Leaves

WHO is that peeking into the lens in the top right hand corner?
(maybe I've had too much coffee?)

Ken
 
KenS said:
WHO is that peeking into the lens in the top right hand corner?
(maybe I've had too much coffee?)

Ken
Click to expand...
That's the face behind the mask...what did you think :D...and I did not have any coffee :po_O
 
It's very different from the usual sort of LF photography. Excellent. Do you bracket the point of focus? Is that a sensible question?
 
David M said:
It's very different from the usual sort of LF photography. Excellent. Do you bracket the point of focus? Is that a sensible question?
Click to expand...
Thank you - I know most Large Format work is about getting as much in focus as possible and edge to edge sharpness so I was a bit hesitant to even join a forum but I like what I do and can live with other people not liking it :p...and then it is even nicer to find some who do :).
I have been "focus bracketing" for some time with my 35 and MF work til I noticed that most of the time it was my first shot that I liked best, so I stopped and especially for 4x5 I usually only take 1 exposure of each scene trying to get the focus exactly right on the ground glass. It works for me so far ;)
 
Unless you want to resurrect Group f64, sharpness is your choice. At least it is easier to take sharpness out, rather than put it in! There is something of a vogue for soft focus lenses at the moment - I have even experimented with simple meniscus lenses myself. But soft or sharp, the design of the image has to work, irrespective of the rendition.

This provides just enough information to trip my memories and imagination.
 
Graham Patterson said:
Unless you want to resurrect Group f64, sharpness is your choice. At least it is easier to take sharpness out, rather than put it in! There is something of a vogue for soft focus lenses at the moment - I have even experimented with simple meniscus lenses myself. But soft or sharp, the design of the image has to work, irrespective of the rendition.

This provides just enough information to trip my memories and imagination.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
I have a few soft focus lenses and also some meniscus and other simple lenses (just the glass) that I experiment with. :cool:

I think the "problem" is that many people think softness "happened" because either your lens wasn't good enough or you did not focus correctly or shook the camera or...but I agree with you, it is a choice and yes, it has to work with the look/vision you want to create. :)
 
There is this weird dichotomy with effects like soft focus. If it is a 'name' photographer, or you know of other work of theirs that is sharp, the soft focus work is taken to be an artistic decision. If the photographer is an 'unknown', maybe it is a lack of skill/knowledge.

And this tends to happen irrespective of the merits of the image. The hard thing is to throw away one's own preferences and bias, and judge the image on the assumption it is supposed to be that way. It may resonate with you or not, but at least it got a chance.

Some of my best received pieces over the years have been made with pinholes. But I carry a lot of lenses with me most of the time. I'm still not sure what that means!
 
Graham Patterson said:
And this tends to happen irrespective of the merits of the image. The hard thing is to throw away one's own preferences and bias, and judge the image on the assumption it is supposed to be that way. It may resonate with you or not, but at least it got a chance.
Click to expand...

I'm in full agreement, especially with the words I rendered in bold.

I would though change the last part to "but at least you have a chance of correctly understanding the image".

Which comes first: missing the point of the image or assuming that the photographer didn't know what they doing? The first is open minded and receptive; the other blinkered and prejudiced. It might well be that photographer hadn't a clue about the craft, but that should really be the last possibility to be tested, not the first.

Sorry - it's one of my hobby horses.
 
I doubt that it's truly possible to approach an image with an entirely unbiased mind. That would imply a lack of life-experience. We need to be aware of our own leanings and try to compensate for them. We might take care ask ourselves what we are looking for in an image before we make any judgement about what we find.
We would react to a picture in a lawnmower catalogue quite differently from an image of smiling grandchildren or our house burning down. Quite rightly too. And we probably have another, different mindset when confronted with a "creative" image.
The problem of hasty judgement is much greater when viewing a single image. We have no clue about what was intended or if anything was intended at all. Are we looking at a record of subsidence, made to back up an insurance claim or is it a Weston-esque view of interesting cracks? Are we looking at form or content? It might be hard to tell.
(Mounts and frames would be a clue but I think that's a separate argument; I think we are discussing what's inside the frame.)
If we see an image as part of a group, then it's much easier to see what is going on in the photographer's mind and form an enlightened view. There might be a lesson here for photographers, that they should themselves be clear about what they are intending to show to the potential viewer.
This doesn't mean that we are obliged to like what we see. If we liked everything, how could we claim that we were exercising any judgement at all? But we should at least try to be clear about what we are disliking.
And we shouldn't neglect Stephen's final possibility: "...the photographer hadn't a clue..." – and not just about the craft. All of us have been there. Perhaps it would mean we'd found an opportunity to be a good neighbour and give the photographer all the help we can.
 
There are a number of points there that I think are worth discussing - but I also think not in this thread, unfortunately. If anyone starts a new thread on this topic, I'll be there :)
 
For me, there are least two actually unrelated topics in David's post: one is contained in the final paragraph and concerns helping (or, in some cases and forums hindering) another photographer; and the other is how we look at photographs; or perhaps better, approach photographs. For that, I might favour a modified version of a book title by Paul Hill and say "Approaching photographs" (and perhaps add "handle with care" :D).

The two are perhaps most neatly combined as "Approaching photographs and photographers".

If no-one gets in first, I'll start one using parts of David's post and adding a few thoughts of my own.
 
Forgive me Stephen, but I don't think the phrase "Approaching photographs" is a particularly good or useful one in this context. I may have an over-literal mind but all it conjures up for me is an image of someone walking towards some photographs which happen to be hanging on a wall. It says nothing of how you might feel or what you might think when you encounter a photograph, or what emotions a photograph may invoke. Apologies if this isn't particularly helpful.

Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top