Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Peterretep on November 03, 2016, 09:48:13 am
-
This was recently photographed and I morphed it into this after finishing the "normal" version. Just wondering the kind of feedback I might receive. C&C is welcome! Thanks for looking.
-
Nope.
-
+1
-
Oh how I have missed you guys and the deeply profound and incisive critiques that can be found on this forum ;)
Dave
-
Apart from the copyright bang in the middle I like it. It is over the top but it works. Me thinks that it is sale-able.
-
It's appealing for what it is, but it departs too much from the conventional to receive much approval on a mainstream photography site like this one. Try posting it on a more graphic arts oriented site, and it will probably generate more enthusiasm.
-
I think it's not bad and the right person might buy something like that.
Looks like it is a good shot before the processing which is important. Kind of a fun edit IMO but would probably get tiresome if done to many images.
-
I'll side with Stamper, Arlen, and MattBurt on this one, instead of with my good friends Slobodan and Russ.
I wouldn't do this myself, but I can see the appeal.
-
Oh how I have missed you guys and the deeply profound and incisive critiques that can be found on this forum ;)
Dave
:) :D ;D
P.S. Welcome back, Dave!
-
Another, one-word, "deep and incisive," critique: kitsch.
-
Thanks for the comments both for and against. Yes, over the top was what I was aiming for and no, approval, though good to get wasn't what I was hoping for. I was only looking for honest opinions for something I rarely do. The vast majority of my work is pretty straight photography. That is I try to make images, mostly architecture and landscapes, that have proper color, contrast, lighting and composition. So this image was a fun departure from my comfort zone. However I did attempt to make it more of a product of my own creativity rather than it being just software derived. There is quite a bit of detailed work that went into this. FWIW, I like it though I usually groan at most oversaturated hdr images. Stamper, you're right about it being sale-able, I've had good luck with this image and hope to have more.
Here is the photo it was derived from.
-
Thanks for the comments both for and against. Yes, over the top was what I was aiming for and no, approval, though good to get wasn't what I was hoping for. I was only looking for honest opinions for something I rarely do. The vast majority of my work is pretty straight photography. That is I try to make images, mostly architecture and landscapes, that have proper color, contrast, lighting and composition. So this image was a fun departure from my comfort zone. However I did attempt to make it more of a product of my own creativity rather than it being just software derived. There is quite a bit of detailed work that went into this. FWIW, I like it though I usually groan at most oversaturated hdr images. Stamper, you're right about it being sale-able, I've had good luck with this image and hope to have more.
Here is the photo it was derived from.
I dig your composition a lot. Iwould experiment with blending a faint b&w layer with a slightly less saturated color layer and play around with luminosity layers to selectively darker some areas. Play with it ,you are on to something.
-
Here is the photo it was derived from.
That's a hell of a lot more pleasant to look at.
Jeremy
-
That's a hell of a lot more pleasant to look at.
Jeremy
I can only agree 100%…
-
There is obviously room for both.....if one is open minded?
-
Even the 'straight' one seems too much for me; it could even be straight straight, but feels Disney. But then, I have little feeling for these subjects at all, despite hoping against hope for illumination. I guess straight might not equare (my neologism of the day, combining equate with square in one handy little package) with natural every time.
I didn't know Mama Nature could play the tart...
;-)
Rob C
-
There is are obviously rooms for both....
Separate rooms, that is ;)
-
That's a hell of a lot more pleasant to look at.
Jeremy
Except for the insanely pushed saturation.
-
Separate rooms, that is ;)
You should be in a padded one. :(
-
You should be in a padded one. :(
My comment about "separate rooms" meant that digital art and digital photography are two separate and distinct categories, even when the former is derived from the latter. There are fans and admirers (and buyers) for each, but they are hardly one and the same group. Let's just say that this forum doesn't seem to be populated by fans of digital art.
By the way, your personal attack is duly noted.
-
... this forum doesn't seem to be populated by fans of digital art...
How true! But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be stirred up every once in a while! ;)
I like the OP although it does something to my brain that is somewhat uncomfortable, maybe the effects are a little over the top as some suggested. Taken for what it is, the saturation does not bother me either and I think it works. As donbga said, I think you are on to something. Keep experimenting.
As for the original image, I have to disagree with Russ if I understood him correctly; the level of saturation has a quality of believable unbelievability that is successful IMHO, and the contrasts in the reds and greens are appropriate to my eye.
Just a thought: Perhaps we need a thread or category for "Digital Art" like the ones started by Rob, Eric, and others, but where C&C can be offered. This way, the posts would be sequestered from the real photographers :) and would spare them angst ;)
*No personal attacks intended, implied, intimated, or otherwise suggested by my comments ;D
-
My comment about "separate rooms" meant that digital art and digital photography are two separate and distinct categories, even when the former is derived from the latter. There are fans and admirers (and buyers) for each, but they are hardly one and the same group. Let's just say that this forum doesn't seem to be populated by fans of digital art.
By the way, your personal attack is duly noted.
You should have stated that in your original post. If you quote someone then you are supposed to post the quote as it was originally posted. You changed the quote to suit your own ends and then wrongly attributed the quote to me.
Quote from: stamper on November 04, 2016, 01:51:40 PM
There is are obviously rooms for both.
That kind of conduct in a forum is frowned on to say the least and a moderator should take action so that it isn't repeated, hence the reason for the "personal attack"
-
... You changed the quote to suit your own ends and then wrongly attributed the quote to me.
...That kind of conduct in a forum is frowned on to say the least and a moderator should take action so that it isn't repeated, hence the reason for the "personal attack"
Seriously!? I added things to your quote for rhetorical purposes, and did it in such a way (bold, strike-through) that it is quite obvious what and how is changed. Your quote was still there.
Personal attacks, however, are frowned upon on this forum.
-
Seriously!? I added things to your quote for rhetorical purposes, and did it in such a way (bold, strike-through) that it is quite obvious what and how is changed. Your quote was still there.
