World Press Photo of the Year 2015 winner only uses 5DMk.II & 3 primes!

[Don Haines]

My take on the matter is that photography captures a moment in time. What it captures is truth, but that truth is only partial truth. If you followed my photography from canoe trips you would get the impression that the country is over-run with wildlife, but it is not so. The sightings are few and far between, but by heavily choosing the displayed images from that small subset, reality is distorted and the viewer is deceived.

Just the act of pointing the camera in one direction and not the other is editing "the truth" to show the subset of it that you wish to present. I point my camera one direction and you think I am paddling in a pristine, untouched wilderness.... I turn around and point it the other direction and you see that I am paddling in Downtown Ottawa, a city of over a million people...

What photography does do, is to tell a story. Not some absolute all-encompassing truth, but a story that the photographer wishes to tell...... and that is what the World Press photos of the year are.... stories.

 

[Luds34]

My take on the matter is that photography captures a moment in time. What it captures is truth, but that truth is only partial truth. If you followed my photography from canoe trips you would get the impression that the country is over-run with wildlife, but it is not so. The sightings are few and far between, but by heavily choosing the displayed images from that small subset, reality is distorted and the viewer is deceived.

Just the act of pointing the camera in one direction and not the other is editing "the truth" to show the subset of it that you wish to present. I point my camera one direction and you think I am paddling in a pristine, untouched wilderness.... I turn around and point it the other direction and you see that I am paddling in Downtown Ottawa, a city of over a million people...

What photography does do, is to tell a story. Not some absolute all-encompassing truth, but a story that the photographer wishes to tell...... and that is what the World Press photos of the year are.... stories.

Absolutely correct here. The contrary opinion that photo journalism is capturing this empirical truth is, if I'm being frank, naive.

 

[NancyP]

Don, a 360 degree panorama of your paddling would tell an interesting story about a city and its preservation of presumably clean waterways for public recreation.

If a PJ-type photo is taken without an obvious narrative, the viewer either ignores it or constructs their own narrative. We are story-telling creatures.

 

[Famateur]

My take on the matter is that photography captures a moment in time. What it captures is truth, but that truth is only partial truth. If you followed my photography from canoe trips you would get the impression that the country is over-run with wildlife, but it is not so. The sightings are few and far between, but by heavily choosing the displayed images from that small subset, reality is distorted and the viewer is deceived.

Just the act of pointing the camera in one direction and not the other is editing "the truth" to show the subset of it that you wish to present. I point my camera one direction and you think I am paddling in a pristine, untouched wilderness.... I turn around and point it the other direction and you see that I am paddling in Downtown Ottawa, a city of over a million people...

What photography does do, is to tell a story. Not some absolute all-encompassing truth, but a story that the photographer wishes to tell...... and that is what the World Press photos of the year are.... stories.

+1, Don. Well put!

 

[notapro]

I have another question for you, Ecka.

You write above that “There are many extraordinary and unbelievable photographs, but not all of them are art. Many people think that photography itself is art, but they are wrong. Photography is a tool.”

It helps to have greater understanding of your perspective, and with your statement that photography is a tool, not art, it is clearer why there has been discussion regarding some of what you have written.

Still, you write that “not all of them [photographs] are art”, following with a statement that persons are wrong in thinking that photography itself is art. If that is the case, how would you classify or conceive of the photos above not encompassed by your statement?

More specifically, if not all photographs are art, then are *some*/*any* photographs art? If so, then is that incongruent with your view of photography as non-art? If by your perspective no photographs are art, then–to iterate–what is your classification of the photographs above not encompassed by your statement?

Respectfully,

Notapro

 

[Don Haines]

Don, a 360 degree panorama of your paddling would tell an interesting story about a city and its preservation of presumably clean waterways for public recreation.

If a PJ-type photo is taken without an obvious narrative, the viewer either ignores it or constructs their own narrative. We are story-telling creatures.

Exactly! The narrative is all important for establishing context, but even there we have to trust the integrity of the storyteller. For example, I have posted a few pictures.... I could use them to tell the story of wilderness canoeing in Ontario, or I could use them to show what a good job the City of Ottawa has done in protecting natural areas. BTW, 6 of the 8 pictures are taken within city limits, one picture on the non-city limits side of the Ottawa river, and one from out of town...

