Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: EduPerez on November 21, 2011, 06:53:26 am
-
Many thanks for this tutorial; that kind of information is hard to find.
-
Wow. This tutorial really shows how to transform a wonderful castle into a piece of chrismas decoration.
Don't knock Christmas decorations: they sell well, particularly at this time of year.
Jeremy
-
I think this photo represents the old adage, "just because you can doesn't mean you should".
We all have different visual tastes, but this is too Shutterbug magazine for me.
Personally, I find the photograph extremely overworked; no less than an effort to turn a sows ear into a silk purse. One could of course argue he succeeded - he won a Gold at APPA with it after all. Peter's work polarises me and this photograph is no different. As an Australian photographer I get to see quite a lot of his photography and its always a hit out of the park for me or a complete train wreck. In this instance the later.
-
It's not my cup of tea, but there are things to be learned from the tutorial that some people may find of interest and worth knowing.
Michael
-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/castille_belmonte___spanish_castle.shtml
http://www.petereastway.com/showpics.taf?portno=36&PortName=SPAIN
Interestingly this is a case where the presentation makes or breaks the image. It doesnt work on the dark Lula-Background with many elements around it, border, and the menu bar on the left. But on Mr. Eastways site wich is basically white, and one signal color for each image, this is a whole different story. There it becomes apparent that this style works because of division of the image into color parts.
Initially I throught this has to be one of the worst ever images ever presented here, but not so after visiting the original site. At least for me it is now a new and very interesting style.
The tutorial was old news for me, but thanks for that lesson.
-
Not necessarily an easy subject.
Beyond the fairly basic tutorial, I find the article thought provoking in that it makes me think about how I would have addressed this subject.
Considering the challening/boring light condition, I would probably not even have taken the camera out of the bag, or at least would not have gone past the selection step in Capture One. Not only did the photographer work on this material, but he spent a lot of time on it to achieve a result he could sell. This is a fascinating thing to me, it makes me feel like I should really go back to these 100.000s of image I shot and never really gave much thought to after the initial 1 sec keep/no keep review.
Now, on the technical side. The usage of stitching is obviously a good idea to start with, many photographers would probably have shot with a wider lens and cropped after the fact. But the problem is the shape of the path in the foreground that I personally feel is not very pleasing to the eye. I would guess that a cylindrical projection was used. I could be wrong, but the image doesn't feel wide enough that a more photographic planar projection could not have been used so I assume that this is an artistic decision by the photographer (and not the limitations of PS CS's stitching function I hope), but I just cannot relate to the way the path circles back in close to the lower right end of the frame. I would have moved back 15m and used a planar projection, or would have done for a different crop.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Initially I throught this has to be one of the worst ever images ever presented here, but not so after visiting the original site. At least for me it is now a new and very interesting style.
Did it become more interesting to you when presented as one among a sequence of images rather than as an isolated image?
-
Did it become more interesting to you when presented as one among a sequence of images rather than as an isolated image?
Isolated image. Of course the number of images make the style more evident.
-
I'm also not keen on the final version of the picture (like another responder, I prefer the earlier versions) but as a how-to article I thought it was very interesting and useful, which I guess is the whole point.
Anthony Shaughnessy
-
I find it ironic that this thread "The Making of Belmonte Castle" immediately follows the thread "When is a Photograph a Cheat? " A rather curious hapenstance.
-
The author mentions that the disrepair of this castle is a refreshing change from other clinically restored sites in Europe, but there is nothing refreshing, let alone authentic coming from the results of this ham-handed treatment of a historic site. The cloning of trees is bad enough, but the severe distortion of the castle is an inexcusable offense from someone who calls himself a travel or landscape photographer. Any value gleaned from the basic lesson in how to stitch, clone, mask, discolor, and distort in photoshop, is undermined by the implicit endorsement of what NOT to do when processing landscape and travel photography, that is, if a location doesn't match your preconceived aesthetic ideal you can always change it later. My complaint is not about the lie vs truth discussed elsewhere on this site. Call it photography, call it illustration, call it whatever you want. It's that the author wants us to believe he's showing us what he's experienced as opposed to what is actually there. But what we're really seeing is a paste-up of elements reconfigured into a tired, formalistic composition, with false, localized colorization. Like similarly treated photographs found in post card racks all over Europe, the artifice is immediately apparent. What sort of experience is that?
