Do you need a degree to enjoy photography?

ghoti said:
The last paragraph is not necessarily true. Darkroom techniques (or digital equivalents) can mean more attention is paid to certain parts of the image by the artist.
Click to expand...

StephenM said:
I'm not convinced that this paragraph is invariably true. Lighting can be altered by the photographer; and even the shapes can be distorted (either with in camera movements, in a darkroom or in Photoshop.

The time of recording a photograph may be brief, but not necessarily the "thinking time" that preceded the shutter release.
Click to expand...

It is probably true that *sometimes* a photograph just represents an instant in time, but that's clearly not always the case (probably quite seldom if there's any PP involved). I think Pookeyhead debunked the concept of a photographer just grabbing what passed in front of the lens.
 
ancient_mariner said:
It is probably true that *sometimes* a photograph just represents an instant in time, but that's clearly not always the case (probably quite seldom if there's any PP involved). I think Pookeyhead debunked the concept of a photographer just grabbing what passed in front of the lens.
Click to expand...

Yep the Decisive Moment :)
 
And perhaps the current image saturation we have with camera phones showing every aspect of a person's life in real time on Farcebook contributes to the perception that a snapshot taken without thought is a photograph just like any other. After all, if the majority of images are that, then democracy wins out - thought becomes elitist, and actually requiring it is arrogance. :)

If we define "photographer" as someone who uses a camera (including those in phones) then most photographs are a meaningless instant in time, snatched without thought or attempt to control the content.

Now that does impinge on the original question. What happens if you're happy using photography to snap away at what you're eating in a restaurant and post it up, and then study and find that actually there can be a heck of a lot more to photography than this? Do you then perhaps realise that you aren't a good photographer just because your snaps are sharp and reasonably well exposed and as a result of knowing this gain less enjoyment from photography?

How many people would enjoy photography less from having a fuller appreciation of it, compared to those who would enjoy it more from having the knowledge that they had rather more control over the results than they might have thought (and by "control" I mean selection, framing, position, timing etc, not the simple "in focus, exposure right")?
 
Byker28i said:
Does it affect the ability to get a mortgage? Is the debt taken into consideration?
Click to expand...
Nope as it isn't recognised. did you pay for the fees yourselves?
 
StephenM said:
How many people would enjoy photography less from having a fuller appreciation of it, compared to those who would enjoy it more from having the knowledge that they had rather more control over the results than they might have thought (and by "control" I mean selection, framing, position, timing etc, not the simple "in focus, exposure right")?
Click to expand...

TBH I think most people would enjoy their photography much less if they were no longer able to relax and just take the pictures they enjoyed, but rather than to process what they were seeing in a critical fashion in order to make statements about stuff. One of the points we've covered is that art isn't about enjoyment - it's about making statements and sharing philosophies through the medium in use - therefore the concept we have of a 'beautiful piece of art' seem to be meaningless.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH I think most people would enjoy their photography much less if they were no longer able to relax and just take the pictures they enjoyed, but rather than to process what they were seeing in a critical fashion in order to make statements about stuff. One of the points we've covered is that art isn't about enjoyment - it's about making statements and sharing philosophies through the medium in use - therefore the concept we have of a 'beautiful piece of art' seem to be meaningless.
Click to expand...

Comes down to individuals again, doesn't it? No "one size fits all". I started just happy to get something with a level horizon, recognisable subject and exposure close enough to get a print. I passed on to want to produce something technically better - just seeing the prints in the window of the "Hemsworth Express" paper every school day showed me what was possible and what I wasn't achieving. Fast forward to being able to more or less manage that - and then the goal became to prduce something that conveyed something of what I saw and felt.

OK, so now I have a lack of satisfaction in what I produce, but this doesn't actually detract from my enjoyment, which is now in the process of starting with what's "out there" and producing a print that shows what's "in here". The fun part comes from the challenge, the thought and consideration needed. None of this would exist if I didn't have some knowledge. I don't know how you'd square that with my aim, which always the final print rather than how I got there.
 
ghoti said:
The last paragraph is not necessarily true. Darkroom techniques (or digital equivalents) can mean more attention is paid to certain parts of the image by the artist.
Click to expand...

StephenM said:
I'm not convinced that this paragraph is invariably true. Lighting can be altered by the photographer; and even the shapes can be distorted (either with in camera movements, in a darkroom or in Photoshop.

