Stands photography on it's head here ?

[Bertram2]

the subject is irrelevant, as long as the tonal range is there. (Which is what Bertram's talking about, right?)

Right . "Subject does not matter " is a hair-rising idea for me as a photographer.
Whatever one could call it, photography is the wrong name for it.
Isn't the subject solely the thing which makes us press the button ?

bertram

 

[RML]

Right . "Subject does not matter " is a hair-rising idea for me as a photographer.
Whatever one could call it, photography is the wrong name for it.
Isn't the subject solely the thing which makes us press the button ?

Not necessarily. It is exactly the reason why there's such a variety of types of photography, and a ton that have no name. Why be restricted to just shooting street, or landscape, or red peppers if you can shoot anything. And there's beauty in everything, so that can't be a reason for not shooting it. Yes, we have our preferences but some people really don't care whether they shoot a pepper or a body. And if your that good that you can repeatedly shoot any object and still come up with a good and beautiful shot, why would that be hair raising? I can imagine that at least some pro shooters would do a lot if this type of work: shooting weddings, and landscape, and portrait, and advertising, and porn, and... well, anything that goes, really. And we would still call it photography. The object or subject really doesn't matter as there's an audience for every object or subject.

 

[Bertram2]

Why be restricted to just shooting street, or landscape, or red peppers if you can shoot anything..

No Remy, I am afraid you got me wrong. I said it already and I repeat it :

It's NOT about restrictions !
It's NOT about right or wrong to shoot X or Y

It's NOT about the subjects !.
I was talking about the REASON you have to chose a subject !

If you have no other reason for shooting something than taking it as a "tool" as he says, then something's gotten outta hand , hasn't it ?
Subject as a tool ? No, not for me.

Not the subjects themselves but the reasons for shooting a subject are concerned by this photog's Credo, which has far reaching consequences .I had to chew a while on it until I realized where this leads to.

bertram

 

[RML]

It's NOT about the subjects !.
I was talking about the REASON you have to chose a subject !

If you have no other reason for shooting something than taking it as a "tool" as he says, then something's gotten outta hand , hasn't it ?
Subject as a tool ? No, not for me.

Not the subjects themselves but the reasons for shooting a subject are concerned by this photog's Credo, which has far reaching consequences .I had to chew a while on it until I realized where this leads to.

bertram

Maybe I'm really thick but I really don't see the problem, Betram. 🙂

When I'm testing a lens, I also pick an object, any object!, and shoot it. I don't care what it is, as long as it gives me the info I'm after. The object has become a tool.

When I'm experimenting with light, or darkness, or texture, I don't really care what I shoot as long as it lets me do my experiment. The object has become a tool.

These are not made-up examples, either. I have used and will use objects as tools to get to a certain result. I'm not shooting like this all the time, of course, but I still think that the result matters. If this photog treats his objects as tools and comes up with prints that are appreciated, enjoyed, perhaps even bought by an audience, then so be it. No-one can ever judge someone's drives and reasons for his/her shooting. Besides, what people say and what people do or what really drives people, are completely different matters. No-one is so objective as to be able to analyse himself that rigourously.

BTW, where do you think this stance would/could lead?

 

[Bertram2]

BTW, where do you think this stance would/could lead?

If subjects are abitrary ? Chosen without a special reason , just for beeing tools ?
Related to our photographical work maybe this would lead to a disturbed or even completely broken communication with the environmental reality ?
To a kinda darkroom autism ? To losing contact to the original idea of a camera ?

Let me add this : That is all my personal opinion , I am not judging automatically anybody because I say I don't like his approach and understanding, correct ? There is an essential difference in saying something IS wrong or saying it is wrong in my opinion. Everybody has the right to express his personal opinion here I suppose and he can expect it to get respected in the same way he has to respect other peoples opinions too.

Unfortunatly this difference is often overseen in many web forum discussions tho it is a basic condition for a peaceful interchange of thoughts.

bertram

 

[Todd.Hanz]

http://photoquotes.com/ShowQuotes.asp?ID=22&Name=Winogrand_,_Garry&Type=Q

where legends come from 🙂

Todd

 

[sf]

It isn't the subject that makes the photograph. The photograph is not of the subject entirely, but more a perception of that subject. An interpretation, an observation, a communication of the subject through the eyes of the artist by way of the lens and film. It is not a descriptive image, but instead a statement or story told through lines and color and light and dark. When we look at a shot in the galleries, we don't often say, in regards to an image of a tree in a park "oh, the Pine tree, yes, I have pine trees in my yard, that looks like a ponderosa," we say something more like "I like the lighting and how the shadows splash across the lawn". The value of the photograph is held more in the artistic and technical aspects of the image than in the overt subject matter - that is what gives photography its impact. Even if those aspects are so subtle that we do not notice them, they make the shot profound. That is the essence of the craft - that it takes craftiness.

