Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: shaunw on December 28, 2011, 10:55:00 am
-
Poor weather in UK this is from a trip to the Lakes last Sept, i was interested in capturing the light on/near the tree...WDYT
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6583470755_fa9a5630cf_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skwalby/6583470755/)
The Hawthorn Tree...English Lakes. Explored 28.12.11 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skwalby/6583470755/) by Shaunwalby Photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/skwalby/), on Flickr
-
The composition reminds me of a shot I took of a tree on Dartmoor, with Steeperton Tor providing the backdrop. I liked my compostion, so unsurprisingly, I like your's too.
-
Intriguing. Not sure if I like it, but there's definitely a lot of tension there. Even the clouds look like they're dipping into the 'V' of the valley.
Mike.
-
I somehow wish to see a color version, if for no other reason then to alleviate the nagging feeling present in b&w that the lower right-hand corner has been dodged a bit too much in post-processing. Also, there seems to be a halo just above the top of the hill on the left.
-
The composition reminds me of a shot I took of a tree on Dartmoor, with Steeperton Tor providing the backdrop. I liked my compostion, so unsurprisingly, I like your's too.
Thanks Bill
-
Thanks Mike intriguing is good for me..lol
regards Shaun
-
I somehow wish to see a color version, if for no other reason then to alleviate the nagging feeling present in b&w that the lower right-hand corner has been dodged a bit too much in post-processing. Also, there seems to be a halo just above the top of the hill on the left.
Thanks Slobodan....i have this nagging feeling you may be right on both counts....definitely the dark bottom left and not totally sure about the halo though? has it been introduced (process error Halo) or was it there.....i shall check the RAW
spot on thanks very much...i have a feeling i shall be tweaking it
Shaun Walby
-
I think the darker bottom left needs a lift as for the poss halo...iam more inclined to think its the increased contrast ive but in that has caused the separation of light and dark....thoughts?
(http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x434/belaybob1/Devon-sept-11_0755.jpg)
-
I prefer the B/W version. To me, it's offers a more dramatic view of a tilted world.
-
I prefer the B/W version. To me, it's offers a more dramatic view of a tilted world.
Hi Francois
The colour is RAW unprocessed file re the previous discussion...darkening/halo?? Looking again, iam not sure their is a processing halo as such i think the contrast ive added has further separated the lighter area above the hill/cliff?
The mono is the finished image which iam glad you prefer; for me in terms of a conveying the message/communications the mono is clearly more powerful, drama of the scene, emotive content; i think the mono is stronger all round really.
thanks for your thoughts and merry xmas
Shaun
-
I think the colour image indicates that there is some haloing around the top of the mountain in the B&W image.
-
Glad you posted both versions. Comparisons are very interesting. The B+W is very striking but a little artificial-looking for my taste. If it were me I would follow your processing as far as enhancing the tree but without introducing "new" shadows. Scott
-
Shaun, I think Sloboban nailed it. Both in criticism and editing. Not to take away from your original which was very good, I'm glad you posted it.
-
Shaun, I think Sloboban nailed it. Both in criticism and editing. Not to take away from your original which was very good, I'm glad you posted it.
I agree with John and SB.
Your first version looks much like what I might have tried in an attempt to bring out the drama inherent in that gnarled tree. But SB has accomplished the drama while retaining a sense of plausibility.
When I process my own images, I often let them sit for a while, sometimes in front of me, sometimes away. It might take a few hours or a few days or, yes, a few years sometimes, before I return to the image and see it with fresh eyes, correct it further, and let it sit again. I do it until I finally give up and accept the last result as final.
That's describes my approach as well.
Eric
-
Comparing the colour and B&W versions, it looks as if the sky and ground were masked and adjusted (B&W conversion colour mix and/or levels) seperately, and the halo around the top of the mountain is from feathering of the mask. This has caused the brightening of the mountain to affect the bottom of the sky, the rest of has been made very dark by pushing the contrast/levels. The reason I think this is what has happened is that the halo is most pronounced over the part of the bottom of the cloud that was originally darkest.
