Canon 5Ds-r Martin Parr / Magnum - Just use it on Program Mode !
- Thread starter Nitroman
- Start date
AprilForever said:
Eh? Sorry was that directed at me?
It's just that I didn't say anybody was evil. The quality of the art is entirely subjective, you say terrible, I say terrific. Who's right? Well we both are, thats the beauty of an emotional and intellectual response to art.
There's art that does nothing for me, yet I know it is art, it has artful intentions, I can admire the skill in the craft, but it leaves me cold.
I concede that those looking for technical aptitude examplar in Martin Parrs work are looking in the wrong place, so that those who do not 'get it' can see nothing meritous within it, but because YOU do not get it does not make it worthless to everybody else.
Mr. Parr may well be as well using a powershot... the intention of the work, that what raises it above the humdrum, that gives it credence, would still be there. You might think 'Oh I could do that' or 'I could do better'.
Ok then, you have the platform here to show us. Consider that a gauntlet.
I love gear. I love understanding how it works. How to achieve an effect. How to problem solve. How to use a tool to create. With art the gear is a means to an end. You wouldn't watch a ballet and discuss the properties of the flooring? (unless say it was to the detriment of the performance)
But I love art more. Well, the art that I like. I love modernity. Martin Parrs catalogue picks up at where modernity was slowly becoming post-modernity. His work is a time capsule. But not documentary as such.
His technique is deceptively simple. Insultingly simple to those photographers who struggle for years, spending thousands, perfecting their process to the nth degree and attaining nothing more than a few hits on flickr, or a runners up prize at the camera club.
I can see how those photographers, hung up on dynamic range, circles of confusion and intersecting thirds might bristle, how the seemingly casual success of Parr would rankle.
I don't look at Parrs work and think about the gear. It transcends that.
Oh gosh, he uses programme mode... oh no. Not the worst idea when using flash, candidly, walkabout in the wild.
I know some folk who even use auto-focus!!!
Being interested in the gear is fine. But we are all here to make images. Some do it better, or at least more successfully than others, the vitriol that Parrs work inspires in many, just amuses me even more.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Tinky, I greatly admire your fortitude in trying to educate those who do not wish to be educated. A few comments:
Very early in my career, I worked at a newspaper where a sports writer once took me to task for my disparaging comments about sports. He asked why I was so proud of my ignorance. It stung because it was so accurate. I resolved then and there to respect the opinions of those who know more about a subject than I do.
Whenever the subject of art, politics or religion comes up, it seems everyone is an expert, no matter how little they know. And, too many are proud to parade their ignorance around as though it is a sign of character.
The fact that Parr is an acknowledged artist is not open to debate. His work has been deemed sufficiently important to be included in the collections of serious museums across the world. Hundreds -- probably more likely thousands -- of critics have acknowledged his talent. There are collectors willing to pay top dollar for his work. And, unusual for many photographic artists, he has been recognized by membership in what is clearly the most elite group of photojournalists on the planet.
It is perfectly legitimate for an individual to state that an artist's work is not their cup of tea. It is quite another to claim that because we either don't understand or just simply don't care for an artist's work that that somehow invalidates the considered opinions of the entire art world.
Perhaps the most ignorant suggestion is that one must print their own work in order to be a photographer. I suspect these comments come from the same people who willingly shell out a few dollars every year to buy a calendar of Ansel Adams photographs because they view his 70--year-old vision as the epitome of what they think art should look like. And, they probably never realize that Adams stopped making his own prints decades before his death.
A few years ago, I went to a Cartier-Bresson retrospective. There were prints from his earliest to his latest days. One minor thing struck me -- the early prints which presumably Cartier-Bresson printed himself were terrible. Muddy, dust-spots etc. Once he achieved a certain level of success, he turned printing over to others and the prints showed a significant improvement. Were the later prints lesser works? Not in the least. I think people would be surprised at how few great photographers print their own pictures.
Very early in my career, I worked at a newspaper where a sports writer once took me to task for my disparaging comments about sports. He asked why I was so proud of my ignorance. It stung because it was so accurate. I resolved then and there to respect the opinions of those who know more about a subject than I do.
Whenever the subject of art, politics or religion comes up, it seems everyone is an expert, no matter how little they know. And, too many are proud to parade their ignorance around as though it is a sign of character.
