The process of photography

[The dingo]

We all approach photography differently.
Yet there are certain aspects that are essential with photography that none of us can ignore.

To complete the image that we desire we must have some understanding of the following:


The photographer (ie, ourselves.)
The idea we have in mind before we take the shot.
The object and its content.
The equipment we intend on using
The settings on the camera that will assist in achieving our goal
The framing of the subject matter
The focus (both mentally and physically)
The time we choose to shoot
the editing we employ to get what we want
The presentation.


No one point is more important than another.
A successful photo is in the eyes of the beholder. If we, as the photographer, wish to achieve a positive result we need to give as much attention to each.

I note with interest that some don't particularly like the PP stage or even resist or ignore it.

\That might be suitable if you dine out and don't clean up afterwards.
Unfortunately, none of us can really avoid it, so why not consider it a part of the journey.

PP is an interesting mental process. If you are experienced enough you will already have perceived the PP image before you take the shot.
Others will allow the PP to ferment for a while until the image reveals itself.
Many will change their minds over time and produce different results from the same file.

Whichever the option, PP is a vital part of digital photography. It is not to be ignored. Nor is it to be a task. It is part of the process of achieving what you want.
And it doesn't need to be complicated.
There are many simple programs about that will give you very satisfactory results without huge expenditure or skill.
Some days its a simple crop, contrast adjustment and colour change.

[Tannin]

I note with interest that some don't particularly like the PP stage or even resist or ignore it. PP is a vital part of digital photography. It is not to be ignored. Nor is it to be a task. It is part of the process of achieving what you want.

Cheers Tom.

An alternative approach is to strive to capture the image you want correctly in the first place. ("Correctly" in this context means "as you want the final product to appear".)

One does not always achieve this as one would wish. There are two ways to deal with the matter: (a) try to repair the image in a program like Photoshop, or (b) go back and shoot it again until you do get it right. The choice is a matter of personal inclination.

(Some types of photography mandate that one approach or the other always be used. For example, many news publishers forbid post-capture manipulation; in contrast, some types of photograph are impossible without it.)

[The dingo]

Take this shot, for example.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4325/36100640175_3b34d5dd37_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/X16dAB)_DSF5347 (https://flic.kr/p/X16dAB) by Tom Dinning (https://www.flickr.com/photos/148948051@N05/), on Flickr


I might ask myself how others see it.
I don't find that so important.
I ask myself is it what I wanted to achieve.
Like most thoughts, stuff in my head happens quickly. I react to those thoughts and take the picture.
What I am graced with is a whole stack of experiences, skills and knowledge that will predict what the final image will look like.
I take the photo in this way because I can perceive the end result.
Fortunately, I don't always go with my first thoughts.
Unfortunately, I forget things.
This shot took now more than a fraction of a second to go through the 10 steps.



This shot took years


https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4058/35586705026_940f0b4f0e_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/WdFazL)_d3s9469 copy (1) (https://flic.kr/p/WdFazL) by Tom Dinning (https://www.flickr.com/photos/148948051@N05/), on Flickr


Photography is less about the result than the process.
The result is important but it is viewed at a glance.

ngoy the process.

xx
Tommo

[ameerat42]

Photography: In your first post I'd tend to swap 2 and 3 around, and then perhaps 5 and 6.
What Tannin says is (to me anyway), an abbreviation of what you set out.

Site Matters: You seem to collect extra IMG tags front and back. These can be deleted
without affecting the image displayed.

[The dingo]

Cheers Tom.

An alternative approach is to strive to capture the image you want correctly in the first place. ("Correctly" in this context means "as you want the final product to appear".)

One does not always achieve this as one would wish. There are two ways to deal with the matter: (a) try to repair the image in a program like Photoshop, or (b) go back and shoot it again until you do get it right. The choice is a matter of personal inclination.

(Some types of photography mandate that one approach or the other always be used. For example, many news publishers forbid post-capture manipulation; in contrast, some types of photograph are impossible without it.)


You have grabbed the bull by the horns, Tony.
Its not one or the other; its how much.

