Thoughts on photography

[Ari]

Inspired by Curses thread I thought I would make a thread about some of my thoughts on photography. As with everything FF, feel free to jump in.

I'm almost finished with my AA degree in photography. The entire point of the degree is so I can say I have a college level education, no photography job will ever ask for it. Although I fear it may be a Masters or higher to work at McDonald if this taking pictures thing doesn't work out.

I've spent the last couple of years immersed in photography. I've noticed there are plenty of cynical and jaded people and then there are the successful photographers. Ok there is some overlap but it seems like those who are making an impact in the world today are those that find fascination and wonder in most things they look at or do instead of constant complaining and sticking to old traditions.

Recently one of my photos was selected for the Academy of Art Spring Show (Image and Spring Show 09 Photo Dept), an annual show the school holds to show off the best of each department, as well as advertise themselves. While I'm proud of this, the reality is that getting into group shows or winning contests is a crap shoot because, ignoring your competition, you are really up against the judge's personal opinions and sometimes cynicism. You may have an awesome photo of a bunny, but if the judge has decided that cute animals are right out, it doesn't matter. You may have a really creative idea but that often means someone will dislike it and thus the winner is something safe that all the judges can agree on.

That's not to say there aren't some really good images in the Spring Show but it doesn't mean anything rejected was bad, on the contrary I constantly saw work in all of my classes I feel are better than many of those in the Spring Show, including my own piece.

When people don't get picked and see 'lesser' works chosen, it breads more cynicism and one day those cynics are going to grow up to be judges who can then eliminate all smiling babies and call themselves edgy. The trick to photography seems to be letting go, of your work, ideas, gadgets, cynicism, etc. Photography is a subtractive art both physically and mentally.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Ari

Photography is a subtractive art both physically and mentally.

Not being an artist or having any training as an artist can you tell me what that sentence means?

[Ari]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Not being an artist or having any training as an artist can you tell me what that sentence means?

Photography is often described as a 'subtractive' art. Whereas in painting or drawing you add things to a blank canvas, in photography you often subtract things by where you stand, or how you crop, etc. Trimming a busy location into a well composed image. Even though you can do plenty of adding in pre or post production you always start with something and generally chop out, whereas other arts you start with nothing and add in.
(If that makes sense).

In the same thought people often get too overwhelmed mentally, be it with gadgets or numbers or what has been "over-done" etc and let these things bog them down, instead they need to be chopping things out and letting them go.

[Ari]

I went and picked up my Spring Show pieces that weren't accepted yesterday. There were tons of still unclaimed photos in the room that I had to sift through to find my work, which hammered home two things.

I'm right, group shows are a crap shoot, as there were plenty of rejected images that were amazing.

Presentation matters. Photographers are taught to look at every detail of their photo. Are the highlights right? Do the shadows have details? Are the blacks black? angles just right? A stray hair in that perfect fashion photo? Is the image tack sharp? We spend time and money on techniques, researching the best, sometimes expensive, lenses and learn how to use them at their sharpest. Yet it seems like people forget the presentation.

Flipping through the images I was amazed at how many were matted with a step up from white construction paper and taped with blue painters tape on the back. Others were sleeved with sheet protectors and they didn't even go through the trouble to cut the brand and binder holes off. Not only does it shout unprofessional it also says that they don't care enough about their work to present it in a nice or proper way, and yet I know many photographers in school that practically fall in love with every shot they take.

Treat your work like you are proud of it, otherwise how can you expect cynical judges to care.

[Petra]

Another thread to subscribe to.

Thanks for this, Ari. I greatly appreciate your perspective.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Ari

Photography is often described as a 'subtractive' art. Whereas in painting or drawing you add things to a blank canvas, in photography you often subtract things by where you stand, or how you crop, etc. Trimming a busy location into a well composed image. Even though you can do plenty of adding in pre or post production you always start with something and generally chop out, whereas other arts you start with nothing and add in.
(If that makes sense).

In the same thought people often get too overwhelmed mentally, be it with gadgets or numbers or what has been "over-done" etc and let these things bog them down, instead they need to be chopping things out and letting them go.

It there any sort of aesthetic that you use to decide what to chop away? I was reading something awhile back, (not sure if I am remembering this correctly) that there are three major categories that you can use to decide how to frame the image; shape, such as line or curve, color and texture. So would I be correct in thinking that one would try to subtract those things from the shot that interfered with either the shape, color or texture you are going for? Or am I being overly simplistic?

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ari

I'm right, group shows are a crap shoot

Is true, for all the reasons you gave.


Presentation matters. .....Yet it seems like people forget the presentation.

Flipping through the images I was amazed at how many were matted with a step up from white construction paper and taped with blue painters tape on the back. Others were sleeved with sheet protectors and they didn't even go through the trouble to cut the brand and binder holes off. Not only does it shout unprofessional ...

I have seen people submit paintings to shows in that kind of fashion, even so-called pros. It's amazing.

