More Questions and Answers

[Continued from the previous post.... This is complete now, or as complete as it's going to get. Thanks to everyone for all the questions!   —Mike]

Kye Wood: "WOW! What an engaged and thought provoking comments section—especially featured comments. Mike, you clearly have some very high-IQ creative people following your blog."

Mike replies: Kye's comment isn't a question, but man, do I agree. It's what keeps me coming back.

Beau Camel: "This might sound like a silly question, but it has been nagging at me for the many years in which I have been interested in photography: what makes a photograph 'good'? What is it about certain photographs that people who see them will say, 'that's really interesting' or 'that's really good.' Are there certain characteristics a photograph must have to meet that standard? Surprise? Beauty (whatever that is)? Singularity? Timing, either for the subject or for the viewing? Appealing composition? A combination of things? I don't think it's necessarily 'in the eye of the beholder' because there seems to be a consensus around examples generally deemed 'good' or 'great.'"

Mike replies: Pretty early on in my career I wrote a long article on just this topic, one I put a lot of thought, time, and effort into, but I'm really not sure how I would go about finding it now. I think I would find that my views have changed or evolved on the topic now. Still, it would be a good place to start. I'll make an effort to see if I can find it and post it here.

Doug Anderson: "When we travel we usually stay at a Hampton Inn, a part of the Hilton chain. A consistent element of the decorating scheme is black-and-white photographs, and they fascinate me. They are of a variety of subjects and in a variety of sizes but all of them are square format. And they were all clearly taken with that format in mind. I can not mentally crop any of them without spoiling the composition.

"Over the years my own photography has switched back and forth between 1:1 square format and 3:2 full frame 35mm format. And this is reflected in the assortment of my photographs hanging on our walls. I like the photographs individually but I have never liked the appearance of the mixed format groups. Do you think this is just a personal problem, or is there a more general issue with mixing the formats of photographs in groups (or books for that matter)?"

Rob Griffin: "What are your thoughts about print proportions? Do you feel photographic prints need to stick to standard aspect ratios such as 4x5, 2x3, 5x7, 1x1, or even 16x9? Do you have any feelings, good or bad, about square photographs?"

Mike replies: The three topics that seem to have emerged as loci of interest in this "thread" are format/proportion (i.e., aspect ratio), street photography, and museum/gallery shows and other ways of looking at original photography. I'll try to keep these in mind.

For me personally, I think either consistency or "consistent dissonance" in aspect ratio are important, because it's not something you want to call attention to in displaying work—it can be a distraction, like a written piece with a lot of distracting typos or magazine design that tries too hard to be edgy. Part of creativity is calling attention to what deserves attention and not distracting people with what doesn't.

With my Sigma fp-Monochrome, I have it set to 4:3, but of course it still records 3:2, and I find that there are a few shots that just work better at 3:2. Here's a shot that I shoehorned into 4:3 when the subject really demands a little more air (especially on the left); here's a shot that just worked better at 3:2 and so I presented it that way.

This is one of several reasons why I used to like to print 35mm to the blackline—because it made all the work consistent across multiple pictures (and it forced me to compose in-camera rather than after the fact, which improves your seeing). But this is the kind of nuts-and-bolts problem that you work on in art school.

As for square photographs, I think they're a little harder to compose consistently, because the aspect ratio is inherently less dynamic. But some people are good at it (Fay Godwin and Mary Ellen Mark come to mind), and no, I don't have anything against square pictures. In my past life as an editor I presented pictures that were square and presented as diamond-shaped, that is, as if tipped up to balance on one corner, and Sam Wang's circular pictures which I thought were beautiful. Linda Connor did some Asian landscapes that mimicked antique scrolls in being long, skinny verticals, and they worked nicely. Any format can work if the artist is good enough at making it work.

Not THAT Ross Cameron: "Q for Mike. To raise something that was touched on a while back, are you using colour, ND or polariser filters with your B&W digital photography? And why, regardless? Thanks in advance.

Mike replies: I'm using a dark yellow filter outdoors with the Sigma fp-Monochrome. I'm not sure it makes much difference—certainly not as much as filters make with B&W film—but I'm striving for a certain tonal range and I think it helps me to get there, at least a little bit. I haven't noticed much difference at all in artificial light, and I can use the extra sensitivity in low light, so I sometimes remove the filter shooting indoors or in low light. I presume and hope that clarity on this issue will be one of the things that will shake out as I do more work with my camera and get more familiar with its workflow.

Jeff: "Speaking of Leicas, do you still plan to assess the M Monochrom that was loaned?"

Mike replies: The owner is being remarkably patient with me, which I appreciate on top of his generosity. I've been a little scared of trying it because I fear demoralizing myself if it turns out to have an edge over the Sigma fp-M. But yes, I will get around to trying it and writing about it when spring springs up.

