quote of the week

Andy · February 19, 2005

i'm going to try something new, in hopes of getting some more good discussions going here on dgrin. i'll pick a quote or attribute of a famous photographer, and we'll talk about it.

here's one by elliott erwitt - from whom i draw a huge amount of inspiration.

"Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy--the tone range isn't right and things like that--but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention.

-Elliott Erwitt

discuss.

wxwax · February 19, 2005

Never heard of Frank until now. But this is a pretty powerful image.

OK, so we're talking about the merits of substance over style. The proper answer is that substance is more important. The actual answer is that popular tastes have always tended towards style over substance.

That's why I've heard of Ansel Adams, but not Robert Frank.

Discuss.

4labs · February 20, 2005

This is so subjective. Personally I have to agree with Erwitt. While I apreciate a beautiful landscape with perfect lighting and composition after seeing alot of them you sort of get numb to it. When I see a photograph that makes me think and wonder what was going through the photographers mind reguardless of whether all the technical aspects are perfect , it impresses me more. It still comes down to personal preference and I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. Just like some folks would prefer a 1-0 baseball game to a slugfest I am sure there are plenty who apreciate the technical ability fo ANsel Adams .

ginger_55 · February 20, 2005

This is from Lenswork and is by Brooks Jenson. It is #55 Oct-Nov 2004, in case someone wants to read the whole article which is on Faith and Fame (not as in religion or anything)

"I have plausible theory. Is it possible that Ansel Adams rose to the pinnacle of photographic fame and success on the fortuitous coattails of a parallel change in society? Is it possible that after decades of photographing the pristine mountains of the high Sierras and Yosemite, the work for which he is chiefly known, that he found himself at the fortunate position of having a large stock of wonderfully crafted personal images at the very same time the environmental movement took root and spread in full force acreoss America? Remember, Ansel Adams did not become a truly household name until the 1970s when the groundswell of popular opinions and attitudes created the backpacking culture."

Brooks goes on to say, "Fame is the result of random chance and cosmic tides."

This is really an interesting article which I would recommend to anyone. This particular magazine alone was the catalyst for my buying two of the books available at Lenswork and subscribing to his audio e-mails. He has a good voice and even I can understand him.

In the article he mentions photographers as good as Ansel Adams, etc who did not achieve the same fame. He, also laments that at his age of 50 yrs, he probably will, at the most, achieve "relative" obscurity.

I don't tend to photograph in black and white, but I have found this magazine, the blogs and the books fascinating.

ginger

GREAPER · February 20, 2005

"Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy--the tone range isn't right and things like that--but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention.

-Elliott Erwitt

I get annoyed when people insist on comparing apples to oranges to prove their point.

This stuff is all subjective and he is entitled to his opinion but it bothers me a bit that he is stating it like it's a fact or that his opinion matters more.

I am (or trying to be) a nature photographer. Nature excites me. A grand lanscape exhibiting the power and majesty or intricate details of the natural world facinate me. Ansel Adams is one of many photographers that have captured and shared this with me. I think that he may feel the way he does because the qualities of Adams' work to not strike a nerve with him. Even if the execution is PERFECT they will not strike a nerve with him because he does not feel a connection with the subject.

While I enjoy looking at the catured moments that these photograhpers share, they don't really connect with me on a deep personal level. For example, Andy's fine shot of the woman on the cell phone. It is a nice composition, well executed capturing a moment in time, an expresion of emotion. Mnay people will connect to this image, it is a true moment in time in someones life. This being said, I would never buy a print of it because I do not care about her, or her moment in time (harsh I know). Mostly I just wish she would STFU and get out of the middle of the sidewalk instead of standing in the way oblivious to the people around her. These moments in time rarely connect to ME on a personal level.

When I am lone in the woods, or canoing down a river, or driving through the mountains, I feel a connection to the world. Corny as it is, I even feel the pressures and frustrations of life leave me when I am there and I feel peace.

The works of Adams and John Shaw and many others seem to share this connection with me and therefore to ME they are of a higher value.

There really cannot be a comparison between these apples and oranges because with your own personal feeling you will be predisposed to prefering one over the other. The target audience is different.

I dont run around telling everyone that Adams' work is higher in quality that Franks, Elliots, or Andy's. I think anyone that does without qualifying the answer is a little narrow minded.

ginger_55 · February 20, 2005

Uh, I also photograph landscapes. I actually appreciate most forms of photography.

However, perhaps by taking quotes out of context, we are doing a disfavor.
I would suggest, Greaper, that you read the whole article of which I spoke.