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ari

Inspired by Curses thread

how did I miss that thread?

I've noticed there are plenty of cynical and jaded people and then there are the successful photographers.

I have a friend who is one of the successful ones, although I suppose it depends on how we define "success". He's talented, he makes money from it and he's still in love with it. I call that success. He's always so positive.

[naturalist.atheist]

I think it is all about the passion. If you are passionate about it, no matter what it is, it will show through and people find that infectious. And it doesn't matter if it is physics or photography.

[Plant Woman]

I always have the attitude that I would be a starving artist if I had to, but I have to do the creativity or I might as well be dead. Fortunately, I've earned a living at it when I needed to. If you have to work, it might as well be at something you love. Then you don't work, you play and get paid for it!

[Ari]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

It there any sort of aesthetic that you use to decide what to chop away? I was reading something awhile back, (not sure if I am remembering this correctly) that there are three major categories that you can use to decide how to frame the image; shape, such as line or curve, color and texture. So would I be correct in thinking that one would try to subtract those things from the shot that interfered with either the shape, color or texture you are going for? Or am I being overly simplistic?

There are many rules of composition and many reasons to break them. Although it's often simplier than that and many people do it everyday when they pick up a camera. Just think of any vacation, you are trying to get a picture of your family infront of the Eiffel tower, you probably don't want the tourist scratching his butt, so you use the frame to cut him out, on the other hand you try to not subtract things like people's heads or feet.

More complicated composition really comes down to noticing what's going on in the scene and choosing what to emphasize and what not too. Line, color, form, subject, texture, etc.

You would think this would leave many photos looking the same, but people see the same thing in many different ways, and when I get thoughts organized I'll post about my Landscape class, and eventually *gasp* have photos in the thread about photography.

[Ari]

Double posting goodness.

[curses]

Ari, nothing much to add but I'm really enjoying reading this thread. Thanks for posting it.

[Ari]

Sleevless or death

Speaking of presentation, if you want to cause an argument among a group of profesional photographers or art buyers, just go up and ask them if plastic sleeves (higher quality 'photo grade' plastic protectors, often designed for use in portfolio books) are acceptable in a portfolio, then enjoy the show.

Everyone seems to have an opinion on them. An art buyer on an ASMP blog hates them, however my portfolio teacher, an art buyer, doesn't mind them.

So, are they for you?

Sleeve
Pros
•Photo condom. Protecting your photos from finger prints and smudges.
•Allows photos to be switched out to update your portfolio.
•Cheaper and easier (if you can get the sheets on sale).

Cons
•Shiney surface can make it more difficult to view.


No-Sleeve
Pros
•Buyers enjoy more sensation by bareback touching your photos.
•no sheet to look through.

Cons
•Barebacking is messy and paper can get smudged or torn.
•Double sided paper is more expensive and harder to print on than standard sheets.

The truth
It doesn't matter. If someone turns you down for a job it's because your pictures weren't right, if they select you it's because they liked your style. You won't win a job over someone else just because you didn't use sleeves and they did.

As a smart and upcoming photographer really you shouldn't worry about it and instead be arguing Flash vs HTML because today people only call in hard portfolios if you are on a very short list for the job. Your site is your new face to the world.

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ari

As a smart and upcoming photographer really you shouldn't worry about it and instead be arguing Flash vs HTML because today people only call in hard portfolios if you are on a very short list for the job. Your site is your new face to the world.

Do you have lots of experience with this? I've just ordered a book on making digital portfolios, but it was published in 2004. The basics might be there, but in other ways I think might be of limited use given the speed of software advancement.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

Do you have lots of experience with this? I've just ordered a book on making digital portfolios, but it was published in 2004. The basics might be there, but in other ways I think might be of limited use given the speed of software advancement.

It will probably be pretty good, the basics haven't changed much in a number of years. There is a much heavier use of flash today than in the past (and once Flash is on the iPhone I bet it will grow even more). Most people have a decent connection and flash on their computer, so while a bare-bones html page is still good, it's become less of a requirement than in the past. I built my site (not the best shining example, but a functioning site) with a combination of html Java and exportable flash galleries from lightroom, all things that have been around for awhile.

The big issues have always been portfolio editing and design.

Changes from 2004 are the growing use of social networking sites like facebook to advertise or show work, as well as photo dumping grounds like Flikr. Pay to build sites have become popular where you choose a layout and pay a monthy fee to host your site, a good example is Livebooks.com. Blogs are also much more popular than in the past.
Often blogs, facebook, flikr etc. are used for experiments or personal not-yet-finished work, while the main site is their professional portfolio.

Beyond that the biggest tech change has been on the back end, it's not uncommon for photographers to have a passworded site showing the days shots and edits and to have a large project happen completely over the internet with an ftp delivery of the final file.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Ari

More complicated composition really comes down to noticing what's going on in the scene and choosing what to emphasize and what not too. Line, color, form, subject, texture, etc.

