russelljtdyer
Writer
Still life scenes have been popular among artists that draw or paint. However, I haven't seen much done by photographers. I'm wondering why. I have some thoughts about this, but would like to know the thoughts of others about this topic.
Still life pictures are commonly produced by artists when they're first learning to draw and paint. It doesn't seem to be a training aide for new photographers, though. I guess since it's easy to take a photograph of anything, new photographers start by taking photos of people and landscapes. A new painter wouldn't generally begin by painting people or even landscapes: that's too challenging at the start. Instead, they learn by drawing still life settings containing books, glasses, and other semi-geometrical objects, to learn about light and shadowing. In time they take on bowls of fruit and vases of flowers. Perhaps when new photographers decide to learn seriously about photography, they should do still life photos to be able to learn about light and shadows and exposure in a controlled setting.
Beyond using still life photography as a learning method, why is it that I don't see much of it as an art form? Maybe experienced photographers find it boring. But even advanced painters will sometimes create still life paintings. There's something meditative about a still life. Does it not appeal to most? Does it seem silly and unchallenging to photograph a book? What do y'all think about this entry level art form? What do y'all think about it as an art form for all levels of photographers?
Just to set the mood of this thread, below is a still life photo I took in trying to resolve some problems I was having with my Canon P when I first got it. It was helpful for me to learn how to use my new camera. It was shot with a Voigtlander 50mm lens. As for exposure, the shutter was at 1/125 of a second, the ISO at 100, and aperture at 16. I invite others to post their still life photos when they respond with their comments to this thread.
Still life pictures are commonly produced by artists when they're first learning to draw and paint. It doesn't seem to be a training aide for new photographers, though. I guess since it's easy to take a photograph of anything, new photographers start by taking photos of people and landscapes. A new painter wouldn't generally begin by painting people or even landscapes: that's too challenging at the start. Instead, they learn by drawing still life settings containing books, glasses, and other semi-geometrical objects, to learn about light and shadowing. In time they take on bowls of fruit and vases of flowers. Perhaps when new photographers decide to learn seriously about photography, they should do still life photos to be able to learn about light and shadows and exposure in a controlled setting.
Beyond using still life photography as a learning method, why is it that I don't see much of it as an art form? Maybe experienced photographers find it boring. But even advanced painters will sometimes create still life paintings. There's something meditative about a still life. Does it not appeal to most? Does it seem silly and unchallenging to photograph a book? What do y'all think about this entry level art form? What do y'all think about it as an art form for all levels of photographers?
Just to set the mood of this thread, below is a still life photo I took in trying to resolve some problems I was having with my Canon P when I first got it. It was helpful for me to learn how to use my new camera. It was shot with a Voigtlander 50mm lens. As for exposure, the shutter was at 1/125 of a second, the ISO at 100, and aperture at 16. I invite others to post their still life photos when they respond with their comments to this thread.
Last edited:
thomob
Established
u need to research more maybe? still life is everywhere in advertising! still life doesnt have to be the stereotypical bunch of fruit.
and for the training and learning side of things, the first thing i learnt in the studio in the first year was to light still life...
and for the training and learning side of things, the first thing i learnt in the studio in the first year was to light still life...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I shoot a lot of still life and enjoy doing so ... it can be a real challenge to make the mundane look interesting.
Also an interesting way to use old cameras and try new techniques ... the second pic was with a 1933 Voigtlaender Brilliant. The third shot was learning how to develop film with cafenol.
Also an interesting way to use old cameras and try new techniques ... the second pic was with a 1933 Voigtlaender Brilliant. The third shot was learning how to develop film with cafenol.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The opening lines of http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps still.html
What is a still life? Almost anything that doesn't move, or at least, doesn't move too fast (have you ever tried photographing a ripe French cheese?)
Why would you photograph it? Because you can make a beautiful picture. If you need a better reason than this, maybe you had better give up photography.
What sort of equipment do you need? Whatever you like, and can afford.
Is this going to be a very short module?
No. Read on...
Cheers,
R.
What is a still life? Almost anything that doesn't move, or at least, doesn't move too fast (have you ever tried photographing a ripe French cheese?)
Why would you photograph it? Because you can make a beautiful picture. If you need a better reason than this, maybe you had better give up photography.
What sort of equipment do you need? Whatever you like, and can afford.
Is this going to be a very short module?
No. Read on...
Cheers,
R.
hitmanh
dum de dum de doo
Oh I don't know, I've seen a fair bit of still life in both fine art and general photography... it's not something we seem to see so much in the RF world though, all my still life has been done on (D)SLRs...
Cheers
Matt
Cheers
Matt
Last edited:
hitmanh
dum de dum de doo
and one more, messing about with a scanner...