Jensen Brooks does not dislike Ansel Adams, he is just musing on what happened to the other really good photographers of the same time, or other times. And why they are not as famous. Perhaps he is just trying to justify himself. In the process, I think he justifies all of us.

I think we would all enjoy the entire article, but I don't want to type it all out.
Back issues are available, maybe someone would print it all out.

But the quotes being talked about here is the one Andy threw out.......I have to read it again. Well, I can see that Erwitt's words, as quoted by Andy, have a particular sting to them.

Is he a product of his time? Is Andy? Are you? Am I? What about him?

ginger

GREAPER · February 20, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

Uh, I also photograph landscapes. I actually appreciate most forms of photography.

However, perhaps by taking quotes out of context, we are doing a disfavor.
I would suggest, Greaper, that you read the whole article of which I spoke.

Jensen Brooks does not dislike Ansel Adams, he is just musing on what happened to the other really good photographers of the same time, or other times. And why they are not as famous. Perhaps he is just trying to justify himself. In the process, I think he justifies all of us.

I think we would all enjoy the entire article, but I don't want to type it all out.
Back issues are available, maybe someone would print it all out.

But the quotes being talked about here is the one Andy threw out.......I have to read it again. Well, I can see that Erwitt's words, as quoted by Andy, have a particular sting to them.

Is he a product of his time? Is Andy? Are you? Am I? What about him?

ginger

I think you realized at the end that i was not responding to the article that you referenced, but rather the original quote that Andy posted. I did not even read your post until I was done typing mine. You posted while I was typing. I have edited the previous post to include the quote I was responding to in hopes of clarifying my intent.

You are right, he probably was in some ways a product of his time, or more a product of his life, just as you and I are products of our lives.

Andy · February 20, 2005

GREAPER wrote:

I get annoyed when people insist on comparing apples to oranges to prove their point.

This stuff is all subjective and he is entitled to his opinion but it bothers me a bit that he is stating it like it's a fact or that his opinion matters more.

I am (or trying to be) a nature photographer. Nature excites me. A grand lanscape exhibiting the power and majesty or intricate details of the natural world facinate me. Ansel Adams is one of many photographers that have captured and shared this with me. I think that he may feel the way he does because the qualities of Adams' work to not strike a nerve with him. Even if the execution is PERFECT they will not strike a nerve with him because he does not feel a connection with the subject.

While I enjoy looking at the catured moments that these photograhpers share, they don't really connect with me on a deep personal level. For example, Andy's fine shot of the woman on the cell phone. It is a nice composition, well executed capturing a moment in time, an expresion of emotion. Mnay people will connect to this image, it is a true moment in time in someones life. This being said, I would never buy a print of it because I do not care about her, or her moment in time (harsh I know). Mostly I just wish she would STFU and get out of the middle of the sidewalk instead of standing in the way oblivious to the people around her. These moments in time rarely connect to ME on a personal level.

When I am lone in the woods, or canoing down a river, or driving through the mountains, I feel a connection to the world. Corny as it is, I even feel the pressures and frustrations of life leave me when I am there and I feel peace.

The works of Adams and John Shaw and many others seem to share this connection with me and therefore to ME they are of a higher value.

There really cannot be a comparison between these apples and oranges because with your own personal feeling you will be predisposed to prefering one over the other. The target audience is different.

I dont run around telling everyone that Adams' work is higher in quality that Franks, Elliots, or Andy's. I think anyone that does without qualifying the answer is a little narrow minded.

greaps, you hit on the thing that is really so very true about our art and craft - subjectivity. do you want to know who the first person i have to gain photo approval from? me! after that, if i put it on display, via the web or in my galleries, i *hope* that folks like it but i know that not everyone will. that's impossible to achieve.

i think, what erwitt was trying to get at, is that certain je ne sais quoi that we strive to achieve in our photos. there are a zillion photos of christo's "the gates" going around now, and when i was there on friday i looked around and went "hmmm" how can i shoot this installation of public art in a way that will be different, and hopefully evoke some sort of feeling on the part of the viewer? my answer was in the final shot of the day that i took, the woman reflecting over the pond, with the gates in the distance, out of focus, *not* the central point of the pic at all. the heart etched in the stone wall and the woman play as much a role (more, to me) than the gates do.

fascinating discussion!

lynnma · February 20, 2005

andy wrote:

greaps, you hit on the thing that is really so very true about our art and craft - subjectivity. do you want to know who the first person i have to gain photo approval from? me! after that, if i put it on display, via the web or in my galleries, i *hope* that folks like it but i know that not everyone will. that's impossible to achieve.

