For The Love of Photographic Syntax.

[tunalegs]

Syntax in the context of art refers basically to the technical production of a work and its inherent effects. For example: watercolors, oil paints, and charcoal all require different materials and techniques, and therefore the effects each produce are different - even if the same artist working in the same style uses them to record an identical scene. Photography, as should be obvious to everybody on this forum is the same way. There are effects which are inherent to photography, but not to other mediums. Motion blur, film grain, light leaks, etc.

It is interesting to note that in the early days of art photography, many sought to imitate the effects of other mediums in their work - but now we find those working in other mediums often seek to imitate the effects of photography!

Now, every single photograph is a product of photographic syntax, and therefore contains photographic effects. However, some of these effects are more noticeable than others, and what interests me are those which are most peculiar when compared to natural human vision or other mediums. Especially those that make the viewer aware of the mechanism of photography. A lot of photographers aim to avoid these (because they can make the image appear unreal, apparently by reminding the viewer that an actual person with an actual camera made them, some of these effects are considered to be the photographic equivalent of breaking the fourth wall) - but I find many of them more interesting than annoying.

Image dump follows:

Bicycle by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Peace Street by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Narita by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Tower by Berang Berang, on Flickr

saab by Berang Berang, on Flickr

sale by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Great Wall by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Hero Alarm Clock by Berang Berang, on Flickr

wall by Berang Berang, on Flickr

tree by Berang Berang, on Flickr

overpass by Berang Berang, on Flickr

water by Berang Berang, on Flickr

chilled steel by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Untitled by Berang Berang, on Flickr

foot scratch by Berang Berang, on Flickr

What interests me is which effects photographers generally agree are undesirable, and which effects photographers either have resigned themselves into accepting as unavoidable, or have simply brainwashed themselves into no longer noticing.

I would love to see everybody post examples of their own favorite photographic effect "anomalies".

 

[tunalegs]

You know, I posted this on another photography forum and got a lot of interesting replies about things like flare and grain.

 

[retinax]

I'll bite, although your comparing this forum the another comes across as a little condescending. why don't you link the discussion so we can built on what's been said there? Are we just here to practice on questions that have already been discussed? Anyway...
I think that's indeed an interesting topic. Many of us love the effects of limited focus and black and white, some like visible grain. It seems to me that these gave been discussed over and over already.
One thing that gets talked about less is geometric distortion. Our more ore less rectilinear wide lenses distort people near the edge of the frame, we think. We usually are less bothered about what they do to buildings. Our vision seems to interpret buildings in a rectilinear manner and people in a cylinder projection (like a swing lens camera). When we look around, straight lines look straight to us, but we don't notice the distortion of e.g. a face they inevitably comes with straight lines in photographs. This shows his much of our vision happens in our brains.
Painters usually mix projections, buildings etc. get straight lines and people even in the edges retain proportions as if they were in the center of the frame. We don't usually notice that the combination isn't a true projection, although I imagine that painters who have worked with aids are aware of it.
In photography, just like cartography, we need to choose if we want true angles (fish eyes approach delivering that I think) or true lengths (rectilinear lenses) or others (swing lens...), all within the limits of lens and camera design (lenses that give true area are not available, are they?). All "look wrong" with certain subjects, and "look right" with others. We cannot not choose, only hide the "effects" a little.
I guess that people who use swing lens cameras and fish eyes are more aware if these things, but most of us don't seem to. The inevitable "distortion" (actually just different projections) which is usually desired different for different subjects but only comes in a package has got to be a major part of (especially wide angle) photographic syntax.

 

[tunalegs]

Anyway...
I think that's indeed an interesting topic. Many of us love the effects of limited focus and black and white, some like visible grain. It seems to me that these gave been discussed over and over already.

Sure, such effects have been discussed over and over on this forum, but rarely in the context of comparison with other mediums or the real world. Usually just, for example, comparison of the qualities of one lens with another, or one film with another. Part of why I find the topic interesting, as lot of photographic effects are simply taken for granted by most photographers, yet certain others will be discussed ad nauseum on forums across the internet.

One thing that gets talked about less is geometric distortion. Our more ore less rectilinear wide lenses distort people near the edge of the frame, we think. We usually are less bothered about what they do to buildings. Our vision seems to interpret buildings in a rectilinear manner and people in a cylinder projection (like a swing lens camera). When we look around, straight lines look straight to us, but we don't notice the distortion of e.g. a face they inevitably comes with straight lines in photographs. This shows his much of our vision happens in our brains.
Painters usually mix projections, buildings etc. get straight lines and people even in the edges retain proportions as if they were in the center of the frame. We don't usually notice that the combination isn't a true projection, although I imagine that painters who have worked with aids are aware of it.

I would think most artists are aware of it. Part of the reason we don't notice it so much with people is that we rarely look at other humans out of the corner of our eyes, if we want to see them we turn towards them, so essentially they're always centered.

In photography, just like cartography, we need to choose if we want true angles (fish eyes approach delivering that I think) or true lengths (rectilinear lenses) or others (swing lens...), all within the limits of lens and camera design (lenses that give true area are not available, are they?). All "look wrong" with certain subjects, and "look right" with others. We cannot not choose, only hide the "effects" a little.
I guess that people who use swing lens cameras and fish eyes are more aware if these things, but most of us don't seem to. The inevitable "distortion" (actually just different projections) which is usually desired different for different subjects but only comes in a package has got to be a major part of (especially wide angle) photographic syntax.

An interesting point, which I've only seen discussed in any meaningful way when print size vs. viewing distance is brought up.