Can a photograph speak for itself?

Bill Clark said:
Yes.

The type of photographs I make/made, do/did reflect the emotions of a very special day. My desire is to have each person re-live the event each time they look at the photographs. Even business portraits I make refect the same feelings.

They evoke happiness and joy. I believe we all need more of that in our lives.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. A noble ambition. I also admire your signature. Why are so many people so eager to hide behind false names? Possibly because they are bigger people behind a keyboard than they are face to face?

Cheers,

R,
 
johnwolf said:
Good gracious, Roger, you're a photography mentor on a photography forum and, as implied by your introduction, are in that position because of your rangefinder and photography credentials. Surely you have something to offer right here, other than trying to direct the RFF community to your personal site. You really can't see the concern?

John
Click to expand...
Dear John,

No, I can't, because I invite them to discuss it RIGHT HERE, on the RFF site. You really can't see what a forum is for? Such as discussion?

Cheers,

R.
 
johnwolf said:
Good gracious, Roger, you're a photography mentor on a photography forum and, as implied by your introduction, are in that position because of your rangefinder and photography credentials. Surely you have something to offer right here, other than trying to direct the RFF community to your personal site. You really can't see the concern?
Click to expand...

Roger Hicks said:
No, I can't, because I invite them to discuss it RIGHT HERE, on the RFF site. You really can't see what a forum is for? Such as discussion?
Click to expand...
This is not a general discussion forum. It is a photography related discussion forum. The articles you link to on your website are off-topic.
 
Darthfeeble said:
So. About titles, I'd like to see more "Where and When and What" So many of us are from places so many of us have no knowledge of. Untitled is not very rewarding. I have done that in the past but will try in the future to at least inform if not guide the viewer.
Click to expand...
That's my feeling. "Inform" and "provide a useful label" seem entirely defensible goals to me.

Sure, it won't work for everyone. But some people seem not only to believe that theirs is the only possible approach, but also to feel threatened by anything else.

To quote Bertrand Russell again, "Many people would rather die than think, and many do."

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Michael,

Hmmmm... Sort of. But you would presumably not argue that a love letter cannot speak for the person who wrote it? Or even a poem, addressed to the world at large?

I do not dispute for a moment that the photographer has little or no further control over a photograph once it has left his/her possession.But I would argue very strongly that (as I said earlier) a photograph is normally an intermediary between the photographer and the viewer.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger,

This is getting little tricky. A love letter is speaking isn't it? The range of interpretation options for a love letter, while no doubt still broad, is narrower than for the reflections photo you posted on your site (which ironically I can't remember the name of...).

I agree that the photograph is an intermediary between the photographer and the viewer, but once it's in the wild, the photographer can no longer change the influence the photograph has on the viewer. It becomes an interaction between photograph and viewer, not photographer and viewer. I would see it chronologically as a photographer-photograph interaction followed by a photograph-viewer interaction. The photograph is the only common link, but the photographer cannot go back and stick up for the photograph or explain (or change) its meaning once it's hanging in someones house.
 
Nom de Cyber

Nom de Cyber

Roger Hicks said:
Fair enough. A noble ambition. I also admire your signature. Why are so many people so eager to hide behind false names? Possibly because they are bigger people behind a keyboard than they are face to face?

Cheers,

R,
Click to expand...

I was told at the beginning of my internet days to use a "handle", as us truck driver types called it, to help keep folks from using your identity. I just keep doing it out of habit I suppose. There are many Steves, but only one Darthfeeble. Steve Gumbiner (there, I'm out)
 
Roger Hicks said:
These are not throwaway ideas. They are quite carefully thought out; written at some length; and often illustrated. Here on RFF they would soon disappear in the enormous swamp of past posts. On my own site they can be preserved and re-examined: you are not looking at an archive of often random and trivial thoughts, outdated questions and threads about pictures taken with a particular lens.
Click to expand...

How very noble of you, posting links to your thoughts on your site so they will not be lost in the trivial morass that is RFF.

But I bet you have no idea that you just insulted this site, and its readership. Nor care.
 
Huss said:
How very noble of you, posting links to your thoughts on your site so they will not be lost in the trivial morass that is RFF.

But I bet you have no idea that you just insulted this site, and its readership. Nor care.
Click to expand...
Largely because I didn't. Do you deny that this is an accurate description of much that is on RFF: "often random and trivial thoughts, outdated questions and threads about pictures taken with a particular lens"? I've posted a fair amount of that sort of thing myself, such as on the thread about cheap but good compacts.

But if you want to feel personally insulted, don't let me stop you.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Largely because I didn't. Do you deny that this is an accurate description of much that is on RFF: "often random and trivial thoughts, outdated questions and threads about pictures taken with a particular lens"?