I could very well be wrong of course!
I really like the B&W version and if the process was as above then it would probably look great with much less feathering.
-
My humble pov is: it's so easy to get "drama" into everything. Just push those sliders and here we are. I would like to see the drama without pushing, inherent to the content and design of the scene. Iow: a little bit (much) more henry cartier-bresson in landscape photography...
-
Hi Slobodan
Well after the genuinely very interesting critique, which i believe was a genuine attempt to help better the image...i have to say the edited version does nothing for the image at all, come on look at it again its dreadful devoid of everything that made the original appealing in the first place. If that edit is technically correct, iam very happy to stay technically incorrect....for me its flat lifeless and bland, for those who have reviewed both images and consider the edit a better image...id stick to colour lol.
Two issues have been useful, the possibility of the halo and the dark left and corner FG which i may look at. Some of the opinions trotted out as critique are just funny i guess that's the inherent trouble with a large site and web based crit in general....just what are the credentials of the people doing the talking? (not aimed at any one particular person for those who will no doubt decide what i mean by that).
I would say that for the time being i definitely will not be posting my images in the crit section, (as this one wasn't) as iam not at all convinced it will help me make better images.
As this image wasn't posted in the crit section i would ask that the edit is removed.
Shaun
-
It strikes me that you are being a bit overly sensitive about this. I certainly wouldn't suggest that you should agree with all of the critiques offered by others but it seems to me they were offered in good faith. Obviously you need to make your own stylistic choices. However reducing comments/critiques to the critique forum only doesn't really serve anyone. I prefer lively discussion in this forum as well - even if I don't agree with the discussion.
Cheers.
-
As this image wasn't posted in the crit section i would ask that the edit is removed.
If you post an image and put the acronym WDYT (What do you think) in the first line, I think most people would regard that as seeking comment or critique. You can't complain if some of the comments aren't positive.
Removing parts of a thread (eg images) just make a mockery of any later references to them.
The irony in this case is that the alternative edit someone else posted was quite different in feel and was, in my opinion, inferior to your own interpretation.
-
The original B&W is a wonderful interpretation of a dramatic landscape. Yes, it has some technical flaws (e.g. halo over far hill and perhaps overly dark "stripe" of cloud) BUT - the image is truly artful. This point is reinforced when we see the colour raw image. Shaun has done an amazing job of bringing his vision to the image. This is a great example of an artist at work, not being satisfied with the machine image, but crafting the raw image to represent his original intent.
While we, as artists and crafts-people must continually learn from constructive criticism (the whole idea of this forum), we need to balance the negative criticism with the positive kudos that many of these works and photographers deserve. Start with the positives, then introduce the constructive criticism.
-
I have to say I disagree with what you say. Looking at his image it was not just a case of moving a few sliders around. It is a strong image to start with and he has selectively worked on different areas to create something in my opinion which is quite beautiful. The black and white is Shaun's interpretation of the scene. A black and white photo is treated completely differently to a colour photo. I really like the way he has darkened the bottom area. It focuses the eye very much on the beautiful form of the tree. I also love the way the 2 hills play of each other (One in sunlight and one in shadow) and the way the sunlit tree works in conflict with the diagonal looming storm cloud look (Of course you created that look. It is part blue sky and part cloud). It's the easiest thing in the world to take a photo of something nice and make a nice photo. It's there. It's free of charge. However, there is no imagination. You are just pointing the camera and clicking a button. You say it should be a little bit more like Henry Cartier-Bresson. He was a reportage photographer who's philosophy was about capturing the moment. Ansel Adams who was one of the true greats of landscape photography completely manipulated the image in the darkroom to create his interpretation of the scene. On saying that Shaun. I suggest you copy neither. It's far more important to have your own identity because again it requires no skill or imagination to base your style on another photographer. Also it doesn't degrade an image because you digitally manipulate it to create a look here which could be achieved in the darkroom from a neg/ (at least in the right hands :))
I would say though that the feathering on the right of the dark cloud area which you created looks a bit strange. The feathering isn't quite right I think. The left of it looks more believable. I think the comments about the haloing above the hill are valid but that can easily be rectified. Sometimes you can miss the halos when you view it large on a screen. The small images posted on websites really bring halos out.
