Photography: Artist vs technician
Siddhartha Jain
I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
architecture more.
So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
portriats.
- Siddhartha
Cameras
with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
etc.
"Siddhartha Jain" <los...@gmail.com>
:1118215001.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Chadwick
Cameras wrote:
> I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
> with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
> ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
> come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
> traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
> etc.
Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.
I guess some people are attracted to photography as a creative medium,
and view fiddling with the dials and software as a means to an end. At
the extreme end of that scale are those who take stunning pictures with
a pin hole camera, or the Cartier-Bressons who just point and shoot.
Equally, I'm sure plenty of people get a kick out of tweaking an image
in Photoshop and making a presentable image from a previously
uninspiring picture; improving, or rescuing a shot. They are probably
also interested (and can quote) the various characteristics of
different filmstock, lenses and camera settings. They view the camera
as a technical piece of equipment and as much a joy to use, as it is to
actually view the pictures afterwards. These are the photographers who
will take a meter reading, set the camera manually, bracket and ensure
they used the right film for the conditions - or have already switched
to digital.
I suggest that there is a sliding scale and most of us are somewhere in
the middle, attracted by both "painting with light" and the "gadget
bag" to different degrees.
Alan Browne
> rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
> much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
> architecture more.
The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo for
printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the image
completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you like.
>
> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
reasons.
> IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
> at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
> I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
> portriats.
Begin examining your photos more carefully, shoot for colour, tone,
contrast, shapes, lines, shaddows, highlights ... etc. and you'll begin
to see colour differently. One of the recent shootin shots:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a very
pleasing image.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Mr. Mark
> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> that attracts people with different leanings?
IMO this is one of the more interesting observations I've read in this
group. And the answer is yes. My collection of friends who are very into
photography come from all different backgrounds and each of them has their
own expressive style - some would even say that they don't have an
expressive style because saying things like that sound artzy to them and
they don't want to be considered artzy. :)
--
Mark
Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Craig Flory
Adobe Photoshop did I truly feel I was creating my best possible images. I
feel I am now a complete artist ... capturing the image and then completing
it in Photoshop. It is a lot more rewarding than just sending my work to the
color lab.
Craig Flory
Matt Silberstein
<chadw...@hotmail.com> in
<1118228604.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>Cameras wrote:
>> I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
>> with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
>> ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
>> come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
>> traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
>> etc.
>
>Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
>Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
>recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
>that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.
How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Matt Silberstein
<los...@gmail.com> in
<1118215001.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
>post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
>results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
>and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
>rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
>much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
>architecture more.
I wonder if someone, starting perhaps with an Adams, might consider
landscape photography an opportunity for *artistic* (even *ARTISTIC*)
expression.
>So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
>that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
>IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
>at the most identify 5-6 colours.
Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with.
Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of
indigo.
>I am attracted to photography because
>I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
>portriats.
Can you tell the difference between saturated and washed out color?
Frank ess
It pleases me not. Breaks _that_ rule, for me.
Do you remember a thread about "The genre of photography you like
least"? I thought there were some fine insights there.
--
Frank ess
Paul Furman
Something I found interesting is a guy on one of these groups talking
about how his does simply documentary street scenes, with the intent
that they be valuable historical documents of life in our time. He was
insistent that there was no art to it, he simply picked a
'representative scene' and strove for perfect technical capture. They
were quite nicely composed. The boring technical approach can produce
good art in fact. The art was in the honesty and care.
I come from a fine art background but also shoot a lot of pictures for
technical documentation of various plant species. That's what I love
about photography is the blend of art & technique & good results can be
achieved at either extreme.
--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Frank ess
Scott W
lead, sort of acting like a photojournalist. There is still an art
aspect to the photography since a lot of what I am after is capturing
the mood of where we were and what we were doing. My goal is to have
photographs that bring back the memories of where we have been and what
we have done. This changes how you take photos in a number of ways,
the trip becomes as important as the destination. We travel a lot by
motor home, I like to capture the whole of each day, what was the
weather like in the morning, where did we stop for lunch, what was the
scenery like along the way.
Because I am documenting our lives I don't do as much Photoshoping as
some people do, I know people who have added a nice blue sky with a few
fluffy clouds to a photo that was taken when it was gray and overcast.
I don't have a problem with them doing that if it makes them happy
but it would ruin a photo for me. I will do a fair bit of dodge and
burning, to bring out detail in the shadows for instance. In this case
it is trying to get the photo to look like I remember seeing it.
One of the odd, almost ethical, questions that I find myself faced
with is whether to use a polarizing filter or not. The effects can be
dramatic, for instance in this photo
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/44510148/original.jpg the sea and
sky were not really those colors, the polarizing filter made them look
better then in real life, except that at the time I was wearing
polarizing sunglasses and so the photo is what I saw at the time. I
try to get some photos with and without the filter so I can view it
both ways.
Scott
deloid
"Siddhartha Jain" <los...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118215001.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
> IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
> at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
> I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
> portriats.
>
> - Siddhartha
As a B&W photographer (35 years) and as a writer and artist (oil painting),
I have strong personal feelings about the new age of photography.
My individual preference is the art of the capture of a real event. The
original composition, subject and lighting are most important to me and the
subsequent printing is perhaps only 10% as important. I like the concept of
historical documentation in the frame of photography thus I dislike
photomanipulation that disturbs the trust of the viewer. Of all my prints
the ones I dislike the most are my youthful ventures in darkroom
manipulation (adding clouds etc) which breached reality.
I love the convenience and quality of digital photography but dislike it's
current use in that too much can be changed in the computer beyond sharp
masking, contrast, saturation. I dislike the commonly done alteration of
group photos whereby a smiling face is taken from one shot then superimposed
on a better shot. The photo, for me, is no longer real...it is not a
documentation of a time or place. Interestingly though, and I don't know
why, but I don't mind my alterations when I paint. Perhaps I know that oil
painting is not a true document of reality but an acceptable depiction of
altered reality.
I now use digital for snapshots and my old medium format, 35mm stuff for the
more serious documentation that I consider "historical art". I don't change
my digital photos significantly.
That said, you will find many points of view on this subject and I do enjoy
a good photograph despite the methods used. If the photograph is digital
though, I don't trust it's reality...it is more like a painting or "digital
art".
Dean
Siddhartha Jain
> As a B&W photographer (35 years) and as a writer and artist (oil painting),
> I have strong personal feelings about the new age of photography.
>
> My individual preference is the art of the capture of a real event. The
> original composition, subject and lighting are most important to me and the
> subsequent printing is perhaps only 10% as important. I like the concept of
> historical documentation in the frame of photography thus I dislike
> photomanipulation that disturbs the trust of the viewer. Of all my prints
> the ones I dislike the most are my youthful ventures in darkroom
> manipulation (adding clouds etc) which breached reality.
>
Uh Oh!! I think you've opened a pandora's box as to what is *reality*.
One might argue that using a faster film is a *breach* of reality.
While some might argue that the PP that how a technician interprets
colours while printing colour negative film is alteration of reality.
Also, the colours captured on film are function of the chemical used
and the colours/light captured on a CCD/CMOS are a function of the
various algorithms used by the manufacturer (even RAW images). So PP or
no PP, an image is the photographer's interpretation of reality, IMHO.
- Siddhartha
Siddhartha Jain
> >So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> >that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
> >IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
> >at the most identify 5-6 colours.
