mdarnton
Well-known
IF this is art, THEN they're allegorical. Or perhaps simply symbolic. Or Freudian. If it's not art, then they're big cement balls. On the other hand, this could be a purely abstract piece that unintentionally resembles something familiar to us; a kind of inkblot test. Kittens; I see kittens. Also a cloud that looks like blasphemy. It's deep!
Hsg
who dares wins
Beethoven is the only musician with the distinction that he was not an entertainer, he made the music and then the audience had to learn to appreciate his creation.
Even though Stanley Kubrick tried to subvert the 9th symphony in A Clockwork Orange, he failed.
Hsg
who dares wins
OK, so I might just be having fun whilst expressing myself, or it might be art, or street photography or even a comment on this thread.
What do the experts think?
Regards, David
When I look at this image and see that car coming towards me, my first instinct is to step aside... That means leaving the picture without finding anything of interest in it.
Hsg
who dares wins
I had to look up that name on Wikipedia.
To OP: Here is a book that might interest you: The Lens: A Practical Guide for the Creative Photographer
35photo
Well-known
OK, so I might just be having fun whilst expressing myself, or it might be art, or street photography or even a comment on this thread.
What do the experts think?
Regards, David
No really seeing anything of interest.. Look harder
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Hsg, I think you may have misunderstood my intent in starting this thread. I'm not interested in advice in lens selection, nor am I particularly interested in your perception of how I should "clear my mind" in order to renew my "spark."
I AM interested, however, in understanding how other photographers who use this equipment use their shooting process in determining how THEY make THEIR focal length choices.
And honestly, if being creative and/or expressive is as painful for you as you've indicated, perhaps it's time for you to find another avocation (or vocation as it may be.) In the forty-plus years I've been involved in photography as a vocation, I can honestly say that it's been enjoyable, a challenging creative outlet, and the only pain I've experienced has been when I carried more gear than was comfortable. I'm sorry that engaging in photography has been such an apparently excruciating ordeal for you.
Hsg
who dares wins
I replied to your following question to my first post in this thread:
And that post generated responses that I had to reply to.
I did not misunderstand the original topic.
Anyway, back to the topic.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
About that photo, as you can see the road narrows and the pavement is wide and so many cars parked there that they put all those giant balls there to stop them. I took the picture as proof that they often spend tax payers money on a load of balls... So I reckon it's allegorical.
BTW, this narrow twisting street was the A6 until a while ago but that will mean nothing unless you live in the UK.
For photographers living in the North a few decades ago the man in the red sweater should mean something.
Regards, David
About that photo, as you can see the road narrows and the pavement is wide and so many cars parked there that they put all those giant balls there to stop them. I took the picture as proof that they often spend tax payers money on a load of balls... So I reckon it's allegorical.
BTW, this narrow twisting street was the A6 until a while ago but that will mean nothing unless you live in the UK.
For photographers living in the North a few decades ago the man in the red sweater should mean something.
Regards, David
Hsg
who dares wins
I don't wish to derail this thread any further but I have to say that its creativity that makes my photography life difficult and that topic requires its own thread.
ferider
Veteran
Don't mean to patronize, HSG, and this is indeed completely off topic:
Maybe existentialism is an age thing for some of us. I do remember creativity (and not in photography, mind you) being much more painful, but these days it's less important for me, life is certainly beautiful and life-worthy being more fatalistic, and one can still give to others just by being there.
Like going on a bike ride in a few minutes. The coast will be beautiful. Cann't wait. Afterwards, I'll call my parents who live half a world away.
Merry Christmas.
Roland.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Nor was I trying to be glib or dismissive, and I think that perhaps starting a thread about what brings creativity would be fascinating. Just recognize that process is very different for every photographer and advice that works for you may seem absolutely insane to someone else. And neither is "wrong" merely different.
ferider
Veteran
Back from the ride, around a hundred clicks. 35mm lens (X100s).
Life is good.
Life is good.
lukitas
second hand noob
Having read a few artists biographies, the notion of 'the suffering artist' leaves me unconvinced. It's a version of the 'compliment by lamentation' : 'She's a nice person - Oh yes, she suffered so much'. A much-loved trope in hagiography. Inverted, it becomes the 'Accusation of enjoyment'.
Of course many artists suffered much, but so did most people. It is beside the question, to evaluate art according to the suffering involved in the making of it. The Piéta is not tragic because Michelangelo suffered much, but because it was very well made, by a man who happened to know suffering, as most of us do.
An even bigger bugbear is the notion of 'creativity'. Too much importance is given to this.
It is a capacity that is as widespread as the ability to smile : everyone is creative in some way or another. Humans are curious, and like to tinker and try out stuff. Making bad puns is creative. There is nothing special about being creative : it's only trying something a little different.
What is common to great artists is that they were all obsessive about it. A compulsion to go on doing this thing. Wether they were having fun or not has little importance, even though quite often, one finds artists witnessing a profound sense of enjoyment in the making of their art : I will but cite David Hockney, who states that he feels thirty years younger while painting.
In the end, the artist is but marginally relevant to the enjoyment of the art. It doesn't matter, that Spike Milligan was bi-polar, and devastated by his war experience : what matters is the brilliance of his jokes.
Cheers
Of course many artists suffered much, but so did most people. It is beside the question, to evaluate art according to the suffering involved in the making of it. The Piéta is not tragic because Michelangelo suffered much, but because it was very well made, by a man who happened to know suffering, as most of us do.
An even bigger bugbear is the notion of 'creativity'. Too much importance is given to this.
