Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Rand47 on April 30, 2012, 12:53:30 pm
-
a900 file originally. Near Zabriskie Point. CS6 Oil Paint.
(http://rsadams.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Landscapes/i-Frh7nq6/0/X2/DSC1406-Edit-Edit-X2.jpg)
-
Well . . . you certainly could frame it and sell it, no problem.
It is, in its own somewhat kitsch way, a work of art. Most visual artists other than photographers do not have this kind of ethical/purist anxiety - they can start off with a photograph, make a small print, photocopy and enlarge it, paste it onto some board, paint over bits of it, stick other materials onto it as a collage, and end up with some art. And sell it, if its any good.
There are no boundaries, no borders, no rules. Except for the ones which you make for yourself. By the end result shall ye be judged . . . ;)
John
-
Let's see...
There will be some who will claim it's not photography because you didn't shoot film.
Some will strip it of the photography label because you probably adjusted the rendering by changing the exposure, contrast, and white balance.
"Oh, no! A filter that modifies the rendered image! You've violated the pure photograph mantra," will be the cry from others.
However, did you use a mechanical means (electrical included) to capture an image? If you did, then it's photography.
I'm not crazy enough to judge if it's a good or bad photograph; that's a matter of taste and appreciation -- in short, a question of judgment. And I'm far from being a quailified judge.
Besides, I think I saw it in my local WalMart the other day as part of a set of decorator prints, and if they don't know art, who does?
;)
Tom Frerichs
-
I certainly agree that you could sell this image, framed or loose print. Personally, I like it, other than the sky. As far as what it is goes, John Miller hit the nail on the head. In my opinion, it is what it is, and how it got here is not that important.
-
Just out of curiosity, why did you go for that oil effect in the first place? The underlying photograph appears to have enough merit to stand on its own, or at least a potential for further (photographic) post-processing. Besides, the oil effect is not that noticeable, unless closely inspected. I also think the gray sky is the weakest part, oil or not.
-
I certainly agree that you could sell this image, framed or loose print. Personally, I like it, other than the sky. As far as what it is goes, John Miller hit the nail on the head. In my opinion, it is what it is, and how it got here is not that important.
Agreed. It is a fantastic image. It would have made a great photograph. Personally I don't consider this a photograph, but does that really matter? It seems to be a great piece of art regardless.
-
Thanks all....
It was worth doing, and worth posting just for the almost falling down laughter at all of your comments! Appreciate the kudos, and understand the rest . . . ;D
It looks pretty good on Hot Press Bright ... but I'm thinking some really textured cold press watercolor paper... LOL
The light was so extreme in the original file that it made a lousy straight photo. BUT, this particular location (about 3 miles from Zabriskie proper) is now on my list of places to spend serious time photographing. And I won't tell! ;D
Thanks again for the erudite exposition . . . I've always loved both photography and the California Scene Painters.... so I've decided to call myself "Elliott Ersatz."
Rand
-
I'd call it photography +. I like it. I'd like it better with less of the sky texture. Very marketable in my judgement. I agree that the composition is a strong one, despite the lighting problems that you mentioned. Poor composition is where most "tricked up" PS treatments fail.
-
It looks like reason enough to upgrade to CS6.
Clearly the definition of photography continues to evolve along with the quickly changing pace of PP techniques. This is the kind of change that clearly blurs the lines in ways that will confound the art world. If this were printed on canvas and had a veneer coating such as Glamour ii, I think no one would expect that it is a photo.
By that means, the prejudice that many galleries have against photographs will lose its footing.
-
Clearly the definition of photography continues to evolve along with the quickly changing pace of PP techniques.
"From the moment of its sesquicentennial in 1989 photography was dead (http://books.google.com/books?id=2vtuJpdx5_gC&lpg=PA19&dq=the%20reconfigured%20eye%20%22photography%20was%20dead%22&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false) -- or more precisely, radically and permanently displaced -- as was painting 150 years before."
