tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9493601.post114764272373564521..comments2024-01-11T15:12:49.433-05:00Comments on Tao of Photography by Andy Ilachinski: Previsualization ...or... Why Ansel Adams Could Never be Happy With a Point & Shoot CameraAndy Ilachinskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14572501787099507666noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9493601.post-26383235383448602032012-10-04T22:54:27.892-05:002012-10-04T22:54:27.892-05:00" there is no such thing as the one "tru..." there is no such thing as the one "true" objective reality ;-)"<br /><br />-- but, alas, there are many false,<br />subjective fantasies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9493601.post-28107137106208866622007-11-09T11:38:00.000-05:002007-11-09T11:38:00.000-05:00Hello,Just came across your blog doing some resear...Hello,<BR/><BR/>Just came across your blog doing some research for a photo book I'm developing. I was research Adam's concept of previsualization. <BR/><BR/>I'm also preparing to shoot my first doc film next year, and your blog has given me a lot to think about.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!BMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09515064805180126097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9493601.post-1166539524096492832006-12-19T09:45:00.000-05:002006-12-19T09:45:00.000-05:00I agree with David completely on the migration of ...I agree with David completely on the migration of a RAW file to a print. I just wanted to comment on an often overlooked result of the digital revolution. The ease of image deletion.<BR/><BR/>I run a small Photo School in Northern New Jersey so I get to watch a number of people rather closely as they interact with their equipment. It always amazes me to watch people looking at that silly little screen and make editing decisions in camera. Just imagine what Andy's Window picture must have looked like. Many, maybe most, would have looked at it, muttered something unkind and deleted it. Having the patience to avoid doing this allowed Andy to turn a picture into a His Photograph and that's what the Art of Photography is about.<BR/><BR/>With physical negatives it is impossible, with roll film anyway, to selectively delete frames so one has the ability to look back in the future and perhaps recognize what your minds eye was pointing out when you made a photograph. The practice of rapid, permanent editing of digital negatives to "save space" will cost the practitioner many opportunities in the future.<BR/><BR/>I'm so glad that John Sexton pointed out this Blog in his newsletter. I'm looking forward to absorbing the entire thing. New points of view, especially when so well expressed are a joy to behold.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9493601.post-1148053496574785002006-05-19T10:44:00.000-05:002006-05-19T10:44:00.000-05:00This post is very telling in two ways. First, it ...This post is very telling in two ways. <BR/><BR/>First, it is a lesson to all of us amateur photographers, like myself, that good pictures aren't taken, they are edited, changed, manipulated, and made into what the photographer wants. Created, so to speak. You hit right: the photographer has to see in his mind what a particular picture *can* be, not just what it is, straight off the compact flash card. <BR/><BR/>I believe it was Michaelangelo who said, to the effect, I do not create the sculpture, I remove the stone that doesn't belong to reveal the sculpture that was present all along. While Michaelangelo used hammers and chisels, we (if I am part of this group, and only from the periphery) use Photoshop, Qimage, SnagIt, and the like on our digital pictures.<BR/><BR/>Second, this posting gets to the point I have always believed to be true. Good photography as art is not a copy of what one physically sees of a scene. It is what one wants to see or, put better, sees in his mind. This idea takes photography from the simple recording of light rays at a particular time and place to a film (or CCD to a memory card) to art. The art comes from the manipulation of the image into something else that was not physically present at the click of the shutter but is *made* present by the photographer--artist. It is what differentiates a wedding photographer (nothing wrong with that!) from an artist. (Of course, wedding pictures are historical, not generally artistic.)<BR/><BR/>More so, we can differentiate photography from art (what you have done) from scientific visualizations and pictures that are historical in the sense I used here but also of great beauty in what they represent. Perhaps another posting can look at this aspect?<BR/><BR/>In short, another fine essay, Andrew. Keep up the wonderful writings and postings.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02236449128797878326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9493601.post-1147643668342663162006-05-14T16:54:00.000-05:002006-05-14T16:54:00.000-05:00Great stuff, not just on a visual level. I have a ...Great stuff, not just on a visual level. I have a lot of the same feelings and attitudes myself regarding my own photography. ( I enjoyed nuclear physics too at the low level I was reqired to take it, because it was also abstact!) It is something that I had to visualize to understand. For me photography or art can be putting such an abstact idea into the visual plane! The reverse situation but it works the same way.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11146112685192567927noreply@blogger.com