interesting photographic process

[Paul Pless]

Photographer: Charles Moody
Location: Jekyll Island, Georgia

I was on Driftwood Beach on Jekyll Island, Georgia to take some night exposures. First I set the camera to ISO 12800 and using Aperature Priority at F/ 8 I took one exposure and then used the settings from that image to extrapolate down to the appropriate exposure for ISO 200. I then set the camera up for manual control and using a cable release and a shutter speed of BULB I took a 17k minute exposure. While I was exposing the image I used a small LED flashlight with a red filter to paint in the red color on the tree. During the last few minutes of the exposure a thunderstorm started building up and I managed to get one lightning strike at the end of the exposure.

link to the National Wildlife Federation photo contest: http://www.nwf.org/PhotoContest/photocontesthome.aspx

[Norman Bernstein]

Very interesting picture... but I'd think I'd classify it as art, not photography

[Kaa]

The technique is often called "light painting" and is... well, maybe not widespread but known. Typically you'd see it used in cave photographs, but people have been getting good results by just playing with it :-)

I am also intrigued by Norman's ability to classify images into either photography or art. Tell me more! :-)

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

I am also intrigued by Norman's ability to classify images into either photography or art. Tell me more! :-)

Norman is neither a photographer, nor an art critic. He has only the ability to express a personal opinion.

[Kaa]

Norman is neither a photographer, nor an art critic. He has only the ability to express a personal opinion.

I am unaware of photographers or art critics who are capable of expressing more than a personal opinion, so you're good :-)

The real question is about the existence in your mind of two separate boxes labeled "art" and "photography" so that an image lands in only one of them. That's not common, I think :-P

Kaa

[Shang]

As a discussion-starter I ask my photo students: "Do you take a photograph, or do you make a photograph?"

[Kaa]

As a discussion-starter I ask my photo students: "Do you take a photograph, or do you make a photograph?"

:-) The answer should be "it depends" -- there are photographs that are "found" (or captured) and there are photographs which are "made" (or constructed).

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

I am unaware of photographers or art critics who are capable of expressing more than a personal opinion, so you're good :-)

Gee, thanks... I think

The real question is about the existence in your mind of two separate boxes labeled "art" and "photography" so that an image lands in only one of them. That's not common, I think :-P

I wouldn't know whether it is common or not... being a layman who is not really much of an art fan, I can only express how this all appears to me. Photography, in my limited mind, is a capture of some reality. Art is a capture of imagination. Photographs that are very heavily manipulated strike me as falling into the latter class. The photo in the OP could just as well have been painted... it is certainly not a depiction of any reality.

[Paul Pless]

Photography, in my limited mind, is a capture of some reality. Art is a capture of imagination. Photographs that are very heavily manipulated strike me as falling into the latter class.

A photograph doesn't have to be manipulated to be 'artistic'.

[Norman Bernstein]

A photograph doesn't have to be manipulated to be 'artistic'.

You could call an innovative architectural design 'artistic', but it's not strictly 'art'. 'Artistic' is an adjective, 'art' is a noun. Feel free to redefine them as you wish. I think my of my circuit designs as an 'art', although I doubt one of my schematics (or anyone else's, for that matter) will ever be found hanging in the Gugenheim

[Kaa]

Photography, in my limited mind, is a capture of some reality. Art is a capture of imagination.

Interesting. So realism is not a valid art style?

Also, when you call photography "a capture of ... reality", do you mean that as "if my eye were in that spot at that time I would be able to see the same thing"? I have in mind things like infrared photography, micro- (or astro-) photography, time-sequence photography, etc.

Kaa

[Paul Pless]

I have in mind things like infrared photography, micro- (or astro-) photography, time-sequence photography, etc.

or even depth of field, focus, focus shift, motion blur, flash photgraphy, or color or lack of color rendition. . .

[Norman Bernstein]

Interesting. So realism is not a valid art style?

ANY style of art is equivalently 'valid'... it's merely my opinion that photographs which distort reality are more properly classified as art.... once again, an opinion.

Also, when you call photography "a capture of ... reality", do you mean that as "if my eye were in that spot at that time I would be able to see the same thing"? I have in mind things like infrared photography, micro- (or astro-) photography, time-sequence photography, etc.

