Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Paulo Bizarro on April 20, 2015, 03:49:49 am
-
Thanks for a very good and inspirational article.
-
Thanks for a very nice article :). It aligns much with my own experience that as photographers we can learn from the painted arts.
I do not paint but I read some books on painting a few years back to see what I could learn for my digital processing. It helped me to gain comprehension for how to better emulate an appearance of light for the RAW converted image during processing to create:
1) A pleasing transition into highlights similar to films,
2) A visual perception of there being light in a picture, and additionally on the
3) Emphasise and de-emphasise of colors for leading an eye and in creating what appears a more pleasing image.
I find in particular the works by the Hudson River Painters inspirational for landscapes. Merced River, Yosemite Valley / Albert Bierstadt in your article is an awesome example of emulation of beautiful light :)
Anders
-
It's a really good article and the posted paintings are jaw-dropping, especially the Merced River!
-
I enjoyed the article.
Our art museum specializes in American art and has several strong pieces, among them this Frederic Church painting (http://reynoldahouse.org/collections/object/the-andes-of-ecuador). I can stand and stare at it for hours. I'm almost embarrassed to post the web link as the tiny digital file is so unlike the real thing.
They also have a huge Thomas Cole (http://reynoldahouse.org/collections/object/home-in-the-woods?display=default) and a Bierstadt (http://reynoldahouse.org/collections/object/sierra-nevada?display=default), among many others. If you're ever in central North Carolina, the Reynolda House museum is worth a visit.
-
Excellent article.
It also supports what Russ Lewis (RSL) has often said about landscape photography and painting.
-
I've long admired the way these "Hudson River" painters lit their paintings. By odd coincidence, I just came back from the Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, MA, where I saw Bierstadts's "Puget Sound on the Pacific Coast". The painting is on loan from the Seattle Art Museum -- the result of a friendly wager on the result of the Super Bowl in February.
http://www.clarkart.edu/ (http://www.clarkart.edu/)
-
The Los Angeles County Art Museum, (LACMA) has an exhibition on until June 7, called "Nature and the American Landscape: The Hudson River School".
Alan
-
The most illuminating quote for me in the article was,
"Unlike painters, we can not create the light needed for a particular image. Instead, we must wait for nature to cooperate and provide light that inspires us in some way. Cultivating patience, perseverance, and a developed awareness of light and its many qualities is an essential skill that always pays dividends."
This sentence captures the essence of what many photographers believe is important in what they do. Other writers on this site seem to believe that the light is added on the computer later to suit their 'vision' of what the scene should have looked like.
I love that you have let the landscape speak for itself and eschewed HDR techniques to even out the light. Your use of dark and shade is beautiful
Your images are truly masterful and to add a bonus you have not placed yourself as the 'artist' at the centre of the story. You let your craft with the camera in the field speak for itself and it is obvious you didn't need to spend hours reworking these images to 'create your vision'
-
Other writers on this site seem to believe that the light is added on the computer later to suit their 'vision' of what the scene should have looked like.
Someone else might just as easily claim Mr Rodriguez seems to believe that the light is [removed] on the computer later to suit his 'vision' of what the scene should have looked like -- "I darkened the background in post to emphasize this…" (Flowers at Bowtie, UT).
I love that you have let the landscape speak for itself … you have not placed yourself as the 'artist' at the centre of the story.
Is it really the landscape speaking for itself when the "2 minute exposure helps to create smooth tones in the water, and an ethereal feeling in the sky" or is the artist at the centre of the story lifting "the viewer from the literal to the emotional." (Cape Breton Is, Nova Scotia)
-
The discussion of what's going on in the paintings is frankly rather thin. These are quite formal constructs and the author seems to be unaware of most of that stuff, talking about the usual things photographers tell one another: vague handwaving about leading lines and The Light! The Light!
The photographs attached, interestingly, lack almost all of the formalisms on display in the paintings.
I don't know if the author has simply chosen to jettison the formal aspects and take away only certain lessons, or if the author is actually unaware of the formalisms.
Eta: these guys were 19th century, not 18th. The given dates are fine, but the 1800s are not the '18th century' but the 19th.
-
Wow.. An object lesson in how to dismiss someone's article with condescension and discourtesy. I'm a newbie here and am surprised at the manners ( or more appropriately Lack of manners) displayed by some of the forum members.
-
I state facts and I defy you, with respect, to demonstrate otherwise. A quick read Ruskin or Robinson's precis of same will pull aside the blinds and show you a ton of structure in the paintings, much of which is either lacking or exists only weakly in the photos. These guys had a very distinctive play book. It was a pretty good one, although it's very dated by now.
