This is always a difficult topic because people consider their photos as 'their babies'. Would you criticise a mother's new-born baby? Would you comment, 'Hey! its nose looks a bit pudgy and its eyes a bit small and it generally looks a bit ugly?'. Of course you wouldn't. That's plain asking for trouble and serves no purpose whatsoever because a baby's appearance cannot be changed. It is what it is, but may evolve into a more attractive appearance. Such criticism is not constructive.

It's said that the difference between painting and photography is that painting starts off with a blank canvas and adds to it, whereas photography starts with a relatively confused image which from which one has to subtract.

Whatever the truth of such statements, it seems clear to me that many photographers in the commercial world are in the business of enhancing illusion to creating a falsehood, in order to sell products. Perhaps my antagonism towards the users of MFDB equipment has its source in this perception of mine.

Their motive seems to be directed solely towards the enhancement of falsehood. If a model can appear to be more alluring because a $30,000 DB imparts a creamier skin texture which might help sell a particular product, then that's the justification for the expensive equipment.

There seem to be two trends here. One group of photographers is trying to get behind the appearance of things and reveal what is really thought. The other, commercial group, is trying to create an illusion based upon some advertising paradigm of what rather dumb people might aspire to.

The MFDB crowd presents images of immacualte models who in reality might be vixens, nasty people who speak behind one's back and engage in mailicious gossip, the sort of people who one really would not want to know. They may not be. Who knows? When people spend $30,000 on just one part of their camera equipment in order to get some miniscule advantage, one begins to wonder.

Hi Ray. If I understand your post correctly you are creating creating a set of boxes to describe photographers... that's an illusion.
And you are moving our MFDB friends into one of them...that's a falsehood.
It's not being very nice, and I'm sure not like you at all.
Cheers, David

Well, perhaps you're right. That's too much of a generalisation. I was just using the example of a two dimensional character, that of the heavily made up model, to illustrate my point. That example seems nowadays to come most frequently from the MFDB user.

Quite apart from the fact that they ARE commercial photographers and depend on both equipment and skills to make that living a reality. Boxes don´t always fit the content.

I see nothing wrong with creating beautiful people; everybody who has walked this Earth knows that such looks don´t exist: they are an imaginary ideal.

Now, whether "dumb" people such as half-witted young women believe the advertising agent´s message or not, that is an issue quite apart from the creation of imaginary beauty. (I hear Futt Futt grinding up his gears already. Pace, hombre, it´s just a point of view, an opinion, no more and no less; don´t boil your waters over it.) Mental health is something quite else, and the inability to distinguish the real from the imaginary is really a problem that existed already within the individual, regardless of any photogaphy.

Real babies, as in the nappy-soiling sense of the word, are seldom beautiful other than in the eyes of the mother, immediate family or, perhaps, in the eyes of the female gender as a whole. See one and you have seen them all. The rest of the ooing and ahhhing is social obligation - some basic physical similarities to a parent MIGHT be on show, but as for the brat having the family nose, eyes or mouth, the less said the better until the child is somewhat older. Anyway, plastic surgery is widely available today. You can even go on holidays where it comes as part of a package. A photo opportunity, even.

Painting starts with a blank canvas. And working on a roll of white Colorama is different? That´s one of the reasons I did everything I could to slant my own career towards going on location: not only does it make the job seem more interesting, provide memories for old-age, but adds a lot to the image itself. That bloody blank canvas might well posterise a product but it makes it very much more difficult to fill in a satisfying way. Not, of course, that a painter has it any easier, nor, in many cases, does a painter meet with more success. But, of course, that blank canvas around the image allows space for the almighty written word...

The above brings us back, unfortunately, to an earlier acrimonious thread, but risking that, I feel obliged to say that a series of shots on that blank photographic canvas has slight chance of doing well; even Avedon´s American tour doing just that kind of thing was more than even his skills could see through very well. All just MY opinion, but compared with much else that the man produced, hardly a showcase for his talent. Anyway, Arbus did it all before.

Gotta fly - domesticity calls.

Rob C

Is that true, Rob? I recall being very surprised when I first saw images of a girl I knew who had got a job as a model for a magazine. When I saw the photos in the magazine, I found it difficult to come to terms with the fact that those photos were actually of the same person who was standing beside me showing me the magazine.

