Its NOT All About the IMAGE!

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Where this discussion gets off point is when it is portrayed that viewers of the image (that's right, the image...not the camera and lens framed on the wall) and their appreciation of it are somehow hampered by not getting the production process and shooting specifics.

Sorry, but in my opinion, where this and all similar discussions get off the point is where someone crawls out from under a stone, adopts a heroic pose and starts telling everyone else that the big guy in the sky dropped a couple of tablets into their hands and they are now the school captain.

When someone tells me this, however much they dress it up, there is only one suitable response, at which I think you can all guess.

We are all different, there are no rules to photography, apart from certain laws in certain countries. It's supposed to be fun. You have a different view? That's great, share it with me but don't pretend you know more than me or anyone else. You like a certain person's work? That's good, but don't expect me to agree with you and don't get all hairy when I tell you, with a smile, that your views seem so much hogwash to me. This works both ways: I'm pretty sure that my views seem to many others like so much of the stuff left behind by male bovines and they're probably right.

And for the record, I think that Stephen's original post was spot on, and not only because his tag says it all.

 

[dct]

The initial discussion was started with the eye of the creator, photographer. Not the final viewer. But even then...

[...]Where this discussion gets off point is when it is portrayed that viewers of the image (that's right, the image...not the camera and lens framed on the wall) and their appreciation of it are somehow hampered by not getting the production process and shooting specifics. Other than Art Historians does anyone suffer from not knowing which canvas (or material) supplier Van Gogh used? Which paint and brush choices he made? Was he drinking Absynthe during the painting session or just drooling in a cup?[...]

...I cannot agree completely, being a visitor of an art exposition and not the creator of an image.
I'm not only interested in the look of the object I see. E.g. if I like an object the next step is to get some closer look at the material the sculpture was formed. If it is an amazing brush painting, then I want to know HOW it is done and WHICH brushes and colors were used.
Back to the image topic: If I see an outstanding photo I do not only enjoy the story I can read out of the image. And the artistic value. As viewer I want to know more. Because it is outstanding I question the film type, exposure, development and print details. Is this really that odd?

 

[Exdsc]

Wanting to know what gear a photographer had used to make an image is a curiosity not a prerequisite to admiring the work.

 

[steveclem]

Has anyone ever fretted over what sort of paintbrush DaVinci used?

 

[jesse1dog]

Some quite heroic stances made in this thread!

I look at quite a few threads in the forum.
I see a lot of images posted.
I see very few camera details.
I see even fewer stories of how the image came about.
Seems most guys here are prepared to post images but not tell stories.
Seems most posters consider their images to be of prime importance rather than the story behind them.
If certain posters want to tell the stories I'm very happy about that - I don't have to read them, that is my decision.
I agree with RichC, but it's a big world with space enough for all who don't.
We could have a thread 'Images and the Story Behind' - who will start it?

jesse

 

[kbg32]

I came. I saw. Does anyone care what shoes I wear as I leave this thread?

 

[jsrockit]

Apparently not, in my case.
Blurred pictures and struggle was all I saw. I had to guess the rest, he was there , as were the soldiers. Why would I need to know what camera or film etc he used?

You don't need to know... but I always thought the pictures were blurry from the action and nerves, not from a processing mishap.

 

[kermaier]

Depends how you define 'It's' I guess.

Yes, that's exactly what I was about to post:

If "It" is the artwork (or the viewer's experience of same), then it's all about the image, period. To quote Bob Nadler (via Ctein on Mike Johnston's blog) "Nobody cares how hard you worked."

If "It" is the photographer's experience, then every aspect of the artistic process, the craft of producing the artifact, and everything in between, is part of what "It's all about".

I.e., both camps are absolutely right -- just about completely different things. 🙂

Cheers,
::Ari

 

[RichC]

@ RichC - - -

It's a pity you didn't think to mention earlier that your interest in photography was SOLELY focussed on the ''art'' aspect of the medium.

Had you done so, the reason for your indifference to the ''nuts and bolts'' of photography and your somewhat cavalier dismissal of 35mm film would have been more readily understood....

