Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Art Theory: Idea workshop.

Art Theory: Idea workshop. Warning, not the truth here, just a venture. Examining what makes an image worthy of saving and what it does for us.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 30th, 2014, 09:52 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,579
Default Pre-planning Photography II: Shooting "Coverage" beyond the picture needed?

COVERAGE: The next point worth addressing is interest in adjacent, neighboring parts of a scene. I learnt this from a movie crew that came to our house for a shoot. One word that stuck to my head was "get coverage" outside and inside.

Obviously, we choose what we love and need. However, after that, there's more either side. Do you take and extra moment to grab adjacent frames just in case you might have a need for such a panoramic view later on? What this does allow, is not only repurposing of images that cost something to get to shoot, but also the opportunity to revisit the scene at home and be re-inspired to find new compositions to explore fall in love with anew.

So what's your practice getting "coverage"? Does it just seem like a "diversion" or else "a modest investment"? Have you discovered any great utility in this?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old April 30th, 2014, 11:35 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,755
Default

I would have thought that the photo equivalent of "get coverage" would be, for example for a wedding, to take pictures of the preparations, arrival of the guests, etc... so as to have enough material for a cohesive story.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old April 30th, 2014, 01:37 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I would have thought that the photo equivalent of "get coverage" would be, for example for a wedding, to take pictures of the preparations, arrival of the guests, etc... so as to have enough material for a cohesive story.
This is the part that would be "favor-doing" enthusiasts are likely to miss at a friend's wedding and then when it comes to making the book, it lacks that extra life and breadth.

I notice some wonderful scenes with coast lines or magnificent clouds, a river bend where I can imagine extra uses if only the picture was wider. This capturing of extra real-estate can mean new opportunities of exploiting the already expended effort in getting to the place! I don't advocate anyone changing their compositions, but exploiting the magic around that needed shot can be a great reward later on.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old April 30th, 2014, 06:36 PM
Maris Rusis Maris Rusis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
Posts: 382
Default

At worst "coverage" is a hedge against picture production that is "not fully thought through" to begin with.

It invites laziness of conceptualization in the hope that something plausible may be cobbled together from off-theme fragments. This as second-hand insurance against failure.

There is courage in photographing without "coverage". There is no artistic safety net in declaring a cycle of photographs coherent, complete, and fully realised. But there is artistic integrity. It's a high stakes game not always won.

At best "coverage" is what I thought I delivered to my commercial clients when they hired me to make pictures. I'd shoot everything in all ways; ok, within budget. This because they knew what they wanted but only after they saw it.

"Coverage" in commerce is essential; "coverage" in art implies timidity. I could be wrong.
__________________
"Photography or the application of the chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation...". Photography, the word, coined and first uttered by Sir John Herschel at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London; 14 March, 1839.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old April 30th, 2014, 07:21 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maris Rusis View Post
At worst "coverage" is a hedge against picture production that is "not fully thought through" to begin with.

It invites laziness of conceptualization in the hope that something plausible may be cobbled together from off-theme fragments. This as second-hand insurance against failure.
A wise comment, but misses the point of having resources to sell and repurpose without having to travel again to reach some amazing place. Reminds me of that LF photographer, (I believe his name was "Burke"), who had a very large wooden camera built with a bunch of film holders. He loaded up his car and drove a thousand miles to get the picture needed. He took 3 shots, just in case. When he returned, processed the first one and it was perfect, so he discarded the other unexposed sheets of film! No fizzy thinking there and a simple filing system



Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old May 1st, 2014, 03:54 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maris Rusis View Post
At worst "coverage" is a hedge against picture production that is "not fully thought through" to begin with.

It invites laziness of conceptualization in the hope that something plausible may be cobbled together from off-theme fragments. This as second-hand insurance against failure.

There is courage in photographing without "coverage". There is no artistic safety net in declaring a cycle of photographs coherent, complete, and fully realised. But there is artistic integrity. It's a high stakes game not always won.

At best "coverage" is what I thought I delivered to my commercial clients when they hired me to make pictures. I'd shoot everything in all ways; ok, within budget. This because they knew what they wanted but only after they saw it.

"Coverage" in commerce is essential; "coverage" in art implies timidity. I could be wrong.
What a nice way to finish, Maris. "I could be wrong" sounds like a bloke who thinks he isn't and is looking for someone to disagree with him.
Well let me tell you. I agree with you.
You are soooooo wrong you could be talking about the price of fish.