-
The author mentions that the disrepair of this castle is a refreshing change from other clinically restored sites in Europe, but there is nothing refreshing, let alone authentic coming from the results of this ham-handed treatment of a historic site. The cloning of trees is bad enough, but the severe distortion of the castle is an inexcusable offense from someone who calls himself a travel or landscape photographer. Any value gleaned from the basic lesson in how to stitch, clone, mask, discolor, and distort in photoshop, is undermined by the implicit endorsement of what NOT to do when processing landscape and travel photography, that is, if a location doesn't match your preconceived aesthetic ideal you can always change it later. My complaint is not about the lie vs truth discussed elsewhere on this site. Call it photography, call it illustration, call it whatever you want. It's that the author wants us to believe he's showing us what he's experienced as opposed to what is actually there. But what we're really seeing is a paste-up of elements reconfigured into a tired, formalistic composition, with false, localized colorization. Like similarly treated photographs found in post card racks all over Europe, the artifice is immediately apparent. What sort of experience is that?
To put a different perspective on this, if that sort of imagery didn't sell then the postcard racks all over Europe wouldn't be full of that kind of image.
So whilst it may upset various folks here, maybe it works for the travelling populace?
Perhaps the value in the image is that it's taken effort to transform the picture into a piece of art that someone can't get out of the car and 5 minutes later have a clone of it on their facebook page?
-
It appears to me there is a certain pattern emerging in several recent discussions on these forums. Not sooner someone mentions a successful photographer (be it Andreas Gursky, Peter Lik or Peter Eastway), there is a knee-jerk reaction the likes of "kitsch, crass, crap, artifice, hype..." And it doesn't seem to matter if we are talking about modern, sometimes esoteric art (Gursky) or rather mass-popular (Lik) or somewhere in between (Eastway), the reactions seem the same.
And what is more disappointing (for me at least) is that those reactions are coming from fellow photographers that frequent the site called Luminous Landscape, but who would rather claim that "no landscape photograph is art or worth millions" than rejoice in the fact that landscape photography is so highly valued, even if it is only in monetary terms (and it is not). Why are we so trigger-happy to devalue any type of landscape photography that does not confirm to our own style, and especially so when it becomes much more successful than ours? In previous discussions I offered two possible explanations: sour grapes and ignorance, but they are perceived by some as insults, so I am open now for alternative explanations.
-
Why are we so trigger-happy to devalue any type of landscape photography that does not confirm to our own style, and especially so when it becomes much more successful than ours?
That "trigger-happy to devalue" sometimes seems like a basic response in situations were we stand in comparison to others - we make ourselves bigger in our minds by making others smaller? (And no, that should not be taken as a comment on anything any particular person has said on LuLa!)
-
It appears to me there is a certain pattern emerging in several recent discussions on these forums. Not sooner someone mentions a successful photographer (be it Andreas Gursky, Peter Lik or Peter Eastway), there is a knee-jerk reaction the likes of "kitsch, crass, crap, artifice, hype..." And it doesn't seem to matter if we are talking about modern, sometimes esoteric art (Gursky) or rather mass-popular (Lik) or somewhere in between (Eastway), the reactions seem the same.
And what is more disappointing (for me at least) is that those reactions are coming from fellow photographers that frequent the site called Luminous Landscape, but who would rather claim that "no landscape photograph is art or worth millions" than rejoice in the fact that landscape photography is so highly valued, even if it is only in monetary terms (and it is not). Why are we so trigger-happy to devalue any type of landscape photography that does not confirm to our own style, and especially so when it becomes much more successful than ours? In previous discussions I offered two possible explanations: sour grapes and ignorance, but they are perceived by some as insults, so I am open now for alternative explanations.
Agreed. This isn't about LL though, overall the last people you would want to invite to your photo exhibition are fellow photographers. :-)
I'll never forget one comment I got from a gentlemen last year in a show where I was displaying large prints of Mt Fuji. He appeared to be a photographer judging from the camera hanging from his neck. He said... "you'd have to be an idiot to take an image like this one and print it so big". ;D
Now, and this is not about this particular photograph, we all know two important and factual things:
- we'll never know for sure whether our own photographs don't sell for a zillion kopeks because they are not good enough or because they are not marketed well enough, but the former is more likely,
- most of the images that sell for a zillion kopeks are more often than not very well marketed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
About this marketing idea,
I'd like to give a slightly different perspective.
A lot of people, generally who aren't directly involved or concern by the high-end art market, think that this is all about marketing, contacts, and very little about content.
Of course, there is a certain dosis of injured egos (jalousy). "I'm not there because I do not have the contacts but in fact I have the level and above"...bla bla bla...we've read that many times.
In my experience, the situation is not reflecting exactly this idea.
I have personal contacts and relations with some world level galleries owners, and none of those person would ever give me a chance. Why? Because my work to date is simply not good enough.
What does it mean "not good enough"?
