Did you mean to? Really?!
I have something to confess. I've been putting off letting you know, but I feel that I really can't hide this from you, my loyal reader, any longer. A couple of months ago I was appointed a member of the Premier Awards Team on ePhotozine. There, I've said it... actually my other reader already knew, sorry I didn't mean to keep it from you! The poacher has turned gamekeeper; the photographer become judge. I know you're feeling disappointed in me, though you're trying hard to keep it from your face. I know that I said that I didn't approve of competition in photography, that vying for approval really isn't the point. I know that I said that competition leads to smaller variation in imagery submitted rather than a flowering of creativity. I know all of this but I thought that maybe I could, in some small way, influence which images were chosen for awards and hopefully broaden the spectrum a little of what is considered worthy. (I'll let you know how this mission proceeds...)
Anyway, having crossed the Rubicon, I'd like to share a couple of my experiences in the land of judges - which actually seems to actually more about being judged than judging.
As a member of the judging team I was granted an e2 Portfolio and started to upload some of my images. I wasn't expecting to set the ePhotozine world alight but thought that it would be good to show my images as they represent a quite different take on landscape from the vast majority of work posted on the site. I hoped that the possibility for other members to comment on the photographs might spark a bit of debate about different approaches to landscape photography and what constitutes an interesting landscape image.
So far the comments posted on my work have been outrageously flattering; "Wow", "Amazing", "Lovely colours.", "Works really well.", "Great shot.", and "Superb capture." At first sight this seems lovely; "Really, my images!? I'm blushing!" Well no, as it turns out, not just mine. It seems that almost every image posted attracts similar comments from at least one or two people. We all welcome the approval of our peers so isn't this just an uncomplicated boost for the ego? I don't think that it's a simple as that. Well intentioned as they undoubtedly are I find these comments quite depressingly banal. The writers' reactions seem honest but rather than exhibiting any critical thought they are simply instantaneous, visceral responses. I realise that for a whole host of reasons I'm almost certainly expecting too much: I may be posting in the wrong way as I've not flagged my images as needing a critique; or people might only wish for a pat on the back with regard to their own images and be uneasy of offering more to other members (something that we've discussed here before); or people may be even less willing to give critical comments on images posted by a member of the Premier Awards Team.
Or it may simply be that people don't know what to say. I don't think that this is just a question of a desire to stick to polite platitudes, rather it's a question of not knowing how to analyse images beyond whether or not they comply with a range of templates. It might simply be that "stick to the rules" equals good, "break the rules" equals don't know what to say. One comment on my image of Bleikoya, an image that it could be said doesn't obey the rules, was really quite bizarre. The poster asked whether it was deliberate that I had placed the main elements on the central axis of the frame. In my mind's eye I imagined how I might have arrived at this composition if not deliberately and saw myself spinning the camera around on the tripod, "Round and round she goes, where she stops nobody knows..."
Despite my frustrations I have to admit that there's an addictive quality to the comments process. When I load a new image onto my portfolio I find myself checking the site two or three times a day whether new comments have been posted. Sad or what? Maybe belonging to a community is the real point, feeling a member of the tribe of photographers. It's very easy to be isolated as a landscape or wildlife photographer, especially as we tend to avoid other people when we're making images!
I received one comment on the image of Loch Tulla, which accompanies this post, that I found quite fascinating;
"Well my first reaction is seriously WOW! great photo, great colours, great abstract then my eye followed the rift in the ice up and up and came to funny line across the top and the even funnier tiny bit of sky at the top RHS. I really would (a) crop the bit of horizon off - and clone out the line. I know it's probably a pressure ridge or some other natural feature but distracting in an otherwise fantastic photo."
Well, my first reaction was I deliberately chose to to leave the line in so why would crop or clone it out? I like the discord that the line brings to the image. I had considered excluding it from the frame when I composed the shot and decided not to as I felt that without it the image becomes a little to easy, too perfect in fact . The offending line obviously made the commentator feel uneasy. But perhaps landscape images, whether vista or abstract, shouldn't always be easy to look at. Perhaps sometimes they should challenge or unsettle. It seems to me that the notion of too perfect is quite interesting in an age when any photographic image is open to quick and radical alteration.
A couple of points arising from the comment seem particularly interesting: firstly the casual assumption that making a quite major alteration to the composition by cloning would be fine (either with me or any other photographer. And secondly I wonder whether this is symptomatic of a widespread casual approach to the acquisition of images. I have quite deliberately used the word casual here, not least because I, like many other photographers, make very deliberate choices when creating my images. But rather than my more rigorous (old fashioned?) approach to creating single images it seems to me that there is a current trend amongst a large number of photographers for making "files" rather than images. These will then be titivated, either as solo pieces or as part of some composite image, to a state of near perfection.
I want to look at the "casuals" in a bit more detail...
Firstly, for me, as an adherent of the old school, the thought of making such a large alteration to an image is anathema. This honestly isn't a question of do as I say and not as I do. Of course I manipulate scans of my images; I spot out dust, tweak curves and the histogram, sharpen and make local changes in contrast and density. Manipulation isn't the issue, it would always be present in any photograph even if you sought not to manipulate. The issue is one of intent.
I strive to get it right in camera and if I can't do that I will walk away. If I had felt that the line was a problem I would probably have either changed the composition to exclude it or decided to abandon the image altogether. It wouldn't have occurred to me to think about "mending" it afterwards by digitally manipulating it in this way. Now I realise that in a very basic technical sense there's not much difference between changing the density/colour of a pixel to give me more shadow detail or render it more realistically (i.e. as I saw it!) and changing the density/colour of a pixel to entirely remove something. The vital difference is, as I wrote above, one of intent. In the first instance one seeks to stay within the bounds of what was originally captured, in the second one seeks to move beyond the original capture, it is merely the starting point. You might say that I'm just creating a rod for my own back, why not loosen up? What I'm trying to do in my photography is to create correspondences to the world around me through my images. I'm not trying to create something entirely different from my imagination. I would have been a painter or sculptor if I'd wanted to do that.