But if you want to feel personally insulted, don't let me stop you.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

No. It is a photography site, and that is what a photography sites consists of.

When does a question become outdated when the answer becomes a resource? A question posed years ago may have significance to someone who has just encountered a problem that could be answered by that question. A thread of photos taken by a particular lens is of use to someone, now or in the future, with an interest in that lens.
 
It's a book about rangefinder and direct vision cameras. But then, you don't really care about anything except point scoring, so go ahead. Presumably you enjoy yourself.

Where can we see your work, incidentally?

Cheers,

R.
 
Jeeze Roger, are you off your meds??? You remind me of the "hairy bean bag" scene in There's Something About Mary. Dude, lighten up, this is a photography forum, no more, no less. If you want to discuss the problems of the world, or maybe solve the problems of the world I think you need to look elsewhere. Now, I notice that you have more posts here than most of the rest of us combinded, so I see you're quite at home here but that doesn't mean you own the place. Chill out, relax, have a sip of wine... and leave the kids alone.

Cheers!
Mike
 
This tread has lead me to thinking about what RFF is.

I’ve come to the conclusion that much like the NY RFF meetups the forum is a meeting place for photographers. While most threads will (and conversations at meetups) mostly revolve around cameras and photography some of the most interesting ones do not.

Hearing the opinions of others, which are quite varied here is fascinating. To understand these outlooks first hand in not something I find in other forms of media. I myself really learned a lot about views on Brexit for example.

If there was a physical meeting would we be happy if someone was policing that meeting to enforce a photography only mandate? No, you would think it was rude. If there is a group of people off in a corner discussing a something that is off topic, or even a little weird, just walk away. I’d say that if someone is really out there, they will end up marginalizing themselves and solving the problem themselves.

On some level, I think that the real issue is there are people that are aggravated that points of view that they don’t share are being discussed…

Joe
 
jszokoli said:
This tread has lead me to thinking about what RFF is.

I’ve come to the conclusion that much like the NY RFF meetups the forum is a meeting place for photographers. While most threads will (and conversations at meetups) mostly revolve around cameras and photography some of the most interesting ones do not.

Hearing the opinions of others, which are quite varied here is fascinating. To understand these outlooks first hand in not something I find in other forms of media. I myself really learned a lot about views on Brexit for example.

If there was a physical meeting would we be happy if someone was policing that meeting to enforce a photography only mandate? No, you would think it was rude. If there is a group of people off in a corner discussing a something that is off topic, or even a little weird, just walk away. I’d say that if someone is really out there, they will end up marginalizing themselves and solving the problem themselves.

On some level, I think that the real issue is there are people that are aggravated that points of view that they don’t share are being discussed…

Joe
Click to expand...
Dear Joe,

Thanks for the analysis. Obviously I agree completely -- I especially like the highlighted parts -- but there are clearly those who disagree strongly. What puzzles me is why they want to shut everyone else up as well.

Cheers,

R.
 
The premise for this discussion is that a photograph should be interpreted, from the title or without the title. A lot of modern art and photography has gone that way. Perhaps the notion of a photograph speaking for itself is by way of not speaking at all. Many very good photographs elicit a response that is similar in many sensitive observers. A good number of those might not be able to articulate what that response is. Chez Mondrian by Kertesz is one like this. A wonder. How to interpret it? I'm not sure where I would start. It speaks for itself.
 
Yokosuka_Mike said:
Jeeze Roger, are you off your meds??? You remind me of the "hairy bean bag" scene in What About Mary. Dude, lighten up, this is a photography forum, no more, no less. If you want to discuss the problems of the world, or maybe solve the problems of the world I think you need to look elsewhere. Now, I notice that you have more posts here than most of the rest of us combinded, so I see you're quite at home here but that doesn't mean you own the place. Chill out, relax, have a sip of wine... and leave the kids alone.

Cheers!
Mike
Click to expand...
Dear Mike,

Anyone who says "are you off your meds???" with three question marks has pretty much forfeited any right to be taken seriously in anything they subsequently say.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
It's a book about rangefinder and direct vision cameras. But then, you don't really care about anything except point scoring, so go ahead. Presumably you enjoy yourself.

Where can we see your work, incidentally?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

huZ Galleries, 341 West 7th St, San Pedro, CA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...anuary-12-15-2017_us_58740e6ce4b08052400ee579

http://voyagela.com/interview/meet-huss-hardan-huz-galleries-san-pedro/

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/...flex-and-the-road-to-prescott-by-huss-hardan/


http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/05/20/art-of-the-grind-by-huss-hardan/



But I don't create threads just for the intention to link to it, the way you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top