The time of recording a photograph may be brief, but not necessarily the "thinking time" that preceded the shutter release.
Click to expand...

ancient_mariner said:
It is probably true that *sometimes* a photograph just represents an instant in time, but that's clearly not always the case (probably quite seldom if there's any PP involved). I think Pookeyhead debunked the concept of a photographer just grabbing what passed in front of the lens.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate all that and agree entirely, but you can see the fundamental difference. Yes you can edit and change a photo but the essence is taken in that instant. With a drawing or painting it's all interpretation.

I spent a week struggling over this and think it's finally sunk in thanks to this thread :)
 
Right all you lovely people, my eyes are bleeding through reading all the OT crap.
Before I totally lose the will to live &/or lock this thread,
Lets all make like little trains and get back on the track.
I won't tidy this thread up again, I'll vaporise it!

Thanks for your attention,
As you were (y)

(Well most of you anyway)
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
I'm not convinced that this paragraph is invariably true. Lighting can be altered by the photographer; and even the shapes can be distorted (either with in camera movements, in a darkroom or in Photoshop.

The time of recording a photograph may be brief, but not necessarily the "thinking time" that preceded the shutter release.
Click to expand...


I agree with Stephen here. The photographer has a great deal of influence over how the objects and things are rendered, and is not at the mercy of reality any more than the painter is. The idea that the photograph accurately records everything in such a way to render the photographer powerless is misleading. With all due respect to Mr Berger, I think he is over-simplifying photography. He's not a photographer after all, and is postulating from the position that the camera always records things with a natural detail and fidelity that the artist's brush does not. Any photographer of course, will realise that is not the case. Photography can offer almost limitless representations of the same thing depending upon who is planning and constructing the shot. Berger's assumption also seems to be predicated on the straight, natural light aspects of photography. It ignores the ability to light the subject in an almost limitless range of ways; It ignores distortions by focal length; It ignores macro.. etc etc.. The limits are only imposed by the ingenuity, creativity and skill of the photographer, just as a surrealist painter also knows no bounds.
 
Last edited:
@ David

Thanks for that.
I was a bit worried for a while as one who just shoots (and post proecesses) what is in front of the camera and doesn't "create scenes" either in a studio or in the field by introducing elements like models etc.
However I do try to choose the light, moment, POV etc, when I take a photograph.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
I can appreciate all that and agree entirely, but you can see the fundamental difference. Yes you can edit and change a photo but the essence is taken in that instant. With a drawing or painting it's all interpretation.

I spent a week struggling over this and think it's finally sunk in thanks to this thread :)
Click to expand...

The thing is that you can also change the information conveyed by an image through PP - and assuming the message is the essence then that would mean the essence isn't taken in the instant, but is shaped and crafted by the person developing the image.

;)
 
Hum, interesting thought.

I'd taken it that even with manipulation, a photograph core values or starting point is recorded in that instant of shutter movement. Even with manipulation, the base image, or starting point is taken with the shutter press. With a drawing or painting there is no physical starting point of data, just an idea in the mind
 
Byker28i said:
Hum, interesting thought.

I'd taken it that even with manipulation, a photograph core values or starting point is recorded in that instant of shutter movement. Even with manipulation, the base image, or starting point is taken with the shutter press. With a drawing or painting there is no physical starting point of data, just an idea in the mind
Click to expand...
If you stretch the genre into the processing, an entirely new image can be created from which the capture with the shutter button is just a single ingredient. It can be a major ingredient where the PP is just seasoning to enhance what's already there, or it can be just one of the building blocks of a much more complex concoction. This could have been the photographers intention when the shutter was pressed, or an entirely unique composition once the photographer started processing.
 
I've begun trying to create textures that I can use behind images, though so far haven't been happy with the results. Where that will lead I don't know yet, other than for me to spend more time processing for modest results. :p
 
Byker28i said:
I'd taken it that even with manipulation, a photograph core values or starting point is recorded in that instant of shutter movement. Even with manipulation, the base image, or starting point is taken with the shutter press. With a drawing or painting there is no physical starting point of data, just an idea in the mind
Click to expand...
There's a crossover area - think for instance of layered multiple exposures in a single image.
ancient_mariner said:
I've begun trying to create textures that I can use behind images, though so far haven't been happy with the results. Where that will lead I don't know yet, other than for me to spend more time processing for modest results. :p
Click to expand...
I could say beware of effects for effects' sake, although if it provides harmless fun ... the most valuable and convincing images are more likely to be the result of passion than 'fiddling about'.
 
