Environments - W. Yorkshire '16

...or kicking against the tyranny of an idealised landscape!

Paul Abbott said:

...or kicking against the tyranny of an idealised landscape!

Click to expand...

I do not find this picture to be outside the realm of "idealized". As to me that would include a landscape where the composition is interesting, draws one in and keeps one's attention. To go further, it a matter, IMHO of detailed work, such as, but not limited to, emphasizing and ranking different parts of the image by adjusting contrast, detail, brightness, texture, play of light and so forth. There is a lot of hard work going into perfecting an image for an exhibition print, at least if one follows the work of greats like Ansel Adams.

However, I may be missing out, in that "idealized landscape" may refer to "romanic" and "pastoral" imagery and not geometric sampling of scenes adjacent to urban habitation.

I wish that cameras had built in optical filters to bring out cloud structure. I myself own the filters but somehow never have them with me these days! Photoshop cannot make up sufficiently for that.

Asher

For me, it's about paying attention to what is under our noses, and around the bend, so to speak. Elements that are overlooked and paid no regard (because of they're mundane and banal nature, maybe), is what interests. Other than the more imaginative and fanciful, extraordinary and incredible...even 'chocolate box' delightful. Other than that, the images will have very little processing. In regard to Adams, quality of light and a very refined composition is not important (all idealistic), although a flat light is very welcome.
I know this is nothing new (what is, in photography), but I am down with adopting this more free-er and liberating aspect in photography. Again, I will name drop because these guys are the ones whose work I love and who inspire me: Mark Power, Paul Graham, Dave Jordano, Frank Gohlke, Brad Temkin, Ben Gowert, Al Palmer, Arturo Soto, Jeff Brouws and John Darwell etc.

To make the mundane and the banal interesting and beautiful is an art in itself but it's all the more empowered by creating a series of images with an account and narrative underlining them that focuses interest. This is something I am currently trying to do and am loathe to post up any single images...albeit this one.

Regards...

If you make a series on that subject, you may end up like William Eggleston.

Jerome Marot said:

If you make a series on that subject, you may end up like William Eggleston.

Click to expand...

I initially thought the same - - - but doing a Google search for "William Eggleston" and clicking on the IMAGES tab - it is clear that Eggleston images are far more dramatic, intense and colourful. His images are of normal or mundane content, but are very stylized.

As far as Paul's image here - I don't have an opinion but I don't necessarily dislike it or the style of photography that satisfies him - - - - just that to my eye there is no resemblance to how Eggleston presents his art. I'll have to check on the names of mentors Paul has mentioned.


--------

Robert Watcher said:

I initially thought the same - - - but doing a Google search for "William Eggleston" and clicking on the IMAGES tab - it is clear that Eggleston images are far more dramatic, intense and colourful. His images are of normal or mundane content, but are very stylized.

Click to expand...

Maybe. I think that, actually, the difference is the combination of two effects:
-google image search will only show you the more dramatic pictures, because these are the most known. Visit me in Munich, and I'll lend you my copy of "chromes" (that book), you may form a slightly different opinion.
-when one actually start a series, the image changes. The very fact of putting one's mind to craft a series of pictures forces the photographer to design the pictures a bit differently.

This being said, I suggest checking sites like this one. Or, maybe, read the thoughts of Andrew Molitor, who does not appear to grace this forum lately.

For me, it's about paying attention to what is under our noses, and around the bend, so to speak. Elements that are overlooked and paid no regard (because of they're mundane and banal nature, maybe), is what interests. Other than the more imaginative and fanciful, extraordinary and incredible...even 'chocolate box' delightful. Other than that, the images will have very little processing. In regard to Adams, quality of light and a very refined composition is not important (all idealistic), although a flat light is very welcome.

Click to expand...

I used to go along with a friend of mine who only wanted flat lifeless captures of ordinary things. He was only after content for backplates for 3D Gaming backdrops - where lighting and texture were added in software applications. It was fun being with him, but so boring from a creative standpoint. While I don't have a problem with such content, I don't find it stimulating.

One way that I differ from your logic - is that to me everything I photograph each day is ordinary, normal under people's noses and overlooked. Being selecting angles and composition (which everyone to points a camera has to do) - we decide how we want to present that ordinary content. I give you no brownie points for your choice of content and presentation of it - you just happen to make that choice.

Another thing is that what is normal and ordinary and unobserved - is quite different depending on where you live or have chosen to take photographs. I happen to live in Central America where everything is vibrant and textured and run down. That is the normal. When I show my work from there to the locals - they don't get it. It means nothing to them.

What is normal and not even paid attention to when I am home in the rurals of Canada, are fields of dirt, weeds, stones and worn out wood fences. How is that content any different than you are presenting as supposedly ordinary under your nose. Here is an example from today when I revisited a site that I shot yesterday under amazing light. This photo is resized from camera with nothing added or taken away:


So instead of making the choice of showing some overall view including everything to show context - I moved a few feet and squatted down to a position that made this boring (to me) content more appealing. One decision is not right or wrong, it is just a choice of where we decide to stand and the viewpoint and lens selection we make. So I chose this one. It's still the same ordinary boring content that the farmer living beside the field would see no value in:


As photographers we can dumb down or enhance anything we point our camera at. One is not more realistic or morally correct than the other in my view.

-------

Robert Watcher said:

...

One way that I differ from your logic - is that to me everything I photograph each day is ordinary, normal under people's noses and overlooked. Being selecting angles and composition (which everyone to points a camera has to do) - we decide how we want to present that ordinary content. I give you no brownie points for your choice of content and presentation of it - you just happen to make that choice.

Another thing is that what is normal and ordinary and unobserved - is quite different depending on where you live or have chosen to take photographs. I happen to live in Central America where everything is vibrant and textured and run down. That is the normal. When I show my work from there to the locals - they don't get it. It means nothing to them.

What is normal and not even paid attention to.......

Click to expand...

I go for the second, more selective image, although, I would appreciate wide angle views as an introduction in an exhibit of many different carefully chosen intimate compositions.

Whatever style one likes is a personal choice.

Asher

Robert Watcher said:

One way that I differ from your logic - is that to me everything I photograph each day is ordinary, normal under people's noses and overlooked. Being selecting angles and composition (which everyone to points a camera has to do) - we decide how we want to present that ordinary content. I give you no brownie points for your choice of content and presentation of it - you just happen to make that choice.

Click to expand...

I see this kind of discussion on many places recently. Basically, there are two schools: one presents the "ordinary content" in an "enhanced" way (think 500pix or one exposure) and the other one presents basically the same subjects in a seemingly more "objective" way (except that it cannot be "objective", of course). The second school usually present their pictures in series, the first aims for the idea of a single image to be hung above the mantlepiece.

Paul Abbott said:

...or kicking against the tyranny of an idealised landscape!

Click to expand...

So you idealize the non-idealized landscape ...?
This picture's composition is in some way too "perfect" for me ...