| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/06/2011 03:08:04 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by marnet:
Originally posted by kgeary:
There's a lot of god awful "art" hanging in museums and art galleries. It's highly subjective. If you like looking at a photograph of nothing, then that's up to you. But being "published" somewhere doesn't automatically make it magical.
I was simply giving my opinion, which I happen to be an expert on. :) To me, it's a picture of nothing.
And I didn't say the photographers were bad. I was simply commenting on the single photo that was posted. To me, it's ugly. Is that ok? |
How do you think your opinion helped Garry with his original question? He came here for help on a common photographic technique and got your harsh dislike of photos using this technique instead. Not very helpful.
I thought that DPC members accept that there are various trends in art and they do not have to like them all. I personally dislike any image that shows blood but I do not dismiss them as "ugly". I say I find them disturbing which correctly describes my feeling. You used "ugly" to describe specific photos. That's a big difference. |
I kind of like salmiakki's photo.
And I like kgeary's comment, sounds honest, that is something DPC is missing. There is more than enough rear end kissing and fake politeness , some honesty is a nice for a change. |
It may be honest, and heartfelt, but it was said in a rude and dismissive manner. Honesty does not need to be rude or dismissive. |
Yeah, yeah... but it comes from the hart...no second guessing |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 03:10:47 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by kgeary:
Perhaps someone could explain what's so artistic about the shots to help me out? |
I think it's good that people on DPC are willing to learn and expand their horizons a little. It's part of what makes this site valuable i feel so well done Kevin for asking for help to flesh out your art history knowledge. I think in your case the best bet is for you to do a little research into important 19th and 20th Century art movements such as Impressionism, Abstract Expressionism, Cubism and Surrealism for starters. Most of these are touched upon in school and there are many books and websites for you to take a look at. Exploring art and photography outside your current knowledge will, for sure, make you a better and more interesting photographer even if you don't enjoy ,or engage with, these 'styles'. Hope that helps and good luck! Maybe we'll see some interesting experiments from you on DPC in the future!
E.T.A -  ursula put it far more eloquently than me!
Message edited by author 2011-04-06 15:13:04. |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 03:14:23 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by kgeary:
Who cares? It's ugly. |
I'm curious to know what image(s) you find inspiring or beautiful? |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 03:14:55 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by marnet:
Originally posted by kgeary:
There's a lot of god awful "art" hanging in museums and art galleries. It's highly subjective. If you like looking at a photograph of nothing, then that's up to you. But being "published" somewhere doesn't automatically make it magical.
I was simply giving my opinion, which I happen to be an expert on. :) To me, it's a picture of nothing.
And I didn't say the photographers were bad. I was simply commenting on the single photo that was posted. To me, it's ugly. Is that ok? |
How do you think your opinion helped Garry with his original question? He came here for help on a common photographic technique and got your harsh dislike of photos using this technique instead. Not very helpful.
I thought that DPC members accept that there are various trends in art and they do not have to like them all. I personally dislike any image that shows blood but I do not dismiss them as "ugly". I say I find them disturbing which correctly describes my feeling. You used "ugly" to describe specific photos. That's a big difference. |
I kind of like salmiakki's photo.
And I like kgeary's comment, sounds honest, that is something DPC is missing. There is more than enough rear end kissing and fake politeness , some honesty is a nice for a change. |
It may be honest, and heartfelt, but it was said in a rude and dismissive manner. Honesty does not need to be rude or dismissive. |
Yeah, yeah... but it comes from the hart...no second guessing |
No second guessing involved, it was straighforward impoliteness, as is your "Yeah, yeah ..." BTW, it is "heart" not "hart" :) |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 03:33:29 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ursula:
No second guessing involved, it was straighforward impoliteness, as is your "Yeah, yeah ..." BTW, it is "heart" not "hart" :) |
Thank you for a spell check.
call his or mine comment anything you like, its just an opinion.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2011 03:43:47 PM · #31 |
Garry, I'm glad you posted this question regarding the work of Ben and Sarah. I'm a big fan of Ben and would love to mind meld with his artistic brain and learn all of his secrets! I'm not as familiar with Sarah's work (shame on me!), but enjoyed the image posted in your original post.
I am puzzled that these rather sublime images are incurring such a negative response by some of the posters (aka  Basta and  KGeary). And, quite frankly, I don't feel in any way obligated to convince them of the beauty of these images or in any other way to interact with them. Personally, I find such behavior tiresome and borish. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Anyways, I viewed the original question more as a "how to" than as a "why"...
And, I always love to read what Ursula writes about art...;-)
Well, that's my two cents...carry on! |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 04:05:49 PM · #32 |
huh? I said:
"I kind of like salmiakki's photo.