>
> Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with.
> Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of
> indigo.
What I meant is that I can't tell the difference between various shades
of a colour. So if I looked very closely at raven black and charcoal
black, I might be able to tell the difference but I can never remember
them. Same goes for say lemon yellow and some other yellow or magenta
and red (much to the chagrin of my gf ;-) )
>
> >I am attracted to photography because
> >I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
> >portriats.
>
> Can you tell the difference between saturated and washed out color?
Ohh yes!! I can. I immiediately found a difference in colours when I
moved from the kit lens on my 300D to a Sigma 24-135mm. The colours
looked deeper and more saturated. But I can't tell this difference
unless its too pronounced. Very subtle changes in saturation or depth
of colours eludes me.
- Siddhartha
Siddhartha Jain
>
> Something I found interesting is a guy on one of these groups talking
> about how his does simply documentary street scenes, with the intent
> that they be valuable historical documents of life in our time. He was
> insistent that there was no art to it, he simply picked a
> 'representative scene' and strove for perfect technical capture. They
> were quite nicely composed. The boring technical approach can produce
> good art in fact. The art was in the honesty and care.
>
Yes, this is what I think I do. When I am behind the camera I am
striving for technical accuracy in focus and exposure. So much so that
my whole thought process is occupied with the technicality of taking a
photograph. Ofcourse, I do fuss around composition but there is a
certain something that seems to come some other photographers very
naturally but doesn't seem to come to my brain.
For example, me and my friend were taking some photographs of an old
lady feeding stray dogs. My friend got several nice shots of the lady
and some more shots around of people. And all I got was some odd shots
with not so great expressions. Most of the time I was either late to
shoot or my exposure was wrong. On the other hand, I was sitting on the
beach with the sun setting and I got some good shots. Or, I was on the
beach and my friends were in water playing and I got some really good
shots of them. Just wondering if there is really a difference in the
way our brains work or its just a mental block of some sort.
- Siddhartha
Don Stauffer
some folks did all their work in camera, used a commercial printer.
Others labored long in their darkroom doing much of their art there.
One can be artistic in darkroom or at computer, just as others are more
artistic with camera and seeing.
Tony
wanted.
What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects. In many ways they
sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
flames on the cutaway fenders.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Siddhartha Jain" <los...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118215001.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Matt Silberstein
<los...@gmail.com> in
<1118252101.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> >So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
>> >that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
>> >IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
>> >at the most identify 5-6 colours.
>>
>> Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with.
>> Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of
>> indigo.
>
>What I meant is that I can't tell the difference between various shades
>of a colour. So if I looked very closely at raven black and charcoal
>black, I might be able to tell the difference but I can never remember
>them. Same goes for say lemon yellow and some other yellow or magenta
>and red (much to the chagrin of my gf ;-) )
>
Women (female mammals, actually) have a better color sense than do
males. That said, this is a trainable talent. Go shopping for paint
for a room and start paying attention to the slight differences. You
will learn to distinguish them. Learn some language and you will do
better.
>> >I am attracted to photography because
>> >I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
>> >portriats.
>>
>> Can you tell the difference between saturated and washed out color?
>
>Ohh yes!! I can. I immiediately found a difference in colours when I
>moved from the kit lens on my 300D to a Sigma 24-135mm. The colours
>looked deeper and more saturated. But I can't tell this difference
>unless its too pronounced. Very subtle changes in saturation or depth
>of colours eludes me.
The more you do, the more you be able to do.
Dick R.
> Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we
> wanted.
> What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
> photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
> don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects. In many ways they
> sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
> Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
> flames on the cutaway fenders.
>
I certainly won't disagree with your observations, but what is art?
Jackson Pollak and Leonardo Da Vinci produced "art", but it's
strictly in the eye of the beholder. Currently, I look at photos
by people like Jim Brandenburg, who have an artistic "eye" and
the technical expertise to make a great photo.
Hate to say it, but I would love to have that supercharged, chopped,
flame painted 36 Ford in my garage. :-)
Take care,
Dick R.
Mike Henley
Tony wrote:
> Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we
> wanted.
> What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
> photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
> don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects.
For once I am agreeing with Tony, perhaps I should be concerned!
But I think it's entirely true that most texts on photography, and
discussions by photographers, are very, very poor on "art", and by
"art" I do *not* mean "artzy", far from it; too many people, especially
amongst photographers, seem to have the naive misconception that "art"
is something you do whimsically, with a twist of the waist and a mess
in the mind, but that bastardization is far from the truth. In fact,
"art" has been formalised since antiquity and refined over the
millenia, and it could easily take a lifetime to get familiar with; it
is literally a discipline, in that it requires immense discipline.
I think in photography it would be useful to distinguis between the
"craft", and the "art". The "craft" is all issues of equipment and
"technique", particular to photography, but photography really has *no*
"art" that should set it apart from drawing, painting, sculpture,
architecture, cinematography or any visual medium; "art" is just "art",
and to be illiterate in it, and too many are, won't be changed by a
practice of the "craft" of photography, however long or frequent,
regardless of how many cameras you own or years you've used them for.
Those who come from a background of "fine arts" though, the formally
trained ones at least, and their texts, seem rich on the "education" of
art. The best photographers I have seen are those who come from a
background of painting, drawing, sculpture, architechture or so on, not
. Their "art" may not be obvious to all. And here it is useful to
distinguish between "art" and "taste"; like I said before, "art" is a
language that has its conventions and formalities, and though you may
"break the rules", it's usually evident when an "artist" "breaks the
rules" that they are quite familiar with them, rather than when someone
who is clueless about them does it, which, unfortunately in common
misconception, they usually have no rules to start with yet they want
to "break the rules"! "Taste" on the other hand, is whether you like a
thing or not, and too often people mistake it for "art". A piece of
"art", if you've trained yourself or had been formally trained, can be
admired regardless of taste, and in fact, that should be the case. The
more you learn about "art", the more your tastes develop, and become
aligned to what "art" actually is, hence an "artistic taste"; a little
akin to wine, but not to confuse here, the more you learn about it, the
more you appreciate a "fine wine" and its subtleties.
I could've perhaps written more about this but I've just become
distracted and my train of thought interrupted, and I have to go.
Regards.
John McWilliams
> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
>
>> rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
>> much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
>> architecture more.
>
>
> The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo for
> printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the image
> completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
> counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you like.
>
>>
>> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
>> that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
>
>
> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
> reasons.
There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.
> One of the recent shootin shots:
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
> is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a very
> pleasing image.
>
This points to a Tom Hudson image in the "Breaking the Rules" mandate of
the Shoot In, where half the image is very out of focus, and the colors
pastel. Did you mean to point to your image in the same gallery, where
the colors are way more pleasing??
--
John McWilliams
William Graham
Victorian homes. He proposed to the city council that they finance him to
photograph all the homes in town, documentary style, and make up a book that
could be kept in the city hall for its historical interest. He presented
them with a few samples to give them an idea of what they would get. They
turned him down, citing a lack of funds, but I thought that it was a good
idea for any town that had a lot of architecture of historical significance.
It would also amount to a lifetime's work for a photographer if the town
were large enough.......
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
>> reasons.
>
>
> There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.
Two more were added last week. Please do keep up! ;-)
>
>> One of the recent shootin shots:
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
>> is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a very
>> pleasing image.
