When is a photo not a record shot?

[AlecM]

I suspect you have your tongue firmly planted in your cheek, Barney, but I'll bite anyway.
As you already know it is a record shot - of some art. There is no art involved in taking the shot or presenting the artwork in anything more creative than an accurately exposed, straightforward way. Now, some might argue that the artistry (of the photo) lies in the selection of the angle and thus the inclusion or omission of elements within the wider scene but I don't buy that.

It's a perfectly acceptable photo of some pretty horrible (IMHO) art....

[daft_biker]

it's down to definitions again - i don't think those are record shots at all, creative or otherwise.

For me they are pure art.

Take the first - i don't even know what those animals are that are making the interesting shapes and patterns (bees maybe?). Ot the ones with 3 zebra's in it. That isn't a shpt of zebraz, it's an artistic exercise in shapes and pasterns that happens to use zebras as part of it.

His books are full of stuff like that....I don't know what many of them are to begin with either

The first is butterflies but I guess unless you know what you are looking at it's hard to see in the small version I was able to find online.

Anyway, I guess it's a case of you see it how you want to. I see behaviour recorded to the best of the photographer's (considerable) ability at the time. I think we agree on the end result being interesting to look at even if you're not that interested in the natural history aspect.

Not that I have anything against shots of a girl's legs and bum either.....those things need recorded too

[RovingMike]

OK explain how/why that shot has any creativity.

To me it's a wonky flattish shot of a pebbly beach in the 1920s/30s with a load of people doing nothing. The only thought that comes to mind is "wonder what they're doing under that brolly" from their relative positions I would suggest "not a lot" as the answer.

I can see the same people that find that creative would have raved over the pile of bricks exhibit.

So you're not into Bert Hardy, Cartier-Bresson and the like? The point about this shot is it reflects something totally incongruous in a peculiarly British way. The photographer recognised that it provided a very perceptive glimpse of life (and dress) as you could only find it at the British seaside. It is creative in that it spots something that the average person would walk past without noticing.

[RovingMike]

Is this art or just a record shot?


jean shin Soundwave by aaiunea

A very basic, ordinary record of art. It gains no artistic credentials from its content. But I do get the double meaning.

[daft_biker]

It is creative in that it spots something that the average person would walk past without noticing.

Maybe they did notice it but just didn't record it?

[AGW]

1960's pop art.....really groovy man.


Graeme

[RovingMike]

Maybe they did notice it but just didn't record it?

Many people noticed Che driving by, but only one saw it as a great photo opportunity.

[Learning]

A substantially manipulated photograph is not a record; the chances are that it is not art either.

[MickLL]

I'm with Phil and RovingMike.

We have had this discussion so many times it can get a bit tiresome. The new bit in this thread is Phil's matrix and I think that's pretty good.

So often the proponents of 'everything is a record' are those who just can't hack it as creative photographers. As RMike says they don't see or understand the difference between their image and the ones that get all the plaudits. They are creatively blind and finding excuses for their lack of the 'seeing eye'.

I put myself in the top left of Phil's matrix. I'm capable of taking technically excellent representations of insects and other natural history subjects but it's rare, very rare, that I see the non representational story and so very rare that one of my images would stray into the upper right quadrant. I like to think, though, that I'm capable of appreciating the 'art ability' in others and capable of recognising it when I see it.

Now changing tack. I'm with Andy about Lanting. I don't believe that his stuff is just art. As a Natural History photographer myself there's almost always something relevant in his shots. Almost always enough of the record about them to attract and hold the interest. In short he's my hero and I wish that I could see in the way that he does. Unfortunately there are those who are more hidebound and castigate his work just because it doesn't meet their self imposed and limited 'rules'. Luckily those folk are getting fewer and fewer.

MickLL

[RovingMike]

A substantially manipulated photograph is not a record; the chances are that it is not art either.

Not art at all. Won't see them on anyone's wall, that's a cert.

[SqueamishOssifrage]

Not art at all. Won't see them on anyone's wall, that's a cert.

Wicked, wicked, but I like it!

[rjbell]

Record shot is proper camera club speak trying to be diplomatic, it's just a polite way of saying its crap, exposed and in focus perhaps but still crap!

[MickLL]

Record shot is proper camera club speak trying to be diplomatic, it's just a polite way of saying its crap, exposed and in focus perhaps but still crap!

No it's not. Record, in Camera Club speak, is a recognised genre of photography concerned with accurately recording the subject.

Typically the subject is an artefact of some sort and the result is the sort of stuff you see in a Museum or Auction catalogue.

Unfortunately the term got hijacked and sometimes gets used with the meaning that you ascribe.

On this forum most of us tend to use the alternative 'snapshot' as the shorthand derogatory descriptor for the crap.

MickLL

[Benchista]

No it's not. Record, in Camera Club speak, is a recognised genre of photography concerned with accurately recording the subject.

Typically the subject is an artefact of some sort and the result is the sort of stuff you see in a Museum or Auction catalogue.

Unfortunately the term got hijacked and sometimes gets used with the meaning that you ascribe.

On this forum most of us tend to use the alternative 'snapshot' as the shorthand derogatory descriptor for the crap.

MickLL

Indeed.

One area which interests me is where art and record photography overlap - like Lanting's work, or for that matter, Salgado's. There's also a long history of sports photography that falls into this category, and for me it's all fascinating stuff; it has real impact.

[RovingMike]

Indeed.

One area which interests me is where art and record photography overlap - like Lanting's work, or for that matter, Salgado's. There's also a long history of sports photography that falls into this category, and for me it's all fascinating stuff; it has real impact.

That's why we invented the term "creative record" a long while ago, for things that are far too selective or creative to be straight records that rely only on ability to expose correctly.
Almost all landscape, NH, Travel, War and Reportage and even Portraiture is record at heart, but the scale from 1-10 in record is a huge one, probably the widest scale of variance in all photography. There's record snap and record amazingly anticipated or seen.
This is a record shot. Technically quite mediocre:



As is this:



But they are not snaps and were arguably more powerful than a technically perfect record would have been.

[Benchista]

But they are not snaps and were arguably more powerful than a technically perfect record would have been.

Couldn't agree more. They convey much more about reality than a more realistic (technically perfect) shot ever could.

[gollum]

When its taken on a digital camera, because arguably anything produced from it is not a true photograph

[AlexMonro]

When its taken on a digital camera, because arguably anything produced from it is not a true photograph

Now you're just trolling!

You could argue that since digital images are so much easier to edit than film negatives, digital isn't permanent enough to be a record of anything!

To get back on topic, I think that for a photo to be "not just a record", it needs some artistic content, something that will make the viewer go "Wow!", that is added by the photographer in the composition or technique, and not just a record of a pre existing artistic creation, e.g. a painting. This, of course, poses an interesting question about landscapes - are they just a record of a scene created by God and / or nature?

Maybe I shouldn't try to do philosophical discussion before I've had enough coffee...

[gollum]

Now you're just trolling!

You could argue that since digital images are so much easier to edit than film negatives, digital isn't permanent enough to be a record of anything!

Indeed