(1 to 100 of 187 replies)
Sticky
What Makes A Keeper?
(1 to 100 of 187 replies)
Well done ski for stirring such a debate. I find it very fascinating reading so many interesting points.
John-Pa: the 3 main aspects that you are considering when voting is a great starting point to elaborate my answer.
I love street photography and my influencers are all coming from that background (which, sometimes, overlap with documentary photography but let's not open that debate here!) so when I look at someone's else shot unconsciously I am echoing some of these giants.
I cannot stop asking myself the question "what's the story behind this shot?" or, rephrasing it, "what is the artist trying to communicate?". I appreciate
Bill(iudshi8uf): 's point on photographers always being a student (I think it could be generalized to any form of art) and I push this further when voting: I look at emotions as I consider photography some sort of visual poetry. I struggle a bit with voting landscape, conceptual, abstract photography (an area where I am not very familiar with) but I reckon you can convey a meaningful message there too. I do my best to express this in words but I am not a professional curator so I try to add more to a simple "I don't understand it but I like it / I don't like it" comment.
I understand your struggle
sa ra pa uk: cause I tend to "keep" most of the pictures :)
Keraman B&W: explain it way better than me actually :)
I think a "keeper" is a shot that lives forever in our memories, reveals something deep and meaningful about the subject, shows emotions, and is composed "perfectly" . This is something that will stay with me and gives me the pleasure to look at it again and again
John-Pa: the 3 main aspects that you are considering when voting is a great starting point to elaborate my answer.I love street photography and my influencers are all coming from that background (which, sometimes, overlap with documentary photography but let's not open that debate here!) so when I look at someone's else shot unconsciously I am echoing some of these giants.
I cannot stop asking myself the question "what's the story behind this shot?" or, rephrasing it, "what is the artist trying to communicate?". I appreciate
Bill(iudshi8uf): 's point on photographers always being a student (I think it could be generalized to any form of art) and I push this further when voting: I look at emotions as I consider photography some sort of visual poetry. I struggle a bit with voting landscape, conceptual, abstract photography (an area where I am not very familiar with) but I reckon you can convey a meaningful message there too. I do my best to express this in words but I am not a professional curator so I try to add more to a simple "I don't understand it but I like it / I don't like it" comment.I understand your struggle
sa ra pa uk: cause I tend to "keep" most of the pictures :) Keraman B&W: explain it way better than me actually :)I think a "keeper" is a shot that lives forever in our memories, reveals something deep and meaningful about the subject, shows emotions, and is composed "perfectly" . This is something that will stay with me and gives me the pleasure to look at it again and again
Keraman B&W:How do you avoid picking out pictures you like ? Random ? In order (first / last / second / second last / third / third last ...)
I go to my picture and comment on the 2 before me and the 3 following me or vice versa. That's my strategy to try and minimise sampling bias.
If I really did have the time and wanted an outside randomiser to help me out I'd probably use an online number generator for the range covering the no. of photos we have in the week..... >> www.textfixer.com/numbers/random-number-generator.php
jAm
ben_olson: John-Pa:It certainly shouldn't be about the camera, whether a photo is good, acceptable, artistic, or a keeper.
No one should criticize a photo simply because of the camera that was used; however, lousy cameras and lenses have a higher likelihood of not being awarded as keeper, because they are more likely to produce flawed images.
Almost any camera, including phones, sold over the past ten years is capable of creating decent photos that can stand up to serious review. As we go farther than 2012, you will encounter cameras where the photographer requires more work to get acceptable images.
As you get into the 20th Century, there are MANY cameras that (in my opinion) are practically worthless. 110 or disk film, where the negative isn't as bis as one of your fingernails, and the plastic lens isn't much larger. Sure, a creative and clever photographer will be able to create a good image, but that will ONLY be by capitalizing on the severe limitations of that kind of film and camera. Of course, there were plenty of good cameras back then. I loved my Nikons and Nikkormat in the early 1970s; before then, I had a fixed lens Kowa that gave me very satisfactory results.
There is a very strong element of technology in photography, and as manufacturing processes, materials, and the move away from chemical to digital processing has brought us sharper, more reliable images, especially when you compare the quality of something like the latest iPhone to the top of the line Instamatic or Polaroid camera.
John-Pa:,s point is a great one with his "To me, that is exactly like using one simplistic Photoshop filter-effect over-and-over on everything." I've seen quite a few photos presented for review where old plastic lens cameras were used, and just about the only thing significant about the photo was the distortion of the crappy lens, as if this were a positive thing. While awarding the Keeper label to an image like this is perfectly within someone's rights, whatever floats their boat, to each his own, Que Sera, Sera, and more power to ya! However, this is not in the tradition of what I've always thought of as "photography." Sure, there are things like illustration (fine-line between illustration and photography), antiquing, collage, scrapbooking, etc. While there are elements of photography involved in these kinds of things, it's more about something outside of the realm of photography. The other endeavors are perfectly valid and can often be creative, engaging, and beautiful, but I'm only interested in a more pure form of photography. Even though my images are often highly manipulated, I strive to achieve a "photographic result." Because of this, when a photo is labeled as created using film, I will keep that in mind and realize that it might not be as sharp as digital (especially from a scan), and there might be more grain/noise. Those photos are still subject to the same artistic principles of composition, form, tone, etc. However, if someone thinks a photo is good just because film, or a "quaint" lens was used, I just don't know what to say about something other than: freeflight.
However, that's my own position, and while I might be critical of a photo, I will never be critical of anyone who applies Keeper, or Freeflight for any reason. I'm not likely to ever mention it.
ben_olson: As far as I'm concerned I seldom point those issue out. I've used disposable cams and all sorts of film cameras—from toy cams, lomos, compact cams, SLRs and it has never been a factor, at least for me. In the same line of thinking and reasoning, mobile photography is just as acceptable for me as well.
I've been using Nikon SLRs since the late 1960s, and love them. However gear is not what makes the shot - because we're dealing in art.
Here's a shot of mine taken in the early 90s with a cheap waterproof disposable film camera. It was a Kodak camera made of cardboard, and sealed inside a clear plastic case. It was focus free - the only controls were the shutter button and the film winder. Shutter speed and aperture settings were fixed (probably about 1/125 @ f4 or 5.6) and you had to hope that the film could register the shot to the extent that you would get a reasonable image. The film was probably about 125 or 200ASA, and the camera including film cost not much more than the price of the roll of film inside. Kodak were sponsoring the annual Sydney to Hobart yacht race (630 miles) and they gave these cameras to crewmembers as a promotion.
We were in the middle of a storm in the Bass Strait, between Victoria and Tasmania, about 50 miles from land, and sailing hard late afternoon on the third day after leaving Sydney. There's no way I would have got out an SLR in those conditions.
But it's a good example of when any shot, no matter what the quality, is better than none. The people who couldn't bring themselves to try these throwaway cameras missed the opportunity for a tangible memory.
