PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
Here comes perhaps my turn to be banned launching this thread
Does such a concept as photographical correctness exist?
Here I disregard referring to the content of photos, I rather look at the way one shoots.
An alien that stumbles on RFF using its powerful AI means could come to the conclusion that such a concept exists and, more specifically to be photographically correct, you must
Shoot B&W
Shoot wide open
Be a bokeh maniac
Mostly do to street photography.
Do not strive for sharpness
Mostly use an M Leica camera but not an M5 (let alone an SLR)
Prefer film to digital
Pursue shallower DOF and to this purpose use expensive large aperture lenses (wide open of course)
Have an ultra wide lens and use it often
Process and print film by yourself
Etc
Personally I am politically (ahem photographically) incorrect on all of these counts: (I just move in the exact opposite direction)
But I don’t mind my photographical incorrectness: I simply aim to express my creative taste in whatever way I deem fit.
How about you?
Are those actually cliches?
Do you feel conditioned by them?
Does such a concept as photographical correctness exist?
Here I disregard referring to the content of photos, I rather look at the way one shoots.
An alien that stumbles on RFF using its powerful AI means could come to the conclusion that such a concept exists and, more specifically to be photographically correct, you must
Shoot B&W
Shoot wide open
Be a bokeh maniac
Mostly do to street photography.
Do not strive for sharpness
Mostly use an M Leica camera but not an M5 (let alone an SLR)
Prefer film to digital
Pursue shallower DOF and to this purpose use expensive large aperture lenses (wide open of course)
Have an ultra wide lens and use it often
Process and print film by yourself
Etc
Personally I am politically (ahem photographically) incorrect on all of these counts: (I just move in the exact opposite direction)
But I don’t mind my photographical incorrectness: I simply aim to express my creative taste in whatever way I deem fit.
How about you?
Are those actually cliches?
Do you feel conditioned by them?
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Well, I think you'll find most folks here talking about shooting rangefinder cameras, as it is RangefinderForum.com. And aside from the slew of newer Leica digital rangefinders, most out-in-the-wild are old film rangefinders. So it's not a surprise that many here are talking about shooting film in a rangefinder camera.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
Bill Clark
Veteran
Well, here are my answers to help:
I only use black and white film. All color is digital captured in RAW then processed with Photoshop/Bridge with an iMac.
Only use wide open (rarely) when available light is inadequate or I’m making people photos where I want a very limited focus range.
I don’t pay much attention to bokeh.
Don’t do street photography.
I do strive for sharpness, especially peoples’ faces.
Only use Leica for black and white. Use Canon digital SLR mostly for color.
Prefer digital to film.
Own couple of fast lenses for available light photography.
Rarely use my Canon 20mm wide angle. I do own a Leica 28 f2,8 lens.
Yes, I’m guilty, as I do still have an analog darkroom. But use it less and less.
I don’t believe you’re incorrect. Each of us, with our unique view of the world, express it photographically. I welcome those who see things differently as it can give me pause to think how some one like you views things. That’s one of the strength of this forum, respect for each other. I hope I can learn from you and help as well.
I will say, I’m using my iPhone and iPad mini more and more. How about you, do you use your phone and/or tablet computer?
Thanks for your post. It gave me pause to review myself.
I only use black and white film. All color is digital captured in RAW then processed with Photoshop/Bridge with an iMac.
Only use wide open (rarely) when available light is inadequate or I’m making people photos where I want a very limited focus range.
I don’t pay much attention to bokeh.
Don’t do street photography.
I do strive for sharpness, especially peoples’ faces.
Only use Leica for black and white. Use Canon digital SLR mostly for color.
Prefer digital to film.
Own couple of fast lenses for available light photography.
Rarely use my Canon 20mm wide angle. I do own a Leica 28 f2,8 lens.
Yes, I’m guilty, as I do still have an analog darkroom. But use it less and less.
I don’t believe you’re incorrect. Each of us, with our unique view of the world, express it photographically. I welcome those who see things differently as it can give me pause to think how some one like you views things. That’s one of the strength of this forum, respect for each other. I hope I can learn from you and help as well.
I will say, I’m using my iPhone and iPad mini more and more. How about you, do you use your phone and/or tablet computer?
Thanks for your post. It gave me pause to review myself.
Dogman
Veteran
I think many here are of a certain age group, having been influenced by the photography of the 60s and 70s. I know I was. The "correctness" really is just historical photographic trends absorbed by many and evolved into the 21st Century. I understand the influences but I don't really follow any dogma in photography.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't care about being "correct" on any of your axes of discrimination. I care about making satisfying photographs. I come to this forum to discuss the equipment and techniques of doing that apropos to what the community here tends to be talking about at a given time insofar as I have any expertise or knowledge of the particular topic at hand.