Well done overall though
Enda
My humble pov is: it's so easy to get "drama" into everything. Just push those sliders and here we are. I would like to see the drama without pushing, inherent to the content and design of the scene. Iow: a little bit (much) more henry cartier-bresson in landscape photography...
-
It's the easiest thing in the world to take a photo of something nice and make a nice photo. It's there. It's free of charge. However, there is no imagination. You are just pointing the camera and clicking a button. You say it should be a little bit more like Henry Cartier-Bresson. He was a reportage photographer who's philosophy was about capturing the moment.
This morning I finished reading "Henri Cartier-Bresson and the artless art" (http://books.google.com/books?id=GV4GfAEACAAJ).
Henri Cartier-Bresson was a photographer (jokingly warned by Robert Doisneau that he was in danger of being pigeon-holed as a surrealist photographer) long before he learned how to be a photo journalist. And he made portraits. And he photographed landscapes.
He drew a veil of aphorism (http://www.henricartierbresson.org/hcb/home_en.htm) around his philosophy (so I'll say no more about that).
He did claim to lack the imagination for movie story-telling.
As for "You are just pointing the camera and clicking a button." - it seems to me that Henri Cartier-Bresson was alive with the understanding of where to point the camera and when to click the button.
-
The original B&W is a wonderful interpretation of a dramatic landscape. ... This is a great example of an artist at work, not being satisfied with the machine image, but crafting the raw image to represent his original intent.
Grade inflation.
Should we always try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?
-
Isaac
You don't need to do another copy paste from someone else's wisdom to show me the merits of Henri Cartier Bresson. I love his photography. I love reportage photography. It's one of my favorite types of photography. I was talking in relation to landscape photography. I was talking about the pluses of someone interpreting a landscape scene to their own vision rather than just making a 100% factual record of it. I think Shaun has delivered a *pretty descent result largely based on how he viewed the final image.
*Sorry about my boo boo above. I typed pretty image effort which means God know what. I have now changed it :)
-
I love his photography. I love reportage photography. It's one of my favorite types of photography. I was talking in relation to landscape photography.
Any chance you'll hear if I say once again - surrealist photographer ... And he made portraits. And he photographed landscapes.
You're stuffing Cartier-Bresson into a pigeon-hole that's way way too small.
I was talking about the pluses of someone interpreting a landscape scene to their own vision rather than just making a 100% factual record of it.
Have you really looked at Cartier-Bresson's photographs?
My impression is that you're being defensive because you also like to use dramatic post processing.
The suggestion ixania2 made is straightforward enough - if you want to make a dramatic picture then take a photograph of a dramatic situation, that'll make a much better dramatic picture.
-
Once again I'm in complete agreement with Enda - both re Bresson and Shaun's monochrome attempt, albeit with some (minor) technical flaws, as being a beautiful interpretation of the scene. Shaun you are to be congratulated. Well done.
Barry
-
Issac
The subject here isn't about you getting your knickers in a twist about Henri Cartier-Brsson. The subject is Shaun's photograph. My point was he should follow his own instinct and ideas rather than as was suggested that he be influenced by another photographer good, bad, famous, hairy, skinny or bald :D
And how can I be defensive about a photo that isn't mine. Plus my "dramatic post processing" is completely different to Shaun's technique. Paint everyone with the same brush why don't you that isn't to your taste. The majority of images that I seem to be drawn to are generally very different in style to mine. As I said I love black and white reportage photography for example.
I think your post
"Grade inflation.
