Just a try to capture what an eagle might see, flying over the foggy slopes of some mountain. This was a shot with a Haminar 500mm 1:8 tele that is a bit of a pain to use but can really help when shooting something that lies far, far away. A bit of lazy focus again for enhancement of the fuzzy view through the fog - and I would be very happy to know what you think.
Thanks a lot Koteiba. The mountains are full of such scenes and moods - so I just have to choose my scene. And so it comes that I am so often up there.
Annemette, you must be very convinced of yourself in order to think that I would "want" you to work some particular way. Obviously you trust your "feeling" too much and think that you know immediately what the reason is for me to go in depth in such a discussion. And also convinced about a possibility to do artistic work without really working but just by creative enthusiasm. Actually I couldn't care less about your "enthusiasm" based on half-knowledge and pieces of information snapped here and there. Go on that way, it's not my cup of tea.
But for one thing I do care, namely the dilettantish statements of the wannabe artist that denies work because of laziness, other priorities, and the absolute trust that he/she doesn't need to go through the difficult path of artistic evolution by thoughts, real learning, and exercise. We have pressumably thousands, if not millions, of individuals that think that arts is something that can be done without any further "headaches", just in the five minutes between cooking and having a cup of coffee while talking about things that they have not a single idea about. Great spirits of arts have always expressed that hard work is the most part of it, but nooo, Annemette and Co know better.
Another thing that I do care is the presentation of some aetheric opinions without even caring to first face logical statements, that themselves prove those opinions wrong. This is not the way to discuss. If you think that you can simply overfly my unconfortable questions you are mistaken. No such opinion can be taken seriously if it is still based on fundaments, the validity of which some unanswered questions put in danger.
Oh, and not to forget: Selling was never the criterion for distinguishing between arts and dilettantism. I can only be glad that you did refer to it, since doing that you made many things clear.
Returning to those spirits that gave us so many new things in artistic expression, you can perhaps guess that we are not talking about "my way" but about the way that made artistic work to what it is: Complete dedication and thirst to know how to translate vision into expression. If you don't want to adopt that you could also refuse to accept that you must learn the basics of a musical instrument before you compose.
Arts don't even care whether you have no time or a headache. And believe me, the artist's headaches are much worse than yours.
Dear Nick I know that you want me to work like you because you feel that this is the only way to do it not recognizing that we all work and learn in different ways. You work as with everything else systematically and seriously in order to sell photos. Iīve always been doing all kind of creative work with a variety of materials simply because I love it. Itīs passion that runs my maschinery:-) I donīt aim to reach some kind of non-measurable perfection or to sell anything although I actually have sold some paintings and have orders for some, too. They are hidden away in my home because Iīm too modest about what I do thinking that the rest of the world can do it much better although I can see in galleries that this is not the truth. Iīm humble because I know that there are people working very consciously and intense, whereas I do it in a playful way. Some donīt improve much though despite of their serious work and others improve tremendously. The people that have bought paintings of me and strangers who express enthusiasm about some of my photos wouldnīt say that itīs not art, as you do. I express moods and enjoy to exchange views about our different worlds and maybe lead to a greater conscience about some matters. This may not be a vision to you, but that doesnīt mean that what I do is less artwork than what you do. Instead of learning all kinds of techniques in a book, I re-invent them myself, as I play along with great enthusiasm. I know this sounds foolish in your ears because itīs a waste of time, but it isnīt to me. I love every step of it. I donīt claim to make masterpieces - on the contrary it seems like you make that claim for yourself because you think that your way of working is THE way. About letting it be the first priority I can only say that with a family this is naturally NOT oneīs first priority. And I actually have an old photographybook that Iīve been reading small parts of in order to understand how a camera works. I canīt use this info for much right now, but when I start using my old SRL or a new one Iīll enjoy trying different things out - not methodically, but in the way I like it:-) Sorry for not answering right away but as you know Iīm a bit ill these days so my head is not co-operating in terms of writing long messages:-) Take care and enjoy this sunny Friday Annemette
This is the first part of my reply to your message. For some reason it went lost, so I send it again. Sorry for the inconvenience.