People who actually do not know the backstage, tend to think that this is just a corrupted market, and there is of course that, but in fact it is more the exception than the rule.
Many great gallerists have had to work and sacrifice a lot of their life to reach this level. With or without relations. It doesn't come easily. All the people I know at the highest level didn't have any particular advantage over others, some even started with real disadvantages and zero background. It's a combination of their work, dedication, seriousness and keeping the direction while overcoming obstacles.
Rarely, world-wide recognition comes just because of marketing. Before you can reach people who actually know how to market your art, you'd have to go through a long and hard process where luck is generally not involved as many people tend or like to think. Most of the artist give up at one point or another in this adventure and generally feel frustration, misunderstanded etc...
It's easy to attack the high-end market when someone has not managed to be part of it, but in fact it is bloody difficult and chalenging in many aspects to succeed in it and reach the point where people want you, need you.
So, back to the "not good enough". Not good enough doen't mean that the imagery is bad.
Some years ago, a french gallerist who works a lot in Milan too came to visit me. He was very pleased with some of my work. Then he immediatly started to ask me: are you really compromised, constant with this line of work? I said no, knowing perfectly that it would close me the door, but it was the truth and I didn't want this door to be opened telling a lie, because then your reputation colapse. This world is a small one.
Also, I wasn't involved enough in this kind of imagery to really compromised myself with it.
The art scene doesn't look for people who are able to do brilliant imagery. There are zillions in the world. A lot worsed and a lot better than us.
And you do not get to interest the people who are able to make you grow ww just because you are able to do pleasant, esthetic, top images. This, is NOT enough.
That's generally truth in all that has to do with the high-end, whatever the activity is.
-
A lot of people, generally who aren't directly involved or concern by the high-end art market, think that this is all about marketing, contacts, and very little about content.
Of course, there is a certain dosis of injured egos (jalousy). "I'm not there because I do not have the contacts but in fact I have the level and above"...bla bla bla...we've read that many times.
...
It's easy to attack the high-end market when someone has not managed to be part of it, but in fact it is bloody difficult and chalenging in many aspects to succeed in it and reach the point where people want you, need you.
...
And you do not get to interest the people who are able to make you grow ww just because you are able to do pleasant, esthetic, top images. This, is NOT enough.
That's generally truth in all that has to do with the high-end, whatever the activity is.
Thanks for the insider view.
I am not surprised by what you write though. Buyers spending big amounts of cash know what they are buying, whatever the domain.
Perhaps I didn't use the right word when I wrote "marketing". I never intended it as meaning attempts to hide poor work or to disguise it into something better than what it actually is. To me marketing is a positive work describing the focus on communicating effectively the value of something. In this context "well marketed" in my mind refers to the provision of the right level of visibility to an artist when he is "good enough".
More often than not, this is the result of past success and existing recognition, mostly well deserved.
I believe that most artists, even if they are good enough, transit through a stage in their career when they are not yet provided with this level of marketing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is true.
But the world is too crowdy.
When I was student, you could go to a cine studio in Paris, they would give you a job: sweep the floor, carry cables etc...a lot of actors, DP, etc.. started like that. If you didn't give-up, you had a feet inside and then step by step could grow within the industry.
Very fast, they closed their doors, they protected themselves, they invented the schools because everyone wanted to work in cine and there where cuying to sweep the plateaux floors.
Too many people wanting all the same thing. The world is saturated.
So there are a lot of talented people that will never had an oportunity, the market is smaller than the offer pressure.
-
I indirectly operated a gallery for a couple of years (owned the place, set up the environment but wasn't involved in the selection or sales of pieces). That was what I'd qualify as a "mid level" market, with the pieces selling between 5000-15000 EUR. Mostly paintings and sculpture. We tried to put a bit of photography as well, but it didn't work at all as I said a couple of years ago in another piece. What I learned from the galerist is that what mattered most for artists was a well defined style, long term commitment and reliable production. Talented artists who'd have existential questions and deeply change what they were doing every other year wouldn't be saleable/marketable. While the network did indeed matter (being introduced to the galerist for a trial by an established artists, getting press coverage) it didn't count if the artist wasn't planning to try hard in the same direction for the next 5-10 years at least. The galerist was an outstanding sales person: she would sell a painting, remember the house of the buyer (at that level, most sales are made to regular customers, no one walks in and picks up a 10.000 EUR painting) and suggest a second matching one for another location in the house. When an artist couldn't show up for the "vernissage", she would casually mention he wasn't feeling that well and that the paintings/sculptures could very well be the last he produced... :) All this, great salesmanship, expenses flying the artists and the works in, customer database, customer reception, follow up, art fair attendance, etc... required a significant investment and she would never have invested in an artist that wasn't going to be consistently saleable in the long run. I guess that, to some extent, it is the same in photography at least as in terms of persistence and long term reliability of output.
