The joy of photography

cowanw said:

To Tomoko’s family, displaying photographs without permission immortalizes Tomoko’s suffering. Tomoko’s father, Yoshio, stated,

“many of the organizations working on our behalf are still using the photograph in various media, many of them without our consent…I realize this is necessary for numerous reasons, but I wanted Tomoko to be laid to rest…”[16]

The family’s request to limit reproduction is an ethical expectation which I think we should honour.

Click to expand...

Alex Benjamin said:

Good point. I deleted the image.

Those who quoted my post can also do the same.

Click to expand...

tjwspm said:

But for some time now I've been asking myself the question, when I'm out and about with my camera, should I take this picture? Not at all out of ethical considerations, but because I ask myself why I should actually take this photo. Which of course leads me to the question of why I take photos at all. Because the temptation to take a picture of something beautiful, spectacular or outrageous or to show off my compositional skills is great. But I am now increasingly not pressing the shutter release and I am becoming more satisfied with it.

I've just counted up my photos and come up with around 50 photos in the last 2 years that meet my criteria.

What is your attitude to this?

Click to expand...

tjwspm said:

What is your attitude to this?

Click to expand...

Don_ih said:

I'd still like you to address my question. You see, a photograph presents itself as a document of a situation or event, but there is no necessity there. In fact, given the amount of potential purposeful inclusion or exclusion of elements from a composition, it's always difficult to say "This is definitely a photo of that" in the sense that "that" is equivalent in some way to "this". So, it's not as different from painting as you suggest - for either the painter/photographer or the viewer.

Click to expand...

Don_ih said:

Both photos and paintings have the power to implicate ethical concerns. We are accustomed to photography being used for that specific purpose and so are a bit more ready to understand a photo in that way. That in no way reflects on the artistry involved. It also doesn't guarantee a truth value for the photo. A photo can be contrived - completely staged - and have as great a moral impact as another.

Furthermore, you attempt to divorce morality and aesthetics. That is not something that I would suggest is as clear and clean as you think it is.

Click to expand...

koraks said:

It reminds me of two things @gary mulder has said to me.
1: practice your scales.
2: don't forget to have a little joie the vivre.
I consider both bits of very valuable advice.

Click to expand...

tjwspm said:

I'm afraid I'm treading on thin ice here. The discussion here is far beyond my ability to talk about art. Yes, I love some of Lartigue's pictures, e.g. Lartigue's cousin Bichonade in Flight and Drag-racing day at the Auteuil races.

But for some time now I've been asking myself the question, when I'm out and about with my camera, should I take this picture? Not at all out of ethical considerations, but because I ask myself why I should actually take this photo. Which of course leads me to the question of why I take photos at all. Because the temptation to take a picture of something beautiful, spectacular or outrageous or to show off my compositional skills is great. But I am now increasingly not pressing the shutter release and I am becoming more satisfied with it.

I've just counted up my photos and come up with around 50 photos in the last 2 years that meet my criteria.

What is your attitude to this?

Click to expand...

Don_ih said:

Yet you have that quote "A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space" -- what do you suppose that means in the face of "Photography ... is inherently tethered to reality."? I assume you believe what Winogrand said in that quote.

Click to expand...

tjwspm said:

Which of course leads me to the question of why I take photos at all.

Click to expand...

cliveh said:

I think this is my favourite Lartigue image for the fact that it uses analogue photographic mechanical distortion and panning technique to such a great artistic effect: -

View attachment 395856

Perhaps I should start a thread entitled appreciation of Latigue, or perhaps nikos 79 will do it?

Click to expand...

nikos79 said:

The difference is that painting doesn't need reality. A sky can be yellow in a painting and is totally fine and acceptable. While in photography a yellow sky is something that violates the reality. In painting we begin by adding stuff to the frame. In photography we begin by excluding stuff from the frame. In painting you can isolate a part of the frame and still have a valid painting. In photography it works as a whole, you can isolate parts of it, There are more differences than similarities between these two.

Click to expand...

nikos79 said:

It can be a starving child or a staged scene with an actor child, no-one knows. But the effect is still the same we believe we see something real. this never happens in painting

Click to expand...

nikos79 said:

It means photography needs the reality to create something but it will never be the exact reality.

Click to expand...

What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it. Still photography is a chemical, mechanical process. Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both.​

Don_ih said:

There is nothing in painting that cannot be in a photograph. There is no violation of reality in either because neither are the reality they can be said to represent. A photo that uses cross-processing or sabattier or filters of some kind of colour replacement through software is probably not going to be understood as an attempt to mimic reality. Similarly with most blatant manipulations. No one will look at one of Uelsmann's photos and wonder where he found a rock with an eye on it. The process of perception and identification is a lot more sophisticated than in your representation.

So, no, a photo needs no reality. And a painting can reference reality as directly as a photo.



You miss the point of what I said. I never said we need to believe we see something real. Have you never read a book or seen a movie and been impacted by it? Complete fiction? Photos and paintings can work in the same way. You can see something and be moved - angered or upset or made happy (there's joy, again), etc. - and be fully aware that what you see is contrived, a fiction, something invented.



What does? This is the larger quote (as much as I can quickly find):

What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it. Still photography is a chemical, mechanical process. Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both.​

Winogrand doesn't talk about reality but about the "illusion of literal description". If you wade through that garbled mess of a thesis, you get the idea that a photograph is just whatever comes out at the end of the process that starts by pointing the camera and pressing the shutter.

Click to expand...

nikos79 said:

Agree to most but not the first part. When a photograph manipulates reality then it is not photography. but visual arts. Photography needs that binding with reality and that is exactly what Winogrand meant when he said to "respect" the medium.

Click to expand...

snusmumriken said:

I’d say that’s a very narrow definition of photography. Doesn’t Bill Brandt’s use of a fisheye lens to photograph nudes amount to manipulation of reality?

Click to expand...

Don_ih said:

There is nothing in painting that cannot be in a photograph.

Click to expand...

cliveh said:

Have you ever felt or seen the texture of paint in a Van Gogh painting?

Click to expand...

cliveh said:

Have you ever felt or seen the texture of paint in a Van Gogh painting?

Click to expand...

nikos79 said:

I am starting to actually wonder and realise that our views on Photography are inherently different, so I don't think we can really communicate or discuss.

Click to expand...

Don_ih said:

Have you seen a photograph of a Van Gogh painting?

What's the difference? (Serious question.)

Click to expand...

Don_ih said:

I tend to try to maintain well-defined terms throughout any of these discussions. There hasn't been that much disparity in terminology here to make discussion incoherent.

Click to expand...

nikos79 said:

Astronomical compared to the actual painting

Click to expand...