I share your preoccupation with the journalistic vs creative continuum. I came to photography via Geoff Winningham, my teacher at university, but since it was an introductory course, most of what I got was technical, including, thankfully, a solid grounding in the relationship between ASA/ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. I think people coming to photography now that the machine does most of the "thinking" have a different challenge than we did.
I'm not convinced that "interpretive" is the "right" apposite to "journalistic" photography. My inclination is to contrast "direct", shoot 'em straight ahead as clearly as you can do it, with "elliptical", which is to embrace murk, indistinct focus, violating the rules of composition photos. Both of them still leave the viewer with the responsibility for forming a conclusion, or reaction, to what they are seeing. Such as the 2nd photograph in the Valparaiso book I mentioned to you in an email...
Another wonderful blog. You were right to provide the warning on the Palestinian pix. They make me want to pick up a gun, not a camera...
Thanks, Norman. I was thinking of the photograph in the Valparaiso book that you mentioned as I wrote this post. As you suggested, it is not a picture that I would have chosen to use and perhaps it only works as part of a larger collection of images, something to establish a narrative of sorts? It would be interesting to be able to ask Sergio Larrain what he saw and why he composed the image in that way. It's thought-provoking, at least. And perhaps that was his intention? I know my compositional instinct would make it uncomfortable for me to frame an image in that way. Seems like it might be a "learning opportunity". 😁
I share your preoccupation with the journalistic vs creative continuum. I came to photography via Geoff Winningham, my teacher at university, but since it was an introductory course, most of what I got was technical, including, thankfully, a solid grounding in the relationship between ASA/ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. I think people coming to photography now that the machine does most of the "thinking" have a different challenge than we did.
I'm not convinced that "interpretive" is the "right" apposite to "journalistic" photography. My inclination is to contrast "direct", shoot 'em straight ahead as clearly as you can do it, with "elliptical", which is to embrace murk, indistinct focus, violating the rules of composition photos. Both of them still leave the viewer with the responsibility for forming a conclusion, or reaction, to what they are seeing. Such as the 2nd photograph in the Valparaiso book I mentioned to you in an email...
Another wonderful blog. You were right to provide the warning on the Palestinian pix. They make me want to pick up a gun, not a camera...
Thanks, Norman. I was thinking of the photograph in the Valparaiso book that you mentioned as I wrote this post. As you suggested, it is not a picture that I would have chosen to use and perhaps it only works as part of a larger collection of images, something to establish a narrative of sorts? It would be interesting to be able to ask Sergio Larrain what he saw and why he composed the image in that way. It's thought-provoking, at least. And perhaps that was his intention? I know my compositional instinct would make it uncomfortable for me to frame an image in that way. Seems like it might be a "learning opportunity". 😁
Hi Gavin, That's wonderful. Enjoy the wild student parties. Which university is it? Best, Jonathan