I'm indebted to my other reader, Paul Marsch, for (coincidentally) sending me this rather apposite quote from the editorial of Photoicon magazine;
"... whilst the older generation of photographers are working primarily within the intellectual and technical considerations established in the mid-20th century - and represented in the work of Walker Evans, Robert Frank and Henri Cartier-Bresson - the new breed of photographer is concerned with the manipulation of the image and the virtuosity of digital processes" Mike von Joel
Well apart from making me feel very old it occurs to me that this current photographic trend is, despite the cutting edge technology used and contrary to what this quote suggests, nothing new at all. The key point for me is not about digital technologies virtuosity, that's a given, but to what end that virtuosity is applied. Does its use produce an image that is more evocative or merely more technically perfect? Mike von Joel's editorial continues;
"Now, the onus is on fabricating the image from the start, where one or more photographs are merely ingredients in a whole theatre of activity to create the final statement."
What he's describing is in a sense a return to the very early days of the medium. It's a return to Pictorialism's painterly approach and the even earlier montage work of photographers like Henry Peach Robinson It also contains echoes of very old argument about the intrinsic nature of photographic art; can a straight photograph be art or does photographic art only become possible through gross manipulation? In other words, can a largely un-manipulated image transcend its origins?
What Robinson and the later Pictorialist photographers had in common was an aching desire to achieve recognition for photography as art with a capital 'A'. Both sought to do this by aping painting's aesthetics, including the use of brush strokes and impressionistic soft focus. What they singly avoided was an exploration of what might be achieved using photography's inherent verisimilitude. Strand, Stieglitz and others later argued convincingly that the essence of photography is its apparent objectivity which still allows for subjective interpretation. It is perhaps interesting to note that whereas the Pictorialists sought photography's validation as Art by using painterly techniques, present day photographic montage work seems to have almost a diametrically opposed agenda. Current manipulators seem to either not care about their work's possible status as art or to feel confident that their work already is art. In either case they are invariably seeking to prove the 'truth' of their concept by using photography's veneer of veracity. There's an obvious incongruity here as these composite images represent a patently unreal reality – I know, I know, all photographs are unreal. But it's a question of degree.
My second 'casual' – a relaxed attitude to the acquisition of photographic material – follows on from the habit of viewing photography as a plastic medium. As I've already noted, this approach views single photographs not as completed works but as components; reality is something to be sculpted rather than merely 'recorded'. Now whilst not every digital photographer uses photography in this way modern photo editing software is almost universally employed. Images straight out of the camera are very rarely satisfactory. And when shooting RAW it would be impossible not to use software if one wanted to "publish" the image either on the web or as a print. The expectation has therefore grown that a degree of manipulation is essential. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that photographers have given up a desire for perfection, merely that they have shifted the point at which they expect to achieve this from in the camera to post production. This is in many ways identical to the stance of monochrome workers. Adams famously wrote that the "negative is the score and the print the performance." It could be argued that this approach is the norm and that working with transparencies, as I do, where it pays to get everything absolutely right in camera is abnormal. Perhaps it leads to an over-rigorous approach which might stifle spontaneity. What am I saying?! Using a 5x4 is hardly the best way to make spontaneous images! My worry is that some digital photographers are too relaxed about seizing the moment, always taking the view that any faults can be "fixed" in the editing process. Call me anal but that's just a little too laissez-faire for me.
It also occurs to me that for a proportion of photographers, at a basic level, reality simply isn't good enough; it's not interesting enough or malleable enough or perfect enough. I kind of wonder why they're photographers and not working in some other medium. As I wrote earlier, I don't have any problem with manipulation per se. However it seems obvious to me that it's much more of a challenge to deliberately move beyond mere description with a 'straight' photograph than it is to do so by distorting the raw photographic material into something else. Assembling images out of a variety of photographic parts, for instance, no doubt takes imagination for the underlying concept and a high degree of skill if it is to be achieved convincingly. But it is much harder to produce an image that is simply written by the light reflected from the subject and make it seem like something much more than, or even quite different from, what is described. Of course difficulty on it's own isn't a particularly good measure of artistic merit. It's perfectly possible for something to be very hard to do but not creatively worthwhile! For me the value in straight photography is that it offers the possibility of a true exploration of photographic space. Gary Winogrand said that, "Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed." There's nothing inherently wrong with montages but, as far as I'm concerned, they're not pure photography. Such gross manipulation simply doesn't reflect the most interesting aspect of photography, namely its incredible ability to transcend literal description.
And what of the notion of too perfect? I wonder if an unnecessary striving for perfection and "prettification" isn't just a symptom of a wider cultural trend. We like images of our fashion models (who, it must be said are already exceptional) to be "airbrushed" and morphed to fit an ideal; we want our fruit in the supermarket to be blemish free and of perfect shape; we also want (or the E.U. allegedly does) our cucumbers to be straight and of a uniform length. But do landscape images always have to be both pretty and flawless? Might not more be said by them if they weren't. Obviously I'm not advocating publishing any old rubbish. As I wrote earlier, attention to detail is vital. What I'm suggesting is that one man's imperfections in art might actually be another's evocation.
And finally, to return to where this all began, in my new found role evaluating the work of other photographers I certainly intend to offer them the respect of assuming that they meant to do something and only then deciding whether it works for me.
Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson03/05/2009, 18:38
David,
Congratulations on your new appointment. Does this mean that we can now book you as a camera club judge. If you are not too expensive...
Regards Sandy
Highlight this Comment Robert M. Teague03/05/2009, 20:26
David,
As always I enjoy your insights into the process of photography. I guess, that like you I'm more of the old school when it comes to processing my photographic work.
I have given a lot of thought to the process behind cloning, spotting, curves, etc, as you obviously have. I've come to the conclusion that there is simply two distinct methods of digitally processing photographic work here; altering presentation and altering content. Spotting, dodging, curves, and similar changes, change the presentation of a photograph, similar to what you would do when mounting a photograph - that is something we have done since the dawn of photography (and before in other forms of art). Cloning out objects (like the line in your example), or changing objects (like pasting in a new sky), changes the content of the photograph - which in my mind is akin to lying.
One thing I have done to separate that process in my mind, is that I never refer to what I produce as "images", now they are "photographs". To me, images are computer generated artifacts.
Glad to see you back posting on your blog.
Highlight this Comment David Robinson03/05/2009, 22:05
Hi David, you touch on a number of interesting points here. Did you really mean to write this as just one blog entry?
;-)
I'd like to pick up on your thoughts about comments as it's something I struggled with on Flickr and ePhotozine. I always wanted in depth critiques of my work, and was continually disappointed just getting "wows" and "good colours". I was also disappointed with the fact that I got so few of them while some people got hundreds after posting the most banal out-of-focus rubbish you could imagine.