You would think this would leave many photos looking the same, but people see the same thing in many different ways, and when I get thoughts organized I'll post about my Landscape class, and eventually *gasp* have photos in the thread about photography.

And this brings me to my next area of curiosity. How do you hone that personal perspective. Is there any method to it or is it just lucky and happy happenstance that you build on?

[Ari]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

And this brings me to my next area of curiosity. How do you hone that personal perspective. Is there any method to it or is it just lucky and happy happenstance that you build on?

A good question.

One way to hone that personal perspective is to set rules when out photographing, "I'll only use x lens" "I will focus on lines." "All my photos will contain something that is yellow." "I will shoot with a pineapple on my head." The rules can be based on classic compositional elements such as the rule of thirds, or something strange. Then to go out a second time and break those rules.

Constraints force you to problem solve to make a good picture, which generally means dipping into your personal perspective. The two photo sets can be compared together and often similarities will start jumping out.

Often personal perspective can feel like happenstance because it happens unconsciously. As does a lot in photography, but when you start to break things down, there is a method and purpose to the madness.


thought I should actually put photos in this thread.

Mac n Cheese


Bubble House


Technically speaking these are pretty different images. Mac n Cheese was shot indoors with a strobe (basically a big flash), using a sharp wide angle lens. Bubble House was shot outside with natural light, using a soft telephoto plastic lens.

Yet they have similarities, both have a 3 color Palette with an emphasis on texture, grit and reality. At the same time they have a dream like quality. Mac n Cheese being hyper real with neon colors and sharp contrast and Bubble house having a soft subdued look.

[naturalist.atheist]

It seems like so much of it is about learning how to see. After you explained the second shot I understood it but before that I would not have seen the points of interest in that second shot.

[curses]

I wonder how much of it is learning to see versus learning how to exploit your own perception of things. As in a red bowl. Some people see the color first, others see the shine, some people see what's in it.

[Ymir's blood]

Some people see that it's half empty.

[BrotherMan]

And still others see the opportunity for more cheese.

[Ari]

It's also about defining and understanding why we see how we do. Most people will say they like one image over another, but fewer can tell you why. It's about attention to details. In all my classes I've noticed one of the hardest things is for people to explain why they like or dislike something, harder yet was explaining how they thought it could be fixed. From an early age we are taught in a linear analytical fashion and it's sometimes hard to get out of that mode. It's easy to look at number and decide someone could fix their image if only they had used a different set of numbers (exposure, shutterspeed, etc) but much harder to explain the visual and conceptual reasons why an image is successful or not.

[Ari]

Architectural Landscape

Last semester I took an Architectural Landscape class, really for no other reason than I liked the prof. It was a good choice and now I recommend the class to everyone, especially those who hate or rarely do landscape photography.

The prof was very loose with the definition of architectural landscape,
•The viewer has to have a place to stand.
•It must be autobiographical, thus it must say something about the photographer.
•It needs to have architecture in it (this can take up a corner or the entire frame).
•It must be about the landscape.

Landscape photography differs drastically from other photography. There are no makeup artists, fashion designers, set decorators, strobes, hot lights, etc. Just you, your camera and the effort you put into it. At first it seems like there is very little that can be done with that. I mean how can I shoot without a profoto pack and makeup artist? Many people get too attached to the the tools and techniques, shaking things up once in awhile is good.

Back to the class, our second assignment was the break through for many students. A class field trip to the Embarcadero in San Francisco. We were allowed to shoot anywhere from the ballpark to pier 39. We all went on the same day, at the same time and yet many brought back completely different photos, sometimes of the same thing almost standing in the same spot. The class was amazed and so was I. My first instinct is to assume that most of the photos would turn out the same, after all you can't move a building or the sun. Most of what we have been taught revolves around changing our environment, which the camera captures. Often glossed over is the capture itself, well beyond getting a 'good' exposure. In this class everything was reversed, it's you and the camera that matters, everything else you just need to accept. This was freeing.



Embarcadero

What the class did expanded after that. It is a mid level class and many had lived and fretted under too many details and constraints for too long. The photo process was also left up to the photographer. Some people experimented with polaroids, others with photoshop. I experimented with modified plastic lenses.

The class was only 6 assignments plus 1 extra credit assignment long, but by the end it was possible to pick out one person's work over the other, even if they shot the same thing. This class really drove home the amount of personality people do and should bring to their work. I learned a lot about my work and others.

This class was also good because of the teacher. Something should be said about having your shit together as a prof in any school, even an art school that runs things a bit looser. Assignments were given out well ahead of time, the grading scale, late work scale, and redo policy all spelt out. critiques took up most of class time and offered different views based on where each student was coming from. This sits in contrast to another prof who couldn't give use accurate due dates or assignment details for important things like the mid term project, and had rambling critiques that called one person's work crap and another's excellent, for the exact same reasons.

A book presentation I created using work from this class,

erode gallery

[Petra]

*LOVE* your book presentation, Ari.