Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Rob C on November 29, 2019, 01:24:49 pm

Title: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on November 29, 2019, 01:24:49 pm
I was having a casual look at some reviews of the Leica SL2 this afternoon.

Yep, there were some very detailed studio shots of people; an attractive lady of colour and a white guy with a Santa complex - or perhaps a Zee Zee Tops one - and frankly, there was so much detail it put me right off.

Am I alone in thinking there is such a thing as too much detail doing the rounds in contemporary photography?

As the same models have appeared in several reviews, I am led to thinking that all of the reviews were made at the same time by the various review agencies with Leica blessings and help.

Seems to me that such reviews - most reviews, perhaps, aren't really worth much, because the only way you know if a camera is or is not for you is by using it yourself. However, they collectively confirm that it can get very wet in Germany.

Disclaimer: as I can't see it, no idea if the local one (review) uses the same models as subjects or atttacts better weather.

:-)

Rob
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: KLaban on November 29, 2019, 01:45:41 pm
I was having a casual look at some reviews of the Leica SL2 this afternoon.

Yep, there were some very detailed studio shots of people; an attractive lady of colour and a white guy with a Santa complex - or perhaps a Zee Zee Tops one - and frankly, there was so much detail it put me right off.

Am I alone in thinking there is such a thing as too much detail doing the rounds in contemporary photography?

As the same models have appeared in several reviews, I am led to thinking that all of the reviews were made at the same time by the various review agencies with Leica blessings and help.

Seems to me that such reviews - most reviews, perhaps, aren't really worth much, because the only way you know if a camera is or is not for you is by using it yourself. However, they collectively confirm that it can get very wet in Germany.

Disclaimer: as I can't see it, no idea if the local one (review) uses the same models as subjects or atttacts better weather.

:-)

Rob

Rob, going back to my art school days we were always told that if a line was intended to be straight or needs to be straight then straight it should be. Must have made an impression on me as I still remember this all these years later.

I'm still of the opinion that if a line is intended to be straight or needs to be straight then straight it should be. Similarly I believe if an image is intended to be highly defined or needs to be highly defined then highly defined it should be. I also believe that if an image is intended to be soft or needs to be soft then...

The rest is personal preference.

   
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on November 29, 2019, 02:04:18 pm
Rob, going back to my art school days we were always told that if a line was intended to be straight or needs to be straight then straight it should be. Must have made an impression on me as I still remember this all these years later.

I'm still of the opinion that if a line is intended to be straight or needs to be straight then straight it should be. Similarly I believe if an image is intended to be highly defined or needs to be highly defined then highly defined it should be. I also believe that if an image is intended to be soft or needs to be soft then...

The rest is personal preference.

 

Then I guess your art school wasn't terribly impressed by the likes of Van Gogh or Gauguin?

Rob
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: KLaban on November 29, 2019, 02:08:45 pm
Then I guess your art school wasn't terribly impressed by the likes of Van Gogh or Gauguin?

Rob

?

I think you need to re-read my post.

Van Gogh and Gauguin neither intended nor needed their lines to be straight.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 29, 2019, 02:22:32 pm
I was having a casual look at some reviews of the Leica SL2 this afternoon.

Yep, there were some very detailed studio shots of people; an attractive lady of colour and a white guy with a Santa complex - or perhaps a Zee Zee Tops one - and frankly, there was so much detail it put me right off.

Am I alone in thinking there is such a thing as too much detail doing the rounds in contemporary photography?

It may be due to postprocessing (capture sharpening). A good lens does not add sharpness, it can only lose detail. Sharpening can restore more sharpness than was lost, and that will start looking artificial.

