Is color landscape photography art ?
Quang-Tuan Luong
Kerry Thalmann wrote:
>>Although the artistic images are nice, I personally prefer more
>traditional color landscape photography.
It seems that most people, including many of the practitioners of this
form of
photography consider it to be less artistic than other photographic
pursuits.
Why that ? My explanation would be that nature supplies most of the
ingredients,
and the control of the photographer, besides viewpoint and framing is
quite
limited (black and white is more interpretative). Eventually, two
photographs of, let
say, the Delicate Arch, from a similar perspective are not going to
look that different.
As far as I am concerned, I don't consider myself to be an artist, but
rather a good (hopefully !) technician with knowledge of locations,
conditions,
and photographic tools. I don't have any real "artist's statement"
rather than
bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
the emotions I experienced while being there.
Tuan.
--
Quang-Tuan LUONG at SRI +1(415)859-5138 lu...@ai.sri.com
photographs in The Mountain Gallery at:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/gallery/
steven T koontz
Quang-Tuan Luong wrote:
>
> I don't have any real "artist's statement"
> rather than
> bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
> the emotions I experienced while being there.
>
then the rest of us.. example: my brother house is full of folk art
(junk to me) that I think is ugly but other "artists" say is great
stuff.. When I show my photography to alot of people they really like
it but the "artists" alway have some comment about how it's too
"motionless" or "doesn't make a statement". I probably wouldn't like
it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
why should I care if someone else doesn't? I used to worry about it
but now have learned not to. I shoot for me and have learned I could
care less if some "artist" thinks it's art...I'm the one who has to
look at it!
--
steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
sko...@mindspring.com
Bob Zwarick
In article <35762964...@mindspring.com>, sko...@mindspring.com wrote:
|...
|sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
|then the rest of us.. example: my brother house is full of folk art
|(junk to me) that I think is ugly but other "artists" say is great
|stuff.. When I show my photography to alot of people they really like
|it but the "artists" alway have some comment about how it's too
|"motionless" or "doesn't make a statement". I probably wouldn't like
|it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
|why should I care if someone else doesn't? I used to worry about it
|but now have learned not to. I shoot for me and have learned I could
|care less if some "artist" thinks it's art...I'm the one who has to
|look at it!
|
There are two kinds of 'artists' those who bitch and moan about others work
and those who shoot :-))
Bob
'Never sign a thing, ask an Indian first.'
Geoff Wise
Given your interest in mountaineering, I think all you have to be is a good
craftsman as your subject matter oozes drama. Personally, I think
Wilderness Photography is more masochism, sweet mascohism.
Geoff Wise Wise's Wilderness
wi...@zip.com.au http://www.zip.com.au/~wises
PO Box 3042R, Rosemeadow NSW 2560, Australia
Quang-Tuan Luong wrote in message <357615B1...@ai.sri.com>...
Richard Knoppow
nv...@anv.net (Bob Zwarick) wrote:
The first are art critics Learning the jargon of art criticism is an
ammusing endeavor.
>'Never sign a thing, ask an Indian first.'
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
evp...@insync.net
Is color landscape photography art? Jack W. Dykinga, Eliot Porter, Ernst
Haas, an occaisional Muench, Jim Bones, Galen Rowell's Tibet photos, several
japanese photographers... I know there are more I am just not aware of them.
The thing that transforms normal photography into art is the seeing, the
amount of personal involvement the photographer has with his/her subject and
the ability for us the audience to interact with that vision. A lot of great
looking landscape photography is just photography of great looking or exotic
landscape; Nothing wrong with that, it's just that sometimes I wonder where
the photographer's heart, soul, intellect, sense of humor, sense of
themselves is. I recently made my first trip to Big Bend National Park and as
a photographer I came away feeling defeated. As a human I came away feeling
changed and charged up. Cheers, Ellis
In article <35767ad4.2256261758@nntp.netcruiser>,
dick...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> nv...@anv.net (Bob Zwarick) wrote:
>
> >In article <35762964...@mindspring.com>, sko...@mindspring.com wrote:
I probably wouldn't like
> >|it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
> >|why should I care if someone else doesn't? > >Bob
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
mla...@aol.com
In article <357615B1...@ai.sri.com>,
Quang-Tuan Luong <lu...@ai.sri.com> wrote:
> As far as I am concerned, I don't consider myself to be an artist, but
> rather a good (hopefully !) technician with knowledge of locations,
> conditions,
> and photographic tools. I don't have any real "artist's statement"
> rather than
> bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
> the emotions I experienced while being there.
