I finally finished editing Lynda’s set of photographs. I’m almost ready to commit to the following statement: I think this one might be my favorite.
There was this kind of breathless anticipation as I went through the images. My process is this: First go through all the photos and delete the obvious. Then I go back and do a second round of deletions and pick out the weaker images. After two to three rounds of deletions, the ones that are left get processed. Each image, to me, has a story and that’s how I try to figure out how I will process it (desaturate the colors, convert to b&w or sepia, or do something else entirely). But in the end, I realized after examining my process, I am striving to make an image that looks timeless. Like it could have been taken in many different decades and so therefore has a more universal quality to it.
A couple of weeks ago, I guest lectured at a class in online journalism at San Francisco State University. At the end of the class, they asked me questions about the i live here:SF project but also general questions. The last question that was asked of me was “What do you consider to be a perfect picture?” That one really stumped me. Meaning that I couldn’t just wing it. It took me a few seconds to come up with something slightly intelligent to say. What I did say is that to me, a picture is perfect when it is true. There’s a faction of people who are all hung up on SOOC (straight out of camera) and proclaim that they are the purists. But if these people read their history of photography, they would see that none of the greats in photography just snapped a shot, said, “There! It’s Art!” and hung it on a wall. The darkrooms of past photographers were filled with secrets and techniques. No photograph was completely devoid of any interpretation by the person that took it.
So back to the question. I think a photo is perfect when it is true, in that it expresses something more than meets the eye and that doesn’t need to be explained either. I don’t know if the photo above is perfect, but to me it is true.
6 Comments
She is so lovely!
Julie, this is lovely.
Damn, Julie — you can think on your feet too… (((wonder if you were wearing those open toed-shoes))) But you gave a darn good answer… Quite a bit to think about…
I suppose a way we can be “true” with our photography is to capture what interests us — purely to satisfy our OWN sentimental or artistic needs… And of course, if someone else can appreciate the photograph along the way, that’s great too…
Often I will latch on to a photograph for purely sentimental reasons — like a place with special meaning for me — and conveniently forget to consider it’s value to others… Much better to be “true” to one’s own interests than catering to the imagined tastes of others…
First, I want to say that I want to live on a street strung with red lanterns. Wow. Second, your work is increasingly gorgeous and TRUE – yes! – and third, there are several shots of Lynda w/the musician that look very Norman Rockwell, which I KNOW will make you cringe, but I mean it in a good way – there is something about the lighting. They feel quite timeless, you mentioned you strive for that, and I was quite taken with them. And PS, 4th – true has nothing to do with SOOC, despite what people say. To me, true is my vision, and I’m gonna get there whatever it takes. Love this and loved the slideshow, except now I want those lanterns. xo
I think I may be in love with this post.
and i think that is the truest explanation of good photography. pure is one thing, but true, to capture truth is good photography because the truth is always more than meets the eye and thats why people are so drawn to photography.