If the subject itself is very detailed, that could at times distract. But that's an easy fix in postprocessing.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: RSL on November 29, 2019, 02:37:16 pm
Am I alone in thinking there is such a thing as too much detail doing the rounds in contemporary photography?
Rob

I think there's too much emphasis on "sharpness," leading to what Bart's talking about: post over-processing. It's a distraction that's been growing for years as equipment and internal processing improves. Nikon's "VR" and Canon's "IS" were two big steps in that direction, and if you read what passes for photo magazines (now photo equipment magazines) you'll find sharpness emphasized far beyond the benefits of subjective ideas such as composition.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: BAB on November 29, 2019, 02:55:18 pm
After shooting thousands of images with Leica cameras and lenses I would say if they now produce extremely sharp images its time to jump back in. My hit rate with the film Leica was a whopping 40% and the M8,M9 a little more not until final firmware updates on the M240 did my hit rate go to 70%. I speaking handheld of course after using a procedure of pulling in and out focusing and shooting bursts hoping to nail focus on the eyeball (which is all I care to be in tack focus with my portraits.
Anyway love Leica and the simplicity of shooting Leica but my eyes don't guess that comes with being 66 shit aint no fun.


the sl looks like a fun camera to me especially with 3rd party lenses.


good luck
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: KLaban on November 29, 2019, 03:17:29 pm
I am a fan of differential focus, where parts of the image are well defined, contrasting with other parts of the image that are not. I'm also a fan of those images that are essentially undefined, leaving virtually all to the imagination. But there again I'm also a fan of a few images that are so highly defined that they leave nothing to the imagination. Essentially I am a fan of anything that works and works well. My own favourites amongst my own work tend towards differential focus.

Over-sharpening is something else, something of which I am definitely not a fan!
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: petermfiore on November 29, 2019, 04:03:30 pm
In painting, I am not a fan of rendering for the sake of itself. It's often thought of as high art and it's not. Many think the highest compliment is "Look at the painting, It looks just like a picture".


I wanna scream and often do so...


Peter
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: KLaban on November 29, 2019, 05:00:39 pm
In painting, I am not a fan of rendering for the sake of itself. It's often thought of as high art and it's not. Many think the highest compliment is "Look at the painting, It looks just like a picture".


I wanna scream and often do so...


Peter

Agreed.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: rabanito on November 30, 2019, 06:35:13 am
Refreshing discussion. Thanks for keeping me awake in matters "sharpness"
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on November 30, 2019, 11:49:41 am
I suppose that it boils down to how much the camera itself is permitted to influence the file. I set everything to as little camera intervention as possible, but even then, I find that quite a few images need no sharpening at all, and in fact, I sometimes resort to adding a bit of noise, just to kill the too powerful sense of sharpness that overpowers some pictures. It's been my opinion that outwith applied technical photography, where there may be no such thing as too much sharpness, a softer look allows the picture to come through rather than be subverted by the minute details within that distract; is anyone in love with pimples or traces of dandruff? Not for nothing were Softars invented.

Rob
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 30, 2019, 12:14:42 pm
I confess to occasionally using negative clarity/sharpness/de-haze where I think it's appropriate.
Most frequently to simulate distance.  As in "aerial perspective".

Of course, there's always the Capra D-Day images to counter the idea that images need to be sharp to be effective.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: KLaban on November 30, 2019, 01:01:41 pm
As always, things are complicated by viewing device.

I cringe when viewing many out-of-the-box, un-calibrated devices, often delivering over sharpened, over saturated and over contrasty images: indeed, just what many punters seem to want! 
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: kers on November 30, 2019, 01:19:43 pm
Most images end on the web 1920pixels; often not much more...
If screens go to 8K you need 36MP, not more...
So the emphases should go to other qualities than sharpness...


Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on November 30, 2019, 02:21:17 pm
I confess to occasionally using negative clarity/sharpness/de-haze where I think it's appropriate.
Most frequently to simulate distance.  As in "aerial perspective".

Of course, there's always the Capra D-Day images to counter the idea that images need to be sharp to be effective.

The happy, unhappy accident.

:-)

P.S.

Post cataract ops has made focussing manual lenses a pleasure again. I have put my old 2.8/50mm back on the Nikon, and the newer 1.8/50 G back in the cupboard. I wonder how long the enthusiasm lasts...
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on November 30, 2019, 04:49:10 pm
Some sharpness:

https://loff.it/rodar/barcos/super-sport-65-el-nuevo-yate-de-rossinavi-y-pininfarina-se-presenta-en-fort-lauderdale-340516/

Click on the Super 65 gallery.

:-)
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: rabanito on November 30, 2019, 05:52:40 pm
Some sharpness:

https://loff.it/rodar/barcos/super-sport-65-el-nuevo-yate-de-rossinavi-y-pininfarina-se-presenta-en-fort-lauderdale-340516/

Click on the Super 65 gallery.

