| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/19/2008 12:42:36 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is no slam on DPC to see out-of-the-box photography not do well here. |
Just for the record, I'm *not* "slamming" DPC, in case anyone thinks I am... Just discussing the reality of the situation, is all. Challenge-winning imagery is, for the most part, market-driven, as it were; and that is how I would define "commercial", see? But remember, I spent my LIFE as a commercial photographer. I make no pretensions to being a "creative artist"; I see myself as more of a skilled technician. I love those among us who DO create wildly evocative art, however :-)
R. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 12:45:53 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is no slam on DPC to see out-of-the-box photography not do well here. |
Just for the record, I'm *not* "slamming" DPC, in case anyone thinks I am... Just discussing the reality of the situation, is all. Challenge-winning imagery is, for the most part, market-driven, as it were; and that is how I would define "commercial", see? But remember, I spent my LIFE as a commercial photographer. I make no pretensions to being a "creative artist"; I see myself as more of a skilled technician. I love those among us who DO create wildly evocative art, however :-)
R. |
Naw, I didn't think you were slamming Bear. I agree with your assessment that DPC could be considered an incubator for commercial photography. Commercial photography MUST appeal to the masses and if can do that here, you can do it there. To me, though, such a description and "fine art" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 12:46:32.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 12:54:39 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Naw, I didn't think you were slamming Bear. I agree with your assessment that DPC could be considered an incubator for commercial photography. Commercial photography MUST appeal to the masses and if can do that here, you can do it there. To me, though, such a description and "fine art" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. |
I knew YOU didn't think that, but someone who doesn't know me might :-) As for "fine" art, IMO that's more of a socio-economic distinction than a "real one". The content of the category depends entirely on what the in-group says it ought to be, at any given time. meaningless distinction.
The distinction I draw, to the extent that I draw one, is between "art" and "craft". Any craft, again IMO, is capable of being used in the creation of art, but not all craftsmen are artists. I'm willing to accept a beautiful piece of custom-made furniture as being an art object, and so, for that matter, are institutions such as the MoMA in NYC. But there are some individuals who only admit certain media as being able to support "art"; primarily painting, drawing, and sculpture.
R. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 12:56:10 PM · #54 |
If I photograph a tree, I can dump it into Photo Shop, boost saturation, adjust curves, sharpen, and voila -- a TREE! That takes a few minutes. By comparison, if I take a photograph straight off the telescope and put it through those same formulaic steps, I'll have a big noisy mess. People know photographing and processing astrophotography is harder, but I'm not sure they realize to what extent. (I'm not sure I fully realize it myself.)
 jlanoue, I'm wondering if you 'd be willing to post before and after shots of some of your work -- i.e. something straight off the camera and something completely (and painstakingly ) processed. i doubt it will sway anyone here too much, but I think it will at least educate some of us and perhaps make us look a second or two longer at these types of shots when voting. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 01:15:04 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by bvy:
...I think it will at least educate some of us... |
Please do post more about the process as I (for one) would appreciate the education. Explain it slow and perhaps the voters will get it quick and we all will benefit by gaining a deeper appreciation for the effort that goes into your work and expanding our own horizons well into the stars! |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 02:48:33 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by bvy:
...I think it will at least educate some of us... |
Please do post more about the process as I (for one) would appreciate the education. Explain it slow and perhaps the voters will get it quick and we all will benefit by gaining a deeper appreciation for the effort that goes into your work and expanding our own horizons well into the stars! |
From John's profile. Howto.
Good stuff John thank you! |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 03:20:06 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by bvy:
...I think it will at least educate some of us... |
From John's profile. Howto. |
Good stuff John thank you! |
And THEN, after reading the HowTo, you get to look at all those gorgeous pictures! |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 03:26:31 PM · #58 |
The key to post processing an astrophoto, quite simply, is increasing signal and decreasing noise, i.e. increase the signal to noise (S/N) ratio. Every "sub exposure" you take of a dim DSO (deep sky object) will have some photons that originated from that DSO and will also have considerable noise. The signal is on every sub exposure, the noise is random, so the more subs you use, the higher your signal to noise ratio is. I wrote a tutorial for some friends in the hobby a while back, this walks you through that process:
Increase S/N ratio
Next time I get out to shoot I'll also post all of the raw sub exposures so you can see how the single sub exposure doesn't even remotely resemble the finished product (this tutorial shows that to some extent).