Personal attacks, however, are frowned upon on this forum.
Seriously?? You were in the wrong. Misquoting other members quotes is definitely frowned upon. As to personal attacks.....you have form??
-
... Just a thought: Perhaps we need a thread or category for "Digital Art" like the ones started by Rob, Eric, and others, but where C&C can be offered. This way, the posts would be sequestered from the real photographers :) and would spare them angst ;)...
By all means.
If, however, you decide to post some or your digital contraptions in regular threads, please put a warning in the title, like NSFP (Not Safe For Photographers) ;)
-
Except for the insanely pushed saturation.
Strange to see the pushed saturation in that image, I don't know why that is showing like it is because the tiff file in Photoshop is much less saturated.
Earlier in this thread I commented that "The vast majority of my work is pretty straight photography." and that the OP was a fun departure. If you want to better see what I was referring to please see my website for "real" photographs. ;) http://www.mountainphotographics.com/
-
By all means.
If, however, you decide to post some or your digital contraptions in regular threads, please put a warning in the title, like NSFP (Not Safe For Photographers) ;)
Oh Slobodan, that is SO funny. "Digital contraptions" - LMAO! Much appreciated.
But there is a serious side to all of this, which I have been meaning to write about in a blog and not gotten around to it: Where does photography end and (digital) painting begin? I am sure not an original idea. Peter clearly "transgressed" into "painting" but that does not obviate discussions about the esthetics or effectiveness (measured how?) of what he did. I understand views about "street" and can certainly appreciate HCB et al and the preference that such represents "real" photography. Please bear with me, I am not trying to put words in anyone's mouth. I can also very much value Rob's, almost Ecclesiastical, Solomonic even, reminders that there's is almost (always?) nothing new under the sun. I have also been taught, as you know, some fantastic technical and esthetic lessons in these forums. And I get individual preferences. That being said, how can we progress from the tried and true, traditional, perhaps mundane recording of images for one's own personal taste and satisfaction without exploring a few digital contraptions?
I agree, maybe this is not the forum for that and I think Eric started an Abstracts thread that has seen some very intriguing compositions that push the definition of photography, but have much to teach about form, composition, and color; more importantly, perhaps, about creativity. What may be lacking there is the opportunity for thread-related-C&C and perhaps like "User Critiques" under "The Art of Photography" we need a "Digital Contraptions" category where such can be explored. Of course with an explicit NSFP warning included! ;D
One final note: I find some of the dichotomous views expressed here at times fascinating; ships passing in the night as it were. If we (all) were interested only in our own satisfaction with an image, why would we post it here for feedback? Why wouldn't the standard "critique" be, "If you like it, go with it?" Photography was an art form heavily dependent on technology. I would argue that it still is, but also that the paradigm shift in technology forces some reassessment of esthetics. So, how are "digital contraptions" any different than composite film negatives, for example?
One additional final (sic) note :) I apologize to Peter for hijacking this thread; didn't mean to do that, but then he inspired me! ;)
-
One additional final (sic) note :) I apologize to Peter for hijacking this thread; didn't mean to do that, but then he inspired me! ;)
Not a problem at all David, in fact I very much appreciate your thoughts as that takes C&C further with better thought provoking communication. It's the the old "what is art" question, what is photography? The photography of Jerry Uelsmann would surely come into play within this debate. It's best to come down off of our high horses and be open to other methods and other ways of seeing and expressing. With that said I'm not at all a fan of photographic images derived from software in which an image is simply globally changed into something other via a push of a button or a slider. I think the more time one spends working on an image the more it is a product of the skills and creativity of the photographer/artist rather than just a reliance on software doing the great majority of the work.
-
Not a problem at all David, in fact I very much appreciate your thoughts as that takes C&C further with better thought provoking communication. It's the the old "what is art" question, what is photography? The photography of Jerry Uelsmann would surely come into play within this debate. It's best to come down off of our high horses and be open to other methods and other ways of seeing and expressing. With that said I'm not at all a fan of photographic images derived from software in which an image is simply globally changed into something other via a push of a button or a slider. I think the more time one spends working on an image the more it is a product of the skills and creativity of the photographer/artist rather than just a reliance on software doing the great majority of the work.
Which leaves it open to the dangers of becoming a dog's breakfast of confused 'ideas' that were not ideas in the first place as much as product of random wanderings through the computer after the event. In fact I think you are stating a contradiction: the more you work on it the more software usage you are putting into the effort. Ideally, the job is best done in camera via the shooter's eye. Accentuating a little bit here and there is one thing, especially as a digital file seems to be best worked upon the less it's been manipulated by the camera itself, but taken to extremes where it instantly denies its origin is, for me, a mistake.
Rob
-
"I agree, maybe this is not the forum for that and I think Eric started an Abstracts thread that has seen some very intriguing compositions that push the definition of photography, but have much to teach about form, composition, and color; more importantly, perhaps, about creativity. What may be lacking there is the opportunity for thread-related-C&C and perhaps like "User Critiques" under "The Art of Photography" we need a "Digital Contraptions" category where such can be explored. Of course with an explicit NSFP warning included! ;D" ... David Eckels
And therein the problem: there is nothing wrong with photography as it is. The challenges in photography are about seeing and ability to use cameras and lenses. Those are not met by creating bastard mediums that can be neither one thing nor the other. Creating those things is the creation of something outwith photography, outwith painting; they need new names.
I can respect a photographer who is able to define a new look by his/her vision, but not simply through messing with the chemicals, as it were. I never did believe in cross-processing, for what its worth; it was a rather too close cousin of what sometimes comes out of computers today. I'm of the opinion that creativity in photography is blown when the shot no longer looks believable.
Film and digital captures are both legitimate means to the end of making a good photograph, whether as a print or an Internet resident. Overcooking either in post is something else.
