Longevity?
Your photography may be good, but can it stand the test of time?
For me, I think that’s something to aspire to : often the best work is the stuff that lasts and lasts. But don’t you think we’re living in an age where we’re more concerned with things being ‘immediate’ ?
So if I were to ask you this, I’d like to know what your thoughts are?
Q. Do you think your photography has a timeless quality to it?
Q. Do you think HDR will be ‘timeless’?
Q. What constitutes ‘timeless’ photography?
1. No :) Not yet (I hope).
2. No. Don’t like it usually. A lot of people use it for photographs that should be thrown in garbage can in the first place.
3. the moment (animals, street photos and etc), look in the eyes (portrait).
Comment by goosetea — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
1. I hope so. What I photograph has few clues as to time so I guess that they must be
2. I certainly hope not. I see it as the overdone Velvia of this decade. Hopefully, good taste will prevail.
3. As a landscape photographer, any image which can’t be dated should be timeless, or am I using a different definition to you?
Comment by jeffg53 — 18 November, 2009 @ 1:17 am
1) Yes I do. Some of it does. But there’s stuff I shoot just for the joy of playing with my toys and being out in the beautiful weather, that may fail the test.
2) HDR is a fad that thankfully will fade. But it’s advent will have lasting effects on how we visualize and process photos.
3) ‘Timeless’ is a quality that speaks to the spiritual core of every person. The timelessness of an image is such that no matter when or where someone looks at it, a deep note is struck in the person’s soul and there is a relating to it that might very well be ephemeral, but is still there.
Comment by fiddlergene — 18 November, 2009 @ 2:26 am
What a series of questions! As a historian in my day job, I spend a lot of time thinking about time and timelessness. I’m hopefully going to be involved in a project on the use of historical photographs in historical documentation, so there’s an interesting philosophical angle emerging for me. Having said that, there are two broad ways of thinking about this: one relates to understandings of beauty, the other to more mundane matters.
In terms of beauty, I’ll be glad if a handful of my images are to found hanging on someone’s wall in 100 years time (even if it’s the attic in my putative grandchildren’s house!), but I’m not sure if that makes them timeless!
The other more mundane answer relies on accessibility: all work that can be rediscovered by a future generation can be timeless. We admire beautiful art by Michelangelo, even though we create art that is nothing like it any more – but the fact that we can still see it to appreciate it is key. If I bury my camera and it’s found 500 years later, it won’t have any functional use, but could be regarded as an object of beauty (well…!). Things stored digitally will probably be lost, and so permanent printing of photographs is the only sure way to preserve timelessness.
Not quite what you were after perhaps!
(Oh, and HDR is so rarely done well, that the quicker the fashion for it passes, the better! Most of it simply negates the idea of photography as art.)
Comment by michael — 18 November, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
Timelessness can be anything you want it to be. I deliberately left it open to interpretation.
But to me, for some art to be timeless, there are pieces that stand the test of time. Some aren’t appreciated when they’re created, due to being out of step with the ‘current’ fashions, and it’s only with a sense of distance that people are able to appreciate it for how good it is. Yet there is art that is immediately appreciated, gains immediate public acceptance, yet is completely forgotten about within a few years or decades.
The question comes from the point of view that if you create good art, it should age well, and I’m personally hoping that as time goes on, my own work will continue to please me and others, and I won’t look back at it with a feeling that it was faddish.
Unfortunately, it’s often hard to gauge what is good at the time – we’ve thrown a lot of beautiful architecture away through the years because it seemed old-fashioned and out of taste, only to discover years later that there was a beauty in it.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 18 November, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
That opens up a whole new can of worms. Current fashion is something that never enters my head. Maybe that’s why I didn’t use Velvia, and don’t use wide angle lenses often. I struggle with the concept of someone who considers himself an artist but follows fashion. Surely one of the distinguishing features of an artist is being truthful to his vision whether it is fashionable or not.
Comment by jeffg53 — 18 November, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
Yes, but that’s very interesting – your comments about Velvia…. Velvia is definitely not in fashion any more – digital imaging is, so in that respect, I feel as though I’m bucking against a trend by continuing to shoot film. I don’t mean to sound superior – or intend that, but I’m just aware that I found a workflow that works for me very well, and I don’t see why I should change it.
I find your comment about not using wide angles interesting also – I didn’t think they were ‘faddish’ having been around for a long time. I guess this is all determined by what you consider a reasonable timespan for a ‘fad’…….
Comment by Bruce Percy — 18 November, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
With Velvia, I was referring to my film days but the concept still holds with digital. The saturation slider has a lot to answer for these days. Have a quick look around any web site for proof. It’s the screamers that rate.
With wide angles, I meant take your 17-35 find something large, stick it in the FG and blast away. Again, there are many examples readily available.