Here's a shot of mine taken in the early 90s with a cheap waterproof disposable film camera. It was a Kodak camera made of cardboard, and sealed inside a clear plastic case. It was focus free - the only controls were the shutter button and the film winder. Shutter speed and aperture settings were fixed (probably about 1/125 @ f4 or 5.6) and you had to hope that the film could register the shot to the extent that you would get a reasonable image. The film was probably about 125 or 200ASA, and the camera including film cost not much more than the price of the roll of film inside. Kodak were sponsoring the annual Sydney to Hobart yacht race (630 miles) and they gave these cameras to crewmembers as a promotion.
We were in the middle of a storm in the Bass Strait, between Victoria and Tasmania, about 50 miles from land, and sailing hard late afternoon on the third day after leaving Sydney. There's no way I would have got out an SLR in those conditions.
But it's a good example of when any shot, no matter what the quality, is better than none. The people who couldn't bring themselves to try these throwaway cameras missed the opportunity for a tangible memory.
Bruce Kerridge: Great to see you back! Your comment is right on the money. I've had plenty of crappy cameras over the past 50+ years, and I tried to never let them get in my way. Unfortunately, I was not always successful ;-) They did make me work harder to figure things out, but that extra effort paid off in knowledge, expertise....and some shots I would not have gotten if I had not persisted. For me, photography is a mix of art and craft....I can't make a photo I'm proud of without a proper balance of the two. Crappy or obsolete equipment adds to the challenge....and sometimes to the rewards. BTW - you and that Kodak nailed some drama.
I was recently on a cruise around Iceland. This was a photography-centered kind of tour, although there seemed to be mostly birders on board. We had daily zodiac boat rides to interesting places with choppy water. The ship had a good supply of waterproof enclosures for most cameras, but those birders all had monster 500-600 mm + lenses, so there were no enclosures for those folks.
The reason or purpose of the photo makes a big difference in its worth. Photos submitted for artistic/critical review shouldn't be compared with those very important, candid snapshots of our friends and family. If I were forced to choose between the two, I would delete all of my so-called "artistic" photos before my more personal ones, even if they were far from technically or artistically perfect.
However, the nature of asking others for critical review means that others will probably not have the same emotional connection as the photographer, and all that's left is to either speculate about the photographer's feelings/intent or to start with "square one" and proceed to consider all the usual things we have learned about photography. Hopefully, wishful thinking won't be one of those things, but also (hopefully) reviewers will judge the photograph and not the camera. I would also hope that photographers won't assume that low-quality equipment will hide a lack of skill.
ski 9:
Bruce Kerridge:
The reason or purpose of the photo makes a big difference in its worth. Photos submitted for artistic/critical review shouldn't be compared with those very important, candid snapshots of our friends and family. If I were forced to choose between the two, I would delete all of my so-called "artistic" photos before my more personal ones, even if they were far from technically or artistically perfect.
However, the nature of asking others for critical review means that others will probably not have the same emotional connection as the photographer, and all that's left is to either speculate about the photographer's feelings/intent or to start with "square one" and proceed to consider all the usual things we have learned about photography. Hopefully, wishful thinking won't be one of those things, but also (hopefully) reviewers will judge the photograph and not the camera. I would also hope that photographers won't assume that low-quality equipment will hide a lack of skill.
ski 9: Bruce Kerridge:
Bruce Kerridge:That's an amazing shot Bruce. I would love to do the Sydney to Hobart race one day.
The roughest weather I've ever been out in was during a storm that forced one of the super max yachts to retire. Luckily I was on Lake Macquarie and not the open ocean - but it was still rough and now one of my fondest sailing memories. Did the same transformation happen in your mind?
Teddy Alfrey: Photography is too wide and diverse of a genra for one criteria to fit all possibilities.Some photographs are made
AND
Some photographs are taken
Some photographers pre-visualize and conceptualize their creation, they design the scene meticulously, even the light artificial or natural. They require a special set or setting, or may have to wait very long times for the right time of the day, month, year and weather conditions.
This type of photographers function primarily from their mind. Feelings and emotions may be components of their design, but their design comes from their minds.
Other photographers simply look at life through the camera's viewfinder and press the trigger when it "feels right". They develop the ability to shut off their minds, sometimes completely. They enter into a zone of abstraction in which they become one with their instrument. The capture process may take hours, minutes, seconds or quite often fractions of a second.
These photographers function primarily from their hearts. The mind is used prior for learning, practicing, experimenting, but not so much at the moment of capture when instinct takes the lead and feelings decide. I am one of these photographers.
A similar principle applies to digital processing (or darkroom for film).
Ansel Adams meticulously worked every aspect of his photographs, from pre-visualization to capture, from developing to the print. He used large format cameras almost exclusively and while he did some early work in 35mm he never considered that seriously. He also used a variety of lenses. He was a photographer, but before he was a director and after a chemist and a printer. Not all photographers are so complete.
Cartier-Bresson on the contrary photographed exclusively with a 35mm Leica rangefinder and a 50mm lens. He had someone else develop the film and make his prints.
Neither him or A.Adams cared much for color.
Steve McCurry's instrument was a Nikon FM2, considered a semi-professional camera at the time. Again 35mm but color Kodak Ektachrome. Like many (most?) NatGeo photographers, some of his images were designed like A.Adams, others he was ready and waited until the moment was (felt) right like Cartier Bresson, and others may have been snapshots that turned out to be as good. He mailed the rolls of film to his publisher who developed and printed.
Snapshots count. Concert photographs can be considered snapshots, or a play, sometimes street photographs are snapshots. Might very well be camera jpgs. I do know professional photographers who exell at camera jpgs, they have no time for raw processing and I'm not capable of getting the same quality jpgs from my own camera when photographing together with them.
Everything counts. Anything counts. What matters is the result, not the instrument, not the technique, not the method.
Each one of us have our own way to see and judge photographs. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree completely. The way we judge is always subjective and while there may be some commonality guiding our judgement, it can also be trap that impede us to see in different ways.
Because the nature of our judgement is subjective and unique to each of us, when critiquing and judging an image we are describing ourselves as much as the object of our description. And when others like what we are not able to appreciate, they're showing us there's more to the image than our eyes can see, our mind perceive, our heart feel.
So to the question... what makes a keeper?
A keeper is an image I'd like to keep in the group's pool so I can enjoy it again in the future, it's an image I enjoy to look at multiple times, that I would like to see printed on a book, album or hanging on my walls
and... what makes a freeflight?
a freeflight is a photograph I don't care to see again, an image that didn't do much for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For me, photography is not a means by which to create beautiful art, but a unique way of encountering genuine reality. – Daido Moriyama
www.moriyamadaido.com/en/
ben_olson:All photographs start as either an image captured on film or as assemblage of pixels created by on and off bits of information (zeroes or ones).