Rob
-
Rob, I'm quite a fan of random wanderings and like the phrase, "you don't know where you're going till you get there". There have been "bastard mediums" and tecniques for decades before the advent of digital photography. Even color photography in it's early days had it's detractors, and still does. Photography starts with the ability to see and uses cameras and lenses to communicate that vision but doesn't need to be restricted to only that formula. Digital techniques can greatly expand that with tools to take it beyond conventional photography. So the question at this point is, when is it not a photograph anymore but a digital image or whatever name you would like to hang on it. Obviously that's totally subjective and without a definitive answer so what is the point of even going there? It's best answered for one's self.
"In fact I think you are stating a contradiction: the more you work on it the more software usage you are putting into the effort. Ideally, the job is best done in camera via the shooter's eye." For the original image I posted that is not the case at all. The way I worked on it was to first to make it totally "cooked" then from that point selectively backing away from it using aspects of the original to do so. Essentially, the more I worked on the more like the original it became.
-
And therein the problem: there is nothing wrong with photography as it is. The challenges in photography are about seeing and ability to use cameras and lenses. Those are not met by creating bastard mediums that can be neither one thing nor the other. Creating those things is the creation of something outwith photography, outwith painting; they need new names.
So, Rob, are you saying that photography is largely what happens in camera with a little dodging, burning and perhaps color correction afterwards? Not trying to put words in your mouth although I would accept that as a definition or, say, a cardinal rule for the sake of argument. But, the fathers of photography manipulated as much as their technology allowed. Not all, but some, and of course we'd have to exclude photojournalism. Now we have different (better? worse?) technology, obviously. Back in the day, were there arguments about too much dodging and burning not being photography? So if I've made myself clear, it seems there is a threshold, beyond which something that started as one thing becomes something else altogether. If I have stated this rightly, then starting with photojournalism (thou shalt not modify) on one end, understanding the traditional limits in "film photography" for lack of a better term, where is the threshold crossed with digital technology, where "photography" becomes a bastard medium? Is it merely a personal standard? Is it even worth exploring albeit, perhaps, in a different setting? Seeing is one thing, capturing is another, and interpreting is yet another. Visual artists see (I include photographers), not all are able to express what they see in the capture (painting or photography) and some succeed marvellously, others not so much. But it seems to me that it is in the interpretation*** (wherever that may lead) that a vision is shared, whether beautiful or truthful or vulgar or crass or mundane. I don't think this is off topic, but perhaps it is. I'd be interested in your thoughts, as always! :)
***whatever post-processing choices are made
-
Strange to see the pushed saturation in that image, I don't know why that is showing like it is because the tiff file in Photoshop is much less saturated.
There does appear to be something strange going on with the png files as displayed in Firefox and Chrome browsers. On my wide gamut (but not standard gamut) monitor they look much more saturated in the browsers than they do when opened in Photoshop, even though they have an embedded sRGB profile--which should ensure correct color management, at least in Firefox.
-
David, I think I've already put it as clearly as I'm able to see it for myself.
I am not totally convinced that 'wet' photography was any the more pure; all those 'photographic' images made without cameras fit right in there, too, but their damage was very limited because it wasn't about to be transposed into other things quite as readily as digital trickery allows. I think you can't really put the wet pioneers into the same box as the digitists; those early guys were learning what the medium could actually become - its boundaries were not yet defined very clearly. As you know, several schools of photographic thought sprang up and were devoted to aping paintings, avoiding anything to do with paintings and then, finally discovering that photography wasn't painting all along, and that it had a very valid space all its own. In short, photography came of age.
Now, taking this outwith what I understand to be the meaning of photography (and no, nothing to do with drawing and light) but the art/craft of photography, we start to tread on marshy ground. When one takes the real away and, in its place, presents a construct, then I think things become spurious. And I see it respresented very well via Hollywood and the media: was a time photographers - often via Magnum or Globe - would be given freedom on film sets, and thus we have the visual legacy of those wonderful images by Ernst Haas et al. shot during the making of Marilyn's The Misfits just a year before she was no more.
Now, those pictures reveal a woman already in trouble, in all of her vulnerability, exactly as does Avedon's classic made at the end of a session when she stops playing the rôle of Marilyn and shrinks back into being lost and afraid. Apparently, Avedon shot it knowingly for that reason, and, he claimed she understood and did not attempt to thwart him. And don't forget: at the same time as photojournalists were given access, so were the overlit studio PR shots being made and sent to salivating fans. Today, none of that, AFAIK, is allowed to happen: teams of PR and legal aides supervise, everything is vetted and retouched to hell, and what do we get? Absolutely interchangeable plastic dummies. That's my rather tortuously made point: there is real and there is bullshit. One either gets that point or one does not. I remember writing recently about somebody saying that he'd give every painting of Christ for one photograph of Him. I think we are on the same page, he and I. One honest Marilyn is worth every PSed actress and superstar you can name. How exciting that Jennifer Aniston hasn't aged a day since making Friends!
For me, that reality carries over into everyday photographic reality. Mess too much and hey, you get mess.
Rob C
-
...there is real and there is bullshit....
Rob, I am not trying to reduce all that you said to this one point. I think I get it, although I am still trying to wrap my mind around your other references; how I wish I had more of a liberal arts exposure as an undergraduate! If, for the sake of discussion however, photography is about the "real," then it would seem to me you are saying there is a form of deception in taking something "real" and enhancing it (raising contrast, saturation, blurring, compositing, cloning out, even cropping, etc); Uelsmann was at least an "honest deceiver" because it was obvious that his images were "analog contraptions." Your reference to mood in film brings me to my point/concern/question: Nothing is real about photography (I think you've made this point elsewhere) just as seeing Marilyn Monroe play a character in a film, acting or not, is not experiencing much of anything about the real person. A photograph of Christ, from my point of view, would be no more real than a painting, unless it was by a portrait painter of course ;) So, if you accept only for the moment my view that nothing is real about photography, except of course photojournalism ;) then why draw boundaries around what can or should be done with the presentation of an image? Not saying that's what you're saying, just saying that's kind of what I am hearing. I am sure there are questions of degree in all of this and I am making an "8-bit" point in a "16-bit" world :D But if you would accept for the moment my premise simply for discussion's sake, then shouldn't a digital contraption stand on its own merit for esthetics, composition, form, movement, etc? I can understand if someone doesn't care for it, but then isn't that simply a matter of taste?
