25 best quotes about photography
May 27, 2015 13:10:26 #
http://www.shutterbug.com/content/25-best-quotes-about-photography
(Personally, my favorite is the one on the T-shirt :D )
(Personally, my favorite is the one on the T-shirt :D )
May 27, 2015 13:58:57 #
# 24 - My default ringtone.
A photo instructor once told me the hardware is irrelevant. You will never be good until, "You Can See the Light".
When you only see the way the light plays on it, you will understand.
These quotes hold much more truth for us older guys with decades of film experience behind us.
To justify Post Processing, maybe it should be considered an art form of its own.
A photo instructor once told me the hardware is irrelevant. You will never be good until, "You Can See the Light".
When you only see the way the light plays on it, you will understand.
These quotes hold much more truth for us older guys with decades of film experience behind us.
To justify Post Processing, maybe it should be considered an art form of its own.
May 28, 2015 07:13:18 #
las
Loc: West-Central Illinois on the Mississippi
BBurns
That is an interesting thought, worthy of discussion: Photography and PP as related but independent art forms. (In which of these art forms would in-camera filters and special effects reside?)
That is an interesting thought, worthy of discussion: Photography and PP as related but independent art forms. (In which of these art forms would in-camera filters and special effects reside?)
May 28, 2015 10:04:39 #
To justify Post Processing, maybe it should be considered an art form of its own.[/quote]
Isn't the "art" of photography really capturing what you see WITHOUT any post processing?
You can paint-by-numbers the Mona Lisa, (and do lots of computer retouching of that painting) but can't touch the "art" of DaVinci, right?
Ansel Adams worked wonders in the darkroom, but wasn't that his "art"?
As someone said in the article, "know light." Is that the "art" of photography like a painter knowing his pigments.
Is then, post processing, the "art" of using the computer (brushstrokes/layers) to change one form of expression (light/pigments) into another?
...just some thoughts for discussion....
Isn't the "art" of photography really capturing what you see WITHOUT any post processing?
You can paint-by-numbers the Mona Lisa, (and do lots of computer retouching of that painting) but can't touch the "art" of DaVinci, right?
Ansel Adams worked wonders in the darkroom, but wasn't that his "art"?
As someone said in the article, "know light." Is that the "art" of photography like a painter knowing his pigments.
Is then, post processing, the "art" of using the computer (brushstrokes/layers) to change one form of expression (light/pigments) into another?
...just some thoughts for discussion....
May 28, 2015 14:00:49 #
It was not my intent to open Pandoras box here. It is obvious that there are many sub-forms of the art of photography.
First, I must admit I come to the table biased with decades of film experience behind me.
It was ingrained in many of us to take the shot and make it right in the camera. Did we manipulate the outcome with various filters? Absolutely.
While still in college, I made the conscious decision that I did not want to spent my life in a darkroom.
Being a nature guy, I wanted to spend my time in the field and I shot slides.
In later years, when I could afford it, I had them processed at a Kodak certified Pro Q lab. They was either right or trash.
I totally accept that the darkroom is an art form of its own. Anyone who has studied Ansels work can see what can be done with a single negative.
This may be why there is such a divide between the generations.
The older group is biased by how much effort and time it took to learn to get it right in the camera.
The younger group now has a tool that we did not have.
If we old guys had had that tool, would we have not been quite as demanding of ourselves or would we have gotten lazy?
Or, are we just jealous of and/or intimidated by the tool? See, thats opens a whole other subject.
There is probably a mental dividing line between the generations due to all of the advancements in the technology.
There is probably a bias from the elders that these new tools relieve the younger group of the hard work we had to do, and they resent it.
I had to deliver newspapers in 2 feet of snow, uphill, both ways!!
I remember back in the late 70s when features like AV & TV first came out. Old guys grumbled about them.
Why do we need that? Youre supposed to know how to take a picture.
All of these fancy features that have evolved on the cameras are just tools. A lot of them were available with much effort, but now they are instantly available at our fingertips.
Times change and are there are some who do not deal with changes and new things as easy as others.
Possibly an easier way to view it, is that for some of us, especially if we still shoot film once in a while, we still consider ourselves Purists of a past technology and we cling to it, not wishing for it to be lost in the rush of technology.
The nice thing about the various branches of the art of photography is that there are now so many different ways for everyone to be able to express their own unique vision in their own way by their own method.
First, I must admit I come to the table biased with decades of film experience behind me.
It was ingrained in many of us to take the shot and make it right in the camera. Did we manipulate the outcome with various filters? Absolutely.
While still in college, I made the conscious decision that I did not want to spent my life in a darkroom.
Being a nature guy, I wanted to spend my time in the field and I shot slides.
In later years, when I could afford it, I had them processed at a Kodak certified Pro Q lab. They was either right or trash.
I totally accept that the darkroom is an art form of its own. Anyone who has studied Ansels work can see what can be done with a single negative.
