Autumn Cottonwoods, Fog (2) ........

[DanK]

I think this is half image-half reflection in water body; but why in many places reflection is not retro-identical with the object?

Probably he angle from which I took it, which was determined by where there was a rock to stand on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[moroccanimager]

Hi Manfred, SS's work goes beyond the academic world. I hear what you're saying about 'dry' photography that often needs explanation to appreciate but S's images are in the documentary domain and are really quite accessible. The academic fine-art has infiltrated a number of magazines or indeed inspired a few to start-up. It's based on the idea and project being paramount and the image visuals a distant second. It's a shame that there's so much of it. BJP is one major carrier. On the voyeuristic, I guess that's your take. I hadn't considered this perspective. Could you point to another example so it makes more sense to me. As for wall-art well yes, SS is probably not your guy but it works for books which I think is more the pitch.

[moroccanimager]

Hi Dan

That's a lovely shot but it also works well in 5x4. If it were me, I'd have been delighted to find that in 5x4 mode. In my experience heading off with one AR offers more benefits than produces losses. Yes, on occasions some scenes will be discarded but the the crop option is still available. There are no absolutes. Working with one AR really develops composition and adds unity to a gallery. The fact that AR's are historical is not really an issue for me. It's simply a construct, a frame. Also, some photographers become well known for working to a particular AR. I'm sure DW used to get a kick out of bending nature to fit his 5x4.

David Ward

[DanK]

It's based on the idea and project being paramount and the image visuals a distant second. It's a shame that there's so much of it.

Finally, something we can agree on.

I once heard a presentation by a curator from a major museum who presented--with evident excitement--photographs that I wouldn't hang on my wall if they were given to me free.

Of course, photography is certainly not the only, or even the primary, part of the art world plagued with this nonsense. One of my favorite examples is this video.

I simply ignore this. The fact that they use cameras and the word "photography" doesn't indicate that they share any of my interests in the medium.

When I was looking over galleries to see where I would try to present my work, I simply took off the list the ones that focused on conceptual photography, postphotography, and the like. No point in going there with a portfolio.

[DanK]

That's a lovely shot but it also works well in 5x4.

It's all taste, but I don't think so. Using 5x4 would require either chopping off the ends or leaving too much negative space, throwing the image out of balance and making the interesting detail smaller. I don't think forcing this into an arbitrary AR would "develop composition;" I think it would undermine this composition.

[moroccanimager]

I have the crop in front of me. Bringing in from the sides works well for the reason that the space from the tips to the frame edges are all roughly equal. Also the top tips face into the two corners. Both these mean the frame and the subject are strongly connected.

[moroccanimager]

Take a look at Harry Callahan's framing:

https://www.moma.org/collection/work...st_id=0&page=3

[DanK]

I think the photo to which you linked is uninteresting. Honestly, I would discard it if it were mine. (One more indication that I am completely out of step with the modern-art photography trends.) It also seems to be a custom aspect ratio, 5 x 6.25, so it seems to undermine your main point.

I've looked at your website, and IMHO, there are some superb images there. I can't tell how often I would have used a similar aspect ratio because one can't guess at what has been cropped off. In some cases, based on what one can see, the composition strikes my uneducated eye as very good. In some cases, less so. For example, the cropping of the image of the presumably Moroccan man, fifth from the beginning, looks uncomfortably tight to me. I would have left a bit more space both on the sides and on top.

I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion. It's clear that neither of us will convince the other. We'll each continue doing what we enjoy doing. And I suspect this interchange has gone well beyond the point where it was interesting or useful for others on the forum.

[moroccanimager]

Hi Dan, the link was not for the specific photo but the gallery of his work you can access. Unfortunately my connection is slow at the moment so I couldn't access the right page. Callahan was working in the 40's - 60's and was an early master of abstract images with white backgrounds and dark foreground subjects, which is the connection to your own, that's why he came to mind. He's not a modern trend.

Composition is subjective so ultimately there's no agreement. I'm not suggesting a 5x4 crop of your image is better only that it also works.

[DanK]

I think where this discussion could be productive is in discussing specific images. Our messages crossed; I was adding a reference to one of yours when you posted.

With some exceptions--Olivia Parker is one whom I have pointed to a number of times in this forum--I usually find much more inspiration in less contemporary photographers, e.g., Edward Weston. That gets one nowhere in the modern photography world, I realize, but ce la vie.

[moroccanimager]

She's very good. Well the art world is driven by ideas and something new whereas I haven't yet mastered the old! I'm still working my way through the years. There are good contemporary photographers, David Ward of course one in landscape, perhaps in the mould of Elliot Porter, another great. Brett Weston was also one for getting emotion into pictures and his compositions are great exercises in seeing the less obvious.

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred, SS's work goes beyond the academic world. I hear what you're saying about 'dry' photography that often needs explanation to appreciate but S's images are in the documentary domain and are really quite accessible. The academic fine-art has infiltrated a number of magazines or indeed inspired a few to start-up. It's based on the idea and project being paramount and the image visuals a distant second. It's a shame that there's so much of it. BJP is one major carrier. On the voyeuristic, I guess that's your take. I hadn't considered this perspective. Could you point to another example so it makes more sense to me. As for wall-art well yes, SS is probably not your guy but it works for books which I think is more the pitch.

I have been studying photography at a fine art photography school for the past few years, especially on the print making / exhibition side of things. One thing that is covered in some of these courses is both contemporary fine art photograph as well as some of the historical background as to how we got to where we are today.

If we go back to photographers like Brasaii, Gary Winogrand, Steven Shore, to name just a few, many of their images of people have this voyeuristic component as well. The Steven Smith images with people from his Colorado City Arizona collection that you posted the link to often have that voyeuristic aspect to them. He also uses multiple aspect ratios in that series and I do know some who would criticize this as well as his mixing of B&W and colour images in collection (I would not be one of them).

