Author | Thread |
|
03/18/2009 04:13:18 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by yanko:
What about going the other way? In other words, the more you fabricate (i.e. lie/deceive) in front of the camera the further away you move from photography? Or does it not work that way? If that's the case why not? |
Fabricate what? I find this line of thought fascinating - honestly - and am interested in your thoughts. Not sure if you mean creating a scene or a juxtaposition or something else that doesn't exist or a fabrication in some other form. Can you elucidate? |
|
|
03/18/2009 04:16:57 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But of course this is all subjective. Take your own shot (which I gave a 9, BTW). It is not believable, but it does work and the editing is skillful. I have never seen a sky so brilliantly white that objects like birds start to fade into the BG. You processed your shot to a great effect (or overexposed), but the shot would not have been nearly the same if the shot was not processed to depart from how our eye sees reality (let's say the BG had a value of 180,180,180 and was not quite so homogenous).
OTOH, sometimes the camera captures things the eye does not see. Take my own shot. The night sky is very blue. It didn't look like that when I was shooting. It was black. BUT, I have learned that if you shoot at the beginning of astronomical twilight, the camera still captures a deep blue that is easy to bring out in a photograph. So while my shot is likewise not believable, it may actually represent a type of reality (ie. that captured by the camera sensor). |
Please, believe me, I am not holding up my work as an example of photography or even an example of good editing. I honestly believe I suck at it and am surprised when people think otherwise (see my notes on my image). And for the record, I think the sky in your image is great (its the ground with which I have a problem ;)).
But you are perfectly correct - it is all subjective. That is why we can all play in the same sandbox. We might not all agree on which games to play but... |
|
|
03/18/2009 04:18:37 PM · #78 |
BTW, it may have come across in my post that somehow I thought my processing was legit while yours wasn't. That's not what I think at all. Like I said, I gave you a 9. :) |
|
|
03/18/2009 04:21:03 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by dahkota: Originally posted by yanko:
What about going the other way? In other words, the more you fabricate (i.e. lie/deceive) in front of the camera the further away you move from photography? Or does it not work that way? If that's the case why not? |
Fabricate what? I find this line of thought fascinating - honestly - and am interested in your thoughts. Not sure if you mean creating a scene or a juxtaposition or something else that doesn't exist or a fabrication in some other form. Can you elucidate? |
Fabricate anything: is it reasonable to say if you arrange models and lighting to advantage and effect, you are "moving away from photography" into some other form of art? As a more extreme example, some of DeSouza's shots are masterpieces of stage construction, basically. Is that "less photographic" from Steve's point of view?
In other words, if (hypothetically) the only "real" photography is to allow the camera to be a conduit for "what really exists", then can we make a logical case for the idea that post production processing is any less "real" than pre production arranging of elements to compose an image?
I think that's Yanko's point, anyway... Or part of it; what about how we tell "lies" by choosing to frame out certain elements of a scene? Who knew that shooter X's pristine sunset shot was captured from between two massive condos that almost totally wall the shore? Does it matter?
R.
|
|
|
03/18/2009 04:22:57 PM · #80 |
|
|
03/18/2009 04:23:25 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by yanko: Originally posted by pawdrix: Some folks are in the school where it's ALL good and I certainly have no issue with whatever people do but I believe the more and more you process, you are at some point moving further and further away from photography. |
What about going the other way? In other words, the more you fabricate (i.e. lie/deceive) in front of the camera the further away you move from photography? Or does it not work that way? If that's the case why not? |
"(i.e. lie/deceive)"
Ouch!
Bear-I think the problem is there are a few topics here being addressed and many of them are too closely related to keep the ideas clear. My thoughts are either coming out balled up or being read that way and some of this is based on my many years here tossing around fat par-baked opinions, like nickles. ;)
In short, if I think something is way overprocessed or that the saturation levels are too high for my taste, I'm not saying it's Digital Art and on the flip side, I'm not saying that it's not photography.
These things can also be tied directly together and I may lay all those claims mentioned above but it depends on the image. I can keep these things separate but it's hard to make point publically when emotions run high or when people are personally invested in the discussion.
People might love Emeril and I could care less but the man couldn't cook his way out of a paper bag. Live and let live but if he were voted America's Greatest Chef and people started buying into it and the news touted him a King Of All Chefs...I'd freak out and you'd see me start to push. These subjects like Photography tend to get me more vocal...so here you have it.
