p.3 #1 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
David Baldwin wrote:
"I don't think the technology (or an aspect/artifact of the technology) should become the art, it seems like people seem to try to rationalize everything these days."
Now I don't think that's fair. If anything we can be accused of being starry eyed about the technical artifacts of the past, not those of the present (if people's anecdotes about 5D3 ISO 6400 are anything to go by). That alone should show that we are not rationalizing.
As for weaknesses in technology, photographic history is littered with great photographers taking the weaknesses in the process and creatively making use of them as another technique: ...Show more →
Steichen really should have used the D880e for his Flatiron Building shot. The grain is quite distracting and it looks to me like it suffers from the well-known color balance issues with non-Nikon capture. Canon wouldn't fix this as they'd rather just make us buy the next model and make more money from us.
If Steichen had used one of the more recent L primes, the softness in the corners of the image might have been rectified. And the dynamic range - don't get me started! This system barely handles more than a few stops and presents technical limits that hamper the creativity of photographers. This is made even worse when you consider the horrendous vignetting that plagues the image.
Shadow detail is abominable - basically missing. I can't see the faces of the main "subjects" at all!
But its not just about technical stuff - photography is really about important things like composition and "telling the story." Steichen needs to review his "rule of thirds!" The building is centered horizontally in the frame, precisely violating the rule and demonstrating the most basic newbie error. On top of that, he wasn't even careful about edges, as illustrated by the way he didn't even realize that he was cutting off the top of the building!. And what about the tree growing out of the top of the poor fellow's head!
And what is the story of this photograph? Who are these people - whose faces I can't even make out - and why should I care.
p.3 #2 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
Dan, perhaps it is my ignorance/lack of appreciation of art, but considered outside of the context of when it was taken and the innovative chemistry used, I don't actually see what is so amazing about this image.
I am (genuinely) interested to know what i am missing.
p.3 #3 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
The Steichen image has all that is really important in photography.
It is MOODY, it has atmosphere. It makes us look at our "humdrum" world with new eyes. I reference this image because it is a good example of how an artist can take an "artifact" and use it creatively to make art. Going back to the point of this thread, if noise or grain is automatically considered a problem always to remove then we might be missing a chance to make OUR images moody. One tool among many (and I am not insulting anyone saying this by the way!)
p.3 #4 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
gdanmitchell wrote:
But its not just about technical stuff - photography is really about important things like composition and "telling the story."
Yeah, for me the art for me is compelling, emotion, impact, etc. The technology is just a tool.
p.3 #5 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
15Bit wrote:
Dan, perhaps it is my ignorance/lack of appreciation of art, but considered outside of the context of when it was taken and the innovative chemistry used, I don't actually see what is so amazing about this image.
I am (genuinely) interested to know what i am missing.
I think the very fact that you are trying to separate the art from its context is a problem to begin with.
I know the popular line of thinking on photography forums is that "the image should stand on its own." But art doesn't always work that way. Art is frequently entertwined with context in terms of the methods used to create it, the historical timeframe in which it was created, the societal perspectives surrounding it, etc.
p.3 #6 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
artd wrote:
I think the very fact that you are trying to separate the art from its context is a problem to begin with.
In which case this image is actually a poor example to use here, because much of its contextual value derives from the innovative methodology used in its creation. Or, in modern terms, how cool the gear is that was used....
p.3 #8 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
"In which case this image is actually a poor example to use here, because much of its contextual value derives from the innovative methodology used in its creation. Or, in modern terms, how cool the gear is that was used...."
The image is a good example of a grainy photo whose grain helps the mood of the picture, where the technical limitations on the photographer were creatively converted into a positive artistic statement.
Personally I really dislike contextual interpretations of photographs, it doesn't interest me. I like this image whether it was made 100+ years ago, or last week. For the record I don't know if Steichen used a view camera or some sort of TLR, wet or dry plate, platinum or silver paper, tripod or hand held, whether it was one shot or a composite, whether he had a happy childhood or not, whether he was a democrat or republican, university educated or not, immigrant or US born, stright or gay, adopted or not, calm or touchy etc etc.
None of this matters, the photo is about mood or it is nothing. I deprecate curator type analysis of photography. Hope this clears it up!
p.3 #9 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
15Bit wrote:
In which case this image is actually a poor example to use here, because much of its contextual value derives from the innovative methodology used in its creation. Or, in modern terms, how cool the gear is that was used....
I think you missed that I said that methodology can be be part of the context. In that sense, this is indeed a rather good example of that. But, you are also mistaken in equating "methodology" with "gear" in this instance. Because there is a lot more involved than just having the gear. It requires a process. Platinum printing with layers of pigment application is a rather labor-intensive process, and not exactly something anyone would be able to do just because they have the gear to do it.
But the methodology used is not the only context to be aware of here. The photo is a representation of the pictorial movement. In the era this was created, there was a controversey about photography being an actual art form, with some claiming it was a simple representation of reality (as opposed to painting, for instance, which required the artist to create his/her own interpretation of reality). The pictorial movement was a response to this line of thinking, where photographers searched for creative ways to manipulate images in order to impart a sense of emotion into them. To put it another way, photographers working in the pictorial tradition were trying to impart "painterly" qualities to their photos.
I think the Flatiron photo is a pretty good example of that. It uses a very deliberate process to achieve its unqiue, moody effect with a very well thought out purpose. And I think it's a great example of why context does how context can matter when it comes to art.
p.3 #10 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
David Baldwin wrote:
The image is a good example of a grainy photo whose grain helps the mood of the picture, where the technical limitations on the photographer were creatively converted into a positive artistic statement.