Repairing is not acceptable in any other process, so why should it be in photography. If you #### it up, dismantle it and start again. Shooting until you get it right reminds me of the philosophy that if you bang your head against a hard object often enough it stops hurting.
Good photographs are produced by hard work, not guess work. Mistakes are learnt from not corrected.

What I am saying is that to gain a specific end result, it is necessary for the photographer to know ALL the steps and to know what can be achieved.
It is not the viewers right to decide. It is not a band aid approach, it is not hit and miss. Its about deciding what you want, knowing how to get it and working towards that end.
Make mistakes along the way, by all means. Keep working at what you want. Connect with every stage.
Its p[ointless if you continue to PP and all you need to do is hold the camera steady.

- - - Updated - - -


Photography: In your first post I'd tend to swap 2 and 3 around, and then perhaps 5 and 6.
What Tannin says is (to me anyway), an abbreviation of what you set out.

Site Matters: You seem to collect extra IMG tags front and back. These can be deleted
without affecting the image displayed.

The list isn't chronological.

[ameerat42]

Apologies, as I read "process".

[The dingo]

Apologies, as I read "process".

never apologise to me, ameerat42. It persuaded me to think highly of myself.

You presented good points that need discussing. We are here to discuss, to debate, to learn. I learn new things every day. I have the habit of telling people about it.
Photography is a tricky business, It involves so many 'feelings' as well as skills.

[Glenda]

An interesting read. As someone who became interested in photography later in life it has been a steep learning curve. I still find #6 the framing of the subject the most difficult, although I think I am slowly getting better. I am one of those who enjoy PP, although spend more time on genres such as landscapes and much less on birds/nature shots. I do envy you your ability to capture interesting street scenes. All that I've seen tell a story and I love the predominantly mono processing. That is a genre I feel very intimidated doing but one I feel I'd enjoy if I could just let go of my inhibitions. And, of course being inhibited all my attempts look exactly what they are snap shots, done way too quickly without anywhere near enough thought behind them.

- - - Updated - - -

[The dingo]

An interesting read. As someone who became interested in photography later in life it has been a steep learning curve. I still find #6 the framing of the subject the most difficult, although I think I am slowly getting better. I am one of those who enjoy PP, although spend more time on genres such as landscapes and much less on birds/nature shots. I do envy you your ability to capture interesting street scenes. All that I've seen tell a story and I love the predominantly mono processing. That is a genre I feel very intimidated doing but one I feel I'd enjoy if I could just let go of my inhibitions. And, of course being inhibited all my attempts look exactly what they are snap shots, done way too quickly without anywhere near enough thought behind- - - Updated - - -

By the look of your join date, you've been here for a long time.
I'm a beginner at this forum gig. I've been banned from more than I have joined. Seems like I have a harsh voice.

Photography is the same whichever genre you choose. Being in the street is much like photographing weddings: lots of people, no-one stands still, everyone is the enemy, there's always one bloke who knows more than you do.
I shot weddings for the first 10 years of my career. I swear it was the worst experience of my life, but I learnt a lot.
In the 70's I was offered a job as a court photographer. That required of me to photograph people in the street, crime scenes, spy on people and be confident in what I do. That was the best training I ever had.I still love being in the street.

I think I've learnt to be invisible, like when you're at the counter of a shop and everyone ignores you. Be like that.

Don't look people in the eye.

Frame for the shot, not for the person.

Be content with your progress.

[Tannin]

^ Those are interesting remarks, Tom. I can perhaps imagine doing wedding photography by extrapolation from my time as a uni student, where I paid the bills by playing in a band at weddings (and other functions, but mostly weddings). Most of them were pretty awful. Some were downright horrible. And some were so much fun you'd do the same crowd again next week for nothing. But mostly pretty dreary stuff. Your court photography stint must have been quite an experience.

And, curiously enough, I resonate strongly with your "learn to be invisible" bit. I never, ever do street photography, practically never do humans at all if I don't have to, but my game is all about being there and being seen without being noticed. It has become second nature for me: dress like a bum, never eyeball the bird, never look interested, never move purposefully, drift aimlessly about like a browsing sheep such that you "just happen" to be where you want to be to get the shot. Be so boring so that the wildlife - which always knows that you are there - doesn't bother reacting to you.

