Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Too much definition?  (Read 6558 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #40 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!

T1MC0LE

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Tim Cole
    • Tim Cole
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #41 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.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #42 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

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14231
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #43 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!
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1240
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #44 on: May 19, 2020, 05:31:15 pm »



Rob


!!!!

As you may know, in Spanish this is called "admiration" sign  ;)
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #45 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!

;-)

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #46 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

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #47 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

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #48 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

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #49 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!

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #50 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

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #51 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/

« Last Edit: May 24, 2020, 09:27:33 am by Rob C »
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2221
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #52 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.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #53 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.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2221
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #54 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.

;-)
« Last Edit: May 24, 2020, 01:39:05 pm by KLaban »
Logged

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #55 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
 

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #56 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.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2221
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #57 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!

;-)
Logged

IPDOUGLAS

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #58 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.
Logged
In Vino Veritas

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14231
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #59 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.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up