:-)

Un asco  ;)
Title: Too much definition? For portraits, I think yes
Post by: BJL on November 30, 2019, 08:06:22 pm
I am inclined to think that the cliche of demonstrating any new photographic tool with portraits is ill-advised in the modern high-resolution realm; better to let the reviewers get outside and photograph something with fine details more interesting than pores in the face and veins in the eyes.

(Iím also tempted to call these images ďpore-traitsĒ.)
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on December 01, 2019, 03:24:16 am
Un asco  ;)

Not if it was mine!

;-)
Title: Re: Too much definition? For portraits, I think yes
Post by: Rob C on December 01, 2019, 03:25:05 am
I am inclined to think that the cliche of demonstrating any new photographic tool with portraits is ill-advised in the modern high-resolution realm; better to let the reviewers get outside and photograph something with fine details more interesting than pores in the face and veins in the eyes.

(Iím also tempted to call these images ďpore-traitsĒ.)


You've made a good point, there.

Rob
Title: Re: Too much definition? For portraits, I think yes
Post by: KLaban on December 01, 2019, 04:48:24 am
I am inclined to think that the cliche of demonstrating any new photographic tool with portraits is ill-advised in the modern high-resolution realm; better to let the reviewers get outside and photograph something with fine details more interesting than pores in the face and veins in the eyes.

(Iím also tempted to call these images ďpore-traitsĒ.)

Much depends on the face.

(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Peace2.jpg)

;-)
Title: Re: Too much definition? For portraits, I think yes
Post by: Rob C on December 01, 2019, 05:15:18 am
Much depends on the face.

(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Peace2.jpg)

;-)

That's great framing!

Yeah, hi-fi suits this subject well. One of those faces that could substitute for the traditional brick wall in more esoteric lens testing, too.

;-)

Rob
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: KLaban on December 01, 2019, 05:45:32 am
Rob, thanks.

I remember seeing some head shot close-ups of a beautiful female model with heavily painted face used on Hasselblad promotions. They were quite stunning and certainly showed the level of detail possible with those high res digital backs.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on December 01, 2019, 08:17:31 am
I remember my old Rollei T tlr had a Tessar lens, and when I bought the 'blad with its Planar, I noticed quite a difference using the very same standard film/soup combination.

The Tessar had a kind of glow to it, a plasticity that was very forgiving on human subjects, whereas the Planar cut like a knife. Pity that I hadn't kept the Rollei too, but trading up was essential on the budget.

Rob
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: petermfiore on December 01, 2019, 08:35:04 am
I set everything to as little camera intervention as possible,  a softer look allows the picture to come through rather than be subverted by the minute details within that distract; is anyone in love with pimples or traces of dandruff?
Rob

"The picture comes through". This is all important. We see with our eyes but great pictures are about being felt, that is the bottom line.

Peter
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: RSL on December 01, 2019, 08:39:41 am
Exactly, Peter!
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on December 03, 2019, 11:08:48 am
There are "high resolution" systems, and "lower resolution systems". There used to be "fine grain" and "coarse grain" film.

It is up to the client to decide what they want.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 03, 2019, 11:55:26 am
"The picture comes through". This is all important. We see with our eyes but great pictures are about being felt, that is the bottom line.

Peter
Amen, Peter!
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: John Camp on December 20, 2019, 06:25:21 pm
In painting, I am not a fan of rendering for the sake of itself. It's often thought of as high art and it's not. Many think the highest compliment is "Look at the painting, It looks just like a picture".

I wanna scream and often do so...

Peter

Yup.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: petermfiore on December 21, 2019, 08:39:22 am
There are "high resolution" systems, and "lower resolution systems". There used to be "fine grain" and "coarse grain" film.

It is up to the client to decide what they want.

If your a pro, yes. It's satisfying your client. If it's yourself to please....? Now comes a different thinking.

Peter
Title: Re: Too much definition? For portraits, I think yes
Post by: kers on December 21, 2019, 12:02:27 pm
Much depends on the face.

(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Peace2.jpg)

;-)

Is this man saying:

Please no Photo?
Title: Re: Too much definition? For portraits, I think yes
Post by: KLaban on December 21, 2019, 12:20:51 pm
Is this man saying:

Please no Photo?