Should we always try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?"
shows a lack of respect for the guy's attempt at creating an interesting image. It's not about agreeing with him or disagreeing with him, it's about dismissing his photo and his technique as if your arrogance is supposed to illustrate greater knowledge.
That's just my opinion
Enda
-
I admit I was briefly enamoured of Slobodan's variant, before he removed it. But I've been coming back to Shaun's original image several times, and the drama of it has grown on me. The technical "flaws" now seem trivial compared with the imapct of the image, and I very much agree with Enda and others.
It's a powerful keeper, IMHO.
Eric
-
The subject here isn't about you getting your knickers in a twist about Henri Cartier-Brsson. The subject is Shaun's photograph.
And ixania2 put forward his pov on Shaun's photograph by analogy to Cartier-Bresson's photography.
And you tried to dismiss that analogy by saying Cartier-Bresson was a reportage photographer and this is landscape photography, so the analogy doesn't apply.
As-if the moment-by-moment play of light across the landscape isn't a source of inspiration and frustration - ixania2's analogy is not so easily dismissed.
Ansel Adams who was one of the true greats of landscape photography completely manipulated the image in the darkroom to create his interpretation of the scene.
Did he? Did he "completely manipulate" a benign afternoon in the foothills with sturm und drang? Which photo are you thinking of? Even on a summer day, the Sierra Nevada mountains can be very dramatic.
And how can I be defensive about a photo that isn't mine. Plus my "dramatic post processing" is completely different to Shaun's technique.
People can be defensive about all sorts of stuff that isn't theirs, when there's similarity to something they care about. (You've said I'm getting my knickers in a twist, painting everyone with the same brush, and am arrogant - if you aren't being defensive, you are attacking the person rather than the things they say.)
I think your post "Grade inflation. Should we always try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?" shows a lack of respect for the guy's attempt at creating an interesting image. It's not about agreeing with him or disagreeing with him, it's about dismissing his photo and his technique as if your arrogance is supposed to illustrate greater knowledge.
Did you notice my comment was made to luxborealis not to shaunw.
But as you've said that, why exactly should I respect an attempt to make a photo taken on a quiet day on the hill into sturm und drang? People deserve respect - but that isn't necessarily true of the things people do.
-
Did he? Did he "completely manipulate" a benign afternoon in the foothills with sturm und drang? Which photo are you thinking of? Even on a summer day, the Sierra Nevada mountains can be very dramatic.
When you read any of the accounts of Ansel Adam's photography, it's clear that he used every tool available from the time he saw the scene to the final print he achieve the print he visualized. He exposed and then pushed and pulled and locally enhanced the negative, dodged and burned the print and did whatever else he could to achieve his vision. Often his vision changed and later prints were much different from earlier prints. For example, Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico was initially printed with a light sky and later prints were printed with a dramatic nearly black sky.
Les
-
In defense of what Isaac and ixania2 are saying, I think there is a subtle, elusive, but still a difference between enhancing what's there (what Adams did) and changing it, between interpreting reality and altering it. Changing it from a lovely, pastoral, serene, optimistic, sunlit scene into a sturm und drang (love that metaphor), brooding, ominous, dramatic, etc. one.
It can be done (obviously), but why? To prove that we can photoshop anything into something?
After all, Adams did not take a mid-day, postcard view and blackened it into drama. He took what was there, moonrise, late sun side-lighted crosses, etc, and accentuated it by enhancing contrast and by dodging and burning. That the original shot was much flatter was a result of his attempt to capture the full dynamic range of the scene in a single negative (just like most RAW files are flat right out of camera), thus not a completely documentary record of that evening.
-
When you read any of the accounts of Ansel Adam's photography...
Did he "completely manipulate" a benign afternoon in the foothills with sturm und drang?
For example, Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico was initially printed with a light sky and later prints were printed with a dramatic nearly black sky.
Here's a 1941 print (http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/grant/ansel-adams-moonrise-hernandez-8-31-11_detail.asp?picnum=1).
