He hits the nail on the head every time. The only thing

I have to say here is that this falls directly in-line with my thoughts/questions

of whether the technology had become the end and is  no longer

simply the means to the end?

“Does the application of technique, de facto, make everything it touches “art”?

Gary Winogrand taught photography at UT when I was a student there.  He would stroll the main drag looking for interesting people to photograph nearly everyday.  He would also stop into the stereo (home electronics) shop where I worked part time to listen to the exciting audio gear that was hitting the market at the time.  He generally carried two old, banged up Leica M’s with him.  A 28mm lens on one and a 35mm or 50mm on the other.

He is widely quoted as saying that he “photographed things to see how they would look photographed.”  Which implies that photography itself changes things and it does so, sometimes, in interesting ways.  But he didn’t manipulate his images in post processing.  He presented straight black and white prints to his audience so they could share the slice of the past that he captured and hence, owned.

He was a voracious shooter and left behind thousands and thousands of rolls of film that were shot but undeveloped.  And more film that had been developed by not contact printed and examined.  He was obviously in a hurry to shoot as much as he could.

In a very real sense we’ve made an enormous aesthetic and theoretical schism from the photography of Gary’s time to present work.  A current and powerful aspect of photography is the routine post processing and random manipulation of images we take.  Since many of the applied effects are supplied in a random fashion by the software used I wonder if the thoughtful practice of either previsualizing or conceptualizing the final effect is still in play.  Or whether the idea of “satori” and instant recognition at the time of capture is still relevant.

But, at the core, the question really is this.  Does the random and yet nearly statistical homogenous application of effects (canned or otherwise)  bring value to the core image or, through its overuse does the same manipulation actually devalue the image?

The analogy that pops into my mind is hot sauce.  Lots of people like the tang and bite of good salsa and, taken in moderate quantities it adds a special flavor and spice to regional foods.  But there has become of subset of hot sauce fans who, having burned out their taste buds through egregious overuse, look for hotter and hotter versions of the sauce and take delight in their ability to ingest it without running for a huge glass of water (best to try milk instead).

It almost seems to me that instead of working to find more interesting things to see or more interesting ways to express the things we can already see that we have developed an immunity to subtlety and grace and are on the “hot sauce” search for more and more “heat” in our images.  And we apply liberal canned manipulations like salsa fans dumping more and more habanero sauce over their plate of enchiladas, huevos rancheros or even meatloaf.  At some point the power of the spice and pepper overwhelms the dish we’re trying to savor.  The salsa becomes the quest rather than being the adjunct to fine foods.

People move through their lives quickly and I’m guessing that the fragmented quality of modern existence requires more and more stimulus in order to capture attention.  And the preponderance of images also demands that ever more “hot sauce” be applied to make them “burn” and stand out.

At some point we realize that the “wrapper” has taken precedence over the content.  We’re buying the shiny aluminum foil and not the chocolate.  I don’t have any answers.  I just know that we’re heading in a direction where style trumps meaning.  It’s nice to be able to perceive intention and direction in content, not just in the wrappers.

I get that every new art form is challenging at first.  But the real question is whether the application of glitter to the canvas really counts… “

Kirk Tuck.    The Visual Science Lab,  Austin, Texas, United States

I like what he thinks and says so I’ve added a link to his blog in the blogroll, but I fealt the need to

put this post of his in here, so with Kirk’s ok………………..

Light and dark. Sharp and soft. The palette of expression is personal.

I have a photographer friend I’ll call, “Andy.”  He makes magic with his cameras.  Every one of them.  At least I think it’s magic because his look is so different from mine.  His images are perfectly exposed but they seem airier and lighter than mine.  The shadows and highlights are crisp as cold celery and open.  And everything in Andy’s images seems sharper than the content in my images.  So much so that I finally pressed him about his secret sharpening formula.  He walked me through an explanation that sounded so much like something I already knew and we both walked away feeling a bit baffled.  (At least I did….).  At another time a photographer whose work I really like was looking at two prints (not dissimilar to the ones I’m showing in this blog) and he asked me how I got such a feeling of gravity and substance into my prints.  But I couldn’t answer any better than Andy answered me.  And then it dawned on me that we saw the world, physically, in a very different way.  That our prints are reflections of our own unique vision of the world.  And I realized, at that moment, that we all sing with a different voice and with a different timbre.  And it’s not being able to reproduce exactly what Andy does that makes me so interested in the work he produces.  Because when I look at his work I have a visceral glimpse into how he sees the world.  It’s degrees different than my vision.  And vice versa.  

And that’s how art is supposed to work.  If everything could be reduced to formulas and spreadsheets we could program photo robots and never have to lift a finger to photograph again.  And how sad would that be?  (Note to self:  reject all creative formulas.   Additional note to self:  Is “creative formula” an oxymoron?).