If this were printed on canvas and had a veneer coating such as Glamour ii, I think no one would expect that it is a photo.
Doesn't that suggest "photo" wouldn't be a useful description?
Given the lack of facture, neither would oil painting.
Is there a better (more useful) description for this than Digital Art (http://www.digitalartforall.com/15/what-is-digital-art/)?
-
As my previous life was in graphic design, I can see no problem in using any resource or material to achieve your envisaged result, what it is called (Photo or Art, or anything else), would seem irrelevant, as long as you like the result produced, or in the commercial world the client likes it enough to buy it.
-
... or in the commercial world the client likes it enough to buy it.
Isn't what it is called one of the ways that someone would know to look at your stuff, because what it is called is the kind of thing they are looking for?
-
Isn't what it is called one of the ways that someone would know to look at your stuff, because what it is called is the kind of thing they are looking for?
Isaac
You do seem to be trying very hard to nail things down, give them names, define rules, stuff like that. Perhaps, when it comes to creative activity in general (and the visual arts in particular), it really doesn't matter. Personally, I like it when things are a bit fuzzy round the edges, and anarchic - it keeps me on my toes ;)
John
-
... It was worth doing, and worth posting just for the almost falling down laughter at all of your comments!...
Hmmm... not sure I understand this part ???
-
Hmmm... not sure I understand this part ???
The discussion has taken a more contemplative turn on the merits of such work since I posted that comment. I was referring to some of the earliest humorous responses. My comment about laughter was not intended as critical, but as sincere thanks for a good warm-hearted chuckle. ;D
I've been watching the development of the reactions and have appreciated the varying perspectives.
-
It looks like reason enough to upgrade to CS6.
Sorry. Painter does this effect FAR better and with more flexibility.
-
"From the moment of its sesquicentennial in 1989 photography was dead (http://books.google.com/books?id=2vtuJpdx5_gC&lpg=PA19&dq=the%20reconfigured%20eye%20%22photography%20was%20dead%22&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false) -- or more precisely, radically and permanently displaced -- as was painting 150 years before."
Funny, Nietzschie made a similar argument about god in the 19th century.
Doesn't that suggest "photo" wouldn't be a useful description?
Given the lack of facture, neither would oil painting.
Is there a better (more useful) description for this than Digital Art (http://www.digitalartforall.com/15/what-is-digital-art/)?
Digital art works as well as anything. Mixed media would be as suitable. Perhaps some would like mm more due to the ambiguity.
-
Sorry. Painter does this effect FAR better and with more flexibility.
Sorry about what?
What is Painter?
-
Funny, Nietzschie made a similar argument about god in the 19th century.
I think the more directly relevant (and explicitly stated) comparison is with painting.
-
This one is fine and nicely done, IMO! You've got to start with a good image and that you have. You've put your spin on it and there's nothing wrong with that!
However, too many camera owners start with a turd and once polished using all their filters in PS, it's still a turd. All the tools in the world won't change it.
-
You do seem to be trying very hard to nail things down, give them names, define rules, stuff like that.
To nail things down - I'm trying very hard not to generalise about what you seem to be trying to do :-)
Perhaps, when it comes to creative activity in general (and the visual arts in particular), it really doesn't matter.
Perhaps when we call our stuff oil paintings and people show up only to discover that our stuff is straight B&W photographic prints, they'll be disappointed because that wasn't what they were looking for - it matters to them.
Personally, I like it when things are a bit fuzzy round the edges, and anarchic - it keeps me on my toes ;)
Did Ansel Adams say something about fuzzy? ;-)
-
Leave it to our resident hairsplitter to clear things up! ;) ;D
-
Leave it to our resident hairsplitter to clear things up! ;) ;D
Leave it to our resident taunter to ...
-
What, no smiley!? Not friends anymore!? ;)
-
What, no smiley!? Not friends anymore!? ;)
It's boring.