Le Jardin de Monet
Message edited by author 2009-03-18 16:33:07. |
|
|
03/18/2009 04:25:44 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Fabricate anything: is it reasonable to say if you arrange models and lighting to advantage and effect, you are "moving away from photography" into some other form of art? As a more extreme example, some of DeSouza's shots are masterpieces of stage construction, basically. Is that "less photographic" from Steve's point of view?
In other words, if (hypothetically) the only "real" photography is to allow the camera to be a conduit for "what really exists", then can we make a logical case for the idea that post production processing is any less "real" than pre production arranging of elements to compose an image?
I think that's Yanko's point, anyway... Or part of it; what about how we tell "lies" by choosing to frame out certain elements of a scene? Who knew that shooter X's pristine sunset shot was captured from between two massive condos that almost totally wall the shore? Does it matter?
R. |
Interesting. I guess I have always thought of all photographs as fabrications or lies in one form or another and so the issue never came up. I have to think on this now... |
|
|
03/18/2009 04:26:26 PM · #83 |
I betcha Monet put up with a lot of this crap. Van Gogh too... ;) |
|
|
03/18/2009 04:32:15 PM · #84 |
I betcha we are comparable to neither Monet nor Van Gogh.
I find threads like this, when they are critical of the winning entries, small-minded and ill-mannered. Fortunately praise for pictures that were not rewarded by ribbons crops up in the same context.
It's a challenge, it's a game. Play up and play it. Magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat. |
|
|
03/18/2009 04:32:18 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: I betcha Monet put up with a lot of this crap. Van Gogh too... ;) |
Naa. They had no where near the critics DPC has. Back then the artists were the experts not the admirers/on-lookers
.
Message edited by author 2009-03-18 16:35:45.
|
|
|
03/18/2009 04:39:51 PM · #86 |
Just an observation:
"The only thing harder than losing on dpchallenge is winning on dpchallenge"
With that said, Congrats to the winners :)
-Sean
|
|
|
03/18/2009 04:46:29 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by raish:
I find threads like this, when they are critical of the winning entries, small-minded and ill-mannered. Fortunately praise for pictures that were not rewarded by ribbons crops up in the same context. |
I don't believe the tone of this thread is "critical" of the winners. If it's critical of anything, it's of the VOTERS, and I'm not even sure it's critical of them.
R.
|
|
|
03/18/2009 04:49:53 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by raish: I find threads like this, when they are critical of the winning entries, small-minded and ill-mannered. |
If you want to learn critcal thought is essential. How can we have an honest debate or learning experience if we hold up Sacred Cows? |
|
|
03/18/2009 04:55:14 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr: Originally posted by DrAchoo: I betcha Monet put up with a lot of this crap. Van Gogh too... ;) |
Naa. They had no where near the critics DPC has. Back then the artists were the experts not the admirers/on-lookers
. |
Actually, Impressionism wasn't accepted by some art critics at first. |
|
|
03/18/2009 04:56:42 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by dahkota: Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Fabricate anything: is it reasonable to say if you arrange models and lighting to advantage and effect, you are "moving away from photography" into some other form of art? As a more extreme example, some of DeSouza's shots are masterpieces of stage construction, basically. Is that "less photographic" from Steve's point of view?
In other words, if (hypothetically) the only "real" photography is to allow the camera to be a conduit for "what really exists", then can we make a logical case for the idea that post production processing is any less "real" than pre production arranging of elements to compose an image?
I think that's Yanko's point, anyway... Or part of it; what about how we tell "lies" by choosing to frame out certain elements of a scene? Who knew that shooter X's pristine sunset shot was captured from between two massive condos that almost totally wall the shore? Does it matter?
R. |
Interesting. I guess I have always thought of all photographs as fabrications or lies in one form or another and so the issue never came up. I have to think on this now... |
Robert pretty much covered it. I was just curious as to what it is exactly, that Steve believes moves you away from photography. I suspected it had something to do with truth telling hence the question posed. I agree all photographs are fabrications to some extend at least when capturing the world around us. However, I view photography like every other art form, it's a means of introspection and self expression. There is of course the commercial side of things but that isn't art.
|
|
|
03/18/2009 05:00:28 PM · #91 |
Hmm, my bad, 'critical' has a wide semantic field. There may be a distinction between criticism and critique. Critique is so essential as to be almost the sine qua non, if not of dpc, then at least of the fora. As of criticism that can be called carping - ya boo sucks say I.
