Should I call this a photograph?
chasfs
I took this photo with a wide angle lens and didn't see the people in
it. Years later they showed up when I zoomed in with Photoshop. So
now, printed at 24" x 30", it looks more like a watercolor than a
photograph.
What do you think?
Peace,
-chasfs
http://chasfs.com
Sheldon
I'm missing something by not seeing it full size and hanging.
"chasfs" <cha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128648245.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jim
It is art. It is a photograph. Watercolor is specific as is
photography. Watercolor is water soluable paint on paper (my Mom
happens to be really good at it). Photography is the capturing of light
on media. They are both art. Your's is an inteteresting photograph
and very intriguing piece of art.
Peace.
--
Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo
l e o
Anything can be arts, like Any Warhol's famous Campbell coup cans. The
beach photo's (watercolor as you call it) not something that interests
me, but if you like it, it's an artwork.
Eugene
include it with all your other landscape images, as it's really quite
different. To me it seems to clash a bit. If you have any other similar
images, perhaps you could make another category called "abstract
landscapes" or something.
Eugene
start to feel more comfortable calling it digital art, but that's just
me. I think it's totally up to the individual artist. You took it with a
camera, so I think it's perfectly fine to call it a photograph if that's
what it is to you.
Vincent Becker
> I took this photo with a wide angle lens and didn't see the people in
> it. Years later they showed up when I zoomed in with Photoshop. So
> now, printed at 24" x 30", it looks more like a watercolor than a
> photograph.
I think it is a photography, i.e. a picture made from light. And it is
quite a good one too, I like it very much. Sharpness is not a part of
the definition of a photogrpahy, even in MF ;-)
--
Vincent Becker
Photographies et appareils anciens - Photography and classic cameras
<URL:http://www.lumieresenboite.com>
Dr. Georg N.Nyman
but I see some questions which you should perhaps look at:
1. Sharpness is not an issue - there are many famous photographs which are
totally unsharp, but out of focus photography needs to be very creative,
artistic and well done - in your case, it looks rather like having forgotten
to focus or overenlarged something of not too much interest.
2. Composition - a photograph needs to convey a message - ask yourself what
the message would be in your case
3. Simplicity is a virtue - most of the famous photographs as regarding
composition, message and overall impression "simple". The have a strong
message, a clear understanding of the situation and usually do not happen by
accident.
4. Photoshop - one of the negative sideeffects of Photoshop, which I for my
own work experience in the same way is, that one can make almost anything
look like willfully done. Not that I want to discredit the merits, but
Photoshop often misleads people to think that what they produce is art - it
is often nothing but applied electronics.
That is what I think -
George Nyman
"chasfs" <cha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128648245.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John Fryatt
> http://chasfs.com/shelling.html
>
> I took this photo with a wide angle lens and didn't see the people in
> it. Years later they showed up when I zoomed in with Photoshop. So
> now, printed at 24" x 30", it looks more like a watercolor than a
> photograph.
>
> What do you think?
I think it's a perfectly valid piece of work. I quite like it. The
bright shirts work well in this context.
Can I also say that it's refreshing to see some posts about photography
rather than the endless and pointless arguments about 'Canon vs. Nikon'
or "Film is dead! ... No it's not! ... Yes it is!".
John
Chimp
>
> I took this photo with a wide angle lens and didn't see the people in
> it. Years later they showed up when I zoomed in with Photoshop. So
> now, printed at 24" x 30", it looks more like a watercolor than a
> photograph.
>
*it's a photograph", "no, it's a water colour", "No it's not, it's abstract
art".....what sort of stupid bollocks *is* all this drivel?!
It's an extremely bad snapshot - of a quality sufficient to embarrass a five
year old!.
We all take bad pictures sometimes, that's life - but PLEASE stop all this
pretentious pseudo-art shit!, it's not art, it's rubbish!
Bin it, and move on.
Charlie Self
Ayup. I sat here waiting for it to clear up, as that is a
characteristic of dial-up modems, the out-of-focus coming into focus
eventually. Instead, it turns out to be a POS.
Chimp
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1128693041.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yes, it is a POS - which, upon reflection, means that I've been a bit hasty.
The 'Arts Council' (sic) are always on the lookout for a nice POS to lavish
taxpayers money on - whether it's a dead cow, and unmade bed, or a
chronically out of focus image.
So my advice to Mr Chav is to take himself and his handiwork off to London
in order to get in on the action. He needs to hop in to the Arts Council
headquarters, announcing that he's a disabled homosexual conceptual artist
(that's a 'Piss Artist' in everyday parlance) and they will load him up
with an enormous sack, stuffed full of £20 notes - and, If he wants to take
the trouble to blacken himself up like a Minstrel, he will receive an extra
sack of cash to show how Positively Discriminatory they are.
Lorem Ipsum
news:di5dat$6bo$1...@news.hispeed.ch...
> [...]
> 2. Composition - a photograph needs to convey a message - ask yourself
> what the message would be in your case
Fair is fair, George: explain the message in the photos on your home page.
no_name
I wouldn't consider it a sellable image.
no_name
> sack of cash to show how Positively Discriminatory they are.
>
>
>
So he's gonna' be
in the gallery ...
Chris Ellinger
>I took this photo with a wide angle lens and didn't see the people in
>it. Years later they showed up when I zoomed in with Photoshop. So
>now, printed at 24" x 30", it looks more like a watercolor than a
>photograph.
>
>What do you think?
In the art world, description of media is usually quite specific.
Yours is not a "watercolor". Nor was it made by a photographic
process. I'd call it, "ink on paper", or "computer-aided image, ink
on paper".
Chris Ellinger
Ann Arbor, MI
Charles Schuler
>
> I took this photo with a wide angle lens and didn't see the people in
> it. Years later they showed up when I zoomed in with Photoshop. So
> now, printed at 24" x 30", it looks more like a watercolor than a
> photograph.
>
> What do you think?
I think photography is to be enjoyed, unless one has to make a living at it
(and then it can still be enjoyed, but not necessarily so). I like to play
as shown by this:
http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1034.jpg
Is it a photograph or is it art? Don't care, as I enjoyed doing it and
still enjoy looking at it. That's all that matters.