By the way, I don't think the foregoing is a "right/wrong" discussion, I am simply trying to understand why some with strong understanding and training in the arts have such strong opinions about "the way it 'sposed to be." Ah, artists! ;D
I am excluding images in which extensive changes have been made, but the images are represented as "the way it was." These would seem to me to be a different kettle of fish.
-
David, my friend, obfuscate it all you want with a bunch of words, but it remains quite simple: "hard to define, but when you see it, you know it." :)
Don't bring Uelsmann to your defense. He had a concept behind his whimsical "analog contraptions." Concept is what differentiates crap from art. Moving a few sliders left and right, or clicking on a few presets or "art filters" is not a concept and not art.
-
"the way it 'sposed to be." Ah, artists! ;D :quote David.
That would be a sad and sorry equivalent David, thankfully. I think you sense the cage and may even sense that those who do not feel it are not aware that they are not rubbing raw on its limits having long ago been fitted too tight with "sposed to be's". Free man unwilling to set himself free. The presence, the other, the venturing will not be found there, even if viewed by the mirror of closed experience, they judge themselves comfortable. Suspension, do you know that place at the very turn of the high point as you swing, that place in between where time itself has no measure...that departure point outside of self~ artists desert themselves to find space and freedom there, that space of venturing living beyond our individual mortal selves, that search has an eternal life...some name art. So many sub categories: painting, photography, the soundless words of poets (the beautiful open spaces shaping in the betweens).
I wouldn't worry about Jerry Uelsmann...ever see his spaghetti eater film? He knows where to find those spaces and places. He knows suspension, and mortality and has great joy in the encounters of his venturing/art. There was a wonderful show of his work and step by step demonstration of his method at the Peabody Essex Museum some years ago. His sense of free and suspended was almost as the moment between inhale and exhale. I found myself several times caught there in between, just as happens to me somewhere deep into unmeasured hours behind the lens or with paper moving beneath my pen...I with a jolt discover I may have forgotten to breathe. I will not be eternal, but these encounters and freed searches are, and I believe we have the luxury of taking that swing ride to the top and freeing ourselves there awhile to be part of the eternal...I suppose for me that may be the sense of art lives on. Celebrate the awareness of the bars...decide for yourself which side. Lumine!
Patricia
-
Two additional comments from me:
1. I don't believe I have ever posted an image that has sparked as much commentary as Peter has here. To my mind, that makes his post quite a successful image.
2. I am tempted to steal the term "Digital Contraptions" as the title to my next book. ;D
-
And with apologies to Peter, I did mean to comment, but did a brain fade. I know the general location of your image. It is rich with possibility, but this day, as if the rains had visited and the heavy overcast had not yet lifted, the scene flattened the embarrassment of riches of possible image choices. Other than the overexposure in the foreground water the tonal contrast level simply does not exist. The color is there but...the flatness has rendered a three color bookplate. Please do not take this as brutal...just puzzling out loud why the wide variety of reactions and "critique". It probably accounts for the "Disney like" comment. You yourself must have subliminally perceived this as you were drawn to play; good skills, seemingly well composed, but crushed by light's abandonment. So, an opportunity to play, always a good thing. And do agree with Eric that on the level of, what is that term for turning to see what the activity is all about (?)...rubbernecking~ this has been a highly successful image. Thank you for placing yourself on the sacrificial altar of critique. Wish I could offer you a conciliatory toddy. Don't forget to turn your clocks back~ at least to a point resetting before my comments. Lumine!
Patricia
-
David, my friend, obfuscate it all you want with a bunch of words, but it remains quite simple: "hard to define, but when you see it, you know it." :)
Don't bring Uelsmann to your defense. He had a concept behind his whimsical "analog contraptions." Concept is what differentiates crap from art. Moving a few sliders left and right, or clicking on a few presets or "art filters" is not a concept and not art.
The content of another delightful nutshell!
Rob
-
Patricia, you're playing with my mind again. The contents of a couple of short sentences usually register with me quite clearly, and I retain their flow for the period; however, after that last pair of posts, I am no longer sure if you are saying yea or nay. I can, of course, forgive you for floating up there awhile, but you have to take congisance of the lesser mortals beneath with only a little three-minute mind with which to play virtual ping-pong.
I sort of understand you to be saying - if obliquely - that photography does have its limits beyond which it ceases to be photography and turns into something quite else (my laboured point made earlier); however, you may not be saying any of this at all. I fully appreciate the spiritual suspension which, of course, occurs not once, but several times with the same image at the different stages of making it visible. Also, and in contrast, I don't share the idea that bad light needs be bad light; for me, that it made me want to go 'click' means, in my odd mind, that it is actually good light, because it motivated.
The problem here is not illumination but subject.
What do I mean? I mean that there are those pictures where subject is of paramount importance, and any departure from your 'cage' of received understanding will jarr, badly. And for good reason, as this thread demonstrates. I think. On the other hand, there are subjects which I find that I am drawn into very deeply, that have no chains of conventional preconception around their ankles, and thus I feel free to do as I like with them. In both cases I do not dispute that the creator can do whatever the hell he wants to do; just suggest that some things will be generally appreciated and others not.
There's also the fact that some things are just silly.
Rob
-
David, my friend, obfuscate it all you want with a bunch of words, but it remains quite simple: "hard to define, but when you see it, you know it." :)
Don't bring Uelsmann to your defense. He had a concept behind his whimsical "analog contraptions." Concept is what differentiates crap from art. Moving a few sliders left and right, or clicking on a few presets or "art filters" is not a concept and not art.
