A state of grace

lemo

lemo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
461
Edit My Images
Yes
A quote from Sergio Larrain is:

"A good image is created by a state of grace. Grace expresses itself when it has been freed from conventions, free like a child in his early discovery of the reality. The game is then to organize the rectangle."⁠

What is your opinion on this, how do you understand it in detail?
 
I think a good image is possibly subjective unless by a good image we mean that it's in focus and the exposure is ok, we might all agree on the technicalities. Feeling any connection to this good image is more subjective.

I can appreciate a picture of something I have no real interest in, like for example a bird in flight or a fish. I can see it's a good image and appreciate it because it's in focus, there's good detail and it's technically good but I'm not going to care too much because I have next to no interest in photographing birds in flight or fish or in looking at pictures like that. All respect to those who do, obviously. Likewise I can appreciate that I might love a picture because it creates a response within me because of the subject and possibly too because of the way I felt in the moment I took the picture. Someone else may be able to appreciate that I've got the exposure right and achieved focus etc but it's boring to them. Such is life.
 
lemo said:
A quote from Sergio Larrain is:

"A good image is created by a state of grace. Grace expresses itself when it has been freed from conventions, free like a child in his early discovery of the reality. The game is then to organize the rectangle."⁠

What is your opinion on this, how do you understand it in detail?
Click to expand...
I take it to mean a good picture is created when you are 'in the zone', tuned in to what's before you and what you are doing and acting instinctively.
 
lemo said:
What is your opinion on this, how do you understand it in detail?
Click to expand...
I do wonder why people say or write things like this. Beyond which, I have no opinion.
 
woof woof said:
I think a good image is possibly subjective
Click to expand...
Yes, that's pretty much the case. But you could limit the assessment to your own photos. Technical perfection is not a criteria for me. Perfect technology does not carry any emotions in my opinion.

For those who don't know Sergio Larrain's work: https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/sergio-larrain/

Ed Sutton said:
I take it to mean a good picture is created when you are 'in the zone'
Click to expand...
That's a good point, I think.

AndrewFlannigan said:
I do wonder why people say or write things like this.
Click to expand...
Apparently there are also philosophers among the photographers. :)
 
What is your opinion on this? What a load of twaddle.

how do you understand it in detail? What a load of mumbo jumbo.
 
I think that some of the metaphysical imagery is really particularly effective and the interesting rhythmic devices seem to counterpoint
the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the humanity of the photographer's compassionate soul,

(with apologies to Douglas Adams)
 
Last edited:
It is no surprise that in the bear garden are bears ...
 
As he’s a documentary photography, I interpret the quote as a description of an approach, a mindset for that genre. Approach the scene or subject with an open mind, a curious kind, seek to understand it but remain distant and unattached from it. Then you can start to compose and make the photograph.
 
Suvv said:
I think that some of the metaphysical imagery is really particularly effective and the interesting rhythmic devices seem to counterpoint
the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the humanity of the photographer's compassionate soul,

(with apologies to Douglas Adams)
Click to expand...

Vogonity, please. ;)
 
I assume the author of this phrase is Italian, so the use of language doesn't necessarily carry across well. He seems to be saying the best pictures are those you see by instinct and then manage to show in the final presented image.

Seems fair enough, though may be a little limiting for some photographers' way of working.
 
Would you like me to move this to the Concepts forum, it might get a bit lost in the general discussion? And it's where the philosophers hang out ;)

lemo said:
A quote from Sergio Larrain is:

"A good image is created by a state of grace. Grace expresses itself when it has been freed from conventions, free like a child in his early discovery of the reality. The game is then to organize the rectangle."⁠

What is your opinion on this, how do you understand it in detail?
Click to expand...

I agree with @Ed Sutton that I would assume "grace" seems to be referring to the state of "flow" and it can be very effective. I really like the the expression "the game is then to organise the rectangle" that seems to be a very good description of what we do.