Firstly, how do you distinguish between art and commerce? Cannot art and commerce come together?

Secondly, you express your opinions as though they are facts."it invites laziness ..." Indeed. How do you know this? Do you regularly see photographers snapping away then falling on the grass in a sleeping stupor?

And what's this supposed to mean?

"There is courage in photographing without "coverage". There is no artistic safety net in declaring a cycle of photographs coherent, complete, and fully realised. But there is artistic integrity. It's a high stakes game not always won."

Courage indeed. This isn't a battleground or suicide mission. It's just photography. And integrity as well. I guess that leaves me out. No integrity here.

So, are you saying you preconceptualise so accurately that no matter what, you wouldn't consider looking around and shooting off a few just for a bit of a look later? I suppose if you're rigging up the 8 x 10 glass plate and you have one shot at it you might do that. Is that what you meant? Don't you think that was done as a matter of necessity more than integrity? We've come a long way. Just in case you didn't notice, your camera has the capacity to take more than one shot. You can even change your mind while shooting. Heaven forbid! You might even save yourself the return trip with some digital insurance.

Then again, I could be wrong. Now that's a courageous statement, isn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old May 1st, 2014, 05:04 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,755
Default

I am glad to see that you have fully recovered, Tom.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old May 2nd, 2014, 05:31 PM
Maris Rusis Maris Rusis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
Posts: 382
Default

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
What a nice way to finish, Maris. "I could be wrong" sounds like a bloke who thinks he isn't and is looking for someone to disagree with him.
Well let me tell you. I agree with you.
You are soooooo wrong you could be talking about the price of fish.
Welcome back Tom. It's not about the price of fish but it is fishing. Casting a hook inviting disagreement sometimes gets a bite and the fish I land might teach me something.
Quote:
Firstly, how do you distinguish between art and commerce? Cannot art and commerce come together?
Easy! Motivation is the key. Art is what you create as if money didn't exist. Commerce is what you create only if money exists. Getting paid for art doesn't turn it into commerce because you'd make it anyway. I believe an artistic impulse genuinely exists. As Picasso famously and coarsely put it, "If you are truly an artist then you know you have to make art like you know you have to piss."
Quote:
Secondly, you express your opinions as though they are facts."it invites laziness ..." Indeed. How do you know this? Do you regularly see photographers snapping away then falling on the grass in a sleeping stupor?
I've seen it innumerable times over the decades: "Don't think, just shoot." The money shot will turn up on the contact sheets. Or, these days I suppose, it can be either found or synthesised in post. Insofar as art is a mind-map of the artist the absence of thought dictates the absence of art. Or, more informally, if a putative artist is too idle to bother putting a picture through their own mind I won't be bothered putting it through my mind either.
Quote:
And what's this supposed to mean?

"There is courage in photographing without "coverage". There is no artistic safety net in declaring a cycle of photographs coherent, complete, and fully realised. But there is artistic integrity. It's a high stakes game not always won."

Courage indeed. This isn't a battleground or suicide mission. It's just photography. And integrity as well. I guess that leaves me out. No integrity here.
Photography exercised as a life committment to art is a battleground and in a sense a suicide mission too. The Buddhists are wrong. You don't get your time over. If you never make your mind up about your pictures, never take a stand and risk the sting of adverse criticism, and just faff about with cameras then that's a wasted life; better a committed fishmonger than a photo dilettante.

Quote:
So, are you saying you preconceptualise so accurately that no matter what, you wouldn't consider looking around and shooting off a few just for a bit of a look later? I suppose if you're rigging up the 8 x 10 glass plate and you have one shot at it you might do that. Is that what you meant? Don't you think that was done as a matter of necessity more than integrity? We've come a long way. Just in case you didn't notice, your camera has the capacity to take more than one shot. You can even change your mind while shooting. Heaven forbid! You might even save yourself the return trip with some digital insurance.
Yes, I preconceptualise as determinedly and as accurately as I can. Some photographs need and get a year of pre-planning. Yes, I use an 8x10 camera (no glass plates, too heavy, too fragile) and 90% of my photographic effort is dedicated to intense looking at and for subject matter. The technical side of picture making is largely unchallenging, easy, and error free.
Quote:
Then again, I could be wrong. Now that's a courageous statement, isn't it?
Self-delusion isn't unique to the arts and I daresay it happens to photograph-makers. I could be daft but if so how would I know it? Instead of bellyaching about that question I make photographs, not diffident, not provisional, but final, that declare what I am. And I'm willing to cop the consequences, good, bad, or indifferent.

