Of nifty fifties, the perfect image and is 'good enough' good enough.

[ancient_mariner]

TL : DR - Is there more to making an image than getting something that enables you to recognise the subject?

Not interested? Pass on by.

So, last week we had a question asked by a newbie to TP (or possibly not) about using a 50mm 'standard lens', and part way through the discussion, while agreeing that zoomes were more convenient, it was suggested:

I also think that much of the prime lens fixation comes from users who are more concerned with chasing the chimera of "the perfect image" than using photography as a method of communication. This is not to say that sharpness, colour fidelity and tonal gradation are things to be ignored but with digital cameras, much of that can be taken for granted.

This afternoon I began reading a book by a moderately well known and respected photographer, and in a short space of time a couple of paragraphs caught my eye:

Photography is in a period of development where means and methods sometimes hold unbalanced dominanceover creative effort. As for myself, I have primarily reacted to photography at the aesthetic and emotional levels. It is nonetheless true that descriptions of equipmentand procedures employed is helpful to others in understanding the photographers approach to his work.

And

S********* was distressed by the poor print quality so prevalent with small quality camera work. It was hard for us to understand the bleak quality of most of the 35mm work of the time. The reason was that there were very few photographers using the small cameras who had aesthetic/expressive intentions. For most, the 35mm camera was an instrument for recording of scenes, events and people., with the emphasis almost entirely on the realities and activities of the world. The camera was used primarily for reportage, and the prints made mostly for ordinary reproduction in newspapers and magazines, not for display.

In a way, this is about having and using the right tool for the job. It's NOT zoom vs prime, or whether you can zoom with your feet, but much more about whether we are creating pictures have a value that goes beyond "was your zoom wide enough to get all of the scene in?". I haven't always wanted to make pictures with an aesthetic quality, and when I travel it's often more important to catch a scene as it passes than being wrapped up in the aesthetic. But for me, my favouite pictues are those that show more than just what was in front of the camera.

Discuss, if you wish

 

[sphexx]

Substitute phone camera for 35mm and the last quote could have been written today.

 

[Ed Sutton]

So, last week we had a question asked by a newbie to TP (or possibly not) about using a 50mm 'standard lens', and part way through the discussion, while agreeing that zoomes were more convenient, it was suggested:



This afternoon I began reading a book by a moderately well known and respected photographer, and in a short space of time a couple of paragraphs caught my eye:

So who is the "moderately well known and respected photographer", and "S*********"? Name and shame!

The reason was that there were very few photographers using the small cameras who had aesthetic/expressive intentions. For most, the 35mm camera was an instrument for recording of scenes, events and people., with the emphasis almost entirely on the realities and activities of the world. The camera was used primarily for reportage, and the prints made mostly for ordinary reproduction in newspapers and magazines, not for display.

That's rather a snobby dismissal of reportage/documentary photography. There is no reason why you can't record things and have "aesthetic/expressive intentions". Wasn't that what Cartier-Bresson was all about? The geometry of a photograph, or something like that.

 

[ancient_mariner]

That's rather a snobby dismissal of reportage/documentary photography. There is no reason why you can't record things and have "aesthetic/expressive intentions". Wasn't that what Cartier-Bresson was all about? The geometry of a photograph, or something like that.

I read that as more wishing that the user's would produce something better than a grab shot with poor reproduction to illustrate their article. IIRC Cartier-Bresson was about much more than that.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I read that as more wishing that the user's would produce something better than a grab shot with poor reproduction to illustrate their article. IIRC Cartier-Bresson was about much more than that.

I read it as dissing photography that's not Art - with a capital A. Photos don't have to be art to be useful.

The bit about "ordinary reproduction in newspapers and magazines, not for display" (my bold), and the bit about the emphasis being on "the realities and activities of the world" as if it was a bad thing strike me as the ranting of someone desperate to be taken seriously as an Artist.