The only instances where subject matter eclipses artistic style are in news coverage, and certain types of portraiture. I wouldn't even call stock and product photography actual "photography" because they lack artistic or communicative intent. Some will argue that point on product photography - but when I say product, I mean like for catalogues. Shooting a Rollex for a rollex ad is different. Those are usually gorgeous, artistic shots.

I agree with the "member" about the actual value of the subject. A golf ball, for instance, has little inherent photographic value - little artistic value. The photographer gives the object value and beauty through the process of photographing it and that process includes printing.

This is another angle, it seems, on the issue of portraiture. A portrait is not really a portrait unless the photographer and methods of printing somehow communicate more than merely an image, or a simple record of light on celluloid. Perhaps that is not the best comparison, actually.

Winogrand's comment about photography being about how somehting looks photographed is relevant too. It is about how it looks or about what comes through in the image.

The ethereal nature of the sweetness is what keeps us going. If one could nail down the exact formula for the perfect photograph, or know exactly what makes an image powerful and beautiful, things would be very different, and the excitement factor would be considerably less. Knowing that the how and not the what of an image is most important, is as much as is necessary - or even possible to know. The process of growth in photography is the process of discovering those little things about the craft that help your images transcend mere mere description and extend their value into emotional, visceral communication.

That is my two cents. Or maybe a couple bucks even.

 

[ClayH]

My take on the whole thing is that one can categorize most photography into three types of photographic intent:
1) photography about what is in front of the camera - this genre tries to communicate to the viewer something about the world out there - photojournalism, some calendar art, National geographic type stuff - Salgado, Strand, Harvey, early Sally Mann, Jock Sturges et al are examplars.
2) photography about what is behind the camera - this genre tries to communicate something about the way the photographer thinks or the things they are thinking about and how they organize the world visually. Abstractions, still life, staged compositions, etc... Witkin, ParkeHarrison, Cindy Sherman, Eikoh Hosea, Mapplethorpe et al
3) photography about what is going on in the camera - this is reflexive, photography about photography that is examining the way the camera sees the world. Toy cameras, alt process types, and others fall into this category. Later Sally Mann, Ralph Gibson, some Cartier-Bresson, Mark Osterman, Man Ray, Moholy-Nagy, etc fall into this camp.

Naturally, this is not a perfect way to categorize photography, especially since 99% of photography is constrained to some degree or another by what is in front of the camera. But I think it serves as a neat way to divide photographers by intent or 'concern' (to use the artsy term).

 

[Finder]

But if the act of shooting is just a preparation for his darkroom process,
then I think the whole process of photography has gotten completely outta balance.

Two words - Jerry Uelsmann

 

[Finder]

To losing contact to the original idea of a camera ?

The "original" idea of the camera was to simply make a mechanical reproduction of "reality." It had no artistic or creative qualities. That I assume is NOT your position. Photography will be what it is regardless of what people say about it. It would also be false to assume a photographer can make "true" statements about what they do or believe their art to be.

As far as a subject being secondary, that is easy to understand. If I like to photograph that strikes me as beautiful, then the subject is simply the "vehicle" for the expression of beauty and it has no importance in and of itself. I then use my darkroom skills to bring out the aesthetic qualities of that.

The only thing I see is that your assumptions about photography does not fit his assumptions about photography. However, is there anything about his photographs you do not like?

 

[Doug]

We can look at this from the other side too... Examine a photograph: does its value depend on identifying the objects pictured? For some people the answer is yes; their appreciation for the picture depends on their reaction to the subject. If they don't care about that subject, they don't care about the photo. If they cannot identify the objects in the photo, it is confusing and they lose interest. It didn't fulfill a function of recording what something looks like.

And so we come around to the front side of this again, and I'd agree there are photos that are primarily recordings of what something looked like at that moment. And I respond to the subject, and my comments may be about the subject rather than the photo. Other photos are less subject centric... even a portrait can be this way, where the subject's identity is not important in appreciating the photo. Similarly, a still life or nude is a generalized subject where the species of fruit or flower or the personal identity is unimportant. An abstract doesn't usually have an identifyable subject/object, but is appreciated solely on aesthetic merits.