>>
> This points to a Tom Hudson image in the "Breaking the Rules" mandate of
> the Shoot In, where half the image is very out of focus, and the colors
> pastel. Did you mean to point to your image in the same gallery, where
> the colors are way more pleasing??
No. While there's nothing wrong with the color palette in my shot, in
replying to Sid' post, I chose that photo as it has a pretty wide range
of blue in it for him to study. That part of it is oof is of no
consequence in that regard ... or any other regard for that matter.
There are probably many other examples in and out of the SI, but in
recent memory, that one sticks out.
My shot is more 'blotchy' in the color sense, less graduated than Tom's
shot.
Cheers,
Alan
McLeod
wrote:
>Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
>Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
>recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
>that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.
And don't forget it also attracts collectors and gearheads who love to
have the latest and greatest neck jewellry.
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:d87kb5$p66$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
>>> reasons.
>>
>>
>> There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.
>
> Two more were added last week. Please do keep up! ;-)
>
I just went into it to meet girls......
Charlie Self
Me, too. It really pissed my wife off.
Paul Bielec
I noticed that someone posted "news:d87kb5$p66$1...@inews.gazeta.pl".
Who was it?
Tony
an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers. They see a picture by
Cartier-Bresson and immediatly start talking about the subject not being in
the sharpest focus possible. I've heard people discuss the unrealistic
colours of an Eggleston and the lack of enough greys in brassai or too many
greys and not enough blacks and/or whites in Doisneau - who spent years
photographing in the grey streets of winter Paris.
This strikes me as mostly the need to say "something" but not even having
the language to discuss art - any art. Including photography.
BTW - I know I'm in the minority on hot rods, but I find them an
abomination from a design and aesthetic point of view. This does not mean I
wouldn't like to pilot one in a midnight drag race on Mulholland drive,
although I suspect that is mostly the lingering inner teen who wants the
chicks to see him as a truly cool dude.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Dick R." <di...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11aei7t...@corp.supernews.com...
Alan Browne
> I noticed that someone posted "news:d87kb5$p66$1...@inews.gazeta.pl".
> Who was it?
eh? Me. Why?
By the way Paul, do you want to be a mandator?
Paul Furman
>
> Yes, this is what I think I do. When I am behind the camera I am
> striving for technical accuracy in focus and exposure. So much so that
> my whole thought process is occupied with the technicality of taking a
> photograph. Ofcourse, I do fuss around composition but there is a
> certain something that seems to come some other photographers very
> naturally but doesn't seem to come to my brain.
>
> For example, me and my friend were taking some photographs of an old
> lady feeding stray dogs. My friend got several nice shots of the lady
> and some more shots around of people. And all I got was some odd shots
> with not so great expressions. Most of the time I was either late to
> shoot or my exposure was wrong. On the other hand, I was sitting on the
> beach with the sun setting and I got some good shots. Or, I was on the
> beach and my friends were in water playing and I got some really good
> shots of them. Just wondering if there is really a difference in the
> way our brains work or its just a mental block of some sort.
Art can be learned in my experience (if you want to). At least it gets
better with practice and more exposure. Take a class or read some books
on art appreciation, composition, color, etc. Some might say that ruins
a person's natural instincts but some art teachers can critique a
budding artist's work without crushing their individuality. Most artists
come from a family with artists in it so they grew up thinking that way.
It's not magical and can be learned to an extent.
Frank ess
Sheltered life that I lead, I just learned "BlingBling".
--
Frank ess
Big Bill
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
>post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
>results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
>and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
>rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
>much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
>architecture more.
>
>So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
>that attracts people with different leanings?
Read what you wrote above, and think about it.
The answer, it should be obvious, is "yes".
--
Big Bill
Replace "g" with "a"
Mr. Mark
> Art can be learned in my experience (if you want to). At least it gets
> better with practice and more exposure.
Pun? :)
--
Mark
Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
eawck...@yahoo.com
> Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
> an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers.
I don't need a room full of art kooks^H^H^H critics to tell me what is
or is not good. Do you?
> They see a picture by
> Cartier-Bresson and immediatly start talking about the subject not being in
> the sharpest focus possible.
Well, is the subject in or not in focus? It matters to some people.
Alot of people, actually.
I recall there some kind of gallery or show a while back consisting of
out of focus images? It was no doubt a sensation to the art
cognescenti, all of them doubtless agog thinking "Wow! We can put on a
show of complete crap and the witless sycophants will just lap it up!"
> I've heard people discuss the unrealistic
> colours of an Eggleston and the lack of enough greys in brassai or too many
> greys and not enough blacks and/or whites in Doisneau - who spent years
> photographing in the grey streets of winter Paris.
So what should they be discussing?
> This strikes me as mostly the need to say "something" but not even having
> the language to discuss art - any art. Including photography.
The "language to discuss art" is called "English", or "Spanish",
"Esperanto" or even "Loglan". What you are confusing with "language"
is the pseudo-newspeak, post-modern claptrap that sounds more like
bilge from a marketing department that is over-dosing on selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors than any serious attempt to communicate.
"Yes, when Cartier-Bresson released the shutter, at that moment he
captured the quintessential faux-reality of the dominate
corporate-government-military white-anglo saxon colonial mega-complex
of the era. The lack of clear focus is not a technical flaw, it is a
profound statement of the sociological fog-of-consciousness that still
infects the body-politic to this day -- cf. gay marriage. We can
display this image, you can look at it, but the emotional impact can no
longer be hermeneutically vocalized. Heidelberger was right!!!"
eawck...@yahoo.com
> [...]
Say ... from which context-free grammar generator did you obtain that
output?
Peter Chant
> One of the odd, almost ethical, questions that I find myself faced
> with is whether to use a polarizing filter or not. The effects can be
> dramatic, for instance in this photo
An interesting question. To my mind the point is to take a picture that
captures your gut feeling or the mood of the place, or part of it. On that
basis your fantastic beach may have come out with a wishy washy burnt out
light blue sky (ok I know it can't be blue AND burnt out) and lifeless
foliage. It may be more accurate, but not so near the thing that impressed
you about the place.
I'm not saying I can do that.
Tony Polson
>Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
>an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers. They see a picture by
>Cartier-Bresson and immediatly start talking about the subject not being in
>the sharpest focus possible.
What is even worse is when some technicians look at Cartier-Bresson's
work and pronounce that it succeeds because it complies with the
"Rule" of Thirds, or some other stupidly simplistic specification for
composition that just happens to be their flavour of the month/year.
Mac Tabak
> Hi,
>
> I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
> post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
> results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
> and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
> rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
> much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
> architecture more.
>
> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
> I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
> portriats.
>
> - Siddhartha
I prefer to get as near to your final result (that you see in your minds
eye) with the camera & then use PS to get the last drop of sparkle from a
shot.
RichA
> Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
>an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers. They see a picture by
>Cartier-Bresson and immediatly start talking about the subject not being in
>the sharpest focus possible. I've heard people discuss the unrealistic
>colours of an Eggleston and the lack of enough greys in brassai or too many
>greys and not enough blacks and/or whites in Doisneau - who spent years
>photographing in the grey streets of winter Paris.
Personally, I've always thought photography was best as a literal
interpretation of whatever the camera saw. Everything else added that
doesn't enhance the realism is the "art" part and subject to
interpretaiton. I don't like garishly colour landscapes or abstracts.
