| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2008 12:53:49 AM · #26 |
Wow, Don. Just ... very well done. Got a 3 from me (for those of you who haven't noticed, 3 is the highest vote on a tutorial).
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 01:04:39 AM · #27 |
| I couldn't agree more with step #3... |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 05:54:02 AM · #28 |
Concise and insightful.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 06:50:32 AM · #29 |
Laughter turned to tears...tears turned to joy...joy turned to sorrow...sorrow became a quiet calm...I slowly rose from my chair and did a triumphant dance of freedom...
...and that was only my first reaction.
Cheers and well done.
Message edited by author 2008-01-24 06:52:15. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 06:57:17 AM · #30 |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 07:07:11 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by goc:
Overwhelming |
Said the light to the moth...
"but I will burn you"
Said the moth to the light
"Yes, I know but the light...the light...the light..."
Message edited by author 2008-01-24 07:14:23. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 08:31:55 AM · #32 |
WARNING: IF YOU JUST WANT TO APPLAUD AND AREN'T INTERESTED IN OPPOSING OPINIONS, JUST SKIP THIS REPLY!
Nicely written, Don, and makes sense in a way, but I feel it is only one side of the medal. As  Simms hasn't replied yet, I have to open that well known can (forgive me for this isn't a complete review of the "tutorial", but my not so humble opinion as far as I am able to express it):
Originally posted by tutorial:
I often see the term "fine art photograph" bandied about. This seems to be an attempt to make art into a genre. |
Ahem, nonsense. A genre would be "nude" or "portrait" or "landscape". Fine Art photography can be of any subject matter. "Fine" in this term just relates to the attempt of being technically perfect, while "art" relates to the context it was created in. So, "fine art photograph" describes a photograph that was created by someone with the necessary knowledge and abilities and for the solely purpose of expressing the artists thoughts or emotions. (admitted, the term is often applied wrongly)
Originally posted by tutorial:
Empty your mind of the challenge! |
Yeah, lets forget about all those challenge topics, nothing but free Studies from now on! No. Many DPC users, including me, find their challenge in fulfilling the quest and want to be judged and judge accordingly.
Originally posted by tutorial:
Empty your mind of the title. |
Some artists want the title to support or emphasize the spirit/message/meaning of their artwork. Just think about abstract artwork; some wouldn't be more than decorative without their titles. Sometimes artworks can imply more than one meaning; it can be the purpose of the title to lead the viewer where the artist wanted them - or at least, give a hint to what they felt, when they pressed the shutter . Some titles can even be artworks for themselves.
Originally posted by tutorial:
the key is to rate the experience you just had, not the photograph |
Originally posted by tutorial:
(...) objective criteria you could use for rating an artistic image, criteria like "rule of thirds," (...) you haven't found a set of criteria to apply to artistic images is because they don't exist |
So, rules of composition don't apply to "art"? I always thought they were discovered by artists - and used by artists to help the viewer into and through the artwork.
Originally posted by tutorial:
(...) criteria like"sharp focus," and "details in the shadows and the highlights." (...) you haven't found a set of criteria to apply to artistic images is because they don't exist |
Originally posted by tutorial:
with art you are not judging the skill of the artist. |
Technical aspects don't apply either? How can something be art, when it fails to communicate its message due to distractions by technical flaws? Must an artist ignore the technicals? I believe skills are the basis of creating art (admitted, as long as you have those skills, you must not apply them on every artwork you create). Nevertheless, art can be judged by technicals, too. Michelangelo's work would have been long overpainted, if he had used wax crayons. Mark Rothko's work wouldn't sell for millions, if he hadn't understood the basic rules of composition.
Originally posted by tutorial:
Is it so bad to look at something that could have been the expression of a child's joy? |
Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't necessarily make that image a work of art. Also, consider that we have a competition going on here. An image looking like it was created by a child will rarely be rated the same as an image looking like it was created by an experienced photographer, even if in both cases it was an "expression of pure joy". I think that is fair.
Again, not saying a photographer with limited skills can't be an artist or a merely unedited shot can't be art, but if you want to say something, it might be better to say it in a language that will easily be understood by as much people as possible- in the field of photography that would be following common rules of composition and perception and the strive for technical perfection.
Just my 2 cents.
