| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/26/2006 05:08:55 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
...(I in no way meant I thought, or think, that you are/were showing off, ever :)) |
o, i probably was. but i was young and stupid. now, i know i'm pretty good at using my eye, and the ps is there to finish the job. fix nature's mistakes - to paraphrase ansel
|
|
|
|
09/26/2006 05:13:17 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
...The dark room -- digital processing analogy is valid. It's just that the photographers usilizing the digital processing often don't realize when they start drifting into a form of art, different from photography. |
why does photography have to be only one thing? when did it stop developing? there have been so many steps - colloidal, tin-type, etc. etc., i don't have time to haul out my art history books, but many many differing steps. is a cyanotype not a photograph? it's not even exposed in a darkroom.
um, a little divergence there. but - photgraphy is a developing process (pun not intended). it grows. just like language.
not sure wheere my point is going, i'm too distracted by the smell of burning food. gotta run. take it and run, minds less occupied with family matters...
|
|
|
|
09/26/2006 05:14:18 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
In fact, Apple wanted to sue Microsoft for stealing mouse technology, but then they remembered that Apple had stolen it from Hewlett Packard (who gave it away because they didn't think it was worth anything... snicker). |
Actually, they all pretty much pinched it from Xerox PARC and the work that Douglas Engelbart did.
That group is credited with coming up with:
The mouse
colour graphics
The Graphical User Interface (Windows/ Icons/ Mouse/ Pointers or WIMP)
WYSIWYG text editor
InterPress which eventually became PostScript
Object Oriented programming (smalltalk)
The laser printer
and Ethernet
Not a bad list for one group, really. Shame that Xerox didn't realise what they had, though they did get stock from Apple in exchange for explaining the technology to them, which led to the Macintosh
Message edited by author 2006-09-26 17:14:50. |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 05:28:46 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by xianart:
why does photography have to be only one thing? when did it stop developing? there have been so many steps - colloidal, tin-type, etc. etc., i don't have time to haul out my art history books, but many many differing steps. is a cyanotype not a photograph? it's not even exposed in a darkroom.
um, a little divergence there. but - photgraphy is a developing process (pun not intended). it grows. just like language. |
If you allow yourself too much freedom with digital manipulation, it becomes no longer necessary to anticipate and capture the Decisive Moment: you can add the missing parts for it (or remove the extras) in Photoshop! At this point, you stop being a Photographer, and become a Painter, a Graphical Designer, etc.
The technology does not matter. I don't care what devices are used to capture and develop the Decisive Moment.
Originally posted by Henri Cartier-Bresson:
The decisive moment, as Cartier-Bresson tersely defined it, is ‘the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as the precise organization of forms which gives that event its proper expression." |
|
|
|
|
09/26/2006 05:30:27 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by xianart:
why does photography have to be only one thing? when did it stop developing? there have been so many steps - colloidal, tin-type, etc. etc., i don't have time to haul out my art history books, but many many differing steps. is a cyanotype not a photograph? it's not even exposed in a darkroom.
um, a little divergence there. but - photgraphy is a developing process (pun not intended). it grows. just like language. |
If you allow yourself too much freedom with digital manipulation, it becomes no longer necessary to anticipate and capture the Decisive Moment: you can add the missing parts for it (or remove the extras) in Photoshop! At this point, you stop being a Photographer, and become a Painter, a Graphical Designer, etc.
The technology does not matter. I don't care what devices are used to capture and develop the Decisive Moment.
Originally posted by Henri Cartier-Bresson:
The decisive moment, as Cartier-Bresson tersely defined it, is ‘the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as the precise organization of forms which gives that event its proper expression." |
|
Ironic, since Cartier-Bresson is also known for posing many "simultaneous recognition" scenes ;)
|
|
|
|
09/26/2006 05:48:40 PM · #106 |
Ya know who was a crappy photographer? Ansel Adams. He was so bad that he had to dodge and burn to make his photos look good.
