 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
829 online
Server Time:
2024-05-08 00:29:11
|
|
|
 thelean
   
Location: Philly
Gender: Male
"yeah it looks like two models buts its actually a vegetarian and a girl"
 |  |  |  | On context (RANT)
< on 8/26/2006 9:09 PM >
|  | | | Ok so im sure im gonna get flamed for this one but I have been noticing that a ton of the photos showing up on these photo boards lately lack any emotion and fail to give a sense of the places they are taken at. Macros, close ups and basically any shot that is focused on one small piece of an instrument or object fail to show us anything about the place that they exist in. It is only when the objects are placed in context that they prove to be interesting. Textures are fun but they get old real quick. I would go as far as to say that (in this type of photography) even great composition cant save a photo that doesnt tell/reveal anything about what you are looking at. I want to see that object placed in its enviroment. So we can wonder how it was left there and why. This allows the mind to wander and creates a much more vivid picture.
-JO
"really must suck to be the grandmother of an MM model, they die over and over" - don reynolds |
|
MutantMandias
     
Perverse and Often Baffling
Location: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Are you a reporter? Contact me for a UE interview! Also not averse to the the idea of group/anal.
| | | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 1 on 8/26/2006 9:20 PM >
| | | | Posted by thelean
It is only when the objects are placed in context that they prove to be interesting to me
|
Posted by thelean
This allows my mind to wander and creates a much more vivid picture for me
|
BYMMV
[last edit 8/26/2006 9:20 PM by MutantMandias - edited 2 times]
mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias
mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being |
|
drawnaway
Location: Rochester, NY
Gender: Female
Eat it!
| | | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 2 on 8/27/2006 3:37 AM >
| | | | On the description of this forum, it says "place your art photos here" which can mean anything from macro to wide angle. It's all personal preference and the persona above me has pointed out that you do have a preference and it may not be a liking towards many of the photos posted on this forum.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God. "For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." |
|
micro
Gender: Male
Slowly I turned
| | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 3 on 8/27/2006 4:42 AM >
| | | | I think part of the problem is that a lot of people here tend to be more series/collection minded in their approach to photography. If one photo doesn't do the trick, then it's ok because there are always others in the collection to help pick up the slack. In that sense, I think that a gallery containing twelve or more photos of one location is a bit of a crutch. You can have your peeling paint photos, you can have your close-up of the chair shot, and you can have whatever else you want to throw in, so long as you also chuck in a couple of big room shots as well to help give things "context." Some people do this reasonably well, but for the most part the results are generally pretty damn boring.
There's no quick and easy method to taking pictures that can stand up well on their own, but I imagine that scrapping the completist/archivist mentality is probably a good first step. I think that six great photos from six separate locations are much more interesting than sixty mediocre ones taken in those same places.
Out of all the photographers who post their work here on a regular basis, only Rob Dobbi's stuff seems to have any real feeling to it. I think it comes down to his choice of subject matter and the way he can whittle things down to what I'd consider to be a location's essence. There's always a sense of tranquility in his photos that makes you feel as though you're there. Or at least makes you feel, period.
The rest of the stuff getting posted around here might satisfy decay fetishists and curious outsiders, but I agree with you 100% in that it doesn't exactly stimulate the imagination too often.
Edit: And don't say "well, that's just your personal preference" because, really, you'd only be stating the obvious. It's also really fucking annoying.
[last edit 8/27/2006 4:51 AM by micro - edited 1 times]
|
|
MutantMandias
Perverse and Often Baffling
Location: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Are you a reporter? Contact me for a UE interview! Also not averse to the the idea of group/anal.
| | | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 4 on 8/27/2006 5:07 AM >
| | | | well, that's just your personal preference
mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias
mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being |
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 5 on 8/27/2006 6:12 AM >
| | | | I think artists do it whatever way they feel speaks for them. It's up to the viewer to either respond to what they're seeing, or not.
|
|
prometheus
Location: New England
Gender: Male
UER, a big pissing contest.
| | | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 6 on 8/27/2006 10:02 AM >
| | | | Posted by thelean
Macros, close ups and basically any shot that is focused on one small piece of an instrument or object fail to show us anything about the place that they exist in. |
Agree to some extent, I've tried to bring that up when a person have 5 macros and nothing else and they're looking for more info, but got nothing but flamed. Enjoy that someone agrees with you, but its not going to change a thing.