Here's a 1946 print (http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/grant/ansel-adams-moonrise-hernandez-8-31-11_detail.asp?picnum=3) - somewhat lighter sky.
Here's ca. 1950s-'60s print (http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/grant/ansel-adams-moonrise-hernandez-8-31-11_detail.asp?picnum=2) - much darker sky.
Seems quite a peaceful image to me - not sturm und drang.
"I am sure that the image would command general interest for the subject alone. It is a romantic/emotional moment in time. I think it would have a certain appreciation even if poorly printed. However, the mood of the scene requires subtle value qualities in the print that I feel are supportive of the original visualization. The printed image has varied over the years; I have sought more intensity of light and richness of values as time goes on." p43 Moonrise
Ansel Adams, Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs (http://books.google.com/books?id=8WlfQgAACAAJ).
-
I am getting sick to death of these incessant arguments about whether an image/photograph/reality is enhanced or changed and then invoking one or more of the masters to try to add weight to the argument.
Bottom line - we are artists. It is irrelevant whether the way we choose to interpret a scene is the way it was "in reality". Reality, after all, differs for each and every one of us. And the reality one moment is different from the reality of the next moment. If one "sees" the scene with dark clouds, an artist would paint them in whether they are there or not - why is is any different with photographers who have the tools to do so.
Who ever first commanded that photography is all about reproducing reality and that the artist (photographer) who changes reality has committed a sin, has done all of us a huge disservice. We now have all these automatons who at one end of the spectrum claim that anything changed from what the camera shot is "lying" to those who want to split hairs over "enhancing" versus "changing". It is irrelevant! What counts is the final work.
Another bottom line: if Shaun's original work had been done flawlessly so that none of us could tell that he had manipulated it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would have commended Shaun with the usual "well seen, Shaun" and thought nothing of how he arrived at the final photograph.
Stop being handcuffed by what others think photography should and should not be and create a photograph that represents not just what you saw (or your camera saw), but what you felt as well. That's what art is about. Art is not chaining yourself to what some machine has created, but liberating yourself to recreate your vision. Whether that means pushing sliders or burning and dodging with multigrade filters, the final image will speak for itself. It it's lousy with obvious flaws then people won't like it. If it's brilliantly executed and stirs emotion, people will like it. Does the end justify the means? Perhaps so. Must you be true to the original scene? Not all if, that's the path you choose.
Just to put what I'm saying into context - I lean much closer to the side of "straight" photography: I am working in the nature and outdoors field with the goal of "revealing the art in nature", so my approach to photography is to let the art inherent in nature speak for itself. But that does't mean my notion of photography must command what others do. Ansel Adams, Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Weston, John Sexton, Freeman Patterson and many more have had a significant influence on the kind of photographer I am, but I don't live and die by what I think they would do.
Be yourself - if that means other people don't like what you've done, so be it. Our goal as artists is embarrassingly selfish: first and foremost, please yourself, be yourself, be true to yourself.
-
... create a photograph that represents not just what you saw (or your camera saw), but what you felt as well. That's what art is about...
In complete agreement.
However, if you what you feel is sturm und drang, but what you see is a serene, pastoral scene, then a different kind of professionals, not photographers, are better suited to deal with that.
-
... Another bottom line: if Shaun's original work had been done flawlessly so that none of us could tell that he had manipulated it, we wouldn't be having this discussion...
Again, in complete agreement.
But it hadn't been done that way, thus this discussion. Even before Shaun posted the RAW file, people were commenting that something was not right (and not just haloing). People felt it is "artificially looking", or could not put their finger on what exactly is bothering them.
And what is bothering them (us) is exactly what "makes you sick": the thin line between enhancing and altering at the expense of believability.
-
Quote from: luxborealis on Today at 03:09:16 PM
... create a photograph that represents not just what you saw (or your camera saw), but what you felt as well. That's what art is about...
In complete agreement.
However, if you what you feel is sturm und drang, but what you see is a serene, pastoral scene, then a different kind of professionals, not photographers, are better suited to deal with that.