I don't consider myself an artist either but the last sentence sounds like a
pretty good definition of art. Paraphrased, you're creating a likeness of the
subject, based on your emotions. The emotion, "That's pretty" is
certainly a valid one.
Having done a fair amount of watercolor painting (with and without the
numbers!), it was important to me (and others I know) to depict the scene
basically as it was. Sure, telephone poles get left out and trees get moved
but that's not done to create art, it is a compositional tool - it simply
looks better with some elements changed. Knowing paint, brushes and paper is
no different than cameras, lenses and film.
Anyway, having the "eye" for a scene, composing it the way you want and
getting it onto your medium is what realistic painting is all about. If that's
art (and it is) then so is photography, color or B&W.
The problem with calling myself an "artist" is that it sounds uppity and I'm
not that kind of a person (or at least, I try not to be).
Mike
Jay Wenner
steven T koontz (sko...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: >
: sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
: then the rest of us..
[step up on soapbox]
For the majority of us, photography is a hobby. We do the 9 to 5 (really
8 to 6) argue with traffic, deal with all the crap life deals and then
we have a few hours a week of "free time." I use this free time to do
what _I_ like. Many photographers are concerned if other people like
their work, but the main point is if you like your own work. Do you enjoy
it? That is, you you enjoy the whole photographic process? Some people
enjoy buying and discussing equipment more than clicking the shutter.
Fine. That's a hobby in itself. I enjoy trampin' the woods with a camera
in tow. Many consider that "not creative and mundane." Fine. Who cares,
I enjoy it.
I had a guy look though about 10 years of my work and say he didn't
like it. I was surprised, since most people who don't like your work will
pick an image or two and say they like those, but he blew off the whole
works. As I thought about it, it doesn't matter if people don't like
my work because I'm not really _trying_ to sell it. Sure, I've sold a
few prints, but it hardly amounts to anything compared to the equipment
and time investment. Screw it, I shoot for me. If that means I'm not
an artist, so be it.
[step off soapbox]
Jay Wenner
ma...@my-dejanews.com
To really be able to talk about art we would first have to define it, and
that would be very, very hard. So art, to most people, comes down to what
it's been said here: Art is that thingh that moves me and my emotions. So
to many people Andy Warhole's pieces are not art, but to many other they are,
why is that? Well simiple because it makes some people feel something, good
or bad, and it doesn't too other.
So I agree with Jay W., I take pictures for myself, so that when I see that
picture again I get moved as I did when taken the picture. Though I do not
consider myself an artist I do not think Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Micheal Angelo,
or any other artist, when painting/creatin, thought on doing this or that so
that people would like his art. They would just paint/create because they
wanted to express themselves, they did it for the pure pleasure it brought
them. Just like it happens with us, photographers, either we use color or
b&w film, we shoot for the pure pleasure, and whatever we use, as long as we
obtain what expected, would be, at the end, our own piece of art.
Besides if everyone liked my pictures I would be worried, for that would mean
I'd be doing nothing good, new or personal. Remember, evey head is a world.
Happy shooting.
ABURR
mao75
In article <6l6fhm$6...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
Roger Cole
[snip]
>sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
>then the rest of us.. example: my brother house is full of folk art
>(junk to me) that I think is ugly but other "artists" say is great
>stuff.. When I show my photography to alot of people they really like
>it but the "artists" alway have some comment about how it's too
>"motionless" or "doesn't make a statement". I probably wouldn't like
>it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
>why should I care if someone else doesn't? I used to worry about it
>but now have learned not to. I shoot for me and have learned I could
>care less if some "artist" thinks it's art...I'm the one who has to
>look at it!