The make-up and the lighting was so effective, the lady in the photograph appeared simply as another person.

One of the Rolling Stones' classics is She's So Cold, wherein you get treated to a barrage of phrases like "my hand just froze" - then midway through the track, in an almost whispered tone ".... but she's beautiful though."

Regardless of the intent of the campaign, this dove piece is a good example of what is done in the fasion industry as 'routine' it seems.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

MArk

Ray, so the real reason you attack MFDBs finally emerges.

Not if you do studio work where everything including the light is added. Or you do stuff like Gregory Crewdson.

Well duh!

Only if it makes financial sense to do so.

So are you saying, that in all the photographers in the world, there are only two types!?

Well that line seems like malicious stereotyping to me.

People only spend it, if they can afford to do so and it will make them more money by doing so. And I'm sure they'd rather not spend that much and for some shooting, it even saves money compared to using a much cheaper film back.
Plus if you think the difference between 35mm DSLR and MFDB is miniscule, it your perception that is lacking. There are so many reasons why one would use a different format and it's not just about noise.





RC - Half-witted is nicely illustrated by posters making dumb and innaccurate assuptions.

-REMOVED-

Fashion and photography are fascinating in that photography is intertwined in every stage, from creation and promotion to capturing and disseminating the end result. And it has a purity of purpose and intent that most propaganda can't claim - the deception is in your mind only, since the model is plainly evident for everyone to see. Art that prompts desire is often blamed for various ills, and even the likes of T.S. Eliot have wrestled with their emotions on the subject. My feeling is that the only thing bad about art is bad art, so if you keep practicing and don't get stuck in something unproductive, you should do just fine.

Isn´t that my point? You don´t recognize the real when it´s standing beside you because the imaginary is something very else. In fact, the really blank canvas can often be the model...?! Just joshing there - the model is VITALLY important, which is why I have always believed she deserves at least equal billing with the photographer for the success of a picture, but not always for its failure.

Rob C

As I fear for my life if I add anything to the "nude pics" thread of recent days, let me just mention the BBC TV feature they showed last night.

It was an hour on Annie Leibovitz, arguably today´s most successful portrait and people photographer. Somebody was prattling on about her catching "character", it was Mz Clinton, as I recall, and Annie responds to that item by saying that nobody catches character, how can you, you get a persona the subject is wanting to project. Another lady says much the same thing... but what would they know, just good at their jobs, I guess.

I managed to catch the thing on DVD - sometimes it works for me and at others not.

Rob C

That's quite amusing. So basically, if one were asked to offer a critique of an image of a fashion model, one might comment along the lines, 'her eyes need tilting and widening, her ears lowering, her chin lifting and her neck lengthening'.

jjj,
I've never attacked MFDBs, only the competence of certain comparisons between certain DBs (specifically the ZD, P21, P25) and the 1Ds3 with similar pixel count.

Ray,

I fully understand that the goal of the post is mostly to trigger discussions, but, really, hasn't this be beaten to death already?

There are differences that clearly exceed the "minuscule" scale you are referring to. Besides, 30.000 US$ over the course of 3 years isn't that much for many businesses. I would personnally argue that any business for which the difference between 30.000 US$ and 8000 US$ is important over 3 years is not worth pursuing. We are speaking of about 700 US$ per month...

Either way, I totally fail to see how the usage of high end photographic equipment relates to the concepts of image "construction" vs image "capture".

- One is not better than the other and they both aim at an aesthetically pleasing result,
- Either way, a photography is never a depiction of reality. Isn't that totally clear by now?

Cheers,
Bernard

In my simple opinion as a mere mortal, if the lighting and make up were so effective, it tells me that the job was done by professionals. Which is good. now tell me, do you think those painters you talk about do not paint smooth and unblemished skin? Do you think that photographers using film do not retouch? I don't understand the point of your post, really.

Bernard,

Which aspect? Has photographic critique been beaten to death? Maybe you're right. We don't see much of it.

Ray,

Strangely, I missed the part of your post that was about photographic critique...

Cheers,
Bernard

Painters generally don't paint smooth and unblemished skin. They are more about revealing character.

The point I am making is that, in contrast to painters who try to get underneath the skin, photographers want the smoothest, creamiest skin ever. They seem to be more preoccupied with covering up character and enhancing an illusion.

