Let's talk making great images.

[Michael Slade]

There is something about effort that needs to be remembered...I will use an example from my own life...in fact, one that I am in the middle of printing while we speak.

In October I was asked to contribute a piece to an auction at the end of this month (January '10). I pre-visualized the scene and went out to two different locations to photograph. I am shooting with an 11x14 view camera and making a triptych of a scene that I have photographed before. The first shot I made was not successful for me visually and when the negatives were processed there were some technical issues that made it less than satisfactory for me. The second shot I made required an 8-hour day to go and expose three negatives...a total of about 90 minutes of shooting time.

To process the film takes about 50 minutes per sheet...so we're in this now an additional 6+ hours for processing.

To print these images in platinum/palladium requires a lot of time, hand-made materials and quite a bit of experimentation. Additionally I am trying to match in tonality, contrast and density three slightly different negatives (the time from 1st to 3rd exposure was about 12 minutes and the light had changed somewhat from frame to frame...).

Tonight is my 6th printing session and each session usually lasts about 3-4 hours. In addition to the printing, there is all of the prep-work including hand-tearing each sheet of paper to size.

I figure I'm probably into this project about 40 hours as of tonight. I still have to get the piece framed and delivered to the auction, but most of the hard work will be done as of tonight.

This is just one of many difficult things about photography. Not everyone will choose to do the same processes and techniques that I am doing now, but everyone that chooses to excel in their own realm of photography puts in countless hours *practicing*.

Yes, people actually PRACTICE their photography. Practice the camera. Practice the tripod. Practice focusing and finding the right exposure. Practice holding it still w/out a tripod. Practice all of the mechanics that can and will trip you up when you are out shooting. They need to become second-nature. If they are not you will make mistakes when the light is fleeting and you do not have time for second-guessing.

If you are not willing to practice even the most mundane tasks about your photography it will never go beyond a hobby and approach the realm of making art.

Now, this does not mean that a lot of effort will guarantee an amazing image...but it helps. A good dash of old-fashioned luck is also nice to have from time to time.

If this piece attains the realm of 'art', only time will tell. I'll know in about 50 years. The shown image is made up of some initial tests...

 

[Lost Canadian]

Ike, first, the exclamation marks and suggestion that I'm trying to do anything to anyone here suggests you're angry. I simply disagreed wth the context of one of your points. Nothing more, and certainly no need for hostility. This is a discussion, which up until your post above was going pretty good with thoughful posts being made by everyone including yourself. Onto questions you asked of me.

How can any one individual judge an image as being irrelevant to "everyone else"?

I didn't. My suggestion is that many photos people take are seen as irrelevant, or perhaps better said, forgetable, to many others due to a lack of consideration.

Do you think Arbus gave a rip about "light" when she photographed freaks in her spare time, beyond what was necessary to make a good-enough exposure of her subjects?

Yes.

Did Henri stop to consider how light was entering the camera when he snapped people from waist height as they were crossing the street?

Without question.

Is Jackson Pollock's "#5" not a complicated "mess"?

I'd say the very opposite, simply consider his approach.

Did Stieglitz agonize about the artistic merit of his photographs of Georgia O'Keefe?

I don't know. Did he?

Have you not attempted to strap your own "rules" onto the masses here, after promoting the idea that we should all forget about them?

My rules? I didn't think I was laying down matter of fact rules, I'm simply sharing my ideas. Take them or leave them, I don't really care. I'm simply here to share and learn with others interested in medium. I don't expect anyone to take what I say as gospel, see my last post.

Photography is a much broader subject than making pretty pictures out of clouds and landscapes!

I don't recall ever saying that it is a narrowly scoped field.

If you want to make "great" images, as the title of your thread suggests discussing, I would argue that you need to stop relying so heavily on your eyeballs - the only way to "see" is with your soul.

Fair comment. I actually believe really great photography requires both an intimate understanding of subject and interpretive tools. They go hand in hand in my mind.

 

[Lost Canadian]

If this piece attains the realm of 'art', only time will tell. I'll know in about 50 years. The shown image is made up of some initial tests...

No can see. I'm getting the big red x.

 

[Lost Canadian]

In these cases the light is just an adjective to the subject not the subject itself.

Totally, and great adjectives can make great stories. Just ask Ernest Hemingway.

 

[Overland Hadley]

Never quit second guessing or having an opinion. I am never harsher on my students than when they say "I handed this in because I thought you would like it". They are guaranteed to fail when they do so.

Good. I am sick of hearing art students say they did something because they thought that's what the teacher would like.

Oh wait, am I going to fail because I am not questioning this?

 

[Overland Hadley]

. My growing feeling as I continue to learn is that by suggesting there are rules that need to be first learned implies that photography is science not art, assumed to be analytical and thus reductive.

