Digital BW, The Print

David writes:

> Then us whether his work would, by you,
> be considered photography.

It's photography to the extent that it represents reality.

The photographer is not just one person. The photojournalist reports the 
facts, but in the hands of Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith, Lange and 
others the camera was used to convey the hopes, dreams and emotions of 
their subjects better than any other media could have done.

There are many good photographer technicians  but the true photographer, 
the one whose photographs stand the test of time, are more than a 
reporter of fact, they covey in every shot their message, their passion 
and their emotion.

Truman

david_bookbinder@... wrote:

> Anthony Wrote:
> > Photography's distinction is that it draws upon images that
> > accurately represent reality; remove that, and it's not photography
> any
> > more.
>
>
> Anthony,
>
> At your leisure, perhaps you could read Ansel Adams' "The Making
> of 40 Photographs," if you have not already done so. In it he
> describes how he sees the image he wants to create in his mind
> and then uses filters, lenses, and darkroom techniques in order
> to achieve his vision, not to literally and accurately represent
> what his eyes are looking at. Then us whether his work would,
> by you, be considered photography.
>
>
> - David
>
>
>

Truman Prevatt wrote:

>The photographer is not just one person. The photojournalist reports the 
>facts, but in the hands of Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith, Lange and 
>others the camera was used to convey the hopes, dreams and emotions of 
>their subjects better than any other media could have done.
>
>There are many good photographer technicians  but the true photographer, 
>the one whose photographs stand the test of time, are more than a 
>reporter of fact, they covey in every shot their message, their passion 
>and their emotion.
>
>  
>
Exactly...

When I've lectured to photo students, I've said, when you shoot, think 
first of the emotion you want to convey..  Given  that photography is 
inherently limiting just in going from 3 or 4 to solely two dimensions, 
 you need to not just replicate reality, but to convey the emotion  that 
is motivating you to choose that image as a subject in the first place..

That's part of what Adams did with filters etc..
 
Keith



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>Anthony Wrote:
>  
>
>>Photography's distinction is that it draws upon images that
>>accurately represent reality; remove that, and it's not photography 
>>    
>>
>any
>  
>
>>more.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
Given this discussion...  Thought this would be of interest...

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/entertainment/1590755/detail.html

She's one of the "HOT 100" as hyped, but apparently, in reality, Beyonce 
Knowles, isn't "hot enough" for the cover of Maxim when left to 
reality.. (not that I personally care one way or another) but apparently 
they shrunk her hips and butt to make her look like someone else.. LOL)


Keith
 
 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Anybody can develop the skills to push a shutter button. Anybody can 
develop the skills the make a print. Any with sufficient training can 
"report reality" with a camera. But how many photographers can go out 
into the garden and turn a crummy green pepper into a sensuous work of art?

Truman


Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:

>
>
> Truman Prevatt wrote:
>
> >The photographer is not just one person. The photojournalist reports the
> >facts, but in the hands of Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith, Lange and
> >others the camera was used to convey the hopes, dreams and emotions of
> >their subjects better than any other media could have done.
> >
> >There are many good photographer technicians  but the true photographer,
> >the one whose photographs stand the test of time, are more than a
> >reporter of fact, they covey in every shot their message, their passion
> >and their emotion.
> >
> > 
> >
> Exactly...
>
> When I've lectured to photo students, I've said, when you shoot, think
> first of the emotion you want to convey..  Given  that photography is
> inherently limiting just in going from 3 or 4 to solely two dimensions,
> you need to not just replicate reality, but to convey the emotion  that
> is motivating you to choose that image as a subject in the first place..
>
> That's part of what Adams did with filters etc..
>
> Keith
>

Truman writes:

> But how many photographers can go out into
> the garden and turn a crummy green pepper
> into a sensuous work of art?

Very few; but even so, supply dramatically exceeds demand.

At 01:40 PM 8/5/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Truman Prevatt wrote:
>
>>The photographer is not just one person. The photojournalist reports the 
>>facts, but in the hands of Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith, Lange and 
>>others the camera was used to convey the hopes, dreams and emotions of 
>>their subjects better than any other media could have done.
>>
>>There are many good photographer technicians  but the true photographer, 
>>the one whose photographs stand the test of time, are more than a 
>>reporter of fact, they covey in every shot their message, their passion 
>>and their emotion.
>>
>>  
>>
>Exactly...
>
>When I've lectured to photo students, I've said, when you shoot, think 
>first of the emotion you want to convey..  Given  that photography is 
>inherently limiting just in going from 3 or 4 to solely two dimensions, 
> you need to not just replicate reality, but to convey the emotion  that 
>is motivating you to choose that image as a subject in the first place..
>
>That's part of what Adams did with filters etc..
> 
>Keith
>


I believe photos contain little truth or "facts." They can only give the
viewer a text to study. The viewer sees them as a template to compare to
familiar experiences and expectations (symbols, beauty, emotions, etc.)
Going for an emotional hit is not an altogether bad idea but may simply be
playing to expectations. Journalistic photographs above all need to have
this quality. This doesn't necessarily make them good photographs but good
story telling. 