"Documentary is too real – it’s about the world, and I think people prefer the escapism of landscape and fine art photography."
Martin Parr
"The real world is infinitely more interesting than anything you try to invent in a studio."
Paul Reas

 

[TimHughes]

I'll go with "it depends" There are important places for reportage and "art" and everything in between. I usually pass by the threads that go back and forth on which *fill in the blank* is better especially when there is no context for the OPs intent, because as you say it's about having the right tool for the job.

For me personally there is a lot more to making an image than getting something that enables you to recognise the subject, but I appreciate that is not the same for others and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I read it as dissing photography that's not Art - with a capital A. Photos don't have to be art to be useful.

The bit about "ordinary reproduction in newspapers and magazines, not for display" (my bold), and the bit about the emphasis being on "the realities and activities of the world" as if it was a bad thing strike me as the ranting of someone desperate to be taken seriously as an Artist.

"Documentary is too real – it’s about the world, and I think people prefer the escapism of landscape and fine art photography."
Martin Parr
"The real world is infinitely more interesting than anything you try to invent in a studio."
Paul Reas

I'm slightly intrigued, because in you sheep, meanygate and river picture, you are clearly working tp an aesthetic, and although the images are documentary they aren't mean and tawdry but rather carefully considered. And from what you've said, many in the local shepherding community know of your work and appreciate it.

Shooting documentary doesn't mean the pictures are artless, careless and poorly produced, although they *can* be unfortunately sometimes. Some of the other pictures I have in mind have show composition like an afterthought, camera shake, poor focussing, processing artifacts and display a general lack of care, and I think it's that type of work that Steiglitz was objecting to.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I'm slightly intrigued, because in you sheep, meanygate and river picture, you are clearly working tp an aesthetic, and although the images are documentary they aren't mean and tawdry but rather carefully considered. And from what you've said, many in the local shepherding community know of your work and appreciate it.

Thanks. I do try to make Pictures rather than just Snapshots. Or at least I try to keep the snapshots to myself!

Shooting documentary doesn't mean the pictures are artless, careless and poorly produced, although they *can* be unfortunately sometimes. Some of the other pictures I have in mind have show composition like an afterthought, camera shake, poor focussing, processing artifacts and display a general lack of care, and I think it's that type of work that Steiglitz was objecting to.

Indeed. Many of the best known photographs were taken on documentary assignment. I look at a lot of new photography and a fair bit of that is slapdash, but I'd say that long form documentary work is, always has been, far more considered in execution.

As an aside, is this picture documentary or art? https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/267836

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

....but much more about whether we are creating pictures have a value that goes beyond "was your zoom wide enough to get all of the scene in?"

To mangle Landseer's title: "the photographer proposes and the viewer disposes".

No matter what anyone intends to achieve when capturing an image, the response of someone looking at the image is what really matters and that has almost nothing to do with the camera or the "technical quality".

 

[TimHughes]

No matter what anyone intends to achieve when capturing an image, the response of someone looking at the image is what really matters and that has almost nothing to do with the camera or the "technical quality".

hi Andrew, I’m not sure I’m following you - can you clarify? If I’m understanding correctly what you mean, I would say viewer response is dependent on photographer intent, and separate the technical part. Many images can be created with almost any camera. However there is a subset where the technical part truly matters.

 

[ancient_mariner]

No matter what anyone intends to achieve when capturing an image, the response of someone looking at the image is what really matters and that has almost nothing to do with the camera or the "technical quality".

I'd agree with you if you mean whether the shot was taken with a sony, canon etc makes no difference, but I would generally disagree if poor equipment choices have made the image less effective, produced un-wanted distortion, caused camera shake or where the picture has been processed poorly afterwards. So if I shoot a portrat and the background is busy, distracting, annoying then it's likely that ordinary people will notice and find it less pleasing than a portrait shot with a smooth, creamy background. It's a technical quality issue, and also an aesthetics issue. If we cannot control the technical aspects to make the image as we want, how can we expect to end up with satisfying pictures?