They seem to be interesting for about 10 seconds. I'll never remember
them. But I will remember a well-done photo of something interesting.
-Rich
Ben Rosengart
> Tony top-posts:
>
>> Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
>> an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers.
>
> I don't need a room full of art kooks^H^H^H critics to tell me what is
> or is not good. Do you?
I often find interesting new perspectives in the prose of
people who have dedicated lots of time to thinking and learning
about art.
I don't defer to their judgement nor abandon my own. But I want
to hear what they have to say.
--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Roxy d'Urban
> Hi,
>
> I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
> post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
> results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer and
> work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep rooted
> disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too much into
> portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and architecture
> more.
>
> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides that
> attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in IT
> Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can at the
> most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because I enjoy
> producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid portriats.
>
> - Siddhartha
I've seen some truly wonderful photographs made by other people, and I
have also seem some truly magnificent paintings made by other people too.
I would never hang somebody else's photographs in my house, but I would
hang a nice piece of art by somebody else in it.
Am I weird?
--
email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Siddhartha Jain
> I would never hang somebody else's photographs in my house, but I would
> hang a nice piece of art by somebody else in it.
>
Sounds more like jealosuy to me ;-)
Chadwick
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
> <chadw...@hotmail.com> in
> <1118228604.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Cameras wrote:
> >> I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
> >> with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
> >> ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
> >> come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
> >> traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
> >> etc.
> >
> >Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
> >Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
> >recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
> >that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.
>
> How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?
Dunno. Why don't you go ask the same question on a painting, sculpture
or weaving newsgroup, in a thread without the word "photography" in the
heading. That way you might be on topic.
David Hare-Scott
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
> >Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
> >Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
> >recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
> >that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.
>
> How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
It doesn't differ at all.
A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere virtuosity,
these may be interesting but never grab you. An astounding visionary who
cannot control his (brush, camera, violin, chisel,..........) cannot
communicate, you come out of the gallery shaking your head thinking there
may be something in there somewhere - but where.
The great artists are those who have both the vision and the ability to
capture it in their chosen medium.
David
Tony Polson
>It doesn't differ at all.
>
>A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere virtuosity,
>these may be interesting but never grab you. An astounding visionary who
>cannot control his (brush, camera, violin, chisel,..........) cannot
>communicate, you come out of the gallery shaking your head thinking there
>may be something in there somewhere - but where.
>
>The great artists are those who have both the vision and the ability to
>capture it in their chosen medium.
Agree 100%.
Of course there is a wide range of visionary abilities, just as there
is a wide range of technical abilities. Not every great artist is
both a great visionary *and* a great technician.
I suspect that a good many great artists have (had) great vision but
only moderate technical ability. I also suspect that few, if any
great artists have (had) only moderate vision but great technical
ability.
To summarise, I believe that no degree of technical ability can ever
compensate for a lack of vision.
Randy Berbaum
: To summarise, I believe that no degree of technical ability can ever
: compensate for a lack of vision.
And here may be the telling word.. Vision. Some of us compose the image
in the camera lens and thus the "vision" is applied at the time of image
capture. Others of us capture the image and then rely on their techical
ability (and technical ability of the image manipulation software
producers) to be creative durring post production. Of course there are
many of us who are somewhere inbetween the two extremes with some element
of image capture "vision" and some element of post production "vision".
Either form of vision is valid and useful. As always in an art form where
some of the "worth" of the finished product is based on the response of
the viewer, how the result is viewed will be variable.
While I do believe in the "I know what I like" viewpoint, I try not to
belittle some other image that may not be to my taste, as there will
likely be someone who will like it. If nobody else, the person who
produced it. :)
Randy
==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Ron Hunter
the picture, but in selection of camera angle, composition, lighting,
and other factors. 99% of my pictures simple record a piece of reality,
as nearly as possible. That is not to say I don't try to make sure that
the image recorded is showing what I felt was the reason for taking the
picture.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
I have numerous photographs made by others in my home. Else I wouldn't
have records of the family and friends as they grow up... I value those
records.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
certainly learn 'craft', but 'art' comes from some other part of the brain.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Mike Henley
This output: "[...]"?
I don't recall obtaining that output. :-p
Would you like to point out precisely what you're talking about?
Matt Silberstein
<chadw...@hotmail.com> in
<1118305663.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
I guess by your notion I should find a "photography compared to
painting and sculpture" group. You made an assertion about
photography, I was trying to suggest that it was not particularly
about photography, but about most arts. Except for the verbal arts
(poetry, fiction, but not theater), all art has a technical side.
Photography does not straddle that boundary since all of the arts have
science on their "side". A photographer (still and movie) has to
understand the camera and the film, a sculpture has to understand
clay/bronze/marble and the kiln and so on. A painter has to understand
paint and canvas and brushes. Etc.
--
Matt Silberstein
All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Matt Silberstein
Hare-Scott" <fa...@apocrypha.com> in
<sdTpe.11232$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message
>> >Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
>> >Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
>> >recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
>> >that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.
>>
>> How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?
>>
>> [snip]
>It doesn't differ at all.
>
>A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere virtuosity,
>these may be interesting but never grab you. An astounding visionary who
>cannot control his (brush, camera, violin, chisel,..........) cannot
>communicate, you come out of the gallery shaking your head thinking there
>may be something in there somewhere - but where.
>
>The great artists are those who have both the vision and the ability to
>capture it in their chosen medium.
And some of us have a vision of vision, but lack both the vision and
the technical ability. I love photography, I like taking pictures and
the more I take, the more I like looking at the great ones (there was
a great pre-War exhibit of German photography that just closed). But I
just am not any good. Oh well. Maybe in 20,000 picture or so I will
learn.
Ron Hunter
Viewer response is often the point of art. I know of a statue outside a
chapel that is a rather abstract piece, and when people see it for the
first time, they look at the statue, look up, and then comment on how
ugly the statue is. But they had the response the artist intended. I
know, because I discussed it with the artist. Very few people LIKE the
statue, but almost everyone responds to it.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Alan Browne
Cite examples?
Mike Henley
Dick R. wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> > Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we
> > wanted.
> > What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
> > photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
> > don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects. In many ways they
> > sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
> > Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
> > flames on the cutaway fenders.
> >
> Hey Tony,
> I certainly won't disagree with your observations, but what is art?
> Jackson Pollak and Leonardo Da Vinci produced "art", but it's
> strictly in the eye of the beholder. Currently, I look at photos
> by people like Jim Brandenburg, who have an artistic "eye" and
> the technical expertise to make a great photo.
I disagree here, and this is something that I've read books about
lately; as I said in my other post in this thread, art had been
formalised since antiquity and it has its conventions and language, and
those from a background of "fine arts" are well versed in them. What
you're referring to as being in the eye of the beholder is more
accurately referred to as "taste". Someone knowledgeable in "fine arts"
will appreciate the artistic merits of a piece or art, not matter what
his tastes are. The chances are though that the more you know about
fine "art", the more "refined" your taste becomes. To use the wine
analogy again, if you're knowledgeable enough about wine you'll
appreciate the subtleties in the taste of a "fine wine", and appreciate
it as a no-mediocre-thing and the work of a master winemaker, whether
you like its taste or not.
> Hate to say it, but I would love to have that supercharged, chopped,
> flame painted 36 Ford in my garage. :-)
>
> Take care,
> Dick R.