First of in some circles the idea and project have become so important that the actual images are quite secondary. I have been told that some people get so engrossed in the topic, as represented in the Artist's Statement, that the body of work is mostly irrelevant. I know of at least one photographer at the photography school who has been told that he will never make it because his writing is not good enough.

Moving to the whole "post-photographic" genre, which Steve Smith seems to be working in, it is generally not to my taste and I have never quite understood the appeal of the genre. Bodies of work, artist's statements, etc have existed for a long time. The whole " the camera is irrelevant" aspect bothers me. I think it is just an excuse to show poor quality images, because frankly that is often what we see.

When it comes to aspect ratios, Dan and I are very much on the same page. Back in the days before enlargers, aspect ratios made sense as a contact print was the only way to reproduce an image. Arbitrary standards set by the camera manufacturers, which in turn we impacted by the sheet film manufacturing process were a real constraint at one time. Even today, the makers of picture frames and mats continue the tradition of forcing a format on us, even if the image does not suit. The same can be said about screen format; for digital images, we are forced to create images that have a very specific spec. The 1920 x 1080 is commonly the current standard if we are to avoid the dreaded black bars.

I shoot panoramas from time to time and none of the standard aspect ratios work for that genre. I do a lot of work in vertical / portrait orientation and outside of the print world where the A3+ format is pretty close, people tend to see. Where I do agree with you is that aspect ratios do matter; where I don't agree is that certain ones are superior to others. This is purely personal taste and personal opinion. As long as we recognize this, there is no problem.

[moroccanimager]

Hi Manfred, yes I see where you are coming from on the voyeuristic front. I have known many beginners who do not like like photographing other people without permission. I guess the pro needs to if that have set that course for their career. I like SS's images as he shows me a place that I have seen glimpses of but not fully appreciated. He tells me the story of those locations and there is a reason for his photos, particularly his b&w set where the landscape is being 'trained' by developers/home owners in the mirror image of the surroundings. Also his use of materials as compositional devices is clever. On AR, no I don't believe one is superior. All can work, although I would say that 3:2 in verticals can be tricky in landscapes. My original point is that getting to know one or two AR's especially for someone still relatively new to photography is a great way to train the eye on location. It can also lead to a unified gallery which works for projects but again, no rules and mix and match can also work. There are always exceptions as you know. Rather than seeing the AR in hand as a constraint I see it from the other way, but then again I'm not making pictures for frames. I'm not personally one for 1:1, as it can produce central subjects without much frame connection but in the hands of a very good photographer it can be made to work well as perBruce Percy. I would hazard that BP has reached that level of compositional brilliance through getting to know his one AR, although previously he was using 6x7 I believe.

[DanK]

I had never encountered Bruce Percy's work, so I followed your link.

It's all taste, but I wouldn't call Fjallabak 2019 "compositional brilliance". I see the image as out of balance because of too much negative space on the bottom. That pesky aspect ratio again.

I find his idea (not unique to him, of course) of reducing landscapes to a few more abstract elements to be interesting. Or, to be more precise, he, unlike some others, manages to make it interesting. The art-speak with which he accompanies some of them, however, I can do without:

A place that your eye feels a dryness as it moves across the page.

What if the land is nothing but scarified elements, fractures and abrasions?


The land itself has become un-land, and is nothing but difficult abrasions and rough edges?



Elsewhere, accompanying other images, he puts this core idea into English.

[moroccanimager]

Bruce has attained a level of mastery but also exposes some of the problems of 1:1 as you highlight. Personally I steer clear, as I prefer the dynamics of other AR's. On the abstract I did think he was out there on his own with the Icelandic stuff until I saw other photographers doing similar. This brings me around to the idea of local projects versus the hotspots. I'm sure this has been discussed before in CIC so I'll have a look, or it could be one for a new thread. I've never read his accompanying text! He's a disciple of Michael Kenna, another squarer.

[Manfred M]

Bruce has attained a level of mastery but also exposes some of the problems of 1:1 as you highlight. Personally I steer clear, as I prefer the dynamics of other AR's. On the abstract I did think he was out there on his own with the Icelandic stuff until I saw other photographers doing similar. This brings me around to the idea of local projects versus the hotspots. I'm sure this has been discussed before in CIC so I'll have a look, or it could be one for a new thread. I've never read his accompanying text! He's a disciple of Michael Kenna, another squarer.

I had followed Bruce for some time when I was just getting back into serious photography about a decade ago. I have a number of his books and certainly started down his road a bit until I started understanding and developing my own style. At that point I discovered that my personal taste and style was almost diametrically opposed to where he was going. He tends to be a lot softer in his direction, whereas I am much more interested in creating images that are very crisp.

Understanding what one does not want to do in terms of style is just as important as knowing the direction one does not want to go in. I do remember one of my instructors telling me that he really liked shooting in medium format. He never actually printed any images that were square, but was able to produce horizontal or vertical orientation images from the same negative.

[moroccanimager]

Understanding what one does not want to do in terms of style is just as important as knowing the direction one does not want to go in.

Very much so.

[DanK]

Understanding what one does not want to do in terms of style is just as important as knowing the direction one does not want to go in.

Very much so.

I agree. I'd only put this in the plural: the directions one does and doesn't want to go in. I enjoy a number of very different genres. However, in all but one of them, I have a preference similar to Manfred's: I love detail, and I enjoy using the combination of camera work and processing to highlight detail. Some of the technical study I've undertaken--e.g., mastering focus stacking--was for that reason. And it's for that reason that most of my printing is on baryta papers (or now "baryta style," now that I am starting to use Breathing Color River Rag Satin), rather than the matte and fine art papers that are more in vogue.