hommedars wrote in post #5908131
OK, you've said that twice now and I still don't understand what you mean. Care to explain?
Story time:
A few decades back when I was in college, I entered a photo of a bicycle racer into a contest. I had reduced the image to Kodalith (meaning that I exposed successive internegatives using line film to reduce the image to pure white and pure black with no shades of gray). It worked for that image, taking away the specifically identifiable--and irrelevant--details to leave only the action and "gesture" (as my art teacher would have said). After hanging the resulting blue ribbon on my wall, I went on a bit of a Kodalith kick. The next year, I entered another bicycle racer image, and I had reduced that one to line film as well.
The image wasn't bad, but it wasn't as good as the previous one. The judging was public, and I got to hear what the judges said (this takes some fortitude as I discovered). But what they said I never forgot: Whenever you apply a characteristic technique (such as reducing an image to line film), you must ask yourself how the application of that technique tells the story or supports your artistic goals. If you can't articulate how the technique supports the artistic vision, then you are depending on happy accidents for success.
Another comment has also rung true in the intervening decades: When you notice a technique on display in a print before being moved by the image as a whole, then the technique has become a distraction. So, instead of supporting the artistic goal, it actually hinders it. Even for experienced observers, the emotional response ought to come first, and the observation of specific choices of technique afterwards.
When I'm at my best, I'm able to connect the feeling I have as I look on the subject to the representation of it in the photograph. That happens all too rarely. Occasionally, though, I will employ some particular technique because it seems to fit that representation. In those cases, the technique commends itself to me, rather than me running down a list of gimmicks for one that will make an image work. I have plenty of experience with the latter mistake.
If you apply a particular technique for the sole purpose of demonstrating that technique, then the art serves the technique. That's what the poster meant by being artsy for the sake of being artsy. It should be the other way around, where technique serves the art. But for that to be true, you have to be really in tune with the subject and what it means to you. This is fully consistent with your first post, which suggested that we visualize our final print as we look at the subject, and then apply technique to get from the reality of the scene to that final print.
Most of the time, I find my subjects so compelling that I'm not tempted to alter reality too much using any of those particular techniques. Of course, all photography is an alteration of reality. Some methods of altering reality just seem natural to us and others don't. So, to the OP, if you think that tilting the camera seems unnatural to you, then it is. Listen to yourself. But also listen to your subjects, or the effect of those subjects on you. Then, an occasion might come where tilting the camera just makes all the sense in the world.
Rick "who gets it right just often enough to prevent chucking the whole activity" Denney
