Morcheeba concert photos
Mads Pedersen
Had the best concert experience in years when I went to see Morcheeba in
Copenhagen last night. Simply excellent!
Anyway here's a couple of shots - maybe they are not technically outstanding
but they sort of capture the essence of the scene.
Se them here:
http://www.madspedersen.com/exhibition.php?function=archive&photoid=495
and here:
http://www.madspedersen.com/exhibition.php?function=archive&photoid=494
All the best,
// Mads
----------------------------------
.: http://www.madspedersen.com
.: http://www.doubleloop.dk
Gordon Moat
> Hi all,
>
> Had the best concert experience in years when I went to see Morcheeba in
> Copenhagen last night. Simply excellent!
Sounds like a good time.
>
>
> Anyway here's a couple of shots - maybe they are not technically outstanding
> but they sort of capture the essence of the scene.
>
> Se them here:
> http://www.madspedersen.com/exhibition.php?function=archive&photoid=495
Very nice image. Colours carry the mood well.
>
>
> and here:
> http://www.madspedersen.com/exhibition.php?function=archive&photoid=494
Sort of like the movie Brazil, or something. I would have been a bit tempted to
doctor the colours and contrast a bit, though it does convey the feeling of the
concert quite well.
>
>
> All the best,
>
> // Mads
> ----------------------------------
> .: http://www.madspedersen.com
> .: http://www.doubleloop.dk
Out of curiosity, what are your feelings on PhotoShopped images? I have seen
discussions on other news groups where some feel that those types of images are
no longer photos. Thoughts?
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Adam Palmer
seen
> discussions on other news groups where some feel that those types of
images are
> no longer photos. Thoughts?
Don't see why not really.
If you're using Photoshop carefully to do more or less what you would in a
darkroom with maybe a bit of cloning/painting-out or whatever, then it's
just an easier, quicker and cheaper way to achieve the same effects (dodge,
burn, colour correction etc).
I think a lot of the time it's worth asking purists "well why not?". If the
results are the same, who cares? ;)
Anyone else?
A
--
----------------------------------------------
> adam palmer
> new media designer
> www.ihavenocontent.com
----------------------------------------------
Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio
Pepe
Milano, Italy
"Adam Palmer" <ad...@ihavenocontentNOSPAM.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:arghh4$1oo$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Mads Pedersen
> Organization: Alliance Graphique Studio
> Reply-To: mo...@attglobal.net
> Newsgroups: alt.design.graphics
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:16:49 -0800
> Subject: Re: Morcheeba concert photos
>
> Out of curiosity, what are your feelings on PhotoShopped images? I have seen
> discussions on other news groups where some feel that those types of images
> are
> no longer photos. Thoughts?
Well... I could go on about this for hours but I really don't have time for
that right now. Let me just say this: I like Photoshop and what it can do to
images and I'm not against manipulated images as such. But I do have a
strong feeling that people should be told when a photo has been tampered
with.
On my site I only allow minor adjustments (colour correction and such) to
the photos I post. Digitally manipulated images go in a special exhibition
(Digital Dreams).
Mads Pedersen
> Newsgroups: alt.design.graphics
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:43:16 -0000
> Subject: Re: Morcheeba concert photos
>
> darkroom with maybe a bit of cloning/painting-out or whatever, then it's
> just an easier, quicker and cheaper way to achieve the same effects (dodge,
> burn, colour correction etc).
>
> I think a lot of the time it's worth asking purists "well why not?". If the
> results are the same, who cares? ;)
>
> Anyone else?
What I don't like is altering a photo so much that you make it into
something it was not when you shot it. F.instance removing unwanted
elements/people from the shot or adding stuff to the photo that never
existed in the first place. Don't think I can really put up rules to say
when it is too much but I definately have a problem with f.instance the way
models' appearences are changed in most advertising - ie. the airbrushing of
skin, removal of spots/wrinkels, slimming down the thighs and waist, and
enlarging the breasts. This has nothing to do with reality and I think
photography should at least strive to maintain its position as a
representative of reality - even if it is getting increasingly hard in this
digital age.