[The dingo]

^ Those are interesting remarks, Tom. I can perhaps imagine doing wedding photography by extrapolation from my time as a uni student, where I paid the bills by playing in a band at weddings (and other functions, but mostly weddings). Most of them were pretty awful. Some were downright horrible. And some were so much fun you'd do the same crowd again next week for nothing. But mostly pretty dreary stuff. Your court photography stint must have been quite an experience.

And, curiously enough, I resonate strongly with your "learn to be invisible" bit. I never, ever do street photography, practically never do humans at all if I don't have to, but my game is all about being there and being seen without being noticed. It has become second nature for me: dress like a bum, never eyeball the bird, never look interested, never move purposefully, drift aimlessly about like a browsing sheep such that you "just happen" to be where you want to be to get the shot. Be so boring so that the wildlife - which always knows that you are there - doesn't bother reacting to you.

couldnt have said it better, Tannin. The best shots are ones that get a reaction from someone and they then realize that they are not the centre of attention and feel stupid for reacting.
I took some photos in Adelaile Library a few years back. The old section. As I was leaving a woman approached and accused me of taking photos of her. She asked me to accompany her to the security guard. I did. When we got there I immediately accused the woman of harassing me and making false accusations. She was dumbfounded. "Why would I take photos of someone so ugly" I announced. I walked off with a smile on my face.

Those who shout loudest are often the least heard

[The dingo]

THE PHOTOGRAPHER

We don't hear or ask much of the photographer when we view a picture
Shame, really, because they are interesting people and that knowledge can add to the enjoyment of looking and appreciating the image.

Take this picture, for example:

Image removed due to breach of forum rules.

Nothing spectacular, I hear you say.
Quite right.

Lets dig deeper.

Who is the photographer?
Who are these people?
Why did the photographer choose to photograph them?
Is there anything we can assume about the photographer?
What does the photographer usually photograph?
What other interests did the photographer have?
Has this photographer influenced our way of photographing?

The more we look the more we know and the richer the photograph becomes.

[Hamster]

Site Matters: You seem to collect extra IMG tags front and back. These can be deleted
without affecting the image displayed.

Yeah, Flickr tends to add that info bit in the BB code. As you say, easily deleted.

[bobt]

On the other hand, one can become so involved with the philosophical aspects that one forgets the underlying aim of taking photographs, and this aim is different to each of us.

Art (and photography is a form of art) falls within the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" framework. As such, anyone can say that their work is "beautiful" , and anything we produce and like can be "beautiful" under this definition even if only to that one person. However, that doesn't make it art, it makes it something one person likes. In order to become art it needs to be assessed within a broader framework.

Far too often I see allegedly "artistic" work which has been deemed to be artistic simply because it was produced by someone who has a "name" rather than because their work was intrinsically worthwhile. If your name is Picasso, then everything you produce will be art irrespective of whether it is or not. I disagree with such blanket assessments just as I disagree with photographers who allege that they do not care what others think of their work.

Few photographers take photographs which they alone like. Occasionally maybe, but not consistently all the time. We all want others to like our work even if we are reluctant to admit it.

We can analyse our work, we can wax lyrical about its alleged qualities, we can speak in hushed tones about its deeper meaning and reflect upon what spiritual impact it has upon our souls. At the end of the day, a crap photo is still a crap photo, and no amount of creative interpretation can breath life into a stillborn failure. There are those amongst us who are artists, and others who are simply full of it.

[Tannin]

Speaking as (probably) one of the latter, I define "art" as "any form of communication which provides the viewer with a new insight or understanding of the world, which is of some value".

Now you might argue that an accounting textbook can do that. Sure it can. (Assuming one understands something of it, that the understanding is a new one, and that you (as the reader) considers it to be of value.)