The bit I struggle with is "free like a child". I think I can dig into what is implied by that but taken at face value it doesn't seem to be the way to arrive reliably at a good image. I believe that the flow state is only really effective for people with a lot of experience where the technical stuff is second nature.
 
lemo said:
Yes, that's pretty much the case. But you could limit the assessment to your own photos. Technical perfection is not a criteria for me. Perfect technology does not carry any emotions in my opinion.
Click to expand...

No, but it's one thing... something that we can find common ground on and we see it, the appreciation of technicalities, on this forum every day, or at least I do. There is no doubt in my mind that some people equate technicalities and the application of technology with and to goodness at least some of the time and that's maybe understandable as everything else is just opinion and emotion and these are things that might not be shared or even understood by another. Opinions can be mainstream opinions and even the opinion of the majority but that doesn't necessarily make them right for everyone and indeed opinions can change over time.

Beyond the technicalities what we each find to be a good image can vary and as I said earlier I can recognise and appreciate a good picture and how it was taken but I may never want to try and recreate that image or want to buy a print or enthuse over it as I feel zero emotional connection to it.

I suppose the end to this line of thinking is that a good picture may be a bad photograph by any recognised standard which still appeals for whatever reason and a good picture may just be a good photograph and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
sirch said:
The bit I struggle with is "free like a child". I think I can dig into what is implied by that but taken at face value it doesn't seem to be the way to arrive reliably at a good image. I believe that the flow state is only really effective for people with a lot of experience where the technical stuff is second nature.
Click to expand...

Perhaps with increased camera automation there's more freeing than previously. Obviously not over choices like composition, depth of field or shutter speed, but in terms of selection of AF target and exposure control. However it would not be a surprise for software to come along in the future that does do a reasonable job of simulating bokeh and possibly deriving detail from the otherwise slightly OOF sections of an image.
 
ancient_mariner said:
However it would not be a surprise for software to come along in the future that does do a reasonable job of simulating bokeh
Click to expand...
High end phones now include a depth camera which allows for bokeh to be added in software. But then light field cameras have been doing this for years and I suppose due to cost they have never really gained much of a following.

I think you are right though about digital being more freeing, especially mirrorless with an EVF
 
Ed Sutton said:
I take it to mean a good picture is created when you are 'in the zone', tuned in to what's before you and what you are doing and acting instinctively.
Click to expand...
+1, and true in my experience
 
wornish said:
If something in an image captures my attention or even better an emotional response then that's a good image imho.
Click to expand...
Yes.

To me it's all about communicating that which caught my attention to anyone who sees the image. If it makes them smile, grimace, feel anger or just think "that's interesting", I've succeeded.

Of course, I'll seldom if ever know whether I achieved that aim.
 
lemo said:
A quote from Sergio Larrain is:

"A good image is created by a state of grace. Grace expresses itself when it has been freed from conventions, free like a child in his early discovery of the reality. The game is then to organize the rectangle."⁠

What is your opinion on this, how do you understand it in detail?
Click to expand...
that person needs to see a psychologist. so obvious there is a screw loose somewhere
 
realspeed said:
that person needs to see a psychologist. so obvious there is a screw loose somewhere
Click to expand...
Too late, he passed away in 2012: https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/sergio-larrain/
--

I only had problems with "in a state of grace", but replacing this with flow I also think is a good solution.
Lunkwill Fouk said:
I assume the author of this phrase is Italian, so the use of language doesn't necessarily carry across well. He seems to be saying the best pictures are those you see by instinct and then manage to show in the final presented image.
Click to expand...
Also a good explanation in which I can find myself.

As a Chilean, his mother tongue was probably Spanish.
 