 

[J.R.]

Truth in photography? There are whole essays on this topic. The most interesting one for me is - Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard

Quote
"John Hilliard’s ‘Cause of Death’ provides a useful textbook example of the ways the meaning of a single image can be altered by its cropping and caption. This piece of work demonstrates how meaning in the photograph is achieved by selecting the appropriate information. From a single negative, Hilliard has selected and titled four possible ‘causes of death’ that might explain the situation of a body shown lying on a beach. These ‘explanations’ have been captioned: crushed, drowned, fell, burned and gain their effect purely through the way Hilliard has decided to present the facts. The spatial relationship between each fragment and its frame indicates that each image has been cropped from a larger image, which (if ever shown in its entirety) would prove to be ambiguous. Upon viewing Hilliard’s work, we can not only discover that we may have been deceived by the four possible interpretations, but the way that they have been displayed provides us with the means to find out exactly how we might have been misled."

 

[ecka]

I have another question for you, Ecka.

You write above that “There are many extraordinary and unbelievable photographs, but not all of them are art. Many people think that photography itself is art, but they are wrong. Photography is a tool.”

It helps to have greater understanding of your perspective, and with your statement that photography is a tool, not art, it is clearer why there has been discussion regarding some of what you have written.

Still, you write that “not all of them [photographs] are art”, following with a statement that persons are wrong in thinking that photography itself is art. If that is the case, how would you classify or conceive of the photos above not encompassed by your statement?

More specifically, if not all photographs are art, then are *some*/*any* photographs art? If so, then is that incongruent with your view of photography as non-art? If by your perspective no photographs are art, then–to iterate–what is your classification of the photographs above not encompassed by your statement?

Respectfully,

Notapro

Photography is a tool. You can do whatever you want with it - documentary (like you own life history, events, travelling, sports ...), event photography (parties, weddings, festivals, ...), cataloging (like product photography, snowflakes, food, evidence, astrophotography ...), nature (wildlife, macro, landscapes, ...), photojournalism (like all the horrible stuff we see on TV, telling the story, ...), paparazziing , art, ... .
Pushing the button doesn't make you an artist. Some say - "it's not art, if you didn't create it" - and the only variable here is what that "it" is. The subject, the composition, the mood (I think this one is the most common), the post processing, etc. So you can just pick one (or more) and work on it, if you feel you are an artist that is.
Some people want all their pictures to look artsy and fancy, so they photoshop everything into some kind of "art-like gallery". Others got artistic style, they stage their shots, use all kinds of lighting setups and stuff. Some people (like me) just enjoy collecting memories.
I understand that it is hard to fully comprehend someone's reasoning, but trying to explain yourself with words may be even harder . That's one of the reasons I'm into photography. I'm no artist.

 

[ecka]

Truth in photography? There are whole essays on this topic. The most interesting one for me is - Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard

Quote
"John Hilliard’s ‘Cause of Death’ provides a useful textbook example of the ways the meaning of a single image can be altered by its cropping and caption. This piece of work demonstrates how meaning in the photograph is achieved by selecting the appropriate information. From a single negative, Hilliard has selected and titled four possible ‘causes of death’ that might explain the situation of a body shown lying on a beach. These ‘explanations’ have been captioned: crushed, drowned, fell, burned and gain their effect purely through the way Hilliard has decided to present the facts. The spatial relationship between each fragment and its frame indicates that each image has been cropped from a larger image, which (if ever shown in its entirety) would prove to be ambiguous. Upon viewing Hilliard’s work, we can not only discover that we may have been deceived by the four possible interpretations, but the way that they have been displayed provides us with the means to find out exactly how we might have been misled."

So, if your picture doesn't tell the story (or the whole story), then you are a liar or just a lousy photographer?