On the other hand, the inclusion of a textbook is a small price to pay for the inclusion of all other communications which produce insight and understanding, and the exclusion of a vast pile of faux "art" not worthy of a tea-towel or length of wallpaper.

The thing I like about this approach is that it neatly includes Mozart and excludes Muzac, and it very properly does not care cares not whether that new insight is mathematical, visual, tactile, or emotional.

[Cage]

After reading this I must confess to being a tad confused as to just what constitutes a photograph. :confused013

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/olive-cotton-award-photographic-portrait-prize-awarded-to-image-without-a-face-20170724-gxhr4y.html

[bobt]

After reading this I must confess to being a tad confused as to just what constitutes a photograph. :confused013

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/olive-cotton-award-photographic-portrait-prize-awarded-to-image-without-a-face-20170724-gxhr4y.html

I'm not sure that one is even art!! It is a great example of how the art world has perverted the definition of art and ventured into a world where it becomes a meaningless concept. I don't believe that your example constitutes art in any universe, and certainly doesn't qualify as a photograph !!! :eek:

[ameerat42]

I wonder if her sense of unease will prompt her to give the money and the prize up?
That would be a good object lesson to the judge(s).

What a joke to perpetrate on all who entered that particular INCOMPETENT-ition.

[Cage]

Bob, it was entered in the 'Olive Cotton Award for Photographic Portraiture' and won. How it can be considered a portrait, or a photograph, is beyond my comprehension.

Apparently presenting something on photographic paper can now be considered a photo, even though a camera was not used. :confused013

[bobt]

Bob, it was entered in the 'Olive Cotton Award for Photographic Portraiture' and won. How it can be considered a portrait, or a photograph, is beyond my comprehension.

Apparently presenting something on photographic paper can now be considered a photo, even though a camera was not used. :confused013

Our local judges are starting to look quite good by comparison!! And here was I feeling guilty because I used a creative filter on an image ........ this isn't just moving the goal posts, it's taking them away altogether! Sheesh .... :confused013

[Hamster]

Ah, but art is not just about the obvious. It's like a cryptic crossword, and the subtle clues and the ability to trace them to the answer are what differentiates someone who truely understands the art at the deeper artistic level, and someone who is looking at the alleged artwork and wondering why the hell its so special. Or so it appears to me, as the person looking and art and sometimes wondering how it qualifies. I can see the point being made about how I don't properly understand and therefore my appreciation is limited to an incomplete and superficial level. But really, I CBF trying to understand all the in jokes and subtle nuances, so I'll leave that to the "true" officianados.

[bobt]

Ah, but art is not just about the obvious. It's like a cryptic crossword, and the subtle clues and the ability to trace them to the answer are what differentiates someone who truely understands the art at the deeper artistic level, and someone who is looking at the alleged artwork and wondering why the hell its so special. Or so it appears to me, as the person looking and art and sometimes wondering how it qualifies. I can see the point being made about how I don't properly understand and therefore my appreciation is limited to an incomplete and superficial level. But really, I CBF trying to understand all the in jokes and subtle nuances, so I'll leave that to the "true" officianados.

I agree that art is nuanced, and there are subtleties involved. However, I also think that a sizable chunk of those elements are fabricated and artificially manufactured. Those "true" aficionados are accepted by society with an unhealthy level of gullibility and a lack of questioning. We are conditioned to assume that they know what they're talking about. I don't think that is always the case and so I still believe that a lot of art is crap masquerading as something it's not. It's not unlike people who have a religious belief telling me that there is a God and that I should just accept that because they say so. I need more than that in either case. (Can of worms provided at no extra cost. :D )

[The dingo]

Among us common people, art does seem a strange and mysterious animal. Perhaps it's like seeing an abominable snowman. Do they really exist for us to see in the first place? If so who knows what they look like?