I was very happy to give film away once digital got to be as good as 5×4. I was never interested in LF, far too technical, and distracting for me, so when 39MP digital came along wild horses couldn’t hold me back.
I was delighted to give up spotting, scanning and the rest of the kerfoofle. I was never enamoured of grain so that was another gain.
Comment by jeffg53 — 18 November, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
Jeff,
We have very different views.
I hate the saturation slider in ACR – it’s pretty ugly, whereas Velvia’s saturation IMHO is very beautiful.
I prefer film to digital and find that digital seems cold and flat compared to film that has been shot well.
I don’t mind scanning – I have a scanner that doesn’t require spotting, so Scanning isn’t an issue for me.
And I don’t agree that digital is as good as 5×4.
Digital is simply different from Film. Some people prefer the look of film, while others prefer the look of digital. It’s like comparing apples to oranges IMHO.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:04 am
Bruce, I’m talking Hasselblad digital and we can still disagree. I also have a Sony system with Zeiss lenses which I use occasionally. Every time that I use it I am disappointed as it is not within miles of what the Hasselblad can do. If you haven’t looked at MF digital, I can send you a file any time you like.
Comment by jeffg53 — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:11 am
Hi Jeff,
I’ve seen MF digital files…. and they’re amazing, but they don’t look like film. Like I said – it’s like comparing Apples to Oranges. One is not a replacement for the other or better than the other.
For me, and I’m talking about my own view only, I find digital too clinical. Everything is too precise, too clean… there’s a fuzzy warmth that I like with film.
But if we’re talking resolution only – then I’d have to consider that they are both pretty close….
I hope this hasn’t boiled down into a Film Vs Digital debate, because I just don’t think they could be compared to each other, which is what I felt you were doing to start with. They’re not the same thing and look completely different.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Bruce, I have no interest in a Film vs Digital debate. I’m far too old to care. I used film for 40 or so years and now I use digital. It is just another film in my mind.
I agree that they look different, as would 2 films. I just happen to like it. As far as being clinical, I have no problem with that. A typical seascape that I would take has very little fine detail so it is less of an issue. That aside, it really is a taste thing in my mind.
I enjoy your work. I also enjoy Michael Kenna’s work. The medium of capture is of little interest to me. The final result is what counts.
Comment by jeffg53 — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:25 am
Jeff,
Thanks for clearing that up. I’m glad you’ve found a medium that makes you happy, and at the same time, have been able to cut down the ‘messing around’ :-)
I’m with you on that one – the tools are a means to an end, and I’d much rather not get bogged down in talking gear, as I feel there’s so much over-focus on it anyway, and as you say – it’s the final result that counts. Glad we agree :-)
Comment by Bruce Percy — 19 November, 2009 @ 2:02 am
Q. Do you think your photography has a timeless quality to it?
In most of it i think so, if by timeless one does understand the inexistence of time references within the photo. On the other hand, if we do understand by timeless, the capacity of a certain photo to evoke, years after its first envisionment, the same feelings on the viewer that it did originally, i cannot answer honestly. Since i am biased towards my own work, quite probably that judgement must be done by others.
Q. Do you think HDR will be ‘timeless’?
As a valuable technique, that can provide very good results, when used with care. To such use, i believe it will remain. But, i do hope that the current trend of overdone HDR, quite common these days all over the web, will vanish in short time. Most results are simply horrific, to my taste anyway.
Q. What constitutes ‘timeless’ photography?
Photography that we are able to see repeatedly over the years, and get the same emotional connection with it. For me, the work of Fan Ho done during the 60´s(if my memory is correct), is one of many possible good examples. Michael Kenna´s work is another. And i think yours will go into that class as well, Bruce.
Comment by rjaraujo — 19 November, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
Well, I agree with you two (Bruce and Jeff), the gear is just a tool, be it digital or film. I own a a 503CW with a film back and it’s simply amazing. I absolutely love it. This said, the day I can afford a CFV 39 mpx back….I will not hesitate a single minute to buy it. And notice I don’t say “change” but “buy”. I think each camara has its own perfect uses. Anyway…..
Going to the questions:
1- Obviously not. That’s one of the most difficult things to achieve in photography (after “having your own recognisable style”)
2- I am sure (and pray for it) that HDR will soon pass. However, the principle in which it is based will continue for ever. Wider dynamic range is the future of photography, but this tool (HDR) is too exagerated and too rudimentary to last…..
3- Timelessess is something hidden in the images of Walker Evans, Henri Cartier Bresson, Cappa, McCurry, Bendiksen, Pellegrini, Martin Parr, Alec Soth….and I am still trying to find it. R+
Comment by ramonmas — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:25 pm