Jump to content

Recommended Posts

i meant ur camera/lens/filters/etc

lol sorry for being unclear

ahh hahaha sorry for being so thick i shoulda guessed lol.

that first landscape was taken with my 400D but the rest were taken with my 40D.

lenses:

EF50mm f/1.8

EF70-200mm f/2.8

EF-S10-22mm (first 2 photos taken with this)

filters:

Basics UV/ ND/ Pola.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dope

Ive been thinking about that 10-22 for a while now... That or a 24L

But seeing as I'm not getting paid for shooting anymore, I can't justify dropping that much cash on glass right now

I wouldnt bother getting the 10-22mm save up and get 14mm EF L

Put that on a fullframe body and you got yourself a super wide angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does anyone here remember what happened to the original photography thread (circa 2006)?

i want to see holeinthewall argue with carl again.

Thanks Tweeds! I checked that, too.

I have been thinking about Carl's photo set ever since I first found this thread. It was nice to get a little bit of a background on those images. Still, they make me feel uncomfortable (ethically). The most recent set with new images of the family and the other photographer (Adams? I forget) really did strike me as exploitive. How many photographers roam the backroads of Kentucky, ingratiating themselves into different white trash "households" (term used loosely) to procure their permission to photograph them? The whole thing just leaves a gross taste in my mouth.

No hate to Carl, it's just not something that I would call Art (capital "A").

It's like Jerry Springer or something. I can't watch that show. It's people who think exposing their private lives on national TV will earn them some sort of fame/recognition/solution to their problems. Even if they do it willingly, isn't it still exploitation? Do you think this applies to Carl's "story family?"

I am very new to photography and I'm just starting to think of issues like photographic ethics. I'm open to changing my mind, I don't want to come off sounding like a knowitall asshole.

Finally, I am a little envious of those people who can convince other people to let them take their picture. Nobody I know will let me shoot them like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what would one consider Art? it is a little hard to define...

and furthermore what is the link between exploitation and art or artlessness? arguably every translation of subject into visual or literary representation (among others) is some form of exploitation.

what role does something like war photography play then? is it purely to satisfy the photographer's appetite for danger, the audience's need to see drama and suffering so that they can feel sympathy and in so doing feel better about themselves?

perhaps photography is only a channel of communication between the subject and the audience, and the photographer never actually steals or appropriates lives and cultures, but instead draws a link between a subject matter and an audience which would otherwise never meet.

i'm sure that Carl will have a stronger point to make. i merely wanted to reply with some questions since you are open to changing your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps photography is only a channel of communication between the subject and the audience, and the photographer never actually steals or appropriates lives and cultures, but instead draws a link between a subject matter and an audience which would otherwise never meet.

I'm much more inclined to think of this as a (photojournalistic) photographers "purpose". To think someone like James Nachtwey is exploiting starving African children for his own personal fame instead of doing it for the sake of opening the public's eyes to the reality of the world is quite a sickening thought. I'd like to believe that reporting comes foremost to these photographers, and their artistic expression is a natural but secondary byproduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm much more inclined to think of this as a (photojournalistic) photographers "purpose". To think someone like James Nachtwey is exploiting starving African children for his own personal fame instead of doing it for the sake of opening the public's eyes to the reality of the world is quite a sickening thought. I'd like to believe that reporting comes foremost to these photographers, and their artistic expression is a natural but secondary byproduct.

sorry, yes, my bad for drawing a big arc over the entire sphere. that said, there are plenty of photojournalists apart from nachtwey, and possibly not all of them approach their subjects with the same empathy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...