<|-- removed generator --> The Online Photographer: The Best Way to Be a Photographer

« The Leica D-Lux 7 and D-Lux 8 | Main | New Work »

Monday, 12 August 2024

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

'Now in it's third edition [...]'

Well I am partly a linguist and I understand that this does not matter. But that is not a mistake to make in the first sentence of the blurb of a book.

". . . to not put . . ."

Yes, there are cases where a split infinitive flows more felicitously, but this one stopped me in my reading tracks.

I'm writing this before even thinking about what you may be saying or beyond the first line. I'm guessing that's not the purpose of this first line?

Not to put too fine a point on it. \;~)>

[Ah, someone in your youth taught you to not split infinitives. Old joke.

My suggestion: never think about "split infinitives" again. It's a fake rule, always has been. Never give it another thought.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/most-of-what-you-think-you-know-about-grammar-is-wrong-4047445/

I'm with Goold Brown, who, in his The Grammar of English Grammars, 1851, said the construction "to not [verb]" was less elegant than some other adverbial placements but was sometimes clearer. That is the case here IMHO.

In any event, if you expect to never encounter another split another infinitive herein, you will have to very patiently and at great length wait.

:-)

--Mike]

Writing like this is why I keep coming back to TOP.

I find that I was interested in different things at different points in my life. I didn't really concentrate on any single subject though. Some subjects interested me and some didn't.

I took some decent photos at a 24-hour race, mainly to see if they would turn out well. I didn't expect anything "news worthy", unless there had been a terrible accident on the track near my location. I didn't get hooked on auto racing photography any more than any other subject. It was an event with an opportunity to take photos.

I've done some political campaign photography, college newspaper photography (human interest/informal portraits, some sports), and the usual family gatherings.

The thing that has interested me lately are new construction sites on land that was bare before. New buildings when they were being built with the "finished product" in due time.

Also interesting are the older buildings that have been around during my life. Some businesses are around for years, then suddenly they're going out of business. It always surprises me that a business I've known since I was a teenager can all of a sudden not be there any more.

Photos of family members and businesses which "used to be there" are probably the two categories in which future generations may have some interest.

Most race cars have looked alike for decades. Only the cars up through the 1960s are noticeably different from each other. So, none of my auto racing photos are going to look very interesting.

The first time I was really interested in studying photographs was after I saw Ansel Adams work -- especially the straight prints versus his finished work.

I'm still amazed at how he could see the final result with such a modest "beginning photo". (Of course, he was a masterful printer too.)

I'm eager to read the comments for this post. (The comments for the "A Curious Thing About a Book" post were as good as the post itself. I like this post even more than that previous one.)

This is a great reminder to be interested in the photographs, and not just the gear/process/navel gazing.

I've long valued being a generalist, and believe that the writers, photographers and others whose work I have enjoyed the most are people with varied skills, knowledge and interests. I have a variety of those myself. But I struggle with bridging the different disciplines (well, disciplines may not be the word; more like enthusiasms, without necessary being accompanied by discipline in the undertakings!). I tend to silo the different interests, and I would really like to bring, for example, my writing pursuit into photography, and vice versa.

Yeah, there is photographic writing, and I do a bit of that with a small blog, but I want more abstracted connections between them. I want a way to make both currents flow together into a single larger watercourse.

_On Being a Photographer_ is also a favorite of mine, along with _Mountain Light_ by Galen Rowell. You would think they are very different books but when looked at correctly they say much the same things.

Here is a longer rumination of mine that mentions both books at the start which your page reminded me of ...

https://mutable-states.com/how-to-take-good-pictures.html

I love to look at photographs. Particularly the “old timers” in black and white. Mostly books as I am not into screen time. Much prefer to get lost in a good book of photos as my own photography is not very good.

It's not the camera that tells the story but the person behind it.

Here's a recent story from behind the camera. It was just a test image, but it turned out surprisingly good (much better, larger), especially since I wasn't expecting much. I recently acquired a very nice Ebony RW and needed to test the bellows before leaving feedback for the seller. The timing was tight—Hurricane Debby was on its way, so I had to pack up the studio and the house. Still, with my digital back at hand, I decided to test the bellows just for fun. I set up the 210mm lens, grabbed some flowers from the kitchen table, and here's the result:

The bellows are light-tight, positive feedback was left, and now that H. Debby is history and the studio is unpacked, I'm ready to go on the road and shoot some film.