And I like kgeary's comment, sounds honest, that is something DPC is missing. There is more than enough rear end kissing and fake politeness , some honesty is a nice for a change.'
to recap, I kind of like salmiakki's photo
get your facts straight, please don't talk in your sleep |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 04:16:57 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Basta:
huh? I said:
"I kind of like salmiakki's photo.
And I like kgeary's comment, sounds honest, that is something DPC is missing. There is more than enough rear end kissing and fake politeness , some honesty is a nice for a change.'
to recap, I kind of like salmiakki's photo
get your facts straight, please don't talk in your sleep |
The OP's question is a "how to" question and not one that invited your opinion. So, if you don't know how to do it, perhaps you shouldn't "talk" at all. |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 04:21:28 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by Basta:
huh? I said:
"I kind of like salmiakki's photo.
And I like kgeary's comment, sounds honest, that is something DPC is missing. There is more than enough rear end kissing and fake politeness , some honesty is a nice for a change.'
to recap, I kind of like salmiakki's photo
get your facts straight, please don't talk in your sleep |
The OP's question is a "how to" question and not one that invited your opinion. So, if you don't know how to do it, perhaps you shouldn't "talk" at all. |
oh, I'm so sorry. I was under impression this is a public forum.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2011 04:29:01 PM · #35 |
| I think maybe we could help Garry on Photo Impressionism thread and leave this discussion alone. It is pretty clear that the difference of opinion expressed here will not change and further posts will not make any progress in understanding it. |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 04:30:39 PM · #36 |
What's so sad is that somewhere in the middle of this thread is a serious answer to the OP's original question, but he may have missed the answer he was looking for.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2011 04:33:53 PM · #37 |
| Garry, where are you? What is your take on this? |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 04:38:02 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by marnet:
Garry, where are you? What is your take on this? |
My take is simple, I want know how this is done. I don't care what Joe Soap thinks about this particular style of photography. The thread was titled "How do they do this?"...not "What do you think of this?".
Disappointed that this thread has been hijacked and a good discussion on the technique has taken a backseat to arguing about opinions on style. |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 04:45:36 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
Originally posted by marnet:
Garry, where are you? What is your take on this? |
My take is simple, I want know how this is done. I don't care what Joe Soap thinks about this particular style of photography. The thread was titled "How do they do this?"...not "What do you think of this?".
Disappointed that this thread has been hijacked and a good discussion on the technique has taken a backseat to arguing about opinions on style. |
Garry, I pm'd you earlier
Message edited by author 2011-04-06 16:45:50. |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 04:50:39 PM · #40 |
my question is this, why do specific individuals act like 4 yr olds who aren't getting their way? grow up guys. if you have that strong of an opinion and all you do is argueing, just agree to disagree and move on with your life. is posting a rude comment no matter how honest it is that important in your life?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I find this beautiful abstract art! i'm inspired to try something like this soon. and abstract is the key word here, because thats what this is. abtract art.
I wish i knew how to do this and i wish the best to the OP. maybe when you get the technique down, i'll ask for some tips in a PM. |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 04:54:18 PM · #41 |
Here's one I did that is a similar style, although not as good as theirs...
I set my camera at 1/15th and moved it up and down while shooting continuously. I got about 5 or so shots at a time and picked the most interesting. I like how it devolves the trees into simple vertical lines, while keeping the sky and grass colors. I tried a few styles while moving up and down: keeping the film plane parallel to the trees (by moving the camera with my arms), rotating it by moving my camera with my wrists and keeping my arms still, horizontal motion, diagonals, etc.
I don't present this as an example of how wonderful this effect can be, Ben and Sarah have that represented well, I just thought you might want some more input on technique. In my opinion its about the long shutter speed and motion that presents your subject in the best manner. |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 04:58:17 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by ScooterMcNutty:
my question is this, why do specific individuals act like 4 yr olds who aren't getting their way? grow up guys. if you have that strong of an opinion and all you do is argueing, just agree to disagree and move on with your life. is posting a rude comment no matter how honest it is that important in your life?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I find this beautiful abstract art! i'm inspired to try something like this soon. and abstract is the key word here, because thats what this is. abtract art.
I wish i knew how to do this and i wish the best to the OP. maybe when you get the technique down, i'll ask for some tips in a PM. |
One of the photographers from the OP's examples mentioned putting vaseline on a filter.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2011 05:02:59 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
One of the photographers from the OP's examples mentioned putting vaseline on a filter. |
interesting... like on a filter you put infront of the lense? (i'm such a visual person...) |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 05:09:41 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
@ kgeary if you smear vaseline over your corneas the world will be less ugly or you can simply look at Ursula's versions. Much more colorful than the two posted.