Art has has a long history. That in itself is worth investigating. Photography has a shorter history but just as fascinating. Art photography is a hybrid of both histories, starting with the imitators of the 1840-60 who used the traditional methods of subject and composition to compose their photos. But even Talbot in his book 'Pencil of Nature' could not foresee what people would do in the name of photography. He was happy to invent the calotype process which was the basis for all analogue mages until the digital age, but he was also content to allow people to decide for themselves what they did with it.
what followed was a rash of 'schools of thought', individual styles, applications and inventions that changed the way we see photography.
we are not at the end of that path yet. People are always pushing the envelope. Innovation either dies a quick death or outlives us all. That's not to say we reject it first hand. Just because we don't see the sense in it to don't like it or think it's silly or it doesn't fit with any individual taste or ideals doesn't mean that it has no value or shouldn't be posed as a photograph.
people have been producing images without cameras for almost 200 years. The very first image I ever produced was my hand on blueprint paper exposed to the sun, not much different to what Wedgewood produced in 1800.
As for it being art, well there's a long list of things that are used to decide that, none of which include any of us liking it or thinking it isn't. We need to leave these things to those who appreciate all factors, whether we like it or not. Just as I wouldn't ask my wife to decide which photos on display at a Brassai exhibition are art and which are not, nor would I contradict the person who put the photos there in the first place.
What I might do is ask why; i.e. Learn to understand and appreciate what is there.

art isn't just in the eyes of the beholder, nor is beauty, truth or the price of eggs. We have a right to an opinion and we have a right to speak that opinion. The problem comes when the opinion is as worthless as the persons perception of the art they are viewing. Ignorance can be bliss but it also, when spoken loudly, shows a great deal of ignorance on the subject at hand.
now, don't get your knickers in a knot. If someone asked me about cars or boats or birds or babies I could give my opinion and it would not only show my ignorance and stupidity for saying such a thing, my opinion would be considered worthless among those who know more than I do.


Cheers
tom

[ameerat42]

Judging the worth of opinions is indeed a dark art:eek:

[The dingo]

Judging the worth of opinions is indeed a dark art:eek:

Its probably wise for most of us to put aside out opinions on art and concentrate on the process of photography. Whether it's a snapshot of the kids, a 20m Gursky or a picture of my colon, there is always a purpose in mind for the photograph and a process to get it.

By examining each dimension of the process and understanding how each is achieved, we can get closer to our purpose.

although aesthetics is up there with the most popular (at least with the trillion or so photos taken in the last year) there are many other purposes that the photographer might have in mind.
The purpose is usually established before the photo is taken and forms the IDEA.
Other purposes might include DESCRIPTION, EXPLANATION, INTERPRETIVE, ETHICAL AND THEORETICAL.
Any single photo might have a multitude of purposes.
This is often a good starting point for assessment and analysis of a photo. It might involve a discussion or at least an investigation of the photographer since it was their idea in the first place.

perhaps this was the thinking behind the 'Portrait of my Grandmother' photo. Both interpretive and theoretical purposes might apply here.

- - - Updated - - -


I agree that art is nuanced, and there are subtleties involved. However, I also think that a sizable chunk of those elements are fabricated and artificially manufactured. Those "true" aficionados are accepted by society with an unhealthy level of gullibility and a lack of questioning. We are conditioned to assume that they know what they're talking about. I don't think that is always the case and so I still believe that a lot of art is crap masquerading as something it's not. It's not unlike people who have a religious belief telling me that there is a God and that I should just accept that because they say so. I need more than that in either case. (Can of worms provided at no extra cost. :D )

how do you tell the real ones from the bull#######s, bob?
they don't wear T-shirts to identify themselves.
The only way I can see is to know at least as much, if not more than they do. Then you can ask questions they can't answer.

- - - Updated - - -


On the other hand, one can become so involved with the philosophical aspects that one forgets the underlying aim of taking photographs, and this aim is different to each of us.


Its more theoretical than philosophical, bob. You're right in saying there are different reasons for taking pictures. What if your aim is lousy? And what are the aims for you? Wouldn't that be good to know so we could gain more from your images.

[bobt]

how do you tell the real ones from the bull#######s, bob? they don't wear T-shirts to identify themselves.
The only way I can see is to know at least as much, if not more than they do. Then you can ask questions they can't answer.