However, I've slowly come to realise that these sites are not about photography for most people. They are social sites that revolve around photography. Here, comments are just like conversations. I don't normally get deep meaningful conversations with strangers, and when I do, I normally wish I didn't. I get small talk until they aren't strangers anymore. I don't always have deep and meaningful conversations with my good friends either. Sometimes I'm really just poking them to show I'm still alive and I'm thinking of them.
You said "but rather than exhibiting any critical thought they are simply instantaneous". I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that. I'd rather get a "wow" or a "stunning" than nothing at all because the would-be commenter didn't have the time or the words for a critical analysis. Over time, these "small talk" relationships have earned me the right to ask someone to take time and give me their real opinions about a photo.
One thing that confuses me about your post is that you seem to want more people to give critical comments, yet at the same time you appear to be unhappy that someone suggested a crop/composition that might (in their opinion) improve the photograph, and that someone asked if you "deliberately placed the main elements on the central axis of the frame" (for all they knew, perhaps you were composing based on colour and texture rather then object position). What should a critique look like if we can't suggest variations to the composition, or consider the idea that the photographer didn't settle on the prefect composition at the time of making the photo?
Anyway, I have the same kind of reaction to these type of comments ("for goodness sake - surely it's obvious why I made the horizon squinty"), and I wonder if my reaction is simply a sign that we haven't shared enough "wows" and "stunnings" yet.
Cheers David
Highlight this Comment David04/05/2009, 07:25
Hi David,
It is a loooong entry, but I haven't written for a while...
I think you're quite right about ePhotozine being more about social networking than about photography. As a newbie I had naively thought that it was really about the pictures. It's not that it's not about the pictures – I'm obviously not at my most eloquent at 8:00am on Monday morning! – people are bound together on the site by this common interest. Images form the social lubricant, if you like, they bring people together and give them something to talk about.
You make a fair comment about the form of critiques; one obviously has to have a critical opinion in order to critique but the manner in which that opinion is addressed is important.
My standpoint on the first comment (did I mean to place the elements on a central axis?) is that it is so ridiculous as to not merit the term critique. The question suggests that I made an image without deciding where I wanted the elements in the frame. Putting to one side the technical impossibility of making an image on a view camera without spending a long time setting it up and focusing by hand, how could I have arrived at such a fundamental decision on composition by chance? Surely composition is one of the most important elements of photography or any visual art? Yes, texture and color are important but they work together with form. You can't separate them and make a composition just based on them.
It was perfectly OK for the second critic to say that he didn't like the line. I was just speculating as to why he didn't and it seemed to me that there is now such a widespread habit of tidying images, of prettying and primping, that it has become almost automatic to reach for the editing tools and remove things without giving serious consideration as to whether that might be a good decision.
My experience leading workshops has taught me that the most useful form of critique is often to simply ask the photographer to justify their decision e.g. "Why did you place the main elements on a central axis?" (a subtly different question, but the difference is vital) or "Why did you leave the line in?" This would then open a debate, allowing the photographer to respond. A dialogue is always preferable to a monologue. If I didn't think this I wouldn't allow comments on my blog! ;-)
David
Highlight this Comment Simon Miles04/05/2009, 17:47
Since you are so keen to encourage critical comment, dare I say that I too would have excluded the line at the very top of your image? I don't quite "get" the image or your explanation for composing it as you did. It seems to conflict with a mental image I have of you in a workshop or online at Ephotowhatsit, raving about simplicity and the need to pare down to the essentials. But, as you say, it is interesting to analyse and discuss the matter (and I still like the image very much).
However, I wholeheartedly agree with your stance on image manipulation. I personally dislike the term manipulation intensely, because it almost assumes some kind of radical alteration to the image. I actually think the great strength of digital imaging lies in its subtlety and the ability to make very slight manipul... adjustments to the tone curve, sharpness, etc. They may be casual on Ephotomachine, but not here on Into the Light!
Highlight this Comment David04/05/2009, 17:57
Hi Simon,
I don't mind you not liking the line but for me the image without the line moves beyond simple into simplistic. That's what I was referring to with the notion of too perfect.
I agree with you about the range of subtle tools that digital technology has brought for adjusting the final image. The problem is that they're not always used subtly!
David
Highlight this Comment Simon Miles04/05/2009, 19:06
Hello David,
I take your point about simple versus simplistic. Looking back, I realise that I did not really explain why I don't like the line, which was a bit casual of me! Many of your images contain ambiguity or tension and are very much the richer for it. But in this case, it seems to me that the image is all about simplicity. It seems to be saying that the world can sometimes be simple, elegant, graceful and beautiful. In fact, I am quite moved by it. Therefore, for me, the line just feels jarring and discordant. It actually rather upsets me! Unfortunately, this rather vindicates your position. The world is not perfect and this picture proves it.
Simon
Highlight this Comment Jonathan Horrocks05/05/2009, 08:29
Hi David,
I completely agree with your comments about on-line critiques. Broadly speaking they fall in to two categories, neither of which is very helpful. One, is that of just loving everything, the other of trying to pick fault with anything that doesn't fall in to a very narrow definition of what a good photo should be. For an amusing take on the latter, look at this.
As for competitions, I have to confess to entering them and I do so because I want some affirmation of what I'm doing. I admire your ability to be somewhat ambivalent about them but I don't have that strength of character. Also I need something to justify the large sums of money I'm spending on gear!
On the particular image. I like it and I can see what you mean about the line across the top. Without it the image would be too simple, I agree. One method of critiquing I heard about recently, suggested simply stating how the photo makes you feel and not attempting anything else at all. I quite like this approach.
Highlight this Comment Adam Long05/05/2009, 12:42
David,
Great that you're back! The internet was getting boring...
One thing that I think must have a massive impact on how images are perceived is the manner of reproduction. Assuming that one of your reasons for using 4x5 is the ability to make big prints, that you'd consider those big prints as the ultimate end product of your work, it stands to reason that whether consciously or not you make images to work well in that context.
I'm not convinced that one can simply shrink such images down to web proportions and expect them to work in the same way. Certainly for me the horizontal lines in your Loch Tulla image make more sense when I view the image as large as possible. The over-simplification your critic suggests might well work better for an image intended to be viewed at postcard sizes. Especially when as a thumbnail surrounded by another twenty dramatically composed gaudy landscapes.