The second closest thing you will ever get to a "real" photo is a transparency/slide. The closest is the Polaroid instant camera format or something like that. While both transparency and a polaroid print can be scanned and tweaked as much as any digital photo, their original and intended forms are finished products. I have shot thousands of slides, and the ideal way to view these is through a projector. I had a couple of Kodak Ektagraphic Carousel slide projectors connected to a device that would fade slides from one to another. There was no cropping, adjusting the brightness, dodging, burning, or anything. The only thing you could do was to make sure that the dust was removed. Viewing a properly exposed and composed photo on a slide screen is a real treat! You just don't get that same combination of tones and dynamic range. The shadow details were never great, but there was a wow factor when viewing slides properly. Personally, while the Polaroid format is fun and simple, I think the image quality sucks, even at best. Some of the old black & white Polaroid images were kind of close to what you could get with a black and white print, but never mind if you want something any larger than those practically wallet-sized photos. Of course, there was the larger 8"x10" Polaroid film that studio photographers used for testing shots with their view cameras, but that was not much of a viable format for mass consumption. The 8"x10" Polaroid concept is interesting, though:
us.polaroid.com/collections/film-for-polaroid-8x10-camera...
There's a unique and different "feel" to the tones of these large Polaroid images.
If there is an "absolute truth" in photography, it's transparencies or Polaroid photos; after that, "truth" starts to get fuzzier, and farther into the rearview mirror, it becomes.
There's a huge amount I could say about film processing, specifically with Ansel Adam's "Zone System" and the many manipulations that can be done in the darkroom, but we're mostly talking digital here in the 21st Century.
When a digital photo is opened in a viewer or processing program on our computers, there are algorithms that do a very good job of rendering a reasonable version of the image. However, that is in no way, shape, or form an "absolute truth," like a transparency or Polaroid photograph. Once a digital file is open, the result is a best guess as to what the scene should look like. In modern digital cameras, especially raw files, millions of pieces of data are not used in that best guess. If a photographer is happy with the algorithm's best guess, that's fine. Some photographers have a little more imagination than that, which is when things can get interesting.
Digital manipulations can be as simple as brightness and lightness but move on to a symphony of tonal, color, geometrical, and textural adjustments. These are things that are not possible with a transparency or Polaroid image.
You might want to clone out (touch up) sensor dust spots and move on to other distracting elements. Removing a stray paper cup in a landscape photo is a "gotta do" thing for me. Patrolling the borders for contrasty objects and cloning them out is always part of my workflow. Removing unnecessary and distracting leading lines is another thing that helps keep the viewer's eye on the subject. While I am opposed to adding objects to my photos (which might be a fine idea for others), I will often extend the canvas as a reverse cropping technique. I've been using Photoshop since around 1997-98 and have developed some fun ways of going about my manipulations. For me, I try to stick to reality (for the most part). However, focus-stacked images are technical, collages with jigsaw-shaped parts of multiple images merged and blended in a way that doesn't look like a collage.
I am a colossal computer nerd and experience joy in learning new photo manipulation skills. However, you don't have to go that far to take advantage of many helpful manipulation techniques. Learning to clone out distracting dust or other objects is essential and easy. Understanding how to manipulate shadows and highlight details without making the image look fake is also easy. Correcting wonky geometry isn't hard and can go a long way to changing a snapshot into to a real photo. Most importantly, becoming even halfway proficient at these techniques will help you better compose what's in your camera's viewfinder.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with letting jpeg compression, combined with a computer's automatic image creation algorithm, do all your thinking for you. However, I am particularly skeptical of any assumption that a "straight out of the camera" image is absolute. Those processes are all presuppositional; the only absolute thing about them is that they are optional.
It's always interesting to read how photographers understand photography and go about taking/making photographs so thank you for sharing your approach in such depth and detail.
But reading you I can't avoid noticing what seem to be strong contradictions
Teddy Alfrey:
At the same time you admire Ansel Adams who manipulated every single aspect from capture to print. So based on your statement, would he violate the essence of photography in doing so?
What is the difference between a digital preset applied internally by the camera to delivered a cooked jpg or tiff... or in the computer by an image processor, or the new one button magic AI plugins vs the stand developing happening inside the polaroid cartridge or the particular photosensitive response of the built in chemistry in the slide? Because I don't see any, both are film and digital equivalents to "straight out of camera" eliminating the human manipulation... but the result image is predetermined by an analog or digital processing curve.
I have come to the understanding (my understanding) that there are 4 separate, easily identifiable stages in the process of creating an image.
1 - Visualization and Planning - Valuable when present but not always necessary. Perhaps visualization is always present, even if so fast like when taking snapshots. Far from saying that all snapshots are good or worthy, I do believe one can develop through long practice a sense and instinct that proves successful. The conscious mind does not intervene other than pressing the shutter.
2 - Recording the image - Usually with a camera, film or digital, but scanners, xerox, or any other instrument or process to record an image on a photosensitive medium is as valid. That alone opens the doors to the infinite and beyond. Some methods allow for control and manipulation, camera settings, chemistry, filters, etc. Others may not.
3 - Image development and processing - Three options here,
a) you do it, digital or analog darkroom,
b) the camera does it for you. You know and accept this before hand and try to use it to your favor.
c) the computer does it for you. Presets, plugins, AI. Same as above.
4 - Printing on a physical media - probably less and less common. Most photographers stop at instagram these days. I know I'm not.
So honestly, is it necessary to master and control all 4 steps to merit call ourselves "photographers". Do all good images need to reach a physical form on the media of choice before they can be legitimately considered a "photograph"? (I used to think so years ago, not anymore)
I pointed you to Daido Moriyama, arguably the most famous contemporary photographer in Japan, because he proves that all 4 steps can be left to the instruments, algorithms, standard chemistries, film characteristics, camera's program mode, etc.
He only engages in letting his perception (not his intelligence or mind) decide on the composition or when to press the trigger. He takes snapshots.
But reading you I can't avoid noticing what seem to be strong contradictions
Teddy Alfrey: The second closest thing you will ever get to a "real" photo is a transparency/slide. The closest is the Polaroid instant camera format or something like that.
At the same time you admire Ansel Adams who manipulated every single aspect from capture to print. So based on your statement, would he violate the essence of photography in doing so?
What is the difference between a digital preset applied internally by the camera to delivered a cooked jpg or tiff... or in the computer by an image processor, or the new one button magic AI plugins vs the stand developing happening inside the polaroid cartridge or the particular photosensitive response of the built in chemistry in the slide? Because I don't see any, both are film and digital equivalents to "straight out of camera" eliminating the human manipulation... but the result image is predetermined by an analog or digital processing curve.
I have come to the understanding (my understanding) that there are 4 separate, easily identifiable stages in the process of creating an image.
1 - Visualization and Planning - Valuable when present but not always necessary. Perhaps visualization is always present, even if so fast like when taking snapshots. Far from saying that all snapshots are good or worthy, I do believe one can develop through long practice a sense and instinct that proves successful. The conscious mind does not intervene other than pressing the shutter.