I've seen some wonderful Rembrandt portraits with smooth, unblemished, creamy skin. But then, I guess he was just a second-rate painter.

But what an agent he had! ;-)

Rob C

That "character" thing again...

I had another look at the Annie Leibovitz recording last night, and the thing I quoted about photography not being able to show character turns up around the 55th minute of the dvd, though that might be false because I managed to catch some rubbish just before the show itself started. And that was switching on manually! There are so many false starts and semi-trailers to everything these days that you never know where one thing ends and another begins. Try watching commercials with the sound off: amazing.

I think painters have the same impossible task re. character and its capture: they get (at best) what they think looks like character or the received idea of what certain expressions are supposed to reveal about people. But it´s just acting, and because of the time it takes to paint a portrait, even more unreliable than what a photographer might catch, and worse, even more about the painter than it ever is about the photographer.

People just expect too much from art. Why can´t they just accept that WYSIWYG and nothing more? It would be a much more fun and stress-free life for everybody were they but prepared to banish such false gods. Ah, but listen, the sound of an opening wallet!

Rob C

Eric,
Perhaps you'd like to show us a comparison between a Rembrandt, smooth-skin portrait and a typical MFDB fashion model. All the Rembrabt reproductions I have on my bookshelf show a fairly textured and multi-layered skin effect, but I admit I don't have reproductions of his entire works.

Actually, Ray, looking back at your original post which asks whither photographic critique, we all subsequently seem to have missed the point of the question, both you and I included.

Perhaps the thing about aesthetic photographic criticism, opinion on pictures, advice from another´s point of view, call it what you will, is that it is all basically crap.

Your picture is the product of your mind, and no matter what other influences may be thrust before your nose, you will follow your natural bent because you can´t really help doing that. Even if you feel obliged, are shamed, into copying.

I believe that so-called critiques, in the sense that you go to a guru and seek his advice on your photography, is an exercise in self-abasement. If you are disturbed by technical flaws in your work, then read a book, dig the web, take a course on how-to-do-it in the TECHNICAL sense of being taught something, but eschew advice on content, composition or anything else that seeks to govern how you see things from your unique visual perspective. All another pair of eyes can do is try to push their way. And probably at a price, to boot. Just be yourself is probably the best advice - perhaps the only honest advice - anyone should give.

Rob C

Good point, Rob. Can't really argue with that. I think I might have been having a bit of a rant after a few glasses of wine when I started this thread .

I envy you the few glasses: I´m permitted one, red, per day and any more than that means the cardio washes his hands of responsibility.

It might seem much ado about nothing, but on the contrary, it has a huge input into what one might choose to do. For example, we used to drive from Spain across France and up to Scotland every year to see family. Much of the pleasure was to be had enjoying the food and wines of different parts of France. That now denied me, my wife with her own problems, we have not been back by car these last five or six years.

So, the spirit of the vine has a far greater value than might be expected. I suppose that the main factor is really health, but when one has done everything possible to ensure a good food intake - no fast-foods, no short cuts to the real thing (and I have a wonderful cook as wife) there is a lousy irony in being stabbed in the heart by your own cholesterol.

Thinking of fast foods: there is a series of commercials running on British television for KFC, if I remember correctly, where they refer to a family meal in a bucket. No greater insult to family life could be imagined. What kind of animal does the firm imagine the viewer to be that it is prepared to think of its family as swilling like hogs from a bucket? And the client accepts that, possibly revels in it. What an effin´ world.

Rob C

Rob,
I feel fortunate I have no heart problems so far, but wine drinking is a big temptation in Australia. We produce so much of it. There seems to be a perpetual wine glut year after year with bumper harvests and tremendous bargains in the wine stores. I guess I drink like a Frenchman, a glass or two with every meal.

A glass or two a day is supposed to protect the heart, isn't it?

It´s really hard to say, Ray: one glass of red, preferably Cabernet Sauvignon, I´m told, is good for the blood but more than that goes the other way, causing more harm than good. There is the debate about the size of the glass, but that probably gets into the realm of self-deception, a place to which heart problems rapidly take one. But it can be relatively okay, that safety blanket of the soul, and the second or even rare third glass is discounted by the compromise made in not walking under a ladder or into the path of a moving truck.

You see? Swings and roundabouts.

Ciao - Rob C