What really matters?
Mar 19, 2012 13:17:18 #
At first the fun and convenience of digital photography was that of emailing to a handful of family and friends but all too soon a serious question arose. "Calibrate your monitor,match it to your printer"..or maybe Costco or halfway across the country. Sounded familiar though, always something else to buy, to learn,to take up space,to turn into a dinosauer in five years. Finally when using UH search for this subject someone had said the magic words:
"You'll never know what a print should be unless you see the print in a gallery." Back to the future. Prints. Exhibits. I'd gone to some because of knowing whose works they were. Uh huh,recognized them. Umhmm, little magazine illustrations do not equal gallery prints. Hhmm,light,dark,poor quality,it could send a budding "Ansel Adams" to total despair couldn't it.
So obviously we will recognize omeone's picture for one or two reasons. It must in some way be a quite extraordinary image and/or has been shown,promoted,and used as an example so often that just about everyone recognizes it.
Free at last- why should it matter if my picture looks light,dark,flat or green on someone else's monitor adjusted for his/her convenience. If you go to a gallery you will not remember exactly how light/dark or yellow something seemed an hour later. It will be the impact the image had on you. So can anyone tell me exactly how light/dark that impactful "Mt. Suribachi" should be? Haven't you also seen 35mm camera "Half Domes" that looked quite familiar when potographed from the same spot as the original? In which galleries did you see either one?
Let nothing said here be interpreted to mean I have objections to patience or precision but perfection is simply unattainable and we can't even approach it unless seeing the print in a gallery.
You who thought calibration of your monitor was essential so you could sell your picture,(often only so you could "upgrade"by the way),have wasted both your time and mine. So now that I have escaped "calibrate-itis", I'd like you to consider what really matters and let me know what possible motivation or "ultimate reality" causes you to pick up a camera? What sort of image will make it worthwhile? This should require a bit of self-searching so please provide some well-considered sincere answer that isn't pedagogic..provided you are able to do so.
"You'll never know what a print should be unless you see the print in a gallery." Back to the future. Prints. Exhibits. I'd gone to some because of knowing whose works they were. Uh huh,recognized them. Umhmm, little magazine illustrations do not equal gallery prints. Hhmm,light,dark,poor quality,it could send a budding "Ansel Adams" to total despair couldn't it.
So obviously we will recognize omeone's picture for one or two reasons. It must in some way be a quite extraordinary image and/or has been shown,promoted,and used as an example so often that just about everyone recognizes it.
Free at last- why should it matter if my picture looks light,dark,flat or green on someone else's monitor adjusted for his/her convenience. If you go to a gallery you will not remember exactly how light/dark or yellow something seemed an hour later. It will be the impact the image had on you. So can anyone tell me exactly how light/dark that impactful "Mt. Suribachi" should be? Haven't you also seen 35mm camera "Half Domes" that looked quite familiar when potographed from the same spot as the original? In which galleries did you see either one?
Let nothing said here be interpreted to mean I have objections to patience or precision but perfection is simply unattainable and we can't even approach it unless seeing the print in a gallery.
You who thought calibration of your monitor was essential so you could sell your picture,(often only so you could "upgrade"by the way),have wasted both your time and mine. So now that I have escaped "calibrate-itis", I'd like you to consider what really matters and let me know what possible motivation or "ultimate reality" causes you to pick up a camera? What sort of image will make it worthwhile? This should require a bit of self-searching so please provide some well-considered sincere answer that isn't pedagogic..provided you are able to do so.
Mar 19, 2012 13:27:39 #
Well said, perfection is in the eye of the beholder. One may prefer the subject centered, while the next can't stand it... one may prefer you remove something, another may think it is stupendous as is.... color, subject, composition are all in the eye of the beholder.
Mar 19, 2012 17:19:34 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
I'd like you to consider what really matters and let me know what possible motivation or "ultimate reality" causes you to pick up a camera? What sort of image will make it worthwhile? This should require a bit of self-searching so please provide some well-considered sincere answer that isn't pedagogic..provided you are able to do so.
Jenny, good question. I'll take a stab at a relatively decent answer.
Photography, to one degree or another, has been a part of my life for over half of my life. The reasons why I pick up a camera have changed as I have changed and I suspect one reason I continued to pick up a camera throughout the years is that doing so has always lifted me up, brightened an otherwise dour outlook, challenged me and most of all transformed the way(s) I see, appreciate, and relate with life. Since being converted to digital and discovering and applying Buddhist concepts and insights of the phenomenology of vision and experience and applying these to everyday life and to my photography, magic occurs.
