| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/19/2008 01:45:21 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by yanko:
I grew up loving deep sky photos. I respect the time and effort put into these images but after awhile they lose their luster. What's missing is the art, which demands uniqueness and self identity something astrophotography cannot deliver. The real appeal of these images are as keepsakes, IMO. |
Well,  yanko this is one of the few times I'll disagree with you (excepting DPL of course, as a matter of principle :-/) because all these images are eye candy to me, and I hope to others. It's all so new. If you check out the Digital Art in Pascal's portfolio where he combines two or many more images to create a new composition, it's even more fun (for the easily jaded). I'm not going to quibble about the artificial sun he throws in once in a while, artistic license, you know.
Still this rather fabulous imagery available to us only in the last 50-60 years or so, is tough to regard as, um, keepsake photography. |
I'm not referring to heavily manipulated stuff like this, but rather the kind posted by the OP.
Obviously, I'm just speaking for myself but what I find interesting in photography is not in how it's captured or it's level of difficulty. As a viewer I could care less about those things. What I do care about is the content AND how it's presentation. We all see things differently and when we apply that to our photography the end result is a unique capture. That doesn't happen in astrophotography. If flowers could only be shot one way I would grow bored of those as well. Luckily though, that's not the case. You and I can see the same rose yet shoot it completely different. You might find the petal texture means more to you and thus shoot it with raking light and a shallow DOF to bring that out, where I might see the rose and think of "loss" and stick it in a vase filled with red liquid in a gothic like display. The fact that we can have such a different vision on the same subject is what makes it all worthwhile, IMO.
That said, as a photographer I would care about the details, the technique and being able to pull off a deep sky photo would be a great accomplishment but that says nothing about the photo in general only the accomplishment in it's capture.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 01:57:45 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Well as someone that is just starting the practice of astrophotography I will say that his images are amazing. His skill and patience are masterful.
The art is the science yanko.
The specialized equipment, time and knowledge to capture such images is extensive and I aspire to his level. If I get just one good shot of Barnard 33 I will consider myself extremely lucky and to this extent would cherish that image as a keepsake for the rest-O-my days. :-P |
Like I said, I have mucho respect for the difficulty involved and jlanoue's work posted here is very good, but art it is not. Not even close, IMO. Just curious what would you define art to be? In my opinion your heart and soul has to be on display for it to be so. I don't see that in astrophotography, only the cold hard science, which I do love and appreciate btw. :)
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 02:57:31.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 02:00:09 AM · #28 |
At the moment, photos are scored by a whole bunch of individuals with varying tastes. The voters range from complete amateur to professional, and everyone will be rating according to different levels. I have a few friends that score images based on how they look, which will be tilted heavily towards eye candy. I have seen a change in my own voting from that, to something more like eye candy AND difficulty of the shot as I can now appreciate some of the finer aspects of what has gone into the image.
I mean absolutely no disrespect to the astrophotographer, I am sure it takes great skill, but I have seen many images like it, and it doesn't rate too highly on my awww-o-meter. If they are extremely crisp and they suit the challenge well, I personally would be unlikely to give much higher than a 6.
As has been pointed out many times before, the scores are not for the difficulty in the shot or the skill required. The scores received are all about how other people are affected by your image. Some will reward you for eye candy, others for skill. If we want to reward people for skill, I think it would mean removing public votes and having a select criteria for scoring by a designated group.
Either way, shoot to get a high score, or shoot what you love to shoot. Just keep shooting. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 02:50:06 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Well as someone that is just starting the practice of astrophotography I will say that his images are amazing. His skill and patience are masterful.
The art is the science yanko.
