DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> My TENS in the Yellow Challenge
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 88 of 88, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/16/2004 09:11:20 PM · #76
John- I am flattered and very pleased that you are including my photo in your discussion. I would have responded to your request sooner, but I have been busy traveling home from Hawaii :(

My feeling about this shot is that it could be better, and in fact is better. Here is a link to the original, unedited (except for resizing): original

I much prefer the color in the original and altered the photo for the worse (in my opinion) to meet the chalenge. This image wasn't my personal favorite from this series, either. I liked this one the best but felt it lacked the intense yellow where the lava was being "born" and therefore would not have been as strong an entry in this challenge.

I will try to describe my artistic process in capturing these shots, but I don't know how well I can put it into words. My primary emotion when I took these was awe. I was standing 5 feet away from flowing lava!!! I hiked 3 miles over a trail-less bed of 1 and 2 year old lava that tore up shoes (and legs) to reach the flow. I have been to Volcanoes NP 5 or 6 times and this is the first time there was actually an accessible surface flow while I happened to be there, so I was also feeling incredibly lucky. I shot a bunch of pictures using all different techniques and angles for several reasons- 1: I might never get this opportunity again, so I wanted to make sure I came away with a shot I could hang on my wall and 2: The weather was uncooperative- the sky was overcast and threatened rain (which luckily held off until I had all the shots I needed but made the hike back a bit wet) and the wind was blowing about 15-20MPH which was shaking my tripod and making it difficult to get sharp images. The shots I ended up liking best were the ones I took zoomed in from a low angle. I tried some wide angle shots to include the lava fields and volcano in the background but these did not give as powerful an image.

I tried some long exposures to get some motion blur of the lava actually flowing, but the wind was shaking the camera too much for satisfactory results. I did take a series of shots showing the lava flowing down a crevice. When I have some time I would like to turn it into a triptych showing the lava advancing.

With all that being said, I don't think I can credit this image to luck or necessarily skill. Perseverence or trial and error seem to best fit the bill.

I think this is a great discussion- I am looking forward to responses from the other photogs as well. Artistic ability is a skill I want to improve at and is a primary reason for my finding and participating in DPC.

-Ryan
12/17/2004 08:20:40 AM · #77
I will comment on preconceived photography v. serendipitous photography through the use if this analogy...

Photography is different than oil painting in that root of the final product in photography is

1. always based upon our two dimentional vision(even if the picture is abstract)
(and)
2. based upon external factors

where as in oil painting

1.there can be concepts beyond our two dimensional vision more readily,
(and)

2. there can be almost discreetly internal factors leading to the compostion of a painting.

what I mean is that you can make up a composition in your head with painting, and you can transfer it to the canvas without many, if any "external" factors

photography, despite "creative" abstract or otherwise composition, is essentially take it as you find it.

We spend so much time saying that a "good photographer will make a mundane situation interesting" yet- look at teh challenge winners- exotic locations or vividly wild egg smashing studio shots! Even Martin Perriault, who is in my opinion very skilled, would be 99% less interesting without his "muse," as he puts her, a drop dead gorgeous naked girl.

anyway, rather than people bitching that they don't have a Dslr, they should be using as an excuse the fact that they live somewhere very mundane, safe and boring looking, like Connecticut suburbia ;)

12/17/2004 09:18:13 AM · #78
Originally posted by blindjustice:


Photography is different than oil painting in that root of the final product in photography is

1. always based upon our two dimentional vision(even if the picture is abstract)
2. based upon external factors

where as in oil painting

1.there can be concepts beyond our two dimensional vision more readily,
2. there can be almost discreetly internal factors leading to the compostion of a painting.

what I mean is that you can make up a composition in your head with painting, and you can transfer it to the canvas without many, if any "external" factors

photography, despite "creative" abstract or otherwise composition, is essentially take it as you find it.

We spend so much time saying that a "good photographer will make a mundane situation interesting" yet- look at teh challenge winners- exotic locations or vividly wild egg smashing studio shots! Even Martin Perriault, who is in my opinion very skilled, would be 99% less interesting without his "muse," as he puts her, a drop dead gorgeous naked girl.

anyway, rather than people bitching that they don't have a Dslr, they should be using as an excuse the fact that they live somewhere very mundane, safe and boring looking, like Connecticut suburbia ;)


Although I see truths in your statement, I'm not sure that I agree with them as stated. I live in an area which anyone who lives out West would consider mundane. Most folks in the rest of the world would probably think the same. It's relatively flat, no ancient history, and other than fall colors, doesn't compare to many areas. Yet, I find inspiration everywhere (and did so before I owned an SLR!).

