Thu, September 30th, 2004 by pixpop
In the fake or photo thread, btezra mentioned that the fake images "make it appear as if a photographer took great effort to get the right shot".
Do you think a photograph has to be made with difficulty, in order to be worthwhile? Certainly, it seems that many folks have an attitude like this with respect to the snapshot. It's also been the basis for many arguments against digital cameras, autofocus, auto exposure, and other automations. But why?
How is it, exactly, that effort makes something worthwhile?
I've seen a movie of Picasso drawing. Nothing could be more effortless. His hand was constantly on the move, but his attention seemed to be everywhere, as he talked to the filmmaker, took a glass of wine, etc. Almost as if his hand was able to make the drawing by itself.. automatically.
September 30th, 2004 at 4:29 pm
I don't know if effort and difficulty are interchangeable here, Pixpop. Speaking for myself, I tend to put more effort into photography lately because I want to add a certain level of artistry to the shots I take. Believe me, I use the word artistry loosely, but that's what I want to achieve personally.
Snapshots are certainly worth taking, and not every shot has to be composed or set up to within an inch of its life. Though sometimes the most "difficult" shots are the most personally rewarding, there's something to be said for quick unrehearsed photos that just work. Every shot is different.
Picasso's work seemed effortless because it was. But I'll bet he put a lot into it during his earlier years to get to that point.
Anyway. My $.02.
--A.
September 30th, 2004 at 4:48 pm
sometimes, simplicity can look wayy better than something you've spent hours looking for...honestly, it just depends what look you're going for.
September 30th, 2004 at 5:02 pm
This is a huge question in many circles, encompassing technique and effort, but I just don't think there is an answer, great art, great images can come from great effort or no effort, great difficulty or none at all. There's certainly no truth in saying harder is better.
September 30th, 2004 at 5:09 pm
That's kind of a loaded question IMO. Akin to "What is art?" or the question I get at work a lot (I work in an art gallery) "Why is that art so expensive?"
Personally I don't think it matters how long you spend creating, it's the outcome that matters. And in Picasso's case, besides being a "genius" he also developed a "name" and reputation, so regardless of whether his work was innovative and/or good or absolute crap he knew he had a long line of buyers. He was also a brilliant showman and self-promoter, so if you've seen film of him creating art on the fly, chances are that some of that was him "acting" for the camera.
I am an artist and a graphic designer- is my graphic design as valuable as my art? Art you sell by the piece, design you do by the hour/salary. Photographers who ar photojournalists sell to publications or whatever for a negotiated (sometimes) price, but will ask more for their 'fine art' pieces when selling to the public.
I'm just trying to illustrate how while your question is rather straightforward is actually an extremely complex quanrdy that ultimately comes down to how much someone else is willing to pay for the finished piece. The famous statement at a gallery is "My kid sister could have painted that!" -- And while that may be true, the person's kid sister didn't paint it/shoot it and even if she did, good as it may be, that doesn't mean it would be hanging in a museum.
September 30th, 2004 at 5:20 pm
I don't think difficulty is important. But due care and attention to whether or not it is a proper shot are.
I was sooo happy to find this forum, and many of the sites on it because I was *SO* tired of visiting photography forums and seeing crap after crap after crap posted; and on top of that, these people were being praised for their work.
I'm all for 'to each his own', but these folks were just using GREEN and taking candid snapshots that had no composition or anything behind them. Horrible.
BUT, the answer is no. Sometimes the best shots are effortless. It all depends.
September 30th, 2004 at 5:27 pm
Adam, what's GREEN? Is it bad?
September 30th, 2004 at 6:36 pm
Sorry, I've often heard and referred to full-automatic mode as GREEN.
LOL.
Not that I think theres anything wrong with not missing the technology and just creating art. But just careless shots.. no thanks.
September 30th, 2004 at 7:26 pm
Sometimes when I'm just shooting for me, not giving a care who sees the photos, it is a lot more enjoyable to shoot on the fly and shoot effortlessly.
On the other hand, when the final outcome is the main, either for publication or for myself, I find that the more I work a subject, more aesthetically pleasing my photo is for a wider audience. Often time that is a more important goal than my shooting pleasure.
A lot of times I come upon a situation where the light is beautiful and the photos are easy to compose but it is missing that little touch of emotion. The longer I work the scene, the longer I create my own luck.
September 30th, 2004 at 8:32 pm
It's not the process that matters as much as the result. Sometimes you get lucky and end up with a great shot with relatively little effort - that certainly doesn't lessen the quality of the work. More often, the perfect shot comes with a certain amount of effort - which is fine as well. A good photo is a good photo.
I know that when I'm shooting, it really depends on the camera I'm using. If I have an SLR, digital or not, I'll shoot one subject many times, from different angles if possible. I always have my SLRs on fully manual mode, too, but this is a purely personal choice because I like to have as much control over the shot as possible.
On the other hand, when I'm shooting with toy cameras, and I'm thinking mainly of my Holga, I often don't even look through the viewfinder (partly because the viewfinder on a Holga is almost useless anyway). I've gotten some really nice photos (IMO) that way.