The other thing that amuses me on these sites is the technical compliments. I've had sharpness complimented on shots that are actually out of focus. Its just not possible to judge such things at such small resolutions.
Adam
Highlight this Comment David05/05/2009, 12:55
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for posting the link to the spoof critiques. I'd seen the page before, some time ago, but lost the address. I think it's very funny as well as being disturbingly accurate!
David
Highlight this Comment David05/05/2009, 13:03
Hi Adam,
I'm flattered that you might find the web a less boring place now that I've posted again after my long absence, though I have to wonder which parts of the web you're looking at- perhaps this!
I think you're right that the interpretation of the image is different when it is viewed at a large scale. Thumbnails in a web gallery are definitely not a good way to judge an image. I make myself look at images on the ePhotozine site at the larger size (if available) in order to be able to assess them properly. Subtleties are not surprisingly lost when viewing an image at 100 pixels square that was made at a hugely higher resolution. And the subtle details frequently make the difference between an average image and a great one.
David
Highlight this Comment Paul05/05/2009, 16:14
Hi David
I've always thought that what really what really matters with criticism is 'who' is giving it. ePhotozine deserves credit for at least separating the 'casual' image posting/commenting from the 'considered' critiqued-requested area. Your appointment to the PA team adds a significant new, and welcome, dimension. It would be interesting to see some of the images you've personally selected for either the Highly Commended or Premier Awards.
I've posted images on a couple of sites for some time now, and I've noted that as my photography has become less casual, more considered, and less 'predictable' (a slow trend I know), the fewer comments (good or bad) I've received. Looking at the comments/votes for your images on ePhotozine, very broadly speaking the more abstract images attract less votes than the 'big vista' style images. Yet I suspect that it is the abstracts that you personally find more satisfying. I comfort myself that one insightful comment from someone that you respect greatly is worth more than a hundred blandly positive comments from the anonymous uninformed hordes.
As for a casual approach to image acquisition and manipulation - I've certainly been guilty on both counts - still am if I'm honest. I think there's a difference though between the novice user adopting a machine-gun type approach to image acquisition, hoping that one exposure hits the spot, and the use of an iterative approach of 'sketching' ones way towards a final satisfying image. I suppose there's another type of casual image acquisition - whereby a photo-montage artist casually acquires images that may be of some use in a later and as yet unspecified project - kind of like a musician building up their repertoire of 'chops' or 'licks' which can then be conjured up during some future improvisation. As you point out, none of these is the exclusive result of digitization, although digitization has made the execution easier.
Personally I don't have a big problem with any of it. What does puzzle me is that despite all of these techniques for casually acquiring and manipulating images, the final result doesn't really do it for me - where are all the awe-inspiring images from the new school of photo-artistry? I recall recently reading an editorial in a computer-graphic-art magazine which berated the industry for claiming 'artist' status. The editorial concluded that the computer-art industry had yet to produce any output of significant artistic merit. I think the new school of photography is in a similar situation - many practitioners are busy exploring the bounds of technological capability at the expense of artistic merit or intent.
Paul
Highlight this Comment Jason Theaker05/05/2009, 20:58
Hi David,
It’s been quite some time since you have shared your thoughts with us, but it’s good to see you back making some very thoughtful observations. I admire your honesty and personally I share your concern when I read “I find myself checking the site two or three times a day whether new comments have been posted.“
To be honest I’m not surprised by this behaviour, (as I personally do the same) especially when you invest so much effort into your work, be it images or text, it’s not surprising that you get excited about the feedback you may receive. I don’t think this is a problem unless you feel it so, and wonder as to the negative connotations of this behaviour. Yes, I too agree with you that there is a community reaction to this social networking environment, and being able to receive such immediate thoughts and evaluations on your work is a testament to this new world we find ourselves in, but this power to inspire can become addictive, especially when it flatters the ego.
I also wonder about my own psychology when looking to gain feedback from others, (having exhibited similar behaviour). As artists our work is intended to communicate emotion to an audience and the social networking environment gives you instant feedback on this process. I’ve personally seen other members of flickr allowing their online presence to take too much from their “real” lives and quit to regain control over their own behaviour. Sounds weird, but these social networking environments can be so addictive, (both good and bad).
Again, I feel quick empty comments are a sad reflection on this new developing society. Kind of like when you go to an art gallery and oversaturate yourself with ‘high’ culture. There is the unfortunate potential for shallowness and, sadly, no real effort spent to gain the deeper insights explored by the artist.
It’s a sad reflection that some of the shorter comments, even though positive, do not further personal development in the way I suspect you are seeking. (Again I speak personally and wouldn’t wish to assume your position on this.) But now with thousands / millions of active members to these environments, how can anybody do each piece of work justice? People (including me), can spread their evaluations a little thin at times. Maybe this is where the blogs come into their own? The members contributing here are fewer, but the depth is greater. I suspect that you continuing to posting to this blog is illuminating as to your desires for deeper engagement in photographic discourse. (But we all knew that about you anyway).
I do also find it fascinating that there is a desire to represent a perfect world without thinking about why. Maybe this is a reflection on the new technology, and I’m sure in many examples it is, but what I find interesting is people’s desire to create a world that is perfect to themselves. We each have differing perceptions of reality, (that sadly some would like to impose on others), but the only “truth” is what each of us perceive. And in photography this mythical “reality” is a white elephant when it comes to gauging the value art has to the viewer. Classification does seem to be a hang-up of our western society and I wonder if stepping outside our perceptions (or trying to at least) will help develop truer creativity, just like quantum mechanics is doing to traditional views in physics...
Anyway I must finish this before it gets too long for anybody to read it... :o)
Glad to see you back posting again,
Jason Theaker.
Highlight this Comment Jonathan Horrocks06/05/2009, 07:52
Hi David,
For what little it is worth these are my thoughts on the attached image. I find it quite hopeful, which I guess is an unusual reaction and perhaps not what you had in mind. It probably reflects more my personal state of mind. The main feature could be seen to resemble a long path stretching to infinity. The road meanders around before (somewhat predictably - if you don't mind me saying) disappearing in to the top left corner of the photograph. However there is the sudden line shooting off to the side. This strikes me as quite hopeful, the possibility that something unexpected and exciting may happen, that the conclusion may not be so predetermined after all.
