Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on June 14, 2012, 08:11:02 pm
-
And before anyone says anything, I was stood on a small bridge over 'The Chasm' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgA8FiY_UoU) in a clearing looking into the rain forest that surrounded me, with the light coming from over my shoulder and above. I have also added a vignette.
I don't work in monochrome very much, but decided to have a go with this image because it was just so green. I like the old world film look of how it came out.
That is not a footprint at the bottom BTW, it is where the rock has been worn away by the river.
Dave
-
Neat! Nice mood! I think the conversion works well for this.
-
This needs to be printed huge to be appreciated! So much detail there. The 800 jpeg does not do it justice. Did you use any kind of Orton effect is that the result of jpeg compression?
-
Nicely done. Hope you do a series of these.
-
Too busy, for my taste. Like a B&W needlepoint with WAY too much to say.
The frame's too filled up w/zero use of negative space.
Have you considered posting a version in color?
-
It's a nice conversion, near like an Infrared shot...
However I find the image too cluttered/busy... Nothing to really draw my eyes to as I'm busy looking all around the photo...
Just my thoughts tho :)
-
I'm with Slobodan, Dave. There's no way on earth for this picture to work on a 72ppi computer monitor, but printed huge I suspect it would be really striking.
-
From what I see here, I'm in the "too busy for my taste" camp Dave. It will probably look different viewed large though.
-
Did you use any kind of Orton effect ..?
No Slobodan, it isn’t the Orton effect - the effect (if indeed this is what you would wish to call it) is something I have sort of developed over the years, but it isn't a series of quantifiable steps that can be set out like a recipe I am afraid, but none the less in the spirit of sharing with you all, here is the best way I can describe what I did from memory.
I turned the colour image into black and white using a green filter in PS and added a slightly warm tint, which seemed to work nicely on this mainly green image. I then duplicated the original layer, then over-sharpened the new second layer and also added some contrast. I then duplicated the sharp/contrast layer and added quite a bit of Gaussian blur to soften the second sharp/contrast layer - yes I know, blurring a duplicate over-sharpened layer sounds counter intuitive. I then blended them and the original layer together using the opacity sliders, at say 30% for the sharp layer and 60% for the soft/sharp layer, over the original background layer. I then did a Ctrl_Alt_Shift+E to make a compound layer from all the layers below, then I added a vignette, where the vignette is achieved by darkening the dark to mid tones and lightening the mid to light tones with highlight and inverse highlight curves selections (Ctrl+click RGB Channel for light tones and the same selection but inverted for the dark tones, then push/pull the curves centrally) and then masking them in to taste over the compound layer.
All in all and if I am honest, there is probably much more to it than this simplified version (yes really!), but after much fiddling about, the idea I was aiming for was to produce a monochrome image with a sort of sharp, contrasty yet soft effect, that in this case also just happens to look a bit like it has the glow of old infrared film and which if I tried to do it again, it would probably look completely different.
Dave
-
This needs to be printed huge to be appreciated! So much detail there. The 800 jpeg does not do it justice. Did you use any kind of Orton effect is that the result of jpeg compression?
+1
-
Well done Dave. Great look.
Truly satisfying when one's vison translates into an image.
Was this taken with this in mind?
-
It's an interesting image to be sure. I guess my main criticism is that it doesn't look much like a photograph. Whether you think that's a good or bad thing is completely a matter of personal taste.
-
It doesn't worry me if it doesn't look like a photograph. I think most definately it would work beautifully if printed HUGE! I don't want to hijack the thread and am not inviting discussion about whether signatures/watermarks should be added to a print...but boy is it one of my pet peeves... even when printed and mounted in a gallery, I feel the image should be standing on its own, unencumbered.
Julie
-
It doesn't worry me if it doesn't look like a photograph. I think most definately it would work beautifully if printed HUGE! I don't want to hijack the thread and am not inviting discussion about whether signatures/watermarks should be added to a print...but boy is it one of my pet peeves... even when printed and mounted in a gallery, I feel the image should be standing on its own, unencumbered.