All of those things are photography, and they capture reality, just in ways that the limitations of our vision don't permit us to see. I'd even extend that to things like astrophotography that uses 'false colors' to make features distinct, since it is using a 'trick' of sorts, but the trick enables us to see reality.

[BrianY]

"Photography, in my limited mind, is a capture of some reality."

Photography is no more (or less) a 'capture of some reality" than a painting. EVERY photographer interprets and manipulates "reality" the same way that every "artist" does. We've just fooled ourselves into believing that photographs depict reality. EVERY picture "lies" the same way that EVERY work of art "lies".

Both processes and the people doing them manipulate and interpret 'reality" when forming the final image. Likewise, the viewer interprets the "reality" depicted in the photo or painting so that his pereption and understanding of that "reality" is different from the actual subjective reality that existed at the time the image was made.

People often believe that a snapshot-type photograph - unplanned, unmanipluated - portrays "reality" but it doesn't. The "reality" of the image content is altered by the photographic medium, process, point of view, field of view, point of focus, the properties of the lens and film/sensor, the media on which the image is displayed and the perceptions of the viewer.

[Norman Bernstein]

"Photography, in my limited mind, is a capture of some reality."

Photography is no more (or less) a 'capture of some reality" than a painting. EVERY photographer interprets and manipulates "reality" the same way that every "artist" does. We've just fooled ourselves into believing that photographs depict reality. EVERY picture "lies" the same way that EVERY work of art "lies".

Both processes and the people doing them manipulate and interpret 'reality" when forming the final image. Likewise, the viewer interprets the "reality" depicted in the photo or painting so that his pereption and understanding of that "reality" is different from the actual subjective reality that existed at the time the image was made.

People often believe that a snapshot-type photograph - unplanned, unmanipluated - portrays "reality" but it doesn't. The "reality" of the image content is altered by the photographic medium, process, point of view, field of view, point of focus, the properties of the lens and film/sensor, the media on which the image is displayed and the perceptions of the viewer.

Fair enough. Let's just call it 'different strokes for different folks', then

[switters]

It looks 3 dimensional, very cool.

[Kaa]

.... once again, an opinion.

Don't be so defensive, I'm not trying to trap you :-)

All of those things are photography, and they capture reality, just in ways that the limitations of our vision don't permit us to see. I'd even extend that to things like astrophotography that uses 'false colors' to make features distinct, since it is using a 'trick' of sorts, but the trick enables us to see reality.

Well, but in which way the photograph in the original post is significantly different from a false-color astrophotography image, then? It's an actual real tree and actual real sky. The tree was lit up with reddish color, that's all. Why is that not a depiction of reality?

Kaa

[Shang]

I visited a London exhibition of photographs by Cartier-Bresson:



I was much impressed by Cartier-Bresson's "Decisive Moment" style of photography. His photographs appear to be random, but capture people and places with an amazing artist's eye.
So I decided to try an experiment. The next day I set out with my 35mm. camera and a lot of film; I told myself that when ever I saw a subject of interest I would take a picture---But---I wouldn't look through the viewfinder, I would just look at the subject and shoot. I assumed that there would necessarily be an element of randomness but my keen eye for composition would produce interesting photographs.

I shot four 36 exposure rolls. I even happened to catch a shot of a robbery in progress!
When I developed the film, how many photographs were worth printing?

[Norman Bernstein]

Well, but in which way the photograph in the original post is significantly different from a false-color astrophotography image, then? It's an actual real tree and actual real sky. The tree was lit up with reddish color, that's all. Why is that not a depiction of reality?

In the case of false color astrophotography, the colorization allows the viewer to see things which are indeed real, just not visible with the naked eye, or even with an augmented eye (i.e., the telescope). The same is most often true in some types of microphotography, where stains are used to bring out distinct features which don't have natural color perceptible by the human eye.

In the case of the photograph, the tree isn't red. The ground fog wouldn't look like that, to an observer in the same position as the photography. The traces of stars, blurred by the time lapse, wouldn't be seen like that. The purpose, however, of the manipulation, was not to enhance reality.... it was done for the sake of the artistic qualities of the photograph.