A distinctly odd way of looking at the world if you ask me. You presume that those making these artistic assessment know more than the rest of us, which is only partly true. They know more of the theory, but that theory is based upon the perceptions of an artistic community which sets the parameters used in determining what is artistic and what is not. My comparison with religion is not far off the mark here because both religion and fine art are based on the perceptions of a group of "believers" (for want of a better word).

All you have done, thus far, is to recite the equivalent of extracts from the Bible, but you assume that the "Bible" of art is based on fact rather than opinion. You fall into the same trap as do religious people by assuming that it is lack of knowledge or lack of understanding which causes me to view that "award winning" image as crap, but you have totally dismissed the proposition that it might actually be crap. If we adopted your position, we would believe all those who professed to have greater knowledge in virtually anything, simply because we did not have their depth of understanding. There is a difference between "knowing something" and "believing something". Trust me, T-shirts are not always necessary to separate purveyors of absolute codswallop from the rest of us!

[Hamster]

A distinctly odd way of looking at the world if you ask me. You presume that those making these artistic assessment know more than the rest of us, which is only partly true. They know more of the theory, but that theory is based upon the perceptions of an artistic community which sets the parameters used in determining what is artistic and what is not. My comparison with religion is not far off the mark here because both religion and fine art are based on the perceptions of a group of "believers" (for want of a better word).

All you have done, thus far, is to recite the equivalent of extracts from the Bible, but you assume that the "Bible" of art is based on fact rather than opinion. You fall into the same trap as do religious people by assuming that it is lack of knowledge or lack of understanding which causes me to view that "award winning" image as crap, but you have totally dismissed the proposition that it might actually be crap. If we adopted your position, we would believe all those who professed to have greater knowledge in virtually anything, simply because we did not have their depth of understanding. There is a difference between "knowing something" and "believing something". Trust me, T-shirts are not always necessary to separate purveyors of absolute codswallop from the rest of us!

There's always this to fall back on.

https://youtu.be/lu3VTngm1F0

[The dingo]

A distinctly odd way of looking at the world if you ask me. You presume that those making these artistic assessment know more than the rest of us, which is only partly true. They know more of the theory, but that theory is based upon the perceptions of an artistic community which sets the parameters used in determining what is artistic and what is not. My comparison with religion is not far off the mark here because both religion and fine art are based on the perceptions of a group of "believers" (for want of a better word).

All you have done, thus far, is to recite the equivalent of extracts from the Bible, but you assume that the "Bible" of art is based on fact rather than opinion. You fall into the same trap as do religious people by assuming that it is lack of knowledge or lack of understanding which causes me to view that "award winning" image as crap, but you have totally dismissed the proposition that it might actually be crap. If we adopted your position, we would believe all those who professed to have greater knowledge in virtually anything, simply because we did not have their depth of understanding. There is a difference between "knowing something" and "believing something". Trust me, T-shirts are not always necessary to separate purveyors of absolute codswallop from the rest of us!


You seem to have a bit of a hang-up on the religion thing, bob. As they say in the movies "let it go". Stay with the photography. Its better for you and at least you get a result.

Try reading a few critiques from reputable critics. You might start with anything written by John Szarkowski. He might be talking crap to you but he did it for 35 years running the photography galleries at Moma. He's also a photographer, although his type of photography might not suit you.

You might also try Terry Barrett's Criticising Photographs. Its a good place to start if you're interested in learning how critics work.
I'll expand the list for you as we go along with the conversation. I'm sure you're the sort of bloke who is open to new ideas and learning.

I admit we are a long way from fact here. Facts are unchangeable. Considered opinion is based on fact but can be altered as we learn more and establish more facts. Belief is something else entirely. It has no basis in fact.
Considered opinion is also tested by peers and is open to change. We only need to steep ourselves in history and see how that happens. We don't deny history, but we might be open to different interpretations depending on what we know at the time and what the 'experts' accept as probable. We can look at the change in attitude over the past 200 years regarding the acceptance of photography as an art form. That doesn't mean all photographs are art.
I've just returned from Zurich and had an opportunity to view the photography archives in the Kaus Museum. 30 000 images of some of the most famous photographers who have lived. 50 years ago they never had one photo in their archives.
Somewhere along the line, someone needed to decide what is worth keeping. Who would you choose to make the decision, Bob?

