|
Bottom Liner posted:Well first off, people here use the term snapshot to mean a boring photo, regardless of how it was taken. That said, a true snapshot can make a great photo. Being in the right place at the right time is a big part of photography. Photography is such a varied field that it's hard to really make a literal statement. I doubt Adams was really thinking about photography in a documentary sense when he made it. The intent behind the quote is more that every photograph is a product of the photographer's development in whatever their field. A photojournalist is making his photographs by virtue of his experience, his developed connections, and his eye. There is intent even in those split second shots. To me it is "making" the picture not just taking it. So I guess we differ there. Of course now we have a world where everyone has a camera and you're seeing a lot more snapshots pass as photojournalism. Which leads to an interesting debate about the relevance of photojournalism.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
As an amateur who doesn't really know what they are doing I think of a snapshot as 'grabbing your camera, pointing it and pressing the shutter' like a reactionary shot. It could still be a great photo, but would not be as good as if the photographer had been set up for the shot before-hand. I almost think of it as the amount of effort that has gone into the shot; so the quick 'snap' didn't take much effort but could still capture something much more amazing than the guy who stopped, set up and adjusted before taking a shot. If the subject was exactly the same then clearly the prior-preparation of the second shooter would net them a better picture. However the quick snap could capture something very brief that the 'planner' would not have the time to set up for. Kind of hard to explain, but I hope it is at least somewhat legible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Creepy Goat posted:I almost think of it as the amount of effort that has gone into the shot; so the quick 'snap' didn't take much effort but could still capture something much more amazing than the guy who stopped, set up and adjusted before taking a shot. If the subject was exactly the same then clearly the prior-preparation of the second shooter would net them a better picture. I would have to argue this. The two photos would certainly be different, but to say that one would be inherently 'better' is debatable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
dreggory posted:I would have to argue this. The two photos would certainly be different, but to say that one would be inherently 'better' is debatable. I think that was poorly worded; say a photographer sets up his tripod, measures the light, sets his exposure and focus and then shoots a perfect picture of a tree full of dead leaves. It makes a nice picture, which the shooter put a good amount of effort into framing and technical tweaking to get. Now say another photographer is walking by this same tree, and a gust of wind blows the leaves out all at once in a single direction- he points his camera on AF and hits the shutter hoping for the best. Both these photos, as you stated, would be very different. Which one is better though? Again you are right, it is debatable. Without actual photographic examples it would be difficult to discuss it, a theoretical example such as the one I outlined doesn't really compare the two very well but it gives a hint of what I am talking about. Personally I would prefer the 'snapshot'- it may not be nearly as pretty as the other photo, but it captures something much more beautiful in my opinion. Someone else may prefer the other for their own reasons. I guess what I am saying is which is better- The shot that took the most amount of technical expertise and effort in order to achieve a very pretty perfectly-executed picture, or the quick dirty shot that captured something unique and rare? I don't think anyone can say either is better, but you can have a favourite and my favourite would be the quick and dirty shot. Creepy Goat fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jan 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
Creepy Goat posted:I think that was poorly worded; say a photographer sets up his tripod, measures the light, sets his exposure and focus and then shoots a perfect picture of a tree full of dead leaves. It makes a nice picture, which the shooter put a good amount of effort into framing and technical tweaking to get. It's a bad example because you could easily say a snapshotter would just take a shot of the tree and go on with their day but the photographer might set up and meter and wait for the perfect moment when the wind captures the tree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:It's a bad example because you could easily say a snapshotter would just take a shot of the tree and go on with their day but the photographer might set up and meter and wait for the perfect moment when the wind captures the tree. It is 1am I don't think I am making much sense. I think the point I was trying to make was that by its nature, a snapshot has the ability to capture something that is gone in an instant- that thing can sometimes be rare or unique. Setting up for a perfect picture makes it less likely to capture something like that; the shooter is more static and concentrated where-as the snapshotter basically reacts as if pointing a finger. Oh god I am going to bed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Something else you have to remember is that there is something going on *behind* the camera as well as in front. The hypothetical well-trained photographer is going to communicate the urgency and immediacy of that quick and dirty snapshot, and make it part of the image. Part of the message. *That* quick decision-making, instinct-based process is going to affect the work in some ways that are unrepeatable by other methods or under different conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
The point that I was making is that I dont think the photographer should be judged on set up time. The thing that should be judged is the scene that they see and capture in the moment. Your example is bad because it discounts everything that great street photographers, and general life photographers do. Robert Brown traveled around the US with a camera capturing pictures and scenes that defined every day american life. He didn't spend hours setting up shots, he put himself into situations and then documented what he saw with a singular vision. Photography isn't about set up or process, it's about product. It's your (hopefully) unique eye that defines you as a photographer, not the amount of time or set up or gear that it took to get the shot (though that's not to disqualify shoots that require huge amounts of time/gear).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
Noemie Goudal  
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Noemie Goudal The first image on her website is really awesome, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
