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