Me:
I am also trying to find a theoretical answer to the question 'how does one produce a great image as opposed to a mediocre image in any situation' - a theoretical answer that can be easily translated to practice. I'm looking for other sources of research/places where people have tried to solve this problem and will probably meet up some people in
FTII about this.
I'd definitely like to meet up with anyone who has insights on quality in photography ... subjective quality vs object quality split (zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance aficionados ?) .... or if you believe in it, the 18 per cent gray in between :) The people I've met so far shrug it off with a 'cannot be captured in a set of prescriptions' attitude ... however what would be interesting is having a very large set of -observations-, and not prescriptions about quality images. It would be a good exercise to create an inference engine for the analysis and determination of 'great' images ... at the very very least ... improving one's own art.
what say?
friend:
It’s true that Photography is an art which can not be injected by others into someone.
About your question, I think that though it’s an art, there is a science and it has its limitations, so to get a exceptional image at any given time, one need to make available all the ingredients in perfect quantity (i.e. light, distance, hardware, state of mind etc.)
"Zen and art of motorcycle maintenance" ;I disagree to it to some extent because of which I left the book in between, but it does make an impact on one's thought process.
The one perfect sentence you made is, we need observations, it’s very correct.
Paradox - but in my sole opinion, I prefer to learn and get the things by my intuition and by own way. This way all what I have learn I can get it into the picture 100%
me:
One need not agree or disagree with the book... I know a lot of people (almost 3/4ths of everyone I know) who gave up half way.
The book does have some interesting insights (interesting to me because ... they are provocative, relevant, indicative of possibility, encapsulate interesting concepts about quality and provide alternatives to existing concepts (well... my gestalts) of quality) and at the very least, it tries to address the important issue of trying to define quality.)
The style in which it has been written will turn a lot of people off. But I would suggest that they hang on (if 'quality' is relevant to them) and read through to the end. And re-read it again a few times.
As I said, it has been said by many that 'art' cannot be injected into a person. The same has been said for innovation and creativity. The support for this is tenuous. The fact that we do not understand how something works is not enough reason for one to believe that it does not work. And there is evidence to the contrary as well, Edward de Bono in 'Serious Creativity' and G.Altschuller in TRIZ http://www.altshuller.ru/world/eng/e-books.asp
.
What I am attempting is not, 'How to become Ansel Adams++',
:-)
but a personal inquiry into the analysis and synthesis of quality images.
anyone around with a similar itch?
>>>> .... so to get a exceptional image at any given time, one need to make available all the ingredients in perfect quantity (i.e. light, distance, hardware, state of mind etc.) ....
Agree with you there, but the etc. in the end is what needs to be expanded on a lot if we want to understand -what- is it that makes up good images. (how else would one improve - after a point?) Some of it is covered in 'art appreciation' courses if one is studying the fine arts. But the synthesis of good images is much more difficult than the analysis(which itself isn't a solved problem in the world yet).
friend:
Not for the sake of debate...but just a thought...
Edward de Bono thinks that Creativity or LATERAL THINKING can be acquired and it’s not born, it can be achieved through some procedures which can be defined and generalized. - its kind of defining success/talent...do he/one really think that one can follow a recipe/steps of a successful person to become another successful person...or rather can someone define such recipe?
quality is a relative term, you are talking abt the improvement in the image quality after a certain point, that certain point is very relative, it can differ from person to person, because of which i said you can not write down it as a formula, it can not be captured, it can be felt but can not be documented.
If something can be defined it can be achieved also, then it will be redundant, and i guess something which is redundant is not quality its quantity
i will not talk abt the book, u may think me as john or chris :)
Me:
>>>>>quality is a relative term,
let's say it is ... to top it, let us say that it is subjective as well. MMM.... why is it that -everyone- I meet can distinguish between an Ansel Adams photograph and my photograph :)
>>>>>you are talking abt the improvement in the image quality after a certain point, that certain point is very relative, it can differ from person to person,
What I really am concerning myself with is how to -push- that point to its limit. I am not content with saying that it is relative. For starters, having enough of a 'concept' vocabulary to be able to analyze an image into a 100 or so factors that have a relative value towards contributing to the end effect that the photograph is trying to achieve. (that may incidentally not even be what the photographer saw/wanted to show, because of his lack of awareness of those factors)
>>>>>>because of which i said you can not write down it as a formula, it can not be captured, it can be felt but can not be documented.
one of the oft attributed purposes of art itself is to not only document what is felt, but to use expressive powers of words and images to enable others to feel it too. some people leave it to circumstance. others try to understand and improve. analysis is a tool for improvement. not a formula.
An interesting study of what 'art' is, the purpose of 'art' in a persons life, and in world could be seen in 'The Romantic Manifesto' by Ayn Rand. Again, I'm not endorsing her views, or even concurring, but 2001 ways of seeing an elephant gives even a blind man (me) a clearer picture.