The specialized equipment, time and knowledge to capture such images is extensive and I aspire to his level. If I get just one good shot of Barnard 33 I will consider myself extremely lucky and to this extent would cherish that image as a keepsake for the rest-O-my days. :-P |
Like I said, I have mucho respect for the difficulty involved and jlanoue's work posted here is very good, but art it is not. Not even close, IMO. Just curious what would you define art to be? In my opinion your heart and soul has to be on display for it to be so. I don't see that in astrophotography, only the cold hard science, which I do love and appreciate btw. :) |
No I dig what you are saying dude. I am just coming to the conclusion, since undertaking the learning curve of this type of photography that there really is an art to it. Yes it is cold hard science but to do it well it takes the creativity of an artist. The problem solving and understanding of many disciplines to achieve any quality result is immense. So the art of astrophotography is in the process. Like I said the art is in the science.
What can I say but, as we have all discussed this ad nauseum, art is in the eye of the beholder. But I can see your point that on a universe level it is like taking a picture of statue and calling it art. But I guess I would need to take this to rant if I said it was god that created the images the photos. :-P
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 02:52:23. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 03:41:41 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
No I dig what you are saying dude. I am just coming to the conclusion, since undertaking the learning curve of this type of photography that there really is an art to it. Yes it is cold hard science but to do it well it takes the creativity of an artist. The problem solving and understanding of many disciplines to achieve any quality result is immense. So the art of astrophotography is in the process. Like I said the art is in the science.
What can I say but, as we have all discussed this ad nauseum, art is in the eye of the beholder. But I can see your point that on a universe level it is like taking a picture of statue and calling it art. But I guess I would need to take this to rant if I said it was god that created the images the photos. :-P |
Just to clarify (because I want to win this point dammit :P) , you're describing art as mastering a skill. Much like Greg Maddux could be said to possess the "art of the pitch" in baseball because he mastered pitching. I'm not talking about the skill involved but rather the end product (i.e. the photograph in this case). Science alone cannot be art. If that was true then scientific papers on global warming would be considered art much like the books of Jane Austin. The former required just mind and body to produce where as the latter (i.e. Jane Austin's work) required mind, body and heart felt soul. That's the difference between art and non-art, IMO and what lacks in Astrophotography in general.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 03:56:09 AM · #31 |
OK you win ;-) So we have a philosophical difference of opinion. Greg Maddux sure does have the art of the pitch and watching a No-No or a perfect game is a work of art. So is watching and amazing prize fighter like Ali. The thing that all those have in common is the beauty, the "Art" is in the process not the out come.
Thrust and perry my man! :-P |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 05:32:42 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
OK you win ;-) So we have a philosophical difference of opinion. Greg Maddux sure does have the art of the pitch and watching a No-No or a perfect game is a work of art. So is watching and amazing prize fighter like Ali. |
Exactly. And the appeal of all of that is you can't simply pick up a book and learn how to be exactly like Greg Maddux or Ali even with years of practice. If you could then well... it becomes much like astrophotography. :P
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 05:49:06.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 07:04:04 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Just to clarify (because I want to win this point dammit :P) , you're describing art as mastering a skill. Much like Greg Maddux could be said to possess the "art of the pitch" in baseball because he mastered pitching. I'm not talking about the skill involved but rather the end product (i.e. the photograph in this case). Science alone cannot be art. |
I agree. People tend to throw the word "art" around too loosely these days. While defining the meaning of art isn't easy whatever meaning most people might all agree upon seems to be lost.
I'm not even sure that most of the photography I see can be considered "art". Some images may have some minor artistic elements...even as small as a simple, nice composition BUT does that make it art? Does recording a well composed scene and then playing around with color sliders to saturate the levels, constitute a work of art? Maybe on a basic level?
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 07:06:11. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 08:07:52 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Artifacts:
My point is that DPC as a site might benefit by expanding its horizons a bit further to include other equally worthy expressions of photography beyond what has been traditionally rewarded.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe being a fine art photography competition site is all it ever needs to be. That certainly isn't a bad thing. |
Except it isn't. Never has been. Ribbon-winning DPC images, for the most part, have practically nothing in common with the sorts of images that hang in museums and serious galleries these days, or that grace the pages of the artsy magazines. If one were going to categorize DPC at all, it probably most resembles an incubator for commercial photographers.
