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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Define Technical Excellence
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 38 of 38, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/25/2003 11:27:03 AM · #26
Originally posted by paganini:

There is a flipside to this too -- if the artist shows something that the viewer doesn't understand, is it the viewers fault or the artist fault?


It isn't anyone's fault. The artist isn't really out to communicate to Joe Nerd. Joe Nerd in turn can't help it he is a nerd and will probably stay that way the rest of his life. Art is not for nerds :)

Do you know Van Gogh had a cousin in The Hague who was a reasonably popular commissioned artist in his day and made a decent living, i.e. doing art mainly as a paycheck. In the Van Gogh museum in Holland i saw a painting by Van Gogh that he did after his Potatoes period and before going to Paris. It was in the vein of acceptably commissioned work at the time (an endearing home scene) and the style would have been acceptable by future clients. So, if he had WANTED to, he could have gone the paycheck route and be financially comfy. Van Gogh instead opted to explore Paradise and starve the crap out of himself.

Message edited by author 2003-06-25 11:36:50.
06/25/2003 12:43:50 PM · #27
Journey: '...opted to explore Paradise and starve the crap out of himself'

I wonder how much of an 'option' it is for one bent by the necessities of a perceived but, nevertheless, sheer truth. The notion of 'paradise', especially, is an interesting one. Since access alone appears to restricted to the few, the abilities and skills involved in 'rendering' it must be elective indeed.

When I compare my personal notion of paradise with what I see and am confronted with on a daily basis, I find that in paradise technical skill and ability seem to follow the vision, whereas, in (my perceived) reality, vision seems to follow the expertise...

Message edited by author 2003-06-25 13:18:53.
06/25/2003 01:12:56 PM · #28
technical skill and ability following a vision... yep, I'll go with that!
06/25/2003 01:20:19 PM · #29
Zeuszen, once in a while you make a very 'deep' post for which you have earned my respect. Yes, vG really was 'bent' by the necessities of a perceived, sheer truth. That translates to enormous courage.

The Truth, perhaps never all of it, is out there for everyone. It's that most of us do not have the guts to meet that rendez-vous. Perhaps we would be more daring if there was a guarantee of getting some sort of a 'degree' out of it, preferably during life-time not when we are dead. We stay put where we are with our jobs and paychecks and the 2.3 kids life formula. Then, later, we might have that uncomfortable feeling that somehow, somewhere we missed the boat. That we missed the boat about the essential things.

Perhaps 'Paradise' is accessible to all of us but we cannot accept that we will have to bleed along the way getting there. In my opinion, Beauty is NOT so rare a thing. Beauty is all over. Beauty is everywhere. The sad thing is that we occupy our beings so much with ugliness and inconsequential things that we lose the ability, with which a wondrous child is born, to really see Beauty. Then we have to work on it to see it. If Beauty is so rare a thing it's because we have made it so.

A good day to you, Mr Zeuszen.

Message edited by author 2003-06-25 13:31:23.
06/25/2003 01:36:30 PM · #30
the traditional definition of a technically good photograph is a good exposure (no blown highlights or overly blocked up shadows), and proper focus (i.e. what should be in focus is, and what shouldn't isnt).
06/25/2003 01:38:50 PM · #31
Originally posted by JasonPR:

Sadly, I think equipment quality has a large roll in what I, and other voters, deem technically excellent. It has a lot to do with the clarity of the image and whether or not it looks "clean."


I don't believe this.

A better camera may "help" you take a cleaner, more technically excellent photo, but it's not automatic. You still have to learn to use what you have and work within your equipments limitations.

I think the most important part of any camera is the person standing behind it. And this, more than any other factor, will determine the quality of the work produced... technical or otherwise. Especially when we are reduced to a maximum of 640x640 pixels at 72dpi for viewing!

Call me crazy, but I feel anyone with at least a 2 megapixel camera can compete here on a more or less equal footing equipment wise. Even against the DSLRs.
06/25/2003 01:40:20 PM · #32
an image doesnt have to be about anything at all. it can be decorative for example.

or it can be about itself. self-referential:

sometimes excellent technique is performed as an exercise in and of itself, in situations where it is known that it would be very difficult to achieve this result. in such a case, it is 'art for other artists'.

alternately, a poor technique can be purposely invoked, again to make a statement about technique.
06/25/2003 02:19:13 PM · #33
Originally posted by magnetic9999:

an image doesnt have to be about anything at all. it can be decorative for example.

or it can be about itself. self-referential:


I don't really consider my photos to be about anything. I usually have 2 reasons why I take photos the way I do.

1 - To show people things that I'm lucky enough to see, and hopefully how I see them. Instead of telling them, I can show them. This building is local. People have driven by it every day for years and years. But I photographed it like this and they can't even guess what or where it is. I never paid attention to it either admittedly until I was somewhere taking some photos and I turned around to see the "castle" .

2 - As demonstration - "Check out what I did!" I'm quite proud of these kinds of pictures. This is the more artistic side. I really like it when people are interested enough to ask how I thought of that, and how it was done. Rollin' Away , The Paperclip Picture

I'm sure everyone has their reasons for shooting what they shoot. These are my 2 reasons why I've shot most of my serious pictures.

To Bobster-Lobster: Thanks for noticing my work. It is very appreciated.
06/25/2003 02:21:47 PM · #34
Good exposure is a double-edged word. Just because a photograph with no blown highlights or overly blocked up shadowns doesn't mean it's properly exposed. I have seen a lot of famous photographs with blown highlights and shadows, it depends on what photographer is showing the viewer.



Originally posted by magnetic9999:

the traditional definition of a technically good photograph is a good exposure (no blown highlights or overly blocked up shadows), and proper focus (i.e. what should be in focus is, and what shouldn't isnt).

06/25/2003 02:22:48 PM · #35
of course. but then it's not 'technically good' in a "traditional" sense, even if it's 'good' in some other senses.
06/25/2003 02:26:24 PM · #36
Does art have traditional senses? :) or does art evolve?

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

of course. but then it's not 'technically good' in a "traditional" sense, even if it's 'good' in some other senses.

06/25/2003 02:27:56 PM · #37
A year and a half ago I had the privilege of standing in front of Michaelangelo's "David", in a museum in Florence, Italy. While not an art connoiseur, I experienced the "wow" syndrome. In this case, it was strictly due to technique. To see the care and expertise exhibited in the way every detail was revealed, such as the lines of muscle and tendons, I was amazed at how so very realistic this chunk of marble was. In the same museum were works that Michealangelo had begun, but never finished. Crude and incomplete, but still reflecting what was obviously in the mind of the artist, but still just a figure rising out of a block of marble.

How does this relate to the subject at hand? I am just a beginning photographer, with miles to go before I can even call myself an amateur. But what attracts me to specific photographs is elusive. At times it must be technique, as I recognize the photographer's expertise at capturing a scene in a technically superior way. In other photos, the photographer's intent is made obvious in such a way that, even though the technical aspect is not perfect, the result still gives me the "wow". Bottom line is, I guess subjectivity wins out in voting for the right photo, and I am still inspired to learn how to put all the technical aspects of photography together for my own photos.
06/25/2003 02:31:12 PM · #38
One of the things I have found very helpful to me when viewing photos is to assume that what I see is intentional. I don't automatically assume anything is a mistake. This process allows me to attempt to evaluate any message the photographer may be trying to send.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/19/2021 06:49:28 PM

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 © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/19/2021 06:49:28 PM EDT.