I also believe emphatically that photography is not even close to "take it as you find it". "As you find it" leads to snapshots. But studying a potential image, then contemplating the time of year, and time of day when the light will specifically highlight what you want means you are choosing a point in time which may or may not be accessible to others. When you take into account post processing, I don't think we're looking at chance. Sure, we all take images in the easier take it as you find it context, but my feeling is that Ansel Adams, Galen Rowell, and John Shaw's work is not based on chance, but on creation. The dextrous manipulation of many small variables all being aligned to convey one preconceived image.

An accomplished photographher can create an image in his/her head and "make it happen" in the same way an oil painter does. In fact, this is the premise of Galen Rowell's book which I referenced earlier in this thread.
12/17/2004 09:38:53 AM · #79
first; I was not implying anything about one or the other being easier(painting or photography)- just that there are inevitable, undeniable things about finding art vs. creating art from scratch. If it was "oil painting challenge"- you would have no advantage at all in being in tahiti or paris or york pennsylvania.

Secondly, there are those whoi take the mundane elements and make terrific pictures. JJbeguin with his mirrors on the ground or his rusty lock or bouy are examples. But all I am saying is that a studio or a city or a buxom model can go a long way. So lets not get all carried away that photography is "creating" more than finding- because I guarantee your photographic heroes did not take even 10% of their pictures of "mundane" topics. Ansel Adams wasn't taking pictures of dirty north eastern winter roads at nighttime. He may have slept in the desert with his extremely expensive Nikon to get the right shot, but it was still an amazing shot, and if he was a short order cook in Cleveland, who knows. Van Gogh, or picasso, on the other hand, would have made insanely wonderful shots even as short order cooks in Cleveland.

This is not a competition between painting and photography- just as photographer's I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the external environment does not play a bigger role and we do more "seeing or finding" than we do outright creating- in a lot of cases. Studio shots of wooden figures being posed with odd lighting- that is creating, but isn't it more sculpture than photography?

I am begining to think that non-representational abstract photography is the way to go.
12/17/2004 10:42:35 AM · #80
Originally posted by blindjustice:

...all I am saying is that a studio or a city or a buxom model can go a long way. So lets not get all carried away that photography is "creating" more than finding- because I guarantee your photographic heroes did not take even 10% of their pictures of "mundane" topics. Ansel Adams wasn't taking pictures of dirty north eastern winter roads at nighttime. He may have slept in the desert with his extremely expensive Nikon to get the right shot, but it was still an amazing shot, and if he was a short order cook in Cleveland, who knows. Van Gogh, or picasso, on the other hand, would have made insanely wonderful shots even as short order cooks in Cleveland.


I won't argue that many of their works are taken at amazing locations. However, one of the observations Rowell made after years of adventure photography was that he did not need to take trips to Tibet in order to create his preconceived images. How could take them in his home state of California just as successfully.

There have also been many essays suggesting that if a skilled photographer were to return to the exactl location an image was captured, they may not be able to recreate the previous work. Especially in the case of some of Adam's post-processing techniques. Adams himself was quoted numerous times as saying that he had interpretations which he, the master, was never able to duplicate the quality of. This example is less relevant in the days of Photoshop, but I believe the point remains valid.

When I last visited Niagara falls, I captured some images I was happy with, and many I was disappointed with. The majesty and beauty of one of the seven wonders of the world did not change between those shots. So why were some good, and others not? Because even when faced with something amazing the details matter.

Originally posted by blindjustice:

This is not a competition between painting and photography


I agree. No competition is intended in my responses. I'm only countering your views on photography as an art form which can be preconcieved vs. primarily serendipitous.

Originally posted by blindjustice:

...as photographer's I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the external environment does not play a bigger role and we do more "seeing or finding" than we do outright creating- in a lot of cases. Studio shots of wooden figures being posed with odd lighting- that is creating, but isn't it more sculpture than photography?


To base an opinion about photography only on the number of public appearances Woody makes on DPC is definitely short-changing photography as a form of expression. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with serendipity - it's certainly a big part of photography. But I do believe that a preconceived image can be created, and that this represents a higher evolution of control over the final work, much like switching from auto to manual. That control can be wasted, or directed, and with the latter I believe we often see the products of photographers we call masters.
12/17/2004 11:39:07 AM · #81
I just used the wooden guy as an example.no slight intended.

One point I see now is that one of the strongest skills of a photographic artist is to use preconcieved forethought to "pre-see" the shots we want and go find them. But luck comes to those with an eye for art, and in music, art, photography, luck or serendipity is just as essential a tool. I don't mean "stick your camera out of the sunroof and click " luck, but I do mean that if you've got something in your head- more factors than just your pre-conceived notion are neede. call it luck, timing, etc. you need this.

I don't mean to chort change photography. I eternally grapple with the concept of a "visualized realism" as artistic expression. Its lazy art to say "I see art wherever I look" and because I take a really clear , realistic shot of something, technically balanced and such- its art... and not an advertisement or photojournalism. Not to say it can't happen-but hell... not too likely- I haven't really pushed to switch to painting, but I feel I must soon.