Leave only footprints, take only pictures... unless its like really cool. |
|
Ian
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: The County of Kings
Gender: Male
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water, and stupid men."
| | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 7 on 8/27/2006 5:07 PM >
| | | | Posted by thelean
Ok so im sure im gonna get flamed for this one but I have been noticing that a ton of the photos showing up on these photo boards lately lack any emotion and fail to give a sense of the places they are taken at. Macros, close ups and basically any shot that is focused on one small piece of an instrument or object fail to show us anything about the place that they exist in. It is only when the objects are placed in context that they prove to be interesting. Textures are fun but they get old real quick. I would go as far as to say that (in this type of photography) even great composition cant save a photo that doesnt tell/reveal anything about what you are looking at. I want to see that object placed in its enviroment. So we can wonder how it was left there and why. This allows the mind to wander and creates a much more vivid picture.
-JO
|
I think that this modality of thought comes from a category mistake - namely, that "UE photography", whatever that means, is grounded in a photojournalistic spirit - that all of us are there to document these locations.
In my case, at least, this is not so.
I view "UE photography" as "taking photos while exploring". These locations have history, character, legacy. However, they also have colour, texture, lighting. I don't think there's any denying that any given abandonment, from a grand Kirkbride on down to a lowly domicile, is a photographer's playground. You can run the gamut of lighting conditions, find textures and colour patters that are unique and interesting, and so on.
The view you mention above seems to hinge on the notion that a photograph only succeeds if you consider certain things which exist not on the silver or ink of the print or in the pixels of the scan, but rather outside of the frame. However, I think the best photographs are interesting in and of themselves. A good photograph draws the eye and intrigues the viewer; many photographs succeed without supplemental stimuli (captions, text, placement within a series, et cetera). One of my favourite "UE" photos in recent months is this very simple shot from Dobi:
Does this photo succeed on its own? I would argue that it does. It so happens that this was taken in an abandoned retirement home. But does knowing that have any influence over your opinion of the photo, or does it succeed by virtue of its lighting and colour, perfectly nailed DOF, and smug violation of basic compositional rules? I tend to think the latter.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if you take the purpose of photographing abandonments to be "de re documentation of individual locations", the texture shots and macros and lonely chairs probably don't work in your eyes; but if, rather, you view each photo not as a "UE Photograph" but rather as simply a photograph, perhaps a different sort of appreciation might present itself.
|
|
dundertits
Location: at the beginning
Cave Cave Deus Videt
| | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 8 on 8/27/2006 5:49 PM >
| | | | Posted by MutantMandias
well, that's just your personal preference
|
Damnit Mandias!!!
If you keep this up we'll be trapped in Atlanta and never be able to photograph the Northeast...
viablex1
Kabbalah is an undramatic tradition that requires great patience and stability. One of the reasons for this tempo is that everyone has to mature his potential gradually and thoroughly at his natural pace. In this way his life's work unfolds at the right moment in his own and the cosmos's time.
Z.B.S. Halevi -- Kabbalah |
|
dundertits
Location: at the beginning
Cave Cave Deus Videt
| | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 9 on 8/27/2006 5:50 PM >
| | | | I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if you take the purpose of photographing abandonments to be "de re documentation of individual locations", the texture shots and macros and lonely chairs probably don't work in your eyes; but if, rather, you view each photo not as a "UE Photograph" but rather as simply a photograph, perhaps a different sort of appreciation might present itself.
I have to agree with this...eventually if you are in enough abandonments you evolve to this if you are passionate about photography...
Kabbalah is an undramatic tradition that requires great patience and stability. One of the reasons for this tempo is that everyone has to mature his potential gradually and thoroughly at his natural pace. In this way his life's work unfolds at the right moment in his own and the cosmos's time.