Nothing wrong with that, at all. It's a beautiful picture.... but its intent is artistic. Nothing wrong with that, either.

Ansel Adams photos, in my understanding, also benefited from some limited artistic manipulation.... although the techniques (dodging and burning, in the printmaking process) were primitive, compared to what can be done today. You most frequently find his photographs in art studios, art books, and museums.... which sort of defines art, does it not?

Personal taste may be an affectation, on my part. When I think of photography, I tend to think of photojournalism. Yes, the power of the lens, the camera angles, and the selective or non-selective focus do 'alter' the image, but the intent isn't artistic, per se.

[Kaa]

When I developed the film, how many photographs were worth printing?

To hang on a wall, zero. To give to the police department, one. :-)

Kaa

[Paul Pless]

I was much impressed by "Decisive Moment" style of photography. His photographs appear to be random, but capture people and places with an amazing artist's eye.

When I developed the film, how many photographs were worth printing?

LOL, did the process increase your admiration of his work?

[Paul Pless]

To hang on a wall, zero. To give to the police department, one. :-)

Kaa

LOL iii

[Kaa]

The purpose, however, of the manipulation, was not to enhance reality.... it was done for the sake of the artistic qualities of the photograph .... but its intent is artistic.

Ah! So the distinction is not in what's done to the image, but in the intent? It's the state of the mind of the creator which defines whether the image is photography or art?

If you intend to create art, the image is art, and if you do not, the image is a photograph?

You most frequently find his photographs in art studios, art books, and museums.... which sort of defines art, does it not?

Well, yes, it is one of art's many definitions :-) Though there are people who are distinctly unhappy with it :-)

When I think of photography, I tend to think of photojournalism.

What about portraits? Or even, let's say, covers of fashion magazines -- where would these fall?

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

Ah! So the distinction is not in what's done to the image, but in the intent? It's the state of the mind of the creator which defines whether the image is photography or art?
If you intend to create art, the image is art, and if you do not, the image is a photograph?

Hmmm... perhaps I should backpedal that a little bit. I don't think the intent necessarily defines the distinction, since everyone is free to interpret the result however they want to. Let's just say that is how I interpret this particular photo.

What about portraits? Or even, let's say, covers of fashion magazines -- where would these fall?

Decidedly art. Until her recent pregnancy, my daughter had been moonlighting as a family and child photographer. Virtually every image sold to the clients had at least a little bit of photoshop magic done to it. Covers of fashion magazine, especially, are artistic renditions created by the manipulation of a photograph... and that manipulation is decidedly 'art', in my mind.

A mugshot, on the other hand, is a photograph

[Shang]

...I shot four 36 exposure rolls. I even happened to catch a shot of a robbery in progress!
When I developed the film, how many photographs were worth printing?

Not one.
Not even the one of the robbery in progress--I just caught a blurred figure with something in his hand.

But it was a good experience, it emphasized that a human mind and eye are necessary to produce a worthwhile photograph.

[Kaa]

[re portraits] Decidedly art ... virtually every image sold to the clients had at least a little bit of photoshop magic done to it.

A mugshot, on the other hand, is a photograph

Let's try this one. Art, photograph? Why?



Kaa

[Dave Gray]

Art? photography? Ansel Adams did a lot of manipulation while printing to produce his breathtaking shots to reproduce what he saw in nature.

[Norman Bernstein]

Let's try this one. Art, photograph? Why?

I'd call it art, since it's so obviously staged.... but it's just an opinion.

[Paul Pless]

I'd call it art, since it's so obviously staged....

Actually its not as staged as you may think, or in the way that you think at least. The photographer was taking a series of shots of the boy playing (with a toy hand grenade). That one shot in a long series is showing the boy becoming upset with the photographer interrupting his play. But you're right, it is art. . .

[Norman Bernstein]

Actually its not as staged as you may think, or in the way that you think at least. The photographer was taking a series of shots of the boy playing (with a toy hand grenade). That one shot in a long series is showing the boy becoming upset with the photographer interrupting his play....

At least that's what the photographer says

But you're right, it is art. . .

We're in agreement. For THIS photo, at least

[Kaa]

At least that's what the photographer says

A brief acquaintance with the biography and works of that particular photographer should suffice, I'd think... :-)

But since you're concerned with "staged", let's try another one, in the mugshot style :-)



Still art? Why?