Mads Pedersen
> Newsgroups: alt.design.graphics
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:01:38 +0100
> Subject: Re: Morcheeba concert photos
>
Don't quite agree with you on this one, Pepe.
Read my responses to Gordon and Adam and you'll get an idea why.
Limelight
they capture a mood.... although I wasn't there, I felt the mood!
--
Helen (Limelight)
http://www.limelightpromotions.com
"Mads Pedersen" <ma...@imv.au.dk> wrote in message
news:BA005BCE.45ECA%ma...@imv.au.dk...
Adam Palmer
> photography should at least strive to maintain its position as a
> representative of reality - even if it is getting increasingly hard in
this
> digital age.
Photography purely as an artform, maybe. When the point is to reflect
reality or make some point about the human state or whatever, maybe.
But if the aim is to achieve a particular image (ie. the advertising
example) then photography with alteration is simply the easiest way to get
that. In advertising, as shown by that site of old 50s and 60s ads the
other day, it used to be the case that paintings were used to convey a
vision of "perfection". Nowadays we can achieve that through Photoshop, so
why not?
I can see your concerns but, particularly in advertising, we're not supposed
to be dealing with reality at all. Advertising shows people what the
advertisers want them to want to be, and if that's what they already are
(reality) then they won't create that anxiety and won't sell anything!
Davide Montellanico
ad...@ihavenocontentNOSPAM.com, il 21-11-2002 12:48 ha scritto:
>> ...and I think
>> photography should at least strive to maintain its position as a
>> representative of reality - even if it is getting increasingly hard in
> this
>> digital age.
>
> Photography purely as an artform, maybe. When the point is to reflect
> reality or make some point about the human state or whatever, maybe.
I think that using photography as an artistic means of expression implies a
manipulation of reality, even in the past, many phographers used studio
lights to produce beautiful but innatural result: eg. Horst P. Horst or
Irving Penn. or more advanced manipulation eg. Man Ray *those are my
favourites*
> But if the aim is to achieve a particular image (ie. the advertising
> example) then photography with alteration is simply the easiest way to get
> that. In advertising, as shown by that site of old 50s and 60s ads the
> other day, it used to be the case that paintings were used to convey a
> vision of "perfection". Nowadays we can achieve that through Photoshop, so
> why not?
Photo colours correction is an old technique. Before the photographic film
ages, photographic plates were painted by hand to simulate reality colours.
For those of you interested in historical photos you can take a look at the
Joseph Bateson's portrait (Leeds, UK) that was realized and coloured in the
1849.
> I can see your concerns but, particularly in advertising, we're not supposed
> to be dealing with reality at all. Advertising shows people what the
> advertisers want them to want to be, and if that's what they already are
> (reality) then they won't create that anxiety and won't sell anything!
The problem is that many people think that these photos represent reality
more than people in the *ancient years* of photography thought, making a lot
of confusion between beautiful concept and reality. IMHO people should be
educated to reconize what is reality and what is not. eg. many young girls
*many of them are very cute and intelligent* have psycholgical and phisical
desease because they can't reach this idea of beauty and perfection in the
real life.
"once the music leaves your head is always compromised"
Jack Brewer
--
Davide Montellanico
P.S. forgive me again for my english but I try to write without an english
dictionary support *I hope this can help me to improve my skills*
Gem
>I think that using photography as an artistic means of expression implies a
>manipulation of reality,
I agree with this part of your statement. Photography as an artform, to me, is
capturing an event, situation, face, etc.on film in such a condition, set of
circumstances, or state of being that it contradicts, corrupts, complements, or
combusts reality as we have become accustom to it, without the benefit of using
our imaginations in the form of digital manipulation or addendum.