I'm sure some people won't like the image, and that's perfectly fine with me. I love it because it represents 64 seconds of my life captured in a single shot. The hydrangeas were huge and beautiful, and the camera performed flawlessly. That's what matters to me.

I'm a photographer because I enjoy making pictures and looking at what others share. Even though I made a living at it, taught it in the classroom, and even drove to KEH Camera when I closed my studio to unload all my Hasselblad gear—hoping it would force me to say "no" to more work—it still found its way back to me.

I have a deep appreciation for all photographers, including those who find happiness in acquiring gear, even if they don't often share their images. If it brings them joy and doesn't impact their financial well-being, then I fully support them. It's a sad thing when someone can't find joy in life, so if this is their way of finding it, I say more power to them.

I've always valued my privacy, so being in the spotlight was never my goal. While I never enjoyed doing shows, I did sell a lot of prints throughout my career. What truly fulfilled me was bringing joy to others through my photography. It might sound a bit corny or old-fashioned, but that's who I am. The happiness I've been able to share has brought me lasting fulfillment, and that's more than enough for me—and it was all thanks to photography.

You can direct your interest in "photography" into photographing cameras like I do:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/forloren/

I don't know how many times I've heard people complain that I only show my cameras and not my pictures -- say what!!?

BTW. I also photograph photo books.
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjsm6P4J

..and both ;-)

Leica IIIf with Summar 5cm f/2.0

Admittedly there is an element of tongue-in-cheek in above.
I do have a strong interest in photographs as well as making photographs that goes beyond dokumentation, but it is an introspective exercise I rarely share online.
The times I have tried, the effort has been met with silence (mostly) and even in insults from strangers, so I have found it isn't worth the trouble.

PLEASE EDIT MY POST TO BE:

Do we all photograph things for the same real reason?

We're almost identical, all human beings. Could the core reason, the true truth behind what actually drives us to photograph things be, in essence, the same for all of us?

To not think it possible that that is what is the truth, is that not in itself a possible? (SWIDT) see what I did there...

I'm not sure you'd call me "reasonable" but "On Being a Photographer" was one of the worst written and least informative books on the craft I have ever had the displeasure to spend money on. Two old guys taking turns being utterly self indulgent. But maybe I just wasn't reading it correctly...

The best (IMO) entry in the 2nd edition of Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English, OUP (1978) (ed. Sir Ernest Gowers) is that on the split infinitive; being by the frank admission of the editor, an "inconclusive discussion, in which ... the author's opinion has perhaps been allowed to appear with indecent plainness". The entry begins - "The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and approve; and (5) those who know and distinguish. .... (1) Those who neither know nor care are the vast majority, and are a happy folk, to be envied by most of the minority classes ....". And so it goes for 2 1/2 pages. Lovely stuff, if that's your cup of tea.

Your post "The Best Way to Be a Photographer" really nailed it, in my view. Here are a few paras from an article I wrote for "Rangefinder" magazine around 1990.

"Contrary to what most of us have always heard, photography is not an art of self-expression. Photography is above all others the art of self-effacement. Photography reaches its highest plane when the photographer has so mastered its tools and processes that he is able to use them to take himself out of the way and allow the subject to speak, to reveal itself through his skill. Paradoxically, it is only then that the photographer fully and truly expresses himself.
Another paradox is the fact that looking at a photograph of something is often the best way to see it. '...the camera's innate honesty...provides the photographer with a means of looking deeply into the nature of things, and presenting his subjects in terms of their basic reality. It enables him to reveal the essence of what lies before his lens with such clear insight that the beholder may find the recreated image more real and comprehensible than the actual object.' (Edward Weston, "Seeing Photographically," The Complete Photographer, January, 1943.)
Our work as photographers is to isolate and clarify so that others may through us see the things that are around them. Our expensive equipment and our skill at using the processes of photography are enjoyable in themselves, but are ultimately pointless unless they become the channels through which we empower our subject to reveal the essence of itself."

I love that you make me remember it. After some time I need to revisit a lot, I feel I have many memories and some are lost. I like visit them as old friends. Many thanks.

I keep attributing to TOP, from many years ago, some discussion about the ethos and meaning of photography to which I paraphrase as:
"Why photograph? Because people die?"

Haven't been able to locate the actual comment or post!

Personally photography started as an interest to document and keeping images from the passage of time, to then be interested in the technique and art itself.