When i go out with camera I do so with the clear intent that for me photography is a sacred art. I don't anticipate or expect anything to happen. I simply try to be open, present, mindful, and grateful. How fortunate I am to be here/now kneeling in dirt surrounded by beauty.
How much had to come together for me to be here in this moment. That's the gift and if I get lucky and a photograph is given to me as well then I am doubly blessed. My heart softens and at times i dance with joy, with delight, filled with wonderment at the exquiste beauty and miracle of life - exposing my heart as much as I might expose a computer chip.
It's no longer about the image - its about the experience. It's not about who is going to buy this image or if its any good or if others will praise me for getting it. It's about accepting what is given - and its about giving back. For me, more and more its just about being in the moment, knowing this moment will not arise again - not clinging not pushing away - just being present - just getting ego out of the way - and when that happens magic happens as well - art happens and I am as surprized as the next person that i somehow managed to do that.
I photograph these days (knowing this can change) as part of a larger spiritual practice. Photography and Samahdi. The camera teaches me concentration, opens doors of curiosity, shows me parts of my self I have over looked or could not acknowledge. Photography has helped me learn to see through the eyes of a child.....to recognize the law of love hidden in everything and everyone.
thanks for the question - tis something i ponder often but seldom spell out.
robert
Jenny, good question. I'll take a stab at a relatively decent answer.
Photography, to one degree or another, has been a part of my life for over half of my life. The reasons why I pick up a camera have changed as I have changed and I suspect one reason I continued to pick up a camera throughout the years is that doing so has always lifted me up, brightened an otherwise dour outlook, challenged me and most of all transformed the way(s) I see, appreciate, and relate with life. Since being converted to digital and discovering and applying Buddhist concepts and insights of the phenomenology of vision and experience and applying these to everyday life and to my photography, magic occurs.
When i go out with camera I do so with the clear intent that for me photography is a sacred art. I don't anticipate or expect anything to happen. I simply try to be open, present, mindful, and grateful. How fortunate I am to be here/now kneeling in dirt surrounded by beauty.
How much had to come together for me to be here in this moment. That's the gift and if I get lucky and a photograph is given to me as well then I am doubly blessed. My heart softens and at times i dance with joy, with delight, filled with wonderment at the exquiste beauty and miracle of life - exposing my heart as much as I might expose a computer chip.
It's no longer about the image - its about the experience. It's not about who is going to buy this image or if its any good or if others will praise me for getting it. It's about accepting what is given - and its about giving back. For me, more and more its just about being in the moment, knowing this moment will not arise again - not clinging not pushing away - just being present - just getting ego out of the way - and when that happens magic happens as well - art happens and I am as surprized as the next person that i somehow managed to do that.
I photograph these days (knowing this can change) as part of a larger spiritual practice. Photography and Samahdi. The camera teaches me concentration, opens doors of curiosity, shows me parts of my self I have over looked or could not acknowledge. Photography has helped me learn to see through the eyes of a child.....to recognize the law of love hidden in everything and everyone.
thanks for the question - tis something i ponder often but seldom spell out.
robert
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
Mar 19, 2012 17:43:38 #
The one question I ask myself is, how can this picture best show God's creation? This also puts responsibility on me to do what it takes to get that picture.
Mar 19, 2012 17:44:50 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
chapjohn wrote:
The one question I ask myself is, how can this picture best show God's creation? This also puts responsibility on me to do what it takes to get that picture.
yep and for me thats just getting out of the way so the beauty of creation can shine forth
Mar 19, 2012 18:20:54 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
Dear Jenny,
Ultimately, to an atheist cynic, nothing matters. We are born; we live; we die.
We may or may not try to live decent lives. That matters to some people, but not others. Now we're talking about what most of us would regard as 'decent' people.
A few of us may try to create art, in one way or another. What is art? Let's choose 'a communication of emotion'. After all, how much to I care about something you saw? I don't really care what it looks like, unless it's something really unusual that I've never seen before. I do however care what it FELT like. That's a part of sharing being human.
At that point, technical quality is unlikely to matter much -- until it does. If I notice technical shortcomings (colour balance, sharpness, whatever) before I notice the emotional impact of the picture, then the picture has failed to a greater or lesser degree.
Finally, a slightly contrarian view. Mostly, I'd agree wholeheartedly about 'real' pics in galleries versus repro. But I was familiar with reproduction prints from many 'great' photographers before I ever saw their work in galleries, and more than once, I have been disappointed by original prints. Ansel Adams often grotesquely over-enlarged his prints, and the only original prints I've seen from Aleksandr Rodchenko, Frantisek Drtikol and Karsh of Ottawa were frankly disappointing.