2 - Recording the image - Usually with a camera, film or digital, but scanners, xerox, or any other instrument or process to record an image on a photosensitive medium is as valid. That alone opens the doors to the infinite and beyond. Some methods allow for control and manipulation, camera settings, chemistry, filters, etc. Others may not.
3 - Image development and processing - Three options here,
a) you do it, digital or analog darkroom,
b) the camera does it for you. You know and accept this before hand and try to use it to your favor.
c) the computer does it for you. Presets, plugins, AI. Same as above.
4 - Printing on a physical media - probably less and less common. Most photographers stop at instagram these days. I know I'm not.
So honestly, is it necessary to master and control all 4 steps to merit call ourselves "photographers". Do all good images need to reach a physical form on the media of choice before they can be legitimately considered a "photograph"? (I used to think so years ago, not anymore)
I pointed you to Daido Moriyama, arguably the most famous contemporary photographer in Japan, because he proves that all 4 steps can be left to the instruments, algorithms, standard chemistries, film characteristics, camera's program mode, etc.
He only engages in letting his perception (not his intelligence or mind) decide on the composition or when to press the trigger. He takes snapshots.
Regarding Daido Moriyama ... you may not have noticed we have our own Daido here in Weekly
I really appreciate and admire your street photography Glen Snyder
I really appreciate and admire your street photography Glen Snyder
ferlopez:Regarding your comment about my "contradictions,":
It looks like I did not word that sentence correctly. My point was the opposite of what I believe supposed to be that a slide or Polaroid image is a finished photo with no post-processing possible, and any manipulations must occur in camera. You can push process Ektachromes, but in the 1980s, there were only forty Kodak labs, in the US where Kodachrome film could be processed. Unless you try some kind of bizarre home-brew process, you can't develop your own Kodachrome slides. While that can result in some very disciplined camera work, a transparency or Polaroid image is a dead-end finished product. You can't enlarge Polaroid photos, and the only way you can view larger versions of any transparency was to put it into a projector. Of course, the magazine folks (Life, National Geographic, etc. prefer slides to create their printed images (My uncle ran a four-color press at R.R. Donnely's that printed National Geographic, among other magazines).
My meaning was supposed to convey that a slide or a polaroid print is as close as you're going to get to an "absolute truth" photo (from the paragraph below), but that's not necessarily a good thing and is ALWAYS a very limiting procedure.
Other photographers have told me more than once that SOOC images were an "absolute truth," and the more you manipulate them, the more dishonest (cheating) the photographer is. is- which is absolute B.S. and betrays complete ignorance of digital imagery.
IF a photographer gets consistently good results without post-processing, more power to them, and I think they shouldn't rock the boat by trying something different.
I'm sorry about my poorly crafted sentence!
One thing about Adams that I didn't mention, but I have discussed this the Ski before:
In my opinion, Ansel Adams went way overboard in his criticism of William Mortenson, calling him the "Anti-Christ." Mortenson is a master of heavy analog photographic manipulation, and I am a big fan of this guy.
www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/12/16/william-mortense...
Mortenson's "Off For the Sabbot" is one of the most beautiful photos I've ever seen:
newexhibitions.com/e/59015
His work is a little more painterly than I like to see, but see what you think, comparing Mortenson and Moriyama. I can't help but think that Moriyama is a William Mortenson fan.
I've got a lot more to say about your other comments, but I've got a real-life (I think!). Therefore I am going to walk across the IU campus and "take" some more pictures of that gorgeous I.M. Pei building a little more than a mile from here.
I'm a serious person, but I struggle not to say stupid things in an attempt at humor...
Teddy Alfrey: Oh wow... I wasn't familiar with Mortenson. I'll read more about him in detail, thanks for the links.This one is tremendous!!!
Not sure I can connect Daido Moriyama with what I see of him but he's certainly an explorer of the dark side, in line with Roger Ballen
ferlopez: Teddy Alfrey:Was following your conversation and, as usual, am learning a lot from you both. I ran across something today that kinda throws a wrench in the whole works. It left me wondering: "If this takes off, what will be the impact on photography?"
youtu.be/704brywiyfw
ferlopez:You're too kind, Fernando! Mostly accidents most of the time. I think the main thing we can do is encourage everyone in Weekly to take photos every day. It is hard because we don't ever meet face to face, to know how people receive criticism, but I hope no one gets discouraged from the comments and I hope that everyone keeps taking and sharing the kind of photos that make them most happy.
DrGregPhotos:Was following your conversation and, as usual, am learning a lot from you both. I ran across something today that kinda throws a wrench in the whole works. It left me wondering: "If this takes off, what will be the impact on photography?" youtu.be/704brywiyfw
Interesting, DrGregP.
Definitely not for me, but heyy, good luck to the AI makers and their customers. With regard using that AI app described there to make art, e.g. a painting, a total/v v near total expression of the artist's talent/self is what I at least want from art that will make me part with money. Which is why I rule myself out. But it's my personal choice, from a range of choices everyone has the freedom to make when it comes to making or buying art.
Thanks for the heads-up. Interesting.
jAm
ferlopez: ....some good links on Mortensen, I posted in the referenced conversation I had with Teddy in the "Favorite Photographers" thread about 6 months ago. Modern day post-processing has sparked new interest in his work. Bob Balcomb's book, Me And Mortensen goes into great detail on his fascinating process. www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/photographer-who-anse...
medium.com/stories-ive-been-meaning-to-tell-you/even-anse...
www.vintag.es/2016/11/grotesque-occult-and-erotic-images-...
www.williammortensen.com/
Me And Mortensen/
DrGregPhotos: Thanks for the link. The art world gets stranger and stranger. Personally, I keep waiting for a contact lens camera that I can place in my eye and then trip the shutter while aimed at anything and everything I see. When it comes, I'll still want to process the resulting images myself. Naturally, I will give proper credit to the assisting computers and A.I. software ;-)
I have enjoyed and learned from several PIXIMPERFECT videos. That guy is great at concisely explaining Photoshop techniques, including the "what fors." He sometimes explains software outside of Photoshop, which I always find interesting. Maybe, this is a mean thing to say and not politically correct, and I fear my sense of humor might not translate well, but his efficiency, eloquence, fun sets, and chiseled looks can almost make you wonder if he is an AI construct, like "Max Headroom." My apologies to Unmesh Dinda. He is one of my favorite YouTube hosts!
"His Master's Voice" is a science fiction novel by the great Polish author Stanislaw Lem. It deals with humanity/scientists having to figure out what to do with neutrino messages from a distant extraterrestrial civilization and the unpleasant results. Carl Sagan's "Contact" borrows from this idea.
Lem's novel is based on what happens when we encounter extraterrestrial intelligence; however, after watching this video and other things I've read about the advances of computer science and informatics that may allow the creation of a sentient (or something more complicated than sentient) Artificial Intelligence (A.I.).