-
I indirectly operated a gallery for a couple of years (owned the place, set up the environment but wasn't involved in the selection or sales of pieces). That was what I'd qualify as a "mid level" market, with the pieces selling between 5000-15000 EUR. Mostly paintings and sculpture. We tried to put a bit of photography as well, but it didn't work at all as I said a couple of years ago in another piece. What I learned from the galerist is that what mattered most for artists was a well defined style, long term commitment and reliable production. Talented artists who'd have existential questions and deeply change what they were doing every other year wouldn't be saleable/marketable. While the network did indeed matter (being introduced to the galerist for a trial by an established artists, getting press coverage) it didn't count if the artist wasn't planning to try hard in the same direction for the next 5-10 years at least. The galerist was an outstanding sales person: she would sell a painting, remember the house of the buyer (at that level, most sales are made to regular customers, no one walks in and picks up a 10.000 EUR painting) and suggest a second matching one for another location in the house. When an artist couldn't show up for the "vernissage", she would casually mention he wasn't feeling that well and that the paintings/sculptures could very well be the last he produced... :) All this, great salesmanship, expenses flying the artists and the works in, customer database, customer reception, follow up, art fair attendance, etc... required a significant investment and she would never have invested in an artist that wasn't going to be consistently saleable in the long run. I guess that, to some extent, it is the same in photography at least as in terms of persistence and long term reliability of output.
Exactly.
-
It appears to me there is a certain pattern emerging in several recent discussions on these forums. Not sooner someone mentions a successful photographer (be it Andreas Gursky, Peter Lik or Peter Eastway), there is a knee-jerk reaction the likes of "kitsch, crass, crap, artifice, hype..." And it doesn't seem to matter if we are talking about modern, sometimes esoteric art (Gursky) or rather mass-popular (Lik) or somewhere in between (Eastway), the reactions seem the same.
And what is more disappointing (for me at least) is that those reactions are coming from fellow photographers that frequent the site called Luminous Landscape, but who would rather claim that "no landscape photograph is art or worth millions" than rejoice in the fact that landscape photography is so highly valued, even if it is only in monetary terms (and it is not). Why are we so trigger-happy to devalue any type of landscape photography that does not confirm to our own style, and especially so when it becomes much more successful than ours? In previous discussions I offered two possible explanations: sour grapes and ignorance, but they are perceived by some as insults, so I am open now for alternative explanations.
I gave a rather unflattering jugdment to the photo at the first viewing, wasn't impressed by the PS 101-level tutorial, and only found out that the photographer is somewhat known when reading this thread. My judgment didn't change.
I saw the Gursky snapshot you mentioned - probably a gorgeous print with lots of detail and a rather good composition. But just because somebody takes competent puppy shots with a Hassy doesn't make them an artist. Clearly art scholars who have actually studied these things see something in it, or at least a few individuals who have enough disposable income to spend an equivalent of a few tens of brand new Ferraris on it. So what the hell do I know?
I do understand why Lik sells well, just look at what's most popular on Flickr tells what the unwashed masses prefer. So what the hell do I know?
But there are no sour grapes. If you can sell your photos for five, six, seven figures and sleep soundly at night, great for you.
-
... wasn't impressed by the PS 101-level tutorial...
Context matters. What is perceived today as PS 101 wasn't so only several years back. And we have Peter Eastway, among others, to thank for that. I first came across his tutorials several years ago, in the Rangefinder Magazine, and at that time they were quite a revelation (at least for me) in the sense of what is artistically (or "artistically," if you insist), possible with post-processing. Yes, there were millions of "how-to" PS articles along the way, but very, very few of those used photographic examples worth showing as end result.
... I do understand why Lik sells well, just look at what's most popular on Flickr tells what the unwashed masses prefer...
Right... some examples of the "unwashed masses" in the attachment below. As an aside, I always knew America is a rich country, but even for me it comes as a surprise that its "unwashed masses" can afford between several thousands and up to a million dollars for art (or "art," if you insist) ;)
-
Thanks for the comments, good and bad. This was my first article on the site and so to a certain extent I am feeling my way as to what people would like to read about. There are already so many great contributors that I think I need to provide something a little different - so I will take a deep breath and post a few more photographs which use Photoshop to transform the image.
I am a strong believer that photography is a two step process - capture and interpretation (or post-production or whatever you would like to call it). I realise not everyone thinks this way, and similarly I also admire the photographers whose skill is to 'capture in camera'. I like many different genres of photography, but I choose to capture and interpret.