All the best, Jonathan.
Highlight this Comment David O06/05/2009, 10:34
Hi David
Good to see you posting again... so much to think about... a bit like waiting for the bus!
A couple of thoughts (OK... 4) on the thread:
what line? Perhaps my analysis is too simplistic but, subconsciously, I ignored the line accepting it either as intentional or otherwise. In other words, the image succeeds for me without that further analysis. This image has enough "surprise" value - I wasn't sure what I was looking at (and had to accustom my eyes to the image) - to render further analysis of its relative perfection (i.e. The Line) as an ancillary matter which did not affect my interpretation of the image.
the art of communication and perfection: on a recent L&L tour, it was passed down to me that somebody had heard you mention on another L&L tour (very Homeric) that perhaps "perfection" wasn't your "gig" anymore (was it ever?.. :)... and Yes album covers aside) - the reference being, from a compositional standpoint, a wish to avoid rooting an obvious line in an image in a corner of the frame. A sudden air of deflation (nothing to do with the economy) hung ominously in the room as mild panic spread like ripples on an Ullswater dawn. Oh, the effect you have!
this latest blog will help me in my current project of getting a website together - why I want a website and what perception the cyber viewers may have of me in response to my images and any text that may accompany these images. I can recommend Eddie Ephraums latest article in AG (55) on marrying text to photographic imagery. The thought processes required here probably just added another month to my website project, as I think about this a bit more!
when does a photograph become an image (or is it the other way round)? I note Robert touches on this above but I didn't think the definition worked for those photographers whose intention may not be to create a straight replication of the scene - should the removal of an inconvenient/offending buoy on a mere in the Lake District affect how one categorises the end result? Of course, there are degrees...
Thanks again for the post.
Rgds
David O
Highlight this Comment David O06/05/2009, 13:33
PS. I decided to track you down on the ephotozine site and take a look for myself. Some of the comments, I must say (and not in a mean way), had me in hysterics, especially the chap(ess) who exclaimed "immediate visual relief" having cropped The Line at the top and suggesting "you give it a go"........all comments entirely valid, of course! The "shock" (casual exclamation) of seeing your work critiqued in this way is really quite interesting and could delay my website progress even further.
Highlight this Comment Julian06/05/2009, 16:06
Apropos of absolutely nothing, have you seen The Online Photographer today?
Thought you might be interested.
Re: the topic in question. Still mulling over a response, I'm afraid.
Nice blog! :-)
Highlight this Comment adamp06/05/2009, 16:29
One of the problems with critiquing photographs is making comments which don’t upset the artist while at the same time pointing out that there is another way to do/see things. Regarding the placement of an element in the frame, instead of saying “Did you mean it to be in the centre?” we could say “What made you reject having this element to one side?”. This shows that you appreciate a conscious decision was made, but want to know how/why it was arrived at. I guess David that your reaction would then to be to give some insight into your approach to the image.
Too few people on these generalist sites would know how you work and so appreciate that you do consider carefully what you include or exclude in your images. Er, ummm, gulp… you really did notice that line on your ground glass before releasing the shutter didn’t you? Off with his head they cried…..
Similarly few people on ePhotozine or other such sites take as much care over their picture-taking as you (and most of your readers) do and so will not appreciate the effort compared to their own P&S approach. I was amazed to be complimented on having a steady hand in relation to one of my images – but there is no way I could have taken it without a tripod! Steady hand indeed….
As to digital manipulation, I think that my difficulty is that I expect an image to be a reasonably faithful rendition of what the photographer saw in front of him. Adding skies or a foreground goes into the realms of digital “art” and should be in a separate category to conventional “pure” photography. I say that because my interest lies in photography, not using computer techniques to create something which wasn’t in front of my lens. I do feel cheated if I express pleasure at an image only to be told “Oh, I added the clouds because the sky was boring blue when I was there”. It has happened – and it was a really good picture! And I don’t want to be evaluated against a computer-generated work, but against a predominantly camera-generated work. Well, that’s my excuse but in truth my Photoshop skills aren’t that good!
And finally your cracked-ice image. It’s great, very restful and simple. But it is fair to ask why did you include that line? We can speculate - because it is a contrast to the curves? Because it is there? Because it introduces that element of mystery? Any of these is valid, but only you can give the answer(s).
Glad to see you’re back – I was beginning to miss my photo-philosophy fix!
Best wishes,
Adam
Highlight this Comment Julian06/05/2009, 20:13
Hi David,
As usual, a thought-provoking post and some very interesting replies so far...
Digital 'manipulation':
I see 'digital imaging' (for want of a better term) as still being in its infancy. There are iconoclasts, traditionalists and every shade in between and true artists are still experimenting to find where the limits of the medium might lie. It's an exciting time. Of course, there are genuine artists in the digital realm who subjugate method to meaning but sadly many who see the new opportunities merely as another way of demonstrating their superior grasp of technique. Images produced by this latter group seem to lack soul, meaning or direction. And this is the key. Without meaning, or even an understanding of why a certain technique might be used in preference to any other (or what using that particular technique might attempt to communicate), images cannot hope to convey anything more than the sum of their parts. Digital imaging is, in my view, still evolving a common language and perhaps has not yet got around to thinking about what it might say. For this reason, I think it's important to look beyond the surface gloss of digitally manipulated images and ask, in the words of a famous US TV commercial, "Where's the beef?"
Image sharing sites:
There are so many reasons why people post to these sites that to expect a majority, or even a significant number, to be willing to engage in the sort of dialogue you might hope for is a sure route to disappointment. Some people see these sites as the modern equivalent of the family slideshow. Others see it as a glorified club-night. Still others are hoping that those more adept than themselves will provide assistance or encouragement. Yet more want to show the world that they possess a great talent with Photoshop/B&W film/working with models (or whatever). And, of course, there are serious photographers looking for some interesting debates or interactions with fellow serious camera-wielders. Such sites are, as they say, 'broad churches' and, as others have pointed out, are best enjoyed for the social aspect. As with any form of real-life community, getting involved is the key to becoming accepted.
I guess I now have to own up to having spent more time than is strictly healthy on various such sites over the years and these debates do seem to be somewhat common in online forums - although perhaps not quite as considered or as eloquently conducted as here. After considering and reconsidering my positions on these matters over time, I am now simply resigned to the situation. Vive la différence, as the French would have it.
