On 5/15/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi kranF, > > Since there are still a few people using older gear on a regular basis, we > could amend the statement to say that "most" great photos have been made > with equipment older and less advanced than your camera, but that's really > splitting hairs (something that so many of us are quite good at, so we may > as well split 'em). Of course, we all know the point that Brooks was > making ;-))
I was sort of being tongue-in-cheek. He was likely directing his article to relatively newer photographers, the vast majority of whom will be working with "modern" auto-everything cameras. > > Brooks' point about criticism is correct as far as it goes. But I'd > disagree and say that offering alternative ways of making a photo is just > as valid - move here or there, etc. But such comments have to be put into > context, to which the author, perhaps, was alluding. Regardless, good > criticism is important to a photographer, and while a photographer can be a > harsh a nd strong critic of his or her own work, outside comments can be > quite helpful. David Hurn, whose comments form the basis of the small book > "On Being a Photographer" published by Lenswork, notes that such criticism > is important (at least in his case and amongst his circle of photographer > friends). Yes,. criticism is important! That's why (or at least one of the reasons) we post PAWs PESOs and on PUG. Getting meaningful feedback, including constructive criticism, is what it's all about, and certainly one of the more effective ways to "improve" ourselves, or learn the craft. If you read number 14 thoroughly (which I'm sure you did), what he says is, "Ignore advice from others if they tell you how to do it their way." He then finishes that section by saying that, "The best critics tell you what they see in your photograph, and leave it up to you to decide whether or not what they see is a function of their unique vision or your success or failure in making the image you intended." Now, certainly, Shel, part of the latter scenario will be offereing different options and ideas as to how a photo might be approached. But, surely, it's not a matter of "right and wrong" ways to do things; it's a matter of what I as a photographer decide is the appropriate way to express my idea(s). Knowing that there are different or alternative ways to put those ideas forth may assist me in expressing things as I want to, but simply saying, "I'd have done it ~this~ way", isn't really too helpful, IMHO. And, I think we're talking "artistic vision" here, not nuts and bolts. Certainly, one can be more direct talking technical matters (usually). One can say, "you missed the focus". However, in my case, I might reply, "yes, I know..." <vbg> For further elucidation of my point, please see my reply to Mr. Robb, above. > Thinking and learning to see in two dimensions, while being something I've > been aware of for years, really struck a chord, as I can't recall anyone > ever actually stating the concept before. It's as second nature to some as > seeing a scene in B&W, or framed in the shape of their favorite format. > That you are not making a picture of something, but that you are MAKING > SOMETHING, should be etched into the mind of every photographer, along with > the concept of not merely showing what the subject is, but going further > and showing what it is not, what it means, why it exists, how it exists, > and so on. I agree, and although I've never been able to articulate it as well as him, I've certainly tried to keep forefront in my mind that I want to "separate" things in my photo, either by light and shadow, by narrow dof, by movement, so that it doesn't look "flat". Not that I've always been successful (far from it) but I know that my better photos (such as they are) are those that ~don't~ look flat, that seem to have a 3D effect (to my mind at least). cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