In some ways we are shooting for others, in some we are shooting for ourselves, so the first arbiter of what looks good must be us.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

but I would generally disagree if poor equipment choices have made the image less effective, produced un-wanted distortion, caused camera shake or where the picture has been processed poorly afterwards.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

I occasionally use a nifty fifty, mostly because of the sheer convenience of it being very small but also because it is very fast (mine is f1.4), but I also use a super-wide-angle zoom and a monster telephoto zoom. With any/all these lenses, my object is to take a photograph that I will like. I want it to be sharp, I want it to be well-exposed, I want the subject matter to fulfil the criteria I think I require, but mostly, I want a picture that I like to look at and if someone else likes it, that's a bit of a bonus. Take the current Digital Photographer of the Year here on this forum, I'm not doing too well compared to others and if public approbation was what I was doing my photography for then my life would be sorely disappointing. While it would be nice if more people liked my work, the fact that other photographs are preferred does not diminish my enthusiasm for photography one jot.

I like my pictures but I also like other people's pictures and the over-arching requirement in any photograph/painting/piece of music/etc. is that it is good to look at, even if the word 'good' is perhaps a little fast and loose as some pictures can be good but also harrowing and upsetting.

Photography is another artform, whether it be objective, subjective or completely abstract, and some people will like something and some people will not (and most won't give a monkey's toss either way). In any event, what a 'good' image was taken on -- zoom, prime, phone, Leica, Zenit (remember those?) -- is irrelevant if the end result is appreciated by someone; even if it is only oneself.

 

[woof woof]

Sorry for the rather long reply.

Quite a lot of the time I use primes which are likely to be worse than your average reasonably modern kit zoom but I do care about achieving a certain acceptable to me level of file and picture quality otherwise I might as well still be using the crappiest digital camera I've had and living with its awfulness or not caring about framing and cutting everyone's head off under a white featureless sky. There are limits to what I'll accept unless it's a once in a long time or even a once in a lifetime moment captured sort of picture and I want it regardless of how awfully framed and technically butchered it is. Those very important to us pictures when we don't care about quality are lets face it very very rare. For me 99.999999% of the time I want more than a barely recognisable thing in a trashed butchered technically awful picture.

My first camera was a fixed lens Kodak and I've owned several other fixed lens cameras and they were all I had for decades. I think the truth for me is that I'm happiest with a lens like those cameras had, somewhere between 28 and 50mm in "FF" / 35mm speak. Maybe I became conditioned to them. I know about where to stand and I know the perspective and other effects I'm going to get. I could get these things with a more versatile 24 or 28-70mm zoom but the fact is that whenever I have a zoom mounted I feel... awkward and I wish I had a prime. The exceptions being my 45-150mm and 100-400mm MFT zooms as I have no primes that'll do their job. Some of this is to do with size and wight though too as my primes are mostly a lot smaller than your average kit zoom.

I'm more interested in lenses than cameras but one thing about image quality that's important to me is dynamic range and I do value that more than a lens and its qualities or lack of such as performance into the corners, vignetting or field curvature or being sharp enough to cut your eye balls. The reason I value DR is that for years I had white featureless skies and I do like to capture sky detail (when there is any, I live in northern England after all) and DR is especially important if I/we don't want to turn around and take a picture of something else in the other direction.

I think there is a lot of snobbery and inverse snobbery in photography and a large does of meaningless waffle too but I suppose it is down to personal opinion. For me it's about a few things. It's a hobby and I need to enjoy it and some degree of gear fondling and liking the file quality is a part of it and it's a mix of the whole thing from bringing the camera to my eye to seeing the processed file on my pc. This is partly why I detest smart phone photography as to me phones are soleless oblong lumps of plastic and metal. I get no pleasure from using them and unless there's nothing else to use I have no interest in them regardless of image quality. Other than the gear and file love I want to see and capture the scene or moment to keep it and look at it and relive the experience later.

