RPS distinctions

[Garry Edwards]

I think that a lot of early photographers did exactly what painters have always done, they left out what they didn't want to include and put in the things that they did.
Prior to Roger Fenton, all of the paintings that showed our army and navy in action showed our smart heroes dishing out just deserts to the undeserving, dirty foreigners, and nobody shed any blood. Fenton changed that by showing the reality of battle scenes, but apparently was still happy to fake things, and he wasn't alone in this - there's the famous movie scene from the 1st world war of our soldiers going "over the top" that was staged for the camera, and plenty of other examples too, and facebook is full of propaganda "photos".

None of which is in any way relevant to this discussion, which seems to me to have lost its way . . .

 

[Ed Sutton]

Ok., that's a theory, you are right. If you look at this from a practitioners point of view as I've done (draftsman and a photographer) it sounds really irrelevant bearing in mind how in practice both processes are different, the way you observe the picture develop for example in a darkroom and the way you draw is very relevant but not the execution itself.

If you want to play a point scoring game, I've a degree Fine Art (my dissertation was Photography and Painting) and ever since then have continued to take a keen interest in 'the creative process' in the arts and beyond. I'd class myself as a practitioner in painting, photography, and writing (which I've done a lot of, for pleasure and profit). The importance of technique is overplayed. Knowing your subject and having views of your own about it are far more important.

That said, there is a lot to be taken from process (the doing of making stuff) on a personal level. As Conrad wrote in The Heart of Darkness: "I don't like work - no man does - but I like what is in the work - the chance to find yourself. Your own reality - for yourself, not for others - what no other man can ever know. They can only see the mere show, and never can tell what it really means."

Or, as I said elsewhere, nobody else gives a stuff what the work means to you.

Here endeth the lesson/rant.

 

[PHOTONA]

None of which is in any way relevant to this discussion, which seems to me to have lost its way . . .

yes, I thought about maybe moving it to a separate thread so people do not get confused as it is not about RPS distinction anymore, to for example, Photography, philosophy/theory and practices or so, or Photo digressions )

 

[myotis]

yes, I thought about maybe moving it to a separate thread so people do not get confused as it is not about RPS distinction anymore, to for example, Photography, philosophy/theory and practices or so, or Photo digressions )

There is a "Photographic Concepts" sub-forum set up to discuss this type of topic, but it's not used as much as it could be.

Possibly because, as like here, appropriate threads "evolve" rather than being the intended topic of the original poster.

 

[TimHughes]

You may subscribe to that theory as is your right, but where is the satisfaction that you get when you have more input to the result than just pressing a few buttons? It may be expedient if there is a set time to get results and you are working to a schedule (or are being lazy, plus the latter needs a little bit of skill).
Think of, as a comparison the analogy of a table or other piece of furniture bought as a flatpack from the likes of Ikea, Then look at a table or other piece of furniture crafted by your hand with the perfect joints, and the wood is solid wood, not chipboard with a veneer of plastic over the top; all assembled with the use of a screwdriver and an allen key. You can stand back and say 'I made that' with certain degree of pride and ultimate satisfaction.

Yes they do the same task as required but I know which I would prefer,

I did not understand @ancient_mariner's comment this way at all. My understanding is we're all talking about making beautifully crafted end products. Some people may enjoy the process of production, others focus on the outcome and take advantage of more efficient tools that emerge over time. No-one looking at the end product can tell which tools were used.

 

[benc98]

The two most important decisions you make as a photographer are the same, regardless if you're using a field camera or a fully automatic smartphone camera... where you point the thing and when you press the button. The reality is, you only need to know how the camera you're holding works, and if you're using auto then you only need to know the shutter button and how to take a lens cap off (oversimplification but the point remains).
What you choose the exclude from or include in the frame are the important decisions - the tech, is just technology. You don't have to be obsessed about photography to be a photographer - after all, it's about the subject and it's better to be obsessed about that.

 

[Ed Sutton]

The two most important decisions you make as a photographer are the same, regardless if you're using a field camera or a fully automatic smartphone camera... where you point the thing and when you press the button. The reality is, you only need to know how the camera you're holding works, and if you're using auto then you only need to know the shutter button and how to take a lens cap off (oversimplification but the point remains).
What you choose the exclude from or include in the frame are the important decisions - the tech, is just technology. You don't have to be obsessed about photography to be a photographer - after all, it's about the subject and it's better to be obsessed about that.

 

[Rodinal]

I'd agree with that Taking from Rodinal's analogy if I buy a table does it matter to me if the cabinet maker used a hand saw or power tools / jigs to cut the wood ?
I understand it may give more satisfaction to the creator but to the end user they're looking at the result

Who is talking about a cabinet maker! I am talking about me doing something, no one else. I am hopeless at woodwork and could not make anything out of wood, but I can appreciate the workmanship of someone who can make something using raw materials with a few hand tools. It is the craftsmanship, the love of the material that is being used and the capability to use the tools to create the end product.
Screwing a few pre-cut pieces of reconstituted wood chippings together to make something that has possibly been copied thousands of time before is not skil it is the ability to read a diagram.

 

[PHOTONA]

There is a "Photographic Concepts" sub-forum set up to discuss this type of topic, but it's not used as much as it could be.

Possibly because, as like here, appropriate threads "evolve" rather than being the intended topic of the original poster.

So guys I am happy to create a new topic there with reference to this one or just leave it as it is. Not sure what moderators can do. (move part of this one there?) Who is for and who is against?

 

[ancient_mariner]

Not sure I can split out a thread, but in many ways this IS going in a logical direction for the thread, though not the one first intended. We're now discussing the reasoning behind why we make photos and some of the history of photography. The philosophy of photography is somewhat appropriate to working towards a recognition award.

The thread could be closed, but as long as discussion remains civil and somewhat connected then I'd prefer it continued running here. You could start a new thread inspired by this one, but it might also go off piste a little.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I think some are looking at this from a different perspective.

You seem to be focussing on the satisfaction a photographer gets from the "process" of making photographs with the emphasis on the technical.

Others are focussing on the satisfaction of making pictures (the "product") that achieve and communicate specific intellectual and/or emotional messages.

There are, of course, many people whose sole (or at least main) interest is in recording something of interest to them and / or to others.

Once, this group was limited to those who could draw or (more rarely) paint. Chemical photography vastly extended the numbers of such "reporters". Electronic photography has extended that group.

Electronic Photography has also extended the ability of the less capable sketcher or painter to mimic the flexibility of those media in distorting reality or even producing unreal images. They can often produce such images far more quickly and easily than the traditional methods permit.

 

[myotis]

There are, of course, many people whose sole (or at least main) interest is in recording something of interest to them and / or to others.

Indeed there are.

Once, this group was limited to those who could draw or (more rarely) paint. Chemical photography vastly extended the numbers of such "reporters". Electronic photography has extended that group.

Electronic Photography has also extended the ability of the less capable sketcher or painter to mimic the flexibility of those media in distorting reality or even producing unreal images. They can often produce such images far more quickly and easily than the traditional methods permit.

I think we have discussed this before, and this is arguably the most important/valuable and exciting aspect of digital photography. The camera phone in particular has made image making as easier and more available than writing a diary or journal.