 

[Bertram2]

It isn't the subject that makes the photograph. The photograph is not of the subject entirely, but more a perception of that subject.

That's true of course, the first sentence in each photo book introduction .
But is this in your opinion enuff reason to say it "does not matter" ? I mean this statement is really radical, and thinking about the extreme consequences it implies I come to the conclusion, that for me it hasn't to do anything with photography.
This guy is a printer IMO and the neg is just a tool for him, as he says.

bertram

 

[Andy K]

Hi to all,

I read this in an interview of a featured member at APUG, a member which uses a 8X10 mostly for contact printing:

APUG:
What are your favorite types of subjects to photograph?

Member:
I tend not to think in terms of subject matter. My goal when making a photograph is to create something new and beautiful, the final print itself. In that way I view objects as tools in the process of making a picture more than subjects of the picture....

Objects as tools in the process of making a picture more than subjects of the picture 😕
In other words he says it's not THAT important what he shoots, it's getting beautiful anyway by the way he PRINTS it !?

I think that this is a widespread attitude among the Apug photogs, especially among the LG photogs and so I am not interested to start a discussion there., I know what most of the response will be like.

I'd be interested tho to hear some opinions here, in this much more pluralistic community.

For me this is sorry to say so, a kind of perverted photography , which stands on it's head . If subject does not matter why should I photograph it then ?? I mean if printing is the fun for somebody he should call himself a printer, but not a photographer.
Or is that a too simple minded POV ?

bertram
confused 😕

When you read something on a website and wish to discuss it, then discuss it on that website. To run away and start a thread on a second website, specifically in order to attack another photographer and the website you saw him on is childish at best, cowardly at worst.
If you wish to attack the APUG community, go to APUG and do it. Don't hide here on RFF.
At least on APUG there are no threads attacking RFF. There are no threads attacking RFF photographers. On APUG the most basic questions on photography will be answered courteously by many people willing to share their knowledge and experience. No-one on APUG will flame someone for asking those basic questions.
I am surprised a moderator has not been in this thread to comment on your behaviour Bertram. This thread reflects very badly on the RFF community.

 

[RML]

When you read something on a website and wish to discuss it, then discuss it on that website. To run away and start a thread on a second website, specifically in order to attack another photographer and the website you saw him on is childish at best, cowardly at worst.
If you wish to attack the APUG community, go to APUG and do it. Don't hide here on RFF.
At least on APUG there are no threads attacking RFF. There are no threads attacking RFF photographers. On APUG the most basic questions on photography will be answered courteously by many people willing to share their knowledge and experience. No-one on APUG will flame someone for asking those basic questions.
I am surprised a moderator has not been in this thread to comment on your behaviour Bertram. This thread reflects very badly on the RFF community.

Andy, I think you're misunderstanding Bertram. For me Bertrams' questions had nothing to do with attacking a photog but with trying to understand his statements. IMO, Betram can discuss that anywhere he likes, especially as his concerns cover the entire photographic world, including RFF.

Besides, I don't think this is a basic photographic question at all. Calling it that is belittleing Betram's concerns, which isn't very courteous at all. As to implying childishness or cowardness... I'll leave that issue to Joe.

 

[Bertram2]

The "original" idea of the camera was to simply make a mechanical reproduction of "reality." It had no artistic or creative qualities. That I assume is NOT your position.

Wrong. That IS what I meant with the "original idea of a camera". And the "reality"
on the photo will always be the photog's perception of the reality. Old story.Even if this reality is relative to the photog you can't take it outta the process of photographing by saying subjects do not matter.
If subject does not matter your "reality" does not matter either and what for do you photograph then ?

Photography will be what it is regardless of what people say about it. It would also be false to assume a photographer can make "true" statements about what they do or believe their art to be.
I don't know what "true" could mean here. The photog I quoted has explained very clearly and unambigous his Credo ad what his personal approach to photography is.
There is no room for interpretation and thinking about what he could have meant
is the wrong way to deal with his statement IMO. I have to assume that he ment what he said.Otherwise the whole discussion would not make sense.

As far as a subject being secondary, that is easy to understand. If I like to photograph that strikes me as beautiful, then the subject is simply the "vehicle" for the expression of beauty and it has no importance in and of itself.

Does that mean your choice of the "vehicle" is arbitrary and has no meaning ?
I suppose your answer is no. But exactly this would is the consequence of the "does not matter" statement.