Sarcasm aside, I think a lot of people give too much credit to Photoshop. Sure, it can give a drab photo some life, but it doesn't make masterpieces. It doesn't create subjects or change perspectives. And I thought it was the job of artists to push the envelope, but they get ridiculed for doing something different than it was done 30 years ago, and accused of destroying and cheapening the art form.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2006 06:03:26 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Ironic, since Cartier-Bresson is also known for posing many "simultaneous recognition" scenes ;) |
Even if you pose the scene (supposing you are not shooting a professional model or an inanimate object), it takes a keen eye to anticipate and recognise the correct moment for an exposure. |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 06:04:15 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Ironic, since Cartier-Bresson is also known for posing many "simultaneous recognition" scenes ;) |
Even if you pose the scene (supposing you are not shooting a professional model or an inanimate object), it takes a keen eye to anticipate and recognise the correct moment for an exposure. |
Yes, I know, hence the winkie.. just making a point that nothing is ever really what it seems :)
|
|
|
|
09/26/2006 06:09:47 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by jpeters:
Ya know who was a crappy photographer? Ansel Adams. He was so bad that he had to dodge and burn to make his photos look good.
Sarcasm aside, I think a lot of people give too much credit to Photoshop. Sure, it can give a drab photo some life, but it doesn't make masterpieces. It doesn't create subjects or change perspectives. |
you still need a good photo to make a great photo with PS. start with crap - get crap...
Originally posted by jpeters:
And I thought it was the job of artists to push the envelope, but they get ridiculed for doing something different than it was done 30 years ago, and accused of destroying and cheapening the art form. |
that's how it's been since art criticism was invented.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2006 11:21:31 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I look forward to it!! |
A day later than promissed, but here it is. |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 11:25:34 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by xianart:
you still need a good photo to make a great photo with PS. start with crap - get crap... |
This is a pretty weak argument. I've seen many crap photographs, which, after a little time in photoshop, gained colours and textures that were nerver there in the original. And new colours and textures, if applied skilfully and tastefully, can make a crap photograph look interesting.
Some people argue that this is immaterial, and that the only thing that matters is the final image - whether it is appealing to the viewers. I have no problem with this argument, with only one exception: the resulting image should not be called a photograph, as it loses touch with reality. |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 11:37:45 PM · #112 |
Winners are grinners, and the losses can please themselves…check out Ursula and ask if you can see the ribbon, I’m sure she would only be too willing to show it to you. Everything is art, no matter what it is, or how it is done. I love all creative people, so good luck to someone who comes up with something a little different, and if people go to the trouble of purchasing a program like Photoshop C S, that incidentally, in Australia cost more than $2000.00 to buy, if you make that sort of outlay to improve your pictures, then go for it, and never mind the bleating of the wethers in the back paddock…me …speaking from an artist point of view…I just love art of any kind, no matter what handle you put on it. Out of the lens or post processed or splashing paint onto a canvas…and this forum is a good way to air your views and good luck to Ursula and congratulations on the Ribbon
s
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 11:14:33 AM · #113 |
Didn't read the whole thread, but I think that digital can only supply so much in contrast, exposure, and color depiction. It does not capture the moment as you see it. It can't. It can only read the light as it sees it and color as it is capable of depicting. Therefore, it has been said before and I will say it again, post processing allows you to expound upon why you took the photo in the first place. You need to allow your viewer to see the vision you saw, and that is why we post process. I used to have a dark room and did black and white photography. I got a magnifier to make sure my focus was as sharp as it could be and I dodged and burned details to give the image more contrast, and I used to leave the photo in the baths longer or shorter depending on how I wanted the photo to look. So was I wrong in working so hard, and adding toning baths, etc? I don't think so.
As an artist who paints, don't they do the same thing? Add light where it might not have been, take away details that they don't like,combine images into one work, shade and highlight, regesso an area and repaint it until they liked it. Cooking, too. You add spices, you cook differently, you add sauces. Is Chicken alfredo not acceptable as chicken because you added alfredo sauce? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 11:32:59 AM · #114 |
| Photography is, and always has been, an art form. To say that processed images are works of art rather than photos ignores this basic premise. Film may be dead, but photos still need to be developed. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 11:34:33 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by coolblue:
Winners are grinners, and the losses can please themselves…check out Ursula and ask if you can see the ribbon, I’m sure she would only be too willing to show it to you. Everything is art, no matter what it is, or how it is done. I love all creative people, so good luck to someone who comes up with something a little different, and if people go to the trouble of purchasing a program like Photoshop C S, that incidentally, in Australia cost more than $2000.00 to buy, if you make that sort of outlay to improve your pictures, then go for it, and never mind the bleating of the wethers in the back paddock…me …speaking from an artist point of view…I just love art of any kind, no matter what handle you put on it. Out of the lens or post processed or splashing paint onto a canvas…and this forum is a good way to air your views and good luck to Ursula and congratulations on the Ribbon
s |
Thank you [big grin] :)
And I like the chicken alfredo analogy to photography. That's cool. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 11:51:38 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Photography is, and always has been, an art form. To say that processed images are works of art rather than photos ignores this basic premise. |
How does hat follow? I don't see any logic here, I'm sorry.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Film may be dead, but photos still need to be developed. ;-) |
You are missing the point completely. Developed - yes. Manipulated beyond recongition - no. And, no, film is not dead at all. It's only dead in the family/vacationist photography domain. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 11:54:55 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Film may be dead, but photos still need to be developed. ;-) |
You are missing the point completely. Developed - yes. Manipulated beyond recongition - no. And, no, film is not dead at all. It's only dead in the family/vacationist photography domain. |
agekin, he was just playing with words. He does that all the time, drives us all up the wall. Really. [but we love it] |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 11:56:49 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
The problem is that Photography is dying: it is being replaced by other forms of arts: PhotoDesign, PhotoPainting, PhotoDrama, PhotoLiterature, etc. At this rate, the art of photography, as practiced by the classics we all rever, will be gone. To me photography is the art of the stopped moment.