Maybe this thread could do with some decoration. Here's a picture that needed reference to an astronomical ephemeris and a few months of waiting until the moon would be in the right place at the right time. I'm uncertain what I could have shot by way of "coverage" to make it better.


Winter Moonrise, Alexandria Bay

Gelatin-silver photograph on Agfa Classic MCC 111 VC FB photographic paper, image size 19.5cm X 24.5cm, from a 8x10 Kodak Tmax 400 negative exposed in a Tachihara 810HD triple extension field view camera fitted with a Fujinon-W 300mm f5.6 lens and #25 red filter. Titled, signed, and stamped verso.
__________________
"Photography or the application of the chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation...". Photography, the word, coined and first uttered by Sir John Herschel at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London; 14 March, 1839.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old May 2nd, 2014, 06:08 PM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

I don't have the stamina to lug around an 8 x 10 so I'll stick to my point and press, shooting away at what interests me and what comes along, which, funnily enough seem to coincide if I hand around enough.
Why does everyone name drop when they need 'proof' for what they are saying? Who gives a **** what Pablo said? I like his stuff as well but that doesn't mean he was some god who knew it all.

As with you, Maris, I occasionally pre-visualise, although I'm happy enough to change my mind along the way. No-0ne famous ever said that, I don't think, but it just seems a sort of human thing to do.

Just to add some decoration to the thread I will add this shot.



_DSC7757

by thedingo0099, on Flickr

I probably waited as long for this shot as you did yours.

Then the 'Moon rose' so to speak and a better shot immerged. Some days photography cant be planned.


by thedingo0099, on Flickr


This was much the same.


_DSC8214

by thedingo0099, on Flickr


and......

_DSC8216

by thedingo0099, on Flickr


For me, and I do note, for a few others, although I wouldn't use my anecdotal evidence to form a proof, just an hypothesis, the rising and falling of bodies in the frame is just as beautiful and 'artistic' as the rotation of the Earth on its axis.
Whether you thought about yours more or used a bigger camera makes your shot more artistic is, to say the least debatable, to say the most, shear arrogance.

Unless I misunderstood you. Which I do with many people, eh, Asher.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old May 2nd, 2014, 10:25 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,579
Default


Winter Moonrise, Alexandria Bay

Gelatin-silver photograph on Agfa Classic MCC 111 VC FB photographic paper, image size 19.5cm X 24.5cm, from a 8x10 Kodak Tmax 400 negative exposed in a Tachihara 810HD triple extension field view camera fitted with a Fujinon-W 300mm f5.6 lens and #25 red filter. Titled, signed, and stamped verso.


Maris,

This works for me! Very well done and you know it!

Artworks I plan too. I have the entire image blocked out and likely visited the location several times. There's a drawing I make beforehand to help me work towards that vision. It's a complete entity that I do not want to exploit a second time.

However, when I travel to a new location just to do shoot for anything else, I take advantage of that invested effort and get "coverage" so I can exploit the many hidden opportunities when I have time to enjoy my captures. Likely as not, some of the coverage and the pictures needed will work together for repurposing for a new job.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old May 3rd, 2014, 08:32 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,755
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maris Rusis View Post
Easy! Motivation is the key. Art is what you create as if money didn't exist. Commerce is what you create only if money exists. Getting paid for art doesn't turn it into commerce because you'd make it anyway. I believe an artistic impulse genuinely exists. As Picasso famously and coarsely put it, "If you are truly an artist then you know you have to make art like you know you have to piss."
That is a seducing theory because, on the surface, it appears to work this way. We all have seen too much "art" which does not work because it simply is produced to satisfy a "market". It is not art because it lacks creativity and it must lack creativity because its form is predefined by the constraints of the market. Usually, it is servile copy of something which was successful.

But where the theory fails is that all humans have the motivation to "create". We all have the motivation to express ourselves, talk to our neighbours, display our opinions and likes and, more often than not, we tend to fix these bouts of communication in tangible forms. Yet, most of that is not considered "art". Political or religious slogans, graffiti, public display of affiliation to a party or of patriotism, decorating one's home or car to impress the neighbours are widespread and are forms of expression. Yet they are not considered "art".
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old May 3rd, 2014, 08:59 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,755
Default

On the subject of (extra) "coverage":

I think that one of the reason this question may excite passion comes from the particular limitations of the medium of photography. I'll explain below.