i think, what erwitt was trying to get at, is that certain je ne sais quoi that we strive to achieve in our photos. there are a zillion photos of christo's "the gates" going around now, and when i was there on friday i looked around and went "hmmm" how can i shoot this installation of public art in a way that will be different, and hopefully evoke some sort of feeling on the part of the viewer? my answer was in the final shot of the day that i took, the woman reflecting over the pond, with the gates in the distance, out of focus, *not* the central point of the pic at all. the heart etched in the stone wall and the woman play as much a role (more, to me) than the gates do.

fascinating discussion!

this is so true Andy.. this is what I'm grappling with now. The photograph has ceased to be so important to me. It's more the dawning of the idea of it's subliminal (or not) message.. what am I saying with this capture of a moment in time. I'm finding it... very very difficult and elusive to hold onto. I keep taking pictures.. then suddenly.. I see it.. sometimes I capture it.. mostly I don't. I'ts like this constant struggle to stay clear, to really see. When you see it in others, you know it.. i'ts universal. I think thats what we are all striving for no matter where our passion lies in photograpy.

Andy · February 23, 2005

lynnma wrote:

this is so true Andy.. this is what I'm grappling with now. The photograph has ceased to be so important to me. It's more the dawning of the idea of it's subliminal (or not) message.. what am I saying with this capture of a moment in time. I'm finding it... very very difficult and elusive to hold onto. I keep taking pictures.. then suddenly.. I see it.. sometimes I capture it.. mostly I don't. I'ts like this constant struggle to stay clear, to really see. When you see it in others, you know it.. i'ts universal. I think thats what we are all striving for no matter where our passion lies in photograpy.

excellent lynnie!

anyone else care to comment here? c'mon you lurkers! let's here what you've got to say

heck, i'd even welcome a comment from :fish

Mongrel · February 24, 2005

Comments:
1. Sometime we strive so hard to be deep we become shallow.

2. Why can't I like Ansel Adams and Elliot Erwitt? :uhoh

3. If I do like Ansel Adams am I naive (or worse a sucker)?

4. If I like postcards am I devoid of any 'artistic' sensibility?

5. "Shut up and play yer guitar."

6. Why am I typing this when I have over 300 images from the 6th grade girls basketball tournament to edit and upload?

7. What the heck does "je ne sais quoi" mean, and is that what I missed by dropping out of high school?

8. Does anyone here really care why I take my pictures? Do I? :cry

9. Will this discussion ultimately have any impact on my photographic experience?

ahh....the perils of deep thinking

gubbs · February 24, 2005

I read somewhere, (dgrin I think) that if you want to take a beautiful picture, photograph a beautiful flower. This can be true, but the problem is, everyone else does the same so the image looses any impact.
To a degree this applies to Landscapes, architecure and may other subjects. Whilst I'm a huge fan of nature and landscape shots, and love attempting to shoot them, my greatest respect goes to the photographers that are able to make a memorable shot from everyday places and situations. The shots that most of us would walk past without a second look.

So whilst I wouldn't want to demeam the skill of landscape and nature photographers in any way, I guess I agree with the quote.

Mongrel · February 24, 2005

Hey Gubbs,
Where did you get that picture of Andy for you avatar?

bkriete · February 24, 2005

lynnma wrote:

The photograph has ceased to be so important to me. It's more the dawning of the idea of it's subliminal (or not) message.. what am I saying with this capture of a moment in time.

I agree with you Lynn...I think it's the difference between art and documentation. An insurance agent can take a technically perfect picture detailing water damage, but how many of us are interested in paying $98 for a print of it?

I see a lot of people discussing the technical merits of different equipment, but very few discussing the artistic merits. For me at least, being able to take a picture that makes people say "Wow, that's moving/beautiful/makes me feel I'm there" is more important than having people say "Wow, there's no chromatic aberration visible around those tree branches." If having good equipment and technique furthers that ability to excite and interest people...good. If it's a bad picture with good quality...who cares?

Michiel de Brieder · February 24, 2005

elliot erwitt wrote:

what his mind is

Okay, now here you got me! For my photography consists of 2 parts. Firstly, but not foremost, is my intent to please others, to make pictures of them to give them something of themselves. Of course, it has my mark on it, it's my work after all, but it is mostly that, work. I did some shots for a friend a while ago and I thought some shots were really cool, she selected others for print

oh well, I did them for her, not for myself...
The second part of my photography is to display to others what I have in my mind when I view a certain scene, a person, an object, anything that captures my interest. Something I want to show in it's context, something else I really want to isolate. For every situation browsing through the deepest recesses of my mind to find out how I see something. For me it is like playing an instrument, writing something, hey, even cooking dinner :lol seriously! I picture flavours in my mind, add them up, blend em together, looking to isolate a taste or to bring it into perspective with other tastes. Expressing oneself.. yeah, that's my drive, sharing my mind, my visions, my ideas, with others. I'm basically open to every style.... if it suits my mind for a situation, I'll use it.
Well, that's my take on it

