A precursor of things to come?

[Asher Kelman]

I use both digital cameras and film.

What's important in still photogrphy is the intense focus on choice and discarding the rest of the time space options. We go for the peak decisive moment in a dancers moves or the tackle in soccer or "the" kiss in a wedding.

The discipline in photography is about choosing perspective, position, light and timing, all of which are sub-samples of a movie. Done well, the still photograph has the potential to transcend the limitations of giving attention to what is not powerful to leave only that which is moving, powerful and compelling!

The best photography can trump a long movie as it summarizes and focuses possibilities from which we ourselves can make our own fascinating stories and fantasies.

Asher

[Donald Miller]

Donald,

I guess I don't see where any of what you have proposed is new. We've had webcams depicting people's lives’, trips, fish tanks, pets, volcanoes, cities ... you name it. 24/7. Complete with sight and sound. Hasn't Bill Gates some sort of artwork panels that randomly display images to enhance the room's environment? What is it you propose that is any different and what does it have to do with "straight photographers" and their chosen form of expression?


I don't really see where these comments have anything to do with what you are discussing? I'm left feeling from this and other posts that you have made that you have some underlying problem with straight, tradiional or film photographers. What's up?

Bill

Bill,

This methodolgy is not widespread, to my knowledge. Yes Gates has this in his home according to what I have heard (random scenes as you mentioned). What I think may be different is that one could have a real time experience of a given subject...an example would be one of your Iceland scenes in which one could experience a continuum of everything from darkness to dawns light and back to dusks darkness again.

I don't have a problem with traditional photographers. I still do a lot of film photography. I do have a problem with elitism no matter who evidences it.

Hope that this explains more fully.

[Gordon Moat]

First off, in my opinion, there is nothing that could be accomplished in the latest version of PhotoShop that could not have been accomplished with PhotoShop 3.0. Perhaps it is easier, more accessible, or more intuitive for some, but these professional tools have been around for well over twelve years. The only difference is that ten years ago not many people outside the design and photography community knew what PhotoShop could allow you to accomplish, and now many enthusiasts have it on their computers. It is just another tool, despite numerous workshops trying to make it out as something more; and especially despite Adobe trying to convince people that every version really is very different, or allows one to accomplish things not possible in prior versions; the only real difference is in productivity or different ways of accomplishing what was possible in earlier versions.

Even prior to PhotoShop, there were retouching experts, and a few computer applications that allowed one to accomplish more with images. The difference from today were the time needed to accomplish something, and the much greater expense required. However, what this has always been, in my opinion, is photo-illustration. A truly skilled illustrator could likely accomplish many of todays images without a computer, but the effort would be greater.

Movies . . . at least memorable movies . . . have been planned on story boards, with specific scenes framed as individual moments. This is very much like still images, just that there is some motion and action between those moments. The memorable scenes become those that the mind's eye of the viewer logs into their memory. We are tuned to think and remember in still scenes, and less often in motion. So movies are not really that different from still photography. Anyone could watch a movie, take note of when each scene changes, and record which scenes become the hit points, those parts in the story board that stick with the viewer. There is more of a difference in sound and audio, than there is in the visual aspects.

The only real technology change I can see in the recent history of photography that makes an impact on the final images is the changes in lighting choices now available. I have yet to see any digitally captured image, which was not photo-illustration or some composite, that could not have been done on film . . . and that has nothing to do with grain, lack of grain, or some aspects of colour. In fact, the majority of photo-illustration I have seen could have originated with film images; and unless done poorly the viewer would have never known the difference. Even the sometimes current trend of adding grain or noise to digital captures to make them seem more film like just adds another layer of doubt upon viewers.

Trends are something that are in constant motion. Working in a creative profession involves following some trends, and every once in a while taking a greater risk of going against current trends; and for a handful of individuals: defining future trends. There can be a nostalgia of emulating the past, but sustaining interest might be tougher over a longer time period. These are all creative choices, and whether professionals or just exhibiting photographers, we decide what directions we take.

The appeal to viewers of still images is that their mind's eye can visualize and imagine their own interpretation. There is less guidance than in some movies. Movies can allow an escape, or just that feeling of being along for the ride; so in some ways more disconnected. However, those memorable scene stop points can be retained in the mind of the viewer, who can later draw their own interpretation.

Bill Viola, and a few others, have displayed very slow motion video panels that at first glance seemed to be portraits. Wait in front of one long enough, and that sense of motion is there, though the memorable aspect will often become just one frame. there have been similar experiments in video and film, notably the band U2 with their Zooropa tour; images and words quickly cycled across many screens; some viewers remembered certain words or images, while others completely missed the images that someone next to them did view . . . the end result was that each viewer was able to later develop their own interpretation of what they saw.

So if there is anything really new, it is that more of the general public now discusses these things. Anyone who has been at this more than ten years has quite likely seen it all before . . . like a train wreck, or crime scene . . . "move along, nothing to see here . . . . . . .