All the best, Julian.
Highlight this Comment David06/05/2009, 21:29
Hi Julian,
Well, thanks for the heads up. The review of Landscape Beyond on onlinephotographer is a very pleasant surprise!
David
Highlight this Comment Paul06/05/2009, 22:23
You'll be on the telly next!
Highlight this Comment David06/05/2009, 22:52
Once was enough, I'm pleased to say that my 15 seconds of fame has come and gone without any serious celebrity side effects (and I didn't even have to get my kit off to get on the box!)
The one change is that I do now have a long back stage rider for all my camera club gigs: my dressing room must now have a door and a chair but no mirror; all refreshments must meet stringent quality standards, my bitter must be warm, the fish must be hake, the chips must be chunky, definitely no mushy peas and only blue Smarties for pud... ;-)
David
Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson07/05/2009, 10:26
Hi All,
It is great to be able to have an intellectual discussion once more about my favourite subject photography. I agree entirely with you David that getting it right at the making stage is very important in our photography. At the making stage of the image we have to always ask ourselves two very important questions, "Why am I making this image?", and "What attracted me in the first place to decide to make this image?"
Manipulation has always been done to photographs since the very early days, From Hill and Adamson in the 1840s, who used pencil on their paper Calotype negatives. H P Robinson was a master craftsman in using multiple negatives in his images. On close inspection of the originals you could not see the joins.
What the digital age has done is made many photographers lazy. I have often heard it said, "Well if is not right when I take the picture I can sort it in Photoshop". What sort of attitude is that to have about making pictures. Now before you all jump on me I process my photographs digitally, but I do the bare minimum to them using Adjustment – Levels, Adjustment – Curves and then I use Sharpen. As David stated "you have to do some editing adjustment to digital images". The question posed here is not the fact that you adjust your images but how much? How much is too much? Well that is up to the individual photographer. Or is it that some photographers just wish to show the world their prowess of using Photoshop?
It is a sad fact that I have seen, and no doubt you will have seen, many pictures that have been Photoshop-ed to death. If you have a weak or a bad image no amount of Photoshop adjustments will make it a better image. The phrase garbage in garbage out applies here. For example if you have a bad negative you can never make a good print from whatever you do with it. The same applies to digital negatives.
The other important topic in this blog is the subject of criticizing photographs. Most people do not criticize photographs they are simply judgmental when viewing them. There is a vast difference in judging a photograph and criticizing a photograph.
Looking at the comments on the ePhotozine site this sort of way of looking and commenting on the photographs is all to the fore, apart from you David. Most of these people need to read the following publication, "Criticizing Photographs" by Terry Barrett, to understand better how to look at photographs and comment on them. Most camera club judges should read this book as it would be very enlightening and helpful to them.
Talking and writing about photographs are two entirely different things. Let me try to explain.
When writing about photographs in the majority of circumstances, other than on this blog, the writer doesn't get feed back from the author of the photographs.
When talking about photographs in most cases there will be feedback from the following persons; the photographer, college lecturers, pupils, students and friends. When talking about photographs the critque process is more in your face and you have to be more guarded as to your comments about the photographs.
To many full time critics the word critic has negative overtones and a lot of them do not like to be tagged with the word. Two better phrases, analysing or assessing photographs come to mind as being user friendly. It is no easy task looking at and discussing or writing about other peoples photographs, so get the above book from your local library. It is a mine of useful imformation, too much to comment on here.
Regards to all
Sandy
Highlight this Comment Jason Theaker11/05/2009, 13:24
Sandy,
Just ordered the book you mentioned, hope it lives up to your high regard :o)
Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson19/05/2009, 08:49
Hi Jason,
The book is a standard manual for students that are studying photographic criticism. It is a bit Americanised, but the information is very comprehensive. You can contact me by email and let me know what you think of the book. I don't think you will be disappointed with it.
Regards
Sandy
Highlight this Comment Chris21/05/2009, 01:02
At last! David you are finally beginning to see the light! (no pun intended). I have been feeling this way for the past few years, ever since the major popularity of the DSLR and PS has grown bigger. Despite using a DSLR myself (for wedding work, where manipulation is a must) landscape I have always chosen film. Mainly for its characteristics, rendering of colour, tone and light, sharpness...but most importantly, its integrity, and the way it forces me to think about what I am doing and what is going on around me. Without this, I feel I would be getting my DSLR out, leaving it to PS to do the "work" and lose any sense of reality. Film really does keep you on the ball and up for a challenge. It really does test the photographers skill.
Looking around on any web forum or image upload site, I'm always sickened to see images where PS has been the inspiration behind a lot of images. Film has the ability to record "correctly", where a DSLR image will always need work because of the very fundamental flaws of the medium. Completely inaccurate colour, lack of sharpness, noise, lack of micro contrast, etc etc etc.
Web site forums and critique sites are really no more than sites to upload work and hope for a pat on the back from its users. No one actually critiques others work because of many reasons; can't be bothered being one, lack of photographic knowledge and bad composition, not being able to "see", not knowing the circumstances of the photographs capture etc. Too many to list probably.
I was a member of a well known website forum and upload critique site. Members were always commenting on the same people's work, and they too would only comment of theirs. No one bothered to actually take the time to critique someone who was either new to photography or were seeking real help and advice. The only thing you get, straight away is "Oh that's a bit bright" or "no details there" or " clone this, crop that". Extremely basic, and hardly helpful. All digital users who were more interested in what PS could do than actually getting out in the country and waiting for that wonderful moment where things happen.
I've given up and no longer take part in any website forums, discussion groups or upload sites. I learnt nothing and no one gave me any time. The only ones getting comments were pretty much already semi pros - why a semi pro needs critique I don't know! Again, more likely its an outlet to boost and feed egos or get people interested in workshops and their businesses.
I have to say I am surprised with your venture to ePhotozine, one of the many sites I cannot stand, generally because people haven't a clue about real photography, and most are rude and arrogant, cliquey people (members, not staff). These sites offer nothing to the serious photographer. Certainly not since digital arrived and PS now so prevalent.
I feel since digital cameras arrived, those wanting quick fix photography now have their dreams come true. Out goes integrity, patience, technique and seeing, in comes, RAWs and seeing the image develop on a screen.
