tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post4854586133469811282..comments2024-03-27T00:32:29.877-07:00Comments on Photos and Stuff: Seeing Photographsamolitorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-81291154591473448132016-03-28T08:13:17.258-07:002016-03-28T08:13:17.258-07:00Both Thomas and Dave have hit the nail on the head...Both Thomas and Dave have hit the nail on the head, and is exactly how I feel about other peoples photographs. They reflect the person making the camera, and the technique they employ either carries the image and the message, or in the cases of those we don't know, lets it down. <br /><br />In the cases of those we so know, their technique worked for what they did. Adams, Weston, Lange, Steiglitz, Steichen, Arbus, Bresson, Smith, and on and on. And the techniques they all settled on were the ones that made sense to them to convey their various messages. But without the lives as lived by the artists themselves and their ability to infuse their experiences and passions into their images, there would be only empty exercises in the technical aspects of photography. And we see that all the time on the internet.<br /><br />When a person can connect the dots between the experience of their lives and how they feel about what they see, with an effective way to convey that information, then they have made something authentic that will both intrigue and befuddle those who see it only as a style. mikepetershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12062007254457420253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-17069052421809505752016-03-26T06:45:01.314-07:002016-03-26T06:45:01.314-07:00I'm afraid that all attempts to analyze photog...I'm afraid that all attempts to analyze photographs by any kind of formula will fail. The kinds of photographs that are worth analyzing are art; the others don't matter.<br /><br />As I wrote in an (unfortunately unpublished) article some years ago, the terms medium and art are often used as though they were interchangeable, when in fact they are not. Photography is a medium, as are sculpture, engraving, painting, and pottery. When practiced at a high level of competence within the context of its own inherent qualities, each medium is a craft which may become art when imbued with an indefinable presence imparted by the being of the artist himself.<br /><br />The operative phrase here is "when imbued with an indefinable presence imparted by the being of the artist himself." That can never be reduced to a formula. Kirk Tuck makes great portraits, and I can easily duplicate his setup to the minutest detail; yet my portraits, though they may be very good in themselves, will not resonate in the way his do, because his are imbued with that "indefinable presence imparted by the being of the artist himself." The same with Cartier-Bresson, Adams, Weston, and a host of others.<br /><br />After 45 years as a photographer,I've given up on all such analysis. Either I like it, or I don't. Yet, in some indefinable way, looking at great photographs helps me make better ones.Dave Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16815756076188881975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-56576614694318586812016-03-23T13:00:57.179-07:002016-03-23T13:00:57.179-07:00I guess what made Ansel Adams' pictures so uni...I guess what made Ansel Adams' pictures so unique was his intimate relationship with the places he photographed (as far as I know, he lived in Yosemite or not far from it). This emotional relationship speaks from his pictures to the viewer - the strong composition and pleasing tonality just emphasize the emotional message. Just like a good writing style helps to convey an interesting story. Composition and tonality alone won't cut it - Ansel Adams is missing from the picture.Thomas Rinkhttp://www.picturesfromthezone.com/noreply@blogger.com