This is exactly the narrow thinking my diatribe was against - photography is just as well suited to "altering reality" as any other medium of self-expression. What do you think B&W is - certainly not reality. Significantly altering reality isn't my style of photography, but if others want to do it - who am I or anyone to say they shouldn't!
And what does believability have to do with it. Do we accept/reject every kind of representational art (painting, sculpture, etc.) based on its believability? No! The sooner photographers realize that art is about expression and start putting more of their own expression into their work, the sooner the art world will fully accept photography as more than just paint-by-number snapshots produced by a machine held by someone who thinks they are creating art.
Stop being handcuffed by what we've been told photography should or should not be.
-
... photography is just as well suited to "altering reality" as any other medium...
Once again, in complete agreement.
But when it does, it crosses genres into (digital) illustration.
I know that by now you hate my "thin line", but there is a thin line, though profound difference, between artists using photography as a medium and photographers striving to create art.
-
I am getting sick to death of these incessant arguments about whether an image/photograph/reality is enhanced or changed and then invoking one or more of the masters to try to add weight to the argument.
Bottom line - we are artists. It is irrelevant whether the way we choose to interpret a scene is the way it was "in reality". Reality, after all, differs for each and every one of us. And the reality one moment is different from the reality of the next moment. If one "sees" the scene with dark clouds, an artist would paint them in whether they are there or not - why is is any different with photographers who have the tools to do so.
Who ever first commanded that photography is all about reproducing reality and that the artist (photographer) who changes reality has committed a sin, has done all of us a huge disservice. We now have all these automatons who at one end of the spectrum claim that anything changed from what the camera shot is "lying" to those who want to split hairs over "enhancing" versus "changing". It is irrelevant! What counts is the final work.
Another bottom line: if Shaun's original work had been done flawlessly so that none of us could tell that he had manipulated it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would have commended Shaun with the usual "well seen, Shaun" and thought nothing of how he arrived at the final photograph.
Stop being handcuffed by what others think photography should and should not be and create a photograph that represents not just what you saw (or your camera saw), but what you felt as well. That's what art is about. Art is not chaining yourself to what some machine has created, but liberating yourself to recreate your vision. Whether that means pushing sliders or burning and dodging with multigrade filters, the final image will speak for itself. It it's lousy with obvious flaws then people won't like it. If it's brilliantly executed and stirs emotion, people will like it. Does the end justify the means? Perhaps so. Must you be true to the original scene? Not all if, that's the path you choose.
Be yourself - if that means other people don't like what you've done, so be it. Our goal as artists is embarrassingly selfish: first and foremost, please yourself, be yourself, be true to yourself.
Nicely written, but too kind.
Typically artists strive for mastery of technique applied creatively.
Any real artist would be sickened if they were trapped into endlessly repeating the same kinds of things they studied in the past. It is like a musician who can only perform one piece of music, a sculptor who can only make one kind of sculpture, a potter who can only make one thing out of clay, or a painter who can only paint one work, or even worse, paint the work using just one color! There may be some artistry in that, but mostly it’s just a painfully boring mechanical process.
And yet, many here use use a camera to do the exact kind of thing and scoff at anything that doesn’t fit their notion of a cookie cutter.
-
Bottom line - we are artists.
Who do you mean by "we"?
You and Slobodan? You and me and Slobodan? Everyone who commented on this topic? Everyone member of this discussion forum? Everyone who has taken a photograph? Every human being?
-
I really like the B&W, very dramatic, the tones in the sky look amazing and there is a sense of light comming directly over the tree.
-
Who do you mean by "we"?
You and Slobodan? You and me and Slobodan?...
Hell no! I am just a lowly photographer ;)
-
Who do you mean by "we"?
You and Slobodan? You and me and Slobodan? Everyone who commented on this topic? Everyone member of this discussion forum? Everyone who has taken a photograph? Every human being?