Replace extraterrestrial with earthbound artificial intelligence in "His Master's Voice," and an interesting analogy could be arrived at with the pitfalls and unpredicted consequences of this new, exciting, and foreboding A.I. technology.
I believe "His Master's Voice" is still part of the RCA Victor product branding with that phrase accompanying an image of a dog, quizzically staring into an old-time phonograph horn, thinking his master was in the horn.
At first glance, in the Dinda video, it certainly looks like the "Midjourney" software can already create useable illustrations, and all graphic designers ought to be worried. I doubt that creating photographs that are indistinguishable from those created by humans with cameras (better than photorealistic) is possible with the current version of this software. It looks like it's not very far off and might be less than five years away.
With chess-playing computers, IBM's "Deep Blue" beat Gary Kasparov with two wins and three draws in 1997. Kasparov later had draws in two matches with a computer. Fast forward to last year (2022) when a computer won against a Japanese grand master. (I had to look up this stuff in Wikipedia)
There were draws involved in that 2022 stand-off, so it's not exactly like the computer trounced a human, but it still took 25 years for a computer to compete against a human effectively. Eventually, there will be a computer program that is undefeatable in chess.
I would imagine that the first versions of software that can create images, where a user can answer questions about the subject, age, scene, style, etc., and the resulting photograph is indistinguishable from what a human with a camera can create, will be very interesting and there probably will be beautiful results. I think it will take longer than the software designers would like before this kind of program can create photos that are consistently better (who really knows what "better" means in this regard) than humans.
Maybe, I'm too much of an optimist, but I would guess this would take longer than ten years from when computers reliably create photos that are indistinguishable from humans. But I would argue, "Just how good can a photograph be? Why wouldn't even the best A.I. simply be another good/great photographer?"
I often wonder what will happen when A.I. can create music. I fear or eagerly anticipate that an A.I. will create music so beautiful that it would be impossible for a human to create. Maybe, only deaf people will be immune to the siren software as the hearing wither away from starvation as they can't be drawn away from the hypnotic trap of hyper-music.
The future will hold many surprises, and maybe artificial intelligence is the next evolutionary step for humanity, as humans rot on a limb, like the shell of a cicada nymph.
DrGregPhotos:
jamelikat:
ski 9:
"His Master's Voice" is a science fiction novel by the great Polish author Stanislaw Lem. It deals with humanity/scientists having to figure out what to do with neutrino messages from a distant extraterrestrial civilization and the unpleasant results. Carl Sagan's "Contact" borrows from this idea.
Lem's novel is based on what happens when we encounter extraterrestrial intelligence; however, after watching this video and other things I've read about the advances of computer science and informatics that may allow the creation of a sentient (or something more complicated than sentient) Artificial Intelligence (A.I.).
Replace extraterrestrial with earthbound artificial intelligence in "His Master's Voice," and an interesting analogy could be arrived at with the pitfalls and unpredicted consequences of this new, exciting, and foreboding A.I. technology.
I believe "His Master's Voice" is still part of the RCA Victor product branding with that phrase accompanying an image of a dog, quizzically staring into an old-time phonograph horn, thinking his master was in the horn.
At first glance, in the Dinda video, it certainly looks like the "Midjourney" software can already create useable illustrations, and all graphic designers ought to be worried. I doubt that creating photographs that are indistinguishable from those created by humans with cameras (better than photorealistic) is possible with the current version of this software. It looks like it's not very far off and might be less than five years away.
With chess-playing computers, IBM's "Deep Blue" beat Gary Kasparov with two wins and three draws in 1997. Kasparov later had draws in two matches with a computer. Fast forward to last year (2022) when a computer won against a Japanese grand master. (I had to look up this stuff in Wikipedia)
There were draws involved in that 2022 stand-off, so it's not exactly like the computer trounced a human, but it still took 25 years for a computer to compete against a human effectively. Eventually, there will be a computer program that is undefeatable in chess.
I would imagine that the first versions of software that can create images, where a user can answer questions about the subject, age, scene, style, etc., and the resulting photograph is indistinguishable from what a human with a camera can create, will be very interesting and there probably will be beautiful results. I think it will take longer than the software designers would like before this kind of program can create photos that are consistently better (who really knows what "better" means in this regard) than humans.
Maybe, I'm too much of an optimist, but I would guess this would take longer than ten years from when computers reliably create photos that are indistinguishable from humans. But I would argue, "Just how good can a photograph be? Why wouldn't even the best A.I. simply be another good/great photographer?"
I often wonder what will happen when A.I. can create music. I fear or eagerly anticipate that an A.I. will create music so beautiful that it would be impossible for a human to create. Maybe, only deaf people will be immune to the siren software as the hearing wither away from starvation as they can't be drawn away from the hypnotic trap of hyper-music.
The future will hold many surprises, and maybe artificial intelligence is the next evolutionary step for humanity, as humans rot on a limb, like the shell of a cicada nymph.
DrGregPhotos: jamelikat: ski 9:
Contrary to popular belief, hopes, fears or expectations, there is no such a thing as "intelligence" in "artificial intelligence"
The only intelligence is in those humans designing the massive databases with data to query and sample from, the logical algorithms, and the ultra powerful computers where they run.
Basically, artificial intelligence are scripts that search a gigantic database and find existing or create new results by associations and filters and logic rules of the type "if you find this then do that, otherwise..." etc. Tremendous computing power allow results to be obtained very quickly giving the impression of something very smart on the other side.
In certain way, AI is very similar to the "Jelly Bean Jar" experiment you may be familiar with. The most accurate way to count the beans in the jar is to open the jar and count them, but that is tedious and takes a long time. Centuries ago someone figured out in England that showing the closed jar to enough people and asking them to guess the quantity, would provide a fairly accurate approximation. Simple statistical analysis.
I took some time to play with Midjourney, it is kind of fun. Unfortunately the trial expired. Here are some samples after a few random keywords. You can easily see the strong influence of Japanese brush strokes or anime graphics when looking at everyone's examples. That tells a pattern on the sampling images on the database that are later combined as layers.
The only intelligence is in those humans designing the massive databases with data to query and sample from, the logical algorithms, and the ultra powerful computers where they run.
Basically, artificial intelligence are scripts that search a gigantic database and find existing or create new results by associations and filters and logic rules of the type "if you find this then do that, otherwise..." etc. Tremendous computing power allow results to be obtained very quickly giving the impression of something very smart on the other side.
In certain way, AI is very similar to the "Jelly Bean Jar" experiment you may be familiar with. The most accurate way to count the beans in the jar is to open the jar and count them, but that is tedious and takes a long time. Centuries ago someone figured out in England that showing the closed jar to enough people and asking them to guess the quantity, would provide a fairly accurate approximation. Simple statistical analysis.
I took some time to play with Midjourney, it is kind of fun. Unfortunately the trial expired. Here are some samples after a few random keywords. You can easily see the strong influence of Japanese brush strokes or anime graphics when looking at everyone's examples. That tells a pattern on the sampling images on the database that are later combined as layers.
