Hi there, This is just a thought for your minds to chew. A painter is never asked any questions about why he has painted unrealistic red sky or a yellow face, i think if we could look at photography from the same point of view, the question about an absolute correct exposure, sharpness, grain quality,etc will reduce drastically because we are now not worried about matching the print to reality but insted trying to reproduce or interpret in a totally different, your own way. please convey me your thoughts on this. i am just a child in this mall of creative people thanx Shree

-- shree (shreepadjoglekar@usa.net), August 23, 1999

Answers

I couldn't agree more with Shree's post. I think many photographers are to quick to write off an image becuase its to grainy or the focus isnt perfect. I think the bottom for myself is that I am trying to create art...period. Since art is really just an extension of my emotions, thoughts, and feelings, by definition it cannot be perfect, nor should it create a perfect match with reality.

Despite this reasoning, I do feel every photographer should strive to become technical experts in their medium. Not because each image should be perfect, but simply because the more technical skill you have...the more creative options you can enjoy.

Just my two cents!

-- Andrew Kaiser (akaiser@rushorder.com), August 23, 1999.

Weegee (Arthur Fellig) made some comments in this exact area, but I can't find them any more doing web searches.

The base nature of the photographic medium is to render an exact image of the subject. Some have brought this aspect to an incredible height. It does take some amount of skill to render a sharp image, to develop the negative well, and to deliver the final print. (No print, no image.)

I don't think that the presence of grain detracts from a picture. I do quite a bit of photography with an Olympus Pen-F (half-frame camera) with Ilford Universal 400 (quite grainy). Grain will either add or detract, and it's up to the photographer to figure out the scene beforehand, before that shutter goes "click".

Some people disdain the Diana and Holga cameras, and then spend $2000 on a camera body, $1500 on a soft lens, and $1000 on filters and vignetters. Go figure.

Ansel Adams did own a soft lens, and he also did plenty of color photography. He also said that he did not hold true to the actual values in his negatives, and he never considered his prints to be "realistic".

I think that a person should make the photographs which are in accordance with one's own personal vision. If the market like the photos, fine. If the market doesn't like the photos, fine. I can only say that I know what I like, and I back that up with buying what I like. (Of course, and I guess this goes for the majority of folks here, I photograph what I like, and print what I like.)

-- Brian C. Miller (brianm@ioconcepts.com), August 23, 1999.

Hmmmmm....."a painter is never asked why.....". I am not so sure about that. There have been both informal discussions and formal critiques regarding artist's work throughout history. Perhaps even an approving nod or disapproving grunt was heard as an early hunter told his story with pictures on a cave's wall.

When grandma is handed an 8x10 portrait of her granddaughter and she sees a soft image, she often doesn't understand. She is expecting a sharp lifelike captured moment of the child. The child's parents, however, may decide to hang above the fireplace a 20x24 of the child flying a kite in a wheat field and she is not even looking at the camera! The child only fills 1/4 of the image, the wheat is blurry blowing in the wind, and to top it off the image has been manipulated in Photoshop and is now printed by an Iris printer onto watercolor paper. There is room (and a market) for both photos of this child. And they both can be art.

There is also room for discussion regarding correct technique. There is a correct exposure for all photographs. It often is not what your camera meters. The correct exposure IS what is required to bring the creator's vision to paper; it IS NOT an accidental acceptable exposure of the scene that is....well, maybe "artsy". Sloppy execution of vision is common. Attention to exposure, choice of film, light quality/direction, filters, printing, on, and on, are choices that the creator either decides to carefully consider, or not. If your vision is ____________ (fill in the blank); fine, but (1)do it, (2)do it on purpose, and (3)execute it well. Don't get your film back from the lab and exclaim "way cool, look at this!" If you are surprised by what you see, consider that you did not execute your vision. Even "artists" need to be able to use their tools properly to create though it may not be necessary to understand how the tool works. Cool mistakes happen too. I have a wedding photo that is much better than I envisioned. I don't know what "went wrong", but I like it! Does that make it art? I could never reproduce it.