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

But since you're concerned with "staged", let's try another one, in the mugshot style :-)

Still art? Why?

Looks like old school photojournalism, to me.

If a photo is old enough, it can 'morph' from perhaps it's original photojournalistic intent, to the status of art.... but that would be an opinion.... in this case, applying 21st century sensibilities to 20th century photographs. I could easily see, for example, a 'coffee table' book (surely, if there's a commercialization of art, it can be found in 'coffee table' books!) containing old photographs originally taken purely for the purposes of photojournalism... which are now 'art'. It's not really different than, for example, antique cars; when they were designed, they were simply contemporary mechanical contrivances. We elevated them to 'art' decades later. In the 60's, a Jaguar XKE was simply a hot British sports car; today, it's an icon of industrial design, now appreciated as art (and rarely appreciated for the monocoque body construction that made it liable to simply 'fold up and crumble' in an accident!)

[Hwyl]

Art or photography



Actually my opinion of this discussion.

[Paul Pless]

Actually my opinion of this discussion.

better than politics, no?

[Kaa]

Looks like old school photojournalism, to me.

If a photo is old enough, it can 'morph' from perhaps it's original photojournalistic intent, to the status of art....

True, but this photo is from 1967 -- too recent to acquire "art status" just by virtue of being old. It *is* art by the definition you used in this thread (you can "find [it] ... in art studios, art books, and museums.... which sort of defines art, does it not?") Why do you think this is so?

And yes, I understand that we are talking purely about personal subjective opinions :-)

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

True, but this photo is from 1967 -- too recent to acquire "art status" just by virtue of being old.

Interesting... I would have dated it back to the 1920's, so I got fooled.....

....but maybe that was the photographer's intention?

In which case, it's definitely ART!

[Kaa]

Interesting... I would have dated it back to the 1920's, so I got fooled.....

....but maybe that was the photographer's intention?

I rather doubt that. It's not her style, plus the two buttons the boy's wearing would be a dead giveaway :-) One says "Bomb Hanoi" and the other "God Bless America Support Our Boys in Vietnam".

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

I rather doubt that. It's not her style, plus the two buttons the boy's wearing would be a dead giveaway :-) One says "Bomb Hanoi" and the other "God Bless America Support Our Boys in Vietnam".

I should have looked more closely!

[Shang]

The photographer "makes" a photograph.
The photographer decides what to photograph, what film to use, were to stand, whether to pose the shot or whether to shoot candid. But there is more.
In Diane Arbus's photograph of the child with a toy hand grenade: was the camera positioned at the photographer's eye-level, or at the subject's eye-level? Will viewers of the photograph realize that Arbus was one of the few photographers using flash in the daytime--will that make a difference?
Do we care about the photographer's life? Is it relevant that Diane Arbus was born into a wealthy family, and later said, "Nothing was ever the way they said it would be."? And she said, "I love going where I have never been before."
And does the fact that Arbus committed suicide perhaps explain the tenor of madness that choruses through her photographs?
Do we have to know the body of Diane Arbus's work in order to understand each of her photographs?

Norman Mailer said, "Giving a camera to Diane Arbus is like putting a live grenade in the hands of a child."

[Shang]

"Giving a camera to Diane Arbus is like putting a live grenade in the hands of a child."[

[Shang]

There is a widely held belief that the purpose of art is to produce works that are entertaining and decorative. Perhaps the world is more pleasant when it is entertaining and decorative, but that is a very limiting definition of art.

We often hear that art is a means of self-expression, and it is true that self-expression may be one of the aspects of art. The problem with self-expression is that many artists do not know who they are nor what they are expressing.

I tend to agree with e. e. cummings, who observed that following the realization of self, an honest artist and their works are synonymous. I think that this is true for Diane Arbus. Her photographic works are profoundly disturbing—they are not entertaining nor decorative. Her subjects included giants, dwarves, nudists, circus performers and freaks, ¬¬transgender persons, and people whose seemingly normal lives and surroundings reveal strange and haunting underlying currents.
There is an adage in art which seems appropriate here: All art is self-portraiture.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Since I'm currently living with a pretty famous fashion photographer and also have a BFA in fine art with a minor 20th century art history I'm going to recuse myself from this thread except to say Kaa is toying with Norman. I've ceased to enjoy this type of "Art" one upmanship with novices, usually challenged late at night after one too many bottles of red wine have been opened.