My image was simply vaseline smeared on a filter. Use the viewfinder or live view (tripod required) to view the result as you rotate the filter or smear the vaseline to get the effect you want. |
Yes ScooterMcNutty, on a filter you put in front of the lens. Here is the "missing" post.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2011 05:10:19 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by davidw:
Here's one I did that is a similar style, although not as good as theirs...
I set my camera at 1/15th and moved it up and down while shooting continuously. I got about 5 or so shots at a time and picked the most interesting. I like how it devolves the trees into simple vertical lines, while keeping the sky and grass colors. I tried a few styles while moving up and down: keeping the film plane parallel to the trees (by moving the camera with my arms), rotating it by moving my camera with my wrists and keeping my arms still, horizontal motion, diagonals, etc.
I don't present this as an example of how wonderful this effect can be, Ben and Sarah have that represented well, I just thought you might want some more input on technique. In my opinion its about the long shutter speed and motion that presents your subject in the best manner. |
Thanks for the explanation, David! I like that one quite a fair deal. Quick question, do you have camera in motion before you press the shutter, or do you move the camera after pressing shutter? If it's the former, then it sounds very much like doing a motion blur with a moving object (e.g. panning a moving car)? |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 05:52:16 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
Originally posted by davidw:
Here's one I did that is a similar style, although not as good as theirs...
I set my camera at 1/15th and moved it up and down while shooting continuously. I got about 5 or so shots at a time and picked the most interesting. I like how it devolves the trees into simple vertical lines, while keeping the sky and grass colors. I tried a few styles while moving up and down: keeping the film plane parallel to the trees (by moving the camera with my arms), rotating it by moving my camera with my wrists and keeping my arms still, horizontal motion, diagonals, etc.
I don't present this as an example of how wonderful this effect can be, Ben and Sarah have that represented well, I just thought you might want some more input on technique. In my opinion its about the long shutter speed and motion that presents your subject in the best manner. |
Thanks for the explanation, David! I like that one quite a fair deal. Quick question, do you have camera in motion before you press the shutter, or do you move the camera after pressing shutter? If it's the former, then it sounds very much like doing a motion blur with a moving object (e.g. panning a moving car)? |
I start moving the camera and press the button while its moving. Since I use continuous I can fire off a bunch of shots while moving the camera up and down (or side to side or whichever direction works). |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 05:58:14 PM · #47 |
You put vaseline on the filter, move the camera while firing at a shutter speed to get some motion blur, shoot at something colorful, and hope for the best.
It's not art, it's crafts. |
|
|
|
04/06/2011 06:12:53 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by kgeary:
You put vaseline on the filter, move the camera while firing at a shutter speed to get some motion blur, shoot at something colorful, and hope for the best.
It's not art, it's crafts. |
My thinking is that in crafts you know the outcome before you start. The art is in trying to produce the look you want in an unpredictable environment.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2011 06:15:55 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by kgeary:
You put vaseline on the filter, move the camera while firing at a shutter speed to get some motion blur, shoot at something colorful, and hope for the best.
It's not art, it's crafts. |
How to create the Mona Lisa:
You take a paint brush, dip it in paint, and smear the paint on the canvas, and hope for the best.
It's not art, it's crafts.
How to decorate the Sistine Chapel:
You take a paint brush, dip it in paint, and smear the paint on the wall, and hope for the best.
It's not art, it's crafts.
I beg to differ. It's art AND crafts.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2011 06:17:49 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by kgeary:
You put vaseline on the filter, move the camera while firing at a shutter speed to get some motion blur, shoot at something colorful, and hope for the best.
It's not art, it's crafts. |
Well, I'd say it is creativity. What is important here is that the photographers are making active choice that have a fundamental impact on the look of an image. More creative I would suggest than a straight up capture of a scene that doesn't reflect or show the result of such photographic choosings.
Whether it is art or not is it in the dialogue catalyses - intra-personal dialogue as the photographer considers their work - how does it make them feel? How close was it to their intent? What unexpected effects have emerged? Inter-personal dialogue as the sharing and viewing of the work communicates a message and how that message is mediated by the prior experiences of the viewer. And then the dialogue with the wider cultural landscape. Some works are located in and reflect a tradition; interpretation takes place within a context with a history, the work contributes to and enriches a pre-existing whole.
I'm quite aware that all this sounds like self-indulgent nonensense but actually 'mI not an arty type at all, I have no knowledge of art; but I can appreciate that the images people create are not standalone objects but rather they cause, and are themselves reactions, to wider cultural experience. |
|