PS.
I took this picture with my Sony A7. It was taken at ISO 25,600 and it's a mess, mainly I think because of the awful artificial lighting. I have other ISO 25,600 pictures that don't look anywhere near as bad. Anyway. The significance of this picture is that it was the last picture of Mrs WW and her dog before she came to the UK. Tangkraw (the dog) died a few months later and she never saw him again. He was the last of her 5 dogs and her favourite. This picture was awful and has been partially rescued by throwing software at it but without the starting point of quite decent kit (not my worst ever digital compact) it would have been even worse and possibly not even useable. My point here is that the kit does matter.

 

[Ed Sutton]

So if I shoot a portrat and the background is busy, distracting, annoying then it's likely that ordinary people will notice and find it less pleasing than a portrait shot with a smooth, creamy background.

No doubt, but they rarely have that choice.

For a lot of people (most?) it's the subject that they respond to, not the picture qualities.

This next bit isn't aimed generally not as a direct reply to Toni.

Spend some time watching and listening to the reactions of people looking at the entries in a photographic competition at a village or agricultural show. It will give an insight into how the general public 'see' photographs.

 

[sphexx]

Spend some time watching and listening to the reactions of people looking at the entries in a photographic competition at a village or agricultural show. It will give an insight into how the general public 'see' photographs.

in personal stuff they want faces and backgrounds and don’t seem to worry about “big noses” etc. Witness all those people queueing up to take selfies of “me at (insert famous place)”

 

[myotis]

No doubt, but they rarely have that choice.

Isn't that part of the photographer's (or the photography community) responsibility? To know what photography is capable of (both technically and artistically) and strive to produce it.

As you say, most of the time the general public don't see the alternative and aren't aware that something could be better. But as photographers shouldn't we use our specialist photographic expertise to try and give our "clients", whether that’s our Granny or GQ magazine, the best the medium can offer.

For a lot of people (most?) it's the subject that they respond to, not the picture qualities.

This next bit isn't aimed generally not as a direct reply to Toni.

Spend some time watching and listening to the reactions of people looking at the entries in a photographic competition at a village or agricultural show. It will give an insight into how the general public 'see' photographs.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

But as photographers shouldn't we use our specialist photographic expertise to try and give our "clients", whether that’s our Granny or GQ magazine, the best the medium can offer.

Close.

I prefer to think of it like any other trade - as an artisan, the deal is that you supply what the customer wants, not what you think they should want.

 

[ancient_mariner]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

I am aware of that.

 

[sirch]

Is this really a question of intent?

It seems to me that some people who take photography "seriously" are so wrapped up in the gear and the process they rarely consider the intended purpose and end up using high end gear to produce stylised 1024px photos that are only ever viewed on poor quality monitors. OTOH people shooting kids and pets on a phone get exactly what they want, a moment in time, a memory, a sense of how it felt to be them with family/friends/pets at that place at that time.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Isn't that part of the photographer's (or the photography community) responsibility? To know what photography is capable of (both technically and artistically) and strive to produce it.

As you say, most of the time the general public don't see the alternative and aren't aware that something could be better. But as photographers shouldn't we use our specialist photographic expertise to try and give our "clients", whether that’s our Granny or GQ magazine, the best the medium can offer.

I agree. I had typed something similar in my post but must have deleted it.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I think there is a lot of snobbery and inverse snobbery in photography and a large does of meaningless waffle too

I would agree "council house primes" anyone?

Alan, your pictures remind me that you don't need high end kit to make pleasing pictures. I spent some time looking through pictures by a number of people including you, before posting, and there's always something pleasing about the images you post.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Spend some time watching and listening to the reactions of people looking at the entries in a photographic competition at a village or agricultural show. It will give an insight into how the general public 'see' photographs.

Several years running I was asked to judge the photos for our village produce show, and I'd wait to talk to people about the pictures if they wanted. Generally they were everything you would expect, and only a very small number of people who do more than glance at them on the way past.

 

[ancient_mariner]

No doubt, but they rarely have that choice.

For a lot of people (most?) it's the subject that they respond to, not the picture qualities.