Frank ess
I have the same feelings much of the time, but then ...
I was tempted to name my photography concern "Blind Pig Images".
--
Frank ess
"Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then"
-H. Strange, hog poler _extraordinaire_
Stacey
>
> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> that attracts people with different leanings?
Sure, you only have to read the posts here to see that.
Some people are solely into the technical side. They do mostly "test shots",
study the results with a microscope and seem mainly interested in measuring
the measurable aspects of their results. If you look at their work, mostly
seems to be buildings and other man made objects. These also seem to be
people in the IT world or similar professions.
Others seem to look more at the "total image" and ignore many of the small
details (technical aspects?) as long as they aren't distracting. They seem
to shoot a wide variety of subjects and focus on the ends rather than the
means.
Neither one is 'right' just different goals.
--
Stacey
Alan Browne
>
> Sure, you only have to read the posts here to see that.
> Some people are solely into the technical side. They do
> mostly "test shots", study the results with a microscope
> and seem mainly interested in measuring the measurable
> aspects of their results.
This is an equipment group Stacey. That is the subject, and people will
do as they please. Very few of my photos are "test shots".
Those who have a keen technical interest also shoot for the pleasure of
making beautiful photos. At that point, since most photos we shoot have
at least 'something' that bothers us aesthetically, we discuss that
elsewhere if so inclined; for things that bother us technically, we
discuss it here. In an equipment group.
http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsyscharter.htm (easy reading v. of
charter) or http://tinyurl.com/8hjyn (orig text of charter)
Discussions of photography in general are at alt.photography and other
NG's and webpage based forums.
Far less than 1% of my photography (that is to say, less than 1% of the
"keepers") are posted. I post those images that I think are nice,
interesting, that have a statement to make. I don't post images of
people I have shot which makes up a considerable amount of the whole.
(I have in the past, but trolls have taken their toll).
But, unlike other self inflated 'experts' around here, I *do* post
images that are there just for the sake of being nice images.
Beyond that I do post 'test' images that can illustrate a point. But
'Test' images represent a tiny fraction of them all.
Further, in activities like the rpe35mm SI, (in which you would most
certainly be welcome as participant and mandator), image comments and
critiques are about the image and how the photographer interpreted the
mandate. Technical issues come up only as they might improve or vary
the result. So please join in and we'll all benefit from your artisitic
side.
Cheers,
Alan.
Dick R.
Please know that my tongue is firmly in cheek. I certainly agree that
a "fine art" appreciation class might help a person appreciate some of
the classic and contemporary artworks, but I maintain that there are
exceptions.
Take, for instance, the "artist" who frames a blank canvas and receives
accolades from people who appreciate the simplicity of the artwork.
If I were an acclaimed "artist", I'm sure a gallery would display my
"cowpie on a rocking chair", and many people would love it!
Taste: A lot of this "art" isn't very tasty to me, but that's JMHO.
Take care,
Dick R.
eawck...@yahoo.com
>> Tony top-posts:
>>
>>> Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
>>> an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers.
>>
>> I don't need a room full of art kooks^H^H^H critics to tell me what is
>> or is not good. Do you?
>
> I often find interesting new perspectives in the prose of
> people who have dedicated lots of time to thinking and learning
> about art.
Well, I'm saying it all reads like noise to me. But then again, I was
so disappointed in what passes for "school" in these parts when
"English" was revealed not to be a study in the structure of the
language (ie, linguistics), but warmed over psycho-analysis of
characters that don't even exist.
> I don't defer to their judgement nor abandon my own. But I want
> to hear what they have to say.
A position I respect. I was ranting mainly about "Tony's" "anti-art"
nonsense. I suspect he is confusing "anti-art critic" or "anti-art
writer" or "anti-content free prose" with "anti-art".
eawck...@yahoo.com
> eawck...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Say ... from which context-free grammar generator did you obtain that
>> output?
>
> This output: "[...]"?
>
> I don't recall obtaining that output. :-p
>
> Would you like to point out precisely what you're talking about?
I want to share with you a very deep concern I have about Mike Henley.
But first, let me pose you a question: Is Henley actually concerned
about any of us, or does he just want to take credit for others'
accomplishments? After reading this letter, you'll sincerely find it's
the latter. This march into illaudable propagandism is not happening by
mere chance. It is not, as many intrusive polemics insist, the result
of the natural, inevitable course of things. It is happening as a
direct result of Henley's prissy anecdotes. Worst of all, our
children's children would never forgive us for letting him use terms of
opprobrium such as "negligent fast-buck artists" and "amoral
extremists" to castigate whomever he opposes. I just want to say that
even when he isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing
down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above
all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to detach
individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity --
family, class, private associations.
I have taken the liberty of letting Henley know that if one dares to
criticize even a single tenet of his cock-and-bull stories, one is
promptly condemned as mad, silly, vindictive, or whatever epithet he
deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. He insists
that honor counts for nothing. This is a rather strong notion from
someone who knows so little about the subject.
Particularly telling is the way that Henley is absolutely determined to
believe that the majority of treasonous geeks are heroes, if not
saints, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. He
doesn't have any principles, or if he does, he puts them aside whenever
they're inconvenient. Just to add a little more perspective, if you
want to hide something from him, you just have to put it in a book.
Henley is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside
himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of his wishes,
theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees. Let me leave you with one last
thought: I indeed have no sympathy for Mike Henley.
Ben Rosengart
>
> Some people are solely into the technical side. They do mostly "test shots",
> study the results with a microscope and seem mainly interested in measuring
> the measurable aspects of their results. If you look at their work, mostly
> seems to be buildings and other man made objects. These also seem to be
> people in the IT world or similar professions.
I hope you're not generalizing about IT professionals.
We're not all "pixel peepers".
Ron Hunter
INTENDED to be 'liked', but to evoke a response. If it does, it is
good, if not, well, maybe the next observer will respond. It is not
necessary to like art to appreciate it.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Jeremy Nixon
> I've seen some truly wonderful photographs made by other people, and I
> have also seem some truly magnificent paintings made by other people too.
>
> I would never hang somebody else's photographs in my house, but I would
> hang a nice piece of art by somebody else in it.
>
> Am I weird?
I don't think so. It's because you're a photographer. If you were a
painter, you'd probably feel just the opposite. I know plenty of people
who want to hang photographs in their houses; I am not one of them, and
none of them is a photographer.
I don't even like having "snapshot of a friend" pictures that I didn't
take myself. Am I weird?
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Ben Rosengart
> Ben Rosengart wrote:
>
>> I often find interesting new perspectives in the prose of
>> people who have dedicated lots of time to thinking and learning
>> about art.
>
> Well, I'm saying it all reads like noise to me.
When the jargon gets heavy, I ignore the commentary and focus on the
art. When the jargon is kept in check, the commentary can help me
appreciate the art. For example -- Kertész made a photograph of
a man with a dense tongue of smoke curling from his mouth. I found
it quite striking, but I liked it all the better after I read that
the subject, an artist and friend of his, had a speech impediment.
The book I read this in conveyed the information in a pretty
straightforward manner. There are good art books and bad; if you
write them all off, you could miss something interesting.
Ben Rosengart
>
> I don't think so. It's because you're a photographer. If you were a
> painter, you'd probably feel just the opposite. I know plenty of people
> who want to hang photographs in their houses; I am not one of them, and
> none of them is a photographer.