Z.B.S. Halevi -- Kabbalah |
|
thelean
Location: Philly
Gender: Male
"yeah it looks like two models buts its actually a vegetarian and a girl"
| | | | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 10 on 8/27/2006 8:03 PM >
| | | | Posted by Leviathan
I think that this modality of thought comes from a category mistake - namely, that "UE photography", whatever that means, is grounded in a photojournalistic spirit - that all of us are there to document these locations.
In my case, at least, this is not so.
I view "UE photography" as "taking photos while exploring". These locations have history, character, legacy. However, they also have colour, texture, lighting. I don't think there's any denying that any given abandonment, from a grand Kirkbride on down to a lowly domicile, is a photographer's playground. You can run the gamut of lighting conditions, find textures and colour patters that are unique and interesting, and so on.
The view you mention above seems to hinge on the notion that a photograph only succeeds if you consider certain things which exist not on the silver or ink of the print or in the pixels of the scan, but rather outside of the frame. However, I think the best photographs are interesting in and of themselves. A good photograph draws the eye and intrigues the viewer; many photographs succeed without supplemental stimuli (captions, text, placement within a series, et cetera). One of my favourite "UE" photos in recent months is this very simple shot from Dobi:
Does this photo succeed on its own? I would argue that it does. It so happens that this was taken in an abandoned retirement home. But does knowing that have any influence over your opinion of the photo, or does it succeed by virtue of its lighting and colour, perfectly nailed DOF, and smug violation of basic compositional rules? I tend to think the latter.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if you take the purpose of photographing abandonments to be "de re documentation of individual locations", the texture shots and macros and lonely chairs probably don't work in your eyes; but if, rather, you view each photo not as a "UE Photograph" but rather as simply a photograph, perhaps a different sort of appreciation might present itself.
|
I agree with most of what you are saying but it still comes down to a matter of opinion which I obviously was stating when I started this thread. I guess as far as this type of photography goes, I tend to appreciate the well done documentary style photos (ala sean oboyle and Henk van Rensbergen) more than the closeups and the patterns etc. because they invoke a feeling in me. Whereas that photo of dobis you posted (as well done as it is) doesnt do anything for me. I actually feel the exact opposite as you when it comes to this... I feel that this photo needs to be in the set to be appreciated. I looked at it alone on this page and it did little to nothing for me but when put in with the others from the retirement home I becomes a different photo. Im not saying this is true for all UE photos but I feel it definitely applies to simple texture and pattern photos. Maybe its because these things dont interest me as much as dramatic lighting and architecture. Not to always use dobi as a reference but (since everyone seems to know his work) I feel like any one of his pleasure beach shots could stand on there on and this is because not only do they all show subjects in their surrounding environments. They also have amazing lighting (due to light pollution from the city) that creates a wonderful mood even for someone who hasnt been there. I believe this makes those photos 10x more effective than the photo that you have posted here.
-JO
[last edit 8/27/2006 8:04 PM by thelean - edited 1 times]
"really must suck to be the grandmother of an MM model, they die over and over" - don reynolds |
|
Reciprocity Failure
Location: Santa Barbara/Chicago
Gender: Male
See you on the dark side of the Moon
| | | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 11 on 8/27/2006 9:17 PM >
| | | | I think that the difficulty is that while you are there photographing, everything IS in context and makes perfect sense. Once you are removed from the original surroundings, the photo looks different because it is just a fraction of what you were seeing and feeling and experiencing while you were there. The better photos, in my eyes, are the ones that really evoke you memories of when you were there, and take you back in a way.
At least that is what I have found.
"It only takes one tree to make a thousand matches, it only takes one match to burn a thousand trees." |
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 12 on 8/27/2006 10:40 PM >
| | | | Posted by Leviathan
I think that this modality of thought comes from a category mistake - namely, that "UE photography", whatever that means, is grounded in a photojournalistic spirit - that all of us are there to document these locations.
...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if you take the purpose of photographing abandonments to be "de re documentation of individual locations", the texture shots and macros and lonely chairs probably don't work in your eyes; but if, rather, you view each photo not as a "UE Photograph" but rather as simply a photograph, perhaps a different sort of appreciation might present itself.
|
Totally 100% agreed. This is the issue that keeps coming back up. On this site there are explorers, explorers who photograph, and photographers who explore. Natually people anyone who explores is going to want to "explore" a location via photo sets, and it can be frustrating for someone who might not have ever been to a location before not to get a sense of what it's like in a broader sense. However, that's not really the photographer's problem. Photographers are there to express something or to communicate whatever drives them to photograph.
