Guys, You have to look at each picture and decide if it falls within an acceptable range of craft. To make a fetish of any one dimension of the process is simplistic and suggest a narrow appreciation of the art. I sympathize with those who read the, often silly, verbiage accompanying displays of photography. I don?t recall participating in many discussion about truth, beauty, being one with nature, or vision in my frequent discussions of photography. I do, however, find that I and most others often seem obsessed with discussing technoid trivia and gossip. The reason for that may be that many have learned the technical but not the aesthetic language of the medium. I don't think one can obtain a complete appreciation of photography without understanding the craft, aesthetics, it's history, as well as contemporary ideas about it. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Tech vs Image > From: Jeff Spirer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, April 11, 2005 1:13 am > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > At 09:39 PM 4/10/2005, Bob Maxey wrote: > >However, I have listened to plenty of photographers telling me they use > >unsharpness or soft focus to realize their vision. > > I've never heard discussions like this, and I know a lot of photographers, > people who believe in their vision and do realize it through books and > shows in museums and galleries. Usually, they talk about what they are > trying to accomplish with their photography. Then they talk about the > problems with gallery owners and publishers. Then they talk about problems > finding locations or models. I've never had any of these photographers > suggest that their vision has anything to do with unsharpness and soft > focus. It's always about the photographs themselves, what they > convey. When people tell me my photos are sharp, I assume I did something > wrong. Conveying "sharpness" is something anyone can do - an eyechart and > a tripod can take care of that. > > >They use soft focus because nobody wants a sharp bride; their vision is > >different than my "vision." > > Odd example - this is a commercial issue and has nothing to do with > vision. It has to do with expectations of wedding photos, which is about > as far removed as any sort of concept of vision as I can recall. > > If you don't like the word vision, use idea communication or something like > that. What makes a series of photographs personal rather than simple > record shots or eye charts. > > > Jeff Spirer > Photos: http://www.spirer.com > One People: http://www.onepeople.com/ > Surfaces and Marks: http://www.withoutgrass.com