The thing is that we DO have a choice. It can be "is that another one of your s*****y photos" or "wow, you made them look really good in that". But taste and fashion changes, and right now there's a fashion for wide-angle distortion, over-smoothed skin and plump lips.

Sorry for the broken up replies - I'm on my phone and have been a bit unwell the last few days.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Is this really a question of intent?

It seems to me that some people who take photography "seriously" are so wrapped up in the gear and the process they rarely consider the intended purpose and end up using high end gear to produce stylised 1024px photos that are only ever viewed on poor quality monitors. OTOH people shooting kids and pets on a phone get exactly what they want, a moment in time, a memory, a sense of how it felt to be them with family/friends/pets at that place at that time.

This is a good point too.

I get prints made, often 20"x30", and have them in my office at work. Sometimes people drop by just to look at the pictures.

Does anyone have prints?

 

[Ed Sutton]

It seems to me that some people who take photography "seriously" are so wrapped up in the gear and the process they rarely consider the intended purpose...

It seems to me that some people who take photography 'seriously' aren't interested in photography in the broad sense, never mind how their pictures will be perceived.

 

[ancient_mariner]

It seems to me that some people who take photography 'seriously' aren't interested in photography in the broad sense, never mind how their pictures will be perceived.

If, by that, you mean how 'non-photographers' take pictures, then no I'm not interested. Otherwise please explain Chris and Dave.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

If, by that, you mean how 'non-photographers' take pictures, then no I'm not interested.

It seems to me that "non-photographers take pictures" doesn't compute.

A photographer is a person who records an image using a camera, so anyone who uses a camera to record an image is a photographer. That being the case, a non-photographer is a person who doesn't make an image using a camera. Hence the sentence quoted above appears to be meaningless.

To save time: this is a serious point. So far as I'm concerned, anyone who uses a camera to record an image is a photographer. Perhaps you're looking for a different word, such as "artist" or "artisan"?

 

[myotis]

Close.

I prefer to think of it like any other trade - as an artisan, the deal is that you supply what the customer wants, not what you think they should want.

If you are offering a service then I think you have a responsibility to ensure your client gets what they 'need' which might not necessarily match what they initially want..

 

[ancient_mariner]

It seems to me that "non-photographers take pictures" doesn't compute.

A photographer is a person who records an image using a camera, so anyone who uses a camera to record an image is a photographer. That being the case, a non-photographer is a person who doesn't make an image using a camera. Hence the sentence quoted above appears to be meaningless.

To save time: this is a serious point. So far as I'm concerned, anyone who uses a camera to record an image is a photographer. Perhaps you're looking for a different word, such as "artist" or "artisan"?

It's a bit like claiming to be a gardener if you occasionally cut the grass, or carpenter because you assembled some wooden shelves. Do you think those are reasonable too?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

If you are offering a service then I think you have a responsibility to ensure your client gets what they 'need' which might not necessarily match what they initially want..

That leads us into all sorts of interesting territory.

I've been in various situations where I believed that what the client "wanted" was not what they "needed". The best advice I ever received on that was "By all means advise the client, tactfully, how the job could be done better but if they stick to their plan, do what they want."

It worked well enough for me in every case where I applied that advice.

 

[myotis]

It seems to me that "non-photographers take pictures" doesn't compute.

A photographer is a person who records an image using a camera, so anyone who uses a camera to record an image is a photographer. That being the case, a non-photographer is a person who doesn't make an image using a camera. Hence the sentence quoted above appears to be meaningless.

To save time: this is a serious point. So far as I'm concerned, anyone who uses a camera to record an image is a photographer. Perhaps you're looking for a different word, such as "artist" or "artisan"?

I think that just as describing some one as a "writer" isn't taken to mean "anyone" who writes things,

I don't think writing down my weekly shopping list makes me a "writer", I'm not even sure the two books I co-authored makes me a "writer" as a better description would be an ecological statistician who has written a couple of books.

I would have thought most people would consider "being a photographer" meaning something much more specific than anyone who takes photographs.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It's a bit like claiming to be a gardener if you occasionally cut the grass, or carpenter because you assembled some wooden shelves. Do you think those are reasonable too?