Terry Burnes: "I do think Kirk's questions about galleries (and perhaps museums) is a good one. I feel I've learned a lot by viewing the work of others. Where can I go to see reliably good photography? Or where can I get information about where it is on display? I've figured out a few spots. We go to Tucson every year and always visit the Center for Creative Photography at the U of A. And also the Etherton Gallery. When in Yosemite, always the Ansel Adams Gallery. The Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego. Perhaps an occasional feature of TOP could be you and readers letting everyone who visits TOP know about worthwhile gallery and museum exhibitions of photography. For instance, there is an Ansel Adams exhibit coming up at the DeYoung Museum in San Francisco, April into July, that seems to take a somewhat different approach."

Mike replies: This has been a recurrent idea over many years, but it's far beyond my resources. I don't even get to all the shows at the George Eastman Museum in Rochester, the major museum closest to me. If I won the lottery, however, I'd immediately do two very quirky things with the money: 1. build and staff a vast greenhouse so I could eat super-fresh fruits and veggies year-round, and 2. travel around the country and perhaps the world going to museum shows (art and photography both). One of my mother's friends did that with opera—her golden-years boyfriend is also passionate about opera, and the two of them travel the world going to operas.

So, the answer for your question is: as soon as I win the lottery, TOP will provide a comprehensive list of photography venues around the world, information about all the shows on offer at those places, and exhibition reviews, some of which will be written by me. So as soon as that happens....

Kenneth Tanaka replies to Terry (partial comment): "One of the best sources of very current news of photography exhibitions, collections, and curation moves is Photograph Magazine. It features an informative newsletter emailed weekly with lots of doin’s."

Terry replies: "Thank you so much to Kenneth Tanaka for the tip about Photograph Magazine. Just what I was looking for. I'll be checking this in advance of travel to see what photography exhibitions we might take in along the way. And it is clear that in the areas of the West we visit most, S.F., L.A., Tucson and New Mexico have lots of opportunities to see photography. I was just in and missed a lot!"

Robert Roaldi: "Why are photos of ordinary objects or places in our environment more interesting in photographs than in real life?"

Mike replies: That's a very deep question. The very short answer is that I think it releases an impression of the object into the "free world" of timelessness as discussed by Vladimir Nabokov in Speak, Memory.

Jon Erickson: "As a writer and a photographer, are there similarities in how you compose a written work and how you compose a picture?"

Mike replies: The thought has never occurred to me and I think not, although I have always liked words coupled with pictures—anything from John Szarkowski's mini-essays in Looking at Photographs to the captions I like to write to go with pictures on Flickr.

Mike Peters: "Hi Mike, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the difference between taking photographs of a variety of subjects, and creating a body of work over one's lifetime that hangs together both visually and thematically by making photographs with intention. Also, the idea of photographs being original in this time of photography ubiquity seems like an idea whose time has past. It seems to me that making photographs that are authentic to who one knows themself to be is much more important these days. And of course, over a lifetime, that knowledge will evolve and change. What are your thoughts on these subjects, or are they completely intertwined?"

Mike replies: Well, it would take an awful lot to truly unpack all that. I could argue that my three years of college-level art school only partially answered those questions (and of course didn't take into account possible recent changes).

Bearing in mind that I don't know much about how photography is taught in art schools now—assuming there is any general commonality at all between them—I'd suggest that it might be most productive to think in terms of the traditional "body of work." As I understand it, a body of work might be anything from a brief albeit possibly intense project to a lifetime spent doing work that is virtually all thematically, technically, and/or visually related. An example of the first might be a photojournalist on a specific assignment overseas, to a fashion photographer reinventing herself by working out a distinctive style, to a hobbyist working on a Blurb book about the vanishing post-and-beam barns of Pennsylvania; examples of the latter might be the work of Edward Weston, say, or Michael Kenna. Thinking in terms of bodies of work can give us the benefits of both discipline and direction on the one hand, and freedom on the other.

As for whether the idea of originality is no longer meaningful, I don't think that will ever truly be the case. It might be that photography itself will not follow, in the future, the conceptual patterns that we developed for it in its first hundred and sixty years, but in any expressive medium, people will find ways to express themselves.  

David Aiken: "I noticed that there were a lot of comments which mentioned street photography so I did a count. Twenty-four comments so far and five mentions of street photography. Those responses asked questions about your thoughts on street photography, whether YouTuber street photographers using film Leica M's with 28mm lenses were foretelling the end of street photography, and composition.

"Your only comment, to Pete Komar, was brief but hinted at some interesting thoughts on what makes a good street photography and why the genre is so easy to work in and so difficult to do well. How about a longer, considered post about street photography including on its beginnings and ongoing artistic development, what makes a good street photography, and where you think it may be heading. Personally I think street photography is alive and well. I think the best work being done today is just as good as the best work done at any time during the history of street photography and I think there's more of it being done than at any earlier time.