Thank the Lord that my film landscape days have taught me great things in photography that I now apply to my wedding photojournalism. I see in colour or b&w, and I can read light quickly and know how an image will look, well before I have to edit them. Landscape photography really has been my rock of integrity and honesty. Just wish it was full time!
Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson21/05/2009, 14:37
Hi Chris,
What you say is very true, and Ephotozine nothing more than a cliquey electronic camera club. However I do surf the site only for the equipment and news items.
I also get so fed up with people at my local camera club always asking for quick fixes to digital problems, when I had to find out the hard way by reading books. Some people are just too lazy to do that these days. It is also obvious that some of them do not even read their camera manual, they prefer to ask some mug like me. So I usually say go away and read your camera manual and if you still don't understand come back and see me. I also say I will have a consulting fee for supplying the information.
I could critique your work but you may find my fee a bit on the expensive side, HA, HA.
Look in my previous entry on this blog and get a copy of the book I recommend from your local library, you will be quite enlightened by it.
Regards
Sandy
Highlight this Comment Sheila10/06/2009, 12:44
A hypothetical question:
You say you like the discordant nature of the controversial lines. If those straight lines had not been there on Loch Tulla when you surveyed the twisting fissure of dark ice, would you have walked away, saying it was too perfect?
Highlight this Comment David10/06/2009, 13:06
Hi Sheila,
Nice to see you posting here.
In answer to your question, maybe / maybe not... But if I had I don't think that I would have been as pleased with the final result – so it would probably have joined most of my other images, in a dark drawer in the corner of my office, never to see the light of day again...
David
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin10/06/2009, 14:57
Oh please let me see this drawer of perfection! ;-)
Highlight this Comment Julian10/06/2009, 21:09
Well, they do say that the difference between a good artist and a great one is ruthless editing, so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, Tim. ;-)
Highlight this Comment Sheila11/06/2009, 13:52
But they are only in a dark drawer, not on a hot bonfire. So maybe they'll see the light of day if/when David is on his uppers. His pension in the corner.
Highlight this Comment David11/06/2009, 14:03
I can't earn a decent living from the "good" ones so how can I hope to support myself in my old age from the rejects? Or were you suggesting that I use them as fuel to heat the house through the long cold nights of winter? There are quite a few of them but I doubt that they would last more than a week or two...
Highlight this Comment Sheila16/06/2009, 13:10
The fact that you haven't yet made a 'decent living' from your good or your 'reject' pics (sorry, images!) is nothing to do with how good or bad they are. You know this.
The commenters on epz are doing you a favour, demonstrating their love of perfection. If you could lower yourself sufficiently, there is probably a mass market for your perfect rejects. Try Ikea!
But I suppose that would be a massive betrayal of your principles and a radical character change too, a bit like Johnny Rotten making an advert for butter...
Highlight this Comment Rob Hudson17/06/2009, 19:14
Hi David,
It's great to find place online with such a high level of intelligent debate, I hesitate to say intellectual for fear of excluding myself! I only hope I can live up to the standards set here already.
There were two thoughts in my mind on seeing the line, one no doubt intentional and the other, I assume, unexpected. The first was a feeling of discordance with the smooth perfection of remaining image, but I soon came to realise that it is a necessary interjection of reality, a proof if you will that it is a "real" image. The second thought (you'll be disappointed in me already) was that it looked like a miss-aligned duplicate layer - I know I hate myself too, but such are the ways our minds tick.
On a technical point and speaking as someone who frequently uses a pretty basic DSLR (much to the surprise of my viewers) I wonder whether the camera manufacturers have contributed to the lack of thought at the composition and exposure stage? It's not just that there is a built in need to adjust images, but that giving full consideration to all the elements of an image when squinting through tiny viewfinder is a difficult proposition. I'm guessing that line would have been unseen by the average DSLR user, just because it would be invisible through the viewfinder. I know this is an explanation, not an excuse - we do have eyes, but we all like to see our intended image framed whether it's on a ground glass screen or a through a tiny viewfinder or even (mock horror!) on a little plastic screen on the back of a camera.
Whilst I'm on that subject the average crappy mass market ND grad not only comes with a in built colour cast and a heavy vignette, but is also just about impossible to use well through those tiny viewfinders.
It is for these reasons (amongst those you mentioned) that manipulation of landscape photography germinates. In particular, many quite serious landscape photographers myself and at least one of your contributors above to my knowledge quickly migrate to the technique of exposing differently for bright / dark areas, usually sky and foreground, these are then "pasted together in PS". On the upside it is little different from using an ND and is very controllable, on the downside it takes away from the pleasure of capturing something in camera and encourages yet more post processing. Add to that techniques such as "vertorama" or panorama and we really aren't that far away from composite images. That's where I'd draw a line (we look down on HDR users ha ha) as you say it's about intent; an in situ sky is a different animal to a composite, my intent is veracity.
I seem to remember at the start of this comment praising the level of debate, well everyone seems to have, pretty much, agreed with you here - I know it's not always like that or I wouldn't be joining in. Much of the joy of photography, I'm sure you'll agree, is in exploring the art of the possible, whether film or digital. Awareness of that tends to make me much less critical of those that employ different techniques to myself and even ones that I wouldn't employ personally (all of this applies only to landscape, you should see my press and PR work for primping!). So I wonder why the preciousness, is it that landscape is just that - a physical entity that must be captured as is seen, even though all the in-camera "manipulation" that happens from focal length to exposure, depth-of-field from aperture, film stock etc, etc? In-camera veracity is surely something of a con act on the public by the photographer?
Highlight this Comment Roger W16/08/2009, 10:27
A late arrival at this thread but the points covered are surely at the heart of all the creative processes and what aspects of manipulation are acceptable in photography.
So some questions...
Would it be fair to say that a painter starts with a vision and a blank canvas and starts adding brush strokes from there?
Would it also be fair to say that a sculptor starts with a vision and, say, a lump of rock and starts removing bits of rock from there?
So what is the photographers process?
Is he/she allowed to physically change the view before recording the image (removing litter for example)?
Is he/she allowed to add / remove items from the image by cloning etc. after the image has been captured?
My view is that all aspects of manipulation are permisable and that it is the 'vision' and the realisation of that 'vision' that is more important than how it was achieved. This reminds me of some words I recently read about visitors to art galleries spending more time reading the captions to the art work than looking at the work itself. I guess it is part of all of us to be curious about how stuff has been made / created but in the end, doesn't this just give us opportunities to show up our personal prejudices about techniques rather than confronting the image / vision itself?