Andy · February 24, 2005

Michiel de Brieder wrote:

Okay, now here you got me! For my photography consists of 2 parts. Firstly, but not foremost, is my intent to please others, to make pictures of them to give them something of themselves. Of course, it has my mark on it, it's my work after all, but it is mostly that, work. I did some shots for a friend a while ago and I thought some shots were really cool, she selected others for print oh well, I did them for her, not for myself...
The second part of my photography is to display to others what I have in my mind when I view a certain scene, a person, an object, anything that captures my interest. Something I want to show in it's context, something else I really want to isolate. For every situation browsing through the deepest recesses of my mind to find out how I see something. For me it is like playing an instrument, writing something, hey, even cooking dinner :lol seriously! I picture flavours in my mind, add them up, blend em together, looking to isolate a taste or to bring it into perspective with other tastes. Expressing oneself.. yeah, that's my drive, sharing my mind, my visions, my ideas, with others. I'm basically open to every style.... if it suits my mind for a situation, I'll use it.
Well, that's my take on it

excellent post, michiel

thank you for contributing to this discussion

Michiel de Brieder · February 24, 2005

artistical merit of good equipment
One reason why I went the DSLR route is the choice of shallow DOF... I found my creativities to be way more stimulated than with a small size sensor, where DOF is inherently broader than on a DSLR. The ability to change lenses also contributes very much to artistic evolution, as is high ISO usage.. I know that the camera isn't everything, of course not. You'll have to have 'the eye' or 'the talent' or whatever you want to call it, beyond that, there's equipment IMO

On a sidenote, one of my best pitchas ever is made with a Minolta dimage S404, my first digital camera

:

mercphoto · February 24, 2005

Brooks goes on to say, "Fame is the result of random chance and cosmic tides."

I would not agree. While it is true that nobody does anything completely on their own, and there is some luck and chance involved, it still takes a lot of hard work, training, effort, and determination to get anywhere in life. And that comes from the person within, not random cosmic luck. Ansel might have been "lucky" compared to his peers. But he also worked his butt off. No amount of luck will compensate for that.

Besides, I also believe that, to a large degree, we are all capable of creating our own good and bad luck. Luck is not all chance. I'm not talking a karma thing. I'm talking about proper decision making, risk taking, and simply paying attention to the world around you. I know too many people who complain that others are "luckier" than they are, when in fact they have been unwilling to take risks in their life when opportunity arose, or worse, didn't even hear opportunity knock at the door in the first place.

That's my quote: make your own luck.

Photography is part objective (is the exposure right? is the focus sharp?) and part subjective (do I like it?). While I haven't been photographing for years and years, one comment I get a lot from my motorsports photography is how they are different, and interesting, compared to the established pros around here. And I try to do that on purpose. As a motocross photographer I know and respect says, capture the essence of what you are photographing. In hindsight, I could have kept the 75-300 Canon lens and done just fine compared to my 70-200/2.8. Both capture the subjective nature just fine. One does significantly better on the objective side of things.

Essence is subjective.

BridgeCity · February 24, 2005

My three favorite quotes: Kind of off topic, but I like them

"Everyone dreams. Some people are just more active participants"
"I beleive in luck. The harder I work, the luckier I get"
"If your going to play the game, you may as well play the deluxe edition"

trippy64 · February 24, 2005

As a newbie, at both dgrin, and photography, I have come to learn of this site as a place to garner ideas. As I try to find my "eye" and gain enough confidence to post photos for all to see, I appreciate when someone takes the time to tell me what they liked, and suggest more of what I could do to make my photos better. Someday, I hope to be able to create art, right now I am still taking pictures. When dealing with landscapes and so on, there is a fine line between creating art and taking paictures. Whenever I see a landscape or cityscape I am trying to see that "something" that the photographer saw, and wanted to capture, such as a shadow, a dance of light, angles, or a bird in a far away tree.I would like to know what it is that Mr Franks does not like about Adams' photos. I recall a book in my home growing up with all the pictures of the prarie, they always struck me about what was not there, the simple. I wish I could create that, but in the end it is still pointing a lens at an object and clicking. So why don't I ever get a shot just like that? So to me, anyone that can create a photo that makes you stop, and look, again, for that one thing the photographer saw, and put it out to share has a quality all it's own.