Hm. I don't have anyone else's photographs on my wall, but I
wouldn't rule it out. Last time I went to the Met, they had a
Kertész poster for sale that I very nearly bought.
Tony Polson
>
>And here may be the telling word.. Vision. Some of us compose the image
>in the camera lens and thus the "vision" is applied at the time of image
>capture. Others of us capture the image and then rely on their techical
>ability (and technical ability of the image manipulation software
>producers) to be creative durring post production. Of course there are
>many of us who are somewhere inbetween the two extremes with some element
>of image capture "vision" and some element of post production "vision".
>Either form of vision is valid and useful. As always in an art form where
>some of the "worth" of the finished product is based on the response of
>the viewer, how the result is viewed will be variable.
If most of the "vision" is applied at the post-processing stage, we
are no longer talking about photography.
I suppose we could call it "digital art with some input from
photography" but it ain't photography.
Tony Polson
>And some of us have a vision of vision, but lack both the vision and
>the technical ability. I love photography, I like taking pictures and
>the more I take, the more I like looking at the great ones (there was
>a great pre-War exhibit of German photography that just closed). But I
>just am not any good. Oh well. Maybe in 20,000 picture or so I will
>learn.
I think you have already learnt to enjoy it, which is probably more
important than anything else.
Tony Polson
>Some people are solely into the technical side. They do mostly "test shots",
>study the results with a microscope and seem mainly interested in measuring
>the measurable aspects of their results. If you look at their work, mostly
>seems to be buildings and other man made objects. These also seem to be
>people in the IT world or similar professions.
>
>Others seem to look more at the "total image" and ignore many of the small
>details (technical aspects?) as long as they aren't distracting. They seem
>to shoot a wide variety of subjects and focus on the ends rather than the
>means.
>
>Neither one is 'right' just different goals.
There is a third category, that of the technicians who think that mere
compliance with myriad "Rules" defines some kind of "vision".
Still, as long as they enjoy it ...
;-)
Alan Browne
>
> There is a third category, that of the technicians who think that mere
> compliance with myriad "Rules" defines some kind of "vision".
Yet another thankfully small category is for those who talk a lot about
photography, claim to own a lot of equipment, claim prolific amounts of
shooting, such as 50 rolls per average *week*, to have had covers on
high circulation magazines such as Paris Match and a long list of other
unsubstantiated claims, yet: nary a photo posted to show a shred of
basic capability.
This same narrow category of persons post unfounded slights against
other posters, selective quoting, snipping and other false implications
in a vain, mean-spririted and cowardly attempt to stifle those who would
object to some or their statments.
eh Tony? Rise up to the level of a snake and maybe you'll get a smidgen
of respect.
Stacey
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:29:35 -0400, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some people are solely into the technical side. They do mostly "test
>> shots", study the results with a microscope and seem mainly interested in
>> measuring the measurable aspects of their results. If you look at their
>> work, mostly seems to be buildings and other man made objects. These also
>> seem to be people in the IT world or similar professions.
>
> I hope you're not generalizing about IT professionals.
> We're not all "pixel peepers".
>
Not at all, it's just I've noticed most of the heavy duty pixel peepers are
also IT pro's..
--
Stacey
Stacey
> Stacey wrote:
>
>>
>> Sure, you only have to read the posts here to see that.
> > Some people are solely into the technical side. They do
> > mostly "test shots", study the results with a microscope
> > and seem mainly interested in measuring the measurable
> > aspects of their results.
>
> This is an equipment group Stacey. That is the subject, and people will
> do as they please. Very few of my photos are "test shots".
>
Sure it is but there is a lot of "subjective quality" factors that these
people ignore when doing a "review" of equipment. Everything doesn't boil
down to something scientifically measureable and I've seen them go as far
as saying if they can't measure it with their toolkit, then it doesn't
exist. Bokeh is a prime example of a thing some "techies" claim doesn't
exist.
--
Stacey
Stacey
> Roxy d'Urban wrote:
>> I would never hang somebody else's photographs in my house, but I would
>> hang a nice piece of art by somebody else in it.
>>
>
> Sounds more like jealosuy to me ;-)
Or intimidated?
--
Stacey
Colin D
Mike Henley wrote:
>
<snip>
> "Taste" on the other hand, is whether you like a
> thing or not, and too often people mistake it for "art". A piece of
> "art", if you've trained yourself or had been formally trained, can be
> admired regardless of taste, and in fact, that should be the case. The
> more you learn about "art", the more your tastes develop, and become
> aligned to what "art" actually is, hence an "artistic taste"; a little
> akin to wine, but not to confuse here, the more you learn about it, the
> more you appreciate a "fine wine" and its subtleties.
>
As an person untrained in 'art', but as a long-time photographer, I have
some difficulty in accepting that statement, at least at its face value.
I have seen a number of 'art' exhibitions, some of them controversial in
their content. One springs to mind immediately - a piece in an
international touring exhibition that came to New Zealand some years
ago.
This piece was a small statue of the virgin Mary, encased in a condom.
Myself, I am an agnostic, I follow no particular religion, but to me in
my untrained plebian state, that piece was an entirely distasteful
juxtaposition of components, designed purely to shock and revolt
viewers. The curator of the gallery that exhibited this display was
inundated with demands to withdraw the item, but he refused, defending
the "artist's" right to exhibit what he wanted. People tried to destroy
the piece, and the gallery had guards on duty to prevent people from
getting too close.
I infer from your remarks above that you would have admired it because
of your formal art training, your appreciation of its subtleties. In my
artistically uneducated state, what I saw in that piece was grossly
insulting even to me, let alone the Catholic believers in the
population.
I cannot believe that a fine art educated person can view such a piece,
with their 'artistic appreciation', and not experience the disgust and
revulsion evoked in ordinary people.
This sort of thing is typical of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome
displayed by 'artistic' types - expounding all sorts of nonsense about
artistic merit etc., and ignoring the plain fact that the piece is not
art; it is junk. Insulting, demeaning junk. Wannabe artists know that
their work 'should evoke a viewer reaction'. The easiest reaction to
evoke is revulsion, so that's what they do.
In my plebian mediocrity, It seems to me that the word 'fine' in fine
art applies not only to the degree of expertise of the artist, but also
to the quality of the intended response to his art. 'Fine art' should
not evoke dislike or revulsion in the majority of viewers.
'Fine art' that does not please is an oxymoron.
Colin
Ron Hunter
I don't claim to be an art expert, although I did have a course in 'art
appreciation' in college. However, I do know that much of what goes as
'art' is as phony as a 9 dollar bill. Some 'great' artists even admit
to passing some works that were only for their amusement at the expense
of art critics. Many of these artists are really talented people who
could do much better work, but were disillusioned by the pretentiousness
of 'art critics', and just sought to embarrass them. Unfortunately,
their works were highly praised, even though they resemble something
from a third grade art class, and people spent hugh sums of money on them.
Also, not all art is 'enjoyable'. I saw a painting many years ago that
was an abstract, labeled 'crucifiction'. Looking at the painting was
literally painful. Almost everyone who looked at it seemed repulsed,
and uncomfortable. I sincerely hope I NEVER lay eyes on it again, but I
am grateful for the experience. That was ART.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
eawck...@yahoo.com
A virgin Mary encased in a condom? The artist calling the icon a dick?