It is a capacity that is as widespread as the ability to smile : everyone is creative in some way or another. Humans are curious, and like to tinker and try out stuff. Making bad puns is creative. There is nothing special about being creative : it's only trying something a little different.
What is common to great artists is that they were all obsessive about it. A compulsion to go on doing this thing. Wether they were having fun or not has little importance, even though quite often, one finds artists witnessing a profound sense of enjoyment in the making of their art : I will but cite David Hockney, who states that he feels thirty years younger while painting.
In the end, the artist is but marginally relevant to the enjoyment of the art. It doesn't matter, that Spike Milligan was bi-polar, and devastated by his war experience : what matters is the brilliance of his jokes.
Cheers
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Getting back to lens selection and the reasons for selecting specific focal lengths, it's a fairly complex, yet straightforward process that has evolved for me over the years.
As I think about why I select a specific lens for a specific task, generally I think about the distances at which I'll be shooting, and then how I'll likely be framing. Last is how much DOF I want for separating the subject from the background. If I'm just out wandering around, I'll generally take a wide-normal- short tele combo with me and make my lens decision based on those criteria. Whether they're "light" smaller-aperture lenses (for size and weight considerations,) large aperture lenses, or a combination of large and small aperture lenses depends on the shooting conditions I think I may encounter.
Today, for example, I'm going to an art museum. I'll be shooting indoors without flash at short distance, so I'll be taking a 35mm f/1.2, 50mm f/2 and 75mm f/1.8. DOF separation won't be as important today as low-light hand-held shooting.
I seldom take a single lens out as it's just too limiting; and frankly there was a time (circa1970) when a single 50mm Yashica M42 screw mount f/2 lens was all I had and could afford. I didn't find the "simplicity" liberating, it was confining and frustrating. My next acquisitions were a 35mm f/3.5 and then a 135 mm f/3.5 Pentax mount with preset aperture rings and I was thrilled to have them. In those days a lens with a larger aperture or even an automatic diaphragm was built of unobtanium.
As I think about why I select a specific lens for a specific task, generally I think about the distances at which I'll be shooting, and then how I'll likely be framing. Last is how much DOF I want for separating the subject from the background. If I'm just out wandering around, I'll generally take a wide-normal- short tele combo with me and make my lens decision based on those criteria. Whether they're "light" smaller-aperture lenses (for size and weight considerations,) large aperture lenses, or a combination of large and small aperture lenses depends on the shooting conditions I think I may encounter.
Today, for example, I'm going to an art museum. I'll be shooting indoors without flash at short distance, so I'll be taking a 35mm f/1.2, 50mm f/2 and 75mm f/1.8. DOF separation won't be as important today as low-light hand-held shooting.
I seldom take a single lens out as it's just too limiting; and frankly there was a time (circa1970) when a single 50mm Yashica M42 screw mount f/2 lens was all I had and could afford. I didn't find the "simplicity" liberating, it was confining and frustrating. My next acquisitions were a 35mm f/3.5 and then a 135 mm f/3.5 Pentax mount with preset aperture rings and I was thrilled to have them. In those days a lens with a larger aperture or even an automatic diaphragm was built of unobtanium.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This is fundamental.
It's not what you choose to do. It's what you have to do, if you are to be faithful to yourself. Indeed, it's what you have to do if you aren't to go any more insane than you already are.
I sometimes try to explain to mildly interested hobbyists who believe they are serious about photography that for decades I've been at least 10x more committed to it than they are -- and that the vast majority of the really successful photographers I've met are at least 10x more committed than I am. The actual figures might well be 100x in each case instead of 10x.
They think I'm bullsh1tting about the 10-100x, and are completely unable to understand the 100x - 10,000x.
Cheers,
R.
Penceler
Established
+1 on the 40 - both on SLR (Voigt) and Fuji. With the ZI I'm more traditional at 28 & 50.
Hsg
who dares wins
Being committed to photography implies that photography needs the photographer rather than the photographer needing photography.
If I were to cease any photography-related activity by this hour, nothing is either lost or gained by 'photography', because there are millions of other photographers.
When HCB put down his camera, he read the writing on the wall that he had nothing more to show photographically. And one must admire his courage that he did that, while most other photographers keep going and going even though they have nothing new or interesting to show... Fred Herzog is famous for photos he took in the 50s while no one knows if he takes any interesting photos today but his usually on the streets still taking photos. What about Fred Herzog minus Kodachrome look and 50s nostalgia? Nobody knows.
One of the points that I made earlier, which derailed this thread a bit was that one should wait for the spark and then move instead of trying to make the spark happen by buying various lenses and by getting entangled in the technical aspects of photography.
I need photography because I can't draw/paint, write, or play a musical instrument, so the only medium that gives an outlet to my 'creative impulse' is photography. I'm lucky if I find a voice through photography, photography does not need me.
Hsg
who dares wins
One can approach the question of creativity by a different route. What is NOT creativity?
I'd say productivity is not creativity.
And related to this topic, the lens that makes one the most productive is not usually the lens that enables one to to capture something new or interesting.
Hsg
who dares wins
You're not being patronizing. I can understand how annoying the topic of creativity can be, because people dislike difficulty, complexity and effort with no reward. And yet, most artistic endeavors are effort with no reward.
Merry Christmas and happy holidays.
I'd say as long as the topic is moving towards an interesting direction, a few off topic points are ok, but of course it depends on the OP, in this case you. If you feel your objective with this thread is jeopardized then please make it clear.