I think I am starting to get it. I am not trying to obfuscate, but can certainly understand the impatience with my grasping at understanding and/or definition. I can let that be and appreciate your "nutshell" conclusion. Your Uelsmann comment also helps because I can relate to his concept and presentation. Very helpful comments and I am once again in your debt (as well as all the rest that have had the patience to discuss!)The problem here is not illumination but subject.
Rob, this fits very well (to my way of thinking) with Slobodan's comment about "concept." I think I also get Patricia's view, but my "take home" is that wandering without a concept of where one is going may not be appreciated, however, "playing" to figure out where one is headed may be acceptable and lead to some place interesting in a creative sense. A valuable lesson for me; thanks!
PS Nobody ever accused me of being terse! ;)
-
Thanks for the comments, an interesting mix with a good range of feelings expressed.
Patricia, yes the day was totally flat, in fact it was raining when photographing this. Though there was such flatness of light there was also good saturation of color. The light rain washed away the collected dust from far too many rain free days. Along the Little Pigeon River into which the Middle Prong flows, due to the drought color other than brown was much harder to find than in most years. Many trees had just wilted instead of turning colors.
I never claimed to be making art. Nor did I just use filters and push sliders around to create this image, but that had already been stated. There were several techniques employed in the making of this including the oil filter and B&W luminosity layers among other techniques selectively applied to the original version over the course of about three hours. For the most part for me this was a fun departure, yes, a wandering with an initial bit of a sarcastic motivation aimed at and in union with the many "it looks just like a painting" images we often see in social media. I knew the general direction I wanted to take it but really didn't know where it would end. I wanted it to be something like all those too often seen baked over saturated images that ARE a result of just pushing sliders or effects, but better. Art? I don't have a need for that recognition to this image or any of the hundreds or thousands I've made in my life that range from the serious to the Disney like this one. They are all photographic images to a degree more or less, I like to lighten it up every so often to get away from the serious work that is my mainstay.
And in response to whether an image will be appreciated or not, I say it shouldn't matter for if it did, that would just be a need to shore up of one's lack of confidence in their own abilities. Create for yourself. With that said, I'm happy when an image can generate sales which this one has in it's short little itsy bitsy life. :)
When an image stirs things up it becomes more from the reactions and expressing of ideas it generates. I'm good with that.
-
If anything, I prefer the first image to the second -- even though it's no longer a photograph :) , it has an abstract quality to it. Very nice graphic work.
As to the second... Well, I'm not a fan of over-saturation/HDR/etc.; whatever changes the image beyond certain point when I can no longer look at it and pretend I'm "there", and experience the moment. The same applies to low shutter speeds when photographing water -- for me, it always ruins the shot. Does one ever see the water flowing like that? Nope. And yet pro photogs insist on photographing it like that... They would (rightfully) blast you for over-saturating your image, yet completely unnatural water is somehow OK. Why, because it's "nice"? But so are over-saturated colors.
The first image does not even "pretend" that it's "real", it's just something very nice. And it somehow conveys the beauty of the place even better. So it wins IMO.
-
The same applies to low shutter speeds when photographing water -- for me, it always ruins the shot. Does one ever see the water flowing like that? Nope. And yet pro photogs insist on photographing it like that... They would (rightfully) blast you for over-saturating your image, yet completely unnatural water is somehow OK. Why, because it's "nice"? But so are over-saturated colors. wins IMO.
Fashion :) Glad to hear I'm not all alone.
For the photo in this thread... no point me commenting, since it's not something I'd try to do.
-
Art and photographic art imho, is to compose and then create a representation of reality through another medium and not just a replication of that reality. If you want to see a scene with trees that look absolutely real, then take an empty picture frame and stand in the middle of a forest, you will be amazed how boring it probably looks. For me art is not about showing reality, we don't really need that do we, as we see it all day every day, art it is about the representation of reality and where the medium used forms a major element of that representation.
This is why (I believe) art installations such as Tracy Emin's Bed (https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/3/30/1427733992333/0e8b024e-3082-4c6d-8808-e8956a3279ca-2060x1236.jpeg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=9cf3dd73ff7ded83e1bf996be295e941) can never be art, because it is not representative of a thing, it is the thing. Similarly dumping a pile of bricks out of a skip onto a car park and calling it art as someone once did, is not art either, as it represents nothing different than what it is, a pile of bricks.
When we try to create art through photography, or at least the intention of art, to help us we often try to capture something that is unique or at least not commonly seen, or something commonly seen but shown in a new and unique way. We also try to photograph reality when it looks at its most unreality like, or the chaos of nature looks to be ordered in such a way that defies the normal randomness of nature and once again looks unreal. I mean why are dawn and sunsets so popular to photographers? because the world does not usually look like that and so for the person viewing your work, who is not a photographer, or is not prepared to get up in the middle of the night and stand in the freezing cold just to witness and photograph such a scene, to their eyes your dawn shot over the local gas works is unique, although it is debatable if can still be described as art, as that is a matter for you.
I also believe that photographic art should have more than a passing resemblance to a painting, I don't mean the image should look as though it was painted with a brush or drawn with a pencil, but it should have a resemblance to something that given the skills, we would like to be able to draw or paint, in other words it should look created and how you have designed it to be, rather than how it appears to most people.
Someone once complained when visiting Yosemite Valley after buying one of Ansel's books, "It doesn't look anything like your photographs", well the reason I believe that is the case, is because Ansel photographed with filters that changed the light in such a way that people hadn't seen before and also at a time of day or year, that allowed him to capture a scene in a way that he would have like to paint the scene if he had the skill to do so.
But what about Street photography I hear you ask that's reality isn't it? Well let's take Cartier-Bresson (http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2011/08/22/10-things-henri-cartier-bresson-can-teach-you-about-street-photography/) as an example, he did use reality as his subject as we all do, but he waited until all the elements within the scene could be placed or had moved into a place, where the image then had a painterly composed look to it, in other words he didn't just replicate reality, he waited until reality looked like a painting.