Photography is an interesting mixture of both science and art.

 

[Overland Hadley]

If you want to make "great" images, as the title of your thread suggests discussing, I would argue that you need to stop relying so heavily on your eyeballs - the only way to "see" is with your soul.

Yes.

But you need to have the technical proficiency to make a photograph of what your soul sees. Back to the mixture of science and art.

 

[Overland Hadley]

The photograph in my head could not exist in the physical world. It was at this moment that I wished I could paint.

Sometimes the most powerful photograph is not the one that you print, but the one that stays in your mind. The image in your mind that will affect the way you see and the way you work from that point in time forward.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Photography is an interesting mixture of both science and art.

Now that I think about it, I suppose you are right. Hmmm, so where do you think science ends and art takes over? I pretty sure I'm on board with this line of thinking but in my mind I feel there needs to be some separation. Hmmm.

 

[photoman]

Now that I think about it, I suppose you are right. Hmmm, so where do you think science ends and art takes over? I pretty sure I'm on board with this line of thinking but in my mind I feel there needs to be some separation. Hmmm.

It Depends.

It is different for each photographer as well as each viewer. It is not black and white but rather a million shades of gray.

 

[Michael Slade]

Now that I think about it, I suppose you are right. Hmmm, so where do you think science ends and art takes over?

For me there is no barrier. The art influences the technology and the technology influences the art. The science is integral to the creation of the art, for without the technology we cannot make photographs. We are bound by the tools we choose to express our creativity with. If you are shooting digitally, you are bound to the electron. If you are shooting film, you are bound to silver-halide crystals or light sensitive dyes. There is no form of photography that is not intrinsically connected to technology. The trick is to be able to strike a balance.

There are some that are obsessed with technology to the point that it blinds their creative vision. There are some that are obsessed with their vision to the point that they exclude any consideration to craft. There are few that can succeed when they ignore half of this equation.

In my curriculum we strive to strike a healthy balance between craft and vision. It is repeatedly stated to students and parents, that my goal is not to turn out technicians. My goal is to turn out students that can solve their own problems in regard to expressing their creative voice. There is technology involved, but it does not drive the class or the student's learning. Their vision should drive everything else in their experience, with the technology making possible the expression of that vision.

 

[Overland Hadley]

Now that I think about it, I suppose you are right. Hmmm, so where do you think science ends and art takes over? I pretty sure I'm on board with this line of thinking but in my mind I feel there needs to be some separation. Hmmm.

It is a grey area.

It is not black and white but rather a million shades of gray.

 

[Lost Canadian]

It Depends.

It is different for each photographer as well as each viewer. It is not black and white but rather a million shades of gray.

The more I think about it however the more I think there is a definitive separation though. The science simply being the tools that we choose and the art being the creativity the individual brings to the table. Where I see a direct line I suppose is in the constraints we place on ourselves with the choice of tools that we use. That would be one area where I would say we are governed or ruled by the imposed limits of the medium. Within those defined walls however I think we are free to use whatever means or elements we have at our disposal to create something that is distinctly ours.

Good talk guys, I'm really enjoying this.

 

[Lost Canadian]

For me there is no barrier. The art influences the technology and the technology influences the art. The science is integral to the creation of the art, for without the technology we cannot make photographs. We are bound by the tools we choose to express our creativity with. If you are shooting digitally, you are bound to the electron. If you are shooting film, you are bound to silver-halide crystals or light sensitive dyes. There is no form of photography that is not intrinsically connected to technology. The trick is to be able to strike a balance.

There are some that are obsessed with technology to the point that it blinds their creative vision. There are some that are obsessed with their vision to the point that they exclude any consideration to craft. There are few that can succeed when they ignore half of this equation.

In my curriculum we strive to strike a healthy balance between craft and vision. It is repeatedly stated to students and parents, that my goal is not to turn out technicians. My goal is to turn out students that can solve their own problems in regard to expressing their creative voice. There is technology involved, but it does not drive the class or the student's learning. Their vision should drive everything else in their experience, with the technology making possible the expression of that vision.

Sorry Micheal I totally missed this post before posting my last response. That makes perfect sense to me. Quite currious, I know I've done it, we all do obviously, but it's interesting to think that our choice of tools is also a creative choice. As creatives we choose the boundaries or rules we have to play by. Fascinating to think about in that regards.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Remember that part I said earlier about listening to everyone, yeah, well this is one of those times where practicing what I preach actually ends up spurring results. Now let me first say that I am no fan of his, in my opinion he spouts more nonsense then you can shake a stick at. But Ken Rockwell actually makes some fair arguments and assessments in an article he posted just today called What Makes a Great Photograph. There are a few comments he makes that I don't totally buy, but on the whole I don't find it to be a bad bit of writing. Have a look, perhaps we can talk about certain points.