"If as you and Alex Webb both say, street photography is 99.9% failure, a view I have no reason to doubt, then given that a lot more street photographs are being taken today than at any other time in the history of street photography there are definitely going to be more great street photographs being taken but we have to work our way through a lot more poor results to find those great results. The standard only seems to be higher in prior decades because it's easier to come across the great photos from those periods than it is to come across the bulk of the poorer ones, time does a great job of culling what we can see. It just hadn't had a chance to press the Delete button for 99.9 % of the photos being taken today but it will eventually get there."

Mike replies: Several people have suggested longer, more thoughtful posts about some of the issues and questions raised over the past few days, and I'm going to keep that in mind.

Bear: "Why don’t you do 'Ask Mike' as a regular feature?"

Mike replies: I could, I guess. Here are a few reasons why not: 1.) it's difficult. Many of the questions aren't simple, they're foundational. They require a lot of thought even just to construct answers that are responsive and not simply dismissive or trivial. 2.) I don't think I know all the answers. 3.) the format doesn't really allow each individual question or topic to "breathe"; it doesn't allow for a focused discussion either by me or by commenters. This thread has been entertaining and interesting (for me anyway), but we didn't really go into depth on anything.

But we will do it again sometime. Thanks again to all!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Comments

[Gordon Lewis]

RE: street photography is 99.9% failure

In my opinion as the author of a book on street photography and someone who has been practicing it for over 40 years, the above statement is true only if you suck at it. I'll be blunt here: most people who try their hand at street photography either don't know what makes a street photo "good," don't care to learn, don't know what to look for and where, or wouldn't be able to get the shot even if they saw it. (Or some combination of the four.) Expert street shooters have a hit rate far better than that 99.9% figure. The same is true for other genres as well: landscape, portraiture, sports, you name it; the more skilled you are, the "luckier" you'll be.

[Oh...thanks Gordon. I wasn't talking about hit rate by individuals. I only meant overall--the proportion of good to all the rest, all over everywhere, by everyone, collectively. (There must be a better way to say this, but I'm tired.) --Mike]

[Phil]

Mike: With your recent interest in monochrome photography, I am reminded of a time 60 years ago when I was caught up in B & W slides. I bought a roll of 35 mm positive film from Freestyle and was fascinated by it's range of grays. Did you ever experiment with black and white slides? I had a Pen F half frame camera and even bought a strip projector to produce strip films (Remember them from early school days?) It got me more interested in B & W movies, such as Paper Moon. When done well they are amazing. Then I lost interest, although now I wish I had kept it up.

[Kirk]

About retirement. I think I have it figured out. If I take "late" retirement and "early" death I might just make the spread. Hmmm. Maybe not the best idea I've had...

[Dennis]

By the time you get done answering all the deferred questions, you’ll have your book.

[Anton Wilhelm Stolzing]

Today is Diane Arbus' 100th birthday.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

@ Terry Burnes: One of the best sources of very current news of photography exhibitions, collections, and curation moves is Photograph Magazine (https://photographmag.com/). It features an informative newsletter emailed weekly with lots of doin’s.

——
p.s. I actually did kinda travel the country to see both photographic exhibitions / collections AND opera for several years just before the pandemic. It was fun but tiring! These days I’m far, far more selective.

[Stanl B.]

"Why are photos of ordinary objects or places in our environment more interesting in photographs than in real life?"

If I may- that in a nutshell is the challenge that photography presents when not photographing people, and as with anything else in photography, 99% of the time, the photograph of said object or place is Not going to be more interesting. The photographer however has the option of isolating or exaggerating the object's presence or size, they can emphasize (or negate) its relation with other elements in the composition. It's up to the individual's imagination to present that place or object in a manner that we don't ordinarily see, or simply enhance its presence through the use of: light, composition, lens choice, angle of view, etc. Not to mention that the photograph becomes an object unto itself, very much different from the reality itself.

John Gossage can be exemplary in making the ordinary, extraordinary.

[John Krumm]

Gordon's comment got me thinking about hit rate and skill. In the arts, say music, what is a beginner's "hit rate" when they perform? Zero, because they are not any good. In photography, it's similar but also not because a single shot can seem like a work of art. Who cares about the rest of the garbage you shot? But you still aren't playing the music well.

[Not THAT Ross Cameron]

Hi Mike,
I saw Thom Hogan’s response to Kirk’s questions in the previous post.

That’s 3 of my favourite photography writers all expressing an interest in those topics. Noting all 3 of you have different priorities and perspectives, which you all wear on your sleeves.

Any chance of organising some collective thoughts / wisdom from the 3 of you on some of Kirk’s questions?