No, quite the opposite, it seems to be typical of a sadhu's welcoming gesture or gesture of peace.

(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Peace.jpg)

Perhaps there is someone here who could give a more definitive description?
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: KLaban on December 21, 2019, 12:34:37 pm
Which seems to come quite naturally, even to young children.

(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Grandmother-_Child.jpg)
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on December 21, 2019, 02:40:41 pm
Which seems to come quite naturally, even to young children.

(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Grandmother-_Child.jpg)


That's one lovely catch!

What a face speaking volumes.

Rob
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: RSL on December 21, 2019, 03:03:38 pm
+1
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: KLaban on December 21, 2019, 05:36:26 pm
Thanks guys.

He was a star, sometimes you just get lucky.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 21, 2019, 06:29:35 pm
Some sharpness:

https://loff.it/rodar/barcos/super-sport-65-el-nuevo-yate-de-rossinavi-y-pininfarina-se-presenta-en-fort-lauderdale-340516/

Click on the Super 65 gallery.

These look like CGI (computer generated images), not photographs.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on December 22, 2019, 12:16:24 am
These look like CGI (computer generated images), not photographs.

Sure do look like CGI. Could be simply retouched to death I suppose. The problem with retouching is just because you can doesnít mean you should. If only there was a good taste slider.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: petermfiore on December 22, 2019, 03:15:23 am
Sure do look like CGI. Could be simply retouched to death I suppose. The problem with retouching is just because you can doesnít mean you should. If only there was a good taste slider.

I agree and it's the way I feel about much of HDR...

Peter
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on December 22, 2019, 04:55:57 am
These look like CGI (computer generated images), not photographs.

Probably so, and in close inspection of the waterline and wave reflections, one would hardly think the two match.

The contrast in the overall images is interesting, in a sci-fi kind of way, and the boat must be being driven by satellite or intuition: I see no sign of a pilot skipper or of a place from where driving control could safely be handled; the rear pool looks more important than any bridge. Maybe it's a beta model.

The presentation of each image may be unsettling, as an individual image, but I think that taken as a whole, the set takes on a futuristic look that supports the message of the boat being the latest thing and that you'd be in a world of your own, from which you might never want to disembark. Or dare!
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: T1MC0LE on May 19, 2020, 03:21:37 am
It seems all tech manufacturers are lost for innovation itís just all about minor steps forward like speed and resolution. We all need H.D we all need 4K we all need 8k??? Camera makers are the same, preying on the tired ideology that bigger is better, faster is better, sharper is better. I think a lot of contemporary photography lacks personality because the vast majority of people follow this ideology. We are fixated with the destination instead of the journey. Sometimes to really connect with photography you need the whole process to feel unique to you. For me itís no longer about the latest technology and technically flawless images, itís about how the process makes you feel from the moment you pick up a camera to the final output.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on May 19, 2020, 08:55:54 am
It seems all tech manufacturers are lost for innovation itís just all about minor steps forward like speed and resolution. We all need H.D we all need 4K we all need 8k??? Camera makers are the same, preying on the tired ideology that bigger is better, faster is better, sharper is better. I think a lot of contemporary photography lacks personality because the vast majority of people follow this ideology. We are fixated with the destination instead of the journey. Sometimes to really connect with photography you need the whole process to feel unique to you. For me itís no longer about the latest technology and technically flawless images, itís about how the process makes you feel from the moment you pick up a camera to the final output.


But Corrie-19 is going to resolve all of this.

I was listening this morning to a medical officer on Sky News, telling us all that we may never retun to the old normal and established concepts of life and comfortable social intercourse, that it's not beyond reason to think that we will be obliged to turn into more distant souls, distanced the one from the other by concerns of contamination. If that follows, then perhaps we will start to grow away from the group mentality that holds us captive to so many silly concepts that, liberated from group expectations, would disappear almost at once. I believe that many of the concepts of digital photography fit into that. With film, we accepted what we got when we were doing the best that was possible with the best tools at our disposal. Content was king. We simply didn't get bogged down chasing tiny things that we couldn't see with our naked eyes at the best of times. If we needed to make larger pictures, then we went up the format scale a little bit. We can still do that, and we can even stitch, if we have to so do.