Or was the just putting a test of faith to the religious nuts? Let
them squirm.
> 'Fine art' that does not please is an oxymoron.
The point is to communicate, not to please. The real world is more
than just puppy dogs, laughing children and happy endings for movies.
Your sentiments are just as kooky as the art critics you (rightly)
criticize...
Alan Browne
> This piece was a small statue of the virgin Mary, encased in a condom.
This just sounds to me of an artist trying to get notoriety, as in
"there's no such thing as bad publicity'.
I could care less if an artist puts a statue of the "virgin" Mary in a
condom. It is not controversy to me. I doubt it's art either.
There was an "artist" in Toronto hanging chunks of meat and calling it
art. I don't care what he calls it but it pisses me off that the
government is giving him grants.
It pisses me off that the Canadian government paid a couple million
bucks for an American artist for a piece known as "Voice of Fire":
http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/c1c.htm
Put it up for auction. As far as whatever value it has (other than art,
because that's a big fat $12.93) will be better determined there.
Is it fair to determine the value of art by the price received for it?
Probably not. But it isn't fair for tax dollars to go to waste on what
could be best described as rotting meat and badly executed wall paper.
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
>
> Sure it is but there is a lot of "subjective quality" factors that these
> people ignore when doing a "review" of equipment. Everything doesn't boil
> down to something scientifically measureable and I've seen them go as far
> as saying if they can't measure it with their toolkit, then it doesn't
> exist. Bokeh is a prime example of a thing some "techies" claim doesn't
> exist.
"Bokeh" is something difficult to quantify but I don't know of anyone
who says it doesn't exist. A number of people question the importance
of its qualities it in an image (or some kinds of images), and that is
their right to do so. While I might not really pay attention to
reasonably smooth bokeh, I might react to harsh bokeh if it doesn't fit
the style of the image.
So, we'll see you in the shoot-in? Even the current mandate may be of
interest to you and you have 10 days left to do it...
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/africa
Frank ess
> Colin D wrote:
>
>> This piece was a small statue of the virgin Mary, encased in a
>> condom.
>
> This just sounds to me of an artist trying to get notoriety, as in
> "there's no such thing as bad publicity'.
>
> I could care less if an artist puts a statue of the "virgin" Mary in
> a
> condom. It is not controversy to me. I doubt it's art either.
>
> There was an "artist" in Toronto hanging chunks of meat and calling
> it
> art. I don't care what he calls it but it pisses me off that the
> government is giving him grants.
>
> It pisses me off that the Canadian government paid a couple million
> bucks for an American artist for a piece known as "Voice of Fire":
>
> http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/c1c.htm
>
> Put it up for auction. As far as whatever value it has (other than
> art, because that's a big fat $12.93) will be better determined
> there.
>
> Is it fair to determine the value of art by the price received for
> it?
> Probably not. But it isn't fair for tax dollars to go to waste on
> what could be best described as rotting meat and badly executed wall
> paper.
Art is like a newsgroup: it is what it is.
No matter what it started as or at, it is a _process_ continually
revealing itself, newly perceived and embellished by the transition
from the instant before now, to the _now_.
You got your experts who declaim and exhort, and lots of folk buy into
it, and they all may be a little or a lot "right", but they are also a
little or a lot "wrong".
What you deprecate as not-art, or as piss-me-off flotsam, detritus of
a declining society, may in fact be someone's art today, and yours
tomorrow.
I stand on a little more than a square foot of Earth, affording me a
certain view of the universe and its phenomena. I don't even have to
move outside that ft², just lean a little, to gain a different
perspective that could very well result in a radical change in my
evaluation of, say, the distance between Tedium and Ennui.
It's like nailing down Jello, putting art (or not-art, or craft) in a
box. Even if you succeed in making it stay in one place, it's not
going to stop wiggling, giving off certain nanos, and being sticky; in
other words, changing.
Process.
I bet the process in your brain has changed a little in the fifteen
seconds it took you to read this.
Eh?
--
Frank ess
eawck...@yahoo.com
> Bokeh is a prime example of a thing some "techies" claim doesn't exist.
The "techies" are laughing themselves sick at the so-called artists who
can't bring themselves to learn about spherical abberation.
William Graham
"Tony Polson" <t...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dudha1515iuhd7koj...@4ax.com...
this was true. My dad spent many hours in the darkroom striving for good
print quality. The film was just the beginning of his photographs.
Jeremy Nixon
Are the artists who know about spherical aberration laughing themselves
sick at the techies who can't spell it? :)
(Sorry, I couldn't resist. But when you laugh at someone...)
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
William Graham
"Jeremy Nixon" <jer...@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11ah9n4...@corp.supernews.com...
But there are some things that you can't take yourself....If you were into
astronomy, (for example) you might have a photograph of the Horse's Head
Nebula taken by Hubble hanging in your house somewhere......
William Graham
"Colin D" <Col...@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:42A8D835...@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> Mike Henley wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>> "Taste" on the other hand, is whether you like a
>> thing or not, and too often people mistake it for "art". A piece of
>> "art", if you've trained yourself or had been formally trained, can be
>> admired regardless of taste, and in fact, that should be the case. The
>> more you learn about "art", the more your tastes develop, and become
>> aligned to what "art" actually is, hence an "artistic taste"; a little
>> akin to wine, but not to confuse here, the more you learn about it, the
>> more you appreciate a "fine wine" and its subtleties.
>>
> As an person untrained in 'art', but as a long-time photographer, I have
> some difficulty in accepting that statement, at least at its face value.
>
> I have seen a number of 'art' exhibitions, some of them controversial in
> their content. One springs to mind immediately - a piece in an
> international touring exhibition that came to New Zealand some years
> ago.
>
> This piece was a small statue of the virgin Mary, encased in a condom.
Today, the artist would probably create a sculpture of a Koran sitting in a
toilet bowl.....:^)
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:hw6qe.63627$tf4.2...@wagner.videotron.net...
> Colin D wrote:
>
>> This piece was a small statue of the virgin Mary, encased in a condom.
>
> This just sounds to me of an artist trying to get notoriety, as in
> "there's no such thing as bad publicity'.
>
> I could care less if an artist puts a statue of the "virgin" Mary in a
> condom. It is not controversy to me. I doubt it's art either.
>
> There was an "artist" in Toronto hanging chunks of meat and calling it
> art. I don't care what he calls it but it pisses me off that the
> government is giving him grants.
>
> It pisses me off that the Canadian government paid a couple million bucks
> for an American artist for a piece known as "Voice of Fire":
>
> http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/c1c.htm
>
> Put it up for auction. As far as whatever value it has (other than art,
> because that's a big fat $12.93) will be better determined there.
>
> Is it fair to determine the value of art by the price received for it?
> Probably not. But it isn't fair for tax dollars to go to waste on what
> could be best described as rotting meat and badly executed wall paper.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
This letter was the best:
"P.T. Barnum was certainly right when he said 'There's one born every
minute.' But how come so many of them get to spend our tax dollars?" a woman
wrote in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix.
Stacey
> Stacey wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Sure it is but there is a lot of "subjective quality" factors that these
>> people ignore when doing a "review" of equipment. Everything doesn't boil
>> down to something scientifically measureable and I've seen them go as far
>> as saying if they can't measure it with their toolkit, then it doesn't
>> exist. Bokeh is a prime example of a thing some "techies" claim doesn't
>> exist.
