Re: [Leica] What makes a good photo (was: Lee's week four)

["Ted Grant" <tedgrant@home.com>]

Hi Slobodan you are probably right!

If some of these guys would just leave all this damn theoretical crap in the
unopened can and busy themselves with picture taking without all the fool
thought processes about photography and the photo process,  I bet a hundred,
many of the PAW pictures would be a thousand fold better!

Photography isn't a brain thing, it's a feel thing! And the more one puts
the brain into it,  the more they create crap pictures that takes a weeks
worth of thought trying to figure it out instead of looking at the picture
with a response of,    "holy hoppy toads what a great picture!"

And when this happens, one doesn't need to get all gushy assed with theory
and what to read into it.... it's just a simple damn good picture in yer
face! Words and fancy assed word cleverism doesn't do one iota in making the
picture any better!  If the picture doesn't stand on it's own, all the fancy
wordsmithing isn't going to save it nor make it any better!

ted

 Ted Grant Photography Limited
www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "S Dimitrov" <sld@earthlink.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] What makes a good photo (was: Lee's week four)


> Why do I get the feeling that this going to wind up as some sort of
> research material with the usual turgid academic excretions adhered to it.
>
> Slobodan Dimitrov
>
>
> Henry Ambrose wrote:
> >
> > I wrote:
> > >> For an experiment try turning off all that you "know" about taking
> > >> pictures then go out and do it. Shoot a roll of only things that
interest
> > >> you. Walk around until you see something interesting. Don't "dress
them
> > >> up" shoot EXACTLY what piqued your interest. Don't use any of the
rules
> > >> you know, reject them. Come back and look really hard at the film.
What's
> > >> happening?
> > Martin replied:
> > >Yeah, the two schools.  I'm of the other one: First you learn the
rules,
> > >then you break them, but in interesting ways.  I don't believe that you
can
> > >turn off what you know.  You carry it with you at all times.  You
cannot
> > >switch it off.  The trick is to know it so well that you use it in more
> > >abstract ways, that you break free of the lowest level of knowing it.
I
> > >believe that with my way of doing things, the ability to analyse (the
"look
> > >really hard at the film" part) is enhanced and rather than doing and
"seeing
> > >what happened" you can conciously do.  Which, ultimately, allows you to
> > >express more.
> > >
> > >M.
> > and Martin also wrote:
> > >I like both of these -- and they go back to photographic clichés.  Know
for
> > >a given situation what the photographic cliché is and then don't to it:
do
> > >something different.  At the moment, I'm very much exploring
photographic
> > >clichés, conciously taking the unexpected, mundane, unsurprising
photograph
> > >so that I get to know it, get to feel it in my gut when I'm confronted
with
> > >it.  Then I can start finding ways to break out of the mold.  Like
music,
> > >where people practice scales and variations until they can use one
structure
> > >to create others.
> >
> > No, I am suggesting an exercise that is close to what you are saying.
> > Reject what you know (the cliche that you already learned).
> > You know cliches whether you know it or not. Make any stupid picture you
> > want but NOT the cliche one. You already know the rules. And you can't
go
> > out and say "I'm not making cliches" you go out and say "I'm
> > photographing that which is interesting just as I find it  - first
> > thought."
> >
> > Put your brain and intellect on vacation and photograph what you see.
> > Sure they're still with you and you can't completely send them away for
a
> > day. Just listen to the other part that sees without thinking.
> >
> > It is hard to shoot a roll of film this way. Very hard. Lots of "why are
> > you making a picture of this?' and "no walk over there it looks better"
> > Then just ignoring all that and photographing only what I found
> > immediately interesting.
> >
> > Henry