man & nature # 161 ~ more dancing and singing, singing and dancing
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 09:12AM 
Creeping foliage on utility pole in the rain • click to embiggenFor the those of you who are relative newcomers to The Landscapist - the recent bump in my stats tell me that you're there - I'd like to use this opportunity* to explain / expand what I'm trying do here.
*this opportunity: is instigated by this comment (from another blog):
The real photographer attempts to capture what he or she visualizes not what he or she sees ... [P]hotography is like any other art form is a visual expression by an individual. Photography has never been pure or exactly what the human eye sees ... [W]ith modern digital cameras and software we finally have the ability to express what we visualise, just like the painter or any other artist.
The comment was left in response to an entry in defense of HDR image rendering techniques wherein the author, Darwin Wiggett, states:
The sooner we accept that photography is an interpretation, the easier it will be to accept interpretative techniques.
BTW & FYI, I have had a number of virtual conversions with Darwin and he has left a few comments on The Landscapist way back in the early days.
Now, before I get to it, let me state clearly what I am not trying to do here on The Landscapist - I am not trying to take away the interpretive practitioner's crayons nor am I trying stamp out all the fun they are having using them. If that's what picture making means to them, they should assemble the largest set of crayons they can find and keep on coloring the world in any way they see fit or, as they say, choose to "interpret" it. Have at it. Go for the gusto, etc.
That said, what am trying to do is provide a venue where those picture makers who are tired of following that escapist / fun-loving herd (or who just don't want to go there from the start) can hear/read a different point of view about the picture making possibilities of the medium of photography.
That said, on with the show ...
The notion that "photography is an interpretation" is a bit of a self-serving justification / rationalization for all kinds of "interpretative" activity and, quite frankly, is only a working definition of the medium for the "real photographer[s] who attempts to capture what he or she visualizes not what he or she sees."
On the other hand, for those picture makers who are more interested in what they see as opposed to what they want to see (visualize), a much more accurate notion of the medium would be that "photography is a representation" of what they (to include me) see. For those picture makers, the act of selecting (what they see) is much more important than the act of "interpreting" (what they see).
Now that difference could be considered to be nothing more than an example of "different strokes for different folks" and, to a certain extent, it is. But - here's the fun part wherein I am going to piss some people off ....
I see the difference between the representation crowd and the interpretation crowd in quite a different manner. IMO, good "selection" beats good "interpretation" hands down any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Why so? OK, you've made it this far so hold on tight ...
Simply stated, so-called "interpretation" is the lazy person's way of trying to make an interesting picture.
The interpretation crowd is very bad at selection - all they ever seem to select is the same old referent - one variant or another of the "grand and glorious" landscape (over and over and over again) - as a kind of picture putty onto which they can apply their interpretation - an interpretation that relies almost exclusively on technique. As the commenter stated, the interpreters rely on "modern digital cameras and software ... to express" themselves.
To my eye and sensibilities, this "interpretive" approach to the medium is somewhat wanting.
To wit, the layering on of technique during the picture making process is, quite simply, an attempt to mask the failings of an inferior ability to see selectively.
To wit, when it comes to picture making, seeing selectively is far and away the most difficult thing to accomplish.
To wit:
... eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. It is here that REAL photography starts and most photographers quit. ~ Brooks Jensen
FYI, that's my emphasis on the last sentence and the word "real" because I completely agree with Jensen - this is the point at which "real photographers" begin to explore the real/ greater possibilities inherent in the medium of photography.
To wit:
Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? Why do photographers bother with the deception, especially since it so often requires the hardest work of all? The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace. ~ Robert Adams, from Beauty In Photography
And, yo - interpreters, riddle me this - Why is it that every picture I see that is made by a self-proclaimed interpreter - who claims to be following their very own personal visualization - looks exactly like every other picture that I see made by all the other interpreters?
Could it be because of a severely limited selection of referents together with the application of a de rigueur palette of techniques?
Could it be the shortage of real imagination amongst the ranks of interpretive crowd and a return to the good old days of Pictorialism seems like good idea?