 

[eml58]

Truth in photography? There are whole essays on this topic. The most interesting one for me is - Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard

Quote
"John Hilliard’s ‘Cause of Death’ provides a useful textbook example of the ways the meaning of a single image can be altered by its cropping and caption. This piece of work demonstrates how meaning in the photograph is achieved by selecting the appropriate information. From a single negative, Hilliard has selected and titled four possible ‘causes of death’ that might explain the situation of a body shown lying on a beach. These ‘explanations’ have been captioned: crushed, drowned, fell, burned and gain their effect purely through the way Hilliard has decided to present the facts. The spatial relationship between each fragment and its frame indicates that each image has been cropped from a larger image, which (if ever shown in its entirety) would prove to be ambiguous. Upon viewing Hilliard’s work, we can not only discover that we may have been deceived by the four possible interpretations, but the way that they have been displayed provides us with the means to find out exactly how we might have been misled."

So, if your picture doesn't tell the story (or the whole story), then you are a liar or just a lousy photographer?

Post a self portrait ecka, we are likely to see both.

I seldom look in on CR anymore, because of people like yourself.

Knock yourself out with your nonsensical replies.

 

[eml58]

Don, a 360 degree panorama of your paddling would tell an interesting story about a city and its preservation of presumably clean waterways for public recreation.

If a PJ-type photo is taken without an obvious narrative, the viewer either ignores it or constructs their own narrative. We are story-telling creatures.

Exactly! The narrative is all important for establishing context, but even there we have to trust the integrity of the storyteller. For example, I have posted a few pictures.... I could use them to tell the story of wilderness canoeing in Ontario, or I could use them to show what a good job the City of Ottawa has done in protecting natural areas. BTW, 6 of the 8 pictures are taken within city limits, one picture on the non-city limits side of the Ottawa river, and one from out of town...

You do your City a service Don, lovely Images that tell me, at least, that Ontario would be a great place to live.

 

[ecka]

Truth in photography? There are whole essays on this topic. The most interesting one for me is - Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard

Quote
"John Hilliard’s ‘Cause of Death’ provides a useful textbook example of the ways the meaning of a single image can be altered by its cropping and caption. This piece of work demonstrates how meaning in the photograph is achieved by selecting the appropriate information. From a single negative, Hilliard has selected and titled four possible ‘causes of death’ that might explain the situation of a body shown lying on a beach. These ‘explanations’ have been captioned: crushed, drowned, fell, burned and gain their effect purely through the way Hilliard has decided to present the facts. The spatial relationship between each fragment and its frame indicates that each image has been cropped from a larger image, which (if ever shown in its entirety) would prove to be ambiguous. Upon viewing Hilliard’s work, we can not only discover that we may have been deceived by the four possible interpretations, but the way that they have been displayed provides us with the means to find out exactly how we might have been misled."

So, if your picture doesn't tell the story (or the whole story), then you are a liar or just a lousy photographer?

Post a self portrait ecka, we are likely to see both.

I seldom look in on CR anymore, because of people like yourself.

Knock yourself out with your nonsensical replies.

What is wrong with you? Why are you so mean?

 

[Don Haines]

Don, a 360 degree panorama of your paddling would tell an interesting story about a city and its preservation of presumably clean waterways for public recreation.

If a PJ-type photo is taken without an obvious narrative, the viewer either ignores it or constructs their own narrative. We are story-telling creatures.

Exactly! The narrative is all important for establishing context, but even there we have to trust the integrity of the storyteller. For example, I have posted a few pictures.... I could use them to tell the story of wilderness canoeing in Ontario, or I could use them to show what a good job the City of Ottawa has done in protecting natural areas. BTW, 6 of the 8 pictures are taken within city limits, one picture on the non-city limits side of the Ottawa river, and one from out of town...

You do your City a service Don, lovely Images that tell me, at least, that Ontario would be a great place to live.

By and large, it is a wonderful place.... but I could just as easily go out and take a dozen images of graffiti, despair, neglect, and poverty that would show the opposite. The bias of the storyteller and their agenda can be used to distort reality. There is what I call "the Queensway effect". You drive down the Queensway and see 10,000 other drivers..... 9,999 are good and sensible, one drives like a total idiot..... and that is the one you remember! By focusing on things that are abnormal, we distort our view of reality and if left unchecked, we start to believe that the abnormal events are either normal, or far more common than they are.

 

[notapro]

Hello again, Ecka, and a nod as well to the readers of and contributors to this thread.