The fact that Parr is an acknowledged artist is not open to debate. His work has been deemed sufficiently important to be included in the collections of serious museums across the world. Hundreds -- probably more likely thousands -- of critics have acknowledged his talent. There are collectors willing to pay top dollar for his work. And, unusual for many photographic artists, he has been recognized by membership in what is clearly the most elite group of photojournalists on the planet.
It is perfectly legitimate for an individual to state that an artist's work is not their cup of tea. It is quite another to claim that because we either don't understand or just simply don't care for an artist's work that that somehow invalidates the considered opinions of the entire art world.
Perhaps the most ignorant suggestion is that one must print their own work in order to be a photographer. I suspect these comments come from the same people who willingly shell out a few dollars every year to buy a calendar of Ansel Adams photographs because they view his 70--year-old vision as the epitome of what they think art should look like. And, they probably never realize that Adams stopped making his own prints decades before his death.
A few years ago, I went to a Cartier-Bresson retrospective. There were prints from his earliest to his latest days. One minor thing struck me -- the early prints which presumably Cartier-Bresson printed himself were terrible. Muddy, dust-spots etc. Once he achieved a certain level of success, he turned printing over to others and the prints showed a significant improvement. Were the later prints lesser works? Not in the least. I think people would be surprised at how few great photographers print their own pictures.
Upvote
0
Tinky said:
This discussion has been going on like forever. I've been around enough to remember when putting light meters in a camera brought on conflicts, then there was autofocus and auto exposure. So it will forever be.
I have no issues with the equipment or method photographers use. Like many here, I am equipment oriented, but its just me, and I'm not the type to think that my way is the only correct one.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
I'm not starting that discussion... I'm holding up a mirror.
How dare a professional use any form of automation seems to be gist.......
With art there is no right or wrong. Thats what makes it so difficult to define.
Try and find another word for love other than love that effectively encompasses all that it means to every person.
Try and find another word for art other than art that effectively encompasses all that it means to every person.
I learned my hobby on an FTQL. I first trained in my craft on super8. The FTQL was Devils work apparently. When I moved to an A2e, well, you almost don't need a photographer, do you?
I am very belligerent about using AF in video but everything else is up for debate... including and especially art.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
Thank you.
The last time I developed and printed a roll of film and printed myself must have been around 2005. I was no master printer myself.
I'm struggling to remember the last time I actually printed anything...
As you appreciate... I'm not saying that everybody has and must love Martin Parr, I appreciate his work.
In much the same way as I appreciate Unité d'habitation despite knowing that Le Corb was a bit of an arse, and never poured a bit of concrete in his puff.
The best bit of all, is that I kind of get the feeling that Martin quite enjoys winding people up.
I laid down the gauntlet earlier. Still waiting for anybody to pick it up.
I know it's a gear forum, but it doesn't mean we have to avoid talking about art, does it?
Upvote
0
Tinky said:
The FTQL was my first true SLR. Before that I had a TLR, a Argus C3 rangefinder, and a pseudo SLR that was a SLR with a fixed lens and shutter in the lens. I also had a polaroid. All those hundreds of color Polaroid photos are now faded away.
Upvote
0
By definition all photography is "observational" it is the level to which the end viewer is moved by that observation that is important, surely?
As to whether Parr's work is "high art" or not I could not say, I don't move in the high art circles and from what I do know about high art (limited to a few visits to Art Basel) I would say being a successful artist who's work is taken 'seriously' has little to do with skill or observation and much more to do with gallery owners, patronage and market manipulation.
As for using P mode, I don't understand the hullabaloo, I can use P, Av, Tv, or M modes and get exactly the same exposure, can't most of us? Shiftable P mode with exposure compensation is every bit as useful as any other 'serious' mode, and Parr is far from the only high profile pro that uses it, tongue in cheek or not; for instance Joe Buissink, a $10,000+ per wedding Beverly Hills based pro uses P mode exclusively.
As to whether Parr's work is "high art" or not I could not say, I don't move in the high art circles and from what I do know about high art (limited to a few visits to Art Basel) I would say being a successful artist who's work is taken 'seriously' has little to do with skill or observation and much more to do with gallery owners, patronage and market manipulation.