Teddy Alfrey: all of that already exists and is being used for example in the movies industry.Here's an AI music generating app you can try for free
soundraw.io
And here's the video with "artificially generated actors" explaining the whole thing:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw-zxQSEzqo
ferlopez:"The Unexpected Lesson Within A Jelly Bean Jar" is an interesting article, and there is truth in it. However, I cringe a little with this article citing Francis Galton, the "Father of Eugenics." For those who don't know, Eugenics is a racist pseudoscience and the argument used for the wholesale slaughter of millions of people by Adolf Hitler and his minions.
Galton believed the human race needed to be improved by regulating marriage and producing superior offspring. Of course, nobody's perfect, Margaret Sanger flirted with eugenics, and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Galton was also one of the creators of scientific meteorology, and his methodology laid the groundwork for some of the most advanced data processing of our time- climate models.
There is a very interesting concept called "The Logic of Research Questions," which was initially used in evolution research, shining a harsh light on methodological adaptationism. There's "null hypothesis" stuff with LRQ, but the main thing I'm driving at is, what exactly are the questions we are asking when we think about how Artificial Intelligence is arrived at and/or defined?
The jelly bean question, when applied to A.I. discussions, is about how quantities are correctly arrived at by using previously compiled data. There's an often used and derogatory term, "bean counter." Administrators who are only interested in counting heads and dollars and not regarding other essential situations or goals are "bean counters."
Is the only thing we want to consider with A.I. is its ability to count things? What other questions could be asked about the jar of jelly beans? While the number of people in a population is an undeniably important thing to consider, there are more questions about those people than how many there are.
It's anybody's guess what will happen with A.I.. Religious people will likely have a specific opinion about it, regarding the concept of a soul. More secularly minded people will see human brains as more complex than any computers designed so far, but eventually, computers will become sentient.
The education I have had, especially my interest in science, suggests that ethics and a sense of right and wrong evolved. I used to think that this was an "adaptation." Now I wonder if human ethics are evolutionary "byproducts" or "spandrels."- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)
As a child, I adored Isaac Asimov's "Robot Novels." "I, Robot" sets forth the Three Laws of Robotics- "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."
I believe that once we get close to developing Artificial Intelligence, somebody ought to build in some kind of ethics, like Isaac Asimov's three laws. Whatever ethical/right-wrong traits we have as humans evolved over hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of years. Artificial Intelligence will probably become perfected soon. Charles Babbage's "Difference Engine" was built in the 1820s, and here it is in the 2020s. Maybe, the bicentennial of the computer will bring the first Artificial Intelligence. I hope somebody pays attention before a switch is thrown to bring the whole thing into sentience.
Teddy Alfrey: I would love to sit with you and talk philosophy, futurology, and a shared passion for Asimov.Remember it was R.Daneel Olivaw who realized the need of a Zero Law above the first three you've mentioned, humanity comes before the individual lives. He also established the basis for the science of "Psychohistory" fully developed thousands of years later by Hari Seldon in the Foundation series. Asimov was brilliant, imho, as brilliant as Einstein or Stephen Hawking.
Everything he imagined has already become true, is being developed now, or will most probably become true in the future.
Curiously enough, nobody seems to have taken the concept of Psychohistory seriously. I find it not just true and feasible, but fascinating. It is no more than what we're talking about here, the Jelly Bean Jar on Steroids, and gives an idea of all the possible answers to your question... what else could we ask from the Jelly Bean Jar?
Big Data has been collecting human behavioral data for the las decade. The jar is full of beans already and keeps filling up day by day.
I do agree with you computers might become sentient. But not what we know today as "AI".
The revolution will start when your phone or tablet become a portable terminal to a network of quantum computers. We're almost there. I don't really think quantum computers will reach the complexity of neurons in the human brain, but the next generation of computers will be designed and manufactured by quantum computers. These will have the complexity we can't imagine and then some form of consciousness may emerge.
Asimov never imagined quantum computers, their computing power and speed. So the evolutional timeline hi imagined expands over 20 thousand years. I would expect quantum computers to radically change the paradigms we live by as soon as the next 50 to 100 years.
But by then, the moon will be heavily mined. It's mass will be eventually reduced to the point of breaking its stationary orbit. That scares me much more than sentient AIs.
Lots of good info to explore in your comments. But we've drifted off-topic.
So let's embrace the Borg collective and enter this contest...
fstoppers.com/critique-community/ai-prompt-art
Resistance is futile...
ferlopez:Remember that R. Daniel Olivaw was the model for Star Trek's Data, with his positronic brain.
Interestingly, this conversation is mainly about artificial intelligence creating photos that might be indistinguishable from those of human photographers. R. Daneel Olivaw was the first robot that was indistinguishable from humans.
But we should not forget R. Giskard Reventlov, the less than human looking but...
A friend, who is an expert on Charles Darwin, was assisting on a project in the Indiana University Informatics department where they were trying to create an A.I. Darwin
All of his writing, (which is a lot!), including his letters and notes scribbled in the margins of all his documents. My friend was trying to describe to me how the sentences accumulate. One sentence can be used as a rudimentary kind of A.I. and as more sentences accumulate, the A.I. becomes more... interesting. Some wild suppositions can be developed just using an emphasis on the syntax of a single sentence, turning it into a model and have it interact with other models that might be sentences, complete paragarphs, or even books.
Focused 001: After a brief conversation, I quickly learned that Blender Bot 3 still has a lot to learn....though apparently it is well versed on Mr. Zuckerberg and his intent. Teddy Alfrey: ferlopez:Very interesting discussion and, based on it, I'm confident A.I. can claim its proper place in the world of didactic art ;-)
Focused 001: there is some truth to it. The AI algorithm statistically averages what people are sharing on facebook about the topic you ask... so the bot's opinion is a good indicator of facebook users opinions or the content shared on facebook posts, like a news article shared 10 thousand times weights that many times over a single individual's true opinion.Same goes for the orange hair guy who's convinced that real life is no more than another tv reality show and he deserves a place of honor in history as stronger than Arnold Schwarzenegger, more handsome than Brad Pitt, more charismatic than Leonardo DiCaprio, and the most president of all presidents in his country, continent, world, galaxy, universe and the multiverse. Some say he is convinced he can sing and dance better than Madonna too.
Are online persona a true reflection of people's real attitudes and beliefs ? Will it not be biased in favour of heavy users of social media ? I suspect a bot based on that foundation will reflect a narrow and facile world view. An interesting experiment but of little practical use and dangerous if people begin believing that it is truly intelligent and reflects a considered and reasonable viewpoint of the general population.
P.S. A perfect example of the GIGO principle.
ferlopez:
P.S. A perfect example of the GIGO principle.
ferlopez:
Including photographers who don't understand English will offer a useful wrinkle on our discussions. I only speak English, despite many efforts to learn a second language, so I'm not about to be unwelcoming to those who don't speak English.