"The best way to be a photographer might be to not put "photography" first as your main interest."

This seems to me to raise the question, how do you define "photographer"?

Allthough you say you are talking about amateurs, it feels to me as though your definition is grounded in the world of professional photography, curators, gallery owners and pro critics.

For example: "hopeless dilettante in the focus of your attention and your work—you dabble in all sorts of things but create only a jumble, a far-flung hodgepodge of unrelated pictures."

Those pejoratives are all from the point of view of an outsider, someone used to evaluating saleability, show readiness, and so on. They take no account of the perspective, opinions, and feelings of the photographer.

"Photographers might ask themselves: Am I interested in photographs? Are you interested enough in photographs that you'd still be just as deeply interested in them if you gave up your own photography altogether? It's possible to be deeply engaged with photography yet not be a photographer."

It's unclear to me how this relates to the putative question. Your title is not "The Best Way to Be interested in Photography" I don't see the necessary link between being interested in pictures in general and being a photographer.

Was Michelangelo deeply interested in other artists work? I have no idea, but how does it matter to what he created?

I'm surely no Michelangelo, but I take photographs to get results that please me, and often, but not necessarily, friends and family.

"The most common way of getting lost is to shop for gear and never stop shopping."

I've bought and sold a fair amount of gear. But it's always been with the goal of making photos. What does this thing do that will allow me to do better versions of what I've done or, best, what will it allow me to do that I've wanted to do, but could not?

I've moved on from cameras I really liked to ones that please me less to carry and use, simply for increased capability.

This brings me back to dilettante. I've done a lot of playing with styles and gear. Not long ago, I played with several lenses, working out which and how will make "soap bubble bokeh". Did I get any deathless photos, no. But I had fun and now know how to do that.

More recently, I've been working with a couple of Oly's F1.2 lenses. And yes, some images I and others love, both in conventional shallow DoF and in other ways I could not do before in-camera focus bracketing. Good Stuff!, whether you a gallery owner or a curator likes them or not.

"It's occurred to me over the years that what I really like is looking. I love to look and to see, and some of that can be photographed and some can't, but I love to see, whether I have a camera with me or not."

Ah, finally in sync! Yes, seeing is the thing. I do relatively more tele and close-up/macro photography because that's a way I see, small portions of the full visual field.

"The best book I know of that articulates these ideas is Bill Jay and David Hurn's On Being a Photographer."

Thumbs up! And yet, although I know I read and liked it a lot, I can't recall specifics. I just put it back in the pile.

" the construction "to not [verb]" was less elegant than some other adverbial placements but was sometimes clearer. That is the case here IMHO.

And, in my, possibly not so humble opinion, it's like a crack in the sidewalk; made me stumble.

I wouldn't have stumbled over "might be not to put"

" In any event, if you expect to never encounter another split another infinitive herein, you will have to very patiently and at great length wait.
:-)"

I am more interested in flow, and perhaps elegance, than rules. I actually write a lot, mostly poetry, lately, but I recently brought out a novel I got stale writing, and put aside for a while; 85,000 words, heading for maybe 100k, soon, I think. I happily split infinitives, esp. in dialog, but only for flow and clarity and for authenticity of voice.

MMDV \;~)>

@Kirk : Exactly, couldn’t agree more ! Each and every-one of my pictures that I am really glad with, has come as a surprise. A kind of grace that only occurs when I am open minded.

I never understood the split infinitive thing; we speak how we speak and sometimes we write it down that way.

I really enjoy the writing of John McWhorter and I'm currently about halfway through Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue. I've enjoyed it as much as his New York Times writing.

One of my favourite books is: "How to Read a Photograph" by Jeffrey.

https://www.amazon.ca/How-Read-Photograph-Lessons-Photographers/dp/0810972972

Dear Mike - The picture that I posted above appears "a stop darker" than on fkickr, from where it's linked; and has been cropped from the 3:2 aspect ratio that I posted to a square — these two differences ruin the effect and photographic intent. Of course, anyone can click on the image and see the flickr post. However, I think it would be best to delete my post above. Can you do that?

[Done.

TypePad isn't really set up for pictures in the Comments section. Here are the instructions for how to do it:

/the_online_photographer/2022/02/how-to-add-a-picture-to-a-comment-on-top.html

Hope this helps. --Mike]

The comments to this entry are closed.

Portals




Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007