It is not my job, nor is it anyone's, to silently accept failings and lacunae. Indeed, my remarks ought to serve as an invitation to the author of the piece to expand on his, to explain why he feels it wise to borrow one lesson and decline another.
There may well be excellent reasons for dispensing with antiquated ideas of composition and I, for one, would like to hear them.
-
A quick read Ruskin or Robinson's precis of same will pull aside the blinds and show you a ton of structure in the paintings, much of which is either lacking or exists only weakly in the photos.
Please provide a link to said précis (or a title).
-
Wow.. An object lesson in how to dismiss someone's article with condescension and discourtesy. I'm a newbie here and am surprised at the manners ( or more appropriately Lack of manners) displayed by some of the forum members.
amolitor's post is very mild compared with other posts on here. If this disturbs you then you won't be lingering for long. ;) ;D
-
Am I correct in stating that if someone, like myself, isn't interested in painting or looking at art then their progress with respect to photography will be hampered? :-\
-
Am I correct in stating that if someone, like myself, isn't interested in painting or looking at art then their progress with respect to photography will be hampered? :-\
No.
For some photographers a knowledge of art and art history may indeed help to improve their work, but for many others it will make no difference. And for a few, getting hung up on trying to imitate painters can be a definite hindrance.
If one has no sense of personal vision, studying art may help to provide inspiration, or it may hinder.
IMHO, Stamper, you have a very strong sense of visual purpose, so please don't spoil it by visiting any museums. ;)
Cheers,
Eric
-
Am I correct in stating that if someone, like myself, isn't interested in painting or looking at art then their progress with respect to photography will be hampered? :-\
Yes.
-
Am I correct in stating that if someone, like myself, isn't interested in painting or looking at art then their progress with respect to photography will be hampered? :-\
No.
Yes.
And there you have it: question answered. If only life were always so easy.
Jeremy
-
Yes.
Your interest in painting and art hasn't helped you much in your photographic career..has it? ;)
-
And there you have it: question answered. If only life were always so easy.
Jeremy
Jeremy I suggest that you should definitely take an interest. ;) :D
-
Your interest in painting and art hasn't helped you much in your photographic career..has it? ;)
It has. Tremendously.
-
Then why aren't better than you are? If you improve you might someday become a fine art photographer. ;):(
-
I assume that was tongue in cheek. Fine.
For the benefit of newcomers (to photography and this forum) and some long-standing members (with short memory), there are three books I can not recommend strongly enough (the last two of which have nothing to do with photography, yet are highly useful for photographers):
1. Perception and Imaging: Photography--A Way of Seeing (http://www.amazon.com/Perception-Imaging-Photography--A-Way-Seeing/dp/0240824539/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365784206&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=percenption+and+imaging+zakia)
2. Pictorial Composition (http://www.amazon.com/Pictorial-Composition-Art-Dover-Instruction/dp/0486233588/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365784379&sr=1-1&keywords=pictorial+composition)
3. Picture This: How Pictures Work (http://www.amazon.com/Picture-This-How-Pictures-Work/dp/1587170302/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365784544&sr=1-1&keywords=how+pictures+work)
-
For some photographers a knowledge of art and art history may indeed help to improve their work,…
For example, photographers like Cartier-Bresson.
-
There's lots of technique to be learned from these guys.
Look at the paintings provided in the original piece, you will find elements like this:
- repeated shapes and patterns EVERYWHERE, an object's shape might be echoed in the shape of a shadow, or another object
- masses of dark tones and light tones balanced and shaped carefully (ignore the objects, just look at the big masses of similar tone)
- inside the darker masses you find a dappling of light patches, and vice versa (look for shapes in those light/dark patches)
- an overall progression of tone from light to dark, usually from one corner to the opposite one, creating a sense of bigness and breadth, as well as an energetic diagonal thrust to the light
- lots and lots of atmosphere, details are suppressed as you get farther away, contrast drops off, to give a sense of depth and size
and so on. These are all specific, actionable, techniques to create a balanced frame (for beauty), with enough interest to be interesting, but enough unity and cohesion between the elements to feel like a coherent frame and, in the case of landscape, a sense of scale and size.
If you don't know the playbook, you'll have a hard time picking these and other elements out specifically. If you DO know they playbook, they leap off the page, and become much easier to add to your box of tricks.
Do you need more stuff in your box of tricks? I dunno, that's up to you.
It may be more useful to read about painting than to actually look at paintings.
-
For example, photographers like Cartier-Bresson.