Thanks for reading....
Highlight this Comment Walter McQuie18/08/2009, 06:30
David:
I greatly enjoyed this thread, so much so that for a while your image receded from my attention. But after I finished absorbing all the interesting commentary, I went back to it. And then clicked through to see it a bit larger. Your comment got me thinking about what it is about Tulla Ice that grabs me so. I'm not sure I'd agree it is really graphically simple. Simple in color and tonality certainly. Seemingly simple in composition, being constructed of just a few elements. The masses of white, particularly the largest, do imply simplicity. But then you see the edge of those masses, those extraordinarily complex lines. Though one feels that this scene was recently all a mass of white, hydrological forces, operating even at a time of dormancy, have transformed that simple pure field into a serpentine set of interlocking entities. I'm reminded of the optical illusions where three vertical fields of two colors-- say white, black, white-- seem at first to be silhouetted heads nose to nose, but then a vase as the viewer's focus shifts. Then my eye follows the frozen flow only to be broken by those faint straight lines. Such juxtapositions are complex constructions of simple elements. Alive yet frozen. Natural curves broken by the kind of straight lines only human builders employ, yet the landscape is barren of clear signs of civilization. Snow implies calm, but this is alive.
Photographs must compress three physical dimensions into two. Painting allows the artist to play more with perspective and create more complex--if not realistic--illusions of depth. But photography seems more able to imply the fourth dimension. Perhaps due to its greater ties to apparent objectivity, awareness can be drawn to the workings--not just the components--of nature, and thus time. Here the body of water froze as temperatures dropped, then it snowed, then the cracking ice, the water squeezing through and mixing with the snow. Or perhaps freezing, cracking, squeezing, snowing, melting. In some order a simple expanse of water, ice, and then snow was over time transformed into a mysteriously shaped complex, composed of only a few elements. Sort of a chaos forming out of order. And then I viewed the previous image Traigh Ghearadha which you like for its depiction of order arising out of chaos. Another subtle depiction of time in an otherwise very two dimensional image.
A writer of books can aim to amuse the masses and write pulp fiction, or aspire to a nobel prize and attempt the great American novel. This discussion spurred all kinds of thoughts about the progression of painting through the ages versus the much more rapid evolution and commodification of photography as a way to explore the different functions art plays in different communities. Also about the importance of the artist's intent versus the viewer's reaction and whether the degree of digital processing matters more to the former than the latter. But the jumping off point was that there is really very little thoughtful commentary about photographic art online. Thank you for the impetus to try some.
Oh, I almost forgot: nice capture.
Highlight this Comment David19/08/2009, 11:42
Hi Walter,
Welcome to Oceans!
Thank you for your interesting and insightful comments. I'm gratified that you feel that in some small way this blog is raising the level of debate on photography on the net. I can't claim the credit for that; it rests with those of my readership who participate in these online debates and their fascinating range of views and broad knowledge of the arts and photography. Thank you all for taking part!
And thank you Walter for praising my capture skills! ;-)
David
Highlight this Comment David19/08/2009, 12:20
Hello Roger,
Welcome to Oceans!
I absolutely agree with you that manipulation is permisable - the important thing is not to suggest that every image is a document. Photography, whilst ineluctably linked to reality, isn't reality. The camera does lie and it is precisely when it lies that a photograph has the greatest chance of becoming transcendent; the greatest chance of evocation overwhelming denotation.
David
Highlight this Comment Walter McQuie19/08/2009, 22:30
Pablo Picasso: "Art is a lie that makes us realize truth."
Highlight this Comment steve f07/10/2009, 12:09
David,
One other strong point I would like to make around this subject is the fact that when shooting digital in landscape.. and anyone else please let me know how you feel about this... the photographer will have to not just rely on his camera to record the scene but also his brain.
What I mean is, that when the photographer gets the image into his RAW converter, or processing software (because of the very nature of digital) the image will need to be processed because contrast/colour and sharpness will be missing.
With film this does not happen.
Therefore, for me, this is the heart of such disappointment when it comes to digital cameras.
Im always trying to improve my photography but now, your skill as a photographer is more tested, because your images won't ever look like the 'real deal' unless you have the know-how in Photoshop to process the image to best show it.
Slide film, not a problem. Used in the right circumstances, with correct exposure technique and d.o.f control, you will have a ready to show/print slide, full of colour, detail and sharp. Yes scanning and some manipulation can add to the image, but a great slide will always be a great slide as is.
I went to Wales two weeks ago, and am now looking at my images in order to process. Can I remember exactly what the scene before me was like? Any form of white balance tweak or colour adjustment, and instead of making it look like the scene that was, I'm trying to interpret the scene through memory.
I know many photographers who take images who look at the darkroom as to where images come alive. In part I agree but unless the image is spot on in the first place, then the image will only ever be an interpretation?
Something in the landscape moves us to take the image, and we can manipulate it in the darkroom to place emphasis on certain elements, or to dodge and burn or vignette to artistically show our inner desires/thoughts about the scene, and we can use software to clone out dust spots etc.
But film, even though by its nature wont represent the actually scene in front of us in absolute truth, I feel much more confident in taking images knowing there is a permanent record of what was before me, and I don't have to rely on computer software to 'being it back' or to discover the landscape taken all over again.
Highlight this Comment Joseph Stanski09/02/2010, 18:55
What a GREAT site. Thank you - I have been looking for someone else with which I have shared views of landscape photography. One comment about manipulation of photographs - I'm convinced that what we photograph toward and manipulate to, is a social filter that is governing our interpretation of the scene that will influence us, and our circle of influences both within us and from without.
A sort of reflection if you will, that is reflecting in both directions at the same time. I happen to see a lot of variation in this theme everyday and I love it. I do think that if you're not well grounded in your own style, your own reflection from within, you're lost; and sometimes that's good too.
Joseph :o))
Send us your comments
Comment Preview
Comment Formatting
The following are a some examples of how you can add links, bold text and lists to your comment entry. The section below this shows how they will look on screen. You should be able to see a preview of your post as you type.
Enter This
Get This
One or more consecutive lines of text separated by one or more blank lines.
This is another paragraph.
This is bold and italic
Links need angle brackets like so http://example.com/...
...or if you want to link some text you can!