Photography is a language and it can be used for many different purposes. Hopefully one day I can post a photograph everyone enjoys - but I doubt this will ever happen. As a group we have too many opinions - and isn't that fun!
-
Peter, welcome to the board!
Also, special thanks to Michael Reichmann for the opportunity to directly interact with you.
-
I haven't seen the 'castle' shot and so am not making any comment about that at all.
However, I have been to galleries as viewer and have stood 'admiring' stuff whilst a gallery sales person near me has been making a pitch to a client. I can't believe the bullshit from the selling mouth would ever be offered to a person who actually knows anything about the photographic process and what makes it tick. To me, then a working pro, it was insulting - to say the very least! If you can, have a look at Jeanloup Sieffs eponymous, epic oeuvre from Taschen, finished just before he died; in it, despite the myriad shows the man had, you can read his own views on the gallerists in the original French... not flattering.
Whether to make it in the gallery world (if one wants to) one does or does not need to do all the things suggested in various posts here, I can't say; what I would say, though, is that I don't really see the sour grapes thing having a lot to do with it. Neither do I think that, in general, the photo-as-art market is mature enough (outwith the USA) to have had much of a history. I started off as a pro in '60; nobody I knew had ever heard of photographs as art; some High Street outlets like Athena began to sell a few images, but they were at anything but gallery prices. By '66 I was in business for myself (advertising and fashion) and still hadn't the slightest idea that photography would become a money item as art. In '81 when I left the UK I sold off what negs and trannies clients wanted and destroyed most of the rest, keeping only a very few images to which I was personally committed for my own reasons. Had I thought that fashion pics would one day be valuable as art, I'd sure have clung on to what I had. Sadly, the 60s ain't comin' back no day soon, and all that stuff is gone forever from my files.
So, my point, really, is that I believe that only someone young today is going to be in a position to think of art photography as career. Or someone whose stuff was held (with luck) in Vogue, Harpers and Elle offices for many many years!
Rob C
-
Thanks for the comments, good and bad. This was my first article on the site and so to a certain extent I am feeling my way as to what people would like to read about. There are already so many great contributors that I think I need to provide something a little different - so I will take a deep breath and post a few more photographs which use Photoshop to transform the image.
I am a strong believer that photography is a two step process - capture and interpretation (or post-production or whatever you would like to call it). I realise not everyone thinks this way, and similarly I also admire the photographers whose skill is to 'capture in camera'. I like many different genres of photography, but I choose to capture and interpret.
Photography is a language and it can be used for many different purposes. Hopefully one day I can post a photograph everyone enjoys - but I doubt this will ever happen. As a group we have too many opinions - and isn't that fun!
Let me add that I think your article was very informative and educational, regardless of whether or not I like that particular style of photography because it shows me what's required to give a photograph a particular look. For those of us that are hobbyists, rather than professionals, and don't have 8 hour days to dedicate to discovering and developing technique, this sort of article is really eye opening.
-
Let me add that I think your article was very informative and educational, regardless of whether or not I like that particular style of photography because it shows me what's required to give a photograph a particular look. For those of us that are hobbyists, rather than professionals, and don't have 8 hour days to dedicate to discovering and developing technique, this sort of article is really eye opening.
It is us hobbyists with the time. No pro photographer has 8 hours to dedicate to discovering and developing a PS technique. Retouchers do, though.
-
It is us hobbyists with the time...
Us unemployed hobbyist, may I add?
-
Thanks for the comments, good and bad. This was my first article on the site and so to a certain extent I am feeling my way as to what people would like to read about. There are already so many great contributors that I think I need to provide something a little different - so I will take a deep breath and post a few more photographs which use Photoshop to transform the image.
I am a strong believer that photography is a two step process - capture and interpretation (or post-production or whatever you would like to call it). I realise not everyone thinks this way, and similarly I also admire the photographers whose skill is to 'capture in camera'. I like many different genres of photography, but I choose to capture and interpret.
Photography is a language and it can be used for many different purposes. Hopefully one day I can post a photograph everyone enjoys - but I doubt this will ever happen. As a group we have too many opinions - and isn't that fun!
I always was into fairly heavy Photoshopping myself. I like the fact that you do such strong, clear interpretation of your work. It is done without ambiguity, it is immeatedly apparent that it is an interpretation. That partly solves a question I had for a while, should go more realistic or not. Well yes, I absolutely should, dont understand why I ever felt unsure about it.
As for what people like to read about, I believe its always good to provide something different.
-
Us unemployed hobbyist, may I add?
Certainly you mean "between jobs"? :)
-
I really love the final image - even more so on the white bg but love both!