What about studio work? Again we compose and photograph just like a painter would draw or paint, only instead of paint we use modelling lighting tricks such as the Rembrandt technique, to allow us to capture the reality of people and models or products etc, in such a way that transforms that mundane reality into a glowing perfectly sculptured super-reality
I think this is one of the reasons why plug-ins applied to images doesn't work very often, because to overlay a faux painterly look onto a composition that wasn't taken with a painterly composition in mind, just looks like a photograph with a plug-in applied to it.
Although I do quite like the ideas and composition behind the OP's image, I don't like the obvious effects I am afraid, but perhaps applied a little more subtly and it could work.
Dave
-
"But what about Street photography I hear you ask that's reality isn't it? Well let's take Cartier-Bresson as an example, he did use reality as his subject as we all do, but he waited until all the elements within the scene could be placed or had moved into a place, where the image then had a painterly composed look to it, in other words he didn't just replicate reality, he waited until reality looked like a painting." ..... Dave (Isle of Skye)
Daves, you're on the malts.
HC-B was both painter and photographer, but his photographs bear no resemblance to paintings at all.
If you simply refer to composition, that applies to anything graphic, even the designs on the surface of your carpets and the dishes in the sink; the design has to fit the structure that bears it: the shape of the vase, the format of the frame. That's all.
HC-B claimed to have been a surrealist, more than anything else, and maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. What he was was rather shrewd, and gifted with a good eye. One can't ever know how much was 'decisive moment' and how much rehearsed moment. To me, it doesn't matter a damn: the published pictures generally look good, and that's all I ask when I buy a publication. Whether the original purposes were for left-wing objectives or not doesn't interest me at this late stage: I enjoy him for his photography. Period.
But painting doesn't come into his photography: it remains in his work with the brush. I do understand what you are implying, but I don't think you are on the right track at all making the connection. Using myself as prime example, the one I know best: I painted before I photographed, but soon learned I could never be good enough to make a go of it with paint, so the camera was an easy way out still giving me self-expression. Anything in common between the two mediums? Yes, the sense of design. But that is not owed to painting; that's inborn regardless of where or how it might be applied.
I hope I'm not coming over as heavy, but I'm exhausted and need to go to bed, but can't not respond.
;-)
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
Yes perhaps I got a little carried away in my scribblings, I suppose what I am trying to say is, that reality is what reality is and therefore it cannot be art, but by pursuing our art through photography based on the subject of reality, are we not endeavouring to convert that reality into a representational object that is either better, or more complete, or more organised than reality normally is?
Yes I know HCB was also a painter, but he was far more successful as a photographer, but I would still argue that it was his painterly eye that allowed him to use both the form and compositional elements of a painting to create a photograph, because he knew what went where for best artistic effect and so he could capture it with a camera whenever he saw it.
I would argue that painting and photography are virtually the same thing, and that we are all painters at heart, it is just that some of us do not have what it takes to paint with a brush, so we try to create something as near as we can to what we would like to paint, but using a camera instead of a brush.
A good exercise for a novice photographer wanting to advance their ability to see photographically, is to look on-line at various pictures of paintings, then pick out one that you like and try to make a photograph based on the composition of that painting, it doesn't have to look exactly like the painting, but it does have to resemble it in some way. Then pick another painting and so on.
Dave
-
Hang on, Dave, while I dust myself off. I've been ROTFL. What HCB learned in his very precise painting lessons with André Lhote was composition. It's essential to understand composition if you're going to do any visual art. And you can learn a lot by studying the great painters. But photography is anything but "the same thing" as painting. Rob had it right. With a camera you can't move things around in order to fit a formal composition. You have to watch and snap at the moment things fall into place. It's hard to visualize that idea if you're a landscaper, but street is the great teacher of photography. And the way you learn "to see photographically" is to shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and cuss the results until you begin to get what you thought you'd get. The idea of trying to copy paintings with a camera is what got me rolling on the floor.
-
Hang on, Dave, while I dust myself off. I've been ROTFL.
I think you will find that quite a few well known modern photographers espouse this very idea, Art Wolfe being an example as well as our very own dear departed Mr Reichmann - Art Wolfe discusses this very idea here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44LI5sOq408).
Want to see how abstract art began and then morphed into photography? Then go here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OEOQIOduzY)
I don't see why you are finding this so difficult to digest Russ?
And the way you learn "to see photographically" is to shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and cuss the results until you begin to get what you thought you'd get.
Nope, I entirely disagree there Russ, practice does not guarantee you are going to get good at anything, never has and never will, if it did then I would be able play my guitar like Hendrix and I can't and believe me, I have been trying hard to do just that for the last 45 years and I am still useless.
Here is a simple question Russ, if you could paint as good as any painter that had ever lived, would you put down your brush in preference to picking your camera ever again?
Probably not.
-
Nope, I entirely disagree there Russ, practice does not guarantee you are going to get good at anything, never has and never will, if it did then I would be able play my guitar like Hendrix and I can't and believe me, I have been trying hard to do just that for the last 45 years and I am still useless.
It's not a question of "practice." It's a question of finding out what works and what doesn't. The first thing you learn by shooting and shooting is what doesn't work. Once you've thoroughly established that, you're ready to learn what does work. At lot of people shoot and shoot and never learn what doesn't work. I see it all the time -- even here on LuLa. Maybe that's what's happening with your guitar.
-
I just want to comment about the issue that has been mentioned regarding the blurry smooth look that moving water gets when photographed. Most often that look which was criticized is due not to a desire to intentionally make it look that way but by the necessity for long exposures. When photographing scenes such as this, in order to get good image quality you need to shoot at both a low iso or asa and have decent depth of field. The shade from the trees also cuts back on the light. Together that will easily give you a long enough exposure for the moving water to blur.