Another instance - analysis shows that a key reason why Ansel Adams' photographs are impressive is because
of their sheer tonal range. This gave a lot of people an understanding of what 'tonal range' is and a method to capture that tonal range. It gave them the zone system.
It helps in pushing the point where analysis contributes to the synthesis of good images further.
>>>>>>If something can be defined it can be achieved also, then it will be redundant, and i guess something which is redundant is not quality its quantity
This is how I used to feel as well.
However, the premise for this is, again - tenuous.
I may define something, as a first step to achieving something. that does not make the achievement redundant.
Furthermore, the fact that something can be achieved does not make the achievement redundant.
Because, art is more than math.
A photograph is more than a concept. It can engage the senses. (And then the mind as well.)
There is a very real joy in -defining- what is good.
There is a greater joy in -helping others see- it.
There is joy in -bringing- it to reality.
There is a joy in -seeing- good things come to reality.
There is an even greater joy in helping -other- people bring good things into reality.
The definition of a method to see and show the world in more, interesting and better ways, does not imply that we will have 'imitation photography'.
(imitation could be considered a bad thing - because it does not create value other than by enabling more people to
experience a part of it).
One may say that if everybody creates amazing photos,
A situation where we have 100 people taking good photographs could probably be considered better than one where we have 100 people taking less-than-what-they-could-have photographs.
A photograph can be seen as a concept vehicle. It is the duty of an artist to ensure that it is an -effective- vehicle. This can be achieved.
>>>>>>>>Edward de Bono thinks that Creativity or LATERAL THINKING can be acquired and it’s not born,
it can be achieved through some procedures which can be defined and generalized. -
its kind of defining success/talent...
do he/one really think that one can follow a recipe/steps of a successful person to become another
successful person...or rather can someone define such recipe?
One of the key elements of being creative in any sense is the ability to spot the non-obvious.
it -is- possible to be 'successful' at developing that specific ability.
it is difficult to have a universal definition for things like 'success for a person in life'. ('the categorical imperative' of Immanuel Kant)
that goes into studies of ethics and philosophy.
The analysis of quality in art is possible and has been done for ages.
It is the subject of an entire field called aesthetics.
What I am searching for is the contribution of aesthetic analysis to the synthesis of good photographs.
If anyone is interested in the relationship of ideas related to music, math and art - G.E.B. (Goedel, Escher, Bach) The Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter is an intriguing (and information-density-rich) book.
A lot of people are good but they do not understand why.
Some people try to and can understand why and how.
People who want to be good may not attain immortality because of that understanding.
That is not enough reason to stop trying to understand the why and how.
The point, of course, is not to argue for arguments' sake but to improve and to actively search for means of improvement.
:)
my 2 cents
Aalhad
Friend:
I am getting an exponential learning curve here. Thanks Allahad
(A photograph can be seen as a concept vehicle. It is the duty of an artist to ensure that it is an -effective- vehicle. This can be achieved.)
I was thinking as you are interested in taking and enjoying and taking photographs by yourself, but what I can infer from your post (correct me if I am wrong) is that you are more social and interested in making others to enjoy the photographs.
For me, I don’t do it for the sake of people; I enjoy the snaps that I take full stop. I don’t take snaps so that people will enjoy it, the people come in the end, and I m sure that if I enjoy my photograph then everybody on this earth will enjoy watching it.
(One of the key elements of being creative in any sense is the ability to spot the non-obvious it -is- possible to be 'successful' at developing that specific ability.)
The one that you think is developing the ability, I call it as finding it within yourself, unfolding it, its there if you can find it, but if its not there for you then you may want to but you can not have it. (This might go towards the concept of finding the ONE – Matrix)
(The analysis of quality in art is possible and has been done for ages.
It is the subject of an entire field called aesthetics.What I am searching for is the contribution of aesthetic analysis to the synthesis of good photographs.)
Photograph or any art is the feeling its not a tool or a body, one need to feel it to enjoy it, Enjoy the beautiful painting rather than debating and finding out why the Mona Lisa is smiling?. When I listen to music (flute/sitar/tabla) I want to close my eyes and want to feel it, I don’t want go into the technicalities of it.
Don’t you think that going into “WHY” will fade out the joy of “FEEL”.
The snaps taken by you at
Especially Butterfly street 2 Green Leaf 3 The B/W photo of the lady.
Please let me know which Camera you have used for the same.
Me:
Thanks for the the comments!
((I was thinking as you are interested in taking and enjoying and taking photographs by yourself, but what I can infer from your post (correct me if I am wrong) is that you are more social and interested in making others to enjoy the photographs.)
Actually, contrary to popular feeling, aesthetics is not governed by emotion or enjoyment - but more on this in another post. :) And I am -very- interested in the improvement of my ability to create good photographs. I am also interested in helping other people to do the same.
((For me, I don’t do it for the sake of people; I enjoy the snaps that I take full stop. I don’t take snaps so that people will enjoy it, the people come in the end, and I m sure that if I enjoy my photograph then everybody on this earth will enjoy watching it.))