Julie
I think it's fine to plaster your name on photos you post online if only to bake some attribution into it in case someone uses it on another site. But I agree 100% about doing that with a print. A print should be signed under the photograph, not in it.
-
... A print should be signed under the photograph, not in it.
Out of curiosity, why? Aren't most paintings signed in it?
-
Out of curiosity, why? Aren't most paintings signed in it?
Yes, they are. But it's a tradition in fine art photography to sign below the photograph. In the early days of photography artists did place their signature within the photograph because that's the way painters did it. But ever since Paul Strand most fine art photographers place it below where it's not intruding into the frame. I doubt you'll see one print in the top galleries, like the Weston or Photography West in Carmel or the Wirtz gallery in S.F. or Kasher in NYC where the print has been signed inside the photograph, made since around 1930 anyway, with the possible exception of some of the more famous portrait photographers. But I don't think even Karsh signed inside the photograph.
-
I understand... however, given the popularity of canvas, metal, and face-mount prints, where do you sign?
-
I understand... however, given the popularity of canvas, metal, and face-mount prints, where do you sign?
Well, in the case of non-traditional print media all bets are off. But many would sign on the back. There are even many painters these days who only sign on the back.
-
I understand... however, given the popularity of canvas, metal, and face-mount prints, where do you sign?
On the back... the signing is to authenticate the work - not as part of it... so it isn't necessary to be a part of the visual at the front. It is about the work.. not the signature of the artist.
Julie
-
... It is about the work.. not the signature of the artist...
And again, why? If it was good for hundreds of years for paintings, why not for photographs? Why is it good for, say, oil on canvas, but not photo on canvas? What I can accept as the reason, is that it is a matter of personal preference, rather than a well-reasoned argument.
-
Slobodan and I may not often agree on politics but we sure agree on this point. Sign on the back? What's the gallery visitor supposed to do, take the print off the wall and turn it over to see the signature? When I sign a print it means two things: I made the print, and I endorse the result. I'm willing to argue whether or not the signature should be on the print or on the margin, but a signature on the back is absurd. I had one gallery owner thank me for signing my prints on the photograph itself since it gave her more options in framing. Of course, I'm talking about an actual, manual signature, not a signature dubbed in with Photoshop. That kind of signature is the epitome of tacky.
-
... I'm talking about an actual, manual signature, not a signature dubbed in with Photoshop. That kind of signature is the epitome of tacky.
I can agree with that 90% or maybe even 99%. But what to do with drop-shipments (i.e., when the lab ships directly to the buyer) or face-mounted prints? Signing on canvas is possible, I guess, but would require a broad-tip pigment pen (and I am currently aware only of the rather fine-tipped ones).
How about a scanned signature, would that be any less tacky (at least for media that are not hand-signature friendly)?
-
And again, why? If it was good for hundreds of years for paintings, why not for photographs? Why is it good for, say, oil on canvas, but not photo on canvas? What I can accept as the reason, is that it is a matter of personal preference, rather than a well-reasoned argument.
Well, of course it's a personal preference. But it's a personal preference that many artists are choosing. You're under no obligation to do the same.
-
I can agree with that 90% or maybe even 99%. But what to do with drop-shipments (i.e., when the lab ships directly to the buyer) or face-mounted prints? Signing on canvas is possible, I guess, but would require a broad-tip pigment pen (and I am currently aware only of the rather fine-tipped ones).
How about a scanned signature, would that be any less tacky (at least for media that are not hand-signature friendly)?
If you drop-ship Slobodan, as far as I'm concerned the print shouldn't be signed. After all, you didn't make the print. If that's a problem, you might want to give your customer a certificate of provenance. As far as signing on difficult surfaces is concerned there probably are two solutions: (1) Don't print on difficult surfaces. Making a photographic print on canvas seems to me the apex of asininity. Why would you want to degrade the resolution of a fine photograph that way? Canvas is for brushwork, not photographic printing. (2) Use a personal chop with paint or pigmented ink.
A scanned signature composited onto the print is exactly what I'm talking about: breathtakingly tacky.