You will recognise me at the station, I shall be wearing a small insignia and holding up a sacred cow. |
|
|
03/18/2009 05:11:45 PM · #92 |
The silver lining takehome of this thread is that we all obviously care about the art of photography... :) |
|
|
03/18/2009 05:23:24 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
While I'm personally underwhelmed by yet another showcase of what I would consider to be rather plain and lifeless landscapes on the front page... |
I'll try not to take offense to that... I think owning the blue might help me with that though ;)
If you have any suggestions on how to add some 'life' into the shot, comments are welcome. |
|
|
03/18/2009 05:28:50 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Dudski: Originally posted by K10DGuy:
While I'm personally underwhelmed by yet another showcase of what I would consider to be rather plain and lifeless landscapes on the front page... |
I'll try not to take offense to that... I think owning the blue might help me with that though ;)
If you have any suggestions on how to add some 'life' into the shot, comments are welcome. |
For starters you could ask me to go with you to these fantastic places and I could be your token model on the top of the rocks or something. |
|
|
03/18/2009 05:34:01 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Dudski: If you have any suggestions on how to add some 'life' into the shot, comments are welcome. |
Too bad a condor didn't pick that moment to alight on that handy cairn ... you'll have to be more patient and wait around for a "good" shot next time ... ;-) |
|
|
03/18/2009 05:37:00 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Dudski: Originally posted by K10DGuy:
While I'm personally underwhelmed by yet another showcase of what I would consider to be rather plain and lifeless landscapes on the front page... |
I'll try not to take offense to that... I think owning the blue might help me with that though ;)
If you have any suggestions on how to add some 'life' into the shot, comments are welcome. |
ooh, maybe zeus could come thundering out of the clouds and split the rocks with a lightning bolt. Why didn't you think of THAT? lame. |
|
|
03/18/2009 05:38:31 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Dudski: Originally posted by K10DGuy:
While I'm personally underwhelmed by yet another showcase of what I would consider to be rather plain and lifeless landscapes on the front page... |
I'll try not to take offense to that... I think owning the blue might help me with that though ;)
If you have any suggestions on how to add some 'life' into the shot, comments are welcome. |
Take a picture of your lungs pounding through your chest... :) |
|
|
03/18/2009 05:41:39 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by yanko: Robert pretty much covered it. I was just curious as to what it is exactly, that Steve believes moves you away from photography. I suspected it had something to do with truth telling hence the question posed. I agree all photographs are fabrications to some extend at least when capturing the world around us. However, I view photography like every other art form, it's a means of introspection and self expression. There is of course the commercial side of things but that isn't art. |
Ahhh...very cool. So, we have pre-production, production and post-production. Primarily but not in a hardcore way I consider Photography the "production" phase. All the elements combined make an image, of course but when I talk about photography, starting with the light (set-up or natural) that taking of the image and some minor pp, that's generally where I'm focused. Now, the boundaries can be pushed far in every direction but in terms of photography I'm judging the center. There are a million exceptions and so many images call for their own due and respect but that's hard to address.
There are brilliant images that spread far and wide with plenty of pre-p and PP but when I say "the photography is brilliant" I'm not talking about the pre-production or the post production. Of course they play a role but I'm looking at the production of the image...the in-camera choices, crop and lighting etc.
What I fear or tend to criticize is when people place a higher or blind premium on the pre-production when the photography itself is very average or even bad. On the other end when the PP is the major star of a luke warm or dull image that usually get's riled.
Again, they ALL play a role and go hand in hand but you can also look at them separately.
raish-Rest your arms. There are plenty of sacred cows here. ;)
Message edited by author 2009-03-18 18:03:31. |
|
|
03/18/2009 05:41:47 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
THE BEST PHOTO YOU'VE EVER TAKEN. Not the best photo you've ever processed. You mean to tell me the best of the best are in the top 50? It seems like the challenge results was "best edited photo". Granted I love a great landscape photo as well, but you mean to tell me that is the epitome of the photogs at DPC? I interpreted this challenge different I suppose and got my expectations too high. |
Photographs are much easier to look at when you don't have expectations.
|
|
|
03/18/2009 05:54:34 PM · #100 |
Thats the big irony: we dont want to assimilate into the 'masses' (in Bear's words), yet we put our work through for their tests... again and again.. and again.. and again.
We ARE the 'mass'. We are different. I, for example, detest overprocessed works.. unless (and this happens rarely).. the extra editing helps tell a story. It is all subjective in the end.
The only answer I see to such debates (and I have initiated many a before, trust me) is to devise and design a completely automated computer system that goes over images one by one, and analyzes them for a fixed set of given criteria.. by comparison with examples put in the data bank beforehand, then awards points to each image.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
Then lets get on with what we have:-)
|
|
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: 04/17/2024 06:03:32 PM EDT.