I'd say "Every human being." But of course the quality of the artistic output varies a lot and is hard to quantify in any meaningful way.
Eric
-
Who do you mean by "we"?
You and Slobodan? You and me and Slobodan? Everyone who commented on this topic? Everyone member of this discussion forum? Everyone who has taken a photograph? Every human being?
Touché. Anyone can claim to be an artist, just like anyone can claim to be a good and decent person. "The proof is in the pudding": in how we choose to create our photographs (our art if one chooses to call it that) or live our lives. When someone unknown to me is moved by my work and acknowledges what I do as art then, to me, that's all the proof I need.
-
I'd say "Every human being."
What word would you like to use for those particular human beings formerly known as artists? (If every human being is an artist, calling particular human beings artists no longer tells us anything about them.)
-
Touché.
I didn't intend that question as a riposte, I was trying to understand what you meant. The fact that you take it to be a riposte suggests the diatribe may just be empty rhetoric.
When someone unknown to me is moved by my work and acknowledges what I do as art then, to me, that's all the proof I need.
That isn't how you concluded the diatribe (with a description that seems more like narcissist than artist):
Be yourself - if that means other people don't like what you've done, so be it. Our goal as artists is embarrassingly selfish: first and foremost, please yourself, be yourself, be true to yourself.
-
... The sooner photographers realize that art is about expression and start putting more of their own expression into their work, the sooner the art world will fully accept photography as more than just paint-by-number snapshots produced by a machine held by someone who thinks they are creating art...
Judging by the future tense, we are not there yet, right? Thus the art world at present does not fully accept photography as equal, right? If so, then stop using wishful thinking (i.e., possible future state of affairs) as an argument today.
And its up to us, photographers, whether the art world would accept us as equal, right? We just need to start expressing ourselves and will be there? We only need to wish it strongly enough, visualize it, send positive vibes, and it will happen? Yeah, right.
-
We only need to wish it strongly enough, visualize it, send positive vibes, and it will happen? Yeah, right.
You're being mean.
-
This is exactly the narrow thinking my diatribe was against - photography is just as well suited to "altering reality" as any other medium of self-expression. ... And what does believability have to do with it.
If "believability" was part of what someone was attempting to express, then necessarily "an other worldly feel" would be a failure. otoh if "an other worldly feel" was part of what someone was attempting to express...
the sooner the art world will fully accept photography as more than just paint-by-number snapshots produced by a machine held by someone who thinks they are creating art.
The art world does good business selling art that uses photography as medium; art museums have permanent collections of photography and annual shows (http://www.artofphotographyshow.com/index.html) visited by 30,000 people; and art galleries promote special exhibitions (http://henryart.org/exhibitions/current/1138) through books like The Digital Eye: Photographic Art in the Electronic Age (http://books.google.com/books?id=lHdLAQAAIAAJ).
'You see, the extraordinary thing about photography is that it's a truly popular medium... But this has nothing to do with the art of photography even though the same materials and the same mechanical devices are used. Thoreau said years ago, "You can't say more than you see." No matter what lens you use, no matter what the speed of the film is, no matter how you develop it, no matter how you print it, you cannot say more than you see. That's what that means, and that's the truth.' Paul Strand, Aperture 19(1), 1974.
-
I think this line of discussion has diverged to the point of arguing for the sake of arguing without anything meaningful being added.
Shaun - be sure to share more of your work. I appreciate what you are doing.
-
... arguing for the sake of arguing without anything meaningful being added.
The object of argument is to get at the truth.
You launched into a diatribe but you don't seem prepared to consider evidence that contradicts opinions you set down, or hear when those opinions are too ambiguous to add any meaning.
I dare say photography is more popular now than when Paul Strand wrote 35 years ago. I dare say popular photography still has little to do with the art of photography. I've provided you with examples of the art world's acceptance of photography, and last year we had the example of Andreas Gursky's Rhein II.
Obviously, picturesque popular photography is not what the art world accepts as the art of photography.