It is interesting to note that what astrophotography has in common with other underapppreciated genres in DPC is that it does not include ANY component of conscious arrangement/manipulation; in this respect it is not unlike photojournalism or documentary photography, and neither of those subsets fares very well at the hands of the DPC member-judges either. Just ask Pawdrix for his feelings on that :-)
R. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 08:24:58 AM · #35 |
Somewhat more on topic:
The man is a very skilled, self-taught astrophotographer. Reading his descriptions of how he creates his images is mind-boggling. Personally, I don't see why images such as this one:
are not considered every bit as "creative" and "accomplished" as images such as this one:
Is either of them "art"? I don't think so, personally. But i don't care, either. What I do know is that both images take a lot of forethought to expose, a lot of post-production to create, and represent "enhanced" views of what we like to call "reality"...
Or take a look at this one, which includes the pre-processing, "straight" image. Compositionally it's entirely straightforward, no bells or whistles, not unlike the star field photo. But it tries to take a look "deeper" into what's there than the obvious, visible light was offering at first glance.
So what's the big difference, except that technically the astrophotos are a whole HELL of a lot more complex to make?
Incidentally, I note, somewhat to my surprise, that jlanoue has a whole bunch of mid-6 scores, which (frankly) is better than I thought they had been doing, so that's good :-) The voters aren't totally out to lunch here...
R. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 08:57:46 AM · #36 |
| I don't think the astronomy photos are under-appreciated. I think they are just in another realm entirely from the rest of the photos on this site. So what do you compare them to? Photos from the NASA site? |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 09:39:49 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Somewhat more on topic:
The man is a very skilled, self-taught astrophotographer. Reading his descriptions of how he creates his images is mind-boggling. Personally, I don't see why images such as this one:
are not considered every bit as "creative" and "accomplished" as images such as this one:
Is either of them "art"? I don't think so, personally. But i don't care, either. What I do know is that both images take a lot of forethought to expose, a lot of post-production to create, and represent "enhanced" views of what we like to call "reality"...
Or take a look at this one, which includes the pre-processing, "straight" image. Compositionally it's entirely straightforward, no bells or whistles, not unlike the star field photo. But it tries to take a look "deeper" into what's there than the obvious, visible light was offering at first glance.
So what's the big difference, except that technically the astrophotos are a whole HELL of a lot more complex to make?
Incidentally, I note, somewhat to my surprise, that jlanoue has a whole bunch of mid-6 scores, which (frankly) is better than I thought they had been doing, so that's good :-) The voters aren't totally out to lunch here...
R. |
For starters how about uniqueness? emotion? meaning? When I look at your two photos I come away having partly experienced the subject even though I've never been there. I can practically feel the warm breeze and touch the cattails. I get none of that looking at jlanoue's photo. There is nothing familiar to grab on to, no sense of scale in which to gauge the vastness of the nebula. If the image could be converted into text form it would read as an equation and not as a poem. That's the difference.
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 09:43:10.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 09:47:34 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by yanko:
For starters how about uniqueness? emotion? meaning? When I look at your two photos I come away having partly experienced the subject even though I've never been there. I can practically feel the warm breeze and touch the cattails. I get none of that looking at jlanoue's photo. There is nothing familiar to grab on to, no sense of scale in which to gauge the vastness of the nebula. If the image could be converted into text form it would read as an equation and not as a poem. That's the difference. |
I do not agree. When I see images like this I am dumbstruck by the vastness of creation, and humbled by how insignificant I am within that vastness. My current wallpaper is a Hubble image. I think these deep space shots absolutely qualify as visual "poems", as you put it. Some of the "ordinary" star field shots, I agree, are basically "equations", but these nebula shots, these 3-dimensional looks into deep space, are just awe-inspiring IMO.
R. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 09:59:32 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
For starters how about uniqueness? emotion? meaning? When I look at your two photos I come away having partly experienced the subject even though I've never been there. I can practically feel the warm breeze and touch the cattails. I get none of that looking at jlanoue's photo. There is nothing familiar to grab on to, no sense of scale in which to gauge the vastness of the nebula. If the image could be converted into text form it would read as an equation and not as a poem. That's the difference. |
I do not agree. When I see images like this I am dumbstruck by the vastness of creation, and humbled by how insignificant I am within that vastness. My current wallpaper is a Hubble image. I think these deep space shots absolutely qualify as visual "poems", as you put it. Some of the "ordinary" star field shots, I agree, are basically "equations", but these nebula shots, these 3-dimensional looks into deep space, are just awe-inspiring IMO.
R. |
I had such posters up myself way back when and experienced the very same things you just mentioned when I first saw them. The key phrase being "when I first saw them". When I saw the 10th, 100th, 1,000th version of the Crab Nebula I didn't get anything new from it sans maybe 0.00005% improved detail. That's the point I was making.
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 10:00:21.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 10:00:55 AM · #40 |
So I take it I won't be winning a Yanko anytime soon??? :-)
Seriously, thanks for all the very kind words as well as the criticisms, I'm not sure if I'm being eulogized or roasted!
I think mr marbo summed it up quite nicely in a comment on my "colliding galaxies" shot:
"Good detailed shot of m51. Probably won`t score to high as we are spoilt by hubble images."
There's alot of truth here, I'm photographing DSOs (deep sky objects) that have been photographed by much better astrophotographers as well as the hubble deep sky telescope, compared to them, my photographs are quite pedestrian.
I think we all have our scoring criteria and as I've learned, there are some who love astrophotography because of the wonder it instills and there are some who yawn when faced with it. If there's one thing I do hope folks realize, it's that we all have various passions that we follow in this hobby, I'm AMAZED at some of the stories I've read on here about what folks have done to get that photo, some even get close to the fine line of insanity, putting their life on the line just for that photo. I know I've read on here about some of Larus' adventures in getting his amazing aurora borealis shots, this is no less and probably more so passionate than what I do.
Kudos to all here, I can emphatically state that we're all better photographers as a result of keeping an open mind on this site. I spent a couple hours playing around with "dappled light" yesterday and referred to things I've learned here, something that just a year ago I wouldn't have spent a Sunday afternoon doing.
john |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 10:05:34 AM · #41 |
LOL. I'm glad you're not taking offense. Although I probably lost any shot of getting tips from you in the future. :P
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 11:15:56 AM · #42 |
People are still missing the point. This is not a discussion about the merits of astrophotography; it is a discussion about DPC.
In summary, Yanko's argument is that some forms of photography are unworthy of high praise at DPC because they are not art. Dismissing astrophotography Yanko said, "Science is not art". And he pounded it in until Wazoo cried "uncle".
Bear_Music, on the other hand, disagreed with my characterization of DPC as a 'fine art' site suggesting, "If one were going to categorize DPC at all, it probably most resembles an incubator for commercial photographers." He further suggested some photography was under appreciated at DPC because they do "not include ANY component of conscious arrangement/manipulation".
I'm curious whether or not people agree with either premise or think DPC is something else entirely.
Comments?
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 11:17:52 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by yanko:
LOL. I'm glad you're not taking offense. Although I probably lost any shot of getting tips from you in the future. :P |
People don't usually tip the guy behind the counter at McDonalds... ;P
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 11:22:41 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by jlanoue:
... my photographs are quite pedestrian. |
On a different topic...
I emphatically and passionately disagree with this statement.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 11:35:27 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Artifacts:
People are still missing the point. This is not a discussion about the merits of astrophotography; it is a discussion about DPC. ... |
??? That's not how the opening post read - it was all about jlanoue and his astrophotography skills.
ETA - That's how I interpreted it anyway.
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 11:37:35.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 11:42:12 AM · #46 |
How would anyone miss the poetry is this lovely photo? Dramatic colors and composition of an undiscovered landscape (starscape?)...which has been much romanticized in such series as Star Trek and other related exploration fantasies. Of course, the stars offer much fascination for the strictly scientific world and for those of us with no scientific backgrounds but perhaps with keen imaginations. I feel completely humbled by such photographs and grateful to see them posted here.