Camera makers did very well with film cameras; all they ever had to do was to try and improve the mechanics of the things, and sometimes the designs. The top echelons, in terms of ability, were pretty much all the same, and we bought into a system and stuck with it because after a few lenses arrived, it made fiscal sense to stay wed to the same company.

Regarding your philosophy about journeys and arrivals: it was broadly the same with film; I'd suggest that only the photographers have changed: today, it seems to me from the limited experience I have of other photographers, that people go onto photography who would once never have contemplated doing so when it meant having to learn something. Today, I think folks get sucked in because of their cellphones, and if I am correct, that's often step #1 on the wrong road.

In fact, for everyone, I think that if you are psychologically meant for photography, then the urge is there before you even own a camera. Of course this has to be a subjective analysis - what else could it be - but I think that if you are meant to be a photographer, you feel neither fear no challenge: you just know you can do it. And the same applies to genres: unless there is one that eats away at your soul, what the hell are you wasing your time and money on this stuff to achieve?

Rob
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: RSL on May 19, 2020, 09:09:04 am

In fact, for everyone, I think that if you are psychologically meant for photography, then the urge is there before you even own a camera. Of course this has to be a subjective analysis - what else could it be - but I think that if you are meant to be a photographer, you feel neither fear no challenge: you just know you can do it. And the same applies to genres: unless there is one that eats away at your soul, what the hell are you wasing your time and money on this stuff to achieve?

Rob

Exactly, Rob!
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: rabanito on May 19, 2020, 05:31:15 pm


Rob


!!!!

As you may know, in Spanish this is called "admiration" sign  ;)
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on May 20, 2020, 04:02:49 am
Russ, rabanito - it's just telling it like I see it, and not paying attention to fads and marketing lies. I spent a working lifetime listening to lies from suppliers, sub-contractors and even clients, and at the end of it, I was the one left carrying the can for their mistakes and duplicities.

Scar tissue runs deep!

;-)
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: petermfiore on May 22, 2020, 07:31:40 am
Russ, rabanito - it's just telling it like I see it, and not paying attention to fads and marketing lies. I spent a working lifetime listening to lies from suppliers, sub-contractors and even clients, and at the end of it, I was the one left carrying the can for their mistakes and duplicities.

Scar tissue runs deep!

;-)

The deepest tissue there is...however ; )

Peter
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on May 22, 2020, 08:10:33 am
The deepest tissue there is...however ; )

Peter

And in the end, it turns out to be the parchment upon which are written the greatest lessons in life.

Rob
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: petermfiore on May 22, 2020, 08:22:24 am
And in the end, it turns out to be the parchment upon which are written the greatest lessons in life.

Rob

And they stay with you forever and influence every decision...In Biz or just ordering a sandwich.  Always with one's own smile.

Peter
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on May 22, 2020, 05:47:21 pm
And they stay with you forever and influence every decision...In Biz or just ordering a sandwich.  Always with one's own smile.

Peter


You must watch the Gomorra series which is about the Naples Camorra; fascinating stuff, but so violent. Funny how you can grow to be quite sympathetic towards dreadful characters - maybe that's how it works in reality, too, not just in works of fiction. Another great example of that strange slide of judgement over good and evil was Sopranos.

Ciao!
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: petermfiore on May 23, 2020, 07:10:47 am

You must watch the Gomorra series, which is about the Naples Camorra; fascinating stuff, but so violent. Funny how you can grow to be quite sympathetic towards dreadful characters - maybe that's how it works in reality, too, not just in works of fiction. Another great example of that strange slide of judgement over good and evil was Sopranos.

Ciao!

Very true...I remember  The Godfather movie in 1972. It was my last year in high school. The sympathy for an evil family group was terrific.

Pietro
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on May 24, 2020, 09:12:44 am
Very true...I remember  The Godfather movie in 1972. It was my last year in high school. The sympathy for an evil family group was terrific.