You have written that “Pushing the button doesn't make you an artist.” That compliments the sense you seem to express that photography is not art merely by virtue of being photography, and furthermore–you contend–photography is (only?, merely?) a tool. Am I understanding you correctly?

If I have understood you correctly, I surmise that many persons would agree with you on the idea of one’s not being transformed into the status of artist simply by virtue of having pressed a shutter. However, what seems to be at issue here is the matter of photography as art. It appears to be the case that you hold that photography is not, and cannot (?) be art. Is that what you wish to express precisely and definitively?

I ask because, for example, one can dance without the dance being art or without the dancer being an artist. One can paint without the painting being art or without the painter being an artist. One can sculpt without the sculpture being art or without the sculptor being an artist. Once can write without the writing being art or without the writer being an artist. You have given examples of how you believe one can take/make/compose/create/etc. a photograph without the photograph being art or without the photographer being an artist.

It happens to be, though, that dance, painting, sculpture, and writing (in their various forms) *can* be art in relevant and appropriate contexts. There are programs at universities world-wide in those areas, and they are taught explicitly in and within the context of art. It happens as well that there are M.F.A. and other graduate programs in photography where the photographic medium is treated, rendered, analyzed, presented, and so forth explicitly as art.

Is it your position that aestheticians, artists, curators, and academics (for example) who treat photography within an art context are wrong-headed and–in addition–that it is an absolute impossibility for a photographer in relevant and appropriate contexts (e.g., university art programs, art galleries, other associated/similar/related contexts/venues) to be an artist or for photography to be art?

If so, what, specifically, is the rationale you hold that renders that of those or of any other such persons logically, conclusively, or definitively misbegotten? Through providing one in this thread, you can help us understand your position.

Sincerely,

Notapro

 

[Don Haines]

Timing is everything.... This just came from a good friend who is most definitely an artist and also a professional photographer (even studied it at R.I.T.)

It is titled "Transient Ripples in Water in Blue Bowl, or The Cat is Thirsty"

 

[ecka]

Hello again, Ecka, and a nod as well to the readers of and contributors to this thread.

You have written that “Pushing the button doesn't make you an artist.” That compliments the sense you seem to express that photography is not art merely by virtue of being photography, and furthermore–you contend–photography is (only?, merely?) a tool. Am I understanding you correctly?

If I have understood you correctly, I surmise that many persons would agree with you on the idea of one’s not being transformed into the status of artist simply by virtue of having pressed a shutter. However, what seems to be at issue here is the matter of photography as art. It appears to be the case that you hold that photography is not, and cannot (?) be art. Is that what you wish to express precisely and definitively?

I ask because, for example, one can dance without the dance being art or without the dancer being an artist. One can paint without the painting being art or without the painter being an artist. One can sculpt without the sculpture being art or without the sculptor being an artist. Once can write without the writing being art or without the writer being an artist. You have given examples of how you believe one can take/make/compose/create/etc. a photograph without the photograph being art or without the photographer being an artist.

It happens to be, though, that dance, painting, sculpture, and writing (in their various forms) *can* be art in relevant and appropriate contexts. There are programs at universities world-wide in those areas, and they are taught explicitly in and within the context of art. It happens as well that there are M.F.A. and other graduate programs in photography where the photographic medium is treated, rendered, analyzed, presented, and so forth explicitly as art.

Is it your position that aestheticians, artists, curators, and academics (for example) who treat photography within an art context are wrong-headed and–in addition–that it is an absolute impossibility for a photographer in relevant and appropriate contexts (e.g., university art programs, art galleries, other associated/similar/related contexts/venues) to be an artist or for photography to be art?

If so, what, specifically, is the rationale you hold that renders that of those or of any other such persons logically, conclusively, or definitively misbegotten? Through providing one in this thread, you can help us understand your position.

Sincerely,

Notapro

Well, the world is not black and white. You are oversimplifying it to the point of error. I don't know what exactly you are trying to prove, but photography is not either art, or non-art, it's a tool. There is no conflict. Normally, people don't produce art if they don't want to. It's a choice. You can dance artistically, or for sport, or for some kind of a ritual, or for money ... you decide. Life is simple as it is, with simple rules. Sometimes it's not about learning something you don't know, but learning that you don't know a thing about something. Then you just have to learn the whole thing from the beginning. I never said that a photographer cannot be an artist. I said that photography, as a tool, can be used for a lot more than just art.
Fundamentalism is false and bad for mental health, you must question everything.