There's no real answer to that question. Which is why it's such a good one.
October 1st, 2004 at 12:17 am
There really is no correct answer to this question. It is in the eye of the beholder.
"Sometimes you get lucky and end up with a great shot with relatively little effort." is equally valid to knowing that your ratio on the face of your subject is 1.7 or 1.9, or knowing the difference between pure white as you see it and 18% grey as the camera sees it and how to compensate for it. Ever explored crossover effect in films? Perspective correction? Focal plane correction? Some of us are more tech minded and some are more art minded. Sort of a left-brain -- right-brain argument.
Until you achieve the technical mastery of your art, you might scoff or critik someone who "wastes their time" with light meters, tripods, light modifiers, lens changes and whatnot. Snapshots have a place in life, but so do professional photographers who master their art and make a living by it. Does ownership of a camera or the use of a camera qualify you as a photographer? ("you" plural, not anyone specific)
"How is it, exactly, that effort makes something worthwhile?" At the end of the day, you can say, "I gave it my best shot."
my $0.02
October 1st, 2004 at 2:19 am
there's no reason it HAS to be difficult. difficult doesn't equal better. sometimes it's hard, sometimes it's easy. the only important thing is that you do whatever you can to make it the best it can be for what it is.
October 1st, 2004 at 3:04 am
The hard part is not creating great images. What's hard is putting in the years of training and study and discipline to gain the experience generally needed to make creating great images easy.
October 1st, 2004 at 7:39 am
I ran across this site and decided to stay a while to respond to the discussions concerning "difficultly" and "effort".
I would want to draw a distinction between "difficulty" and "effort." For me, the fine print is where I focus my comments. By this I mean, if you have a negative, film or digital, it can be "difficult" to get to the end product due to poor exposures, blocked shadows or blown highlights, etc. But even with a properly exposed negative that prints easily, that is only the beginning and this is where "effort", "vision", and all the skills acquired through study and practice come into play.
Most often I shoot medium format, scan the film, manipulate the data, and either output a 4x5 negative to print in the darkroom or produce a digital print. The effort to accomplish these tasks is extreme, in building the knowledge base necessary to get to the print. The most difficult part of the process is knowing when to stop making
variations upon the score (Adams), for a print can always be better technically, or interpreted in different ways. Selinium toning, eg, produces different effects per solution strength or time in the bath or agitation techniques. (This also applies to film type, lens, exposure, filters, development techniques, paper characterisics, etc.) When shooting, I have an idea at that time what the print will look like, but then other variations present themselves.
Yes, what is key is what you are looking for (tanner) - and the answer lies in your question, for which you must define the parameters.
My regards to the group,
Larry K.
October 1st, 2004 at 8:24 am
To me, photography is all about capturing the moment. It doesn't matter if it was a "green" shot or time was spent on setting the shot up. It also doesn't matter if you're using a disposable camera or one worth thousands. If you enjoy taking pictures, that's all that counts.
Here's Webster's description:
Pho`tog´ra`pher
n. 1. One who practices, or is skilled in, photography.
What it means is, we're all photographers since we practice photography. Of course there are those who make a living out of it, hence they are the "professional" photographers.
October 1st, 2004 at 9:43 am
personally, i am impressed when i see a sharp shot that was shot at 1/8 of a second handheld. i'm semi-impressed when i see an overly backlit shot with the subject perfectly exposed. i'm impressed when i see perfectly balanced studio fills. i'm impressed when i see unlikely and perfectly captured compositions. i'm impressed when relatively banal subject matter is captured in an extraordinary manner.
in each of these i see the skill of the photographer, or the thought and effort that went into the photograph. it's not the difficulty that makes these shots good, it is the knowledge and care that went into capturing them correctly.
October 1st, 2004 at 9:49 am
oh, i'm impressed when i look at a difficult exposure and the photographer says, "oh i placed the tree bark on zone iv and developed it n-1 in d76."
i'm also impressed when ross lies and says that he shoots chromes without a meter and every frame is perfectly exposed.
okay, i'm done.
October 1st, 2004 at 10:41 am
Do you think a photograph has to be made with difficulty, in order to be worthwhile?
Absolutely not. I think a photograph has a better chance of being successful (worthwhile is a loaded word) if the artist is in control of the medium... whether that means taking great pains to set up the shot and to choose the right settings and to process the resulting image, or whether it means being in control enough to spot the right moment and compose in an instant.
If you always compose on the fly, you're probably going to have a lot more trash shots... but that doesn't mean the few that turn out amazing are any less worthwhile than something that required much more effort.
October 1st, 2004 at 6:22 pm
Hey, I just found out that my Contax T3 has GREEN. I feel so... modern, all of a sudden
In fact, when you first turn it on, it goes into GREEN mode, and you have to press a spcial button and turn a dial while standing on one leg and facing east in order to get it into aperture priority mode.
OK, I lied about the facing east part.