I could say, about that guy, he just let his.. creativity flow, according to creativity, so it is OK.
If your way is creative then his is creative too. If we refuse that he worked in a creative way, then why should your (or my, or anybody's) work have that attribute?
As you can see, the result alone is not the benchmark. The question about creativity includes mainly the reasons, the why, not the what.
Beuss once said "If you want it to be arts, then it is arts - everybody is an artist". This statement has been taken off context and is used completely misunderstood to support "random creative work". But what he meant was:
a) The used means, be them brushes, cameras, canves, smoking cigarettes, or even a bathing tube full of rust are of secondary importance.
b) Notice the first part of the statement, the if-clause! "*IF* you want it to be arts...". This was not meant as a manifestation of some personal opinion about arts, but much more as the fundamental *reason* out of which the artistic work has to be fulfilled. *If* you want to say something, *if* you have a message, *if* there is a vision priorly to working. It is the vision that is necessary for artistic work.
And of course the related skilss in order to convert the abstract message in our minds into real existing things.
The unorthodox compositions of Frank Zappa are not artistic work because he was "just hitting the strings" but because he was hitting the strings in exactly the appropriate way in order to generate the unorthodov compositions that he was carrying in mind.
They all had a vision/message *and* spent a whole life with developing the skills - their own alphabet, if you like - that allowed them to write those messages exactlythe way the wanted using music, paintings, photography, bathing tubes full of rust, or anything else. It was not just playing around. It was hardest and most systematical work.
Without a vision and skills that turn *exactly* that vision into reality, there is no arts, if you like it or not. The definition of artistic work will not change simply because you (or anybody) have other opinions. This is not a matter of personal gusto. If we think that we can just come out and say that we do artistic work without these two basic premises, by simply "playing around", we belong to those that are so convinced of themselves and never had any doubts - which just further supports the laziness to read and learn systematically. Just ignoring the whole story of arts is not the way to do arts, even if we want it to be.
The really interested mind would ask now, how to prove the existence of vision and of the necessary related skills? Well, it is *this* that is the subject of argueing about the *results* of artistic work. Trying to "reconstruct" the conditions that lead to creation is the main minefield in which any argumentation about artistic work takes place. The "message" is the important thing and not the way it was written - this is true. But there has to be a message (vision, wish to say something) and the ability to "write" that message (for example on some photo) exactly as concieved.
You may not have said that you do masterpieces, but your argumentation (in your previous message) about "random creativity" implies that inherently. Yet, in this message you say something different, though you still do not answer the basic questions I posted. You want to "play" with aperture, etc, but don't have time to do that. Excuse me but artistic work will not make any exception for anybody. If you want to do artistic work, you have to *take* that time! Arts ignore any personal obligations - it is a matter of doing it consciously *and* putting it at the top of any other priorities. Either wholehearted and even obsessed, or not at all!
I can only be glad that you did take a look at ISO/shutter and the like - but do that systematically at last! You won't really learn by just snapping pieces of info here and there. I don't want to be "respected" - it is only the basics that have to be respected, not me.
Small steps and much time is needed here. A hard thing to do, but the conscious discoveries while joining the puzzle pieces to a *whole* picture, and then the realisation of thoughts - will more than pay off.
At the end you *will* take a book and the SLR out of that drawer and go create.
