Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Paulo Bizarro on May 07, 2018, 08:54:29 am
-
Thanks for a nice article, that I have enjoyed. Even though I am not an adept of such artistic approach:)
-
Excellent article. The two key takeaways for me are (1) artistic license is legitimate and to be encouraged, and (2) artistic vision guides the work from inception to completion of the photograph - in other words, one needs to know where one is going with a concept from start to finish. The rest is the technical skill in Photoshop to achieve it. Really well done here.
-
Excellent article. The two key takeaways for me are (1) artistic license is legitimate and to be encouraged, and (2) artistic vision guides the work from inception to completion of the photograph - in other words, one needs to know where one is going with a concept from start to finish. The rest is the technical skill in Photoshop to achieve it. Really well done here.
Your second point is the reverse of how I work. The pictures I make suggest to me a direction either to take or am taking. I have been surprised many times by photographs on my screen, leaving me wondering. And I've learned to not have a preconceived idea, but to be guided by what I had not considered.
Photography has proven to be immensely malleable as a tool with which to make art; nothing wrong with using Photoshop.
-
Your second point is the reverse of how I work. The pictures I make suggest to me a direction either to take or am taking. I have been surprised many times by photographs on my screen, leaving me wondering. And I've learned to not have a preconceived idea, but to be guided by what I had not considered.
Photography has proven to be immensely malleable as a tool with which to make art; nothing wrong with using Photoshop.
Absolutely! I have come to think of photography (amateur) as a game where I begin with a subject that has possibilities, and then take it wherever it goes on the monitor.
I also find that tv lends great inspiration to that technique. The snap below is a direct result of watching a French crime series; without that, it wouldn't have happened at all, probably not even the original shoot, never mind the treatment.
-
Another corker, Rob.
-
Another corker, Rob.
Yep.
I find my choice of lens steers me towards certain kinds of photos and away from others. For the past year+ I've been going out & about, even if no further than my yard, with one lens and letting it tell me what it wants to photograph. (So if the pics are crap I can blame the lens' bad judgment!) Sometimes, though, I have a particular photo (or set of 'em) in mind beforehand and choose the lens accordingly. Both ways work…or don't, as the case may be. ;)
-Dave-
-
Another corker, Rob.
Thanks; it's really going back beyond the tv or film influence, right back to advertising, where the snap was seldom the end product on its own, but usually tied to copy of some kind.
I remember writing that the "assignment" was the turn-on, and so it was, and pictures without a use have always been difficult to cope with - or at least they were for many years after retiring. I'd like to hope that I may have found a companion theme to Parallels....
Rob
-
Thanks; it's really going back beyond the tv or film influence, right back to advertising, where the snap was seldom the end product on its own, but usually tied to copy of some kind.
I remember writing that the "assignment" was the turn-on, and so it was, and pictures without a use have always been difficult to cope with - or at least they were for many years after retiring. I'd like to hope that I may have found a companion theme to Parallels....
Rob
I do hope so, it would make a fascinating series.
-
Absolutely! I have come to think of photography (amateur) as a game where I begin with a subject that has possibilities, and then take it wherever it goes on the monitor.
I also find that tv lends great inspiration to that technique. The snap below is a direct result of watching a French crime series; without that, it wouldn't have happened at all, probably not even the original shoot, never mind the treatment.
Ah, now I understand your photographic ennui, Rob. :D
-
Ah, now I understand your photographic ennui, Rob. :D
Yep; without motivation, rien, nada, zilch.
:-(
-
Absolutely! I have come to think of photography (amateur) as a game where I begin with a subject that has possibilities, and then take it wherever it goes on the monitor.
I also find that tv lends great inspiration to that technique. The snap below is a direct result of watching a French crime series; without that, it wouldn't have happened at all, probably not even the original shoot, never mind the treatment.
Nice Rob! Really like it
-
Your second point is the reverse of how I work. The pictures I make suggest to me a direction either to take or am taking. I have been surprised many times by photographs on my screen, leaving me wondering. And I've learned to not have a preconceived idea, but to be guided by what I had not considered.
Photography has proven to be immensely malleable as a tool with which to make art; nothing wrong with using Photoshop.
I was commenting on what I consider to be the key messages from the article - not to say there is no other way of creating fine photographs. Many approaches are as good as the end product they help to achieve.
-
This is pure Pictorialism but without, I think, the philosophical basis that was grounded in.
There's very little point in having any sort of debate or discussion about it, as wiser heads than ours (well, mine at any rate) have said what there is to say 100 years ago.
-
What's wrong with "Pictorialism"? And why does it need a philosophical basis?
-
This is pure Pictorialism but without, I think, the philosophical basis that was grounded in.
There's very little point in having any sort of debate or discussion about it, as wiser heads than ours (well, mine at any rate) have said what there is to say 100 years ago.
Yeah, it's either pictorialism or picturesque, or both, or chiaroscuro, who can tell? Not sure if that is what the article is about though. But since we've brought this up, I think Pictorialism got a bad rap from the f64 cliqué. Thankfully the '60s happened. Has Sally Mann's stuff ever been intimated as being pictorial? Maybe her philosophy doesn't line up.
-
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with Pictorialism. I like Pictorialism quite a lot. As Omer notes, Sally Mann is a Pictorialist, and my regard for her literally could not be higher. I also quite like a lot of the victorian era work that falls under the label.