Since we're naming names, I think one of the people who has been most successful, especially lately, at bridging the gap is Motts. Motts always had outstanding photographs in general, but I think lately his work has been a lot more expressive while his site/sets continue to provide explorers with the views they need to get a sense of the location itself. Motts even has captions on the site and I think his ability to succeed in making expressive images while still providing that context really says a lot about just how good of a photographer he is.
Lately I've been trying to take a hint from Rob, especially, and his insane grasp of uncomplicated subjects. I feel like in the past I've had some success at making images which try to do both things at once...be expressive and give a sense of the place they were taken in. I think it was a function of being new to urbex, but now I want to try to make images which give you more feeling and to do that I think sometimes you have to abandon the reality of what you are shooting. The tough thing is that I was out at a State Hospital this weekend and trying to do this, and found that it really takes a lot of concentration to produce these kinds of images. Time, tiredness, light, etc. all contribute to making it much harder to take contextual images or even quasi-contextual images because I was working so hard on what I was taking. Part of that is that I've only been photographing for a little over a year after a decade long absence of course...
|
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 13 on 8/27/2006 10:48 PM >
| | | | Posted by originalquocky
I have to agree with this...eventually if you are in enough abandonments you evolve to this if you are passionate about photography...
|
That's what I was trying to say about what's been up with me lately. When I started exploring the context WAS what I was feeling because I was so blown away by just being there. However, as I get more and more used to exploring I think it becomes easier to bring more from the outside into your UE work. You're not so consumed with where you are...you're comfortable enough that other parts of your personality can come through. This is easier to do with photographs in locations that aren't so exciting to be in.
I've always found photography to be a VERY subliminal art form. I think your subconcious steers your work more than your concious does. I look back at the stuff I shot in high school and there's so much going on there that I never even really realized at the time, but now it's like a journal of what was going on in my head. I've seen this in others' work as well...even some rather disturbing images that the person didn't really seem to think anything of at the time.
[last edit 8/27/2006 10:48 PM by desmet - edited 1 times]
|
|
Allva
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Gender: Male
I have my moments.
| | | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 14 on 8/27/2006 11:09 PM >
| | | | There's plenty of room on this website for every kind of UE related visual output....Some people use their cameras to capture subjective, artistic side of the particular UE location, while others simply try to document and preserve vanishing structures he or she happen to be exploring....Neither approach is better or worse...Both points of view are valid and deserving of attention....The more the merrier...
Just do it!
Life is hard, but it's harder when you're stupid. |
|
dundertits
Location: at the beginning
Cave Cave Deus Videt
| | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 15 on 8/28/2006 12:57 AM >
| | | | Posted by Reciprocity Failure
I think that the difficulty is that while you are there photographing, everything IS in context and makes perfect sense. Once you are removed from the original surroundings, the photo looks different because it is just a fraction of what you were seeing and feeling and experiencing while you were there. The better photos, in my eyes, are the ones that really evoke you memories of when you were there, and take you back in a way.
At least that is what I have found.
|
damn...I could not have said that any better.....exactly....
I thought it would be so easy to capture a place on film....but it fucking isn't....
Kabbalah is an undramatic tradition that requires great patience and stability. One of the reasons for this tempo is that everyone has to mature his potential gradually and thoroughly at his natural pace. In this way his life's work unfolds at the right moment in his own and the cosmos's time.
Z.B.S. Halevi -- Kabbalah |
|
micro
Gender: Male
Slowly I turned
| | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 16 on 8/28/2006 2:42 AM >
| | | | Posted by desmet
That's what I was trying to say about what's been up with me lately. When I started exploring the context WAS what I was feeling because I was so blown away by just being there. However, as I get more and more used to exploring I think it becomes easier to bring more from the outside into your UE work. You're not so consumed with where you are...you're comfortable enough that other parts of your personality can come through. This is easier to do with photographs in locations that aren't so exciting to be in.
|
Yeah, I think this is really important. Unhinged enthusiasm for a location can make for really average photos if the person hasn't allowed themselves time to calm down and evaluate a given scene properly.
