Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Jael and Noa in the High Sierra

Expand Messages
  • Howard Larson
    ... Wrong? Not *wrong*. It is a matter of opinion, asked for and given if, perhaps, a little tersely. I prefer straight photography with a minimum of
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Uri Cogan <uri@...> wrote:
      >
      > Howard Larson wrote:
      >
      >
      > > It looks like a fabricated photo.
      > >
      > Fabricated, yes. But what's wrong with fabricated images? there is a
      lot of artistic potential there. See:
      > http://tinyurl.com/6zns87
      >
      >
      Wrong? Not *wrong*. It is a matter of opinion, asked for and given
      if, perhaps, a little tersely.

      I prefer straight photography with a minimum of manipulation. Found
      objects as opposed to arrangements. Technically good (I am no fan of
      the Krappy Kamera contest or prints of Polaroids with the adhesive
      marks showing).
    • paul womack
      ... Are you in the right forum ;-) BugBear
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Howard Larson wrote:
        > I prefer straight photography with a minimum of manipulation.

        Are you in the right forum ;-)

        BugBear
      • Howard Larson
        ... Abosolutely! :-) I don t consider using panotools a deviation from straight photography. In fact, I use panotools not for panoramas but to get
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, paul womack <pwomack@...> wrote:
          >
          > Howard Larson wrote:
          > > I prefer straight photography with a minimum of manipulation.
          >
          > Are you in the right forum ;-)
          >
          > BugBear
          >
          Abosolutely! :-)

          I don't consider using panotools a deviation from straight
          photography. In fact, I use panotools not for panoramas but to get
          large-format images from a small-format camera.
        • Uri Cogan
          ... This business of straight vs. fabricated images is not too clear to me. The only kind of photography that in my opinion, ought not to be manipulated at
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Howard Larson wrote:


            > I don't consider using panotools a deviation from straight
            > photography. In fact, I use panotools not for panoramas but to get
            > large-format images from a small-format camera.
            >







            This business of "straight" vs. "fabricated" images is not too clear to me.

            The only kind of photography that in my opinion, ought not to be
            manipulated at all, appears to be journalistic, and (hopefully, hah...)
            commercial advertising.

            Everything else, it seems to me, is fair game and is more a matter of
            taste than of integrity.

            The above may be too simple... my own experience in photojournalism
            tells me that the mere choice of lens, exposure, composition, and
            processing "manipulates" the final image to some degree, so in a certain
            sense, all photos are "fabricated".

            Cheers, Uri.




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Chris Thomas
            That s certainly not what we re talking about here.. This medium is not going to be confined by the traditional photography boomers like myself grew up
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              That's certainly not what we're talking about here..

              This medium is not going to be confined by the "traditional" photography
              "boomers" like myself grew up with!



              There's a place for everyone..

              Hopefully artistic endevours will continue to push into new directions, as
              materials and tools permit.





              Chris Thomas

              Photographer

              cell... 604-649-5352

              In North America

              call... 1-800-870-5110

              <http://www.christhomas.com/> http://www.christhomas.com



              -----Original Message-----
              From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of Howard Larson
              Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 8:31 AM
              To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Jael and Noa in the High Sierra



              --- In PanoToolsNG@ <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
              Uri Cogan <uri@...> wrote:
              >
              > Howard Larson wrote:
              >
              >
              > > It looks like a fabricated photo.
              > >
              > Fabricated, yes. But what's wrong with fabricated images? there is a
              lot of artistic potential there. See:
              > http://tinyurl. <http://tinyurl.com/6zns87> com/6zns87
              >
              >
              Wrong? Not *wrong*. It is a matter of opinion, asked for and given
              if, perhaps, a little tersely.

              I prefer straight photography with a minimum of manipulation. Found
              objects as opposed to arrangements. Technically good (I am no fan of
              the Krappy Kamera contest or prints of Polaroids with the adhesive
              marks showing).





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Howard Larson
              ... clear to me. ... hah...) commercial advertising. ... of taste than of integrity. ... certain sense, all photos are fabricated . ... In my mind, *straight*
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Uri Cogan <uri@...> wrote:
                >
                > Howard Larson wrote:
                >
                >
                > > I don't consider using panotools a deviation from straight
                > > photography. In fact, I use panotools not for panoramas but to get
                > > large-format images from a small-format camera.
                > >
                >
                > This business of "straight" vs. "fabricated" images is not too
                clear to me.
                >
                > The only kind of photography that in my opinion, ought not to be
                > manipulated at all, appears to be journalistic, and (hopefully,
                hah...) commercial advertising.
                >
                > Everything else, it seems to me, is fair game and is more a matter
                of taste than of integrity.
                >
                > The above may be too simple... my own experience in photojournalism
                > tells me that the mere choice of lens, exposure, composition, and
                > processing "manipulates" the final image to some degree, so in a
                certain sense, all photos are "fabricated".
                >
                > Cheers, Uri.
                >
                In my mind, *straight* photography documents an object as it is.
                *Fabricated* images are arrangements created by the photographer, not
                objects *as found*.