Hope this goes some way towards answering your question. I once asked a somewhat similar question on Rangefinder Forum, at http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110212 There have been nearly 9,000 views and 166 replies. It begins:
"How important is image quality?
A lot of the time, I suggest, the answer is "Not very". Only very, very rarely do I need the kind of quality I can get from (say) my 75 Summicron on my M9.
To me, it's a lot more important that my Leicas are (relatively) small and light and (for me) extremely easy and pleasant to use. Conversely, I get no pleasure at all from trying to use a camera the size of a cigarette packet with a screen on the back.
It comes back yet again to the 'quality threshold'. Once a camera delivers results that are 'good enough', then they're, well, good enough. My old Pentax SV with its 50/1.4 is 'good enough'. After that, for me, it's usually down to how happy I am using the camera: to how easily I can use it to get the pictures I want. If I want the ultimate in quality, after all, I can always switch to a bigger format. All the stuff about 'Leica glass' is usually irrelevant.
Who else feels the same way?"
Cheers,
R.
Ultimately, to an atheist cynic, nothing matters. We are born; we live; we die.
We may or may not try to live decent lives. That matters to some people, but not others. Now we're talking about what most of us would regard as 'decent' people.
A few of us may try to create art, in one way or another. What is art? Let's choose 'a communication of emotion'. After all, how much to I care about something you saw? I don't really care what it looks like, unless it's something really unusual that I've never seen before. I do however care what it FELT like. That's a part of sharing being human.
At that point, technical quality is unlikely to matter much -- until it does. If I notice technical shortcomings (colour balance, sharpness, whatever) before I notice the emotional impact of the picture, then the picture has failed to a greater or lesser degree.
Finally, a slightly contrarian view. Mostly, I'd agree wholeheartedly about 'real' pics in galleries versus repro. But I was familiar with reproduction prints from many 'great' photographers before I ever saw their work in galleries, and more than once, I have been disappointed by original prints. Ansel Adams often grotesquely over-enlarged his prints, and the only original prints I've seen from Aleksandr Rodchenko, Frantisek Drtikol and Karsh of Ottawa were frankly disappointing.
Hope this goes some way towards answering your question. I once asked a somewhat similar question on Rangefinder Forum, at http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110212 There have been nearly 9,000 views and 166 replies. It begins:
"How important is image quality?
A lot of the time, I suggest, the answer is "Not very". Only very, very rarely do I need the kind of quality I can get from (say) my 75 Summicron on my M9.
To me, it's a lot more important that my Leicas are (relatively) small and light and (for me) extremely easy and pleasant to use. Conversely, I get no pleasure at all from trying to use a camera the size of a cigarette packet with a screen on the back.
It comes back yet again to the 'quality threshold'. Once a camera delivers results that are 'good enough', then they're, well, good enough. My old Pentax SV with its 50/1.4 is 'good enough'. After that, for me, it's usually down to how happy I am using the camera: to how easily I can use it to get the pictures I want. If I want the ultimate in quality, after all, I can always switch to a bigger format. All the stuff about 'Leica glass' is usually irrelevant.
Who else feels the same way?"
Cheers,
R.
Mar 19, 2012 18:35:58 #
Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.
Mar 19, 2012 18:46:06 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
docrob wrote:
I can see why your a cynic
Well, sort of. I was trying to reduce it to the ultimate cynical level, and then to back off. In other words, I really DO think some things matter. But I was trying to point out that what matters, and how much, depends on where you're standing when you make the judgement.
Cheers,
R.
Mar 19, 2012 19:03:05 #
Roger Hicks wrote:
Dear Jenny, br br Ultimately, to an atheist cynic... (show quote)
Robert, I need to say that your photographs do spark my emotions (whatever camera you used) as I searched through your website several months ago upon receiving some very sound advise on a question. I will never be the photographer that most are on this forum, but I will continue to improve for the sake of learning and appreciating the art of photography. Thank you for having that spark and sharing your spendid talents.
Mar 19, 2012 19:12:57 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
Roger Hicks wrote:
Well, sort of. I was trying to reduce it to the ultimate cynical level, and then to back off. In other words, I really DO think some things matter. But I was trying to point out that what matters, and how much, depends on where you're standing when you make the judgement.
Cheers,
R.
docrob wrote:
I can see why your a cynic
Well, sort of. I was trying to reduce it to the ultimate cynical level, and then to back off. In other words, I really DO think some things matter. But I was trying to point out that what matters, and how much, depends on where you're standing when you make the judgement.