>
> "Bokeh" is something difficult to quantify
Which is why many techies downplay it's importance. They can't measure it.
> but I don't know of anyone
> who says it doesn't exist.
> A number of people question the importance
> of its qualities it in an image (or some kinds of images), and that is
> their right to do so.
I suppose, just like tonal separation and dynamic range can be blown off by
these same people. Too hard to measure and graph..
> So, we'll see you in the shoot-in? Even the current mandate may be of
> interest to you and you have 10 days left to do it...
>
Maybe, maybe not. :-)
--
Stacey
Ron Hunter
> Colin D wrote:
>
>> This piece was a small statue of the virgin Mary, encased in a condom.
>
>
> This just sounds to me of an artist trying to get notoriety, as in
> "there's no such thing as bad publicity'.
>
> I could care less if an artist puts a statue of the "virgin" Mary in a
> condom. It is not controversy to me. I doubt it's art either.
>
> There was an "artist" in Toronto hanging chunks of meat and calling it
> art. I don't care what he calls it but it pisses me off that the
> government is giving him grants.
>
> It pisses me off that the Canadian government paid a couple million
> bucks for an American artist for a piece known as "Voice of Fire":
>
> http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/c1c.htm
>
> Put it up for auction. As far as whatever value it has (other than art,
> because that's a big fat $12.93) will be better determined there.
>
> Is it fair to determine the value of art by the price received for it?
> Probably not. But it isn't fair for tax dollars to go to waste on what
> could be best described as rotting meat and badly executed wall paper.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
period. If they must buy art, then it should have the broadest possible
appeal, which would certainly leave out the 'abstract' pictured.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
consider crosses in urine jars, or statues in condoms 'art'. Galleries
are more interested in making money than in promoting art, which is the
problem.
And should I reach a point where I consider either of the above
mentioned items 'art', will someone please just shoot me!
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
for death. Recall Simon Rushdie?
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Tony Polson
Yes, of course. I greatly enjoy working in the darkroom.
>At least, in the past
>this was true. My dad spent many hours in the darkroom striving for good
>print quality. The film was just the beginning of his photographs.
But you have to start with a good photo. You cannot make a silk purse
out of a sow's ear. At least not with my darkroom skills ... ;-)
If you want to do some abstract art that's based on a photo, that's
fine. But once the non-photographic aspect(s) begin(s) to dominate,
it is no longer photography.
Tony Polson
>Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Stacey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Sure it is but there is a lot of "subjective quality" factors that these
>>> people ignore when doing a "review" of equipment. Everything doesn't boil
>>> down to something scientifically measureable and I've seen them go as far
>>> as saying if they can't measure it with their toolkit, then it doesn't
>>> exist. Bokeh is a prime example of a thing some "techies" claim doesn't
>>> exist.
>>
>> "Bokeh" is something difficult to quantify
>
>Which is why many techies downplay it's importance. They can't measure it.
Some techies even use stupid names for it, like "Schmuckle", to
demonstrate their contempt for something they simply cannot
understand.
;-)
Tony Polson
Those who really understand spherical aberration [sic] are of course
aware of the dangers of over-correcting for it in an unthinking rush
to claim ever-higher MTF, an arbitrary measure of lens quality if ever
there was one.
Alan Browne
< snipped>
> I bet the process in your brain has changed a little in the fifteen
> seconds it took you to read this.
Not at all. Don't give yourself that kind of credit for that whimsical
wandering.
My mother is an artist (paint/sculpture) and she works hard at it.
Single paintings take a week to weeks to complete whether 'conventional'
or abstract. Sculpture takes longer (medium dependant as well). And
she sells.
Cheers,
Alan.
Ton Maas
> Of course there is a wide range of visionary abilities, just as there
> is a wide range of technical abilities. Not every great artist is
> both a great visionary *and* a great technician.
Also there are periods in which technical abilities are appreciated more
or rather less. Take the golden age of oil painting versus the
expressionists and impressionists of the nineteenth century. Most of the
latter's work wasn't exactly made with a long life span in mind. An art
conservation specialist once told me that he and his colleagues feared
the time in which 20th century artworks will have to be preserved. Works
with markers on paper are nightmare to them.
Ton
Alan Browne
>>
>> Today, the artist would probably create a sculpture of a Koran
>> sitting in a toilet bowl.....:^)
>>
> No, THAT would cause riots, and violence, with the artist being
> marked for death. Recall Simon Rushdie?
Getting OT here, but part of the issue with the VM/condom is almost
cynical comedy (condomy?) wrt the Catholic Church' wide use of icons and
images. All despite clear instruction in the Old Testament regarding
graven images.
Desecration of the code (Bible, Koran) is a form of book burning and an
attack on religious beliefs and freedom of expression. It is no
surprise that it would cause strong upset amongst the faithful.
Salman Rushdie did nothing wrong, of course. He played at the edges of
questions of faith and illustrated the tension of a person wrt their
faith (IIRC). Honest writing that did not attack Islam, but put
questions to it. Islam is very intolerant of questioning the faith...
and this will eventually result, as it did for the Christian faith, in a
reformation and an outbreaking of intelligence in the leaders of the
faith ... in 500 or 1000 years or so.
Cheers,
Alan
Ton Maas
> Viewer response is often the point of art. I know of a statue outside a
> chapel that is a rather abstract piece, and when people see it for the
> first time, they look at the statue, look up, and then comment on how
> ugly the statue is. But they had the response the artist intended. I
> know, because I discussed it with the artist. Very few people LIKE the
> statue, but almost everyone responds to it.
That may be true, but in teaching art students I have often experienced
that they consider viewer's reactions as irrelevant, possibly as a
defense mechanism against frustration. Many of those students, when
confronted with an interactive view between artist and viewer, remarked
they weren't interested in "theatre".
Ton
Ton Maas
> You describe the difference between 'art' and 'craft'. One can
> certainly learn 'craft', but 'art' comes from some other part of the brain.
If only the distinction were so clearly...
I'm afraid in actual practise things are quite a bit more complex and
interwoven.
Ton
Ton Maas
> "Siddhartha Jain" <los...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> > that attracts people with different leanings?
>
> IMO this is one of the more interesting observations I've read in this
> group. And the answer is yes. My collection of friends who are very into
> photography come from all different backgrounds and each of them has their
> own expressive style - some would even say that they don't have an
> expressive style because saying things like that sound artzy to them and
> they don't want to be considered artzy. :)
Agreed. I think most of us will recognize themselves anywhere in the
equation between me and my wife, both fervent photographers. With me,
the emphasis has always been on taking the right shot the right way,
requiring as little post-processing as possible. It's been like that in
the dark room era and is still true in the digital domain. For her,
taking the shot is "just" the beginning of things and she regularly
spends days "in" Photoshop perfecting the vision she had in mind.
Ton
Ton Maas
> Women (female mammals, actually) have a better color sense than do
> males. That said, this is a trainable talent. Go shopping for paint
> for a room and start paying attention to the slight differences. You
> will learn to distinguish them. Learn some language and you will do
> better.
Agreed 100%. Language is an important tool in learning to make
distinctions and being able to verbalize/memorize them. Philosopher
Martha Nussbaum did some research into the matter of gender and found
that whereas relational/emotional subjects are discussed in detail with
little girls, they are often dealt with in short hand in the interaction
between parents and their young sons.
Ton