Surreal Photography

[hipsterdufus]

Okay, I know that in the rangefinder world, photojournalism is the holy grail amongst all of the other "lesser" types of photography. While I do love some good street photography, I've become fascinated by alternative processes and more surreal pictures lately.

For inspiration, I've been revisiting Man Ray and some of the French surrealist photographers. Also, I've been thinking about scratching/burning/generally molesting my negatives.

So, I'm just wondering if there are any like-minded souls in this wonderful forum. What photographers are inspiring you at the moment? What methods are you using to achieve the effects that you are going for?

 

[retnull]

This is a micro-trend in contemporary fine art photography. Look at Marcus Amm, Marco Breuer, Tamar Halpern

 

[Roger Hicks]

Anyone who thinks that photography (or any journalism) can be 'objective' either hasn't done it, or is screwed down by someone with their own corporate agenda.

The rest of photography is even more up for grabs.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Charlie Lemay]

I've been doing a surrealistic series since 1995. When I showed the work ion Arles in 2008 at the portfolio review, the reactions ranged from awe to "what makes you think this is photography?" Roger and Frances were very supportive. Most were not. The idea that photography has to be only one thing is essentially fundamentalist. There have been over 150 processes since photography's inception, and thousands of approaches to subject matter. Vive la diferance!

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've been doing a surrealistic series since 1995. When I showed the work in Arles in 2008 at the portfolio review, the reactions ranged from awe to "what makes you think this is photography?" Roger and Frances were very supportive. Most were not. The idea that photography has to be only one thing is essentially fundamentalist. There have been over 150 processes since photography's inception, and thousands of approaches to subject matter. Vive la diferance!

Dear Charlie,

And still are!

Your point about 'fundamentalism' is, well, fundamental. Too many people feel themselves able to say, "This is photography" (and therefore, by extension, "This isn't.")

Art either works or it doesn't -- and of course it may work fully or partially, for some and not for others.

We had not realized that you had met with such adverse reactions from some. Obviously we like some of your work more than other parts, but the main things that stop us actually spending money on your work are (a) lack of wall space and (b) lack of funds. The two are quite common among practising artists, I fear. But we have your work on our walls!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Charlie Lemay]

Thanks Roger.

 

[AJShepherd]

I had a little play at half-remembered solarisation recently. Shot some snaps I didn't mind screwing up on the Holga, then halfway through development I unscrewed the lid of the tank and pulled out the reel for a few seconds before putting it back in and finishing off.
hit and miss, mostly miss, but a few weird shots:-

dark buildings, light spire by Antony J Shepherd, on Flickr
So why are the buildings in front apparently in negative, while the spire in the background is in positive? That just doesn't make any sense!


Commuters by Antony J Shepherd, on Flickr
Whoaaaa dude!

 

[emraphoto]

very, very cool AJ

 

[lynnb]

 

[Sparrow]

... there was a wonderfully surreal thread on the forum a few months back, despite having surrealism in the title people flooded it with abstract photos and ignored every attempt to explain what surrealism actually was for weeks

 

[lynnb]

yes, I was looking for that thread!

 

[daveleo]

I remember that thread, and, yeh, it did go astray.
Same thing happened in another forum - people toss "abstract" and "surreal" in the same box.
Hope this old thread stays on topic.

 

[daveleo]

I'll play (again) . . .
.

 

[p.giannakis]

 

[rhl-oregon]

This was painstaking (but fun) post-process brushwork in order to bring a surreal element to a negative where the landscape was well-exposed, but the bypassers were not as well exposed but also OOF. So I made them into Silver Beings.

Zeiss Ikonta 520

I've played with similar postprocessing overexposure/underexposure of solitary or selected people in otherwise normally exposed negatives, so that they glow or become ninja-like blurs in an ordinary cityscape. In my case, this has always been about creating interest (if only for myself) in the developed scans of negatives where the human figures are somehow botched. Oddly ( it seems to me), I haven't done so with digital-native files.

An RFFer who posts always interesting multiple exposures in the gallery is Photony_Texas.

 

[MrFujicaman]

Go look at Ralph Gibson's work.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Jerry Uelsmann is probably the most famous surrealist photographer today. He's been doing it for 40+ years.

 

[robert blu]

Jerry Uelsmann is probably the most famous surrealist photographer today. He's been doing it for 40+ years.

A couple of years ago I visited an exhibition of his work and it was really surprising! Included a video showing also his darkroom with 6 enlargers!
robert

PS: Jerry's website here.

 

[fireblade]

 

[Iestrada]

I really like this guy's brand of surrealism:

http://www.thatslife.in/swapnil-jedhe