V
varjag
Guest
My user picture is a still life. A single non-manipulated 13x18cm negative.
Obviously I like M.C. Escher too much.. *ahem*
Obviously I like M.C. Escher too much.. *ahem*
The history of art photography is filled with this stuff too... edward weston's peppers come to mind...
Rodchenko
Olympian
I'm not much good at still life, but I'm happy with a couple of recent shots. I was surprised I had to search so hard for a thread on the subject, though.
jwc57
Well-known
In last year's annual art show in my town, there wasn't one still life photograph that didn't fit the general nature category. They were all flowers, but that was probably due to the category being "macro and still life". Even then the flowers were more "close-up" than macro, but maybe I'm too strict in my definitions.
I've decided that this year I'll make a conscious effort to do a traditional still life and see how it does.
I've decided that this year I'll make a conscious effort to do a traditional still life and see how it does.
I'm a big fan of still life...but mostly street still life.
Takkun
Ian M.
I see a lot of in in contemporary photography. Not the classic, painterly sort, but more conceptual and project based.
Right now I'm studying large format, and a huge number of books on the subject are filled with dozens of over-the-top, cheesy stock/product still life images from the 70s and 80s. I wonder if that has anything to do with it falling out of vogue.
That said, and I know it's another category entirely, but I really like the latest cookbook and food aesthetics.
Right now I'm studying large format, and a huge number of books on the subject are filled with dozens of over-the-top, cheesy stock/product still life images from the 70s and 80s. I wonder if that has anything to do with it falling out of vogue.
That said, and I know it's another category entirely, but I really like the latest cookbook and food aesthetics.
RichC
Well-known
That's true. Far from being unpopular, still life in contemporary photography has had a resurgence: for example, see http://www.christopherschreck.com/stilllifenewwave.
Still life is what I specialise in (see my website - link in my signature). If anyone's near Maidstone in Kent, UK, I'm giving a talk on still life photography from the viewpoint of my practice and the intersection of art and science.
http://www.museum.maidstone.gov.uk/events/20145/540/
Steve M.
Veteran
I'm glad you brought this up. I really should do more of it. It usually requires low light (for my style), which means setting up a tripod, which I do not enjoy doing, but it is very rewarding when you do it right. You have to get the lighting and placement just so. To draw or paint one correctly is infinitely more difficult.
Georgio Morandi is one of my favorite artists, and after a brief foray into surrealism he painted mostly small still lifes of bottles for the rest of his life that are just beautiful. He once said that he was willing to teach etching, as that was a technique, but was unwilling to teach art because that could not be taught. The following article on him has some examples of his little bottles, and is worth reading if only to get a good laugh from the High Art Speak (art babble) that the Nu Yoik Times is so justly infamous for. Any art critic that uses the phrase "emotionally audacious" should be flogged within an inch of their lives with a #9 sable brush, then banished to Utah to write about the art scene there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/arts/design/19mora.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Georgio Morandi is one of my favorite artists, and after a brief foray into surrealism he painted mostly small still lifes of bottles for the rest of his life that are just beautiful. He once said that he was willing to teach etching, as that was a technique, but was unwilling to teach art because that could not be taught. The following article on him has some examples of his little bottles, and is worth reading if only to get a good laugh from the High Art Speak (art babble) that the Nu Yoik Times is so justly infamous for. Any art critic that uses the phrase "emotionally audacious" should be flogged within an inch of their lives with a #9 sable brush, then banished to Utah to write about the art scene there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/arts/design/19mora.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
zuiko85
Veteran
Never shot Still Life successfully. Mine always looked like they were shot with a 126 Instamatic. In my mind I always equate Still Life with large format view camera work.
Keith, I really like your bottom shot of the folder. Very atmospheric.
Keith, I really like your bottom shot of the folder. Very atmospheric.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
As already said by others still life is huge in commercial photography. Subareas have their own specialists who make a living of that, e.g. food photographers, watch photographers, architecture photographers, car photographers. Ming Thein has be mentioned several times in RF posts and is a watch specialist, Kirk Tuck, another photographer often mentioned here has also quite a bit of product pictures in his blog. Is it art? The latest menu from you local fast-food chain probably not, but stuff like Irving Penns' still life series probably yes...
GLF
GLF
John E Earley
Tuol Sleng S21-0174
Go to the Camera and Coffee thread. Lots of still lifes there.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Quite partial to still life. I have a series of photobooks on Flickr, but that is more copy work, another distinction in the genre.
This more classical:
And this one of raspberries ready for the freezer treatment:
This more classical:
And this one of raspberries ready for the freezer treatment:
