I don’t know what’s going on with me. I seem to be hooked on my photoblog, neglecting my written blog. Well, let’s start afresh, and try to maintain my written diary of thoughts and events. First, my experiences with the photoblog and then my vicissitudes with boat and family.
The photoblog made me more aware of visual experiences. Also, I try to understand what photography, as mere expression or representation of visual reality, can mean for people, and then I mean the watcher. There’s no sharp distinction between watcher and maker of a picture, because the maker also watches his/her own products and enjoys them. One essential difference is that the maker selects and processes the picture, (s)he chooses an image, a frame, decides whether it will be black and white or in color, etc. and the watcher is there to assess it. I went browsing through many photoblogs and I must say that some attract me more than others do. Taste is an important factor, and there seems to be no room for “principles”: everything is allowed.
Another thing that struck me was that people from different cultures that according to the newspapers should be hostile or suspicious towards each other, are instead very much appreciating and respecting. So I know for instance that Islam tends to see dogs as haram animals, but when I publish a photo of my dog I receive positive reactions from Islamic countries; Christian people also tend to express admiration for characteristically Islamic images such as the calligraphed name of Allah. Also I saw positive response from Iran to an Israeli photographer. Most of the bloggers are from the USA, but that doesn’t seem to be a hindrance for the Islamic photographers. Maybe it’s a bit too much said, but photoblogging can be a contribution for mutual understanding and world peace this way. I love it.
Overseeing the different kinds of pictures there is certainly difference in quality. Some posters don’t seem to “have it”, and will not acquire it, but continue to post their products. I’m aware one shouldn’t be too quick in such an assessment for it can also be myself who don’t have the needed competence to assess pictures. Others post amazing photos which could yield good profit if offered for sale. This raises the question: what makes a good photograph a good photograph? I think it depends on the kind of picture. I make a distinction between “event pictures”, “emotional pictures” and “esthetical pictures”. All three share that they evoke emotion. A picture of an angry mob demonstrating against something, a portrait of a lovely baby, and a beautiful landscape or flower are three characteristic examples of what I mean. The emotional picture doesn’t need (but mostly has) event- or esthetical criteria, as long as the emotion is evoked. But the other two must have, next to their representation value, also an emotional value. Many photos on the photoblog don’t evoke emotion in me but seem to do so in others, so that makes them valuable pics and I have to be careful to reject them as good pictures. It’s amazing that in this world where everybody always has critical or negative remarks on other people’s products, photobloggers seem to be aware of that. If they don’t like a photo, they simply don’t comment.
What is also striking is the widespread use of advanced and expensive camera equipment and the use of Photoshop programs to process the pictures. When I started to be caught by the digital photovirus (it really becomes a virus if you can put your photos on the pc) my first pics were made on my 1 MP mobilephone. Some of these pictures seem to gain in value thanks to their blurredness. Then, after half a year or so, I bought a 5 MP HP Photosmart and carried it my pocket wherever I went, a flow of nice pictures were the result, many of them I posted on my photoblog that I started. Then on a sad day my wife dropped the camera and it turned out almost to a divorce :-) but we got a brand new one because it happened within the warranty period! But I had to miss my camera for a couple of weeks, and via my brother I bought a second-hand Sony 4 MP for 90 Euros (new in 1991 it costed 750 Euros!), my wife kept the HP. The Sony has several advantages such as macro-possibility but is a bit slower in starting up and editing stored pictures. Anyway, now I’m looking with water in my mouth at the expensive cameras with which most of the bloggers work, with changeable lenses and so on. In my non-digital days I used such a camera for films which now has become almost worthless on the second hand market but has cost me the amount of the cameras that I’m craving for now.
There are two things that withhold me from purchasing: first the price. It’s something luxury exclusively for my own usage within the household family, and I’m not allowing myself to spend that amount for a “toy” for only myself, where I can do with a cheaper product with a bit less possibilities. The second reason is that a good photo isn’t dependent on the equipment it is made with: there have been made excellent pictures with mobilephones, and lousy ones with 1000 euro-cameras. The more sophisticated equipment only offers more possibilities, and let’s not talk about the processing computer programs! No Photoshop process can turn a bad photo into a good one, only into a nice arrangement of colors and forms. So let’s do a while with my “primitive” little camera that I can use without getting the image of a photomaniac by people around me who are not contaminated by the photovirus when I always have that black machine around my neck (the grapes are a bit sour you notice). Next time more, about my boat-and-family vicissitudes.