First, since the word "art" has been mentioned, I would like to point out that we do not talk about all forms of art here. Cinema has also been mentioned, but Cinema is a very different art form. The idea of "coverage" is thus completely different. Taking another recognised art form as an example: music, the concept of "coverage" does not make sense. Taking an art form related to photography as another example: drawing, the concept of "coverage" also does not make sense.

So we need to limit ourselves to photography as an art form and define "coverage" as "extra pictures which show elements not enclosed in the frame of the first picture".

The important word here is "frame" and is the actual reason behind the passionate discussion above.

Photography belongs to the graphic arts, mostly characterised by the idea that they bring pigments on a generally flat surface (painting, drawing, graffiti...). Photography is uniquely characterised amongst the graphic art by its use of the frame. The reason is obvious: cameras work that way. Note that painting and drawing may use a frame, but this is not an absolute requirement. The image can be constructed from the inside out and disregard the frame altogether. This is particularly obvious in graffiti which, although related to painting and drawing, usually dispense with any recognisable frame for the obvious reason that graffiti happens on existing walls, usually much larger than the image.

The very act of taking a photograph is thus intimately linked to the concept of the frame. For many photograps, the creative process does not go far beyond deciding where the frame should be. This is simply inherent in the process of taking a photograph. For that reason the idea of "extra coverage" in the sense of "elements which are not in the original frame but would allow us to decide on another possible framing afterwards" must excite passion. It goes to the very root of the creative process.

More about the "creative process" in a next post.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old May 3rd, 2014, 09:29 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,755
Default

On the subject of the creative process in photography:

I am sorry to be pedantic, but I feel that a dispassionate but detailed discussion of the concepts is necessary. In my experience, when people do not agree the reason is that they do not use the same concepts.

Amongst the graphic arts, photography has a unique property: it allows a non-constructive creative process (I am using "creative process" in the broad sense of "creating images" and not implying any "art" value to them).

A constructive creative process is when one envisions a final output and constructs it. This is the norm for painting or drawing for example. In photography, it is common in studio still life, for example. Apparently, Maris claims to use a constructive process for his images here.

A non-constructive creative process is when one depends on external events in creating the work. Arguably, this is the norm for street photography, but also for event or press photography. Note that non-constructive creating processes are known in painting (usually it looks like smashing paint buckets on the canvas) or even in writing (automatic writing).

In photography, the non-constructing process is akin to hunting. Now, hunting is arguably not an art form (or yes), but has been with us humans for a long time. It should therefore not be surprising that this kind of photography is strongly attractive to some people. Please note that I do not attach any particular value to the use of one process or another, I am just discussing their differences (actually my opinion is that both approaches are equally valid). I should nevertheless point out that the art market attaches particular value to a constructive creative process, mainly for marketing reasons. (If I have the time, I should write an article about the art market, I had an interesting conference on the subject today.) But I should insist that both approaches have created masterpieces, historically, so they are both valid.

A small difference amongst the process will lie in the perceived satisfaction by the photographer. The constructive photographer is satisfied when the output is as planned. In effect, the creative process happens before the shutter is even opened for him or her. Quite differently, the non-constructive photographer can derive satisfaction in having found a particular valuable "prey" (hunting analogy here). The later is thus more likely to use "extra coverage" if he or she already has one element essential to the final picture (the "valuable prey"), but is still missing some refinement necessary for the final image.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old May 3rd, 2014, 11:46 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
On the subject of (extra) "coverage":

I think that one of the reason this question may excite passion comes from the particular limitations of the medium of photography. I'll explain below.

First, since the word "art" has been mentioned, I would like to point out that we do not talk about all forms of art here. Cinema has also been mentioned, but Cinema is a very different art form. The idea of "coverage" is thus completely different. Taking another recognised art form as an example: music, the concept of "coverage" does not make sense. Taking an art form related to photography as another example: drawing, the concept of "coverage" also does not make sense.

So we need to limit ourselves to photography as an art form and define "coverage" as "extra pictures which show elements not enclosed in the frame of the first picture".

The important word here is "frame" and is the actual reason behind the passionate discussion above.

Photography belongs to the graphic arts, mostly characterised by the idea that they bring pigments on a generally flat surface (painting, drawing, graffiti...). Photography is uniquely characterised amongst the graphic art by its use of the frame. The reason is obvious: cameras work that way. Note that painting and drawing may use a frame, but this is not an absolute requirement. The image can be constructed from the inside out and disregard the frame altogether. This is particularly obvious in graffiti which, although related to painting and drawing, usually dispense with any recognisable frame for the obvious reason that graffiti happens on existing walls, usually much larger than the image.