-
It's not a question of "practice." It's a question of finding out what works and what doesn't. The first thing you learn by shooting and shooting is what doesn't work. Once you've thoroughly established that, you're ready to learn what does work. At lot of people shoot and shoot and never learn what doesn't work. I see it all the time -- even here on LuLa. Maybe that's what's happening with your guitar.
At the risk of coming across as a mutual admiration society, I have to say that Russ is right. You sometimes have to spend a helluva lot of time in the photographic wilderness, but not always.
Again, I dig deeply into my own life.
The moment I realised photography was going to be my thing, I knew it was going to be fashion. I spent from six to seven years working in an engineering company's photo unit mainly printing b/w and colour. That time felt wasted, then, but the reality is that I gained an expertise in printing, especially batch printing (this was all by hand, in a dish) runs of maybe fifty identical images, something that came into its own when I went solo and ended up doing exactly that for the PR purposes of fashion clients. The thing is, as I have confessed here before, on joining that photo unit I already imagined myself a hot printer. I soon learned that I knew nothing. At the end of that job, I knew all I ever needed to know about darkrooms.
Now, fashion. Yes, I'd shot some PR stuff for drama students, and had never touched commercial fashion. But, I never, for a moment, imagined that I wouldn't know how to do it. It worked immediately. Very well, too. BUT: I had spent those engineering company years buying Vogue and Playboy and reading every last morsel of print between the covers, and digesting every goddam picture therein. Was a time I could almost unfailingly name every Vogue photographer by style, without looking at the credit line. Fashion photography goes so much further than an understanding of how to make an image: that image has to express an ethic, the ethos of its moment. So yes, as Russ has often stated, you gotta look, and look, and look, and learn not just what it is, but also what it's about. And the about you learn from reading what the people in the industry write and feel about it, not just what the snappers snap; they are already a step out of it, in most ways.
So, when the fashion ended, and the calendars came in for me, I already had the understanding of how to encourage women to be free and contribute, which is not the same as taking direction all the time. Fashion had already conditioned my emotional reactions and likes, so the pin-ups never - I hope - looked vulgar. It just wasn't in my nature to slide towards the pornographic. (I had my own judge and executioner back at home, bless her. I wanted her to feel good about what I did.)
In time, I retired, did almost nothing photographic for years. Then, I lost my wife eight years ago. How do you fill emptiness? I was lucky in that I had photography behind me, so that's what became the alternative to, and saviour from the madhouse. But what to shoot? Models without a client to pay for 'em will ruin you faster than alcohol, so that was out. I never thought of myself as any kind of hero, so street always felt too dangerous for a thin guy to take up. Landscape I never could see as anything but a background to something else, so back to the possible: the two little towns on either side of me. In my website I have a set of galleries under the name of The Biscuit Tin. Those are pretty much a collection of old stuff and attempts at finding something that might interest me to dig further. Nothing there really did, and then one day, I rediscovered a very old photo-love I'd first encountered in the 50s: Saul Leiter. Bang! But that bang took years to arrive.
That spiritual explosion led to the current run of Glimpsed Parallels galleries, and I have found what I expect to interest me until I can either see no more or just fall over dead.
So again, as has been said so often before, it can take you years to find what's you. And it's got nothing to do with any other form of artistic endeavour. And even less about what other folks think should be your anointed route to revelation; everything you need is already there inside you, and you have to work with the mental kit God gave you; it just takes the time it takes.
Rob
-
Those are pretty much a collection of old stuff and attempts at finding something that might interest me to dig further. Nothing there really did, and then one day, I rediscovered a very old photo-love I'd first encountered in the 50s: Saul Leiter. Bang! But that bang took years to arrive.
Rob
I bought the Saul Leiter video download "In No Great Hurry: 13 Lessons in Life" as soon as it came available and have already enjoyed watching it several times, I have even had quite a few attempts at his window reflection idea, but to no avail unfortunately.
Don't know if you know this Rob, but there is also a few good conversations with him available free on-line here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLUwFf4iv9E) and here (https://www.youtube.com/user/joodsmuseum/videos) and also a review of his work here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJdIJkt3Gz8)
-
I bought the Saul Leiter video download "In No Great Hurry: 13 Lessons in Life" as soon as it came available and have already enjoyed watching it several times, I have even had quite a few attempts at his window reflection idea, but to no avail unfortunately.
Don't know if you know this Rob, but there is also a few good conversations with him available free on-line here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLUwFf4iv9E) and here (https://www.youtube.com/user/joodsmuseum/videos) and also a review of his work here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJdIJkt3Gz8)
Thanks, Dave, I'll check them out now, but I have searched and searched for stuff so often I fear I may have exhausted supply! But ta, I'll go look the noo.
I've sometimes thought of getting that video: there's a great teaser available... seems it took quite a while to get it made - over a couple of years, in fact?
Regarding his actual pictures: I think they are of their time, and very much of NY. My attempts were originally more as rip-offs, but that hadn't a snowball's - no yellow cabs - or even chrome bumpers - and I don't even have real cities! As for glass doors or windows with condensation... only see it on the bedroom and sitting room doors in deepest winter, never in bars, which always seem to be too far in off the rain. Or closed. So, the spirit remains in my head, but manifests as it must, as something associated but hardly even similar. But that has grabbed me, so I hope to stay happy with it.
Thanks again for the links!
Rob
-
You can buy the film download here (http://watch.innogreathurry.com/) for not a lot of money, well a whole lot less than what I paid for it when it first came out :o
I'd go for the Special Edition, just scroll down the screen a little to see that option.
Enjoy.
-
You can buy the film download here (http://watch.innogreathurry.com/) for not a lot of money, well a whole lot less than what I paid for it when it first came out :o
I'd go for the Special Edition, just scroll down the screen a little to see that option.
Enjoy.
Thanks for the above link, Dave -- I happen to be Leiter's fan, too. Watched that The Art of Photography's video (you linked at the end of your other post) shortly after it was out in 2013...