In other words, film-loaded camera in hand, you are in the right place at the
exact right time. :)
>many phographers used studio
>lights to produce beautiful but innatural result: eg. Horst P. Horst or
>Irving Penn. or more advanced manipulation eg. Man Ray
Exactly. Capturing the moment without the *need to manipulate.
http://www.peterfetterman.com/artists/horst/horst.html
http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/irving_penn.htm
http://www.friendsofphotography.org/irvingpenn.html
http://www.icp.org/exhibitions/man_ray/mr_bio.html
Fantastic! Thanks for the names. These are beautiful and inspiring photos.
This is Paolo's [a frequent poster here] uncle's site, a favorite of mine:
http://www.geraldo-pace.com/portfolio/portfolio.html
I am also a big fan of Mads Pederson. :)
>P.S. forgive me again for my english but I try to write without an english
>dictionary support *I hope this can help me to improve my skills*
You're a peach and just as sweet! Your English is just fine and always has
been.
Cheers Davide!
--
Gem
Gem
>See them here:
>http://www.madspedersen.com/exhibition.php?function=archive&photoid=495
>
>and here:
>http://www.madspedersen.com/exhibition.php?function=archive&photoid=494
Fantastic! I really like the second one with the upstretched hands.
Did I mention how much I love your site?? It's really very utile and organized.
Very nice work, Mads.
--
Gem
Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio
"This has nothing to do with reality and I think photography should at least
strive to maintain its position as a
representative of reality"
Why? *My* reality doesn't necessarily be the same as *your* reality. As
photography is governed by our senses, and the perception of the senses vary
a lot among persons, there couldn't possibly be *one* reality...
Unless your definition of *photographic reality* in what it's recorded on
film or pixels at the time of the shot, and if you change a single pixel is
not considered photography anymore... but some dodge or burn in a image is
not a photograpphy anymore (because it was altered), or is not reality
anymore...
What do you say...?
Pepe
Milano, Italy
"Mads Pedersen" <ma...@imv.au.dk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:BA026F81.460D2%ma...@imv.au.dk...
Gordon Moat
be as captured, and my PhotoShop work on an image is usually with the intention
of getting the colours on the transparency to match the screen on the computer
(or as close as possible).
I bring this up because apparently a few big name photographers have recently
"discovered" PhotoShop. Some of them play with over saturating the colours, and
go beyond what was originally there. I think some with digital SLRs also play
around with the white point settings in camera to alter image results.
There have been a few darkroom specialists that could manipulate images without
computers, though it was often noted that they were not as photographed. Digital
Dreams is quite appropriate for that type of content, though I find that I like
the images in other parts of your site a bit more. Maybe I am a bit of a
traditionalist, though I do like things to be done in camera as much as possible.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Mads Pedersen wrote:
Gordon Moat
should be labelled as photography. Those images that are manipulated later, or
composited from several images, should be considered as the art of a print
maker.
To get an idea of what I mean, check out the art of <http://www.uelsmann.net/>.
He has done quite a bit with darkroom and negatives. His printmaking skills are
quite good, and he needed the photographic skills for the source material.
However, I think that Uelsmann should be considered as a print artist, or
master print maker, and much more so than as a photographer.
I have suspected that Mads felt the way he does about this, ever since I first
viewed his images. I feel much the same way, but I thought this was a good time
to bring up this issue. The camera points both ways, and image are always more
about the vision of the photographer, than about representing reality, even in
news images.
There is little reality in photos, but that should not dismiss upholding some
standards. I have manipulated images for clients many times, yet I make it
clear when presenting the final images. If the end viewer cannot tell where I
manipulated an image, then that is there level of understanding, and perhaps
there reality. I would never seek to hide the manipulation of image elements.
When I first learned PhotoShop, I almost had the feeling that I could take bad
photos, and just PhotoShop them into good photos. Rather than pursue that as a
goal, my photography, and in camera skills improved. Photography is
representational.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Mads Pedersen
On the whole manipulation issue... well I'm not overly religious about this.