I just checked out my university's photography section of the library. The have some really cool old stuff there like old books of daguerreotypes and whatnot, along with books from more well known guys like Eggleston/Walker Evans. Probably take a while to look through it all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 07:28
|
|
|
For anyone with an ipad, iphone, or itouch Apple's new itunesU has a series of lectures by Todd Hido. There are also a lot of courses on photography in general, pretty cool stuff worth checking out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
A great slideshow of photos from Alex Webb: http://vimeo.com/24446915
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
Here's a neat set of portraits of photographers holding their signature/famous images. http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2012/01/famous-photogs-pose-with-their-most-iconic-images/
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
So I read through the thread about the artistic purity of post-processing, and it reminded me of one of my favorite photographers, whose photos I've been meaning to post here for a while. Jan Saudek:    NWS: http://www.saudek.com/photos/87-10.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:For anyone with an ipad, iphone, or itouch Apple's new itunesU has a series of lectures by Todd Hido. There are also a lot of courses on photography in general, pretty cool stuff worth checking out. You can also watch through regular iTunes - iTunes U has been around for a few years now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Richard Prince  
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Richard Prince Holy gently caress do I want prints of this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
I'm well into these:  http://www.featureshoot.com/2011/09/christopher-jonassen-norway/
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
I wasn't terribly sure where the best place to post this was, and I think it sort of fits here, but would anyone know a good place to peruse some awesome photobooks and works in that kind of format? I want to look over a load of great photobooks and look into what I like about them, as I'll be making one of my own, of sorts, at some point this year (when all the content is finished).
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
A5H posted:I'm well into these: I would have never guessed what those were, drat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I would have never guessed what those were, drat. I'm... still not 100% sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:I wasn't terribly sure where the best place to post this was, and I think it sort of fits here, but would anyone know a good place to peruse some awesome photobooks and works in that kind of format? I want to look over a load of great photobooks and look into what I like about them, as I'll be making one of my own, of sorts, at some point this year (when all the content is finished). Try a library.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:I wasn't terribly sure where the best place to post this was, and I think it sort of fits here, but would anyone know a good place to peruse some awesome photobooks and works in that kind of format? I want to look over a load of great photobooks and look into what I like about them, as I'll be making one of my own, of sorts, at some point this year (when all the content is finished). It seems to be putting the cart ahead of the horse to publish photography in a format in which you don't consume it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:I'm... still not 100% sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
I'm sure you all have seen this (and if you haven't, it's because you're not following the Times Lens blog, which makes you a stupid head) but these photos from an NYPD cop on the beat in the bronx are pretty great. (Sorry, Times uses a flash player so I can't post the photos here)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
I've been a fan of Brooke Shaden for a very long time, but I am in LOVE with this one in and of earth by brookeshaden, on Flickr The powder thing isn't new, but her execution and the shape of the cloud made my jaw drop. Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Well that's pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 14:02
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Irina Werning Amazing. The attention to pose and lighting, and all the little details...
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I've been a fan of Brooke Shaden for a very long time, but I am in LOVE with this one I've got a problem her with her and that other dude. So much of what they do is in post... Edit: to be clear, the image is stunning, but it seems less like photography and more like digital art. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
I'm sure you grab the photons from a scene and release them only once to 'show' your work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Is the model coated in baby powder and shaking it off, or did she drop a packet of it or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:I've got a problem her with her and that other dude. So much of what they do is in post... and what's wrong with that? I don't think Brooke is really claiming to be a pure photographer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
Round two. Fight!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
I hate to bust into threads all the time, but let's not do this 'digital art' thing again. Ever. I mean unless someone can PM me a reason it's a great discussion topic that will generate quality debate, in which case, you're lying 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Paul Graham    
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
He's got some great photos on his website, but I don't understand that particular series at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
There's a nice contrast between images of beautiful, large houses and washed out photos of people walking in poor areas. I figured it was pretty obvious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
I could be wrong, but here's my take on it - he's using the massively washed-out images to make a statement on how both we view a social underclass (and also possibly how they view the world). It's difficult to make out the details in the washed-out images, and thus we ignore them, either due to an inability or unwillingness to process them completely. The large, colourful, images of suburbia are a juxtaposition to these images, an easily understood and studied declaration of the American dream, which we are only too happy to observe in all it's "glorious" detail. I add in the latter part about how the processing is possibly to bring in an empathetic shared viewpoint of the people, as if you look through the series, the close portraiture of the poor shows people with orbital injuries. The washed out images initially reminded me of a study of blind people I saw once. This could be over-analyzing though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
I don't think you're over-analyzing at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 07:10
|
|