The photoblog made me more aware of visual experiences. Also, I try to understand what photography, as mere expression or representation of visual reality, can mean for people, and then I mean the watcher. There’s no sharp distinction between watcher and maker of a picture, because the maker also watches his/her own products and enjoys them. One essential difference is that the maker selects and processes the picture, (s)he chooses an image, a frame, decides whether it will be black and white or in color, etc. and the watcher is there to assess it. I went browsing through many photoblogs and I must say that some attract me more than others do. Taste is an important factor, and there seems to be no room for “principles”: everything is allowed.
Another thing that struck me was that people from different cultures that according to the newspapers should be hostile or suspicious towards each other, are instead very much appreciating and respecting. So I know for instance that Islam tends to see dogs as haram animals, but when I publish a photo of my dog I receive positive reactions from Islamic countries; Christian people also tend to express admiration for characteristically Islamic images such as the calligraphed name of Allah. Also I saw positive response from Iran to an Israeli photographer. Most of the bloggers are from the USA, but that doesn’t seem to be a hindrance for the Islamic photographers. Maybe it’s a bit too much said, but photoblogging can be a contribution for mutual understanding and world peace this way. I love it.
Overseeing the different kinds of pictures there is certainly difference in quality. Some posters don’t seem to “have it”, and will not acquire it, but continue to post their products. I’m aware one shouldn’t be too quick in such an assessment for it can also be myself who don’t have the needed competence to assess pictures. Others post amazing photos which could yield good profit if offered for sale. This raises the question: what makes a good photograph a good photograph? I think it depends on the kind of picture. I make a distinction between “event pictures”, “emotional pictures” and “esthetical pictures”. All three share that they evoke emotion. A picture of an angry mob demonstrating against something, a portrait of a lovely baby, and a beautiful landscape or flower are three characteristic examples of what I mean. The emotional picture doesn’t need (but mostly has) event- or esthetical criteria, as long as the emotion is evoked. But the other two must have, next to their representation value, also an emotional value. Many photos on the photoblog don’t evoke emotion in me but seem to do so in others, so that makes them valuable pics and I have to be careful to reject them as good pictures. It’s amazing that in this world where everybody always has critical or negative remarks on other people’s products, photobloggers seem to be aware of that. If they don’t like a photo, they simply don’t comment.
What is also striking is the widespread use of advanced and expensive camera equipment and the use of Photoshop programs to process the pictures. When I started to be caught by the digital photovirus (it really becomes a virus if you can put your photos on the pc) my first pics were made on my 1 MP mobilephone. Some of these pictures seem to gain in value thanks to their blurredness. Then, after half a year or so, I bought a 5 MP HP Photosmart and carried it my pocket wherever I went, a flow of nice pictures were the result, many of them I posted on my photoblog that I started. Then on a sad day my wife dropped the camera and it turned out almost to a divorce :-) but we got a brand new one because it happened within the warranty period! But I had to miss my camera for a couple of weeks, and via my brother I bought a second-hand Sony 4 MP for 90 Euros (new in 1991 it costed 750 Euros!), my wife kept the HP. The Sony has several advantages such as macro-possibility but is a bit slower in starting up and editing stored pictures. Anyway, now I’m looking with water in my mouth at the expensive cameras with which most of the bloggers work, with changeable lenses and so on. In my non-digital days I used such a camera for films which now has become almost worthless on the second hand market but has cost me the amount of the cameras that I’m craving for now.
There are two things that withhold me from purchasing: first the price. It’s something luxury exclusively for my own usage within the household family, and I’m not allowing myself to spend that amount for a “toy” for only myself, where I can do with a cheaper product with a bit less possibilities. The second reason is that a good photo isn’t dependent on the equipment it is made with: there have been made excellent pictures with mobilephones, and lousy ones with 1000 euro-cameras. The more sophisticated equipment only offers more possibilities, and let’s not talk about the processing computer programs! No Photoshop process can turn a bad photo into a good one, only into a nice arrangement of colors and forms. So let’s do a while with my “primitive” little camera that I can use without getting the image of a photomaniac by people around me who are not contaminated by the photovirus when I always have that black machine around my neck (the grapes are a bit sour you notice). Next time more, about my boat-and-family vicissitudes.
2 comments:
Your primitive little camera seems to work fine Erik. I think a combination of pictures and words is for me the best solution. Glad all is well in Holland and with you.
Even though I recently bought a digital SLR camera, I agree with you that the photographer matters far more than the equipment. The camera is just a tool, the photographer's vision is what makes photos art (or not).
Post a Comment