[Cage]

The purpose is usually established before the photo is taken and forms the IDEA.
Other purposes might include DESCRIPTION, EXPLANATION, INTERPRETIVE, ETHICAL AND THEORETICAL.
Any single photo might have a multitude of purposes.
This is often a good starting point for assessment and analysis of a photo. It might involve a discussion or at least an investigation of the photographer since it was their idea in the first place.

perhaps this was the thinking behind the 'Portrait of my Grandmother' photo. Both interpretive and theoretical purposes might apply here.

Tom, without getting too heavily involved in semantics, it seems that Portraiture is the act of creating a Portrait.

Merriam-Webster defines a portrait thus:


Definition of portrait

1... picture; especially : a pictorial representation of a person usually showing the face

2... a sculptured figure : bust

3... a graphic portrayal in words

The other dictionaries all more or less follow the theme that a portrait is a recognisable interpretation of the subject.

The artist, Justine Varga, was quoted as saying ... "She was quite bemused that I asked her to inscribe on the negative and basically spit on it," she said. "You know, she's my grandmother. She's not really into that sort of thing."

Her winning entry, Maternal Line, may have 'artistic merit', but I fail to see how it can be considered a portrait, and one that can be identified as a representation of her grandmother, without an accompanying description. :confused013 Surely Photographic Portraiture doesn't need an addendum to tell the viewer what they are looking at.

Or am I missing the plot here ?

[bobt]

You seem to have a bit of a hang-up on the religion thing, bob. As they say in the movies "let it go". Stay with the photography. Its better for you and at least you get a result.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the use of analogous references in support of similar situations. Rather than adopting a somewhat paternalistic standpoint, perhaps you might consider the validity of such comparisons rather than assuming that I have a "hang up". I do not.

The rest of your message is equally paternalistic and so I shall ignore your efforts to "educate" me. I do not need or seek such an education.

So .... returning to the central premise of my views, I will continue to believe that:-

(a) Determining whether or not someone's work is "art" is a subjective process. There are many "grey" areas which contain creations which may or may not be regarded as art.
(b) There is no definitive empirical method of determining whether these "grey" works are indeed art, and therefore they will remain subject to the general "the eye of the beholder" rule. Even "experts" will differ as to whether something is legitimate "art".
(c) There are vastly differing views both within and outside the art world as to what might properly be construed as having artistic merit. Some of those views hold greater weight than others, and what is considered artistic will vary from culture to culture and through different historical periods. Unlike you, I do not believe that all works which have met with a judge's approval are necessarily worthy of being "winners" as in the case of that piece of scratched film.

Finally, my experiences over many years have lead me to the view that pomposity is no substitute for wisdom; paternalism is no indicator of superiority, and condescension suggests an imperfect understanding of others. When I encounter these qualities, I tend to discount those views in favour of more balanced and reasoned perspectives.

[Ionica]

Tom, without getting too heavily involved in semantics, it seems that Portraiture is the act of creating a Portrait.



The artist, Justine Varga, was quoted as saying ... "She was quite bemused that I asked her to inscribe on the negative and basically spit on it," she said. "You know, she's my grandmother. She's not really into that sort of thing."

Her winning entry, Maternal Line, may have 'artistic merit', but I fail to see how it can be considered a portrait, and one that can be identified as a representation of her grandmother, without an accompanying description. :confused013 Surely Photographic Portraiture doesn't need an addendum to tell the viewer what they are looking at.



Maybe this picture needs a thousand words. :scrtch:

[The dingo]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the use of analogous references in support of similar situations. Rather than adopting a somewhat paternalistic standpoint, perhaps you might consider the validity of such comparisons rather than assuming that I have a "hang up". I do not.

The rest of your message is equally paternalistic and so I shall ignore your efforts to "educate" me. I do not need or seek such an education.