I'm sure it was mentioned sometime earlier in this thread, but what about camera-less photography? There is no instant when the shutter is pressed, yet you still end with a photographic image.
 
Last edited:
Bythesea said:
I'm sure it was mentioned sometime earlier in this thread, but what about camera-less photography? There is no instant when the shutter is pressed, yet you still end with a pbotographic image.
Click to expand...

Well there is a photogram where you place an object on a piece of light sensitive paper, and then expose it and then develop it. The object on the paper stops the light getting into it. I've tried it years ago with scissors and a comb. Pretty pointless exercise really. I'm not convinced that's photography by definition. I've also tried the same technique with exposed lith film which is more interesting.
 
Last edited:
Here is a link to a number of camera-less photographic possibilities. There are a number of definitions of photography that do not mention a camera, only the recording of an image on a light sensitive medium.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
Well there is a photogram where you place an object on a piece of light sensitive paper, and then expose it and then develop it. The object on the paper stops the light getting into it. I've tried it years ago with scissors and a comb. Pretty pointless exercise really. I'm not convinced that's photography by definition. I've also tried the same technique with exposed lith film which is more interesting.
Click to expand...
A few months back on a quiet morning at work I tried making my own "photosensitive paper" by coating a page of foolscap in a layer of potassium chloride solution, letting it dry, then coating it in a layer of silver nitrate solution. I managed to make an extremely crude "Turin shroud" type image by casting a shadow onto the paper through a stencil. It worked, I guess. If you knew what you were looking for. If not it probably looked like someone had cackhandedly thrown watery black ink on the page and let it dry unevenly.
 
Would it be possible to prepare a sheet of paper and create an image on it in the way you describe, but then fix it and repeat.

I'm wondering if it's possible to build layers of shade to create a sort of "shadow collage" if that makes sense.
 
simon ess said:
Would it be possible to prepare a sheet of paper and create an image on it in the way you describe, but then fix it and repeat.

I'm wondering if it's possible to build layers of shade to create a sort of "shadow collage" if that makes sense.
Click to expand...
In theory, yes. You can use sodium thiosulphate to "fix" the image. It's a pretty crude method but I guess it could be refined. You'd have to be very careful. I just wanted to see if it would work. Which it did - in principle.
 
Actually, I'm possibly incorrect. The thiosulphate fixer would probably react with the silver chloride that formed the subsequent photosensitive layers.
I'm not sure if you could effectively wash the thiosulphate off foolscap without disturbing the metallic silver stain.
 
You might be able to introduce a transparent barrier layer between the base exposure and subsequent exposures. Coat the barrier layer with more emulsion, expose, fix and repeat. The unreacted silver would be removed and the layer below should show through.

Maybe...
 
Any mileage in expose many/process once? Use the old trick of marking where the first image is on a transparent overlay, and then make the second exposure, repeat the overlay/sketch and so on until all was done? Or did you envisgae having to see the extent and tonality of ther shadows first?
 
And as another alternative - colour paper (or variable contrast paper) where you could use different coloured filters to determine which layers were exposed. Rather more limited, and rather more difficult, though.
 
Actually Stephen, I think, if I'm understanding you correctly, you've just confirmed another idea I was thinking of. That is, expose once but lay shapes on the paper at different times.

Doing it via transparent overlays is an excellent idea.
 
You may find this link interesting, then.
 
Byker28i said:
Hum, interesting thought.

I'd taken it that even with manipulation, a photograph core values or starting point is recorded in that instant of shutter movement. Even with manipulation, the base image, or starting point is taken with the shutter press. With a drawing or painting there is no physical starting point of data, just an idea in the mind
Click to expand...

What about the countless paintings that were created from a photograph as a starting point? What about the fact that the camera obscura was ostensibly used as a drawing tool for thousands of years? The camera obscura is a camera.

It makes no difference in my mind. The painter can, and still does embellish the original scene with elements from their imagination... just as the photographer may well do. We're merely arguing over the choice of medium here. Oils or camera... both have different qualities, but how they effect the final outcome is down to the photographer. The only difference is that with a camera, you can stop right after that initial capturing of the scene if you want.

With either medium, what makes the artwork good or not, is the intent, and communicated message... not the medium.
 
Indeed. "artists" have used cameras of one form or another to create "paintings" for centuries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top