Pictorialism does not, so far as I can see, need a philosophy, but the practitioners of it were rather philosophical in ways that the author of this piece does not appear to be which may or may not be salient to my actual point which is, roughly, that if you want to think of this beyond "cool pix, bro" you could do worse that peruse the various arguments for and against Pictorialist ideas and methods, of which there is a tremendous and rich historical record.
-
Nice Rob! Really like it
Thank you Fred, I enjoy French cop drama very much. I saw the entire Engrenages series and am on the last of the current (?) BRAQUO set. The graphics are amazing, and so is the filming that seems to make the violence look so convincingly real.
If there's one strange thing, it's the variety of expensive 4x4 cars they all drive! Interesting looking at the credits for cars...
France has always been at the vanguard of photographic expression, though. Even the so-callled Swinging London style of reportage fashion photography had already been done quite some time earlier by Horvat as well as by Sieff.
Here's another motion-inspired still:
-
Thank you Fred, I enjoy French cop drama very much. I saw the entire Engrenages series and am on the last of the current (?) BRAQUO set. The graphics are amazing, and so is the filming that seems to make the violence look so convincingly real.
If there's one strange thing, it's the variety of expensive 4x4 cars they all drive! Interesting looking at the credits for cars...
France has always been at the vanguard of photographic expression, though. Even the so-callled Swinging London style of reportage fashion photography had already been done quite some time earlier by Horvat as well as by Sieff.
Here's another motion-inspired still:
Curious. This last image reminds me of a cover from an arquiteture magazine (AA or Architecture d'Aujourd'hui) I had when student but it works well for cop drama.
The problem I have with the french film nowdays is that we miss Audiard. Not being native, you can't probably have the reference point (and it was argotic) but the french dialogues today are often grey, dull, flavorless. So I guess they put all into the imagery to compensate. At least we still have Paris.
-
Curious. This last image reminds me of a cover from an arquiteture magazine (AA or Architecture d'Aujourd'hui) I had when student but it works well for cop drama.
The problem I have with the french film nowdays is that we miss Audiard. Not being native, you can't probably have the reference point (and it was argotic) but the french dialogues today are often grey, dull, flavorless. So I guess they put all into the imagery to compensate. At least we still have Paris.
Never mind the argot: I'm getting high on English sub-titles!
Here's the last of the series from the other afternoon's hour or so in the rain.
(It might be a convenient owl up on the corner at the edge of the roof...)
-
Is that from a cell phone Rob?
-
.............. you could do worse that peruse the various arguments for and against Pictorialist ideas and methods, of which there is a tremendous and rich historical record.
No doubt, and I've read about as much of that stuff as I thought useful, which was very little. Either the photo moves me or it doesn't - a photograph has its own language, and if it needs pretentious schools of thought to expound on it, it fails.
-
Is that from a cell phone Rob?
No, it took a 180mm lens to get it. (On D700.) All the shots were on 180mm because it was the only lens I had with me. I don't carry more than what's on the camera when I go out. If I did, I wouldn't shoot anything; limits clear and focus the mind.
Actually, and as passing interest, it could not have been done with a Leica Mono because all in the series went through a lot of colour channel tweaking when converting to b/white so that I could lose some areas and accentuate others, yet still leave a decent enough packet of pixies left on which to work.
It's perfectly possible that I'm using PS badly, but as I live in a technical vacuum and what I get works for me - why worry?
I think, having just written that, that it explains where you are going regarding the way today's "youth" might be working with mixing stills and motion: too young to know better and have fear, they just go on and do it, anyway. You know, like the bumblebee and flying.
Ciao-
Rob
-
No, it took a 180mm lens to get it. (On D700.) All the shots were on 180mm because it was the only lens I had with me. I don't carry more than what's on the camera when I go out. If I did, I wouldn't shoot anything; limits clear and focus the mind.
Actually, and as passing interest, it could not have been done with a Leica Mono because all in the series went through a lot of colour channel tweaking when converting to b/white so that I could lose some areas and accentuate others, yet still leave a decent enough packet of pixies left on which to work.
It's perfectly possible that I'm using PS badly, but as I live in a technical vacuum and what I get works for me - why worry?
I think, having just written that, that it explains where you are going regarding the way today's "youth" might be working with mixing stills and motion: too young to know better and have fear, they just go on and do it, anyway. You know, like the bumblebee and flying.
Ciao-
Rob
I was asking the question not because of the render but because
If my memory is correct, I heard you were(or had been) doing photos with cellphone
So I was wondering if you gave-up the Nikons.
-
I was asking the question not because of the render but because
If my memory is correct, I heard you were(or had been) doing photos with cellphone
So I was wondering if you gave-up the Nikons.
No Fred, just the opposite: I'd made a set of cellphone pictures of boats up on the hard at the local marina, getting snaps of the random paint and decay patterns that, I must say, were orignally inspired by images on Keith's website many years ago.
As the place is somewhere I walk most days after lunch - doctor's orders to walk at least an hour per day - I got to know the skipper of one of the yachts, and he was interested enough to check out the website. One day, he stopped me and said that they were interested in using one of the images as a blow-up in the salon, could I quote? I had to confess that being on the Samsung, there was no way I could give them what they wanted unless they were into cubism, too.
I learned my lesson. If it's worth shooting at all, then shoot it as best you can, because you never know who may be interested in your work.
I now use the cellphone for making notes of shop closing times, snaps to show plumbers etc. when I need spare parts for which I don't know the name or model-type. So yes, it's very useful, but not for everything.
;-(