Dear Nick Artwork is many things. There was a foolish guy in Denmark that called peeing on a wall in a certain way for artwork and being creative. Being creative is not for everybody. Some have it, some donīt like with so many other gifts and skills in life. Weīre all different. You have no idea how many people Iīve encountered all my life not being creative, but wishing to be so. Some of them have started doing some artwork, but never really got into it. Iīve loved it all my life, I canīt be noncreative so to speak:-) Itīs a part of me. THis doesnīt mean in any way that Iīm some master of this or that. It just means that I have a good base hidden in my genes for doing artistic work. Of course itīs necessary to learn to become better. Itīs natural and nothing profound. Iīve never claimed that I take masterpieces, and I have not said that I abandoned all technical skills. I merely say that I prefer the combination of a natural artistic eye for motives and learned skills that in my case come slowly down the road. Having only technical skills or artistic genes doesnīt cut it in the long run. Iīm learning in my way, and youīre learning in your systematic way. Thatīs all. Youīre older than me, been photographing for a longer time and also have more time to yourself. I hope that this will lead to some really good photographs. I donīt avoid any questions. Iīm merely trying to make a pleasant conversation, comment and maybe learn more without getting a lecture of how bad my photos are, that I donīt think about what I do, that they are touristshots etc. I could repay that but I wonīt. I believe in positive feedback and good advice if something looks wrong as the main source to further development. I said many times that I donīt have the opportunity to play with the aperture now. THis doesnīt mean that I donīt wish to do so, or that I donīt respect what you do, Nikos. I play with my current compact digitalcamera. That is why some photoideas are being combined with the photoprograms. Yesterday I took some shots of hail. I wanted to be able to see them more clearly instead of just small dots, so I switched to the nightprogram knowing that the shuttereffect is slightly longer and thereby got an image that I wanted. Iīve turned to 100 ISO on your advice hoping to get less grainy images, but I also know that this will decrease the contrast. There is so much photowork that I would love to try out, but itīs coming. It just needs time:-. Take care Annemette
Your description of the "random artistic photo" is a contradiction by itself, Annemette. "...conscious shots taken by a creative soul without spending hours on each shot, but letting the creativity flow with the gained skills in the backhead somewhere." What do you do with skills if you don't take time to use them? Skills need time in order to be used. Every performer on stage knows that exercising and hard work is the centre of what the spectator might name "creative work". But of course your naturally born talents overweigh everything else. You create master pieces one after the other in zero time. Hat off!
As I said the problem is not digital vs analog but rather the quick and dirty solutions a'la program/autofocus which are not matters of film or CCD but rather of the shallow non-cognitive ways of our times. Not willing/able to understand the technical background of photography we end up trusting such "solutions" which are none. So the question remains - did you bother finding out for example how to introduce controlled amounts of fuzzyness/soft focus with an "all automatic" camera? Do you understand what the auto-programs do? Or do you use them just because they are labeled "Portrait", or "Macro" or whatever else? Keep in mind that there is much more snobbism in trusting the own "naturally born creativity" in the sense of "Oh, I am an artist, I don't need any technical background" and at the same time not granting the same gifts to tourists (or anybody else) just because they do not name themselves "artists". Actually what a "tourist" does when shooting a "random tourist photo" is exactly the same in its essence as what a wannabe "artist" does, relying on his/her naturally born ability to be creative - which in its nature is nothing special, since we are all gifted with such things. An artist is not solely a "dreamer" but much more than this a "maker", and the making needs deep and strong thoughts. And thus... time!
So, I would say, we could embrace whatever we want as long as we want - but if we go on with an "only creativity is enough" approach you will never get a step forwards. We would rather end up as diletantic wannabes with no chance to get better.
To make it clear, here is another question of those which you systematically avoid to answer - perhaps because there is not any answer at all. How should I convert my vision to a real existing photo, if not taking the time to examine what some particular aperture does?
