process vs result

[FrankS]

There is an interesting thread at Photonet that explores the "process" vs the "result" issue in photography. As with most of life's issues, neither of the extreme views is tenable. Surely the "answer" lies somewhere in between. Exactly where, is totally dependent on the idiosyncrasies of each person, and one cannot presume to answer for another.

Pros who need to "deliver the goods" are certainly more invested in the "result" but I doubt that there are many excellent craftsmen who have no feelings/regards/respect for their tools. A while ago I read about a National Geographic photographer who needs to use digital for his work, but who still also uses a film Leica and says outright that he loves this camera.

The other extreme is the collector or fondler who derives most of his pleasure from owning and using fine photo gear, but even they must have some love of photography to be so interested in the tools.

I hope linking to there is okay. We could continue the discussion here. It is certainly an issue sometimes with some folks here at RFF.

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00SDep

[bmattock]

Actually, I think there are more than that.

The process of making the recording.
The process of producing the print.
The intent of the artist.
The interpretation of the viewer.

Each is 'an art' as they stand. There are those who derive pleasure and satisfaction more from the recording of the image than from the final result. What comes out on the end is less interesting to them.

There are those who would rather be in the darkroom than anywhere else, and for whom the quality of the final print is more the 'art' than what the image actually is. It could be a photo of a used shoe - as long as it has incredible tonal range, precise exposure control, amazing contrast, etc.

The artist who produces a photo often has a specific intent in mind - some thought he or she wishes to convey by way of their photograph.

And the viewer; who despite the preceding statements, is going to interpret the photograph as they wish and decide what they think it means and how much they like it - and no careful recording, no precise printing, and no artist's intent can change how they feel about it.

[Chris101]

Originally Posted by bmattock

... And the viewer; who despite the preceding statements, is going to interpret the photograph as they wish and decide what they think it means and how much they like it - and no careful recording, no precise printing, and no artist's intent can change how they feel about it.

Whew! I'm back to disagreeing with your posts Bill.

When you speak of careful recording and precise printing, you give the impression that the photographer is seeking an ideal, and that photography strives to record reality as closely as possible. It doesn't, and this lack of fidelity is not a failure. Rather photography creates something new - it is influenced by the reality in front of the camera, but the limited angle, 2 dimensional (and in my case, monochromatic) image formed is already an interpretation.

What the viewer sees is not independent of the photograph. Rather the photographer guides the interpretation of the viewer. The partnership between photographer and viewer is like no other visual art. By photographing the same subject, a photographer can draw a very wide range of responses from the viewer. And experience can be a very good guide as to what that response will be.

Just the fact that advertising uses so much photography tells me this is the case. If the viewer's response to a photograph was really so independent, would advertisers dare use them?

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by Chris101

Whew! I'm back to disagreeing with your posts Bill.

In the end, you will agree with everything I say. Just wait for it.

When you speak of careful recording and precise printing, you give the impression that the photographer is seeking an ideal, and that photography strives to record reality as closely as possible.

No, I didn't say that. My point was that the photographer (and the printer, if a different person) have a different art in mind. This is commonly illustrated by people who insist that if a print is pulled from a printer, it doesn't matter what the photograph LOOKS like - it can't be art, because it was not made through suffering. Yes, they say that. You've heard it, so have I. They're right - from their point of view. Their 'art' is the recording - or the printing. That's what they're into. I said nothing about reality.

It doesn't, and this lack of fidelity is not a failure. Rather photography creates something new - it is influenced by the reality in front of the camera, but the limited angle, 2 dimensional (and in my case, monochromatic) image formed is already an interpretation.

Agreed.

What the viewer sees is not independent of the photograph. Rather the photographer guides the interpretation of the viewer. The partnership between photographer and viewer is like no other visual art. By photographing the same subject, a photographer can draw a very wide range of responses from the viewer. And experience can be a very good guide as to what that response will be.

Bull****. The viewer sees what they see, and interprets it through their own experiences, prejudices, desires. and thoughts about what art ought to be. Nothing the photographer can do can change that. I've heard photographers try to 'explain' their art to people who 'don't get it' and I laugh - you can't make people see something in your art that they just don't see - or stop seeing something that they do see.

Just the fact that advertising uses so much photography tells me this is the case. If the viewer's response to a photograph was really so independent, would advertisers dare use them?

Yes. The images used in advertising are pretty simple. Either a pretty depiction of the product, or large female breasts.

[Hiyawaan]

You guys are intellectuals, give me more "large female breasts" please.

[DougFord]

Without process there can be no results.
Both the process and the results are open to subjective evaluation.