It's so comical that all the little jumped-up Henries who roundly denounce the offered quotation are most unlikely to be even a tenth (and in some cases not even a hundredth!) of the photographer that Sergio Larrain was. It demonstrates the pub culture that is so prevalent on these forums - a couple of pints and away you go. Reminds me of the old saying "mouth and trousers"!
 
droj said:
It's so comical that all the little jumped-up Henries who roundly denounce the offered quotation are most unlikely to be even a tenth (and in some cases not even a hundredth!) of the photographer that Sergio Larrain was. It demonstrates the pub culture that is so prevalent on these forums - a couple of pints and away you go. Reminds me of the old saying "mouth and trousers"!
Click to expand...
As that comment is aimed at me, "mouth and trousers" will reply. I never would claim to be anything other than a hobby photographer, I take predominately poor-quality photographs. But this was nothing about the quality of the photographs, it was his "feeling" on how he got his photographs, and on that point, I stand by what I said. It remains what it is an opinion.

Or are you implying only high-brow comments are allowed now? With no dissenting voices?

Or worse are you saying only your opinion counts?

.
 
In my experience there's quite a bit needed to reach that feeling/zone/flow call it what you like. It's not something I can switch on and off, I'm not even aware of it until afterwards, because I'm so focussed. I find it applies to anything creative not just photos.
 
But would you care to answer my specific questions?
 
munch said:
Or are you implying only high-brow comments are allowed now? With no dissenting voices?
Click to expand...
No. I don't think that highbrow / lowbrow should be issues. I think that a crucial issue is accuracy. So we should be able to discuss the complexity and nuances of things without prejudice. And be wary, whilst we're at it, that vision and sensitivity don't get outlawed.
munch said:
Or worse are you saying only your opinion counts?
Click to expand...
World domination has never been my game. I'm not in the least bit capable of it.
 
The thing is that the original quote might've seemed disembodied to those who'd not registered Larrain's images - or so it seemed to me from some of the pronouncements, which seemed overly off-the-cuff and smacked of being too ready to dive in.

The words in the quote didn't come out of nowhere - look at the body of work that he produced, immerse yourself in it. It's an expression of the life-force of humanity on Earth. So if you want to comment, at least go there first. Get the perspective.

It's possible that he was a flawed being. We all are. But bloody hell ...
 
"wornish:said: If something in an image captures my attention or even better an emotional response then that's a good image IMHO."
droj said:
That leaves a lot out ...
Click to expand...
Care to expand and say what it leaves out?
 
wornish said:
Care to expand and say what it leaves out?
Click to expand...
Well I know what you mean but that doesn't address any technical qualities in terms of craft. Given though that a well-crafted image can be emotionally sterile. But we don't want sloppy images, do we? That's lazy. For instance a pet bugbear of mine (in colour work in particular) that's clearly identifiable is blown highlights. Because they are ugly! So to me an otherwise 'good' image can 'fail' if they are present. But sometimes flaws like that can become more excusable if the image has certain strengths of communication, either artistically or in reporting a vital event or circumstance for example.

In everyday terms an image that's thoroughly crafted is what I hope for - an image where the craft & the meaning reinforce each other.
 
Last edited:
Reading this. Oh dear.

I think it's an interesting quote but not one I can really relate to or agree with. A talking point, yes, but something to start an argument over? Not really worth it in mho :D
 
droj said:
In everyday terms an image that's thoroughly crafted is what I hope for - an image where the craft & the meaning reinforce each other.
Click to expand...
Many pictures fail to meet the technical standards desired by a minority of critics and yet are very successful in achieving the aim of their creator.

To me, what matters in any image is that it communicates the intention of the photographer to the viewer. Put another way; an image fails if the viewer doesn't see what the creator wanted to show. However, if that crucial aim is achieved, the manner in which it was achieved becomes irrelevant.
 
Surely the manner in which it was achieved can impact the degree to which the creator's intention is communicated, no? It's not so black and white?
 
lemo said:
Grace expresses itself when it has been freed from conventions, free like a child in his early discovery of the reality.
Click to expand...

Thinking about the child part, I wonder if it's that thing of seeing for the first time. One of the things that's really pleasing about travel photography is that because I haven't previously been somewhere it means that I can see the place as it is, rather than as I think it should be or as I remember it. When I see like this my pictures are much more spontaneous, and very often the first image is the best. using a tripod and taking time is almost always a great method for removing the life from my images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top