Everybody is free to practice any form of visual art. Just don't call the result of a digitally manipulated beyond recognition image a *photograph*, and I will take it seriously! |
What if the image is beyond recognition and not post-processed, such as a long-exposure shot where the camera is moved? Or the camera is stationary but the light or subject moves? Are you saying your opinion is that if the viewer can't identify the subject(s) or object(s) in the shot it's not a photograph?
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 11:57:55 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by coolblue:
Everything is art, no matter what it is, or how it is done. I love all creative people, so good luck to someone who comes up with something a little different, and if people go to the trouble of purchasing a program like Photoshop C S, that incidentally, in Australia cost more than $2000.00 to buy, if you make that sort of outlay to improve your pictures, then go for it, and never mind the bleating of the wethers in the back paddock…me …speaking from an artist point of view…I just love art of any kind, no matter what handle you put on it. Out of the lens or post processed or splashing paint onto a canvas…and this forum is a good way to air your views |
You are blabbering. Nobody is contesting that digital image creation is an art form. Creativity remains. It's only photography that vanishes.
Listen to you: success justifies everything? Does it follow that he who is not successful by some baseline measurement (such as number of ribbons) is not a creative artist? Does it follow that his arguments are to be discarded? If not, then why did you bring it up? |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:06:42 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by dahved:
What if the image is beyond recognition and not post-processed, such as a long-exposure shot where the camera is moved? Or the camera is stationary but the light or subject moves? Are you saying your opinion is that if the viewer can't identify the subject(s) or object(s) in the shot it's not a photograph? |
This, actually, is a very good question. My point of view allows for creative image manipulation at the exposure time, since the author worked in real, and not imaginary time and world, to achieve the effect. The trick is to still have some attachment to the real world in the photograph; that is the viewer must feel it. Please read this post for a better wording of this thought. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:07:03 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Photography is, and always has been, an art form. To say that processed images are works of art rather than photos ignores this basic premise. |
How does hat follow? I don't see any logic here, I'm sorry. |
Photography is a form of art. Artistic manipulation of a photo is thus no less a photograph than a straight snapshot. A manupulated photograph perhaps, but still a photograph. It's like saying you can't call something a painting because it was enhanced on a computer with Painter. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:11:06 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...It's like saying you can't call something a painting because it was enhanced on a computer with Painter. |
or multimedia is not artwork. or a painting with collaged items is not a painting. narrow definitions have never sat well with artists.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:12:26 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Photography is a form of art. Artistic manipulation of a photo is thus no less a photograph than a straight snapshot. A manupulated photograph perhaps, but still a photograph. It's like saying you can't call something a painting because it was enhanced on a computer with Painter. |
The problem is that the word "photograph" is overloaded here. We use it as a technical term to designate an image, obtained with a photographic equipment. We also use it to designate an item belonging to a genre of visual arts. So, in response to your argument, I say that a manipuated photograph is the former, but not the latter. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:13:24 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by xianart:
or multimedia is not artwork. or a painting with collaged items is not a painting. narrow definitions have never sat well with artists. |
Again, overloading the terms is the problem here. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:19:39 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
I say that a manipuated photograph is the former, but not the latter. |
ALL digital photos are manipulated, either in-camera or in the computer. How much manipulation is reasonable is a totally subjective call. |
|
