PDA

View Full Version : art or no?



Henry
January 13th, 2010, 12:02
these are just a few people
who have inspired me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Henry_Emerson


Peter Henry Emerson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Peter Henry Emerson (1856–1936) was a British photographer. His photographs are early examples of promoting photography as an art form. He is known for taking photographs that displayed natural settings.

Emerson was born in Cuba to a British mother and an American father. He spent most of his youth in New England. He moved to England in 1869 where Emerson was schooled at Cranleigh School, and subsequently attended King's College London, before switching to Clare College, Cambridge, where he earned his medical degree in 1885.[1] The next year, he abandoned his career as a surgeon and became a photographer and writer. He made many pictures of rural life in the East Anglian fenlands. He published eight books of his work through the next ten years, but did not release anything else after the turn of the century. He died in Falmouth in 1936.

During his life Emerson fought against the British Photographic establishment and the popularity of the tradition of manipulation of many photographs to produce one image, a form that was pioneered by O. G. Reijlander and Henry Peach Robinson. Some of Robinson's photographs were of twenty or more separate photographs combined to produce one image. This allowed the production of images that, especially in early days, could not have been produced indoors in low light, but, in particular, it allowed for the creation of highly dramatic allegorical images. Emerson denounced this as false, and his own pictures were taken in a single shot.

Emerson also believed that the photograph should be a true representation of that which the eye saw. Following contemporary optical theories, he produced photographs with one area of sharp focus while the remainder was unsharp. This argument about the nature of seein and its representation in photography he pursued vehemently and to the discomfort of the photographic establishment.

Emerson also believed with a passion that photography was an art and not a mechanical reproduction. ON this point as well an argument with the establishment ensued, but Emerson found that his defense of photography as art failed, and he had to allow that photography was probably a form of mechanical reproduction. The pictures the Robinson school produced may have been "mechanical, but Emerson's may still be considered artistic, since they were not faithful reproductions of a scene but rather having depth as a result of his one-plane-sharp theory. When he lost the argument over the artistic nature of photography, Robinson did not publicise his photographic work but still continued to take photographs: a strange ending for a photographer whose pictures endorsed his argument so eloquently.


http://www.geh.org/ne/mismi2/emerson_sld00001.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Ray#Life_and_career

http://www.manray-photo.com/catalog_gp/index2.php?cPath=36&largeur=1680&sort=3a&page=1&osCsid=4ca2afa38e58e7be89d2550a4ff91f46

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson

http://www.afterimagegallery.com/bresson.htm
H

JorisVandenBerghe
January 13th, 2010, 12:45
Although I don't have the software yet for really creating HDR images, I do like them when they're done well. I do get some people's point when they say they don't like image manipulation (or photos made from different shots) - and the definition of that is very different to everyone.

To me basic edits like adjusting the contrast, brightness, exposure saturation, sharpness are the contemporary equivalent of developing a photo. Other edits like the levels/curves, changing the white-balance (something I rarely do) etc are less 'basic' ones. 'Des goûts et des couleurs...'

Thanks for creating this thread Henry, nice idea.

One thing most people will agree with I suppose: no matter how many rules there are in photography, never let your creativity be limited by them. If you think it looks good, make the photo.

For instance, a couple of my photos might be suitable for A.net or Jetphotos.net but especially for the former there are a lot of submission rules and I don't like quite a number of them. Limits like the aspect ratio (eg this one (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vdbj/4139885853/) is a 1:1 aspect ratio and subsequently not accepted), exposure, contrast, centering, etc. No offence, but in my opinion some are really...^*$€%ù@£. I'd rather upload them to Flickr which has a more personal approach as well and is more of a community.

And for anyone willing to upload to A.net, a hint; read the terms of use/service carefully...I'd rather suggest Jetphotos, to be honest.

EasyEd
January 13th, 2010, 17:17
Hey All,

Henry you list some of the classics. I took a 3 month course in photography followed by another 3 month course on the chemistry and physics of photography at University and I became very familiar with a number of the "classics" as well as a lot of the technical "stuff". One of the most enjoyable things in that class was learning who the "Masters" Were/Are and discussing their work.

I really miss meaningful discussion/critique of photographs whether mine or someone else's. Today everyone seems too have skin "too thin" for meaningful discussion - everyone takes it personal - when it really isn't. Sad in my opinion but that is the way it is.

But that is a tangent - getting back to classics I'll list a few more.

Yousuf Karsh - probably the greatest portrait photographer of all time. His images of Churchill, Hemingway, Kennedy, Einstein, Castro, etc, etc are absolute legend. Anybody who takes a portrait and is at serious about photography must (and I think must is the right word) study Karsh.

Ansel Adams - Probably considered the best landscape photographer of all time. I need say no more if you do landscapes you will know Ansel Adams.

Diane Arbus - mostly portraits but what an incredible eye for the bizarre.

Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston - I'm a fan of their landscape work.

Mathew Brady - historic photos.

I'm missing a few that I can't recall right now.

Suffice to say I think every photographer or photographer wannabe should find and study photos by some of the "Masters". In the names I have mentioned I think Karsh and Adams are two photographers every "photographer" should know. The lessons you can learn about composition, light and texture will stay with you through your entire photography life if you are open to learning.

There are other great photographers and that you can learn from but it'll be hard to recognize who they are if you don't understand the basics enough to recognize great work when you see it. By studying people like Karsh and Adams you'll learn to recognize those you truly can learn from.

To me the basics are 4 elements - composition, light, texture and color. How these work together define a Master. Color is the charlatan of the bunch in that it can hide a multitude of sins through its dominance in many photos.

In evaluating a photo I look at the photo as a whole and then at the four elements in the order I listed them. Note that color is last.

-Ed-

PS Henry have you ever seen the photo of folks at a Cartier-Bresson show looking at those little tiny prints he made. Funny!

Henry
January 13th, 2010, 17:37
Ed you are correct
i just mentioned a few
there are many more both you and i forgot
education and looking at pictures is the best way
cheers
H

djscoo
January 13th, 2010, 18:02
I took an Art-Appreciation course last semester, and we did a brief discussion on Photography as art. The teacher asked by show of hands who thought photography couldn't be art, and a surprising amount of people raised their hands. I've always had a sort of liberal view of what art is, but there is certainly beauty to be found in photography that is undeniably art.

My personal favorites are Edward Weston, Sally Mann, Ansel Adams, and Annie Leibovitz.

:ernae:

JorisVandenBerghe
January 14th, 2010, 03:51
Diane Arbus - mostly portraits but what an incredible eye for the bizarre.I remember reading about her in a magazine we had to read for school. I read it aloud in class and although it doesn't happen too often to me, I made a tiny mistake - reading Airbus instead of Arbus :kilroy:.