In advanced editing, you can use up to 10 sub exposures, so that's a limiting factor, the great shots in sky and telescope will have many more subs (typically) than that.
john
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 04:04:49 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
From John's profile. Howto.
Good stuff John thank you! |
Wow...John, per the Wazoo's recommendation, I read your tutorial (what I could underdstand). My deepest apologies, but I must confess to you that I think my only saving grace in your world is that I DO know actually know where and how to find the North Star...;-)
::pause for Steve to get a good laugh at me::
But, alas, I will have to enjoy the poetry and beauty of your photos from afar with only a very shallow technical understanding of how you actually accomplish such a fantastic feat.
Thank you for bringing to those of us with Earthbound cameras...your vision of the Heavens.
~M
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 05:04:42 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Artifacts:
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". |
Actually, I didn't argue that some forms of photography are unworthy of high praise. Astrophotography is certainly worthy of that. Basically all I was getting at is its appeal is limited to almost exclusively to it's technical wow factor because there is no storyline being conveyed no social commentary, no nothing. Bear did point out that it can spark the imagination and to that I concede but for me I need a little more with each new image of a subject I've seen thousands of times before much like the feelings that someone expressed on my recent water drop, which btw aren't easy to do either.
In any case, I'm just offering why (from one viewpoint) astrophotography doesn't score higher at DPC. Like I said earlier, those shots when done well will get perfect scores from me on technicals.
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 17:08:17.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 05:10:13 PM · #61 |
Outside of whatever technical prowess it takes to capture those images it seems that some people here are projecting the wow and awe factor, credit onto the photographer.
That's confusing me a bit. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 05:16:39 PM · #62 |
Do you like them curly or extra thick? :P Hey I hear you and Bear in regards to the poetry in the image. The problem for me is it's like taking a poem already written and presented it as your own without changing anything. If I like the poem, I'll go for the original or in the case of astrophotography the one with the most detail since all the other photocopies would offer nothing new or better than that. At least when you take a photo of a sunset it's different enough then when the last person took it. It's like taking an existing poem and adding an extra line to it that comes from YOU. You don't have that in astrophotography. All you have is the same poem passed around over and over with some of the words perhaps slightly more clear than other copies out there but no new words actually readable. Does any of this make sense to anybody? Perhaps I should submit my McApplication. :P
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 17:27:22.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 05:20:50 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Outside of whatever technical prowess it takes to capture those images it seems that some people here are projecting the wow and awe factor, credit onto the photographer.
That's confusing me a bit. |
Without a doubt, the sheer technical prowess is a part of what makes these images. But that's missing the point. The "wow" comes from understanding what is revealed in these masterful exposures, the sheer beauty of the universe we live in, the beauty of the sky we see every day, and yet are ignorant of.
Originally posted by yanko:
...Basically all I was getting at is its appeal is limited to almost exclusively to it's technical wow factor because there is no storyline being conveyed no social commentary, no nothing... |
IMO, there is a *tremendous* story being told in each of these images. They cover distances measured in light-years, speak of time measured in millions, or billions of years, literally paint a picture of the physics of the universe we inhabit. Who can look at images like these and not be moved, not yearn to understand the "story" being told.
As humans, our most basic need is to understand the world around us. I challenge you, look deeper, challenge yourself to understand the parts of your universe that you cannot directly see.
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 17:21:15. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 05:23:35 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by yanko:
...Basically all I was getting at is its appeal is limited to almost exclusively to it's technical wow factor because there is no storyline being conveyed no social commentary, no nothing... |
IMO, there is a *tremendous* story being told in each of these images. They cover distances measured in light-years, speak of time measured in millions, or billions of years, literally paint a picture of the physics of the universe we inhabit. Who can look at images like these and not be moved, not yearn to understand the "story" being told.
