Does the old addage hold true?

[mwooten]

...
Whilst I am pleased with the photos I take of people I have a raport with, my family and friends, I can't seem to photograph anyone I don't hold closely or even perhaps friends I secretly dislike or simply 'don't get' (we all have them) that have asked me to photograph them. Something about the images never rings true and I admire people that can draw a stunning portrait from a stranger that has just waltzed into the room, or from those whose character they are at odds with. ...

Those folks that you don't care much for, do they like your photographs of them? If they do, then don't worry about it. Think of those photos as "works for hire" or maybe client work.

 

[mh2000]

photography is different than the other arts period (and I have worked in them all). A really fine painting will always rate above a fine photo and seem more amazing. The other arts are plastic in nature wile photography is rooted in capturing reality (light reflecting off the physical world), other art forms are limited by the medium, but the manipulations and executions are plastic and completely free from prexisting forms. This does not mean that there is no value in art photography, it can be used effectively to convey personal thoughts, emotions and everything else that artists convey using other mediums, but photography is more remote in execution where you essentially are controlling a hidden process... based on technical equipment and media that is not directly manipulated by the photographer... the basic image is fixed when you click the shutter... whereas a painting is never really "done" until the artist says so...

interesting ideas... good thing there isn't really an *answer*

ALL forms of art are technical. Don't devalue the importance of photography by saying that it is a technical art. Most people who say things like that have never painted, made ceramics, made an etching or a lithograph, or done sculpture. I've done all of those in addition to photography. All form of art have technical knowledge needed to make the art. I invite anyone who doesn't think that to try making an oil painting on a piece of paper (oil paints rot paper unless you put down a protective coating on the paper before painting), or try painting a fast drying pigment layer on top of a slow drying pigment (the painting will crack as it ages). Lithography, etching, and ceramics are so rigorously technical that you cannot even produce a crappy print or teacup without a deep level of technical practice and knowledge.

As to making art with photography: No great artist has made great photos of something that didn't mean something to him or her. Ansel Adams loved nature and photographed it. Alfred Stieglitz photographed his wife, Georgia O'Keefe. Cindy Sherman photographs her kids. William Eggelston grew up in the south and wanted to document southern life and culture. See what I'm saying? Amatuer photographers fall in to the trap of trying to go make pretty pictures, so they produce a bunch of boring photos that don't mean anything and don't fit together as a mature body of work.

 

[amateriat]

I am not so sure that is outside your comfort zone. I often find I cannot "see" photos in places I am around every day. If I go somewhere I am not used to, I "see" a lot. Especially in an exotic place. I see all the things I would like to talk to people about. I photograph them sort of as props for my upcoming speech. But those same people also see what I see all the time. How interesting is that? On the other hand, imagine trying to describe what you are photographing as if they didn't know about it. You will have to photograph so you can explain what you saw that was so different from their and your "ordinary."

Try that on for size. And if you get good at it, come back and explain how you did so I can get better at it.

As far as familiarity with a location getting in the way of photographic antennae, I find it's more a matter of approach than the "delight of the new." I might be rushing my way along well-trodden paths and streets, and yet, I often find very interesting things, and moments...in fact, the frustrating thing is that I see this stuff so often, and sometimes without camera at hand. I suppose my "picture radar" is on mush of the time, if not all the time.

Granted, living in a place like NYC can offer an embarrassment of moments like that, but I don't think that all that's going on here.


- Barrett

 

[bohdan]

Resurrecting the dead....

Resurrecting the dead....

You're comparing animation, a synthetic media (i'm not calling it an art form) with photography, which is purely factual.

First off, it's not a comparison. It's an analogy. I am comparing my experience in animation with the orignal poster's experience in photography. It's not your fault, some people can't understand the difference.

Then you confuse what photographers call structure with vocabulary. And finally you muddle together framing and composition.

Not quite sure how you are coming to that conclusion...

Its not your fault, most 'classically trained' painters have this sort of condescending attitude towards photography.

Now, who is being condescending?

It seems they can never comprehend the difference between purely artificial and synthetic world of paintings and factual world of photography.

Iif you can't see the similarities between composing a shot in photography and laying out a scene in animation then you may want to pick up some books. I've done storyboard work, film work along with animation...and honestly, it's all the same creative process.

A painter has all the time to sit there and 'imagine' what he/she is going to paint while a good photographer snatches a slice of time and in a fraction of second not only frames it but composes the image so it has structure.

If you think that Ansel Adams and the like don't have all day to find just the right time to snatch your slice in time...then you are more delusional than I thought.

A photograph could be stctured on - composition - HCB - on subject - Walker Evans - on color - Eggleston - on social themes - Salgado... And in case of a genius like Atget on visual poetry. .

So, can a painting...Dali, Picasso, etc...

All those masters framed their pictures and composed it based on the structure they were working on. So, please, you need to reevaluate your perception of photography and treat it with a lot more respect if you wish to make 'decent' pictures, let alone good ones.

Now, I think you really need to re-evaluate the comment I made. At no time did I ever put forward a bad perception of photography. I merely made a comparison to what I found in animation. My point was that there are many people that get stuck in a rut. Doesn't matter what art form you look at. I think maybe you have some sort of issues with different types artists. Most of this reply seems ad hominem, and uneducated...and a tendancy to jump to conclusions...

 

[bohdan]

Your kidding, right? While I grant you there are times when I need to study long times for what I want and where to be to get the composition I want, that isn't always so. I don't photograph as much now as I used to. But when I did a lot more, I could usually get what I wanted quickly. It was not a desparate grab.

I am not a painter, but I doubt they are constantly in a quandary about what they want. Surely they see something and then sit down and paint it. Some of you who are painters also, can you elaborate? Am I wrong?

And as to "vocabulary", that is a term to describe a style if I understand how it was being used. How many threads have I seen here asking how to develop a style? If I am wrong, I stand ready to be corrected (it won't be the first time )

BINGO!!!! This is exactly what I mean.