Finally, to support Don a bit :)
Originally posted by tutorial:
This can also help you with comments. Your comment can simply be a description of the experience. |
Here's my favorite comment by posthumous: "Wow. Wow. Ten. Wow. Fav. Wow."
Marked that as helpful.
O.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 04:54:06 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
WARNING: IF YOU JUST WANT TO APPLAUD AND AREN'T INTERESTED IN OPPOSING OPINIONS, JUST SKIP THIS REPLY!
Nicely written, Don, and makes sense in a way, but I feel it is only one side of the medal. As Simms hasn't replied yet, I have to open that well known can (forgive me for this isn't a complete review of the "tutorial", but my not so humble opinion as far as I am able to express it):
Originally posted by tutorial:
I often see the term "fine art photograph" bandied about. This seems to be an attempt to make art into a genre. |
Ahem, nonsense. A genre would be "nude" or "portrait" or "landscape". Fine Art photography can be of any subject matter. "Fine" in this term just relates to the attempt of being technically perfect, while "art" relates to the context it was created in. So, "fine art photograph" describes a photograph that was created by someone with the necessary knowledge and abilities and for the solely purpose of expressing the artists thoughts or emotions. (admitted, the term is often applied wrongly)
Originally posted by tutorial:
Empty your mind of the challenge! |
Yeah, lets forget about all those challenge topics, nothing but free Studies from now on! No. Many DPC users, including me, find their challenge in fulfilling the quest and want to be judged and judge accordingly.
Originally posted by tutorial:
Empty your mind of the title. |
Some artists want the title to support or emphasize the spirit/message/meaning of their artwork. Just think about abstract artwork; some wouldn't be more than decorative without their titles. Sometimes artworks can imply more than one meaning; it can be the purpose of the title to lead the viewer where the artist wanted them - or at least, give a hint to what they felt, when they pressed the shutter . Some titles can even be artworks for themselves.
Originally posted by tutorial:
the key is to rate the experience you just had, not the photograph |
Originally posted by tutorial:
(...) objective criteria you could use for rating an artistic image, criteria like "rule of thirds," (...) you haven't found a set of criteria to apply to artistic images is because they don't exist |
So, rules of composition don't apply to "art"? I always thought they were discovered by artists - and used by artists to help the viewer into and through the artwork.
Originally posted by tutorial:
(...) criteria like"sharp focus," and "details in the shadows and the highlights." (...) you haven't found a set of criteria to apply to artistic images is because they don't exist |
Originally posted by tutorial:
with art you are not judging the skill of the artist. |
Technical aspects don't apply either? How can something be art, when it fails to communicate its message due to distractions by technical flaws? Must an artist ignore the technicals? I believe skills are the basis of creating art (admitted, as long as you have those skills, you must not apply them on every artwork you create). Nevertheless, art can be judged by technicals, too. Michelangelo's work would have been long overpainted, if he had used wax crayons. Mark Rothko's work wouldn't sell for millions, if he hadn't understood the basic rules of composition.
Originally posted by tutorial:
Is it so bad to look at something that could have been the expression of a child's joy? |
Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't necessarily make that image a work of art. Also, consider that we have a competition going on here. An image looking like it was created by a child will rarely be rated the same as an image looking like it was created by an experienced photographer, even if in both cases it was an "expression of pure joy". I think that is fair.
Again, not saying a photographer with limited skills can't be an artist or a merely unedited shot can't be art, but if you want to say something, it might be better to say it in a language that will easily be understood by as much people as possible- in the field of photography that would be following common rules of composition and perception and the strive for technical perfection.
Just my 2 cents.
O. |
There's a lot here to chew but I would start by saying that you seem to have taken his guidelines too literally. For example, in no way did I interpret "Empty your mind of the challenge!" as meaning ignore the Challenge topic but to free your mind of pre-conceived notions...or something like that.
Is the "rule of thirds" an actual rule...do we always have to follow it? Are these learned rules...techniques simply arbitrary concepts that can be bent, ingnored, broken...obliterated....well, you get the picture.
all for now
Message edited by author 2008-01-24 17:39:28. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 05:07:55 PM · #34 |
I like the tutorial!
eyewave:
the artist doesn't "have" to ignore the technicals, but the technicals aren't as important as the feeling you get from it.
With my work I'd rather hear that the viewer could feel the emotion in a picture (or something like that), than the fact that I used the rule of thirds. That might be something I used in the photo, but it probably wasn't what I wanted to bring out. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 05:17:26 PM · #35 |
Understand the technicals, yes. Know the 'rules' of composition, yes. Great artists do these things.