I used to dive right into things as well. Nowadays I don't even bother looking through the viewfinder until I've had time to think about things a bit more logically. You have to take the time to figure out what elements help make a scene work so that you can accentuate them. At the same time you have to look for the ones that are distractions and figure out the best way to minimize them or get rid of them altogether.
|
|
tron_2.0
Location: Ohio
Gender: Male
| | | | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 17 on 8/28/2006 2:53 PM >
| | | | Being a photographer that shoots medium format, I usually spend a bit more time upon an average per shot next to a digital photographer, or 35mm photographer. There is nothing automatic on my camera, hell, it doesnt even take batteries. Before I can even look at the scene, I have to cock the shutter to bring the mirror down into position. After that I can look at the scene. Meter it, adjust shutter speed and aperture accordingly, remove the dark slide, then release the shutter.
So having to spend more time on a shot makes you think about it much more. Also, the fact that processing for me usually costs about 12 dollars per roll greatly increases the thought put into every shot.
I feel that some people compensate for their lack of photographic expirence by doing macros of some old dials or some panel. I know people do this, because I used to do that. I think its really a stage you go through. You take the easiest route, then you learn that you really need to walk around a bit and look at things before even putting the camera on the tripod.
<edit: double spacing>
[last edit 8/28/2006 2:54 PM by tron_2.0 - edited 1 times]
[quote][i]Posted by yokes[/i]
I find your lack of coziness.... disturbing.
[/quote] |
|
CaitTheGreat
Location: Westerville/Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
| | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 18 on 8/28/2006 2:58 PM >
| | | | Because we are explorers we look at a photo of, say, a rusted light socket and immediately want to see the other decay that is no doubt going on around it. We say "what's the rest of the room look like?" instead of appreciating the shot for what it is. A close-up brings about the excitement and curiosity of what isn't shown, just like a photo of a door makes us want to open it and see what's on the other side.
We look at that rusted light socket and know it's an abandoned building with beautiful peeling paint and decay all around. The rest of the world has no idea. Maybe because they're posted here we are robbed of the thrill of the unknown. Maybe because we know it's in an abandonment we are prejudiced from the start. I think we can become numb to the aesthetic value of close-up shots simply because we see the same ones here all the time. To the same token, I think we can become numb to the aesthetic value of decay in general because we see that here all the time too. Taken out of the context of this forum, it's a whole other ballpark. We want more, more, more, in the sense that we want to see more of where the photo is taken, while sometimes we neglect to look for that more in what we're given.
Since when is photography a tell-all art? Isn't half the enjoyment found in the suspense? I don't know much about photography, but I'd rather look at a close-up of peeling, cracked, rusted, ruined anything than a new or intact one anyday. I enjoy looking at everyone's photos...from close-ups to wider shots. I appreciate the photographs of all styles that you all contribute to this site because it allows me to experience a location the way the photographer did, which is usually very different from the way I experience a place. I wouldn't have noticed the light socket. I wouldn't have noticed the way the light played off that vent. Good, bad, whatever, it's all about your personal niche. So what if it's been done a million times...it still rocks my world.
Posted by desmet
On this site there are explorers, explorers who photograph, and photographers who explore. |
Well said.
[last edit 8/28/2006 2:59 PM by CaitTheGreat - edited 1 times]
This city is my jungle gym...Look at this big great world that we live in...There's lots of fun to be had on these streets...We can take a ride, just you and me...It's a jungle gym |
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: On context (RANT)
<Reply # 19 on 8/28/2006 3:00 PM >
| | | | Posted by micro
Yeah, I think this is really important. Unhinged enthusiasm for a location can make for really average photos if the person hasn't allowed themselves time to calm down and evaluate a given scene properly.
|
TOTALLY. My photos of Northampton only got better as I went more and more times and knew the place better and better. You're focusing less on subject and more on composition as you become more comfortable with a place, or with exploring in general.
[last edit 8/28/2006 3:02 PM by desmet - edited 1 times]
|
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 156 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 740978221 pages have been generated.
|
|