Or, is it that am I at fault here with my respect for and adherence to the medium's unique characteristic (the one that truly distinguishes it from the other Visual Arts) - its inherent and inimitable characteristic as cohort with reality?
Reader Comments (9)
By way of further explaination to those who have only recently discovered gravits (or blovius, as he is known in his inner circle), another reason de 'etre for this blog is that one wife cannot sit still long enough to absorb all of these ideas and observations.
I would like to join in but being on the 5th string of the school debate team, I know better.
I think one of the most painful manifestations of interpretation versus representation in nature photography is the insipid use of the silky smooth slow shutter speed for flowing water. It seems to be all about technique for the sake of technique. Why take a perfectly beautiful flowing body of water, in all it's textural glory and lobotomize it?
Why must one be either or? Isn't it possible to combine both interretation and selection to create something unique and original ?
To Techfan-
Because with respect to photographic technique, Mark only sees things in terms of "either / or". First he sets you up by saying that everyone is free to do it their own way (he doesn't want to take away your "crayons")and that you should continue "to color the world" in any way you see fit. But then the hammer comes down. He lets you know that he thinks that your way is "the lazy person's way of making an interesting picture" because "the interpretation crowd is very bad at selection". So in his mind you're either good at selection or you take the interpretive route (an obviously inferior approach). Heaven forbid someone should try to do both!
To Mary Dennis-
So what's the difference between a long exposure and a very short one? One creates the silky effect and the other "freezes" water droplets in mid-air. Neither is "real" - the brain doesn't see flowing water either way. It's like photographing a hummingbird in flight. If the shutter is extremely quick, you might get close to "freezing" the wings. That's not how we actually see it, but is it any less real?
As I've said before, if you guys want to photograph piles of twigs and call it "real image making", be my guest. That's entirely your business and I will vigorously defend your right to photograph whatever you want to. But please stop getting up on your little pedestals and lecturing the rest of us in that obnoxious, condescending tone.
It seems that this sort of discussion cannot separate the ideas of tools and results. Assumptions being that a given tool has to lead to a certain result and conversely a given result requires a given tool. I think it was this idea that Darwin was trying to refute.
I agree with the principle put forth here that the interpreters aren't seeing it all. They wish what was in front of them is something different than the camera returned and so use to doodads to "creat" and "effect". Most of it offensive to this observer's eye.
There is the reverse idea that I saw it all and what comes out of the camera is not all (or how) it looked. And some tools can be applied to redress that limitation of the camera. But then it is about "natural" results.
It doesn't have to be "piles of twigs" to be real but I do think it has to be all that was to be seen (within a given frame).
That said, I have no qualms invoking the loose impediments rule.
Paul-- No pedestal for me and I'm generally not an obnoxious or condescending person. I guess I just have a preference toward water being depicted as water. Not as frozen droplets, not as a blank white silky sheet but as close as possible to the state that I witness it in. If I were to stand by a flowing river, photograph it, then come home and open the images on the computer and see a blank white space where there were ripples, eddies, gurgles, pebbles, sand, rocks or even bugs, I would be dissapointed.
It's the ubiquitous use of this technique that makes me uneasy. I get the feeling that many a photographer feels obligated to use it and, to me, it feels like slavish adherence to an an accepted and time-worn photographic "rule". That said, It's perfectly fine with me if they choose to use the technique. It's just not the way I see things--literally or figuratively.
Hi Mary,
John Blakemore has some interesting things to say on the specific subject of picturing moving water in his 'Black and White Photography Workshop' book. He describes his own process of photographing a particular stream and trying to capture the right 'feel' for the movement of the water. Eventually, he settles on the use of multiple exposures, taken with relatively short shutter speeds, captuing both the sharp shapes of the water and a sense of movement.
Having described this, he is at great pains to point out that this was his way of solving a specific artistic problem at a specific time, and counsels strongly against using such an effect just for the sake of it.
Essentially, I think you have come to a similar conclusion; that technique should serve artistic vision, and not the other way about. John Blakemore's use of multiple exposure arose from a desire to create a photograph that closely represented what he saw, rather than just producing something that looked cool.
All the best, Paul.