This may be why there is such a divide between the generations.
The older group is biased by how much effort and time it took to learn to get it right in the camera.
The younger group now has a tool that we did not have.
If we old guys had had that tool, would we have not been quite as demanding of ourselves or would we have gotten lazy?
Or, are we just jealous of and/or intimidated by the tool? See, thats opens a whole other subject.
There is probably a mental dividing line between the generations due to all of the advancements in the technology.
There is probably a bias from the elders that these new tools relieve the younger group of the hard work we had to do, and they resent it.
I had to deliver newspapers in 2 feet of snow, uphill, both ways!!
I remember back in the late 70s when features like AV & TV first came out. Old guys grumbled about them.
Why do we need that? Youre supposed to know how to take a picture.
All of these fancy features that have evolved on the cameras are just tools. A lot of them were available with much effort, but now they are instantly available at our fingertips.
Times change and are there are some who do not deal with changes and new things as easy as others.
Possibly an easier way to view it, is that for some of us, especially if we still shoot film once in a while, we still consider ourselves Purists of a past technology and we cling to it, not wishing for it to be lost in the rush of technology.
The nice thing about the various branches of the art of photography is that there are now so many different ways for everyone to be able to express their own unique vision in their own way by their own method.
May 28, 2015 17:10:59 #
[quote=u02bnpx]http://www.shutterbug.com/content/25-best-quotes-about-photography
Thank you, u02bnpx. Always good to get others' insights.
Two comments on the article you posted:
First, I'd like to introduce a set of photography quotes (http://www.prisedevue.com/francais/chapitres/info_pratique/citations.html -- there is some overlap with the posted article -- Adams and Weston) that is uniformly uplifting and life-affirming, for example: (1) "Life is like a camera: just focus on what's important and capture the good times, develop from the negatives and if things don't turn out, just take another shot."(2) "Photography is the only language understood everywhere." (3) "...photography made my life impassioned."(4) "...to be a photographer is a way to denote my joy at being in the world and seeing it clearly." (5) "...photography delivers visibility." (6) "Photography has made my life possible." (7) "...a marvelous excuse for trying to grasp an uncertain world." and (8) I photograph the stars like strangers and strangers like stars."
I recommend the insightful and witty comments of Benard, Topor, Ingres, Clergue, Sieff, Delacour, and Bouhat, in my URL above. Here's a teaser: "We easily spot the pro photographer among a gaggle of tourists -- he's the one hiding his camera."
Translations of Avedon back to English, above, may be a tad off, if you can find them in English, which I did not, except for #8.
My second remark is for those interested in Cartier-Bresson's post-surrealist approach to photography. The author of the posted 25-best article, Robinson, misconstrues the situation around the title of Cartier-Bresson's classic book. Robinson feels the English title of Cartier-Bresson's book is awry and unfortunate. Yet, the two titles nicely complete each other.
The English title is the essence of a famous French quotation that Cartier-Bresson features his book's Preface. The English title speaks to what Cartier-Bresson is pursuing, to his vocation within photography, to his signature -- the decisive moment. The French title, Hasty Images, speaks modestly to how the what emerges, via rigorously analytical technique.
Thank you, u02bnpx. Always good to get others' insights.
Two comments on the article you posted:
First, I'd like to introduce a set of photography quotes (http://www.prisedevue.com/francais/chapitres/info_pratique/citations.html -- there is some overlap with the posted article -- Adams and Weston) that is uniformly uplifting and life-affirming, for example: (1) "Life is like a camera: just focus on what's important and capture the good times, develop from the negatives and if things don't turn out, just take another shot."(2) "Photography is the only language understood everywhere." (3) "...photography made my life impassioned."(4) "...to be a photographer is a way to denote my joy at being in the world and seeing it clearly." (5) "...photography delivers visibility." (6) "Photography has made my life possible." (7) "...a marvelous excuse for trying to grasp an uncertain world." and (8) I photograph the stars like strangers and strangers like stars."
I recommend the insightful and witty comments of Benard, Topor, Ingres, Clergue, Sieff, Delacour, and Bouhat, in my URL above. Here's a teaser: "We easily spot the pro photographer among a gaggle of tourists -- he's the one hiding his camera."
Translations of Avedon back to English, above, may be a tad off, if you can find them in English, which I did not, except for #8.
My second remark is for those interested in Cartier-Bresson's post-surrealist approach to photography. The author of the posted 25-best article, Robinson, misconstrues the situation around the title of Cartier-Bresson's classic book. Robinson feels the English title of Cartier-Bresson's book is awry and unfortunate. Yet, the two titles nicely complete each other.
The English title is the essence of a famous French quotation that Cartier-Bresson features his book's Preface. The English title speaks to what Cartier-Bresson is pursuing, to his vocation within photography, to his signature -- the decisive moment. The French title, Hasty Images, speaks modestly to how the what emerges, via rigorously analytical technique.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.