Nah, I was using 'non-SLRs' to encompass compacts and phone-cameras and so on. But what I really mean is fixed focus (I think that's the term? The ones where they're focussed at infinity (I think :(( ) and you can't alter the focal length (I think :(( )) cameras. I Think they lend the photos taken a particular quality - maybe conventional (due to what they tend to be used for) rather than innate but I suspect it's more innate than that. Something to do with how they show depth or something. I'm not sure.

Also (and this was also encompassed in that 'non-SLR' thing) I like out of focus, blurry, scratchy, noisy, washed out images (combinations thereof, not all those at once necessarily :D ). I like the sketchiness of that - that's more like visual memory - vague and imperfect and hazy. 'Good' photos are too stark - they're neither like looking at something nor like remembering something and (perhaps as a result of that or perhaps just because) they leave me cold. There's something alien and, I think, alienating about them.

Regarding subjects... I'm also not generally moved by 'narrative'. I don't care about 'here is a working man who has lived here his whole life and you can read his life story in his pose' kinda stuff. I find that... sort of arrogant and patronising. I mean photography's always had this problem of an implied veracity or fidelity with reality, and the tension between that and 'constructing' an image - creating meaning rather than simple depiction.

I'm rambling. I like snapshots. Photos that don't try to be more than simple depiction (and depiction of something worth depicting) or recording (<- I realise that's a dodgy term here. It's an intent of the photographernot a property of the photo). And I like it to look that way - like something shot from the hip without much thought, sketchy and inexact and suggestive.

Ah reet, I think I understand what you mean. By 'non-SLR', then, I'd guess you mean small-sensor cameras with fixed lenses (like on phones), which, yeah, have an innate quality: deep depth of field (everything in focus), limited dynamic range, harsh tonal transitions, etc.

The whole "out of focus, blurry, scratchy, noisy, washed out images" thing isn't really innate to any modern dedicated camera (i.e. a device designed primarily for taking pictures), so more often than not it's added after the picture's taken (witness the popularity of Hipstamatic and Plastic Bullet).

Why do you find the pictures you described (in your next post) arrogant and patronising?

As for the problem of implied veracity, well, tbh I wish the whole "the camera never lies" things had never come about, although it has led to some interesting things that deliberately confront the concept.

It seems to me that the kinds of photos you like are street photography pictures, this sorta thing:


That's the kinda thing I like too, although that seems to be a minority opinion if camera forums are anything to go by (that picture would be derided for being soft, noisy and badly-framed).

I do like the noisiness and badly-framed-ness of that but not the subject. It's too... how can I put this. It's trying too hard. It's obvious and trite. Also I think you can tell when it's an intentionally jaunty angle or a renowned photographer very self-consciously using a disposable camera or something - which again becomes contrived and nasty. (so yeah, adding noise intentionally after the fact is definitely offputting. And aye, it's shame even phone cameras are so 'good' now :C ).

Patronising. Because it's making arrogant claims it can't live up to and expecting me to swallow that. It's trying (if only implicitly) to be both an 'honest' and 'true' recording of 'reality' and a constructed image/meaning/narrative at the same time. I feel like the ambiguity (and the viewer) is being exploited. Drawing (which includes painting and sculpture and so on)feels more 'honest', it doesn't make the same claims.

The only 'art' photos I've ever liked are those of... oh man what's his name. Richard Billingham. Stuff like:



There's narrative there, but it's not shoving it in your face, it's gentle and open-ended. Evocative rather than... declamatory. And visually beautiful, there's an almost baroque visual intensity/richness to it. The flatness is also intriguing. I dunno, his images just work on me.

That's an awful photo. Too busy and no point of focus. I actually like the one that Caer posted, although I'd prefer it without such a smug look on the boy's face.

I love Richard Billingham (he came to my uni to give a seminar). I think strong narrative is so important in photography trying to stand up as art. It's not just throw-away photographs of strangers either (like Martin Parr, who I like-a-little-bit but not very much since I read more about him and his past: it makes it seem like he's looking down his nose at his subjects) but in this case - his family.

There is a terrifying Japanese photographer who's a bit similar to Billingham, just with more polaroids of vaginas, if I ever remember I will tell you.

I thoroughly disagree about narrative but am glad you like Billingham :Y

...and I like vaginas! (manthorp)