G
G
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
The visiting space alien wouldn't get that impression of RFF members, I think. Perhaps the items you mention attract your attention because, as you say, they're the opposite of what you do.
So for me:
Film actually is about 95% of my photography - that's what I started with as a kid in the 1960's and I'm very fond of using film cameras as an instrument. I like their knobs, levers, and viewfinders.
B&W is now about only 10% of my work.
Usually I'm at f/5.6 or f/8 and not wide open.
Bokeh is incidental to the subject, not the subject nor the important part of the photo.
I want my photos to be sharp, but I don't pixel-peep or grain-peep (though I used to - see my signature).
I don't do street photography.
I use other cameras more than I use Leica
28mm is the widest I ever use (except for Hasselblad SWC, the 38mm Biogon of which is a 24mm equivalent in 135 format).
I have not developed my own film or made my own prints since perhaps 1977 (sad, I know).
RichC
Well-known
Me?
Yes, they are cliches.
No. I don't follow any of your conditions. Well, OK, I shoot b&w once every few years.
I mostly use a digital camera with an electronic viewfinder, colour and f16. I have zero interest in doing street photography.
Yes, they are cliches.
No. I don't follow any of your conditions. Well, OK, I shoot b&w once every few years.
I mostly use a digital camera with an electronic viewfinder, colour and f16. I have zero interest in doing street photography.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Nah to all that in your list.
It is like food, we all have our favourite dishes and different ways to cook great or not so great food...but we can mostly agree on what really tastes great..even if we are untrained chefs .
It is like food, we all have our favourite dishes and different ways to cook great or not so great food...but we can mostly agree on what really tastes great..even if we are untrained chefs .
markjwyatt
Well-known
My answers:
I shoot a lot of B&W in film and some in digital;
I shoot wide open if I am in available light situations or have no choice. In film I am struggling between the flexibility of 400 ASA (HP5 or Tri-X) and my preference for FP4+. I am considering equipping myself with some ND filters and going to 400 ASA more;
I take bokeh into consideration for some shots, but would not classify myself as a maniac;
I like to shoot what I see where I am, so sometimes if I am on a street, I shoot some street;
I like sharpness, but am ok to sacrifice in lieu of not getting a shot;
Mostly use Contax iia in the recent couple years. Some M42, Mamiya TLR starting up, and just got a Retina IIIc, which I could see as my new travel camera (instead of the Contax iia);
I still kind fo prefer film to digital, especially for B&W, and I tend to like B&W the best;
My fastest lens I actually use is an f1.8 (Zeiss Ultron). It was not expensive for me;
I have an SC Skopar 21mm f4 formy Contax iia, and use it often;
I do not process and print film myself (not for many years), but am on the verge of at least developing and scanning B&W at home;
I do not feel conditioned by my choices (I can make a U-turn on a dime), but habit probably does keep my momentum going the direction I am going.
I shoot a lot of B&W in film and some in digital;
I shoot wide open if I am in available light situations or have no choice. In film I am struggling between the flexibility of 400 ASA (HP5 or Tri-X) and my preference for FP4+. I am considering equipping myself with some ND filters and going to 400 ASA more;
I take bokeh into consideration for some shots, but would not classify myself as a maniac;
I like to shoot what I see where I am, so sometimes if I am on a street, I shoot some street;
I like sharpness, but am ok to sacrifice in lieu of not getting a shot;
Mostly use Contax iia in the recent couple years. Some M42, Mamiya TLR starting up, and just got a Retina IIIc, which I could see as my new travel camera (instead of the Contax iia);
I still kind fo prefer film to digital, especially for B&W, and I tend to like B&W the best;
My fastest lens I actually use is an f1.8 (Zeiss Ultron). It was not expensive for me;
I have an SC Skopar 21mm f4 formy Contax iia, and use it often;
I do not process and print film myself (not for many years), but am on the verge of at least developing and scanning B&W at home;
I do not feel conditioned by my choices (I can make a U-turn on a dime), but habit probably does keep my momentum going the direction I am going.
charjohncarter
Veteran
45 years ago, I decided not to have my life fine tuned.
sjones
Established
It’s a rangefinder site; it will invariably attract people who shoot rangefinders (who knew?), which in turn will invariably attract people who shoot Leica, which will invariably attract people who shoot film, and so forth. However, the alien would also notice that lots of folks on here don’t just shoot Leica, or film, or super wides, or black & white, or street photography.
In any event, I didn’t come to this site as a digital shooter interested in color rural photography; I was already a walking cliché (and proudly so) before joining up. I wish I was as creative as you, but alas. But good to know that people who shoot film and make their own prints are somehow just conditioned automatons.