One thing I do have to say, is there should be a word for the amount of time when talking about photography before the Ansel Adams reference is used. Kinda like the Godwins law.

[Paul Pless]

One thing I do have to say, is there should be a word for the amount of time when talking about photography before the Ansel Adams reference is used. Kinda like the Godwins law.

ain't that the truth

[Norman Bernstein]

Since I'm currently living with a pretty famous fashion photographer and also have a BFA in fine art with a minor 20th century art history I'm going to recuse myself from this thread except to say Kaa is toying with Norman.

Eh, nothing new here.... he's one guy who clearly enjoys toying with me.... and I frankly don't mind. About half the time, he more or less succeeds...the other half of the time, he fails. It's a good psycho-social form of 'combat'

[Kaa]

...except to say Kaa is toying with Norman.

Au contraire. I've said that I'm not trying to trap Norman and that's true. In fact, here I'm interested in art perception by a "normal" person -- someone who does not have a BFA in fine arts and doesn not post or read walls of text on the philosophy of art.

Sure, the first reaction is that "it's art if it's pretty" and "photography becomes art if you artificially make it more pretty" :-) But push a little bit and we are already talking about intent and whether age makes art out of mundane objects, and other interesting things :-)

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

OK, here's another way to put it.

Wine afficianados can wax rhapsodic about their favorite libation, using a broad spectrum of adjectives to describe every aspect of the beverage... telling us about whether a particular vintage is dry, slightly dry, very dry.. whether it has notes of peach, plum, elderberry, tannin, etc... and can do this endlessly, describing all sorts of attributes that they are capable of perceiving in their glass.

To me, most wine tastes pretty much the same... I don't like it... plain and simple.

Now, here's the question: is my dislike of wine a consequence of my 'unsophisticated palate', and 'lack of appreciation for the finer qualities' of the stuff?

Or is it that the flowery descriptors of the qualities of wine are inventions of the afficianados which, since they are not universally appreciated, may not actually be real?

There isn't a specialized interest in the entire world that doesn't have some coterie of acolytes who are immersed in the subtleties of their interest. Wooden boat afficianados should know this, above all others!

On the other hand, you can show a picture of the finest, most adroitly built, expertly conceived, and most beautiful wooden boat in the world to my wife.... and she will tell me that 'it's a wooden boat'. Those subtleties of appreciation are lost upon her.

When it comes to art, as was said, I don't have a BFA, and know nothing about the finer aspects of art; to me, it's a bit like Potter Stewart's famous aphorism that 'I know it when I see it'. I certainly don't disparage those who DO have that more critical appreciation... but art would be pretty useless unless it could be appreciated, on SOME level, by people who aren't experts in it.

(And FWIW, when I took my wife to France a few years back, and toured the Louvre.... I was frankly bored. Go ahead, trash me for THAT! )

[Kaa]

Here, Norman:




:-)

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

Thanks for the XKCD cartoon, Kaa.... it expresses my point rather squarely, far better than my modest attempt

[Shang]

...When it comes to art, as was said, I don't have a BFA, and know nothing about the finer aspects of art; to me, it's a bit like Potter Stewart's famous aphorism that 'I know it when I see it'. I certainly don't disparage those who DO have that more critical appreciation... but art would be pretty useless unless it could be appreciated, on SOME level, by people who aren't experts in it.

Not all art can be appreciated by people who aren't expert, but there's no reason to disparage those who don't have a MFA.
Chess aficionados know, love and appreciate the game, but since I don't play the game, chess doesn't interest me.

(And FWIW, when I took my wife to France a few years back, and toured the Louvre.... I was frankly bored. Go ahead, trash me for THAT! )

If that is your reaction to the Mona Lisa, then I agree with you, the painting is a bore.

But surely you fell in love with this lady...

[Gerarddm]

When I was in art school in the 60s there were two cynical satirical sayings:

Ya gotta have a gimmick.

Bad taste is better than no taste at all.