Actually, your examples are nothing like the same. For them to be the same, you'd need to use the term "grasscutter", while the term "carpenter" is accepted as the description of a trade.

"Photographer" is, admittedly, used by some as a general description of a trade (or for the snobs, profession) but it still retains the original meaning: "someone who records an image" and so is equivalent to "grasscutter".

Before we get too deeply into semantics, though, I will backtrack a little and accept that what you really meant was "people who are not committed to or obsessive about recording images with a camera".

 

[myotis]

That leads us into all sorts of interesting territory.

I've been in various situations where I believed that what the client "wanted" was not what they "needed". The best advice I ever received on that was "By all means advise the client, tactfully, how the job could be done better but if they stick to their plan, do what they want."

It worked well enough for me in every case where I applied that advice.

Yes, I've been there as well, e.g totally wasting our clients money by doing ecological survey work at the wrong time of year (making it clear to the client and in the report that the results were meaningless, but it depends on circumstances.

I've also turned environmental consultancy work down (and been sacked a couple of times), when clients have refused our advice and still wanted a particular approach taken which would have meant us doing something recognised as bad practice (or even illegal).

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I don't think writing down my weekly shopping list makes me a "writer",

I think that it does, certainly it would in a society where literacy is uncommon.

Before we wander too far off course, I will accept that the meaning Toni was giving "photographer" was particular and not general but the context he was applying it to was not at all clear to me. Does he mean someone who "takes snaps" or does he mean someone who is not committed to photography as an art form or what?

 

[Ed Sutton]

If, by that, you mean how 'non-photographers' take pictures, then no I'm not interested. Otherwise please explain Chris and Dave.

I certainly mean the likes of people who post on TP who, I assume, consider themselves to be' photographers' but claim never to look at the work of other photographers as they don't want to be influenced by them, or claim never to have heard of some influential photographers of the past.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

" as a better description would be an ecological statistician who has written a couple of books.

Party conversation:

"What do you do?"

"I'm an ecological statistician who..."

"Really? Well, it was nice talking to you."



Better to say you are a writer.

 

[myotis]

Party conversation:

"What do you do?"

"I'm an ecological statistician who..."

"Really? Well, it was nice talking to you."



Better to say you are a writer.

Not a phrase I use that often, to the extent that I got it wrong, as normally the phrase is "statistical ecologist". It just seemed the best description given the subject of the books.

At parties I'm normally just an ecologist. on my CV (but it depends on context) I'm a Decision Scientist..

Now I'm just "retired"

 

[myotis]

I think that it does, certainly it would in a society where literacy is uncommon.

That may well be the case, but in this context, I think this is pushing the argument a bit far.

Before we wander too far off course, I will accept that the meaning Toni was giving "photographer" was particular and not general but the context he was applying it to was not at all clear to me. Does he mean someone who "takes snaps" or does he mean someone who is not committed to photography as an art form or what?

While I agree the term photographer is vague, in the context of this forum I assume it means anyone who has shown an interest in photography beyond it's everyday utilitarian use.

Some one willing to devote their time into learning how to make their photographs "better".

Without a qualifier, for me, the term being a "photographer" means someone who does what I would call "expressive" photography. That is, making photographs that aren't just about the subject but also say something about how the photographer saw and felt about that subject. It also conjures up someone with an interest in all aspects of photography and its relationship with history, art, technology, craft, and society.

Other types of photographers are available, wildlife photographers, documentary photographer, etc, and none exclude you from also being an expressive photographer and having a broad interest in all things photographic.

I think I'll leave it at that, as this requires an essay to fully explain.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Without a qualifier, for me, the term being a "photographer" means someone who does what I would call "expressive" photography.

I think that gets closer to what I'm attempting to express. at least in a negative way. (and I hope that I need not signal that no pun is intended... )

Without a qualifier, Toni's original statement was ambiguous to the point of obsurity but if he had added a qualification, then it would have made sense.