As humans, our most basic need is to understand the world around us. I challenge you, look deeper, challenge yourself to understand the parts of your universe that you cannot directly see. |
Read my post following that one. The one in response to hihosilver. FWIW, I love astromony and I'm a big science fiction fan.
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 17:25:05.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 05:33:27 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Outside of whatever technical prowess it takes to capture those images it seems that some people here are projecting the wow and awe factor, credit onto the photographer.
That's confusing me a bit. |
Without a doubt, the sheer technical prowess is a part of what makes these images. |
So...are you saying that jlanoue is our creator? Master of the Universe?
AND he hasn't Ribboned yet? |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 05:58:17 PM · #66 |
Very cool shots, but he cheats and uses bigger marbles...lol
 |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 06:09:33 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Outside of whatever technical prowess it takes to capture those images it seems that some people here are projecting the wow and awe factor, credit onto the photographer.
That's confusing me a bit. |
Without a doubt, the sheer technical prowess is a part of what makes these images. |
So...are you saying that jlanoue is our creator? Master of the Universe?
AND he hasn't Ribboned yet? |
That is also what has me confused. I do agree that the technical prowess most definitely leads to "making" an image (i.e. creating a physical copy) but it seems like he and others are also saying it is what "makes" the shot (i.e. makes it great). That I disagree with.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 10:17:17 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by yanko:
That is also what has me confused. I do agree that the technical prowess most definitely leads to "making" an image (i.e. creating a physical copy) but it seems like he and others are also saying it is what "makes" the shot (i.e. makes it great). That I disagree with. |
So, yanko, unless you’re pulling our collective chain through all this,
you’re maybe saying that unless it’s, say, a Doug Adams interpretation of the Universe,
(dang I wish he was still around), it’s all just classy scientific journalism?
Tossing in another metaphor, I suppose that’s what makes a horse race – differing opinions.
These beautiful images evoke a strong emotional reaction from me and others. To me, that’s art.
Yes, even 'great' art.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 10:26:30 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by yanko:
That is also what has me confused. I do agree that the technical prowess most definitely leads to "making" an image (i.e. creating a physical copy) but it seems like he and others are also saying it is what "makes" the shot (i.e. makes it great). That I disagree with. |
So, yanko, unless you’re pulling our collective chain through all this,
you’re maybe saying that unless it’s, say, a Doug Adams interpretation of the Universe,
(dang I wish he was still around), it’s all just classy scientific journalism?
Tossing in another metaphor, I suppose that’s what makes a horse race – differing opinions.
These beautiful images evoke a strong emotional reaction from me and others. To me, that’s art.
Yes, even 'great' art. |
He's saying he's jaded, basically :-) "Seen one horsehead nebula, seen 'em all..." I donno, I kinda feel that way about my sunsets, truth be known, but I keep making 'em. At my age you worry less and less about breaking new ground, and spend more and more time exploring the old familiar haunts, not through desire for fresh revelations, but just because they remind you of where your life has been...
R. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 10:47:47 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
He's saying he's jaded, basically :-) "Seen one horsehead nebula, seen 'em all..." I donno, I kinda feel that way about my sunsets, truth be known, but I keep making 'em. At my age you worry less and less about breaking new ground, and spend more and more time exploring the old familiar haunts, not through desire for fresh revelations, but just because they remind you of where your life has been...
R. |
Now Bear, there we have a difference of opinion. Sure, for some advancing age is a time for looking back – reviewing where we’ve been – seeing if we can see the familiar in a new way. For others it is the chance to see what’s out there still to be discovered. I, for one, can hardly wait to see “what’s next!” But far be it from me to pull rank on you, er, young feller. You opine one way, I’ll opine another.