Again, pardon the generalization, but a lot of photographers are really into their "equiptment" more than making good, artistic shots. I certainly won't be painting images of hammers busting lightbulbs and dog portraits. is that art?

Message edited by author 2004-12-17 11:43:05.
12/17/2004 12:07:53 PM · #82
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Again, pardon the generalization, but a lot of photographers are really into their "equiptment" more than making good, artistic shots. I certainly won't be painting images of hammers busting lightbulbs and dog portraits. is that art?


Now I think I'm with you. Gear can be a highly distracting force when someone is trying to develop a sense of photographic aesthetics... No doubt about it.

But hey, don't knock the dog portraits :) I've seen a lot of dog portraits I like better than many human portraits. Let's just say there's good photos and bad photos regardless of their genre!
12/17/2004 12:38:22 PM · #83
Originally posted by cghubbell:

I certainly won't be painting images of hammers busting lightbulbs and dog portraits. is that art?


Uh, oh. There goes my gallery business. ;-)

Message edited by author 2004-12-17 12:39:04.
12/17/2004 12:48:00 PM · #84
All artist evolve and involve. Understand this and you will widen your receptive cup. The reality is that the artist follows an undulating wave.

The moment you begin to eliminate you begin to close doors into the imagination. Once you start this path of likes and dislikes ideas will be sencored by this filter. A true artist can portray even a bulb being busted. It is not the photograph or the subject, it is the visual artistic representation.
12/17/2004 12:56:41 PM · #85
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

All artist evolve and involve. Understand this and you will widen your receptive cup. The reality is that the artist follows an undulating wave.

The moment you begin to eliminate you begin to close doors into the imagination. Once you start this path of likes and dislikes ideas will be sencored by this filter. A true artist can portray even a bulb being busted. It is not the photograph or the subject, it is the visual artistic representation.


These are wise words.
I admit that I take shots that are not as good as the busted bulb and I should probably sell my camera. The only thing that keeps me going is that I think I have some artistic vision and Maybe I'll take a good shot now and then.

Lots of things can be "art"
the difference is that the busted bulb would generally not be considered "fine art" under anything but the most subjective of terms. Now don't get me wrong lots of things can pass as art- cartoons, needlepoint. but lets be serious. thats not fine art. and show me the context where bulb breaking is fine art. I should have picked on the bullet through the balloon. fine art?
12/17/2004 01:52:03 PM · #86
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

All artist evolve and involve. Understand this and you will widen your receptive cup. The reality is that the artist follows an undulating wave.

The moment you begin to eliminate you begin to close doors into the imagination. Once you start this path of likes and dislikes ideas will be sencored by this filter. A true artist can portray even a bulb being busted. It is not the photograph or the subject, it is the visual artistic representation.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

These are wise words.
I admit that I take shots that are not as good as the busted bulb and I should probably sell my camera. The only thing that keeps me going is that I think I have some artistic vision and Maybe I'll take a good shot now and then.

Lots of things can be "art"
the difference is that the busted bulb would generally not be considered "fine art" under anything but the most subjective of terms. Now don't get me wrong lots of things can pass as art- cartoons, needlepoint. but lets be serious. thats not fine art. and show me the context where bulb breaking is fine art. I should have picked on the bullet through the balloon. fine art?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, place a well lit tormented head of a woman in b/w with lines across the forehead and hair messed up. Agony in her expression and a broken spirit and show a busted light next to her. Both with a black background. Here the bulb exemplifies her inner condition.

12/17/2004 02:07:21 PM · #87
you got me.
12/17/2004 03:57:22 PM · #88
Originally posted by dsb_mac:

I think this phenomenon of great artful photographs not doing well certainly lies in the scoring method. It's a system that rewards the most popular image not necessarily the best photograph. Sometimes the results are the same but sometimes it's really wacky. I liken it to when they do open polls of favorite movies. Like AFI's Top Movies where they have 2 lists one chose by experts and another by the population. They often differ drastically simply because most critics and directors wouldn't list Porky's Revenge as the BEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!! I'm not saying one is correct and the other isn't they're both valid points of view. But personally I'd rather lean towards an expert's opinion as to what something is worth not the total population. If I'm sick I go to a doctor. I don't ask Tom, Dick, and Harry off the street and follow their advice.

Don't get me wrong, I love DPC. It's the only site on the net that I actually poneyed up money for membership. But we could always improve it.


I understand where you are coming from on wanting a professional's opinion, however, why are you a photographer? Seems to me that people take pictures so that they can be enjoyed by the general public. It would be an "us 4 and no more" club if photographers took pictures only to be judged by other photographers. They wouldnt SELL to other photographers, necessarily. Just IMHO.

Jennifer
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 08:16:06 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 08:16:06 AM EDT.