-
Personally, I wouldn't dream of drop-shipping Slobodan. I have a feeling he wouldn't be too keen on the idea, either. ;) ;) ;)
-
And again, why? If it was good for hundreds of years for paintings, why not for photographs? Why is it good for, say, oil on canvas, but not photo on canvas? What I can accept as the reason, is that it is a matter of personal preference, rather than a well-reasoned argument.
Great question which I will offer an opinion and continue on another thread shortly...because my intention was to not hijack this thread.
Julie.
-
Sign on the back? What's the gallery visitor supposed to do, take the print off the wall and turn it over to see the signature? When I sign a print it means two things: I made the print, and I endorse the result. I'm willing to argue whether or not the signature should be on the print or on the margin, but a signature on the back is absurd.
Why should it be absurd? The fact that it's signed at all establishes provenance. And provenance is the only thing that matters. Signing on the back is an aesthetic decision by the artist. There's no particular need for a gallery visitor to take a back-signed print off the wall to look at the back unless they suspect it's a fake. But even so, what would seeing the signature prove? It's just as easy to forge a signature on the front as one on the back. An art buyer's best protection is to buy from a reputable gallery.
-
... There's no particular need for a gallery visitor to take a back-signed print off the wall to look at the back unless they suspect it's a fake...
How about just to find out who's the photographer?
Btw, I am not trying to be antagonistic, all my questions above are open-ended ones.
-
How about just to find out who's the photographer?
Btw, I am not trying to be antagonistic, all my questions above are open-ended ones.
Most fine art galleries I've been in have little signs on the wall next to work that have the title of the piece, the type of medium it's on, the name of the artist, the date and sometimes the price. Sometimes when a gallery is mounting a whole show devoted to an artist's work they'll have the artist's name on the wall large enough so that anyone entering the gallery can see it. Sometimes the price is only listed on the price list for the works they're currently exhibiting. Most galleries will have a few copies of the price list handy for people to peruse. Every gallery does things a little differently. But usually it's pretty clear whose work you're looking at, even if a signature isn't visible.
-
Why are we so obsessed with galleries? There are other places where photographs are on display: friends and acquaintances' homes, caffees, restaurants, offices, hospitals, airport terminals... Do I really need to come to every piece and take it off the wall to see who is the photographer!?
-
Why are we so obsessed with galleries? There are other places where photographs are on display: friends and acquaintances' homes, caffees, restaurants, offices, hospitals, airport terminals... Do I really need to come to every piece and take it off the wall to see who is the photographer!?
I don't know. Do you?
-
Can I say that even though I apply a scanned hand written signature on the images I post in this forum and elsewhere on the web, that it is only something I do for the web. Yes it may be tacky Russ I agree, but how else am I supposed to promote myself as the creator of the image when the average viewer may only look at an image on screen for a few seconds. Therefore I feel it has to be garish and yes even a little bit tacky to have any chance of being seen.
For my canvas mounted prints, I put the name of the image on the back of the frame and my website, I also sign the front for those hanging in galleries. For people who buy directly from me I ask them if they would like me to sign the image and where, although I still put the image title and website details on the back of the frame.
I am really not trying to have a go at you Russ, but have you actually seen a high quality canvas print up close? The detail in my images are as good as anything you will see on most other media, you can look at the image through a magnifying glass (and yes I do actually offer them a magnifying glass to look at the print). But whether I am right or wrong in this respect, I think we are totally missing the point here, because in general, the people that look at and hopefully buy my work are not one of us pixel peeping photographers, they are your average Joe who stands about six foot away to look at the print and think how it would look on their wall and does it clash with their curtains etc. So I think looking at microscopic detail with our faces squashed into the print and discussing where or indeed if we should sign it, has more to say about us as obsessive photographers, than it does about the viewing pubic, don't you agree?
Dave
-
Personally, I wouldn't dream of drop-shipping Slobodan. I have a feeling he wouldn't be too keen on the idea, either. ;) ;) ;)
Right, Pop. Punctuation, punctuation, punctuation...