:-))
And forgive me from digressing from this fascinating thread, which is GREAT reading.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 12:24:33 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by yanko:
That is also what has me confused. I do agree that the technical prowess most definitely leads to "making" an image (i.e. creating a physical copy) but it seems like he and others are also saying it is what "makes" the shot (i.e. makes it great). That I disagree with. |
So, yanko, unless you’re pulling our collective chain through all this,
you’re maybe saying that unless it’s, say, a Doug Adams interpretation of the Universe,
(dang I wish he was still around), it’s all just classy scientific journalism?
Tossing in another metaphor, I suppose that’s what makes a horse race – differing opinions.
These beautiful images evoke a strong emotional reaction from me and others. To me, that’s art.
Yes, even 'great' art. |
Ok so art is producing a strong emotional reaction? What if I read you a poem I wrote and gave you flowers I knew you'd love and personally arranged myself? What if I told you here's $10 bucks go get flowers yourself and for the poem just google something and don't bother me. I bet both would produce an emotional reaction perhaps a strong one but are either acts of art?
ETA: Oh and yes I'm not taking this all that seriously. :)
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 00:27:56.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 12:37:57 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok so art is producing a strong emotional reaction? What if I read you a poem I wrote and gave you flowers I knew you'd love and personally arranged myself? What if I told you here's $10 bucks go get flowers yourself and for the poem just google something and don't bother me. I bet both would produce an emotional reaction perhaps a strong one but are either acts of art?
ETA: Oh and yes I'm not taking this all that seriously. :) |
Ha Ha - Oh, Yanko, now you are being silly.
:-))
A whomp upside the head will evoke a strong emotional reaction too,
but no, it ain't art. (Where's ART ROFLMAO when I need him) |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 01:11:22 AM · #73 |
Richard, you speak of poetry and here is a photo that I find tells quite a story of fascinating drama and whom T.S. Eliot would capture in words just as well as you photographed this magnificent creature:
However, in the words of John Masefield:
"I must down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky,
And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by..."
Perhaps, we all find our poetic guiding star in different ways such as the eyes of a magnificent cat or in the depths of the deep space. I understand that perhaps in astrophotography you do not find an alignment within your own sense of the poetic, but rather feel a sense of saturation with the topic and this type of photography in general. Although I do not echo your sentiments on the topic of these magnificent star photos...::daintily nibbles on french fry::...I do understand that every artist has within them the promise of their own passion.
You demonstrate yours clearly by the wealth of excellence in your portfolio...and I think Steve's point is well-taken that we should perhaps hitch hike through the DPC galaxy and expand our own horizon into the depths of appreciation for that which we cannot see every day or appreciate other than from those who bring home to us within...the stars from without.
Well, it's time for my Seabiscuit to get off the soap box and wander home to the stables...
P.S. Curly fries, please....;-)
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 10:03:32 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
These beautiful images evoke a strong emotional reaction from me and others. To me, that’s art.
Yes, even 'great' art. |
That comment is a primo example of what I was alluding to.
If I took a picture of a breathtaking Picasso (<<
This is exactly the same thing, imo. This is documentation of something beautiful and I have trouble crediting the photographer for the beauty. "Awesome photo of something beautiful" is my reaction. While I appreciate the degree of difficulty requires to get those images, I think the "awe factor" credit is misplaced.
I'm also in the camp where I think these shots look cool but...seen one seen'em all. I'm in awe of the vastness with or a without a photo. Infinity blows me away.
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 10:40:27. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 10:35:31 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by sfalice:
These beautiful images evoke a strong emotional reaction from me and others. To me, that’s art.
Yes, even 'great' art. |
That comment is a primo example of what I was alluding to.
If I took a picture of a breathtaking Picasso (<<
This is exactly the same thing, imo. This is documentation of something beautiful and I have trouble crediting the photographer for the beauty. "Awesome photo of something beautiful" is my reaction.
I'm also in the camp where I think these shots look cool but...seen one seen'em all. I'm in awe of the vastness with or a without a photo. Infinity blows me away. |
Your reductionist reasoning suggests to me that the only true artist is God (however you choose to define Him/him/her/it).
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 10:39:16. |
|