Pietro

I was prompted to revisit this thread after lunch as I lounged back (and my posture already sucks!) on the terrace drinking my coffee, nibbling the dry crackers and hoping to get the single chocolate wholewheat biscuit down before the choc stuck to my fingers. The reason for the revisit isn't the chocolate at all, but the Leiter collection I was looking at online as I sipped. It fits this thread, if you wondered, because in contemporary terms, his work, both online and in the monographs I have, is almost never that crisp. And I mean even on the obvious points of intended focus. One or two later pictures display crispness out of his ordinary, and from the difficult reality of trying to date them, I think they come from his last period when he had begun to mess with digital. For me, they look just like somebody (else's derivatives. In other words, he seems to have lost his own essence, his magical touch of gentle, sympathetic observation. What a bummer.

I wonder if he was ever self-aware enough to see it in those terms? Also, did he ever sit down at a computer himself to make those final digital files? If he left it to others, such as his gallery (that looks to me as if it had taken over his life) then did they miss something essential by being that bit too close to the newly-discovered golden goose?

The opening shot of the drops on the glass illustrates what I feel about what may be his later digital work:

https://hyperbole.es/2016/02/saul-leiter-color-sobre-gris/

Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: KLaban on May 24, 2020, 09:46:21 am
I was prompted to revisit this thread after lunch as I lounged back (and my posture already sucks!) on the terrace drinking my coffee, nibbling the dry crackers and hoping to get the single chocolate wholewheat biscuit down before the choc stuck to my fingers. The reason for the revisit isn't the chocolate at all, but the Leiter collection I was looking at online as I sipped. It fits this thread, if you wondered, because in contemporary terms, his work, both online and in the monographs I have, is almost never that crisp. And I mean even on the obvious points of intended focus. One or two later pictures display crispness out of his ordinary, and from the difficult reality of trying to date them, I think they come from his last period when he had begun to mess with digital. For me, they look just like somebody (else's derivatives. In other words, he seems to have lost his own essence, his magical touch of gentle, sympathetic observation. What a bummer.

I wonder if he was ever self-aware enough to see it in those terms? Also, did he ever sit down at a computer himself to make those final digital files? If he left it to others, such as his gallery (that looks to me as if it had taken over his life) then did they miss something essential by being that bit too close to the newly-discovered golden goose?

The opening shot of the drops on the glass illustrates what I feel about what may be his later digital work:

https://hyperbole.es/2016/02/saul-leiter-color-sobre-gris/

Once again, Rob, I'd caution on making judgements based on online images: to do so raises more questions than delivers answers.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on May 24, 2020, 12:07:01 pm
Once again, Rob, I'd caution on making judgements based on online images: to do so raises more questions than delivers answers.


True; nonetheless, the same image plus some others still look unfilmic (neologism?) when viewed on other sites: something I didn't mention with this shot is that the colours look completely different to the film stock images. They seem far more modern in palette than his usual stuff. There is nothing "earthy" for want of a better word - the new thing looks transparent and watery, and not in the obvious sense of the actual water on the glass.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: KLaban on May 24, 2020, 01:09:32 pm

True; nonetheless, the same image plus some others still look unfilmic (neologism?) when viewed on other sites: something I didn't mention with this shot is that the colours look completely different to the film stock images. They seem far more modern in palette than his usual stuff. There is nothing "earthy" for want of a better word - the new thing looks transparent and watery, and not in the obvious sense of the actual water on the glass.

When I view and compare a given painting online - from varying sources and on varying devices - see the variation in reproduction and rendering, I simply have no idea of the painter's intention. This confusion is reinforced when I view the original painting and am shocked by what is in plain sight and in front of me.

Such is the chaos of on-screen reproduction and rendering.

Never trust a fart or an on-screen reproduction.

;-)
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: petermfiore on May 25, 2020, 02:02:45 pm
Such is the chaos of on-screen reproduction and rendering.

Never trust a fart or an on-screen reproduction.

;-)

Hi Keith,

Especially after the age of fifty...an old wise saying.

Peter
 
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Rob C on May 25, 2020, 04:38:17 pm
Hi Keith,

Especially after the age of fifty...an old wise saying.

Peter

The fart is a part of the trilogy:

1. never trust a fart;

2. never pass a chance to have a pee;

3. never waste a woodie, even if you're alone.

All valid advice for the over 65s.

The problem with #1 is that you get no warning as you walk down the street. It's all out, over and done with without your consent being sought.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: KLaban on May 25, 2020, 09:25:53 pm
Hi Keith,

Especially after the age of fifty...an old wise saying.