Kirk Tuck.   Austin, Texas, U.S.A.

I’m not a formal portrait/studio/product/advertising  photographer, neither am I a nature/scenic photographer. I am a candid street people photographer. I don’t own any lighting, I simply use God’s gift of natural/available light. I own one flash which is only used at times when doing a commercial child shoot for their family, and even that is only for ‘fill light’. I have an old Slik aluminium tripod that has been with me for all my photographic years and unused.  ALL  my shots are hand-held with what ever available light there is, whether it’s outdoor street, indoor performances such as dance in big auditoriums, the more intimate atmosphere of a folk club or some such.

My aim, my photography, is to observe, record a certain emotion/reaction of an unknown stranger/s, try and be a part of their world at that nanosecond of time and then to allow my audience to enter and share that moment with us. If I hear comments, such as ” I feel that I was there/I can hear his music/the photograph was like a punch in the gut/etc.etc…..” I know that my interpretation was right. That’s my story telling. That’s my Art.

Many of my photographs are not pin-sharp or perfectly lit. By nature of the beast they won’t be. Most of my shots are split second observations that involve seeing, recognizing, framing and shooting. If the focus/DoF/movement is a little off, so be it. To me the mood and composition are vital, the rest important but less so. Besides, I often find, that the slight movement or lack of sharpness often add to the atmosphere/attitude that  would be lost in a sharp perfectly exposed photograph.

What’s bugging me, the reason for this venting of a little steam, is that there are so many detractors/critics who cannot get their heads round the fact that technically ‘imperfect’ photographs are valid.

In this photo of Angie, when posted on a certain forum, the comment was “the eyes are too dark…….”, the implication being that I needed to lighten them in Photoshop. Well, hey man, this was shot on HP3 film pushed to 1200ASA in a small room with a single 60W bulb hanging from the ceiling. Totally spontaneous, hand held and candid.  The dark mysterious eyes are totally Angie!……….’that’s what there is’ with no corrections, additions or subtractions.

I feel that the younger generation of snappers who only know digital and Photoshop, Portrait Professional and/or the myriad other editing programmes with their extreme capabilities of  ’fixing’ a face, not only by smoothing and deblemishing  skin and even ‘correcting’ shapes of faces and bodies, thereby creating perfectly correct technical photographs, while at the same time recreating the people they have photographed according to the World of Photoshop etc. and not faithfully representing the subject. A whole new and  different concept of photography has emerged. A concept, which to me, misses the point completely. While we’re at it let’s not forget the eyes. Have you noticed how suddenly all and sundry have big, bright, sparkling clear eyes surrounded by perfectly white eyeballs. No little red veins or heaven forbid, slightly bloodshot eyes. No real eyes. At times I feel like I’m looking at a C.S.I. Miami computer reconstruction of a cadaver.

A friend of mine a while ago shot a portrait of a lovely model who happened to be a freckled red head. My friend showed me both the original shot and the Photoshopped edited version – a stunning red head with a peaches and cream complexion. Although the Ps technique was done perfectly, my friend was unhappy with the results and she couldn’t figure out why. There was something ‘just not right’ with the shot. I told her that, in my opinion, the original shot was by far the better shot. For me she had got it right in the camera. To me  the freckles were an integral part of the model’s character and without them the shot just wasn’t her, it was somebody else, an imaginary person. My friend on relooking and rethinking, saw the light and agreed.

I believe that what happened here was that my friend, as usual when editing, just followed the usual practice of smoothing and unblemishing because that’s what one does in Ps & clones. There are a zillion presets and plugins that do it with one click, so it must be right. It’s all become quick & ‘easy’ , definitely the way to go.

The truth of the matter is that creating a good photograph is never easy. The post-shoot editing is a lot of hard work and that’s why getting it right in the camera is so important. The more right it is in the camera, the less editing is required and is that much easier. Now somebody will say that even in traditional photo, editing was done in the dark room. Very true, but the editing was mainly to correct slightly. A little dodging and burning to improve highlight or bring out shadow detail and other small lighting problems or a little spotting and retouching to get rid of dust or a bad pimple. Never was/is editing about playing God and recreating a person according to one’ s whims and fancies.

If one is shooting for Playboy, Penthouse, or the old Vargas works, then yes, extreme editing and ‘airbrushing’ to create  Amazonian seductress Barby Dolls, is the name of the game. But the creating portraits of real people, nature scenes and any other type of shot, is all about getting it right in the camera. If one is shooting a scene and the telegraph pole is in the way, move your arse and find another position where the telegraph pole is not in your way. Removing the pole in Ps creates a scene that does not exist.