-
A few decades ago I criticized a friend who was making painterly photographs by analog means.
These are mimicking painting and are therefore not Pure Photography!
And of course Pure Photography was, well, uh, you know, the right thing to do and everything else was caving in to, uh, The Establishment, or to something that was, umh, Unworthy, Disdainful, and Uncool.
He pointed out to me that the abstracted, tightly cropped, but otherwise photographic images I was making at the time mimicked abstract painting to an equally bourgeois degree, and he was right.
You don't have to run filters to mimic other media, it sometimes sneaks up on you. Then we decided Ralph Gibson was pseudo-cool but badly compromised by unconsciously aping David Hamilton (who was manifestly not REALLY a photographer) and should be ignored. Judgments in these categories require a very fine comb. Have kept my mouth shut until now.
If it sells, do it. Your imagery is only good in proportion to the number of people who are affected by it. Affecting people with your imagery puts food on the table and keeps the heat on during the winter. Or it may get you arrested. Attempting to apply any other evaluative criteria to imagery can only fill up LuLa's hard drives for no good reason. But do what you have to do. That was good enough for my immigrant fore bearers, and it's good enough for me.
Besides, that location has been shot so many times it should be illegal to take any further photos without shredding an equivalent older image and putting it into the compost heap. It's way over quota for pure photography, but I think there is still some room left for painterizing.
I'll be done printing in about another hour and will be out of everybody's hair.
-
This one is fine and nicely done, IMO! You've got to start with a good image and that you have. You've put your spin on it and there's nothing wrong with that!
However, too many camera owners start with a turd and once polished using all their filters in PS, it's still a turd. All the tools in the world won't change it.
As someone with a significant body of work featuring feces--I find that the subtle differences in textures from different species to be fascinating--I resent your remarks. You are denigrating an important part of my work.
Well, maybe not.
:D:D:D
Tom
-
As someone with a significant body of work featuring feces...
And... yet another thread goes down the toilet! ;D
-
Is there a better (more useful) description for this than Digital Art (http://www.digitalartforall.com/15/what-is-digital-art/)?
The next step is to remove the process from the description entirely: "visual art" (which is now a degree option for art stidents). Or "stationary, two-dimensional visual art" if you do not wish to be confused with sculptors, movie makers, or the like.
Or how about "picture"?
-
It's Wall Art. Nothin' more, nothin' less. There are only two kinds of art, Wall Art and Non Wall Art. Wall Art is the smaller subset, which is why we photographers can look down our noses at most other creatives.
-
Photo? Art? Digital Art? Manipulated?
I don't care a tiny bit! It is beautiful and that is all that matters to me!!!
Well done and thanks for sharing!
Rudi
-
Plain and simple...I like it...a lot, including the sky. I've got to try this technique my self. Eleanor
a900 file originally. Near Zabriskie Point. CS6 Oil Paint.
(http://rsadams.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Landscapes/i-Frh7nq6/0/X2/DSC1406-Edit-Edit-X2.jpg)
-
Or how about "picture"?
Yes.
Can we persuade someone to pony up the big bucks just for a picture?
Do we need to give them something grander than that?
-
Eleanor, Rudi...
Thanks for the kind words.
Rand
-
Rand, I like it too, regardless of what you call it. I've been playing with similar brush techniques in CS5; I'll have to check out what CS6 can do.
-
I had seen this effect done previously but did not know how it was done.
After reading this post, I then found that there was a plug in on the Adobe Labs site called Pixel Bender which has this oil painter filter included for CS4-5.
I think it is maybe a simpler version of the CS6 filter but it appears to work the same.
I could see this being very marketable. But then again, I think this will take off like overdone HDR images did.
So far I have had a lot of fun taking tack sharp landscapes and wildlife photos and turning them into these oil type paintings.
I have found that images with the following produce fun results:
hair
grass
beaches/rivers with stones (particularly if wet)
mountains with snow
dramatic clouds