Hi all,

I've been very bad about starting up this blog, mostly because I thought I should try and keep it about photography in general, and photographic theory/ideas if possible.  What I've realized is that it is too easy to get bogged down with trying to think up the exactly correct thing to say/write, so I'm going to try to drop all that and instead just write about whatever is happening or, at least, whatever I feel like.  And, I'll try and do something daily (unless otherwise noted).

So, for now, I'm off to upload a bunch of CONvergence photos, reread "Something Rotten" by Jasper Fforde, and then off to see a movie with friends.

Bye for now.  More tomorrow.

I noticed that the most common compliment a photographer receives is along the lines of "You have a good eye."  I find this interesting since it is unique to photography and doesn't really correlate to any other artform (you don't tell a sculpture you like their chiseling or their hand-work).  The question is "Why?"

A good part of the reason would be that, while anyone can go out and take a photograph, the way an individual photographer approaches a scene or subject is unique, especially when considered over a large selection of photographs.  So, appreciating a photographer's "eye" says you like subject the photographer chooses, or at least the resulting photograph. 

The ones that I find more interesting come when you see a photograph who's subject matter is not something you generally like or may not have even seen before.  These are the rare images that can change the way you see the world or the possibilites of what a photograph can be.  They inspire in ways that are lasting and meaningful.

The photo below was inspired by many drawings or paintings I've see where a vision is shown replacing the iris in an eye (a skull foreshadowing death or something else implying the future).  I decided to see whether something similar could be done with a photograph.  The image was taken with a macro lens and the camera sitting on a tripod in front of me.  What I discovered is how reflective the eye actually is and how interestingly it reflects "reality".  It is a visual representation of the "eye" of a photographer.

Ocular Reflectivity

For a long time I debated (with myself) whether photography could really be considered artform.  After all, anyone can take a photo and have it come out as good as or better than a pro?  All that would take is a combination of luck and being in the right place at the right time (rather than skill or conscious artistry). 

Then there's the fact that photography is not "creative" when compared to painting, drawing, sculpture or other artforms.  A photograph does not create something that didn't exist before the artist created it; a photograph simply captures what is happening in front of the lens when the shutter was released.

Ultimately, I've decided that photography is, in fact, a unique artform because of (rather than in spite of) these attributes.

Firstly, no photograph actually captures everything that is in front of the lens.  The size of the lens as well as the size and type of media (film vs. digital capture, 35mm vs. large format, etc.) limit (or, in essence, define) what the final image will be.  So, deciding what part of a scene to take is a conscious, creative, artistic decision.  And, this decision is very individual to the point that two people sharing a single tripod setup may make vastly different photos (true story...it happened in France on a photography trip I took with my parents). 

Second are all the technical decisions that give the photo its uniqueness:  how much depth-of-field, do you want motion blur or a frozen image, is a flash needed?  While some of this can be found in the auto-settings of modern cameras or may come about accidentally, they are conscious and repeatable decisions for every photographer.

Finally, photographs can look REALLY good and move people in the same (and different) ways that other artforms can.  If that weren't the case they would have died out a long time ago.

resting flamingo