Cheers,
R.
good call Roger. :-) you are a gracious man - I see.
Mar 19, 2012 19:20:27 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
Robert, I need to say that your photographs do spark my emotions (whatever camera you used) as I searched through your website several months ago upon receiving some very sound advise on a question. I will never be the photographer that most are on this forum, but I will continue to improve for the sake of learning and appreciating the art of photography. Thank you for having that spark and sharing your spendid talents.
bedgmon. Thank you. Your words could not have come at a better time or in a better way.....i confess to feeling a little shy - you having seen my stuff and me not knowing your name.
It's a funny thing and we can't know where will end up - as photographers. Honestly, had i not moved to durango, jumped to digital (nikon), and found good people and a way of living i'd been searching for - forever - i'd be a cynical old curmudgeon and my imagery would reflect that.
you brought a smile to me today.......thank you
robert
bedgmon. Thank you. Your words could not have come at a better time or in a better way.....i confess to feeling a little shy - you having seen my stuff and me not knowing your name.
It's a funny thing and we can't know where will end up - as photographers. Honestly, had i not moved to durango, jumped to digital (nikon), and found good people and a way of living i'd been searching for - forever - i'd be a cynical old curmudgeon and my imagery would reflect that.
you brought a smile to me today.......thank you
robert
Check out Travel Photography - Tips and More section of our forum.
Mar 19, 2012 20:25:45 #
Kinda interesting. First this calibration thing; All my equipment is calibrated to printer output, I really don't care what another computer sees. But if the print isn't very close to what I have on the screen it isn't right.
Of course I also happen to believe that if I have to spend much time fixing rather than optimizing I've failed as a photographer. Time invested on the front pay's off in the rear.
I've found myself more aligned with the mentality (as near as I can determine) of Edward Weston. I don't try to interpret, that's why critics were created; and most can't photograph, I just try to present what I photograph in the best way possible.
I don't want to change it to be something it's not, but if I can I'd like the viewer realize that even though his/her eyes had seen it before they'd probably not seen it with such clarity. Ansel Adams said much the same when he told us that when he photographed a rock, he wanted it to be the best rock he could share.
Robert mentioned or alluded to something that I believe in very strongly, the reason any artist does their art. Most all do it for themselves alone. Then after they've done their work if it pleases them they share with others. I'm not saying the recognition isn't nice, cash is even better, but for myself I only do it to please me.
All that said, I do find the conundrom of electronic calibration based on numbers alone in one of the visual arts a bit strange. Self expression of something visual using pure technology! Something to ponder.
But then again, I don't think myself an artist, rather a craftsman. Let others worry about art.
Ziggy
Of course I also happen to believe that if I have to spend much time fixing rather than optimizing I've failed as a photographer. Time invested on the front pay's off in the rear.
I've found myself more aligned with the mentality (as near as I can determine) of Edward Weston. I don't try to interpret, that's why critics were created; and most can't photograph, I just try to present what I photograph in the best way possible.
I don't want to change it to be something it's not, but if I can I'd like the viewer realize that even though his/her eyes had seen it before they'd probably not seen it with such clarity. Ansel Adams said much the same when he told us that when he photographed a rock, he wanted it to be the best rock he could share.
Robert mentioned or alluded to something that I believe in very strongly, the reason any artist does their art. Most all do it for themselves alone. Then after they've done their work if it pleases them they share with others. I'm not saying the recognition isn't nice, cash is even better, but for myself I only do it to please me.
All that said, I do find the conundrom of electronic calibration based on numbers alone in one of the visual arts a bit strange. Self expression of something visual using pure technology! Something to ponder.
But then again, I don't think myself an artist, rather a craftsman. Let others worry about art.
Ziggy
Mar 19, 2012 20:45:02 #
sbesaw
Loc: Boston
It all depends on how we look at things, and not how they are in themselves.
Carl Jung
I would have responded sooner but I spent the last hour burried in an old Dictionary :D
Carl Jung
I would have responded sooner but I spent the last hour burried in an old Dictionary :D
Mar 19, 2012 21:09:15 #
Much like the photos on this forum, your posts have spaked insight and intrigue in me. Glad to know there are such insightful people here!
Mar 19, 2012 23:56:10 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
sbesaw wrote:
It all depends on how we look at things, and not how they are in themselves.
Carl Jung
I would have responded sooner but I spent the last hour burried in an old Dictionary :D
Carl Jung
I would have responded sooner but I spent the last hour burried in an old Dictionary :D
hmmmm somehow that image provokes curiosity....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.