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround

At 06:30 PM 8/5/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>But that doesn't explain why people are examining and discusing the 
>photographs of one fifty years after they were taken and the photos from 
>another are forgotten the day the newspaper is used on the bottom of the 
>birdcage.
>
>Truman
>
>Alan Zinn wrote:
>
>> At 01:40 PM 8/5/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Truman Prevatt wrote:
>> >
>> >>The photographer is not just one person. The photojournalist reports 
>> the
>> >>facts, but in the hands of Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith, Lange and
>> >>others the camera was used to convey the hopes, dreams and emotions of
>> >>their subjects better than any other media could have done.
>> >>
>> >>There are many good photographer technicians  but the true 
>> photographer,
>> >>the one whose photographs stand the test of time, are more than a
>> >>reporter of fact, they covey in every shot their message, their passion
>> >>and their emotion.
>> >>
>> >> 
>> >>
>> >Exactly...
>> >
>> >When I've lectured to photo students, I've said, when you shoot, think
>> >first of the emotion you want to convey..  Given  that photography is
>> >inherently limiting just in going from 3 or 4 to solely two dimensions,
>> > you need to not just replicate reality, but to convey the emotion  that
>> >is motivating you to choose that image as a subject in the first place..
>> >
>> >That's part of what Adams did with filters etc..
>> >
>> >Keith
>> >

Truman,

One can not set out to make an icon. Very few picures stand out in our
media-driven culture. Those that do are the authoratitive models which only
the rare person and/or special circumstances create. Any number of artists
have made and continue to make very good or better Ansel Adams, Strand, or
Weston-style images because the broader culture knows and thoroughly
understands that form.  

Rightly or not a photograph's authenticity is judged by how well it fits a
formal prototype not how it came to be made. Why can't there be an authentic
style of digitally manipulated photographs (for the sake of argument, not
montages which I consider a form of drawing) that will endure the same as
traditional images? The highly manipulated style of A. Adams, Steichen, or
Eugene Smith, for example, is unquestioned yet using a computer is thought
to be somehow unfaithful to the craft. 

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround

At 03:24 PM 8/6/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>I hate to go back to Richard Kersteil - who I had for several courses at 
>the MD Instutitute.  We were discussing creative control and how 
>photography fits in to the larger world of art. What you say is true for 
>most of the art world. The discussion centered around the art world in a 
>larger society. The art world is very "fashionable." I seems to run in 
>cycles were many people are in their "blue period" just because Picasso 
>was.  There is a lot of copy cats out there - maybe good copycats but 
>still lots. In photography how many "half domes" are there. Adams has 
>already done that, why do we need it doen again unless there is 
>something new to say by doing it.
>
>The along comes a revolutionary - and the trend changes. He/she then 
>become fashionable and many copy cats arise.  Kersteil commented that he 
>hoped he was still active when the "digital revolution" hit and computer 
>technology could be used to give the photographer more control of the 
>process thus opening up new avenues for creative potential.  This was in 
>the mid '70's.
>
>It is only the "right wing" that demands that if you use anything that 
>wasn't available to Adams then you are a heretic. I would expect Adams 
>would have been one of the first to explore creative potential of 
>digital photography if it were available in his prime.
>
>Truman
>
>Alan Zinn wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Rightly or not a photograph's authenticity is judged by how well it fits a
>> formal prototype not how it came to be made. Why can't there be an 
>> authentic
>> style of digitally manipulated photographs (for the sake of argument, not
>> montages which I consider a form of drawing) that will endure the same as
>> traditional images? The highly manipulated style of A. Adams, Steichen, or
>> Eugene Smith, for example, is unquestioned yet using a computer is thought
>> to be somehow unfaithful to the craft.
>>
>> AZ
>

Truman,

I pretty much agree with you.  Just had a discussion today with a friend
about what dirty rotten dogs photographers are who don't own up to seriously
editing digitally :-)  I think it is more about personal choice than ethics
as long as some sort of journalistic fraud isn't involved or something like
that. 

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround

I've discussed this many time in other forums - the compression of four
dimensions (in my mind, time is the fourth dimension, btw) into two,
plus the removal of color, is most definitely an abstraction.  This to
get to "realism" in photography!
 
Alan, I checked out your website, and am curious about the inner
workings of your cameras.  Are any further drawings available?  I'm not
looking for trade secrets, but would like to know what makes them tick.
 
Thanks,
 
Karl Wolz
 
Finally, someone who really understands photographs :-)  The myth of
photography is its reality. For me challenging the myth becomes a
photographic end in itself. 

AZ

Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=231963.2233194.3678441.1501206/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1100554/R=1/*http:/personals.yahoo.com/>    Yahoo! Personals
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=231963.2233194.3678441.1501206/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1100554/R=2/*http:/personals.yahoo.com/> Millions of people
who want to meet you.


I'm a 
 
Man  Woman 

 seeking a 
 
Woman  Man 

Enter city or ZIP  
 

 
 

 

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 12:33 AM 8/7/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>
>One of the things about photography that often catches people off-guard and
>in fact frequently will give a photograph its power to evoke an emotion or
>reaction is that a photograph is much more distanced from reality than the
>common view would have it. It is more often somewhat a tenuous thread that
>stretches from the photograph to reality.
>
>Never mind the more abstract issues of the language (or lack of) and form of
>photography, just think of the some of the basics:
>
>It's two dimensional
>
>It's often in black and white
>
>Even if it's in colour - the colours usually aren't "real"
>
>They are usually smaller than the "reality they attempt represent" - by a
>huge degree in most cases.
>
>They impose a frame around what it is trying to represent - how real is
>that?
>
>The lenses used either compress or expand the plane of the image, thus
>distorting the reality compared to how we perceive it outside of
>photography.
>
>They capture perhaps 1/500th or 1/25th or at most a minute or two of time.
>That's not, generally how we perceive something or how something really
>exists.
>
>The photograph always looks backwards - that is, it's a piece of history, of
>the past - it looks to something that we can never see again and is in that
>sense not real at all.
>
>So, just a few for starters  :-)
>
>So, how accurate a representation of reality is a photograph? - not very
>accurate at all. As accurate as, say, one of Picasso's paintings of women.
>(which of course may be a more true representation... but that's another
>issue)
>
>tim
>

Tim,

Finally, someone who really understands photographs :-)  The myth of
photography is its reality. For me challenging the myth becomes a
photographic end in itself. 

AZ

Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround