Re: Large Format Landscapes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Heroique
I dunno, David – if I complained about clichés, I wouldn’t rhapsodize about a barn in the country. ;) Me, I like & learn from many of the clichés here, and whether my images are original or just “typical,” in each case I try to return the favor by providing a useful insight, or sharing a fun narrative (like Jim’s Alberta Black Widow). I think the widespread sharing here invites many more people than the clichés keep away.
Still a valid opinion. Formula=wide lens. Big sky + strip of foreground or Big foreground + strip of sky. Filters coming out of the ears. A nice balanced one one was the recent one posted of mono lake with bushes in the foreground and a hole in the clouds above the lake, that was good, it had a sense of place and the light was nice.
Look at this link http://lenscratch.blogspot.com/2010/07/russ-martin.html This guy takes lots of photographs (not lf) of the same thing, the same things others on this forum photograph over and over again, they still manage to produce many different lines and compositions and values in their photographs. If I had hostas available to me, I would be there trying to produce something good too, and no doubt failing but that is preferable to plonking down the camera and thinking, hm, this is a leaf, or hm, this is a landscape and churning out another routine big sky/big foreground. Is there no other way of seeing a landscape?
Of course, I am an arrogant ____, there is huge value in the taking of a photograph and of sharing it, and no one should be afraid of posting a photograph because of what others may think or say. But also we should not be afraid of calling a spade a spade, in case of causing offence. I have inflicted lots of rubbish on this forum myself and would take no offence to robust critiscism. Do you post photographs for the pleasure of shareing the results of our hobby/passtime/profession, or to garner approval?
Perhaps as pennance someone would like to lend me a wide lens and a red filter and I can do my time on the big skys under which I live my life.
David
Re: Large Format Landscapes
David, you make a good point. I told myself I wasn't going to get sucked into this, but here I go!
First off, try as I may I can't even seem to get good cliche images, much less something original! I suppose there are others at this forum like me who struggle enough just trying to learn the craft of LF, much less make meaningful images. :D
When I want to take a landscape shot, I need to choose a lens. If it is an image of a wide open landscape, it seems that a wider lens best conveys the feel of the land, which is what I think many of us are trying to communicate. In spite of this, I think the image I just posted was using a 150 lens on 4x5, not particularly wide.
Then one must decide where to put the horizon. Occasionally the middle works, but often not. Could then go with the rule of thirds, but that's a bit formulaic. That leaves a narrow strip of land or a narrow strip of sky. Or you can leaveoutthe ksy o r the land, morelikely the sky. Check out Charles Cramers' website - it is a rare image of his that contains any sky at all.
What then does a person do to be original? I really like Michael Kenna's stuff, but a lot of it feels cliche now that many other people have created images very similar to his.
It is a rare image, be it landscape, portrait, flower, etc., that is not cliche to those who have looked at a lot of images. Ken's image looks unique in this thread, but if someone started a thread of "pastoral landscapes," barns would probably be well represented...
So what the heck am I getting at? I don't know, I guess I'm just streaming a few thoughts. I'm glad you posted your comments, and I take issue with, but not offense at, them. For all you others, keep the images coming, cliche or not! :)
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Actually, I have a book somewhere titled 'Golf is Not a Game of Perfect'. Click the shutter and it is gone, just like a golf ball. Only thing left to do is take the next shot.
Re: Large Format Landscapes
http://www.dlinphotography.com/siteb...nt-600x442.jpg
Below Blue Hen Falls, Cuyahoga Vallen National Park
Negative: TMY developed in Pyrocat HD
Print: Agfa Classic toned in selenium and thiocarbamide
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Knoxville, TN
90mm Grandagon
FP4+ in Rodinal 1:50
Re: Large Format Landscapes
First off, try as I may I can't even seem to get good cliche images, much less something original! I suppose there are others at this forum like me who struggle enough just trying to learn the craft of LF, much less make meaningful images.
It is a rare image, be it landscape, portrait, flower, etc., that is not cliche to those who have looked at a lot of images. Ken's image looks unique in this thread, but if someone started a thread of "pastoral landscapes," barns would probably be well represented...
So what the heck am I getting at? I don't know, I guess I'm just streaming a few thoughts. I'm glad you posted your comments, and I take issue with, but not offense at, them. For all you others, keep the images coming, cliche or not! :)[/QUOTE]
I think that many of us here are in the same stage of learning as h20man--first the technical aspects of the craft and then the art of LF imaging . I am less than a year into this and I have yet to create an image that I am willing to share. I am getting better at the technical part of making an image (thanks in no small part to the discussions I read on this forum) but the art and vision part are developing much, much slower. Therefore, I study the images I see here and in other venues--determining what appeals to me about the image and what doesn't. And I try to emmulate those images and, by doing so, learn something of the craft and, hopefully, hone my visualization skills. I am thankful for forums like this where so many skilled, talented artists exhibit their work (cliche or not) and provide me, maybe unwittingly, a visual thesis for my art training.
As to cliches, as many images as have made and exhibited (and, more recently, posted on some website or other electronic venue) over the last 150 years or so, I suspect there are very few that aren't cliche at least in some respects. And those vey few are created by the real artisrts of this medium--some of whom exhibit their images on this website and one day will be recognized alongside the greats of this medium.
Like h20man, I like'em. Please keep them coming.
Robert
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
StevenJohn
Knoxville, TN
90mm Grandagon
FP4+ in Rodinal 1:50
I like this shot Steven. A distinctive arrangement.
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Oh! And one more thing. Many of you have been at this LF thing, or some other art form or medium, for 10, 20, 30, 40 or more years developing your art and craft to the point where your images are not cliche but are truly unique art. Most of us aren't born gifted, talented artists but have to work to develope those gifts and skills and, in that process, produce much cliche work. I suspect even Michaelanglo produced some cliches in his body of work.
One of the wonderful things about this, and other forums, is that people like me have available to us the benefit of the hard work and experience (cliche or not) of people like you to help us in climbing that learning curve.
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Quote:
I think that many of us here are in the same stage of learning as h20man--first the technical aspects of the craft and then the art of LF imaging . I am less than a year into this and I have yet to create an image that I am willing to share. I am getting better at the technical part of making an image (thanks in no small part to the discussions I read on this forum) but the art and vision part are developing much, much slower. Therefore, I study the images I see here and in other venues--determining what appeals to me about the image and what doesn't. And I try to emmulate those images and, by doing so, learn something of the craft and, hopefully, hone my visualization skills. I am thankful for forums like this where so many skilled, talented artists exhibit their work (cliche or not) and provide me, maybe unwittingly, a visual thesis for my art training.
As to cliches, as many images as have made and exhibited (and, more recently, posted on some website or other electronic venue) over the last 150 years or so, I suspect there are very few that aren't cliche at least in some respects. And those vey few are created by the real artisrts of this medium--some of whom exhibit their images on this website and one day will be recognized alongside the greats of this medium.
Like h20man, I like'em. Please keep them coming.
Robert
At the very least, David's cliche accusation has prompted some good comments.
As you've suggested, Robert, the question of what is cliched can be elusive. For some, any work that doesn't involve alternate processing is mundane. For others, its about the arrangement of shapes and not whether the subject matter is new. For yet another group, its about the subtle tonalities and the emotions they evoke. The point being that, as a viewer, we might be jumping to conclusions that a piece is derivative, and be missing what the artist is actually trying to do.
It might be, also, that the poster's observation was more about the responses to the work on this forum than the work itself. It does seem that the more Ansel-like work gets more response on the forum, along with long exposures of water movement, or approaching storm scenes. Conversely, sometimes there are distinctive images that get posted but get little response. Its a group that has its tastes, for better or worse, like any focus group. If getting good responses on the forum is your only goal, then the cliched shots mentioned might be something to shoot. If you're trying to get in a gallery, they might want something different.
There's a flip side to an over stringent approach to being "creative" that I've seen among artists, though, too. Replicating the mannerisms of a creative person doesn't make you a creative person, yet we see characters in funny hats with wispy beards selling work like crazy in the downtown galleries. Originality is where you find it.
The best thing for this group to think about is posting work as often as you can manage, whether or not it qualifies as great art. Its good for you and the group at large. The family with the active discourse is healthier than the one where everyone withdraws with hurt feelings. I believe its growth inducing to put it out there and find out what people think, even with the occasional hurt feelings, and that its likewise educational to watch other people present work and get varying responses. Its not the real world, but its nonetheless a place where things can be learned through participation.
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mandoman7
At the very least, David's cliche accusation has prompted some good comments.
As you've suggested, Robert, the question of what is cliched can be elusive. For some, any work that doesn't involve alternate processing is mundane. For others, its about the arrangement of shapes and not whether the subject matter is new. For yet another group, its about the subtle tonalities and the emotions they evoke. The point being that, as a viewer, we might be jumping to conclusions that a piece is derivative, and be missing what the artist is actually trying to do.
It might be, also, that the poster's observation was more about the responses to the work on this forum than the work itself. It does seem that the more Ansel-like work gets more response on the forum, along with long exposures of water movement, or approaching storm scenes. Conversely, sometimes there are distinctive images that get posted but get little response. Its a group that has its tastes, for better or worse, like any focus group. If getting good responses on the forum is your only goal, then the cliched shots mentioned might be something to shoot. If you're trying to get in a gallery, they might want something different.
There's a flip side to an over stringent approach to being "creative" that I've seen among artists, though, too. Replicating the mannerisms of a creative person doesn't make you a creative person, yet we see characters in funny hats with wispy beards selling work like crazy in the downtown galleries. Originality is where you find it.
The best thing for this group to think about is posting work as often as you can manage, whether or not it qualifies as great art. Its good for you and the group at large. The family with the active discourse is healthier than the one where everyone withdraws with hurt feelings. I believe its growth inducing to put it out there and find out what people think, even with the occasional hurt feelings, and that its likewise educational to watch other people present work and get varying responses. Its not the real world, but its nonetheless a place where things can be learned through participation.
Thank you for your comments. I do welcome criticism; I don't always like it, but I do learn from it. And rarely do I get my feelings hurt by critism. You are also correct in that I am remiss in not posting my own stuff. I will rectify that. Thank you again.
Robert