Steve, as far as the discussion about DPC goes...people do not see things as they are, we see things as we are...and create our own experience within our own photography and what we see in each others work. DPC offers a forum in which to gather and share and thank you for putting a well-deserved limelight on the phenomenal work of JLanoue for us all to enjoy.
Well, that's my two cents...
Post script:
Yanko? I'll take fries with my order...extra crispy, please! ;-)
::ducks and runs for cover to avoid the flying french fry::
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 11:55:43 AM · #47 |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 12:04:46 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Artifacts:
Bear_Music, on the other hand, disagreed with my characterization of DPC as a 'fine art' site suggesting, "If one were going to categorize DPC at all, it probably most resembles an incubator for commercial photographers." He further suggested some photography was under appreciated at DPC because they do "not include ANY component of conscious arrangement/manipulation". |
If I can expand on that a bit, recent comments in a couple other threads have touched on this issue. As a very loose generalization (exceptions can be found, of course) DPC voters prefer the artificial to the natural, the "manipulated" or "posed" image to the straight, unembellished image. The work of people like  pawdrix, for example, is (in my opinion) consistently underrated by the voters. And, as a rule, truly off-the-wall, "strange" creative imagery does not do very well here. There's an entry in the current challenge that's a good example of this sort of thing, and i scored it very high. I'm going to be real curious to see where it winds up score-wise :-)
R. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 12:05:13 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Artifacts:
People are still missing the point. This is not a discussion about the merits of astrophotography; it is a discussion about DPC. ... |
??? That's not how the opening post read - it was all about jlanoue and his astrophotography skills.
ETA - That's how I interpreted it anyway. |
Although Steve's discussion did center on the skill required to capture photos like Jon's, his point was that perhaps we as a community need to place more value on aspects of photography other than immediate aesthetic appeal. Technical mastery is one aspect.
After reading this thread yesterday, I gave some thought to the idea that "technical skill is not art" and concluded that this is an oversimplification. We often do label the ultimate practitioners of their skills as "artists." If art is something that evokes an emotional reaction, then surely displays of human skill elevated to extremely high levels qualify.
So let's talk specifically about astrophotography. Representations of deep sky objects can and do evoke powerful emotions... but only if the viewer has an understanding of the science involved. This is no different than art appreciation in general, where one's reaction to a piece of artwork may be considerably different, dependent on the level of art training one has received. Complicating things for amateur astrophotographers is the fact that the public has been wowed with deep sky images from Hubble, planetary images from space probes actually visiting the planets themselves, ground-based images from the best telescopes and imaging systems that humankind can build. So we as viewers are jaded.
The awe in seeing some of the work coming out of today's amateur astrophotographers is that it compares so well to images that only a few decades ago were the best that professionals could achieve. What we are seeing today is a renaissance in amateur astronomy, driven by optical technology, image capture technology and computer technology, enabling imaging beyond what we could imagine a decade ago. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 12:21:46 PM · #50 |
It is no slam on DPC to see out-of-the-box photography not do well here. It has been pointed out many times before that whenever you attract a wide variety of participants from many places in the world, many professions, and many stations of life, the pictures that will do best will be the ones that manage to please the most types of people the most often. By default those images are safe and technically crisp. If we only attracted goth-loving teens, you wouldn't be surprised to see those types of pictures do best even though nobody would be foolish enough to therefore classify goth-portraits as the "ultimate" in photography.
If "fine art" has, as part of its definition, a narrow audience, then DPC is not fine art. Personally I think that definition is self-serving and contrived. "Fine art" to me is anything within its genre that shows a mastery of skill and creativity above the norm. Where that line falls is open to interpretation. jlanoue's astro shots, therefore, qualify as fine art in my eyes. His shots show a mastery of the knowledge required to use the specialized equipment and process the shots. OTOH, "eye candy" produced by De Sousa, Scalvert, or myself also qualifies as fine art in it's own form.
Just my 0.02.
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 12:23:00.
|
|