Let me use two examples of photographers. First is Dean Collins. He is very much into understanding the technology of photography; from film to camera, lighting, lab output, and digital. Perhaps you have been to one of his seminars or viewed one of his videos. He seeks to understand and control as much of the process as possible. He creates consistently excellent photography. The second photographer is Sally Baker. At a recent seminar featuring her, she first stated that she does not know the technical side of photography so please understand that before you begin asking questions. She produces beautiful children's portraits. Both Dean and Sally are "artists". They both know their tools well. There are a lot of different photographers in this world. It is not necessary for you to be like any one of them or to appreciate all of them. And it is not necessary for you to want the rest of us to do so either.

You ask the question "...if we could look at photography with the same point of view...". The answer is that "we" don't, never will. If a painter expresses himself/herself by painting an unrealistic red sky or a face yellow, a question of interpretation is asked by the painting of the viewer. Is the question's answer also found in the art? If a photographer shows an image and the viewer thinks ...is it out of focus, or is it? well...I don't know, maybe.... or does the viewer say wow, what an excellent soft image... Back to your art example; is the yellow face a metaphor or is it just improperly mixed pigments resulting in a jaundiced look?

To answer your question, why should photographs always be realistic. They don't need to be. Certainly, photographs can be non-realistic. But, don't make the mistake of thinking that all "art" is non-realistic. Interpretation of a subject can be sharp, well lit, in focus, etc. or it may not. You may interpret the subject differently, but find your own voice and allow for others to express theirs as well.

-- Rick Stiles (rick.stiles@lmco.com), August 23, 1999.

Whenever I read things like this thread about the quality of photographic technique versus the power of the image, I think of the Zapruter film of the Kennedy assasination. The power of those images will be with all of us forever. Still, I do wish Abe had used a tripod.

-- chuck k (kleesattel@webtv.com), August 23, 1999.

In many ways it is interesting that we are still having this discussion. I have just started scanning some of my photos, & using my inkjet, printing them on Rives BFK. Not at all what a photographic print should look like.

I am not sure about the 'grandma' referred to above. Doing documentary/portrait photography, I give losts of prints to people who are in the photo. The majority of the time I am surprised, and delighted, by the visual sophistication of people. They delight in those odd toy camera or infra-red prints just as much as I do. I used to be hesitant about showing the more 'unconventional' images to them, but when I found out how well they have responded to them, that hesitation vanished. For our own (photographer's) sake, I think it is good to be able to move beyond the traditional and established ways of seeing and handling photographs.

chris

-- Chris Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), August 24, 1999.

Ya gotta learn the rules, then learn when to break them.

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), August 26, 1999.

Shree, your question indicates that you know little of what came before, either in art nor in photography, and so are condemned to ask the same questions as if they are fresh thoughts - they are for you, and bravo for asking them, but not for anyone who has cared enough about either endeavour to strive in it, to delineate both a practice and a critical eye - that is, a literate one. When you are committed to self expression, and committed to mastering this medium in service of that self expression, you learn all that you can about it - the questions that have been asked, the positions staked, the visions revealed both afresh and stale. No, you don't think about Meatyard or Smith as you frame the shot - but knowing their work informs your own. People talk about grain, exposure, sharpness because these are the technical elements of taking a photograph, and so lend themselves to expressive control. Your statement about painters is uninformed, as is your conception of the breath of photographic endeavor, each of which carries both a history and an esthetic developed during that history. If you want to stand by the side of the photographic road waving a dark unfocused image with odd colors cause it turns you on, go for it. But you won't impress me unless the image impresses me, and you will find that knowing something about how people respond and have responded to photographs will enable you to understand why people respond to your photograph, and perhaps why you do too.

-- August Depner (apdepner@uswest.net), August 27, 1999.

Damn good points there, August, you've earned your name I see. I would have tempered it a little more, but well said. Get thee to a library, Shree and check it out (ha).

p.s. that's the "breadth" that he's talking about, although I kinda like the "breath of photgraphy" too...t

-- tom meyer (jparady@meteor.com), August 30, 1999.

Yeah, I was concerned later that I was too hard on him, too. Shree asked a question that provoked a response, so gotta give him credit. I like Rick Stiles' thoughtful and informative post as well. I learn a lot from the postings in this forum, and I respect the effort several of the regulars here put forth to help people and to share their insights.

-- August Depner (apdepner@uswest.net), August 30, 1999.

Thanx to all the above specially to August, people hardly talk without any sugarcoating. I said I am just a child, But I think its time to grow!

Thakx

Shree

-- shree (shreepadjoglekar@uas.net), August 31, 1999.