Sometimes a recorded zoom discussion can work, other times the written responses may work better. I appreciate copyright and agreeing whose pages to share any such thoughts on could be tricky - so maybe a pipe dream…

[Jeff]

Since 1980, I have subscribed to The Photograph Collector, a monthly newsletter that tracks the print market and the comings and goings of photographic activities domestically and internationally, including extensive auction reports, exhibits, dealer news, shows, festivals, worthy stories (people and business related), etc. It tracks exhibits and shows by state and by country, so I always have a quick reference for things of interest. Cost is now $149/year, but well worth it for me as a photo and book collector, and simply as a photography enthusiast.

[Jeff]

Keep in mind, when you do get around to testing the M Monochrom, that it will respond to the full array of colored lens filters, and the histogram, after a brief delay, is rendered based on RAW data (the only Leica with this attribute AFAIK).

[Huw Morgan]

On the subject of photo museums and galleries, the largest photography festival in the world happens in Toronto every May. Many of the city's major galleries, public and private, participate in the event. It's a good opportunity to see some wonderful artists and visit a great tourist destination. You can find more information here: https://scotiabankcontactphoto.com/2023-program/

[David Aiken]

Gordon said in response to the statement that street photography is 99.9% failure, “In my opinion as the author of a book on street photography and someone who has been practicing it for over 40 years, the above statement is true only if you suck at it.” and that expert photographers in any genre “have a hit rate far better than that 99.9% figure”.

First, a minor quibble. The claim was not about a hit rate of 99.9%, it was about a not hit rate of 99.9% which equates to a hit rate of 0.1%. I’m sure Gordon meant to refer to a hit rate better than 0.1%.
Show me a photographer claiming a hit rate of 99.9% and I’d say you’re showing me a liar. As a starting point I’d say that most photographers with a reasonable amount of experience and knowledge would lay claim to a hit rate of lower than 50% and a miss rate of higher than 50%

Alex Webb, a Magnum photographer, photojournalist and street photographer with over 40 years experience and several books of his work published, has stated that street photography is 99.9% failure and Ansel Adams once said that in a good year he got 12 good photos. I think Adams took more than 24 photos in a year but I don’t know how many he took. I think we can accept that he regarded his hit rate as less than 50%.

How should we interpret these extremely low estimates of high failure rates from well respected photographers? For a start I don’t think they’re saying that every photo they put in the failure pile is a bad photograph, what they’re counting as non-failures are ones that get chosen for display/publication.

I own a copy of Webb’s “The Suffering of Light”, which is a career spanning retrospective collection of what he probably regards as his best work over a roughly 30 year period. It contains at a rough guess somewhere between 125 and 150 photographs, the equivalent of four 36 exposure rolls of film. A 99.9% failure rate equates to a 1 in 1000 non-failure rate. If Webb shot 4,000 rolls of film in the 30 odd years of work covered, roughly 133 rolls of film a year or around a third of a roll a film a day on average, and his hit rate is based on the number of photos published in “The Suffering of Light” then his failure rate would be around 99.9% . Quite a lot more than 150 of his photos were displayed or published during that 30 odd year period but he was also shooting a lot more than a third of a roll of film a day on average.

Looked at in that light, a 99.9% failure rate seems a reasonably accurate assessment. I think that very few photographers are going to have a significantly lower failure rate than 99.9% if their work is judged by the same standard that Webb is judging his work by. Looked at statistically, around 33% of our photos are above our own personal “average” in quality and our “best” work amounts to perhaps 10% or so of our total work. The standard we aspire to is higher than the standard of our best work and if we judge our work by the standard we aspire to then a failure rate higher than 90% is far from unreasonable.

[The absolute highest hit rate I've ever even heard of was that Joel Meyerowitz published approximately one out of every four exposures he made with his 8x10 for "St. Louis and the Arch." That's 25%. I doubt anyone has ever done better than that. --Mike]

[Bear.]

Re: Why don't you do 'Ask Mike' as a regular feature - I agree with your response but there is so much erudition amongst your readers that I was thinking that you could simply post your choices of question ((by way of your minimum contribution) and let your readership do the rest. I suspect everyone would be very happy and it would give you quite a lot of content without too much effort (unless, of course, you chose to contribute as well).

[Peter Croft]

I was going to ask - how do you define a "good" photo. I've been practicing since around 1966 and I reckon I've got a few good ones, enough to have printed five 40 page photobooks so far. But I don't think I have a personal style that someone would recognise. I still recall with pleasure a colleague saying my photos look like National Geographic photos. That's my style.

My practice has always been to read good photographic books, books of pictures, not technique, which have trained my eye and brain so that I can pretty well instantly "see" a good picture in a scene. Conversely, much of the time I know when it's not worth lifting the camera.

I also recognise a cliche when I see it and know to work through it, past it, to produce my own version.