Sparrow
Veteran
Fair point, I suppose we do the chrome vs. black or canvas vs. ballistic-nylon thing better anyway
Sickly out of focus backgrounds
- Thread starter Roger Hicks
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 353
- Views 37K
Fair point, I suppose we do the chrome vs. black or canvas vs. ballistic-nylon thing better anyway
jsrockit
Moderator
Gimmicky I can understand... but what is "serious photography?" Can it be defined?
alistair.o
Well-known
Oh yes it can; every time I am asked by 'she who must be obeyed' why I need another item of photographic equipment? I say "So that I can get into more serious photography (emphasised in quiet but firm tones)" :angel:
jsrockit
Moderator
I'm serious about my mailboxes, garbage cans, and cats.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Gabriel,
Threads can and should wander. It's part of the pleasure of this forum.
It's just the people who can't be bothered to read anyone else's posts, and then weigh in with straw man arguments, that piss me off. Especially when their lackwit views are expressed in more or less extremist terms, often with personal insults.
Fortunately, there's been very little of that on this particular thread. Lack of attention, misreading: well, that happens to us all. But deliberate unpleasantness, with no apology afterwards, is another matter.
Cheers,
R.
F
former member
Guest
For engineering, "Serious Photography" is technical in nature and is done to document an object, experiment or invention. But I can still have fun with it. I use a Tektronix C4 scope camera just because I like it. It has an ~F4 lens and is designed for photographing flat surfaces.
Last edited by a moderator:
ZeissFan
Veteran
I've seen some examples in which there are two people in the photo and only one is in focus. This is visually disconcerting.
I think this focus on bokeh goes too far too many times.
And not only that, to shoot everything wide open all of the time gives photos that
"me too" look that is simply boring.
I think this focus on bokeh goes too far too many times.
And not only that, to shoot everything wide open all of the time gives photos that
"me too" look that is simply boring.
peterm1
Veteran
I think I agree with this. At one level I suppose its natural for people who are learning a new craft to "ape" existing styles to see if they suit them.
I know I see that a lot here - people unthnkingly applying the unspoken rule that rangefinders must always be used to capture "the decisive moment" a la HCB for example. Combined of course, with the "rule" that such photos have to be grainy, captured in the moment, shot in contrasty black and white and be sharp from front to back.
"Because thats the way its DONE!!!"
Unfortunately this is a kind of learning stage that most people don't manage to progress beyond to find their own style.
Same I suppose with the "narrow DOF / lovely bokeh " adherents. Of course the normal use of OOF areas is to isolate the main image and to concentrate attention on it. As with portraits where you generally do not want the background intruding (as with a telephone pole growing out of someones head, which sometimes occurs when eveything is in focus.) This is not to say shallow DOF cannot be used sometimes just because it looks right.
For myself, I try to develop my own style that I adapt to the specific needs of a specific image. Isn't this what we all should be doing to become truly free? To become artists in other words.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
It's photography that isn't laughing? Or perhaps photography that has no smile on it.
I wonder if there's an aperture (and focal length) range for that. It would become the battle of the wide-angleists vs. the sports photographers vs. the fast lenses vs. the slow lenses vs. the serious vs. the funny vs. the clowns vs. the grouchy.
Then there's the Winograndists vs. the Daguerreoists vs. HCBists vs. Warholists vs. [insert fundamentalist group's idol here]... 🙄
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Amen and Amon-Ra.
There is a higher percentage of people who can only do one thing (whether it's well or not) and find most anything outside that as boring or over-done: exclusivists. B&W vs. color; square format vs. not square; Polaroid vs. not Polaroid; flowers vs. not flowers...and so on and so forth.
Everything is overdone. Even black canvases.
GSNfan
Well-known
The answer is not as tricky as you thought. In fact its very simple.
Serious photography deals with issues that affect people's lives and their way of thinking.
In case you're still unsure then have look at The Americans by Robert Frank, Sahel by Salgado and works of someone like Eugene Richards...
GSNfan
Well-known
Serious photography is taken seriously by an audience of mainly competent and accomplished photographers.
In other words if you're asked to join Magnum, it means your work is serious.
btgc
Veteran
I've heard about photog loosing his unique vison after joining Magnum. This was said by his photographic mentor.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
So, photography as Art is not serious photography, as "Art" itself doesn't necessarily deal with issues that affect people's lives and their way of thinking.
Or, I can decide if a Salgado's work is not serious to me because it doesn't deal with any issues that affect my life or doesn't affect my way of thinking. That would be not only self-centered and conceited of me, but also myopic.
I thought "serious photography" (or anything else that's "serious" in a discipline) became "serious" due to some sort of agreement between the intent of the photographer and the perception of the viewer. Just like in "Art".
I agree with Inigo Montoya.
GSNfan
Well-known
Photography is not painting, its factual, and there is a reason why in your passport you have a photo to identify who you're and not a painting.
Salgado's work might not be about 'your' life but in his book Sahel he presents almost an apocalyptic vision of human life during famine and if that does not move you, its not Salgado's fault but if does that the 'seriousness' of his work has done its job.
GSNfan
Well-known
If that's what you think it means you have really misunderstood this discussion.
GSNfan
Well-known
I'm not a magnum member so I cannot comment. But Magnum is still one place where the photography that most of us love is still celebrated and kept alive.
Sparrow
Veteran
Serious ...
... less serious ...
... sorry about the bokeh, sometimes I just can't help myself 😉
... less serious ...
... sorry about the bokeh, sometimes I just can't help myself 😉
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
While all horses are four-legged creatures (at least the ones that we generally think of as horses), not all four-legged creatures are horses. Same follows with "Art", photography, painting, architecture, music, etc.
Your original definition of "seriousness" in photography didn't include "the ability to move me/others".
The point is, that "serious photography" is as subjective a term as, say, "moving photography".
GSNfan
Well-known
Straw man fallacy is a little too crude for me to even feel slightly inclined to indulge it.
Maybe you should stripe down the fluff and 'cuteness factor' from your posts and make a concise point of what exactly you're trying to say, only then I should be able to offer a relevant answer.
Similar threads