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Scott Davis]

I think what you're proposing here has some interesting potential, and people are already playing with it, particularly the compression of that captured space/time/sound/light experience from real-time to some abbreviated time-space. While it involves photography as an element of its creation, it is a radically different object than a photograph. I think it could best be described as a multi-media "experience". My concerns about such an artistic construct are its absolute dependence on an extremely fragile interconnection of multiple technologies to make it work; if the power goes out, or if the hard-drive fails, or the LCD screen burns out pixels, or the phosphors shift, or the speaker cone is damaged, at best the final product is NOT the experience the artist intended, and at worst, there is no experience to be had. Executing such a project holds little appeal to me because it lacks portability, it is technologically bound, and it also puts intentionality at risk; when recording an entire day, there will always be events that occur that do not fit within the artists desired experience (contrails wrecking a sunset, off-camera car accidents, etc) that to edit out destroys the flow of the experience. For my own personal taste, I would rather use "traditional" photographic media to record either individual moments, or distillations of groups of moments, to capture exactly what I want and display it the way I want.

Just because shutter speeds are marked on the dial from 1/500th to 1 second does not mean that we are hidebound to think of a photograph as representing ONE moment in time. If you go back and play with antique materials like wet-plate collodion or Daguerrotypes, you are absolutely capturing a period of time, not a single moment. You are totally in control, but at the same time forced to contend with controlling time, not being controlled by it.

[billschwab]

This methodolgy is not widespread, to my knowledge.

I don't know Donald, I just don't think you're looking hard enough. What about time lapse photography? Have you ever seen Koyaanisqatsi?

...an example would be one of your Iceland scenes in which one could experience a continuum of everything from darkness to dawns light and back to dusks darkness again.

I can do this with any number of webcams now in operation on the Web.

Sorry... I still see nothing new about this.

Bill

[John Kasaian]

FWIW, All my photography is heavily reliant on digital. I use all my digits in loading 8x10 film holders, setting up the tripod, setting an f/stop, and loading the Unicolor drum.

So whats the problem?

[Donald Miller]

I don't know Donald, I just don't think you're looking hard enough. What about time lapse photography? Have you ever seen Koyaanisqatsi?

I can do this with any number of webcams now in operation on the Web.

Sorry... I still see nothing new about this.

Bill

Bill, I agree that there is nothing new about the technology. It is the use of the technology to capture and depict something different than a still photography. Of course one could make the same statement about virtually everything...even automobiles as an example...but I would rather drive my SUV than the Model A that I had at one time. If you know of someone who is doing this photographic presentation in an artistic way, I would appreciate it if you would direct me towards them. Good luck to you.

[Donald Miller]

I think what you're proposing here has some interesting potential, and people are already playing with it, particularly the compression of that captured space/time/sound/light experience from real-time to some abbreviated time-space. While it involves photography as an element of its creation, it is a radically different object than a photograph. I think it could best be described as a multi-media "experience". My concerns about such an artistic construct are its absolute dependence on an extremely fragile interconnection of multiple technologies to make it work; if the power goes out, or if the hard-drive fails, or the LCD screen burns out pixels, or the phosphors shift, or the speaker cone is damaged, at best the final product is NOT the experience the artist intended, and at worst, there is no experience to be had. Executing such a project holds little appeal to me because it lacks portability, it is technologically bound, and it also puts intentionality at risk; when recording an entire day, there will always be events that occur that do not fit within the artists desired experience (contrails wrecking a sunset, off-camera car accidents, etc) that to edit out destroys the flow of the experience. For my own personal taste, I would rather use "traditional" photographic media to record either individual moments, or distillations of groups of moments, to capture exactly what I want and display it the way I want.

Just because shutter speeds are marked on the dial from 1/500th to 1 second does not mean that we are hidebound to think of a photograph as representing ONE moment in time. If you go back and play with antique materials like wet-plate collodion or Daguerrotypes, you are absolutely capturing a period of time, not a single moment. You are totally in control, but at the same time forced to contend with controlling time, not being controlled by it.

Scott, All of what you have said is true...sometimes one must stretch the bounds of what has been in order to arrive at what can be. On the negative side of things, one could also say that a film back may develop a glitch and fail to advance the film, the batteries may go dead, the film holder or bellows may develop a pinhole this time when we use the camera, the shutter may hang up this time, a flood of mega proportions may come and wash the earth clean once again, or any number of "worst case scenarios".

Regardless of how one chooses to think about this matter of time represented by a photograph, the factual basis is that the photograph and the depiction contained therein or on is only representative of the length of time that the film or light sensitive substrate is exposed... that is true irrespective of the process or methodology employed...it can not be anything more or less...Every other interpertive departure of the time representation from that is an abstraction.

As an example of this, I would like to think that I have ten times as much money in the bank as I actually have...but my banker tells me that reality is different than what I would like to think.

[Donald Miller]

www.theircircularlife.it

d

Thanks for providing this link. This is one approach and quite nice because of the provision for interaction. I find the transitions to be a bit abrupt but that can be adjusted by merging still with video. Thanks again.

[Doug Howk]

A B&W still photograph is to a continuous view of a scene as a well-written poem is to a long-winded novel. Many prefer the novel for it relieves the reader from thinking just as many viewers prefer less abstraction from reality. Is this recognition of differences a sign of elitism, as you suggest?

As far as technical advances in photography & movies, the decisive moment has for decades been able to be culled from a digital stream of images. What is new is the ease with which the selection process can be performed. Combined with it's just good enough aesthetics and you have consumers as creators of their favorites images. Nothing new here since a 100 yrs ago we had the invention of the Kodak moment which put professional photographers on the defensive. We even have a new generation of pictorialists creating thru software artistic rendering of photographs. Where all this is heading I don't think even Bill Gates knows ;-)