B&W/Color ------ Film/Digital

As I wrote in my blog post at the beginning of the semester, I have indeed "learn[ed] to appreciate taking color photographs." I feel like black and white photographs are often interesting simply because, being not in color, they show us a world that is not what with see with our eyes. In a color photograph, there is so much more to examine and appreciate. If I were at a gallery or museum, I think I would spend more time looking at a color photograph than one in black and white because are there are more details to look at.

While working on my final project, I viewed my digital camera as a tool to help me sketch out ideas. Before photographing with the plastic camera, I took ~10 or so shots of each person with my digital camera just to make sure I liked the setup and the way the colors looked on the lcd screen. Obviously the colors on the film were much different than on the digital screen. However, I think working with the digital camera to make "sketches" was really helpful. Also, it's way more exciting to get negatives than to see digital photos uploaded to the computer.

For now, I'm most interested in taking color non-digital photos.

I still don't really know how to explain what makes a good photo. Maybe one that is unique and portrays the subject of the photo in more depth than one would get from looking at / being near the subject for a short time? I think uniqueness is what is most important. Often, I like a photo just because I have never contemplated taking a photograph like it or seen something like it before.

Sebastiao Salgado

The fact that Salgado's photos are aesthetically nice doesn't bother me. What bothers me more is the mysteriousness of the photos. If Salgado is attempting to keep the subjects in the photo mysterious, than he is an a way being exploitative because he is photographing them more for the sake of beauty and art then to inform people about what is going on throughout the world. If Salgado's photographs were accompanied with the stories of the person or people in each image, the photos would be a lot less exploitative. The story could either be in the words of the subject or written by Salgado himself.

The fact that Salgado is taking photographs in locations where cameras, museums, and photo books are uncommon means that the individuals in the photographs likely don't know what will become of the photographs. Salgado must be making a lot of money from his photographs. Does he give some of the money back to the subjects or to organizations that help the people in the countries and places he photographs?

Looking online, I saw the Salgado changed professions from development economist to photographer early in his career. Also, it appears that he does include writings and captions that tell about what is going on in the regions he portrays. He doesn't write about the specific individuals he photographs but rather about the places he photographs and the situations in the countries he photographs. This makes me think that his photos are beautiful and informative, and may influence the viewers of his work to effect change in positive ways. And his photos are exploitative but they are not as exploitative as I first thought. Just because someone lives in poverty or a war torn area doesn't mean they shouldn't be photographed beautifully.

Daniel Weiss

I liked this gleaning because it was interesting to see contemporary photos by someone our age and I agree with Weiss that film photography and working in the darkroom is much more gratifying than digital photography.

In many of the street photographs that appear to be of strangers, you can see some sort of interaction between the subject and the photographer. For example, the overweight man on the bench with his hand up seems to be saying “stop, don’t photograph me.” The man with the red guitar also doesn’t appear thrilled that he’s being photographed. In some of the other street photos, the subject seems to be looking suspiciously at the camera. Does Weiss ask permission to photograph the people he doesn’t know?

A few of the photos seems like still from a comedic film or TV show. In Weiss’ black and white photo of two men, it looks like the man in the hat and sunglasses is acting or telling a joke and the man on the right is either very sad, confused, or in disbelief. I have no idea what is going on in the image but the overexaggerated facial expressions and makes it seem like its two actors.

David Hockny

Using a camera obscura to help with drawing reminded me of how people sometimes separate a piece of paper into a bunch of small rectangles and then draw what goes in each little box one at a time. Many painters started to make more realistic paintings. Did they all know about camera obscuras and concave mirrors and how they could be used? Does Hockney believe that many painters used optical devices or just a few of them did? Wouldn’t someone have discovered what the artists were doing and exposed them for “cheating”? What are the other explanations for the “sudden burst of realism in European painting” other than camera obscuras or concave mirrors?
I’m really amazed by Hockney’s composite photographs. I like that they are unique but still easily accessible for viewers.

Marilyn Minter

I didn’t particularly like Minter’s photographs themselves but putting art on billboards is a great idea. I like idea of putting art on billboards because it is unexpected and billboards are normally covered in ugly ads. However, because Minter’s photographs look somewhat like advertisements, seeing them on billboards wouldn’t be as unusual as seeing a photograph that looked more like fine art and less like an advertisement on a billboard. If I had seen these billboards while walking or driving through New York, I would not have realized that they were art, and would have been thoroughly confused. Because the art is in a public location that is free for anyone to look at and not protected from the weather, I feel like I have lower expectations of the art and would be more impressed with the same piece of art on a billboard than in a museum or gallery.