It would be cool if Flickr offered a translate button, but it's easy enough to copy and paste any non-English text into something like Google Translate. Doing so will also be a good exercise for older brains like mine.
I'm guessing that you two are of a like mind on this, except maybe you guys aren't old:
TokyoZenPoetry:
olivieri_paolo:
It would be cool if Flickr offered a translate button, but it's easy enough to copy and paste any non-English text into something like Google Translate. Doing so will also be a good exercise for older brains like mine.
I'm guessing that you two are of a like mind on this, except maybe you guys aren't old:
TokyoZenPoetry: olivieri_paolo:
Teddy Alfrey: olivieri_paolo:That would be super cool, if there were a translate button, Teddy!
I don't want to suggest something what would make things more complicated, just more welcoming to perhaps a wider group of photographers. Maybe if the rules were presented in several languages, and would state that "Contributors are required to rate photos with "Keeper" or "Freeflight" in English.
Even presenting the rules in several languages, and stating that comments should also be left in English or multilingual (English + some other language). I think would be helpful. Sometimes I see photos submitted and then dropped because the contributor from a non-English speaking country does not agree to the rules. Perhaps because they are not interested in actually joining, but perhaps it is due to language issues.
By the way, regarding the question of what is a keeper? If you put "keeper" into Google Translate, you'll will get a translation along the lines of "housekeeper, goalkeeper, or custodian, or guardian" (as opposed to something that you wish to be kept). So a simple Google Translate (or DeepL translation) of the Weekly Rules is not adequate. Toss in FreeFlight and maybe some will think the discussion is about choosing between custodians or free airline tickets. I can see how those who are not confident in their English and maybe do not trust machine translation, might therefore want to include their photo critiques both in machine translated English plus whatever language they feel most expressive in just in case. I know some will disagree, but as long as there is a "Keeper" or "Freeflight" in the comment, I don't see how language used in the comments should be that big an issue.
TokyoZenPoetry:It would be cool to have a button, but that would be up to the Flickr web designers and not something the admins could implement. However, each time a photo is added to its "week number," an initial and top comment could be input with a link to Google Translate with some boilerplate about how to use it. Maybe even some text about "we welcome non-English speaking photographers. Feel free to use this Google Translate link!" Not that I want to add more work for the admins!
The English and other languages topic has been raised by the Admins on a periodic basis over the years. We've stuck with English so far.
Flickr has expanded its marketing efforts in recent years and, consequently, language is a more relevant topic than ever. I like the idea of adding a message and a link to Google Translate in our "Welcome to Weekly" message, and will put something together to show the other Admins/Moderators.
Thanks
TokyoZenPoetry:
Teddy Alfrey:
Flickr has expanded its marketing efforts in recent years and, consequently, language is a more relevant topic than ever. I like the idea of adding a message and a link to Google Translate in our "Welcome to Weekly" message, and will put something together to show the other Admins/Moderators.
Thanks
TokyoZenPoetry: Teddy Alfrey:
Jörg Schäfer: Yes, this is an increasing trend. Although the rules of the group don't mandate a keeper or freeflight vote, we do encourage them, for the reasons you've stated, and as discussed previously in this thread. A related concern is images that will likely be freeflighted nearly always receive fewer comments than keeper images. This has always been the case, and it is a shame. After so many years here, I feel comfortable stating that the chief reasons for abstaining or simply not commenting, (in lieu of posting a freefllight vote) are: 1) not wanting to be unkind 2) not feeling sufficiently qualified to go on record with a negative reaction 3) Not wanting to be the only dissenter. All understandable. Though I don't see abstaining as desirable, the comments accompanying an abstention are preferable to passing on commenting at all. That said, thoughtful freeflight votes are preferred to abstaining.
I frequently use abstains or not commenting for two reasons:
1- If a photographer's "brand" uses a particular style or consistent processing technique that is obviously and deliberately part of their artistic interpretation.
I don't want to rain on someone's parade simply because I find their "brand" to be something that I find unpleasant. The heavy over-sharpening in many photos I see on Flickr (but oddly not much from other places) may be the future wave. I doubt it, though. Regardless, if a photographer is clearly invested in a particular process and nearly always uses it in their photos, I doubt my criticism will make any difference.
2- Images that are so small it's not possible to evaluate them. Reducing the size of an image to hide flaws that would otherwise be a cause for freeflight judgments on a larger version is no way to practice being a good photographer. If I were to reduce the size of my images as much as ten times so that focusing problems are no longer apparent, I could increase my output by more than ten. However, I have never outright accused a photographer of this kind of deceit and simply give them the benefit of the doubt that they simply didn't consider the problems with images that are very small.
However, after reading the past couple of comments, I am considering no longer using "abstain" or not commenting and always using "Keeper" or "Freeflight." That is, except for one thing...
I agree with olivieri_paolo:' s comment about using an abstention if a photo "left you puzzled." When something like that happens, commenting about what's "puzzling' about a photo would be very useful for both the photographer and those reading the comments. An abstention would work, but it could be something like, "I don't know what to say about this yet. Possibly, others will help me decide how I should vote."
Lastly- I don't exactly want to give two Freeflights when a photographer submits two photos in a single week, but I might consider it.
1- If a photographer's "brand" uses a particular style or consistent processing technique that is obviously and deliberately part of their artistic interpretation.
I don't want to rain on someone's parade simply because I find their "brand" to be something that I find unpleasant. The heavy over-sharpening in many photos I see on Flickr (but oddly not much from other places) may be the future wave. I doubt it, though. Regardless, if a photographer is clearly invested in a particular process and nearly always uses it in their photos, I doubt my criticism will make any difference.
2- Images that are so small it's not possible to evaluate them. Reducing the size of an image to hide flaws that would otherwise be a cause for freeflight judgments on a larger version is no way to practice being a good photographer. If I were to reduce the size of my images as much as ten times so that focusing problems are no longer apparent, I could increase my output by more than ten. However, I have never outright accused a photographer of this kind of deceit and simply give them the benefit of the doubt that they simply didn't consider the problems with images that are very small.
However, after reading the past couple of comments, I am considering no longer using "abstain" or not commenting and always using "Keeper" or "Freeflight." That is, except for one thing...
I agree with
olivieri_paolo:' s comment about using an abstention if a photo "left you puzzled." When something like that happens, commenting about what's "puzzling' about a photo would be very useful for both the photographer and those reading the comments. An abstention would work, but it could be something like, "I don't know what to say about this yet. Possibly, others will help me decide how I should vote."Lastly- I don't exactly want to give two Freeflights when a photographer submits two photos in a single week, but I might consider it.
Teddy Alfrey: olivieri_paolo:Thank you for bringing clarity to a topic that we've been flirting with in recent comments here in weekly.
