| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2004 08:42:17 PM · #26 |
| Because of the distorted areas of blocky colors. The water hides the sharp outline, form and identification of the swimmer. It leaves me with the idea of the person but without enough details to know who the person is. A woman. That's all you can say about her. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 08:42:42 PM · #27 |
Here are some unseen impressionistic wannabees from last month.
  
  
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 08:47:10 PM · #28 |
Again, the examples are beautiful, but, if impressionism is trying to capture an impression of how light changes things, why motion blur?
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 08:48:47 PM · #29 |
Hmmm ... Impressionistic or just motion blur, or both?
 |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 08:49:41 PM · #30 |
Good question, what do you think, Paul?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hmmm ... Impressionistic or just motion blur, or both?
|
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 08:52:09 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by pcody:
My idea if impressionism. Just punch up the saturation. |
Nice one, pcody! I still think nshapiro is the "Jacko=macro" of impressionism, but that's an excellent example of an alternate technique. It should be interesting to see where the voters draw the line between impressionism and "just blurry." I mean no disrespect, but some of the examples I've seen never would have made it off my CF card.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 20:55:03. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:03:38 PM · #32 |
Since impressionism seeks to capture a fleeting moment in time via light and quality, photography is difficult to put into this category, since we do this all the time anyway!
Perhaps this explains our notion to put everything in blur, etc. to try to match impressionistic paintings rather than define impressionism for photography instead?
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:09:33 PM · #33 |
One beautiful way I've seen to capture this in photography is to photograph a reflection in water, crop off the "real" part and flip it. There's no motion blur, but the effect is very impressionistic. I don't care much for motion blur myself, or for out-of-focus photos. I like the flipped reflection.
edited to add: Heather McFarland has one of the most beautiful motion blur photos I've seen and it definitely has an impressionistic feel, so it can be done with motion blur.
As I said before, this is a great idea. I've been wanting to experiment with both of these techniques for a while, just haven't gotten around to it. Now I can't wait to get out this week-end!
Heather's photo
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 21:13:36. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:15:57 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Since impressionism seeks to capture a fleeting moment in time via light and quality, photography is difficult to put into this category, since we do this all the time anyway!
Perhaps this explains our notion to put everything in blur, etc. to try to match impressionistic paintings rather than define impressionism for photography instead? |
That makes sense. It seems to me though that it is not necessary to try to match impressionistic paintings, since photography is not painting. But, as you say, catching a fleeting moment is what we do all the time anyway in photography, so ... I am at a loss even more than before :) |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:16:59 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Since impressionism seeks to capture a fleeting moment in time via light and quality, photography is difficult to put into this category, since we do this all the time anyway!
Perhaps this explains our notion to put everything in blur, etc. to try to match impressionistic paintings rather than define impressionism for photography instead? |
Motion blur is only one technique--it just happens to be what I like to do, or more accurately, what I've already experimented with. I am trying other things as well. And I have pointed to ccraft's excellent work which is not blurry at all.
Impressionist paintings don't hide the strokes, as they did before it emerged. We don't have strokes in photographs, so if we want to look like impressionist paintings, we have to add them. Motion blur is simply the easiest way I know to "paint that way" with a camera.
Some good points have been raised, though. In my own personal quest, I have not been trying to define a new impressionism for photography, I have been trying to capture the feel of an impressionistic painting in a photograph. To make it painterly, is the more general term.
I guess the closest thing I can think of as impressionism for photography is the emergence of the Holga as a serious artistic tool.
Both ideas and goals are of course, equally valid!
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:17:47 PM · #36 |
Beginning with the basics:
"The impressionist style of painting is characterized chiefly by concentration on the general impression produced by a scene or object and the use of unmixed primary colors and small strokes to simulate actual reflected light." (From Webmuseum, Paris.
Also:
"The most conspicuous characteristic of Impressionism was an attempt to accurately and objectively record visual reality in terms of transient effects of light and colour." (ibid.)
(Nothing yet about blur...)