Makes no difference. Pretty much whatever reason for taking a photograph revolves around the image, regardless of whether its purpose is for art or commerce.

All photographers need to know about equipment and technique. But making knowledge of the tools and settings used in the creation of an image visible by, say, mentioning them when showing an image is entirely superfluous and superficial. Do you look at sculptures, read literature, and so on and need to know how they were made to fully appreciate them? Of course not!

 

[steveclem]

No, but many of us know the story of what happened to the negatives right?

What happened then?

You don't need to know... but I always thought the pictures were blurry from the action and nerves, not from a processing mishap.

You've lost me here.
I'm captured by the image first and foremost, the mind dwells and supposes. An explanation may be necessary but a striking image stands on its own merit. JMHO.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I've always wondered about this i.e. how it is to look at photographs without the benefit of knowing how to make them... is it purely aesthetic or do people dig deeper? I would say it is purely aesthetic for the most part, but some people study art (history) without making art.

Yes but for those who are artists or photographers it shouldn't be just 'that's nice photo' If you go to an Exhibition surely you look at it from a perspective of deconstruction, that is you look at the method of image making is it mono, taken with wide angle, large format film, Instagram™

These things matter, to pretend they don't and all that matters is the final output and no thought of the process that created it is dishonest (IMO)

Those who don't think about the process probably (IMHO) aren't interested in photography, or at least don't think about it, for them the equipment doesn't matter because they just press the button and forget.

For those of us who want to develop (pun intended) a style, looking at others work and thinking about the whole image chain is a vital part of growing a style.
I know I've been influenced by photographers work and looked carefully at their process and the way they set up lighting, cameras etc.

 

[Photo_Smith]

What happened then?



You've lost me here.
I'm captured by the image first and foremost, the mind dwells and supposes. An explanation may be necessary but a striking image stands on its own merit. JMHO.

The Capa images look like they do because the processor was so exited he rushed the process and put too hot water in the mix thus practically melting the emulsion.
If you know this you can look at those images and have a better idea of why they look as they do.
Nothing is created immaculately in a vacuum, processing and cameras can make an image, in order to grow as a photographer you need to understand that.
Of course if you have no interest in that they are just grainy blurred shots–you should have more interest than that though.

 

[KM-25]

And I am going to disagree somewhat here. When I see a great photograph that stops me, makes me feel cold, hot, hungry or scared and I like it, I am responding to how the photographer chose to time it and frame it and then the light comes into play. This has nothing to do with a camera to me, it's purely a merit of talent and eye...

I might wonder how a particular image was arrived at, but more often than not, I do not make it a gear centric priority to find out.

Bottom line for me, if the image is good, I *might* want to find out how it was made. But if the image is average or boring, then none of what seems to matter to you matters to me...

Yes but for those who are artists or photographers it shouldn't be just 'that's nice photo' If you go to an Exhibition surely you look at it from a perspective of deconstruction, that is you look at the method of image making is it mono, taken with wide angle, large format film, Instagram™

These things matter, to pretend they don't and all that matters is the final output and no thought of the process that created it is dishonest (IMO)

Those who don't think about the process probably (IMHO) aren't interested in photography, or at least don't think about it, for them the equipment doesn't matter because they just press the button and forget.

For those of us who want to develop (pun intended) a style, looking at others work and thinking about the whole image chain is a vital part of growing a style.
I know I've been influenced by photographers work and looked carefully at their process and the way they set up lighting, cameras etc.

 

[jsrockit]

What happened then?
You've lost me here.
I'm captured by the image first and foremost, the mind dwells and supposes. An explanation may be necessary but a striking image stands on its own merit. JMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magnificent_Eleven

 

[jsrockit]

Yes but for those who are artists or photographers it shouldn't be just 'that's nice photo' If you go to an Exhibition surely you look at it from a perspective of deconstruction, that is you look at the method of image making is it mono, taken with wide angle, large format film, Instagram™

Right, I dig deeper into the photograph and that person's work if I find something that I like on any level. And being around photography for awhile, you kind of know how it was done. What I dont care about though is the cameras used for a specific image... when I'm viewing photos. I'm not saying I'm never interested in knowing people's gear and methods... I am. But when it comes down to looking at the image in a book or on the wall, I'm not wondering about cameras. I may be interested in technique, content, and framing though.

