Its NOT All About the IMAGE!

[hendriphile]

The eye of the beholder

The eye of the beholder

As a nerdy kid I would ask, “How does Ansel Adams get his pictures to be so sharp and with such subtle tones, compared to me and my Satellite 127 (or whatever)? Most folks would just enjoy the image for what it is. I guess to some of us the choice of equipment (not necessarily the equipment per se) is of interest, beyond the image content itself.

On a heavier note: Would (or should) the viewer’s perspective upon seeing the famous WW2 image of the bomb exploding on the carrier’s deck, be affected by knowing that the photographer was killed by the explosion a split-second after pressing the shutter? Is context always superfluous?.

 

[KoNickon]

Amen to that.
A friend of mine once said to me :
"If you have to explain your image, forget about it."
He was right.

Exactly. No amount of BS spewed by the photographer (and lapped up by critics) can overcome whether the picture resonates with viewers. And likewise, viewers won't care what equipment was used by the photographer.

 

[doolittle]

No. A picture – any picture, whether a photograph, a painting or any other medium – is a two-way process: it’s all about the viewer and its author.

So what your saying is: It's not all about the image? 😉

I just think it's funny that you have a thread where there are many bombastic defences made, but the authors aren't referring to the same thing.

It's like an algebra equation where the protagonists are eloquently arguing about the answer to Y, based on their assumption of what the value of X is:

X + 1 = Y

Each can make a great case for Y being 2 or 3 or 42! Neither point of view is any more valid than the other.

'X is not all about the image'

where X = 'The enjoyment of photography' or 'The end result' or 'The artistic value of the photograph' or 'The historic relevance of the photograph is all about the artistic quality of the image' or 'The context of the photograph is irrelevant, it's all about the image' etc etc.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Neither point of view is any more valid than the other.

Someone with sense! What are you doing here?

😀

 

[FrankS]

For some (I imagine most pros) it is all about the image, for some (amateurs like myself) it is also about enjoyment of the process, and for some it could be all about the gear and process with no great importance given to the final image.

Whatever works for you is okay.

 

[RichC]

Taking the discussion further, I - and may others - think that you can be a photographer without even using a camera. For example, by collecting torn up and discarded snapshots found on the streets. See (and post in) my new RFF thread I’m a photographer ... what’s a camera?

To be a photographer, you don't need any knowledge of cameras or technique - you don't even need a camera! So, by that definition, photography MUST be all about the image, because that's all that's left!

Do you agree?

(Please post in my thread - ta!)

 

[jsrockit]

People who work with found images (not rephotographed photos) exclusively tend not to call themselves photographers though...

 

[hepcat]

So, then Stephen, presumably the game of golf is more about the feel of the club's grips?

Rich... presumably then in the game of golf, the clubs are irrelevant?

We all know from experience that both statements above are true... and at the same time both are false. What a dichotomy!

One of the fascinating things about human nature is that whenever people with a common interest in something gather, they presume that everyone MUST share their interests exactly...

The equipment is only important in that the photographer is competent to capture what he needs to. If he's comfortable with his equipment, he'll be proficient with it. If he's not, he'll be less-so. We're all looking for tips and hints about how to improve the kinds of images we make... but making fine arts images for a specific market are very different than making reportage images for news outlets, for example... and other than the technical aspect of using ISO/Shutter speed/aperture they don't share much in common. Two seater Cessna's are wonderful for recreational flying, and 747s are great for trans-oceanic flights. Both are airplanes. Both have similar basic designs, but each is designed for a very different purpose. A 747's pilot and a Cessna 152's pilot both fly, but will report VERY different experiences.

So it is for photographers. We all understand the same basic physics of capturing light; past that the experiences are very divergent and it's folly to try to explain my experiences in terms of someone else's. What works for me will likely only work for other folks who are doing what I'm doing. I may be able to steal tips from folks in other genres of photography, but I certainly can't adopt their experience wholesale... yet these kinds of discussions seem to expect that we do just that.

There is much to be learned from one another... but our views must be seen and understood in the context that we have framed ourselves in.

 

[doolittle]

Taking the discussion further, I - and may others - think that you can be a photographer without even using a camera. For example, by collecting torn up and discarded snapshots found on the streets. See (and post in) my new RFF thread I’m a photographer ... what’s a camera?

To be a photographer, you don't need any knowledge of cameras or technique - you don't even need a camera! So, by that definition, photography MUST be all about the image, because that's all that's left!

Do you agree?

(Please post in my thread - ta!)

You're having a laugh mate! What ever about arguing about what constitutes photography, where there is some leeway with its definition. The meaning of photographer is pretty much precisely defined. Check a dictionary!

-That Van Gogh was a great photographer, he made some great images.

-That three year old is a photographer, he sticks photographs of horses and sheep and makes a lovely collage.

-I'm a great photographer, I take pictures of cats from the Internet and add -funny slogans.

 

[kbg32]

I think you are missing the point if you think anyone is claiming that knowing the technical details is essential to art appreciation. Simply, some people, like Stephen, clearly appreciate a work more when they have context. And it seems to be particularly true, for them, if it is a personal work.

But you ARE saying it is "essential" - "Simply, some people, like Stephen, clearly appreciate a work more when they have context. And it seems to be particularly true, for them, if it is a personal work"