Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . .

The point of doing something like this on your own is to get
a
simpler device at lower cost. Of course, another reason would be to
develop a
solution that does not exist, so something unique when finished.

Yes, I think my aim is something of a 'universal' wide camera - something I
can put a variety of backs on, and can use with any lens, shuttered or not,
that I want to play with.

I would not mind a somewhat similar multi approach, though having several backs
would be more to carry. The other idea is using masks on 6x9 to have other
formats, though again there are a few issues in use, and there are still only
eight shots on a 120 roll.

You seem to have a similar idea, but giving up
some of the 'universality' in return for the ease of handling that my
solution will certainly lack.

I just don't see using it often enough to make a really complex version, which
to me would mean that a very simple, few parts, solution would be good enough
to accomplish what I want.

I think for a slight difference in overall
objective, we're going to end up with very different cameras - which I
suppose says it all in terms of 'getting something that doesn't otherwise
exist', because no one would commercially make anything that satisfies so
specific, and possibly unique, a set of requirements.

I don't imagine too many ALPA, Silvestri, or Ebony Finesse cameras are sold
either. These are very specialized, limited use camera systems. Even expanding
their uses involves many compromises. There really is no one camera to do it
all.



. . . . . . . . . . . .

Design friendly photography . . . you have touched upon one aspect
that
many
art directors and designers complain about with images: room for text
placement.

I'm always surprised how many people don't take this into account.
Especially for stock work, where you don't have a design director
breathing
down your neck and so have to be your own designer - "what would I need
if I was to use this shot for a cover/advert/background/whatever" is a
question too few people ask themselves, it seems. With your
illustration
background you must have something of a head start in this area.


I am trying to come up with a positioning statement that reflects my
approach
to photography. So far, the term design friendly, or even ad friendly, or
text
friendly, are some choices. Then the problem would be that my portfolio
needs
to emphasize and reinforce my positioning statement.

Something like 'design friendly' or 'layout aware' sounds good, but as you
say, you then have to prove it via your portfolio.

I am getting closer on a finalized portfolio, though of course it is dynamic
and will continue to change . . . you know what I mean, I just need a good
organized launching point.

This sounds like
something that is better demonstrated with tear sheets than with 'clean'
shots - but that can take a lot of time to build, of course.


Strange that many reviewers do not want to see tear sheets, but prefer to see
personal work, or even fine art work. The bad part about a tear sheet approach
is that I think some of my commercial work looks a little boring for a
portfolio; the clients liked those images, but I did not find much excitement
in them. Another idea would be to place images into mock-up advertisements,
which would not be too tough to do (after all, I am a print designer (graphic
designer)). I want to avoid having things from my design portfolio in my
photography portfolio, though I could have some cross-over. Many things to
still consider.


[SNIP]

Yes, the 'everything sharp' school of work - a la group f64 - can be
hard to
keep interesting enough sometimes.

I rarely have used that approach, even when I was doing architecture
photography. Selective focus can emphasize focal points. When there is
little
visual information in an image, then an all things in focus approach can
be
effective.

Selective lighting is an alternative to selective focus, and I certainly
quite often allow shadows to block up deliberately.

Sure, I do that with some scenes. It can be just as effective, and even provide
more graphic, geometric visual elements in the final images.

I think this all comes
down to the difference in the way the brain analyses a photograph from a
real scene: a photograph needs to work 'in a single glance' to a much
greater extent, and that limits how much information it is (usually) good to
have in it. Of course, there are exceptions that prove the rule, but often
these relate to the idea of masses of detail all saying the same thing, not
to lots of 'separate' things going on.

Rhythm and repetition are valid compositional choices, yet few photographers
really exploit those qualities in their images . . . you just gave me an idea!
I have some recent test shots from a 645 that are very geometric, and I think
some might work quite well side be side, which would further emphasize the
geometric patterns within them.



Have you looked at Galen Rowell's book "G.R.'s Inner Game of Outdoor
Photography"? It's not really your sort of photography, so you might have
passed it by, but the things he has to say about how the brain interprets a
picture are extremely interesting.

I will see if I can find it at Border's Books, or Barnes & Noble. You are
partially right, I largely pass up on anything landscape or nature photography,
though I have seen some nice images. I even exhibit with a group that largely
does large format nature images, some really nice examples, though I just do
not see myself going that direction. I grew up in the city, and I like the
urban environment much more.




Increasingly I think you're right about how far painting has influenced
the
way I think about putting a picture together. Like so many things we
absorb
from an early age it is somewhat unconscious for me, though it is
probably a
good exercise to think about it more from time to time - one of the
reasons
I think I learn as much as my students do from the teaching I do.

Peter

Painting has been a huge influence on the way I photograph. It is such a
prevalent aspect of how I see, that I even notice painting references in
motion
pictures. My painting are somewhat removed from reality, and
representational, though I think some photographic aspects also appear in
some of them. In some ways, painting and photography are complimentary.


I wish more people could see that complementarity

Did spellcheck pick that up?

- there are still those
who cling to the long defunct divides between Fine Art & craft, and between
art & science, and think photography and painting live on opposite sides of
this imaginary chasm.

Yes, many people still think that photography should not be fine art. However,
I have seen a shift in the last three years, and photography is becoming much
more important in the fine art world. Part of that is due to some big name
collectors (rich people) that want to buy lots of photography they consider
important. Of course, I am still astounded by how much money a Gursky photo can
go for currently.

It is a shame that some are so narrow minded that they cannot accept any medium
of creative expression. There is definitely still a higher respect for
painting, though I am seeing some exhibits that are nearly half photography,
and much more colour prints than I saw even five years ago.

You might find this strange, but I would almost give up photography if I could
make a living from my paintings. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make
that a reality, so my emphasis is on the commercial aspects of print design,
and commercial photography. I enjoy my fine art work, and it keeps me creative,
but it barely pays for itself.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com