 

[benperrin]

1. Gear matters.
2. 5D2 is a great camera.
3. Camera is a tool. Better cameras are better tools.
4. Populism like "it's not the camera ...", is an artsy narcissistic BS. Trust me

+1

People who say the camera doesn't matter are full of it. Not to say it's the only part that matters but it certainly does. The problem lies where people think that only your gear matters. That is just as incorrect as saying gear is not important. Better gear can open up new and exciting opportunities. Post processing also can. There will be plenty of photos that no amount of post processing can save but it can enhance great images as well. Take them to a new level. People make far too big of a deal about new cameras. I've had people tell me that the 5d2 can't take good images, of course talk like that is bs.

Also people often argue these points from their own favourite photographic genres. Photo journalism will have different requirements to landscape and sports photography will have a different set of requirements again. This needs to be remembered when arguing the point. The best camera is not the one you have with you, it is the right tool for the job. I'd hate to use an iPhone for bird photography.

 

[notapro]

Ecka,

Thank you for elaborating further your position in Reply #115.

Let us all look forward to what the next World Press Photo of the Year brings us.

Sincerely,

Notapro

 

[J.R.]

Truth in photography? There are whole essays on this topic. The most interesting one for me is - Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard

Quote
"John Hilliard’s ‘Cause of Death’ provides a useful textbook example of the ways the meaning of a single image can be altered by its cropping and caption. This piece of work demonstrates how meaning in the photograph is achieved by selecting the appropriate information. From a single negative, Hilliard has selected and titled four possible ‘causes of death’ that might explain the situation of a body shown lying on a beach. These ‘explanations’ have been captioned: crushed, drowned, fell, burned and gain their effect purely through the way Hilliard has decided to present the facts. The spatial relationship between each fragment and its frame indicates that each image has been cropped from a larger image, which (if ever shown in its entirety) would prove to be ambiguous. Upon viewing Hilliard’s work, we can not only discover that we may have been deceived by the four possible interpretations, but the way that they have been displayed provides us with the means to find out exactly how we might have been misled."

So, if your picture doesn't tell the story (or the whole story), then you are a liar or just a lousy photographer?

Neither. Everything is subjective and as for "entire story" in photography, it is neither here nor there.

Too bad you feel like that ecka. If all you want is to show the entire story, feeling that not doing so will make you a liar or a lousy photographer, you are missing out on a lot of creative opportunities in your photography.

 

[ecka]

Truth in photography? There are whole essays on this topic. The most interesting one for me is - Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard

Quote
"John Hilliard’s ‘Cause of Death’ provides a useful textbook example of the ways the meaning of a single image can be altered by its cropping and caption. This piece of work demonstrates how meaning in the photograph is achieved by selecting the appropriate information. From a single negative, Hilliard has selected and titled four possible ‘causes of death’ that might explain the situation of a body shown lying on a beach. These ‘explanations’ have been captioned: crushed, drowned, fell, burned and gain their effect purely through the way Hilliard has decided to present the facts. The spatial relationship between each fragment and its frame indicates that each image has been cropped from a larger image, which (if ever shown in its entirety) would prove to be ambiguous. Upon viewing Hilliard’s work, we can not only discover that we may have been deceived by the four possible interpretations, but the way that they have been displayed provides us with the means to find out exactly how we might have been misled."

So, if your picture doesn't tell the story (or the whole story), then you are a liar or just a lousy photographer?

Neither. Everything is subjective and as for "entire story" in photography, it is neither here nor there.

Too bad you feel like that ecka. If all you want is to show the entire story, feeling that not doing so will make you a liar or a lousy photographer, you are missing out on a lot of creative opportunities in your photography.

Perhaps my photography is not creative, it is situational. And I really don't feel bad because of it, neither should you.
I think I'll just keep working on the "lousy photographer" part and try to get better in progress, because (IMHO) lying is for artists (and liars, and politicians, obviously) and I'm not interested in improving those skills. There is plenty of it already, maybe even too much, no need for one more.