It happens to all of us, sooner or later we face a style that we strongly and consistently dislike for one or another reason. Then we face the need to make a difficult decision, ignore this photographer's submissions or freeflight all of them. None of the options makes much sense or feel right, or satisfying. If I told any of you oversharpened - freeflight to each of your submissions, it wouldn't be productive, I would certainly annoy you, and eventually someone might leave Weekly in desperate need for fresher airs.
If you've read my comments on the topic of commenting and voting, I often suggest things like "remove yourself from your critiques". This sounds quite impossible, and maybe it is impossible, but at least we can (and I think we should) try.
You know YOU don't like certain processing style.
Once you've said it enough times, we all know that YOU don't like it.
Here is when you have an opportunity for growth, a choice to make.
You can embrace and defend your taste as it is now.
Or you can give yourself the chance to let go of what you obviously don't like and perhaps learn how to look at the image in other ways, find another meanings so far invisible to your eyes. But this is only possible if you agree to, make the internal decision and full commitment to "stop seeing" the processing style. This is of course difficult, it takes time.
The same applies to any other "technical defects"
What you perceive as defect, is quite often an intentional technique properly used to reach a particular goal. It is not just the aesthetics, quite often without it the narrative is lost. Or the feeling.
Famous artists like Salvador Dali and Luis Buñuel knew this at a very early age. They had a message for the world that challenged the aesthetic standards of the time. They had to find a way to train the public on how to look at their work, in a very different way, so they could like it.
In 1929 they collaborated and created this short film. Look up the title in google and you'll find ways to watch it for free.
It was the early days of film but also surrealism and people were not ready, or were they?
The film had no plot, no script, no rules, no structures.
They did not know where the film would take them, or how long would it be.
The scenes were based on dreams and visions both of them had.
They wanted to share these visions without the interference of their own minds, therefore the lack of a plot or a story. No analysis, just raw images and the feelings they carried.
They removed themselves from their creation, yet the creation was all about themselves.
Arguably the most striking scene, still today almost a century later, is when the guy cuts the girls eye with a razor blade. But only after that she is able to see everything that comes after.
Cut your eyes wide open so you can see what's invisible to you
Stop seeing so you can "see"
Not long ago I shared an image of two of my cats rolled up on my bed,
The discussion thread can be accessed on the following link:
www.flickr.com/groups/weekly/discuss/72157721916913014?new
The image did well in the end but there was some freeflights due to "technical flaws"
others might even reject the image as a bad cat portrait or because pet photos are boring.
My answer was a question... what to you start seeing once you stop seeing the "flaws", or the "cats", or the "pet" ?
Far from trying to compare my silly cats photo with the great masters, I humbly try to open up to possibilities of expression that are not easy for someone like me, so conditioned by strong opinions and an extremely curious and analytical mind. Letting go of all that to allow for other things to manifest has been one of the most challenging things for me.
It wouldn't be possible for me to visualize and create my false color infrared renditions of the forests if I had not committed and engaged on this practice of "letting go so I can see" for example. Letting go of those structures of thought not only allow you to find new forms of value, but most important, as an artist, or amateur, to find or manifest new ways of expression.
olivieri_paolo: ferlopez:I am reasonably familiar with painting styles and art history in general. I believe I have a pretty good appreciation for many of the more interesting artists and what they do. I am a particular fan of both Dali, Buñuel, the Da-Da movement and Surrealism. I also enjoy Bauhaus and find the concepts to be some of the most profound I've ever encountered. Wassily Kandinsky's "Point and Line To Plane" changed my thoughts about images and art. I am not a stranger to and am always welcoming to, new ideas in art, photography, music, science, literature, politics, etc.
All through the late 1960s, I was enamored by the paintings of Dali, as many of my generation. I appreciated Picasso but didn't think he held a candle to Dali. Somewhere in my 40s, I began noticing that I found more profound and satisfying enjoyment in Picasso. I don't know how many viewings of Picasso/Dali prints and museum visits it took, but the tide shifted. The beginning of that trend happened while at the Art Institute in Chicago, somewhere in the late early 1980s, when I stood in front of Picasso's "The Old Guitarist." I've always known that there was a ghostly figure of a young man behind the old man but always assumed it was an older image bleeding through that of the old man. However, when I looked up and saw that that young man's figure was cut into the paint with a pallet knife, it was a revelation!
I'm a lover of Vincent Van Gogh, but It took me close to ten years to read "Dear Theo" by Irving Stone. To read his letters to his brother was so heartbreaking that I could only do a few chapters a year. I've seen many Van Gogh paintings in museums and have always enjoyed them, but once I saw "The Starry Night" at MoMA for the first time, I was lucky enough to see it on a day where it was brightly lit, and it was at that point where I first really knew the color blue. It was like a hole into another dimension, and I had to hold back tears. The people standing next to me were gasping and uttering a couple of "Oh my god!"s. I've visited MoMA several times after and have yet to see "Starry Night" lit like that since. I guess they don't want too much light on it very often.
I visited the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy, and was very surprised by how much I enjoyed the Gothic Paintings with the inlaid gold. I was particularly struck by the "Annunciation" by Simone Martini and Lippo Memmi. The eyes of the angel Gabriel and the etched words coming out of his mouth toward the Madonna were breathtaking!
I pretty much agree with everything you had to say (I think!). I just have a little-less "anything goes" attitude about art and photography than you do.
I'm pretty sure I get what you mean when you say, "Stop seeing so you can 'see'," but that phrasing is unfortunate. It is kind of cute but brings to mind "The Emperor's New Clothes."
"Not only were the colors and the patterns of their material extraordinarily beautiful, but the cloth had the strange quality of being invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office or unforgivably stupid. 'This is truly marvelous,' thought the emperor!”- Hans Christian Anderson
Stop seeing the distracting elements in a photograph. Does anybody really care about that trash can in the foreground?
Stop seeing that an image or geometry is crooked. Who cares if that crookedness has absolutely nothing to the composition or story?
Stop seeing that an image is out-of-focus. Besides, the photographer can cover it up with over-sharpening artifacts; nobody will see that, either!
Stop seeing lousy photographic processes and techniques. You should always wish the photographer was better than they are, and it helps to squint your eyes, so you don't see too much.
It's not cool to notice that stuff! Look beyond a photographer's laziness or lack of skill, and you will indeed see that their photographs are fantastic!
I don't believe that's what you meant by the stuff above when you say, "Stop seeing so you can 'see'." I get what you mean and agree that you have to work at appreciating any art, and the more different or unusual a work of art is, the more work it takes to understand it.
I sometimes think about a quote from 1898's "The Explorer":
"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges -- Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"- Rudyard Kipling
The word look is crucial in this quote. I've often heard, "don't look, see!" and is similar to your "Stop seeing so you can 'see'." In Kipling's case, it's not so much "looking" as is to search like an explorer. It's an active process, "Go and find it. Go and look..."
Dare I use the word "quest"?
I believe this perfectly describes the active, not passive, process of "seeing," "feeling," knowing, and enlightenment.
(This is also at the beginning of Guy Maddin's "Careful")