That is okay ... and a good thing. One must not be driven by popular taste. Also, if I enjoy watching my own creation, that does not automatically mean that others will enjoy it either. The aesthetic value of a photograph can be evaluated independent of whether one enjoys it or not.
Aalhad finding omega 3/27/2005 7:48 AM
((The one that you think is developing the ability, I call it as finding it within yourself, unfolding it, its there if you can find it, ... (This might go towards the concept of finding the ONE – Matrix)))
Who is to say ... whether you are the one or not :)
((but if its not there for you then you may want to but you can not have it.))
Although if one were to believe the Patanjali (morpheus?) yoga sutras ... we are all 'one' ;-)
It is good to free oneself from the matrix and help others free themselves from the matrix if you can. Let's build a Nebuchadnezzar. :)
It is perhaps good to be open to all methods - 'rational' (within the purview of human reason) or 'mystic' (those that require experience outside the rational framework)
but, call it whatever you will ... developing your creative ability, 'finding' yourself ... searching for the 'one' ... leaving it to chance or circumstance is, simply put -- not being responsible for ones improvement.
Aalhad does understanding detract from 'feel' ...? 3/27/2005 8:56 AM
((Photograph or any art is the feeling its not a tool or a body, one need to feel it to enjoy it, Enjoy the beautiful painting rather than debating and finding out why the Mona Lisa is smiling?. When I listen to music (flute/sitar/tabla) I want to close my eyes and want to feel it, I don’t want go into the technicalities of it.))
There is a distinction between allowing a work art to affect one's senses, evaluating the aesthetic quality of a work art and improving the process by which art is created. All of them may be enjoyed.
((Don’t you think that going into “WHY” will fade out the joy of “FEEL”.))
According to my experience, going into the 'why' -enhances- the 'feel' ... for example, it is difficult to appreciate classical music unless one can understand and appreciate its complex meaning and beauty. It may be possible to just listen to it, devoid of meaning ... but it is then reduced to a mere 'tickling' of the eardrum ... which becomes less pleasurable with the repetition and the passage of time. One of the reasons why, imho, popular music exists and fades away for a relative lack of meaning. Meaning is very relevant to quality of art.
When listening to a great classical artist, especially, hindustani classical, there is a lot that goes into making you feel what you feel. If one wants to really appreciate it, it helps if there is a resonance between the artists state of mind and the 'shrotas' state of mind with respect to the understanding of the language of music. It helps communication of the state of 'feeling' easier. This understanding may be obtained by inheritance, circumstance (association with a guru) (in either of these, you need not be aware of it, and can afford to just 'feel' the effect of the artist communicating in the language you 'know') or by focused learning and perseverance (which may be directed towards creating circumstances where one can learn, i.e. from a guru). continued ...
Aalhad 3/27/2005 9:13 AM
... one commentator on indian classical music goes on to say that ... the degree to which a person can enjoy a performance of classical music is limited by
a.) the extent to which the artists understanding of the 'sva' or the 'self' and the world has been developed
b.) the extent to which the shrotas understanding of the 'sva' or the 'self' and the world has been developed
c.) the extent to which these two resonate.
d.) live performances are all the more enjoyable, because the physical presence facilitates this resonance to a great degree. Which is another reason why purists only enjoy live performances ... and great artists decide what to perform or at least how ... on the basis of this resonance present in a given set of circumstances with a given audience.
The understanding of the meaning of one's self is so important that it is the 'sva' in 'svara' and 'svara' actually means ... the shining forth or the putting forth of the essence of ones self ... (interesting thought on etymology...'sva' = self + 'ra' = to put forth or to present.)
(a few more things worth thinking over ...
a.) most great hindustani classical masters are also people who have a deep understanding of the self, the world and the human psyche ... they are very close to being spiritual masters.
b.) not too many people find it easy to be in a state where they can understand or appreciate classical music. )
I've concluded that cognition and understanding are inseparable from art, and this should probably hold true for photography as well ...
Aalhad glad you liked the photos .. 3/27/2005 9:43 AM
Thanks! I'm glad that you like the photographs!
(The snaps taken by you at
marvellous -is- a word ? :)
(a word that says more about what you felt than about the photograph though)
To critique a photograph, and discuss how it could have been improved and learn lessons for further experiments, a study of aesthetics is helpful.
(Especially Butterfly street 2 Green Leaf 3 The B/W photo of the lady.
Please let me know which Camera you have used for the same)
I use a Kodak DX6490 advanced-point-and-shoot with a 6.3mm to 63mm (38mm to 380mm equivalent Schneider Kreuznach Variogon zoom) and am trying to create a budget for a EOS 350D or a EOS20D or otherwise a D70)
www.treklens.com/members/aalhad has the exif info for each photo as well.
This thread is digressing too far from the 'photography course..' topic. Maybe we could move it to another post ?
No comments:
Post a Comment