The only thing I see is that your assumptions about photography does not fit his assumptions about photography.
Say "understanding" instead of "assumption" and I agree.

However, is there anything about his photographs you do not like?
Yes there is anything, and this concerns all other photogs with the same approach and understanding too.
I first found their photos often amazingly well done in the technical sense of the word, the 8X10 contacts have a unique quality and the printing is very well done too. After a while thoI felt increasingly bored and I could not identify the reason for it, excepted the fact that all the work is extremely static. Static is not necessarily boring tho .

First when I read the interview and understood his personal approach I realized that it is the arbitrary choice of the subject was shining through the knowledgable craft and that is what makes them lifeless and boring. Not all of them, btw, maybe he was just lucky in picking the right "tool" sometimes.

I've seen other portfolios of photogs who obviously have the same understanding of photography, mostly LF and MF shooters, who have managed to spoil their work completely with boredom, and the less fine the craft is the more brutal the boredom appears.The craft is just the icing .

Maybe it is one of the traps of the large format photography you can step in , overwhelmed by it's technical quality you put technical quality in the center of your interests and forget the rest? And maybe it is the LF too which lets people lean much too much to the side of darkoon and craft ?
Watching AA's photos or Weston's work I never feel bored , must have to do
with the fact that they both always have chosen very carefullly the subjects of "their reality" .

bertram

 

[RML]

Watching AA's photos or Weston's work I never feel bored , must have to do with the fact that they both always have chosen very carefullly the subjects of "their reality" .

Well, I have to disagree here a bit. I find AA's work mostly extremely boring, not finding it interesting in any way. Technically it's perfect, but interesting?

After having seen quite some of Weston's "abstract" work, I must say I find that quite boring too. Same goes for Imogen C's flowers. All these photos don't make me want to see it again and again as they have little or nothing that I am interested in.

I often get the feeling that it didn't matter much to them what they were shooting as long as the print was immaculate. They just happened to choose landscapes, peppers or flowers as their tools to take the shot and thus the print. You can't make a print of nothing (tho that's been done too, I know).

But that's just my opinion, of course. 🙂

 

[Andy K]

Andy, I think you're misunderstanding Bertram. For me Bertrams' questions had nothing to do with attacking a photog

See below:

I mean if printing is the fun for somebody he should call himself a printer, but not a photographer.

Besides, I don't think this is a basic photographic question at all. Calling it that is belittleing Betram's concerns, which isn't very courteous at all. As to implying childishness or cowardness... I'll leave that issue to Joe.

I was not saying Bertram's question was basic, I'm saying no-one on APUG would flame someone for asking a question.

Bertram clearly states in his post "I think that this is a widespread attitude among the Apug photogs, especially among the LG photogs and so I am not interested to start a discussion there., I know what most of the response will be like.
I'd be interested tho to hear some opinions here, in this much more pluralistic community."

If he doesn't ask the question on APUG, how does he know what the response will be? He is insinuating that he would be flamed if he asked on APUG.

"On this much more pluralistic community"

How does that work? On APUG there are photographers using, discussing and exchanging photographs from 35mm RF, SLR, ZF cameras, from toy, TLR, SLR medium format cameras, and from large format cameras all the way up to ULF.
On RFF people only discuss and use Rangefinder cameras. So please explain how RFF is a "much more pluralistic community".

Bertram's post was intended to be denigrating of the APUG community. I will repeat, to do so on a different forum is cowardly, especially when it would be a simple matter to PM Shawn on APUG and ask him directly.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Maybe the issue is the format, a good number of LF photogs use the zone system which is technical in nature, does that remove some of the feeling about the subject? To use the zone system alot of thought and calculation goes into the process before the shutter is tripped. Maybe this is where the photographer becomes disconnected with the subject and engrossed in the process.

I think to be fair, the photographer should be asked to clarify his statement, only he knows what he meant.

Todd

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

When you read something on a website and wish to discuss it, then discuss it on that website. To run away and start a thread on a second website, specifically in order to attack another photographer and the website you saw him on is childish at best, cowardly at worst.
If you wish to attack the APUG community, go to APUG and do it. Don't hide here on RFF.

When one quotes a very long quote, discuss that quote. No need to make the thread even longer by needlessly quoting something that didn't need quoting, specially something as long as that...imvho.

 

[Andy K]

When one quotes a very long quote, discuss that quote. No need to make the thread even longer by needlessly quoting something that didn't need quoting, specially something as long as that...imvho.

Perhaps you should read it again. I was discussing what Bertram said.