[ Post New Message | Post Reply to this One | Send Private Email to Mike Dixon | Help ]

Response to Regard for Photographic History

from Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com)
There are a number of places in Wayne's post where it's obvious that his assumptions and my assumption differ, but I think the following may be the most fundamental: "i suppose the key word for me is this: capture; for me, a photographer recognizes beauty, or fear, or love...any number of the limitless possibilities in human appearance, and *at the perfect time*, captures that image. he does not create the image, he captures the image." In my view, the photographer always creates the image rather than simply capturing it. Even in a "straight" photo--one with no jiggling, odd angles, or "special effects"--the photographer still decides where to point the camera, from where to shoot, which lens will provide an angle of view that includes an appropriate background, how great the depth of focus will be, what will be in sharp focus, which small fragment of time to capture, and which film to use (which affects tonality, grain, and possibly color tone and saturation), and how to develop that film. All of thes decisions will be based on experiences, personality, and goals of the person taking the photo. In other words, even a straight photo is an abstraction that reflects the personal biases of the creator. I don't see the basis (other than personal taste) on which we decide that "this level of abstraction is appropriate" but "that level of abstraction is not appropriate." Perhaps Wayne objects to overtly manipulating the subject or its environment. However, this can be a problematic standard as well. How do you judge whether the subject has been overtly manipulated? I have several photos which are completely candid that people suspect are posed. I also have some completely candid photos that utilize "special effects." The image below (Man and Ghost of a Woman) was shot in a bar with a long shutter speed. About halfway through the exposure, the woman moved. When she realized I had been taking a photo, she asked if she screwed it up. I told her no, that she just turned it into a different picture.

I'm not trying to argue that Wayne's opinions about Jeff's photography are invalid. But, from reading Wayne's post, I don't see a consistent (or philosophically solid) set of standards for judging good and bad. Further, most of Jeff's work that I've seen seems to meet most of Wayne's standards. In the spirit of expanding one's views about photography, I suggest that Wayne take a much closer look at what it is he doesn't like about Jeff's work, comparing each photo and the general body of work against his ideas of what a photo should be. Also, Wayne should compare the photos he does like against his standards--he might be surprised at the number of them that don't meet his standards. [Of course, I don't know that this will be the case. But I've yet to encounter any standard or rule that is capable of distinguishing a good photo from a bad one. I've seen people who decide that they don't like a certain photo because it violates some rule, but that generally says more about the person than the photo.]

(posted 8616 days ago)

[ Previous | Next ]