To me, photography is about faithfully recording a specific instant in time. There is no end to the number of ways that this can be creatively done, but the changing of the circumstances is, to my mind a whole different thing. It is not the faithful recording, it, in the best instance, is a different form of Art using photography as a tool, or in the worst instance, a lack of integrity and  just plain dishonesty, mainly fooling yourself.

anyway, the earth-shaking news is that sey has gone totally digital……bought his first digital camera, oooops! the truth be known, this has been building up for quite a while. I had been researching what I wanted, then to bluff myself, what I needed and after eyeing the D700 then deciding that the D7000 was more then enough camera for me, the thought popped into my head, why not a top-of-the-line compact for starters? so my research started over in the compact field. my biggest problem was a camera with a viewfinder, which immediately narrowed down the field to basically Canon G series as obviously Leica was not in the price frame. then suddenly, lo & behold, Nikon pop-up with the P7000, the synchronicity(timing) was superb. after a little waiting to see/read hands-on reviews, I did it, got me a Nikon P7000! the past few weeks have involved much playing, getting-to-know-you and bonding……..quite a steep learning curve for this SOM, what with all those buttons, knobs, menus etc. but we’re learning to appreciate each other.

my friend, Sandu Mandrea (in the piccie), a Roumanian born photographer, unbeknownst to each other, bought his G12 the same week!!!! The Canon G12 and the Nikon P7000 are almost identical twins both in looks and performance. So being a Nikon person for well over 40 years with truly tens of thousands of happy clickings, only natural for me to keep on Nikonning…………Mariana, Sandu’s missus, smiled wryly at the coincidence!

She can concentrate on her photography.

The forum, being a photographic one, soon brought the discussion into the realm of photography with it’s technologically super-endowed equipment and software. The discussion very quickly developed into a free-for-all with all the usual suspects. The GOMs (grumpy old men) v the Techies (“pro- technical progress” and IT folk). Nothing new here with all the old ‘discussions’ being rehashed. The GOMs predictably lamenting the loss of human skills and talents while the Techies vociferously defending the ‘march of progress’.

The discussion again quickly deteriorated into personalities and the thing that ‘shocked and surprised’ me was the vehemence with which the GOMs were attacked by certain of the Techies. Another thing that surprised me was that the strongest attacks came from Techies who had had a solid grounding in the basics of traditional photography, as well as being extremely capable IT people.

The GOMs were accused of being supercilious, presumptuous, elitist snobs and by what right were they telling the young new- comers to photography that they had no place in the photo world because of their apparent lack of the ‘basics’. The GOMs, of course, had said nothing of the sort. What they did say was that the seriously interested new-comers needed to understand the basics and develop from there and not rely on automation to rule their photography without knowing why the camera was doing what it was doing and then hoping that PhotoShop would fix/save the bad photographs. Total reliance on technology both in the camera and then the computer. No personal skill or talent required.

I was accused of telling an extremely talented photographer – who, by the way, I’ve been the biggest fan of since I saw my very first photograph of hers and everybody, including my accuser, knew that – that she had no right being in photo because she didn’t have the basics. Well firstly, I never mentioned her and she wasn’t in my mind during the discussion, so I can only presume that was a deliberate slur. Secondly, she does have the basics! She may be relatively new to photography, but she has Art School and painting in her history, two brothers in photography, an enormous amount of support from the minute she joined the forum – she joined to learn and she soaks up everything she can!!! – and finally, most importantly, she has a tremendous natural creative talent. She has “the eye”. The blatant glib and malicious deliberate misreading, misquoting, misinterpreting manipulation and twisting of the GOM’s words by the Techies was vicious in it’s slander.

Then it dawned on me, the realization that it is those ‘photography-educated’ Techies who are the smug, supercilious, presumptuous, arrogant, elitist snobs. They have the best of both worlds. The basic traditional grounding in photography as well as the IT skills to use the technology as it should be, a tool and nothing more. They are prepared to let the new-comer struggle along in the technological world without them learning the basics and eventually floundering.

Why they have this attitude, I can’t say……..is it a fear of being considered a GOM? is it fear of competition? is it a justification of their own existence? is it a cover up for their mediocre photographic talents? is it really elitist snobbism?……..I don’t know, but I do know that the GOMs are demeaned and insulted because they dare to say, “Know what you’re doing. exercise your brain and don’t let it vegetate. Develop your own creative skills, not the camera’s or the computer’s”.

My feelings are exactly the same about Photography/Art/Science/Literature/Mathematics/Tiddlywinks and any of the other Creative Human Activities. Without the history/basics/A-B-C/building blocks there is no foundation to nurture and develop the creative talents. There is no way to push the boundaries because the boundaries are unknown due to the ignorance of the basics and thus the so-called creativity becomes an empty hollow shell of pseudo-whatever without any substance.

This is not going to be another diatribe on the cop-out attitudes of the ‘younger/micro-chip generation’ and their reliance on electronics to replace basic education/knowledge. I simply mentioned it because, to me, the above statement says it all with no further comment necessary.