because he is beyond the basics like sharpness, not because he does not know the difference. Or are you suggesting he does not know how to use his tools? Now if I were to take an unsharp image of a similar subject in the same spot it would be just a grotty photograph. That is the difference between an accomplished artist and a plodding craftsman. No, I don't think we are saying the same thing. I'm asking does it matter whether Frank knows how to use his tools if it still results in something that we can both admire? Is a previously well-loved Rembrant painting no longer as artistically valuable when we discover that it was probably painted by one of his pupils? It's an age old question and I think it goes to the heart of what you are arguing about Frank. If Frank takes a soot and whitewash blurred shot of somebody picking his nose in Paris it's great art (because we know he is an acknowledged master) whereas if Jaap takes exactly the same shot because he's fumbling around with his Leica (and he makes a mess of the subsequent film processing) the resulting shot is just "grotty". I'm less sure and think that good art is simply good art, whatever the background to it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 26, 2008 Share #96 Posted November 26, 2008 The point is, that given the results, it does not matter. But the reason it does not matter is because he is accomplished enough to know when to throw conventional technique out of the window. Oh dear - the discussion is becoming very convoluted here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 26, 2008 Share #97 Posted November 26, 2008 Is a previously well-loved Rembrant painting no longer as artistically valuable when we discover that it was probably painted by one of his pupils? Well, if we regard the price of the painting as an expression of the artistic merit as perceived by the conoisseurs, I fear the answer must be yes.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted November 26, 2008 Share #98 Posted November 26, 2008 ...but for the kind of photography in question (social phootgraphy in low light conditions), Summiluxes really come into their own. Given the choice between more DOF (F2.8) with slow shutter speed (1/15-ish) and less DOF (F1.4) with more usable shutter speed (1/60), I'll take the latter all the time. Ian, it's interesting that you've engaged in a technical thought process here. You've evaluated the scene, given consideration to the environment as it stands and the result that you would want, and have then expressed a careful specification for the lens you'd use in those circumstances. And I think this underpins Jaaps point quite well. Art delivered with intent requires some forethought and a good working knowledge of the tools available. Selection of the tools and the method are ingredients that drive the outcome - it makes no difference whether you prefer a cardboard box with a pinhole in it, or a Deardorff, or an M8, or even a pencil and a sketchpad. There has to be an awareness of the scope offered by the tool and its suitability to the problem, coupled with knowledge of how to use it. I suspect that without intent, forethought and technique, we're left with debating the difference between art and chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted November 26, 2008 Share #99 Posted November 26, 2008 "I suspect that without intent, forethought and technique, we're left with debating the difference between art and chance." I guess this means the technique of taking/framing the actual image as opposed to the technique represented by the specs of camera and lens - Basqiuat .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 26, 2008 Share #100 Posted November 26, 2008 Nope,it includes mastery of your tools. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.