 

[froyd]

Was an image ever returned after a sale because the buyer found out that a certain camera/lens was used/or not used?


I really don't know, so I'm asking if anyone had such an experience.

I can marvel at the work of the old masters, some modern painters, many photographers, plus my favorite jazz musicians, Stephen. Somehow, I don't care how they mixed their paint, whether or not they used a red sable hair brush, what camera was used or what brand instrument they chose to perform on.

All the details you enumerate can be of interest to those of us working in the same field but to equate that to the appreciation of the actual art itself is a little specious.

Apparently not, in my case.
Blurred pictures and struggle was all I saw. I had to guess the rest, he was there , as were the soldiers. Why would I need to know what camera or film etc he used?

Wanting to know what gear a photographer had used to make an image is a curiosity not a prerequisite to admiring the work.

Has anyone ever fretted over what sort of paintbrush DaVinci used?

I came. I saw. Does anyone care what shoes I wear as I leave this thread?

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.

 

[x-ray]

The story can complement or enhance the image but in the end it's what the photo itself conveys. Ideally the image should stand on it's own and make a complete statement. I do however use text and audio recordings in some situations to complement the image. This is how I approach photography.

 

[jsrockit]

I do however use text and audio recordings in some situations to complement the image. This is how I approach photography.

Nothing wrong with that... or use a series of images to convey a point (not only a story).

 

[Photo_Smith]

And I am going to disagree somewhat here. When I see a great photograph that stops me, makes me feel cold, hot, hungry or scared and I like it, I am responding to how the photographer chose to time it and frame it and then the light comes into play. This has nothing to do with a camera to me, it's purely a merit of talent and eye...

I might wonder how a particular image was arrived at, but more often than not, I do not make it a gear centric priority to find out.

Bottom line for me, if the image is good, I *might* want to find out how it was made. But if the image is average or boring, then none of what seems to matter to you matters to me...

Surely though as a photographer some deconstruction must go on in your mind, just experience will tell you about the image.
It is rare to look at a photo and say 'that's a nice photo' and leave it there.
Of course there is no right answer and you are totally within your right to just look at the image and not think at all about how it was produced and the equipment that made it.

Kind of like listening to rock music and liking the sound of Eddie Cochran and if you just like 'the tune' that's fine.
If you are a guitarist and want to think about it further it might be interesting to know what kind of guitar makes that unique sound and buy a Gretsch.

YMMV as they say.
But as a photographer I want that knowledge, I need knowledge, I want the bigger picture, I'm just not content to say 'nice photo' I want that process to emulate and build into my own style.
Isn't that why some of us like rangefinders or Kodachrome, Tri-x or whatever?
Or dont we care as long as we 'like the photo'?
Bottom line if I see a great image I will always want to know more, lighting equipment and positioning, lens choice, framing and process all equally important...

 

[MartinL]

Is this a choice? Gear vs Image? My main annoyance is with photographers (on this site) who post photos and leave me guessing "why?" My failure to appreciate is undoubtedly my own fault or deficit. But this is a forum. So, you post? Then tell me why you bother. If you are enamored by the gear, give me a clue. Talk about it as a personal, felt matter. Don't just say "oh, well, you like it or not."

My principle criterion for any photograph is what happens to ME. But enough about me, I'd settle for knowing why THE PHOTOGRAPHER cares about the photograph or believes that I should care.

For example: Here's a pic I care about because I was there, at that location, just after having lunch at a street cart. I loved the lunch and the exhibit. My new-ish 90mm Elmarit allowed me to mark this personal event and the DOF pleases me as does the repetition of the poses--the hanging banner and Library lion.

Is it image or gear? Or neither.

http://www.kpntrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Library-Lunch-Hour.jpg