Whether manipulation was done digitally or using conventional darkroom
techniques makes no difference to me. Just think that it is wrong to make an
image pretend to be something it is not.
Photography is only a slice of reality - just as something is included in
the frame something else is excluded from it. It is a frozen moment - just
as something has come before something else will follow. It is up to the
artist/photographer to decide which slice and which moment to keep forever
in the photo. But I also think it is kind of disrespectful to the
photography to then alter it so that it is not a "real" slice or a "real"
moment that is depicted.
This, in my opinion, is what sets photography apart from other artwork -
painting f.instance - where it is the artist exclusively that constructs the
reality. By manipulating the photo we remove it from actual reality into a
reality constructed by the artist - a sort of virtual reality. While this
new constructed reality may be as valuable as the actual reality, the image
is in my opinion no longer a photo but a piece of (digitally) manipulated
photographic art.
It's been a long day and while it is really an interesting discussion I'll
try not to go on for too long. Instead a few comments:
> From: "Limelight" <he...@limelightpromotions.com>
> Wow, those images are great Mads. Who cares about technically outstanding,
> they capture a mood.... although I wasn't there, I felt the mood!
Thanks Helen - just what I thought when I posted the images.
> From: gemp...@aol.comFILE (Gem)
> Fantastic! I really like the second one with the upstretched hands.
> Did I mention how much I love your site?? It's really very utile and
> organized. Very nice work, Mads.
Mads Pedersen
> "This has nothing to do with reality and I think photography should at least
> strive to maintain its position as a
> representative of reality"
>
> Why? *My* reality doesn't necessarily be the same as *your* reality. As
> photography is governed by our senses, and the perception of the senses vary
> a lot among persons, there couldn't possibly be *one* reality...
>
> Unless your definition of *photographic reality* in what it's recorded on
> film or pixels at the time of the shot, and if you change a single pixel is
> not considered photography anymore... but some dodge or burn in a image is
> not a photograpphy anymore (because it was altered), or is not reality
> anymore...
>
> What do you say...?
>
> Pepe
> Milano, Italy
Interesting to look at this from a phenomonological viewpoint ;-) Well, I do
believe we do construct our own realities (or lifeworlds if you like). And
this is an argument I REALLY don't want to get into.
Instead I'll jump directly to answer your question. I'd say, in the
strictest interpretation, if you change a single pixel it is neither
photography nor reality. The more you change it, the more it is removed from
photography and reality towards art and the artists constructed reality.
... and before you ask: Yes I do think there's a difference between the way
you construct your reality and the way you create (construct) a piece of
art. ;-)
Aaargh... it is too late for philosophical arguments... :->
Mike Minovski
> representative of reality
I'm with you on that, Mads (I'd even skip "at least"). But it's not about
the formal characteristics of the photographic product - I think it's rather
about the photographer's general approach. Here's my take:
Initially reality was represented by the means of art. Due to art's
inherently individual substance, representing meant also interpreting -
thus, people got used to the fact that a representation of reality was
always someone else's interpretation of it - be it in image, sound or word.
Photography was born to reflect reality 'as is'. The vast majority of photos
taken still serve (and are meant to serve) that purpose. Of course,
photography also developed as an art: it was a totally new expression means,
so the creative human nature could hardly let such a chance go by. You can
always tell an art photo by the strong interpretation element in it (okay,
at least this is my measure :) The necessities of a wider tool palette to
enhance the interpretation led to the development of various techniques for
intentionally altering a photograph through all the phases of its
production.
With the advance of the digital, a whole new generation of tools were put at
the fingertips of a photographer - so rich, that digital photo processing
could maybe claim the statute of a discipline of its own. Simultaneously,
photography came to be sharing many of these new tools with a formerly very
different (technologically) sphere such as fine art. In addition, design
came in as an intermediate discipline sharing tools and approaches with
both, however with a definitely practical orientation. (Exactly for this
reason I'd say digital photo manipulation is inevitable in design: a design
project's focus is pretty narrow, so you always need to compress your
message and strip it of unrelated details.)