Or, for example, photographers like Slobodan Blagojevic.
And me! ;)
-
There's lots of technique to be learned from these guys.
Look at the paintings provided in the original piece, you will find elements like this:...
Fully in agreement, Andrew.
A lot of what you mentioned above can be found in the Gestalt principles of perception. A theoretical underpinning of that, as well as other perceptual techniques, one can find in the first book I mentioned in my previous post.
-
Another aspect of studying academic painting is that once you have a handle on the playbook, you can fool around with NOT following it.
If a gradation of tone from light to dark passing from upper left to lower right does one thing, what would the opposite look like? (what would "opposite" even mean?). With the camera you can experiment.
You don't have to be after sublime, beautiful, and mysterious, but knowing the cogs and gears that produce THAT, you may pick up some methods for doing other things along the way, simply by reversing parts of the method, or leaving parts out.
-
But not stamper ? ;-)
Maybe he would benefit, too, but the photos of his that I have seen are very fine as is, so he may be one of those that doesn't "need" to study paintings to find inspiration.
I don't think Edward Weston ever studied art history, but his own visual instincts were sufficient for his own photography, IMHO.
-
Another aspect of studying academic painting is that once you have a handle on the playbook, you can fool around with NOT following it.
If a gradation of tone from light to dark passing from upper left to lower right does one thing, what would the opposite look like? (what would "opposite" even mean?). With the camera you can experiment.
You don't have to be after sublime, beautiful, and mysterious, but knowing the cogs and gears that produce THAT, you may pick up some methods for doing other things along the way, simply by reversing parts of the method, or leaving parts out.
Very well put, Andrew.
-
I don't think Edward Weston ever studied art history, but his own visual instincts were sufficient for his own photography, IMHO.
I wasn't there. I don't suppose Edward Weston remained unaware of the artistic developments of his time -- "… Weston and Mather had not worked in isolation (https://books.google.com/books?id=6e-GshOGqsIC&lpg=PP1&dq=Margrethe%20Mather%20and%20Edward%20Weston%3A%20A%20Passionate%20Collaboration&pg=PR7#v=snippet&q=%22Weston%20and%20Mather%20had%20not%20worked%20in%20isolation%22&f=false), as many historians had previously thought. Rather they were part of a circle of avant-garde personalities who sought each other out for companionship and encouragement, and whose sphere of influence encompassed … as well as the small but vigorous artistic community that existed in Los Angeles."
-
Discourtesy doesn't disturb me. It just makes having a discussion that much less pleasant.
-
Aren't you the fellow who wrote the essay including the courteous phrase "the crude lipstick of of Photoshop" to describe the work of people who make pictures differently from you?
-
Discourtesy doesn't disturb me. It just makes having a discussion that much less pleasant.
I'm quite willing to hear your explanation of where "enhancement crosses a boundary into alteration". So far you have been unwilling to help us understand (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99231.msg815308#msg815308) why you feel some things are OK but others are not. You seem unwilling to have a discussion.
-
The most illuminating quote for me in the article was,
"Unlike painters, we can not create the light needed for a particular image. Instead, we must wait for nature to cooperate and provide light that inspires us in some way. Cultivating patience, perseverance, and a developed awareness of light and its many qualities is an essential skill that always pays dividends."
This sentence captures the essence of what many photographers believe is important in what they do. Other writers on this site seem to believe that the light is added on the computer later to suit their 'vision' of what the scene should have looked like.
I love that you have let the landscape speak for itself and eschewed HDR techniques to even out the light. Your use of dark and shade is beautiful
Your images are truly masterful and to add a bonus you have not placed yourself as the 'artist' at the centre of the story. You let your craft with the camera in the field speak for itself and it is obvious you didn't need to spend hours reworking these images to 'create your vision'
The above statements needs clarification. Obviously a photographer can create light in the form of flash, or switching on other sources of artificial light. Whilst this is usually not effective for landscape photography because of the limited range of flash, it might sometimes be useful to illuminate shadows or dark objects in the near foreground of a landscape.
Alternatively, HDR is a perfectly legitimate method of creating more light because this is exactly what the eye does as it peruses a scene, with the pupil dilating and contracting according to the intensity of the light.
If the pupils of one's eyes (equivalent to a lens aperture) didn't dilate when shifting one's gaze from the foreground of a landscape to the bright clouds in the sky, one would feel very uncomfortable. The excessive brightness of the sky could hurt the eyes, and one probably wouldn't like the landscape at all.