"An outraged critic, Louis Leroy, coined the label “Impressionist.” He looked at Monet’s Impression Sunrise, the artist’s sensory response to a harbor at dawn, painted with sketchy brushstrokes. “Impression!” the journalist snorted. “Wallpaper in its embryonic state is more finished!” Within a year, the name Impressionism was an accepted term in the art world. " (from Impressionism Paintings Collected by European Museums: A Resource Packet for Educators. The High Museum of Art The Seattle Art Museum The Denver Art Museum)
""Most Impressionists worked directly and spontaneously from nature. It was Barbizon painter Camille Corot who first advised artists to “submit to the first impression” of what they saw..." (Ibid.)
Wait! I found some comments on blur and some direct comments about impressionism and photography!:
"Perhaps no invention of the Industrial Revolution influenced Impressionism more than the camera. Black and white photography not only recorded the scene for later study, it arrested the very real-life moments that Impressionists pursued. Most of the Impressionists had cameras; in fact, Monet had four and Degas experimented with one of the early Kodak portable models. Their art took on the odd, unexpected, and asymmetrical compositions sometimes caught by the camera.
Rejecting the centered figural groups of traditional art, Impressionists thought nothing of cutting off a figure at the painting’s edge, or pushing the action into corners and leaving the center of the composition empty. Degas called photography “an image of magical instantaneity,” and was particularly adept at the off-center composition. He was also intrigued by the newly invented motion picture machine, which took multiple photographs of moving animals at high shutter speeds. He used the machine to study movement and gesture. Impressionists eagerly studied panoramic landscape photography and adopted its flattened perspective. Monet noticed that slow shutter speeds blurred moving figures, and he began to smudge his painted figures similarly. To the human eye, of course, figures don’t blur, and one early critic dismissed Monet’s distant pedestrians as “black tongue lickings.” Even those who praised the artist’s ability to capture this “antlike swarming... the instantaneity of movement” often missed the link to photography." (Ibid.)
Hope that helpful!
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:17:48 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by dipaulk:
One beautiful way I've seen to capture this in photography is to photograph a reflection in water, crop off the "real" part and flip it. There's no motion blur, but the effect is very impressionistic. I don't care much for motion blur myself, or for out-of-focus photos. I like the flipped reflection.
edited to add: Heather McFarland has one of the most beautiful motion blur photos I've seen and it definitely has an impressionistic feel, so it can be done with motion blur.
As I said before, this is a great idea. I've been wanting to experiment with both of these techniques for a while, just haven't gotten around to it. Now I can't wait to get out this week-end!
Heather's photo |
That photo was done with panning, which is motion (not the same as motion blur, but it is using motion to create the picture, and the mood, or feel, of the picture).
Edit: If I remember correctly, Heather has a different photo that is what you described, an upside down reflection. It also is a very beautiful photo.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 21:18:40. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:20:33 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hmmm ... Impressionistic or just motion blur, or both?
|
Personally, I consider this standard use of blur to emphasize/isolate your focal point. I don't consider all motion blur to be = to impressionistic.
To me (my own opinion only) blur is impressionistic when you "paint" with it or use it to add texture to a photo.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:21:06 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Since impressionism seeks to capture a fleeting moment in time via light and quality, photography is difficult to put into this category, since we do this all the time anyway!
Perhaps this explains our notion to put everything in blur, etc. to try to match impressionistic paintings rather than define impressionism for photography instead? |
Motion blur is only one technique--it just happens to be what I like to do, or more accurately, what I've already experimented with. I am trying other things as well. And I have pointed to ccraft's excellent work which is not blurry at all.
Impressionist paintings don't hide the strokes, as they did before it emerged. We don't have strokes in photographs, so if we want to look like impressionist paintings, we have to add them. Motion blur is simply the easiest way I know to "paint that way" with a camera.
Some good points have been raised, though. In my own personal quest, I have not been trying to define a new impressionism for photography, I have been trying to capture the feel of an impressionistic painting in a photograph. To make it painterly, is the more general term.
I guess the closest thing I can think of as impressionism for photography is the emergence of the Holga as a serious artistic tool.