Anyway, somewhere in this motley interdisciplinary turmoil, there remain the
core notions - where photography is a reflection of reality, art - an
interpretation of it, and design is conveying a reality-related message.
Provided one bears that in mind, there is nothing wrong in using any tool
for any purpose, IMO. It depends on what you have, what you can, and what
you're after.
Technology is an aid, not a foundation. I believe one can successfully
combine classic principles/views and cutting-edge technology - and I admire
such people, for they are the ones who are able to challenge the future
without losing touch with the ground.
BTW excellent photos, Mads - as always.
mike m.
Mads Pedersen <ma...@imv.au.dk> wrote in message
news:BA026F81.460D2%ma...@imv.au.dk...
Joel Frijters
live music is always better :)
joel.
"Mads Pedersen" <ma...@imv.au.dk> wrote in message
news:BA0329FE.46197%ma...@imv.au.dk...
Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio
to earn a living, was photography. At thirdteen I've started developing B/W
film, then B/W print, and finally I was the youngest person ever to graduate
from a course in Cibachrome (I was fifteen).
My mentor was an excellent photo reporter that took the most dramatic images
of early '70 Argentina...and he made an honest living doing studio work in
fashion, catalogue and jewelry. Table-top and Still Life were his
specialities...and what an eye he had!
He had the same philosophy as you have, Mads; and he would argue with me up
to the most insignificant detail just to call something a *photo* or a
*fake*. <G>
I certainly can appreciate the immortality of one split second of eternity
captured in a film roll...
Maybe I'm not that pragmatic about things only because not being good enough
at that, I'd use any mean necessary to make my point with a
photography...or, with and electronically created image, as you would put
it...
*You* certainly have the eye, Mads. You certainly have the instinct to
*carpe diem*, photographycally speaking...you certainly *can* afford to be
pragmatic, as your work speaks for itself; no arguing at all here, Mads...
In *my* case, I wish I could know how to use Photoshop...<G>
I'm kind of thinking of participating next year in the 14-day creativity
bash...and I'm thinking into take photographs... watch out fot me; you'll
certainly have a good laugh out of it...
:-)
Pepe
Milano, Italy
"Mads Pedersen" <ma...@imv.au.dk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:BA0329FE.46197%ma...@imv.au.dk...
Mads Pedersen
photographer aswell. I'd love to see some of your early works ;-)
And I'm in on the next 14 days exercise aswell. Last time I tried I only
managed 10 days but I did choose photography - it is still here:
http://doubleloop.dk/adg/
All the best,
// Mads
----------------------------------
.: http://www.madspedersen.com
.: http://www.doubleloop.dk
> From: "Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio" <pbl...@libero.it>
> Newsgroups: alt.design.graphics
> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:21:00 +0100
> Subject: Re: Morcheeba concert photos
>
Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio
still managed to make some catalogues of watches and jewelry on my own...
The newspaper's (where he worked for as a reporter) redaction never knew it
was *me* that took the photos...
But never did any swimsuite job... grrr....
:-)
Pepe
Milano, Italy
"Mads Pedersen" <ma...@imv.au.dk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:BA0458C5.46273%ma...@imv.au.dk...
Mads Pedersen
// Mads
----------------------------------
.: http://www.madspedersen.com
.: http://www.doubleloop.dk
> From: "Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio" <pbl...@libero.it>
> Newsgroups: alt.design.graphics
> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:25:23 +0100
> Subject: Re: Morcheeba concert photos
>
Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio
gorgeous babes!!!!!!!!
What? You mean *digitally manipulating*? Yeah! I use all 10 *digits* on my
hands!
What? You mean with PHOTOSHOP? Who cares about Photoshop...?
:-)
Pepe
Milano, Italy
"Mads Pedersen" <ma...@imv.au.dk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:BA056AC9.4631C%ma...@imv.au.dk...