Peter

The fart is a part of the trilogy:

1. never trust a fart;

2. never pass a chance to have a pee;

3. never waste a woodie, even if you're alone.

All valid advice for the over 65s.

The problem with #1 is that you get no warning as you walk down the street. It's all out, over and done with without your consent being sought.


Wise, wise, words!

;-)
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: IPDOUGLAS on July 04, 2020, 10:55:46 am
It is odd how so many here feel attendance at an Art School qualifies either their opinion or their work as more 'art' than someone elses?   Of all the people I know that attended (as an example) Art College they were all the least (at that time) artistic?   Their direction seemed to be determined by not being good at anything else.

Since this is a free opinion forum it does seem that those that dub themselves as 'artists' and are serious enough about that seemed to get regarded as so whether their art impresses or not?  Why is this?  Rather like the performing arts, dressing in a bohemian way seems to go hand in hand with convincing others.

I feel the first rule of Art (in photography and all other 'arts') is for your art to be unpaid for if it is paid for totally in your control for creative expression.  You might think this is odd as it immediately eliminates many professionals?

Since a reasonable (and succinct) definition of art is 'Inspired Work' then commissioned work unless unspecific or freely expressed can hardly be art?  It may look great or sound great etc but it is derived.

I see beautiful photography by many that have attended Art College and many that have not.   But as the forum title teases is that work 'art'?  It is oddly less likely to be art if influenced by trend or what is fashionable and therefore highly sellable.  This is the product of the artisan and not the artist. 

I have always felt that the more 'collectable' or collected art is rapidly ceasing to become that thing and becoming a product.

I can imagine some of my opinions here many offend and there is no intention to do so but fundamentally I feel no 'professional' photographer should be thought of as an artist nor there work (if commissioned) as art.  The Artists are the amateurs, no less gifted but completely free to express themselves without being driven to sell or be successful.  That art make be poor but nonetheless it is real art.   

Of course a professional may pursue a personal project without expectation or intention to sell but then they are motivated (just like an amateur) by inspiration and indeed that work would or should be regarded as art.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: RSL on July 04, 2020, 11:58:09 am
Hi IP, If you've read any of my rants on this subject you know I agree with you -- to a point. The example I always come up with is Elliott Erwitt, a top-of-the-line professional who, in his spare time, grabbed his beat-up Leica and did what his heart desired. Most people don't remember his professional work, but just about everyone interested in photography knows about his amateur work. Shooting for money doesn't prevent you from shooting for love (the "ama" part of "amateur"), and shooting for love is what produces fine art.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: KLaban on July 04, 2020, 12:44:38 pm
It is odd how so many here feel attendance at an Art School qualifies either their opinion or their work as more 'art' than someone elses...

Would you care to enlighten us about which posts here led you to believe that extraordinary contention?
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Alan Klein on July 04, 2020, 01:04:53 pm
Michelangelo's David was originally commissioned as one of a series of statues of prophets to be positioned along the roofline of the east end of Florence Cathedral, but was instead placed in a public square, outside the Palazzo Vecchio, the seat of civic government in Florence, in the Piazza della Signoria, where it was unveiled on 8 September 1504. The statue was moved to the Galleria dell'Accademia, Florence, in 1873, and later replaced at the original location by a replica.

Doesn't look like art to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)

Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: IPDOUGLAS on July 04, 2020, 04:59:47 pm
Hi RSL,
             Yes I am familiar with some of Elliott Erwhitts work and love the humour in it.  He is a street photographers street photographer, if you get what I mean.

cheers
Ian
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: RSL on July 04, 2020, 07:38:58 pm
Hi RSL,
             Yes I am familiar with some of Elliott Erwhitts work and love the humour in it.  He is a street photographers street photographer, if you get what I mean.

cheers
Ian

Yes. He's a street photographer. So am I (http://www.russ-lewis.com/street/index.html). I'm afraid I don't understand what that has to do with it.
Title: Re: Too much definition?
Post by: Alan Klein on July 05, 2020, 08:45:43 am
You're a great street photographer too, Russ.  Your shots show emotion, juxtaposition, or levity.  Good stuff.
I try to find similar scenes but not always successful.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157625796644064