                And, yes, your definition of photojournalism is a form of
                manipulation--the photographer's interpretation of the object if you
                will--but still encompassed within the idea of straight photography
                as anyone could encounter the same object as it naturally exists.

                You are correct in that is a matter of taste. And, given an option,
                there are people that will line up on one side or the other.
              • Howard Larson
                And, I would hope, there is room for the voice of the traditionalist like myself who is using these tools in a *traditionalist* manner. ... photography
                Message 7 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  And, I would hope, there is room for the voice of the traditionalist
                  like myself who is using these tools in a *traditionalist* manner.

                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Thomas" <chris@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > That's certainly not what we're talking about here..
                  >
                  > This medium is not going to be confined by the "traditional"
                  photography "boomers" like myself grew up with!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > There's a place for everyone..
                  >
                  > Hopefully artistic endevours will continue to push into new
                  directions, as
                  > materials and tools permit.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Chris Thomas
                  >
                  > Photographer
                  >
                  > cell... 604-649-5352
                  >
                  > In North America
                  >
                  > call... 1-800-870-5110
                  >
                  > <http://www.christhomas.com/> http://www.christhomas.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                  [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                  > Behalf Of Howard Larson
                  > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 8:31 AM
                  > To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Jael and Noa in the High Sierra
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In PanoToolsNG@ <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
                  yahoogroups.com,
                  > Uri Cogan <uri@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Howard Larson wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > It looks like a fabricated photo.
                  > > >
                  > > Fabricated, yes. But what's wrong with fabricated images? there
                  is a
                  > lot of artistic potential there. See:
                  > > http://tinyurl. <http://tinyurl.com/6zns87> com/6zns87
                  > >
                  > >
                  > Wrong? Not *wrong*. It is a matter of opinion, asked for and given
                  > if, perhaps, a little tersely.
                  >
                  > I prefer straight photography with a minimum of manipulation. Found
                  > objects as opposed to arrangements. Technically good (I am no fan
                  of
                  > the Krappy Kamera contest or prints of Polaroids with the adhesive
                  > marks showing).
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • Uri Cogan
                  ... Absolutely yes; the freedom to adhere to whatever traditionalist values or techniques is all yours, and yet the very notion of photographing anything as
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Howard Larson wrote:

                    > And, I would hope, there is room for the voice of the traditionalist
                    > like myself who is using these tools in a *traditionalist* manner.
                    >






                    Absolutely yes; the freedom to adhere to whatever "traditionalist"
                    values or techniques is all yours, and yet the very notion of
                    photographing anything "as it is" eludes me.

                    Again, as a journalist I've discovered that my very presence at certain
                    events had modified the event, and my choice of what appeared to me as
                    worthy of a photo was likely to be influenced by my own biases; on top
                    of that, I could easily make a person appear "sinister" or "benevolent"
                    by mere choice of lighting and careful timing. So much for "objectivity".

                    To sum up - I no longer know what anything "is" though I certainly do
                    know how it *appears to me*.

                    Uri
                    http://www.uricogan.com


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • paul womack
                    ... You underestimate the power of the photographer. By choosing viewpoints, cropping (or lens length) time of day, weather conditions, the thoughtful
                    Message 9 of 14 , Aug 5, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Howard Larson wrote:
                      > In my mind, *straight* photography documents an object as it is.
                      > *Fabricated* images are arrangements created by the photographer, not
                      > objects *as found*.
                      >
                      > And, yes, your definition of photojournalism is a form of
                      > manipulation--the photographer's interpretation of the object if you
                      > will--but still encompassed within the idea of straight photography
                      > as anyone could encounter the same object as it naturally exists.

                      You underestimate the power of the photographer.

                      By choosing viewpoints, cropping (or lens length)
                      time of day, weather conditions, the thoughtful
                      photographer can go a rather long way towards
                      "creating" the photograph.

                      Given enough variation, an act of selection
                      becomes an act of creation.

                      e.g. the famous million monkeys with typewriters.

                      BugBear
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.