What I mean is that I think we should embrace all the options we have instead of being locked up thinking that this artwork is fake or this is oldfashioned. The combination of it all can only lead to more and more interesting work. Itīs good to spread out ones creativity. As mentioned earlier I experience a funny movement in my mind the more I see and the more I learn about photography. Some shots that I was amazed by earlier, now bores me a bit. The more photos I take myself, the more I want to try out new methods. A very normal human approach I guess. I tried to buy a battery for my old SRL without luck. Soon Iīll go again when Iīm not ill anymore. Then Iīll do some shooting and write down the settings. If I had lots of money I would buy a digital SRL though and so much other good stuff like a tripod, fisheyelens etc. This summer I had the chance to take such a great shot. A very old, thin, wrinkled man was sitting enjoying a huge pink candyfloss...I ached to take his photo, but I was too shy and also I didnīt want to embarrass him. Some people donīt have problems with approaching such characters, and Iīd really love to have a photosession with such people in a city seing how they do it and what responses they get. This would be a good UF-meeting, I think. Such a long answer!:-) I could go on forever I think. Take care down in the Alps Annemette
Dear Nick First of all a little laughter because of our looooong comments and endless discussions that indeed must cause some headaches to some UF-people or some light headshaking*LOL* When I talked about a random tourist shot I thought about the photos that we have all been taking before gaining more knowledge about photography. Looking at sth. thinking: Ah, this is fantastic and just taking snapshots without thinking. Some have turned out great due to a combination of an artistic eye and good luck, but many are completely dull to view. Random artistic photos - well, I was thinking about conscious shots taken by a creative soul without spending hours on each shot, but letting the creativity flow with the gained skills in the backhead somewhere. No, I probably used the term trial and error wrongly because I am indeed conscious about my photographs in the ways I can be from what I have learned so far and also from my artistic eye. Because I have a digital camera now I just take more photos than I did earlier not worrying about the price of development and new film. I learn from these many different shots of the same image where you take a long time on one shot and learn from this. I donīt consider my shots to be rubbish or plain nice in general because of the autoprograms. I could wish for other options from time to time, but I consider digital and also the old analog cameras with programs as a development where the photographer doesnīt always have to change everything manually. But yes, I wish I had both options as I like to play and learn:-) I think thereīs some snobbism connected to doing it the oldfashioned way and trying out the new possibilities. I would personally like to do both. I donīt really know, but so far I donīt think that there are any IT-photoprograms that can make as good a documentaryphoto as the films can. There seems to be more grainyness and life in the B/W filmrolls. Still Iīm quite sure that these programs will only get better, and I consider it to be foolish not to jump on that wagon too giving so many possibilities for all kinds of work with photos. It takes a lot of time to get to know how to use them well just as it does with a manual camera. Furthermore itīs not fake more than what one can do with a camera and also in the developing process. There are so many fantastic landscapephotos on UF taken with SLR that I truly enjoy, but they show another kind of reality that isnīt there. A fake but beautiful world.
First of all, Annemette, I would be really grateful if you could explain to me what a "random tourist photo" might be, and of course also, inhowmuch does it differ to some assumed "random artistic photo". Notice however that the latter is a contradiction by itself for reasons that I'll soon talk about.
By reading your message I think that what you do is not as much "trial and error" in the sense of taking as many photos as possible and then simply rejecting the rubbish, but rather trial, error or success, and *conclusions* for later usage.
Of course such "all automatic" cameras can make life very difficult. Take for example this photo here and assume that you see some similar scene and you want to have it slightly fuzzy. How to do that on a camera with autofocus? Another real hindrance for active control of the capture is that such cameras offer some "programs" and expect that a photo will belong to some of those programs in any case. Most of the time this is not the case and the photo is just a "nice" one if not rubbish. Notice again that the problem is not the digital technology but rather the non-overridable auto settings and programs which you can find on film cameras too. My EOS 1000f has exactly the same problems until I switch to manual focus and manual DoF. And the simple question is, why on earth don't they add a simple button labeled "all manual" on such cameras? It wouldn't really be technologically hard to do and it would offer the advanced control that any photographer would like to have too.
So, taking a photo like this one this way with such a camera is only "half creativity" since the vision is there but the darn camera won't allow us to control it for getting the image exactly as we want it.
But then, another really creative step can be introduced. It is indeed rather hard to gain such a level of control using such "all automatic" cameras, but still it is possible. Such a photo like this one here is still possible using such a camera. I am sure that your creativity has discovered how to introduce a controlled amount of fuzziness and DoF by using programs and autofocus.
You can of course go "your way" but there is no such thing like "random creativity" since the definition of the world "creativity" itself excludes any incidental-only success in the process of translation of the vision into real existing things.