Photographic Lying

Vicki Goldberg’s article, “Of Fairies, Free Spirits, and Outright Frauds” made me think of the different ways in which photos can “lie.” Photos can be lies in themselves or they can capture a set up or arranged situation that is the lie. It is interesting to me that the fairy photos are not manipulated, but rather, the fairy drawings were simply attached to the trees and plants with hatpins, and then the photos were taken. Upon first looking at the photos, I had assumed that the fairies were not in the actual photo but that something had been done in the darkroom to merge the fairy drawings with the photos of the girls.

If the photograph is not doctored/manipulated in any way but it is portraying something false, is it a lie? For example, are the fairy photographs false even though the photograph is showing just what the camera saw? Is a photograph that portrays a meaning other than the truth a lie? For example, is a portrait that makes one believe the subject is happy true even if the person is not and just smiled for the second that it took to take the photograph?

When I look at photographs that seem to have been taken at just the right moment, I often wonder if the photo was staged or not. I’m not sure why, but to me I always appreciate a natural photo more than one that has been staged.

With the photos that I have been taking of sinks, I sometimes arrange the objects around the sink in order to make a more well composed photo. But I always feel a little guilty and like I should be taking the photo without changing anything. Are my sink photos lying? Should I document everything just as it is?

Remember This?

Reading about Gordon Bell’s SenseCam and archive, I thought it seemed pretty pointless. I doubt anyone will be interested in looking at so many photos of this one man’s life. I understand putting one’s old photos onto a computer so that they can be stored for longer than if only on paper but I can’t understand why Bell would want to archive thousands of photos from each day of his life. Maybe if the photos were put together into a quick movie, it could be interesting. But Bell has tried this and for some reason doesn’t like the results. Reading this article, I was reminded of my photos, and that I have too many of them so I periodically go through and try to delete ones that I no longer want because they take up so much space on my computer. However, I feel attached to my photos and that I may want to look at them in the future, so I never end up deleting that many. On the other hand, I rarely wish that I had taken more photos.

What is the point of Bell cataloguing such small details of his life if the collection has become like “a black hole” where “everything went in and nothing came out.” Why does he collect unimportant data such as every website he has visited? It seems like by having such a large collection, he makes it impossible to go back and find information when he wants it.

I would never want to be taking photographs all the time. I think that creating such a detailed collection of things and photos from one’s life would cause one to overanalyze oneself. Bell must always be choosing what to photograph, which photographs to save or delete, and what information to upload to his archives. Maybe his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will enjoy his “lifelogging” but to me it seems like it would be quite unpleasant and a waste of time to so obsessively document one’s own life.

Color

I disagree with Andrew Maclean’s comment that “the world is in color, you have to work at black and white.” For me, color photography is much more difficult than black and white. With black and white, I only have to think about composition, contrast, lighting, and content. The addition of color complicates the task of taking a photo in a way that I dislike. I like the simplicity of black and white photography, and feel that color takes away from the simplicity that I enjoy. My favorite photographs that I have taken so far for this class are the ones where the colors aren’t bright or busy – the ones with only a few colors and the ones with solid blocks of color. Maybe my dislike of color is because I am more accustomed to black and white. Hopefully, as the semester progresses I will learn to appreciate taking color photographs.

What makes a good photograph? II

A great photograph is a photograph that speaks to the viewer and makes that viewer want to look at the photo for a while. It leaves the viewer with questions and the desire to have a conversation with the photographer.

The following is a quote from the reading that I believe best describes what a good photograph is... "you can look at the photo for hours and still discover something new... it manages to show... something utterly mundane and transform it into high art." Evocative and mysterious are two more important aspects of a good photograph that are mentioned in the reading. Another good point is that it is often important to look at a series of photographs or a large body of work by a photographer in order to determine if the work is really great. It is sometimes difficult to judge just one photograph on its own.

Reading the comments in “What Makes a Good Picture?” I noticed that many of the answers mentioned that a good picture stirs up strong emotions. For example, Alexey Brodovitch commented that “a picture which affects you emotionally… makes a picture good” and Jacob Deschin wrote that “a good picture is felt rather than merely understood (intellectually).” These quotes me think about the differences between painting/drawing and photography. I feel that great photographs often evoke strong emotions but that great paintings or drawings don’t. I’m not sure why this is.

What makes a good photograph?

There are certain technical aspects of photography - such as focus and exposure - that are mainly objective, but for the most part whether or not a photograph is good is very subjective. However, as with all forms of art, once someone masters the technical aspects, he or she can then choose not to follow the “rules” of what is technically considered good.

I think one of the most important qualities of a good photograph is uniqueness. The photographs that I consider to be the best, and most enjoy looking at, are photographs that portray the subject in a new way or show me something I hadn’t before seen or noticed. A good photograph causes the viewer to look at the photo for more than just a quick glimpse.