Slavishly follow these rules because someone said to? No.
If you vote down every image that isn't perfectly sharp, or doesn't precisely follow the rule of thirds, you'll vote down some of the most compelling images on this site. That's what Don's saying, and he's right.
The "rules" attitude on DPC tends to push things towards Lowest-Common-Denominator images (NOTE - STILL GREAT IMAGES, SOME TRANSCENDENT, DON'T HATE ME). I think it's worth taking time to say "some great images will not follow these rules" and even "some images will be great because they don't follow these rules."
I'd go take one to demonstrate, but I'm not capable. Check out  Goodman's profile for images that skip the technicals and are better for it. Also note that she clearly KNOWS the technical 'rules' and chooses when to follow them.
Edit to add:
To criticize that image for being "OOF" would be to completely miss the point.
Message edited by author 2008-01-24 17:19:20. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 05:37:57 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
If you vote down every image that isn't perfectly sharp, or doesn't precisely follow the rule of thirds, you'll vote down some of the most compelling images on this site. |
"...you'll vote down some of the most compelling images on this site." ?
You'd be voting down the most compelling images of ALL time. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 05:49:12 PM · #37 |
| eyewave, I agree with most of what you say. You took me out of context. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 02:04:17 AM · #38 |
| Actually the context pretty plain to see: all of eyewave's desiderata are clearly credited in the tutorial which served, in my estimation, to remind us that photography is more than the sum of its parts, and not to say that it is less. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 03:12:09 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
If you vote down every image that isn't perfectly sharp, or doesn't precisely follow the rule of thirds, you'll vote down some of the most compelling images on this site. That's what Don's saying, and he's right. |
Absolutely.
Originally posted by eamurdock:
I think it's worth taking time to say "some great images will not follow these rules" and even "some images will be great because they don't follow these rules." |
Ditto. I never said something different.
Originally posted by eamurdock:
To criticize that image for being "OOF" would be to completely miss the point. |
Yes, but it is legit to criticise it for being full of dirt, motion blurred and badly cropped - even if it was intentional (what we don't know). I like most of goodmans images for their emotional value, but this one doesn't speak to me at all. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 03:15:08 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by biteme:
the artist doesn't "have" to ignore the technicals, but the technicals aren't as important as the feeling you get from it.
|
What I said: Good technicals are needful to transport and support the feeling, they're not the essence of an image. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 03:18:31 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Is the "rule of thirds" an actual rule...do we always have to follow it? Are these learned rules...techniques simply arbitrary concepts that can be bent, ingnored, broken...obliterated....well, you get the picture.
|
Always good to break a rule, but try to break them all and you will produce nothing but crap. If you are an experienced photographer (and you are), you won't even notice that you are following learnt rules when you press the shutter. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 08:06:25 AM · #42 |
I'd add: spend a moment more with the image, just before you press the vote and move to the next photo, have another look at the photo, and then vote, but just before you press the vote and move to the next photo, have another look at the photo, and then vote, but just before...
A very good and much needed tutorial. |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 06:40:52 PM · #43 |
hey don posthumous..
i loved your tutorial ..
i wish every voter had to read it before they were allowed to vote .. !!
rather than picking a photograph to pieces, does it satisfy this rule or that, looking at it on a visceral level, drinking it in .. it could only be an improvement and a lot more satisfying ... leave the nit picking to the art critics .. i agree with you 1,000,000% ..!!.:)
|
|
|
|
01/10/2011 09:33:14 PM · #44 |
Thanks posthumous for taking the time for this tutorial. I agree with some parts and disagree with others, but it helped me to think on a more fair way of vote.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2012 07:20:11 AM · #45 |
We are assuming the artist is making the art actually set out to create a particular image as opposed to digging through a pile of photos taken and saying oooh, i bet i can get a posthumous with this one. lets apply some blur and color effect.
unfortunately i think that the case for most of the "artsy" submissions.