Thank you for the explanation, Nick. Itīs quite interesting how to get a sense of a storm or deep thick fog because if it gets too sharp the mood is ruined, and too lazy focus makes it uninteresting to look at. I like how you got the sense of depth. Well, I do take a close look at what I shoot, how I compose an image, where the natural light comes from, from which angle the shot works better, the balance, the colours, use of flash or not, but I donīt have the opportunity with my digital camera to do metering etc. manually. I do change a photo to my liking by letting the camera meter the light in a dark or bright area, the rest is more or less programs. When I said trial and error I didnīt mean that I take random touristphotos. I do think about my photos which many people in Uf have also recognized. I just take lots of them having a digital camera, I work with my creativity in one way, you do it in your way;-) Take care Annemette
Hi Andre and thanks a lot for the nice detailed comment.
I guess too, that a perfect focus is not necessary all the time provided that we are aware of the special conditions inside the frame of composition. Those old images you refer to, are indeed milestones of creativity since they manage to be lazy focused *and* to convey very recognizable atmosphere at the same time. Many of those old masters do really influence me very strongly - and so I had to start wondering if their methods are still applicable. To me it seems they are.
On a wider sense, it seems to me that there are many different kinds of "perfection", and that the absolutely sharply focused image is just one of them.
Particularly on this one, I bet that I won't get as many comments at all, because of the somewhat one-sided perfection of our digital days - so the bet goes! ;-)
Thank you very much for the nice detailed comment, Annemette!
Indeed it takes a bit of work to achieve balance, but it is not hard to do that. First of all of course comes the composition. The simple rule here is to *compose* and not simply shoot. Forget about the world outside your LCD or view finder. It will not exist when the photo is taken, so the sooner one forgets about that, the better one can know what the image will look like.
Then come the settings. Though of course there are pressumably infinite many settings that result into a good photo, the settings that one decides to have are a direct result of the "imaginary image" that hits the mind of the photographer. It is this image, the one that doesn't physically exist before shooting, that has to be "turned to reality".
For example, for this one it was the "fuzzy" look that should be enhanced without turning the photo to something unrecognizable. The naturally evolving conclusion is to focus lazy. And the result of this conclusion was to use manual settings for de-focusing slightly. (The Haminar lense that I used here does not work at all with auto settings because of the tube between it and the camera.) So, it was first focusing sharply and then changing focus slightly and keeping an eye on the image in the viewer to decide when the "fuzzyness" was enough.
The rather dark composition suggested a small correction of EV downwards - to enhance the shadows. Notice that the fog at the upper part is not only white but does contain some vague darker parts, that suggest that world extends further to the depth behind. An additional "amplification" of the look through the fog, if you wish.
All this has to be done with real working aperture of course, or else one doesn't see what the current settings will capture but rather what the lens would capture by an aperture at "standard width". Here of course the very sophisticated combination of aperture control of the combination T90/Hanimar lens/Tube was a great help.
Then shoot and hope for the best.
Or avoid all that and just shoot - who knows, perhaps it will be a nice image. But it will not be creative work since the word alone "create" implies "create what?". And this "what" has to be a conscious flash in one's mind - it has to exist mentally before it is created. Else it is simply coincidence - not creation.
Take care and a closer look at your LCD screen. ;-)
Hi Nick, I think these last two images are very effective. The "lazy" focus shows that it is not necessary to have an image perfectly sharp all the time. The mood is mysterious, moody and even dangerous looking. The longer I look at this one and the sister image, the more I like them. If you look up in old photo arts books that have images from the early 1900's, you will notice quite a few that have a similar flavour to them. My bet is that you will end up getting a lot of positive comments on these two shots. Andre
Dear Nick Here the hazyness works a bit better not being quite so blurry and grainy as in other similar shots. There must be a balance between the mood out there and the quality of the shot, so itīs also appealing to look at. But how to obtain such balance I donīt know. I go more or less for trial and error myself*LOL* Take care Annemette
0 