The very act of taking a photograph is thus intimately linked to the concept of the frame. For many photograps, the creative process does not go far beyond deciding where the frame should be. This is simply inherent in the process of taking a photograph. For that reason the idea of "extra coverage" in the sense of "elements which are not in the original frame but would allow us to decide on another possible framing afterwards" must excite passion. It goes to the very root of the creative process.

More about the "creative process" in a next post.

Jerome,

You have obviously given this some thought. Let me preface your mainly "one Plane approach and then, the frame. Before this one has to hunt for the right position around the object of interest from which to observe and then get the time right! Now one has what one wants in the camera. We might also appreciate potential for many other frames being possible, with value, all over a much wider area from that same POV. That's the chance for bringing home more riches for a modest increment in time, a very efficient collection for possible later consideration, but without the need to travel to that place and wait for that light!

One can also, exit from one's preconceived plan, as one is now free, (that picture is safe in the camera), and one can just wait for the scene to transform, as it always does, to something unexpected: new clouds, light breaking through, changing color, creatures or people arriving, all interesting to the open mind.

In Tom's pictures, above, lingering at that chosen viewpoint, allowed the surprises to happen and delivered far stronger images for us!

But you know and presume that. Just wanted to make your excellent essay complete for those willing to approach photography from a hunter's strategic methods.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old May 3rd, 2014, 04:47 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,579
Default "Temporal" coverage

We see something interesting and within the physical limits of our placements and interfering elements, we make the best possible composition and get the shot. But here, Tom Dinning didn't then just move on, as most would when the job is done! One can shoot in an open-ended way, as life unfolds with time.

"As with you, Maris, I occasionally pre-visualise, although I'm happy enough to change my mind along the way. No-0ne famous ever said that, I don't think, but it just seems a sort of human thing to do."



[url=https://flic.kr/p/jo2Wcz][/url]

_DSC7757

by thedingo0099, on Flickr





_DSC7756

by thedingo0099, on Flickr





_DSC8214

by thedingo0099, on Flickr


and......




_DSC8216

by thedingo0099, on Flickr


"For me, and I do note, for a few others, although I wouldn't use my anecdotal evidence to form a proof, just an hypothesis, the rising and falling of bodies in the frame is just as beautiful and 'artistic' as the rotation of the Earth on its axis."



Tom,

Your two examples,
  • one with a rather clumsy b.g., but a riveting human focus of interest, (the lady seeking alms),

  • and the second, (with compositional strengths) and a young voluptuous woman as "bait",

you have allowed time to pass and watched your catch as people came into view, ignored or engaged subjects you chose.

I note that although the second set of images around the attractive woman has stronger foundations, it's not necessarily a better picture than with haughty-looking woman, blindly barreling by, oblivious to the impoverished and tragic woman's plight.

However, in each case, the better images have unfolded naturally with no intervention by you, the photographer. Your credit is for excluding all other vantage points to establish for your frame of interest and then the patience to wait for the right time to sample the rising and falling bodies - a creative and rewarding way of street photography that I commend to everyone to try!

So, to everyone, let's consider the idea of "Temporal coverage": We take the picture we were going to take. But we don't move on. Instead, exploit this place a little more. If we stick around, we open up possibilities of "happenstance". This is what Tom did, after all. We just wait and, likely as not, even better pictures might offer themselves up!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old May 3rd, 2014, 11:58 PM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

There are occasions in this conversation when holding onto the old overcomes the urge to move with the new.
Photography is like no other art form. The frame, although it bounds our image decisively, it does not confine our imagination. Nor does it confine us to one image. The frame is a tool to use as we see fit. Pre-empting the frames position to form an image is one way of composing the image. Others might choose to allow the frame to survey the scene and make more instantaneous decisions about the content. Yet others may hold the frame to allow the image to develop. Just as we are able to choose the shape of the frame and its position, so we can choose how it is used as a tool in the prediction of what we want to create. Other compositional tools work in the same way.
Photography produces static images from dynamic observations. We hold the moment, as someone once said. To foresee one moment being better than another is not within our means, since we have no idea what the future will bring.
Maris might wait another minute until the moon is in a better position for his composition or he may take 2 shots and compare later in a different format. Then again, he may not. One thing is for sure. He had better get it right if he is only taking one shot to complement his visualisation. That moment will never be repeated.
Those who are ignorant of the way other artists work with different media might be at an advantage, yet in the application to photography, I think not. Talbot recognised the importance of approaching photography I a different way to the other art forms in his Book The Pencil of Nature where he suggested it would require of the photographer to work out their own methods for the new art form.
There is no doctrine for photography. There is no 'one way fits all'. My rough and tumble approach fits my method of expression as does Maris's and Jerome's and yours, Asher.
This is a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old May 4th, 2014, 01:24 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,755
Default