When a so-called HDR effect is criticised for being unnatural, it's the processing skills and/or judgement of the photographer that deserve the criticism.
An example of this requirement for HDR would be the 'Twilight Wilderness' painting by Frederic Church, shown in the article. To photograph such a scene, one would be advised to bracket exposures and merge to HDR, otherwise that foreground would be unacceptably noisy, especially if a Canon camera were used (sorry! couldn't resist ;D ).
Even the scene depicted in the previous painting in the article, 'In the Wood' by Asher B Durand, could not be satisfactorily captured by a camera without using HDR techniques. Without HDR, either the blue sky would be blown, or the lower foreground would be unacceptably noisy.
Another very easy way to add (or subtract) light in a photograph is to select any area in the scene using the Lasso tool. After appropriately feathering the selection, one can lighten or darken the selected area according to taste, and without any unnatural effects.
-
In the days of orthochromatic film, everyone used HDR methods for landscape. Even the stiff necked Emerson allowed that it might be ok if done properly. And he thought dodging was wicked and wrong.
-
But not stamper ? ;-)
Someone's work has to have been on show somewhere before it can be liked or disliked. For someone to be thought as good or very good then a lot of their work has to be shown. Showing a theoretical knowledge of photography isn't enough to be thought of as good or very good. Isaac where do you fit in with regards to the above? :-\
-
I assume that was tongue in cheek. Fine.
For the benefit of newcomers (to photography and this forum) and some long-standing members (with short memory), there are three books I can not recommend strongly enough (the last two of which have nothing to do with photography, yet are highly useful for photographers):
1. Perception and Imaging: Photography--A Way of Seeing (http://www.amazon.com/Perception-Imaging-Photography--A-Way-Seeing/dp/0240824539/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365784206&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=percenption+and+imaging+zakia)
2. Pictorial Composition (http://www.amazon.com/Pictorial-Composition-Art-Dover-Instruction/dp/0486233588/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365784379&sr=1-1&keywords=pictorial+composition)
3. Picture This: How Pictures Work (http://www.amazon.com/Picture-This-How-Pictures-Work/dp/1587170302/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365784544&sr=1-1&keywords=how+pictures+work)
Yes it was tongue in cheek. You have shown enough good work to be thought as a fine photographer unlike some who just talk about it. With regards to the links then I will have to have a rethink. I have the last book listed but didn't take to it so another read is in order. It has often been said that artists create shapes and lines within a frame purely using their imagination or surprisingly from photographs. A photographer has to frame something from reality and make a pleasing image from what he/she sees. Personally speaking an experienced photographer probably instinctively sees the shapes and lines without having to consciously think about it? :)
quote Eric.
I don't think Edward Weston ever studied art history, but his own visual instincts were sufficient for his own photography, IMHO.
unquote
I think Eric has hit the nail on the head? Visual instincts are what it is all about?
-
For example, photographers like Cartier-Bresson.
No disrespect to anyone who is in awe of him but I don't see the attraction. Studying his work may mean that somebody may end up copying him, or other well known photographers, rather than thinking for themselves?
-
Weston went to photography school, and worked in another chap's studio for quite some time.
That said, sure, there are degrees of natural instinct. Weston clearly had good instincts -- or perhaps the same thing, was good at absorbing what was important in the visual art that he saw. The author of the essay on the front page sees "leading lines" in Bierstadt's painting, and completely misses the fact that these "leading lines" are in fact just pieces of the great arabesque down the center of the frame which is, in fact, the critical design element in play here.
One imagines that Weston might have seen the arabesque immediately, and internalized that, where you or I might just see leading lines, and wind up internalizing irrelevancies. I would not have seen the arabesque without some knowledge of how these things are built.
Most of what gets dismissed as "well, you've either got it or you don't" is in fact fully teachable, though.
-
… liked or disliked … good or very good …
I believe your question (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99672.msg818049#msg818049) was -- "if someone … isn't interested in painting or looking at art then their progress with respect to photography will be hampered?"
The positiive answer is "Maybe [you] would benefit, too, … (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99672.msg818194#msg818194)"
I think Eric has hit the nail on the head? Visual instincts are what it is all about?
Which "visual instincts" does Edward Weston's photography exemplify? Are those examples from his initial pictorialism, his bread and butter portrait photography, …
Studying his work may mean that somebody may end up copying him, or other well known photographers, rather than thinking for themselves?
Nobody mentioned copying Cartier-Bresson's photography. Cartier-Bresson was given as an example (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99672.msg818142#msg818142) of a photographer who's "knowledge of art and art history may indeed have help[ed] improve their work".