I think it's worth noting that in this case the "technical limitations" are really self-imposed by Steichen's chosen process. It's not like techniques didn't exist to make clear, less grainy photos. He just didn't want to.
In a way, it's not dissimilar to how today we can choose to add grain to digital images. It's just a much simpler task to accomplish
p.3 #11 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
David Baldwin wrote:
Personally I really dislike contextual interpretations of photographs, it doesn't interest me. I like this image whether it was made 100+ years ago, or last week. For the record I don't know if Steichen used a view camera or some sort of TLR, wet or dry plate, platinum or silver paper, tripod or hand held
I agree here too, an image should speak for itself. If I have to sit down and explain to someone why the image is great, then I feel like I've missed the point. As a photographer I want an image that is a message or that speaks for itself, not one I have to speak for.
p.3 #12 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
"I think it's worth noting that in this case the "technical limitations" are really self-imposed by Steichen's chosen process. It's not like techniques didn't exist to make clear, less grainy photos. He just didn't want to.
In a way, it's not dissimilar to how today we can choose to add grain to digital images. It's just a much simpler task to accomplish"
p.3 #13 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
Gunzorro wrote:
Jefferson -- How did you get such an incredible amount of shadow noise at ISO 50?
It’s all in the technique… You have to be able to hit the high speed sync button on your flash as you turn it on, and be in Av mode with a fast 50mm prime set to f/2.2 and have the ISO low … 50… because the noonday sun in a cloudless sky was so bright where you were shooting just a few moments before…
This results in a fast shutter speed and f/2.2…. fast shutter exposed the background… dark areas… and the flash exposed the driver and outside part of car… That’s my story and I’m sticking with it…
After a couple of shots, and I saw 1/8000… we went back to having the shutter speed 1/250…
When I looked in LR after I imported, and I played with it some, because it looked interesting… I kept it just for this occasion…
p.3 #16 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
15Bit wrote:
In which case this image is actually a poor example to use here, because much of its contextual value derives from the innovative methodology used in its creation. Or, in modern terms, how cool the gear is that was used....
Not quite, but... I really enjoy it when people figure out that "classic" photography tools that we now regards as representing the solid tradition of photography were once the newest, most innovative, most modern tools - not regarded as "classical" at all back in the day.
This stuff is more complex than it sometimes appears. :-)
p.3 #17 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
artd wrote:
The photo is a representation of the pictorial movement. In the era this was created, there was a controversey about photography being an actual art form, with some claiming it was a simple representation of reality (as opposed to painting, for instance, which required the artist to create his/her own interpretation of reality). The pictorial movement was a response to this line of thinking, where photographers searched for creative ways to manipulate images in order to impart a sense of emotion into them. To put it another way, photographers working in the pictorial tradition were trying to impart "painterly" qualities to their photos.
I think the Flatiron photo is a pretty good example of that. It uses a very deliberate process to achieve its unqiue, moody effect with a very well thought out purpose. And I think it's a great example of why context does matter when it comes to art. ...Show more →
The interesting thing is that quite a few new photographers - and who among us had not been one? - frequently reinvent ideas that have already been tried and were even popular. It is good to understand some of that context if you are interested in the quality and value of the photographs you create today.
There is a lot of interesting history behind how we thought about and think about photographs and what makes an interesting or good one. One of the very early ideas about what a photograph could do was that it could fix an image of the "real" thing, quickly and accurately. Of course, that turns out to basically be impossible - even though lots of folks today still think that is what they are doing. A later development was pictorialism, which turned the tables and asked photographs to be more like paintings - evoke mood and not attempt to be objectively real but to, instead, evoke subjective reaction. Later we have photographers who reacted against that notion (and this group included some who had been pictorialists) and who decided that a photograph is not a painting and that its ability to render with focus precision and so forth might be its virtue. I've often thought of this as the "let photographs be photographs" era. Since then there have been and continue to be lots of other ideas about what photographs can do and how they work. Perhaps just the fact that a thing exists as a photograph changes our perception of it - an idea that might be behind a lot of modern photography that might look banal to us. There is a whole school of constructing photographs (Jeff Wall, et al) that is, in some ways, not all that different from what some photographers were doing over a century ago. And on and on and on...
I happen to be one of those who think that a great photograph can and should speak for itself on some effective level and without explanation or context - but this does not at all mean that explanation and context are bad things. The newer the work is, and perhaps the older it is, the more that context might be useful.
It might even make an old Steichen photograph seem like something interesting and compelling. ;-)
Dan
BTW: As far as I've seen, there is no evidence at all that an art like photography will ever be free of "limitations." Waiting for that is hopeless. Better to work with whatever you have and get on with it.
p.3 #19 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
I mind color noise, and blotchy noise that can creep into things like a blue sky. otherwise I am really pretty tolerant of tight, nice digital noise like the 5d3 has. I don't touch noise reduction until like 6400.
I've been shooting film. 400 is nice. tri-x pushed to 800 I'm good with. delta 3200 is a little more than I'd prefer.
endless wacking off about digital noise is just about as fun as obsessing about dxo scores and lens charts. shoot a picture worth looking at and people won't mind the noise.
p.3 #20 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
If I had my choice of image with noise or no image, I would take the image with noise. Noise is part of the process. It has diminished but it is still there.
Film grain is part of black and white photography. It is always present. If something has changed over the years that I am not aware of, adjusting the focus on the enlarging of a black & white image was always done by using a magnifier and adjusting until the grain was in focus.