One question about this new link: are you sure it's a download? When I tried to buy it (the version you recommended), description said "1+ hours of video, instant streaming, yours forever!". Hope I'm not about to buy a "right to watch it" on their site? (People selling videos do all sorts of crazy stuff: Tim Cooper's video on composition that I bought ended up being a Flash application! Grossly inconvenient... but still totally worth it though :) ).
So, any idea?..
-
One question about this new link: are you sure it's a download? When I tried to buy it (the version you recommended), description said "1+ hours of video, instant streaming, yours forever!". Hope I'm not about to buy a "right to watch it" on their site? (People selling videos do all sorts of crazy stuff: Tim Cooper's video on composition that I bought ended up being a Flash application! Grossly inconvenient... but still totally worth it though :) ).
So, any idea?..
Answered my own question: just went ahead and bought it... and, yes, the "purchase" was a message with a "unique" link to the site.
Hope it doesn't go down any time soon... Or that they do not bind it to an IP or some cookies (so that when I move somewhere, or upgrade my notebook or change browser it stops working) :-\
Anyway, it works for now, so -- thanks again :)
-
Answered my own question: just went ahead and bought it... and, yes, the "purchase" was a message with a "unique" link to the site.
Hope it doesn't go down any time soon... Or that they do not bind it to an IP or some cookies (so that when I move somewhere, or upgrade my notebook or change browser it stops working) :-\
Anyway, it works for now, so -- thanks again :)
When I bought the download of "In No Great Hurry: 13 Lessons in Life" for around $20US, it actually let me download the file directly to my HDD, which was around 1.2gb if I remember correctly.
However there may be another way for you try to get a legitimate physical download onto your HDD once you have paid for it of course and a method that certainly works for youtube's free content. If you are running Firefox, then go here (https://www.ant.com/video-downloader/ff-installed?file=https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/8174/addon-8174-latest.xpi?src=external-ant.com) and install the Ant video downloader, then once you begin playing your streaming content, just hit the little moving download arrow in the top right hand corner of your screen and choose the highest resolution version to start the download, which may come down in chunks or as a single file - you will also have to make sure that the ffmpeg converter is installed on your system through the Ant downloader for it to work correctly, especially with youtube content, who try all sorts of tricks to prevent you downloading their free to view content, but Ant always seem able to get around them, but for most sites and for most of the time, it usually works a treat, but not always ;) Oh and you may need to use something like "Any Video Converter" software to convert a file if it uses a weird codec that will not play on your TV.
The only reason I use this trick, is because I don't have an Internet connected TV, so if I want to watch something from the net on the TV, I have to download it and then put it on a memory stick or copy the file onto my Cyclone Primus 2TB media Player (https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Media-Streaming-Devices/Sumvision-Cyclone-Primus-2tb-2TB-Player/B004VR83EI/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1478763171&sr=1-1&keywords=sumvision+media+player+2tb), which now has around 1.4TB of mainly photography based content on it, oh and I also have a large library of DVD's on photography from around the world, which I can also play on my region free DVD player, the latest edition to my huge and ever growing library being all the Steve Kossack (http://stevekossack.com/DVD/cart.htm) videos series.
Although I now realise that the above excuse for downloading everything is in fact just that, an excuse, as I have obviously become a fanatical photography related video hoarder and have now managed to accumulate thousands and thousands hours of video from many sources around the world, but hey why not, I find the rubbish on TV boring and ruined by a deluge of adverts, so now I tend to watch my own Photography based TV channel whenever I turn on the idiot box ;D
And some of the DVD's I bought years ago are now going up in price for the physical disks, as they become ever harder to find, such as the Contacts Vol1, 2 and 3 (http://www.stevenclark.com.au/2013/07/10/contacts-documentary-series-volumes-1-3/).
;)
-
I like the first one in itself and I like it much more than the original image, where the water has very little texture and even unpleasant burned highlights (on my monitor).
-
Regarding his actual pictures: I think they are of their time, and very much of NY.
Has anyone heard of Peter Keetman? I just bumped into this today, taken in 1954
-
Makes me think of a British railway station with a couple of nice semi-detacheds in the b/ground.
It's a beautiful photograph; no, I don't remember havng heard of him. Is there a link anywhere to a gallery of images?
Make a nice X'mas card, too!
Rob
P.S.
Found one:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=peter+keetman+imagenes&qpvt=peter+keetman+imagenes&qpvt=peter+keetman+imagenes&qpvt=peter+keetman+imagenes&FORM=IGRE
P.S. 2
As with other similar collections, several images are wrongly attributed and I recognize them as belonging to other photographers.
-
Is there a link anywhere to a gallery of images?
http://www.only-photography.com/pages/artists/e_peter_keetman_1.html
-
http://www.only-photography.com/pages/artists/e_peter_keetman_1.html
Thanks, Zorki5, I was being lazy but couldn't help myself in the end, and off I trawled, anyway!
Rob
-
Muntanela, thanks for your opinion on the two photographs. The first one, the heavily edited one once it was finished was a surprise to me. It was a surprise because I liked it especially considering I'm very critical of my work. I think the original photo from which it was derived is alright but nothing special. Having worked on the original for a while, I got bored with it and started experimenting to alleviate my boredom. The highly edited photo looks pretty good printed large.
Sorry to interrupt the interruptions to this thread, carry on. ;D
-
Muntanela, thanks for your opinion on the two photographs. The first one, the heavily edited one once it was finished was a surprise to me. It was a surprise because I liked it especially considering I'm very critical of my work. I think the original photo from which it was derived is alright but nothing special. Having worked on the original for a while, I got bored with it and started experimenting to alleviate my boredom. The highly edited photo looks pretty good printed large.
Sorry to interrupt the interruptions to this thread, carry on. ;D
Don't give it a thought, Pete, happens to us all the time! The moment somebody finds a good, alternative line of thought, in step the PC brigade to ruin the flow. Or not. Such the condition of conversation today.
;-)
Rob
-
Just kidding, not a problem at all.