Hey everyone, toss your film, toss your black & whites, and don’t print. Be original…shoot digital, shoot color, use only teles, don’t do any street, and don’t make prints…groundbreaking.
You might want to consider that perhaps you are the one who is ultimately trying to impose a Photographical Correct agenda, one that scoffs at film, wide angle, open aperture, B&W, street, and so on. And thanks for validating my signature below.
Folks, remember, use what you want or need, shoot what you want or need; a trillion photos taken every millisecond across the globe; everything is a #$^@!& cliché!
In any event, I didn’t come to this site as a digital shooter interested in color rural photography; I was already a walking cliché (and proudly so) before joining up. I wish I was as creative as you, but alas. But good to know that people who shoot film and make their own prints are somehow just conditioned automatons.
Hey everyone, toss your film, toss your black & whites, and don’t print. Be original…shoot digital, shoot color, use only teles, don’t do any street, and don’t make prints…groundbreaking.
You might want to consider that perhaps you are the one who is ultimately trying to impose a Photographical Correct agenda, one that scoffs at film, wide angle, open aperture, B&W, street, and so on. And thanks for validating my signature below.
Folks, remember, use what you want or need, shoot what you want or need; a trillion photos taken every millisecond across the globe; everything is a #$^@!& cliché!
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Absolutely! We all know PC is alive and thriving on photo web sites, this one included.
Fortunately there are enough dissenters to the dogma to keep most of us coming back...
Fortunately there are enough dissenters to the dogma to keep most of us coming back...
LCSmith
Well-known
Too much silliness and sophistry to be taken seriously.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
It does exist but only on the internet.
markjwyatt
Well-known
To me the main satisfaction is in "getting that shot". Preferably not on an iPhone (but I will take that over nothing).
Tom R
Established
Couldn't say.
Do you have something to say and can you can say it with a camera?
So much popular culture is an excuse for not taking direct action.
Your question reminded me of a quote (that I had to look up to get the source): To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong. (Joseph C. Pearce)
Do you have something to say and can you can say it with a camera?
So much popular culture is an excuse for not taking direct action.
Your question reminded me of a quote (that I had to look up to get the source): To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong. (Joseph C. Pearce)
zuiko85
Veteran
Although you did not mention content there is also a 'list' of 'correct' photographic subjects.
I'll start out.
1. A line of empty shopping carts at your local grocery.
Anyone want to add to the list.
I'll start out.
1. A line of empty shopping carts at your local grocery.
Anyone want to add to the list.
RichC
Well-known
2. A sad, thrown-out chair.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
The dpreview site just had something like this. Among the list:
- Waterfall time exposure
- A lone tree
- Street vendor with produce
- Waterfall time exposure
- A lone tree
- Street vendor with produce
peterm1
Veteran
Does such a concept as photographical correctness exist?
No it does not. A photo can be made by any means. While the things you mention may be highly regarded by us and today that might change over time and depending upon the photographic subject. Most importantly a "correct" photo is one which works. What works depends on the photo's purpose. And even a photo that was made for one purpose (e.g. documentary purpose) can also work for another purpose (e.g. art).
As for me, my personal rule as to what is a good photo (not a "correct" photo) is one which no matter how it is made, engages the emotion and establishes a connection with the viewer. I like to say that a good photo in this mode should be more like a poem than a piece of prose. Prose lays it all out for the reader with perhaps little room for interpretation. Even if superficially beautiful I find such photos somewhat lacking in the ability to hold onto a viewer for long. Poetry absolutely requires a reader to interpret meaning as its meaning is often ambiguous. That is why poems can touch people's souls (I think) more readily than most prose can. Same with photos. It creates and emotional bond. Other feel different I am sure but then their photographic intentions are different from mine.
No it does not. A photo can be made by any means. While the things you mention may be highly regarded by us and today that might change over time and depending upon the photographic subject. Most importantly a "correct" photo is one which works. What works depends on the photo's purpose. And even a photo that was made for one purpose (e.g. documentary purpose) can also work for another purpose (e.g. art).
As for me, my personal rule as to what is a good photo (not a "correct" photo) is one which no matter how it is made, engages the emotion and establishes a connection with the viewer. I like to say that a good photo in this mode should be more like a poem than a piece of prose. Prose lays it all out for the reader with perhaps little room for interpretation. Even if superficially beautiful I find such photos somewhat lacking in the ability to hold onto a viewer for long. Poetry absolutely requires a reader to interpret meaning as its meaning is often ambiguous. That is why poems can touch people's souls (I think) more readily than most prose can. Same with photos. It creates and emotional bond. Other feel different I am sure but then their photographic intentions are different from mine.