I am in no way trying to teach a particular doctrine for photography. Nowhere did I say that the frame should be used in a particular manner. We are indeed free to move it around to include or exclude elements, to let it sit and wait elements to fall in at the right place, to define it afterwards in a finished image, etc... For stitched panoramas, there is not even a defined frame at the time the picture is taken.

In the final photograph, the frame can be used in various manners as a composition tool. We are even free to use more than one frame (in a diptych or triptych, for example) or to cut obvious elements so that the imagined picture will not be bounded by it (we have had a panorama by Fahim lately which used this property).

All I said is that photograph is characterised amongst the graphic arts in that it needs to use a frame, nothing more. It is possible to construct photographic images which have a weak relation to the use of a frame (examples that springs to mind are the "little planet" photographs, spherical virtual panoramas and tiled backgrounds), but they need extra work to subvert the photographic process to that end result.

My argument is not about the necessity to use the frame in a prescribed manner but simply that, because the frame is an inherent element in the photographic process, any discussion touching this subject is bound to become conflictual.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old May 4th, 2014, 03:20 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I am in no way trying to teach a particular doctrine for photography. Nowhere did I say that the frame should be used in a particular manner. We are indeed free to move it around to include or exclude elements, to let it sit and wait elements to fall in at the right place, to define it afterwards in a finished image, etc... For stitched panoramas, there is not even a defined frame at the time the picture is taken.

In the final photograph, the frame can be used in various manners as a composition tool. We are even free to use more than one frame (in a diptych or triptych, for example) or to cut obvious elements so that the imagined picture will not be bounded by it (we have had a panorama by Fahim lately which used this property).

All I said is that photograph is characterised amongst the graphic arts in that it needs to use a frame, nothing more. It is possible to construct photographic images which have a weak relation to the use of a frame (examples that springs to mind are the "little planet" photographs, spherical virtual panoramas and tiled backgrounds), but they need extra work to subvert the photographic process to that end result.

My argument is not about the necessity to use the frame in a prescribed manner but simply that, because the frame is an inherent element in the photographic process, any discussion touching this subject is bound to become conflictual.
I wasn't arguing with you, Jerome. I was simply elaborating as part of the discussion. No need to defend your stance. I agree with what you say. I agree with what you have added as well. It's just that, as you have done, it needs expanding for the benefit of the ignorant and uninformed. I think you, I and Asher have done a fine job of explaining the use of the frame in photography.
Your approach and outlook is different to but accepting of mine and vise versa. What irritates me is those who claim to have the answer and denounce those who do it differently. That might be OK in brain surgery or aeronautical engineering but with self expression I think we can all do with a bit of flexibility.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old May 4th, 2014, 08:19 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
My argument is not about the necessity to use the frame in a prescribed manner but simply that, because the frame is an inherent element in the photographic process, any discussion touching this subject is bound to become conflictual.
Jerome,

We do each have "a prescribed manner" that we'd use and can be less comfortable, the more we see departure from that.

For examples: an odd object that could have been excluded becomes annoying. However, if the photographer is really famous and collected, then we might just as easily let it go. If the picture frame is clearly a purposeful "cut" of something larger, we recognize that and it's more often OK to us. But we may be far more comfortable seeing within the frame "all of something" or the impression that what we see "stands on its own" or carries the "essence" of some complete thing or idea.

So yes, we're always judging the framing!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Comment & Critique 101 Cem_Usakligil Layback Cafe 29 March 27th, 2016 11:10 AM
Painterly and Abstract Images: What Might They Be? Charles L Webster Photography as Art 69 November 29th, 2013 01:17 PM
The hypocrisy of "Fine Art Photography"! Will Thompson Photography as Art 107 April 23rd, 2013 07:06 AM
Photography and Art in OPF Cem_Usakligil Photography as Art 17 March 9th, 2009 03:03 PM
Have you Been Mad At Getting Permits for Photography? Valentin Arfire Layback Cafe 9 January 1st, 2009 01:35 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:44 AM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!