Message edited by author 2012-07-10 07:20:33. |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 07:47:49 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
We are assuming the artist is making the art actually set out to create a particular image as opposed to digging through a pile of photos taken and saying oooh, i bet i can get a posthumous with this one. lets apply some blur and color effect.
unfortunately i think that the case for most of the "artsy" submissions. |
Really? I've never got that impression at all. It's certainly not what i do and i've got a few PR's, some blurry, some not, some colourful, some black and white. Most of my favourite photographers and artists on DPC have numerous PR's. pointandshoot,  bspurgeon, whiteroom, jmritz, jagar, odriew to name just a few. All strike me as very considered and thoughtful artists who spend a lot of time with their photography and have developed their own way of looking at the world and translating that into their art. If they've got anything in common it is probably a lack of ambition over ribbons of any sort whether they are normal ones or PR's. It just so happens that a small number of people here enjoy what they do and like to celebrate that with PR's
The scare quotes around the slightly derogatory word artsy often pops up on DPC and it usually comes from those people who, for some reason, can't get their head around the fact that some people are drawn to making and viewing less traditional types of images. The same as those people who accuse others of being pretentious for liking certain more avant grade types of music or film say. It's a very lazy accusation really Mike.
Message edited by author 2012-07-10 07:48:31. |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 08:38:34 AM · #47 |
You have hit the age-old question- is it better have a great sense of "art" and less photographic skills, or a great sense of technical photography and a lousy "eye" for art?
I would rather be in the first category, because you can learn technical photography, but not, in my estimation, art. You can learn to appreciate it and fake it, but its tough to learn.
Also, someone has just as much right to be on this site with a good aesthetic background and a point and shoot, as they would if they were a high school yearbook portrait photographer with fancy equipment.
-but at least we have a large amount of people with both sets of skills on this site. |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 09:39:55 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by mike_311:
We are assuming the artist is making the art actually set out to create a particular image as opposed to digging through a pile of photos taken and saying oooh, i bet i can get a posthumous with this one. lets apply some blur and color effect.
unfortunately i think that the case for most of the "artsy" submissions. |
Really? I've never got that impression at all. It's certainly not what i do and i've got a few PR's, some blurry, some not, some colourful, some black and white. Most of my favourite photographers and artists on DPC have numerous PR's. pointandshoot, bspurgeon, whiteroom, jmritz, jagar, odriew to name just a few. All strike me as very considered and thoughtful artists who spend a lot of time with their photography and have developed their own way of looking at the world and translating that into their art. If they've got anything in common it is probably a lack of ambition over ribbons of any sort whether they are normal ones or PR's. It just so happens that a small number of people here enjoy what they do and like to celebrate that with PR's
The scare quotes around the slightly derogatory word artsy often pops up on DPC and it usually comes from those people who, for some reason, can't get their head around the fact that some people are drawn to making and viewing less traditional types of images. The same as those people who accuse others of being pretentious for liking certain more avant grade types of music or film say. It's a very lazy accusation really Mike. |
You either appreciate it or you dont, giving someone guidelines on how to get into the mindset to vote on and "artsy" image misses the point. Either the artist did their job and made you like or feel something in their image or they failed. Me clearing my mind before looking at an image wont change that fact.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2012 10:09:17 AM · #49 |
It's just a matter of taste.
I don't like broccoli or brussel sprouts. Does that make me a bad person?
Less gassy perhaps... |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 10:27:47 AM · #50 |
I think it the tutorial is great but stops short of addressing several voting problems.
In theory, every challenge can be met with an abstract photo, but in practice, abstract photos rarely evoke a thought or emotion that relates back to the challenge them. Of course, this statement is not intended to apply to the spate of abstract challenges we've recently seen. I'm not speaking of those or free studies.
In my opinion, the idea that we should re-define voting to cater to photographers who 'don't care about scores and just want to express their art' runs afoul of the concept of this site. And the site concept is not simply a personal paradigm that should be removed from my mind before I vote, either. If the theme is bicycles and the photo appears to be a blurry nature shot, I do not believe it should win a ribbon or score above those photos that did meet the challenge. Also, assuming there really are people who just want to show their art, regardless of the score, perhaps we should allow them their opportunity to score poorly. If a photographer wants to be counter-culture, are we doing her any favors if we bend ourselves to her way of thinking? Will she then need to become more like we were originally to remain different from the mainstream?
The idea of a challenge is that we are all challenged to meet it. If we all just start with a blank slate and enter our most compelling shots (abstract or otherwise), what is the point of the challenge? There is no challenge. We already have free studies and ample abstract challenges for those who would enter them. Must every challenge be all things to all people? |
|