As for using P mode, I don't understand the hullabaloo, I can use P, Av, Tv, or M modes and get exactly the same exposure, can't most of us? Shiftable P mode with exposure compensation is every bit as useful as any other 'serious' mode, and Parr is far from the only high profile pro that uses it, tongue in cheek or not; for instance Joe Buissink, a $10,000+ per wedding Beverly Hills based pro uses P mode exclusively.
Upvote
0
The FTQL was my Dads camera.
I've bought and sold a few TLR's when I worked in camera retail but never used one for fun, or for anything.
I really fancy one. I love WLF's. I also fancy a Contax G2 and a Mamiya 7ii, oh yeah and a Minolta CLE. I think I've owned or had extensive possesion of any other camera I've wanted to have a go on.
But what comes out any of them still wont be art.
I've bought and sold a few TLR's when I worked in camera retail but never used one for fun, or for anything.
I really fancy one. I love WLF's. I also fancy a Contax G2 and a Mamiya 7ii, oh yeah and a Minolta CLE. I think I've owned or had extensive possesion of any other camera I've wanted to have a go on.
But what comes out any of them still wont be art.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
If I'm running & gunning with flash, where subjects cannot be posed or composed, where the moment matters, I find P mode with shift & fec very helpful. Takes the focal length equations out of it.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:Nitroman said:Well this is interesting and as usual, controversial.
Canon Professional Network interview documentary photographer Martin Parr from Magnum about his use of the new 5Ds r and his print workflow.
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/martin_parr_lifes_a_beach.do?utm_source=newsletter_august_2_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter
Just use in in Program not Manual Mode, get a wet behind the ears college intern to process all your digital files and then printed them as 10" x 8" for 50p.
Since he has the credentials and experience, I think his approach obviously works for him.
Before I'd criticize him, I'd need to show that I consistently do better.
Not really. By that philosophy we will never be able to discuss a movie, opera, album... I think we have our opinions which we should express. Don't we discuss a famous actor's performance in a play or movie?
Upvote
0
GuyF said:Having just returned from the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh (where there's a wee David Bailey exhibition on), if Parr is high art then the art world is screwed. Unless of course you were being post-modern ironic, in that case, yes, I suppose he is...
Royally.
Upvote
0
it does not matter what mode he/she uses, except auto mode, i do believe quality images will be delivered as long as he/she knows what tone should be used to lock his/her exposure.
using P mode with DSLR is of course more challenges than those who are currently claiming to use Av, Tv, M, P modes in mirrorless.
below is an example of locking exposure (done by Jeff Ascough) that i have seen back in the day i started to learn light...
note: he was using two cameras capturing images, when switching to another camera, he was finding a tone that he could lock his exposure and then back to his frame...
using P mode with DSLR is of course more challenges than those who are currently claiming to use Av, Tv, M, P modes in mirrorless.
below is an example of locking exposure (done by Jeff Ascough) that i have seen back in the day i started to learn light...
note: he was using two cameras capturing images, when switching to another camera, he was finding a tone that he could lock his exposure and then back to his frame...
Attachments
Upvote
0
sanj said:
That Parr is established, accepted and recognised as a high concept artist is beyond question. You might not like his work, many don't, but his estimable credentials, awards, qualified plaudits are all matters of fact.
You are very wrong, and making yourself look ignorant by saying his work is not high concept art.
You are of course perfectly entitled to hold the view that you don't like his work, you are at liberty to confess you don't understand it, many would share a view that it leaves you cold.... but the fact is his work is regarded by some of the finest galleries and most-knowledgable collectors and most prestigious photo agency as high concept art.
That is the difference my friend.
I really can't engage with Kanye West, mainly for cultural reasons, but I recognise the high regard in which he is held and hismany awards which represent critical acceptance etc. If one if his tracks came on the rasio I'd turn it down, change channel, or switch it off, as I don't like it,don't understand it, but for me to say it is rubbish or that his work was meritless would make me look like an ignoramous.
Can you percieve the difference? You can no more say with any credibility that Parr is not high art, than I can say with any credibility that Kanye West is without talent or success.
Upvote
0
Tinky said:
Not convinced. Disagree.
YOU are very wrong and making yourself look ignorant by saying his work is high concept art.
You have posted his pictures above. I saw them on his website. I may or may not (I do) like his photos but will never agree that they are 'high art'. Because they are not.
It is ok to have difference of opinion....
Upvote
0