Both ideas and goals are of course, equally valid! |
By no means did I want to suggest that motion blur was not a valid technique to be used for impressionistic photos. I was worried about it seemingly being the prevalent idea - but I may be wrong about that. I think that some of the examples Gordon posted elsewhere (i think in a different thread) were very good also, but for the most part did not rely on motion blur for their impressionistic quality.
@nshapiro - I LOVE your photos!
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 21:21:49. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:23:18 PM · #40 |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:23:30 PM · #41 |
Well, I certainly love your work, and I actually do think it a good attempt at impressionism. This challenge will be difficult but profitable, I feel.
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Since impressionism seeks to capture a fleeting moment in time via light and quality, photography is difficult to put into this category, since we do this all the time anyway!
Perhaps this explains our notion to put everything in blur, etc. to try to match impressionistic paintings rather than define impressionism for photography instead? |
Motion blur is only one technique--it just happens to be what I like to do, or more accurately, what I've already experimented with. I am trying other things as well. And I have pointed to ccraft's excellent work which is not blurry at all.
Impressionist paintings don't hide the strokes, as they did before it emerged. We don't have strokes in photographs, so if we want to look like impressionist paintings, we have to add them. Motion blur is simply the easiest way I know to "paint that way" with a camera.
Some good points have been raised, though. In my own personal quest, I have not been trying to define a new impressionism for photography, I have been trying to capture the feel of an impressionistic painting in a photograph. To make it painterly, is the more general term.
I guess the closest thing I can think of as impressionism for photography is the emergence of the Holga as a serious artistic tool.
Both ideas and goals are of course, equally valid! |
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:25:01 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by dipaulk:
..snip..
edited to add: Heather McFarland has one of the most beautiful motion blur photos I've seen and it definitely has an impressionistic feel, so it can be done with motion blur.
As I said before, this is a great idea. I've been wanting to experiment with both of these techniques for a while, just haven't gotten around to it. Now I can't wait to get out this week-end!
Heather's photo |
That's a great photo! Deserves the award.
There are a number of people on photopoints who have experimented with this technique. I'll post some links later...
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:25:56 PM · #43 |
Wow- thanks anyway ursula!
Though my entry technique is already decided (and totally unrelated), I'm curious to know what others might think of these in terms of impressionism...
 
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 21:27:15. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:26:07 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by ursula:
What is "the Holga"? |
A Holga is a film camera that distorts, leaks light, and produces generally crappy images by traditional standards. Crappy images that can be art.
I'll add some links to this in a minute...
Sample Holga Images (random samples)
I don't know if this link will work, but here's the Holga pics at Photopoints:
Holga shots at Photopoints
I am mixed on Holga myself, it depends on the photographer as always, but this thread made me realize that it is in a way a tantamount to the impressionists approach, applied to photography.
But so are grainy shots, solarizations, etc., any technique where the photography shows through as much as the subject. (Again, I am just playing with the idea raised here "What is photography's 'own' impressionism".)
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 21:43:08. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:26:10 PM · #45 |
David, thank you!
It's a difficult challenge, this one, but oh so interesting. Something to work on for a l...o...n...g time. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:27:37 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Wow- thanks ursula!
Though my entry technique is already decided (and totally unrelated), I'm curious to know what others might think of these in terms of impressionism...
|
I love your pictures too, I'm getting mixed up with who's who here. Anyway. I have a couple very similar pictures to your second one, the trees in the fog, and I was considering one of those for the challenge, but all the fog is making me depressed and I don't want to look at them anymore. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:29:53 PM · #47 |
| Hmm.. interesting that my last post suddenly turned to italic, and won't let me edit it. Must be a motion blur. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:32:39 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by dipaulk:
One beautiful way I've seen to capture this in photography is to photograph a reflection in water, crop off the "real" part and flip it. There's no motion blur, but the effect is very impressionistic. I don't care much for motion blur myself, or for out-of-focus photos. I like the flipped reflection. |
Like this?
 |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:33:53 PM · #49 |
| The more I read about impressionism the more confused I get. I am just going to go with original planned. Using lighting and dof to get a good shot. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:35:16 PM · #50 |
| Is it a challenge about paintings in general or a challenge about a certain type of painting technic? |
|