So .... returning to the central premise of my views, I will continue to believe that:-

(a) Determining whether or not someone's work is "art" is a subjective process. There are many "grey" areas which contain creations which may or may not be regarded as art.
(b) There is no definitive empirical method of determining whether these "grey" works are indeed art, and therefore they will remain subject to the general "the eye of the beholder" rule. Even "experts" will differ as to whether something is legitimate "art".
(c) There are vastly differing views both within and outside the art world as to what might properly be construed as having artistic merit. Some of those views hold greater weight than others, and what is considered artistic will vary from culture to culture and through different historical periods. Unlike you, I do not believe that all works which have met with a judge's approval are necessarily worthy of being "winners" as in the case of that piece of scratched film.

Finally, my experiences over many years have lead me to the view that pomposity is no substitute for wisdom; paternalism is no indicator of superiority, and condescension suggests an imperfect understanding of others. When I encounter these qualities, I tend to discount those views in favour of more balanced and reasoned perspectives.

You might have lost the plot a bit, bob.
Ive got no beef with you or your views. Someone else mentioned art, not me. I just started a conversation about the processes of photography. Your the one who's been name calling. I'm just offering some assistance in some areas you and others might be interested in.
if you don't like the conversation, change channels and let someone in that might have something constructive to say.

opening a channel for discourse is what we do here, right? Well, I'm doing my bit.
so, go shout at your dog or your missus. Leave the rest of us to talk quietly among ourselves.

xx
tom

[I @ M]

Could I politely ask that posters in this thread play nicely amongst themselves and behave with a level of dignity befitting their respective ages. :nod:

[Cage]

...... and behave with a level of dignity befitting their respective ages. :nod:

Well I'm a cranky old fart at times as I don't tolerate fools gladly, but I'm unsure of the appropriate level of dignity for a 76 year old. :lol2:

[The dingo]

Could I politely ask that posters in this thread play nicely amongst themselves and behave with a level of dignity befitting their respective ages. :nod:

Bob and I can look after ourselves Andrew. He's a big boy now and so am I. We don't need a baby sitter. Besides, dignity will get us nowhere.

[ricktas]

opening a channel for discourse is what we do here, right? Well, I'm doing my bit.
so, go shout at your dog or your missus. Leave the rest of us to talk quietly among ourselves.

xx
tom

I am confused here.

You opened a channel for discourse.. and that is what you got.

Just cause others offer up alternative viewpoints to your own, you tell them to go shout at their dog or missus? Surely any decent discourse would allow all the varying opinions to be expressed freely. After all, is not your viewpoint nothing more than your opinion? Or did I miss the news, where you walked on water?

I find this attempt at discourse, being stifled by opinion that appears to pretending to be fact. As for talking quietly, you seem to be shouting down any other point of view, so perhaps that is why others are whispering?

[ricktas]

For all those playing along at home. The Dingo has sent us a request to close his account as he feels he would have better conversations with his 6 year old grand-daugher than he does with us. So I have closed his account, as requested, and I wish his grand-daughter all the best for the future, with eyes open to all the opinions and points of view that her future may contain.

[Cage]

For all those playing along at home. The Dingo has sent us a request to close his account as he feels he would have better conversations with his 6 year old grand-daugher than he does with us. So I have closed his account, as requested, and I wish his grand-daughter all the best for the future, with eyes open to all the opinions and points of view that her future may contain.

Why am I not surprised ?

[Tannin]

It's a shame. Tom demonstrated a great ability to stimulate fresh thought and discussion, unfortunately not matched by much ability to share in it constructively or follow up points raised in a consistent and logical way rather than just an argumentative one. Why am I reminded of a certain tennis player?

(Edit to fix a typo.)

[jim]

^ Spot on. A shame, he has both interesting ideas and interesting photographs to share. And personally I quite enjoyed his combative style, but it was always going to end in tears.

[feathers]

^ Spot on. A shame, he has both interesting ideas and interesting photographs to share. And personally I quite enjoyed his combative style, but it was always going to end in tears.:nod:

[Hamster]

Well that escalated quickly :confused013:)