Two views of Photography: Two views of Photography: "one approach holds that the camera and its resulting images truthfully document the real world, while the other considers the...

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

Two views of Photography: "one approach holds that the camera and its resulting images truthfully document the real world, while the other considers the camera simply to be a tool, much like a paint brush, with which to create artistic statements." Is there a "third view."

amehta Loc: Boston

Indiana wrote:

Two views of Photography: "one approach holds that the camera and its resulting images truthfully document the real world, while the other considers the camera simply to be a tool, much like a paint brush, with which to create artistic statements." Is there a "third view."

Yes, everything in the middle, because the photographic reality for most of us is not at either extreme.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

amehta wrote:

Yes, everything in the middle, because the photographic reality for most of us is not at either extreme.

Agree with this view. In fact, my own style moves from one extreme to the other depending on what I am taking the photo of, what sort of feeling that scene generates in me, what I mean to do with it, and my own inclinations of the moment. I may make a number of renditions of the same image that range from a SOC documentary photo to something that resembles a sketch or painting.

amehta Loc: Boston

amehta wrote:

Indiana wrote:

Two views of Photography: "one approach holds that the camera and its resulting images truthfully document the real world, while the other considers the camera simply to be a tool, much like a paint brush, with which to create artistic statements." Is there a "third view."

Yes, everything in the middle, because the photographic reality for most of us is not at either extreme.

My main preference is to know where in the range a particular photograph fits, for two reasons: to get a sense of the type of effort needed to make it, and of the chances of me ever seeing that type of scene with my eyes.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

minniev wrote:

Agree with this view. In fact, my own style moves from one extreme to the other depending on what I am taking the photo of, what sort of feeling that scene generates in me, what I mean to do with it, and my own inclinations of the moment. I may make a number of renditions of the same image that range from a SOC documentary photo to something that resembles a sketch or painting.

What she said :)

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

Indiana wrote:

"one approach holds that the camera and its resulting images truthfully document the real world,...

this statement may be true, but in a photoshop world you can't trust any image you see to be "a truthfull documentation."

olcoach Loc: Oregon

I feel very strongly both ways!

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

It really is a mixed bag. When Im taking shots at my sons store I take the time to set up the shot and get the lighting as best I can, Ill even spend a bit more time in post. The same with portraits more time and more effort goes into the set up. When Im at a sporting event the time of day is set so lighting is pretty much what it is and you dont have as much opportunity to set up a shot. The best you can do is position yourself to get a good frame and fight to get the composition the best the environment will allow. Then there are those times when Im taking shots just to record an event and really dont have the time to set up anything so its just snap a few and hope they are presentable. Finally I enjoy just experimenting and take shots that are just off the wall to see what happens, just having fun.

Clif Loc: Central Ca.

I like I can select Auto and blaze away at family gatherings and such and then if I want to get serious I can do that also and select any number of subtle embellishments from the camera, or even go it alone with manual. The confusion is in so many choices from within the camera. I do at times rather miss the basics from my old film SLR, bracket and pick the best one when the slide comes back, then off for an interneg and a print. I do like the cost per shot of the digitals. I wonder if it is cost effective to just keep the memory cards and buy new ones?

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

Well, look at it this way. Before cameras, did all painters paint what they saw with their eyes, or did they paint what their heart saw? And do painters still do this? yes. It's no different with cameras. Some like to photograph exactly what they see; others see with their emotions, want the photo to reflect that, and so use post processing to get it done. There is nothing wrong with either approach. Beauty is beauty.

Fergus Loc: Westfield,IN

amyinsparta wrote:

Well, look at it this way. Before cameras, did all painters paint what they saw with their eyes, or did they paint what their heart saw? And do painters still do this? yes. It's no different with cameras. Some like to photograph exactly what they see; others see with their emotions, want the photo to reflect that, and so use post processing to get it done. There is nothing wrong with either approach. Beauty is beauty.

Bingo!!!

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

amyinsparta wrote:

Well, look at it this way. Before cameras, did all painters paint what they saw with their eyes, or did they paint what their heart saw? And do painters still do this? yes. It's no different with cameras. Some like to photograph exactly what they see; others see with their emotions, want the photo to reflect that, and so use post processing to get it done. There is nothing wrong with either approach. Beauty is beauty.

Well put, dont you just hate when those guys show up who jump up and down and tell you how wrong you are if you dont subscribe to their philosophy? We all shoot for very personal reasons and they can vary from day to day from event to event. As long as you enjoy what you doing it really doesnt matter what Ansel Adams did.

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

Clif wrote:

I like I can select Auto and blaze away at family ... (show quote)

Transparencies were a bit expensive with film,processing, inter negative, and a final print. Keeping everything on a memory card as a back-up would not be financially unreasonable. I spent over $700 on 36 rolls of Kodachrome and processing when I went to the Amazon a few years ago. Digital would have been cheap!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Indiana wrote:

Two views of Photography: "one approach holds that the camera and its resulting images truthfully document the real world, while the other considers the camera simply to be a tool, much like a paint brush, with which to create artistic statements." Is there a "third view."

Yes.
The third view is that the camera cannot truly capture what the eyes see in many cases, and you have to capture the image to the best of the cameras ability and then do post work to make it how it really was.

Some of the more vocal SOOTC practitioners are lazy or inexperienced snapshooters looking for an excuse to justify their viewpoint.

A small few of the SOOTC crowd are true experts, producing beautiful work with an enormous understanding of their craft.

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

lighthouse wrote:

Yes.
The third view is that the camera cannot truly capture what the eyes see in many cases, and you have to capture the image to the best of the cameras ability and then do post work to make it how it really was.

Some of the more vocal SOOTC practitioners are lazy or inexperienced snapshooters looking for an excuse to justify their viewpoint.

A small few of the SOOTC crowd are true experts, producing beautiful work with an enormous understanding of their craft.

I think you caught the essence of what I was trying to develop as the "third approach" to photography:the eyes ability to see so much more than the camera can...and to be able to manipulate the camera/processing to duplicate what the eye saw. Good reflection and analysis.