>
>--
>
>
>steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
>sko...@mindspring.com
A-men Steve! Maybe it's art, maybe it isn't, and who really cares?
I'll let the ones who do worry about it. Me, if I like it, that's
good enough. I just shoot and print to make something that I think
looks good. I don't try to express the "Oneness of the wholeness of
Oz" or whatever. If someone else does, fine with me, I wish them the
best.
Roger Cole
Dirk J. Bakker
Quang-Tuan Luong wrote:
>
> Kerry Thalmann wrote:
> >>Although the artistic images are nice, I personally prefer more
> >traditional color landscape photography.
>
> form of
> photography consider it to be less artistic than other photographic
> pursuits.
> Why that ? My explanation would be that nature supplies most of the
> ingredients,
> and the control of the photographer, besides viewpoint and framing is
> quite
> limited (black and white is more interpretative). Eventually, two
> photographs of, let
> say, the Delicate Arch, from a similar perspective are not going to
> look that different.
>
> rather a good (hopefully !) technician with knowledge of locations,
> conditions,
> and photographic tools. I don't have any real "artist's statement"
> rather than
> bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
> the emotions I experienced while being there.
>
>
> --
> Quang-Tuan LUONG at SRI +1(415)859-5138 lu...@ai.sri.com
> photographs in The Mountain Gallery at:
> http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/gallery/
Hello Tuan,
My working definition:
A work of Art is a tool of the soul.
To "bring[ing] back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me
of the emotions I experienced while being there." is just as eloquent and
equally meaningful.
We have been too much subjected to the definition of art that has been
imposed on us by an elite. We need to pluck it and simply take it back.
As to limited control in color photography, give a look at the work of
Eliot Porter or Freeman Patterson in Portraits of Earth, 1987, Firefly.
Perhaps they were never told the same or chose not to believe it.
We become what we think of ourselves.
Just a thought.
Dirk
PBurian
Yes, it is art if very well done. But we see so many snapshots and so many
record shots in $9. calendars that we can no longer think of it as art.
Black and white does not reproduce the world as we see it, so it is a step
removed from reality -- or the documentary record. (Mind you, bad b&w sure is
not art either)
There is one photog who comes to mind, Michael Fatali, of Utah. Has several
galleries. Does not use trick filters or PhotoShop but incredibly beautiful
color landscapes. I would consider them art.
Peter Burian, Editor
Shutterbug's OUTDOOR & NATURE Photography
George Stocking
The fact is that color landscape is frowned upon and disdained in almost
every artisic circle that I know. Eco-porn and all that. A couple of years
ago, a friend of mine applied to grad school for photography (MFA),
submitting a portfolio of large format color transparencies. (They were
actually pretty good......a few were excellent) He was rebuffed without
comment from all except ASU. (They talked to him because his undergraduate
degree was from the same institution) Basically he was told that color
landscape wasn't art, they then showed him what was currently the "cutting
edge" of fine art photography. According to most (in the art world),
color landscape has been "done to death", which somehow invalidates it
from the forum of discussion. The old, "if its been done before, it is
passe".
Of course, this whole discussion comes down to the old "what-is art"
question. Ask 100 people, and you will get 100 different definitions, and
that is becauses art is in the eye of the beholder. We are all a product
of our life experiences; we all bring a particular set of prejudices to
the game. Many of my deepest emotional responses to life come from my
interaction with the landscape......that is why I shoot color landscape
for a living. Like everyone else alive, I rationalize what I do, otherwise
I wouldn't be able to it.
For me, art is defined by compositional power. That is, the sum total of
lines, spaces and shapes must come together to make an image "more" than
what it is. The image creates its own power. Subject matter becomes
basically irelevant. It is reported that Edward Weston's bell pepper was
banned from some venues (in his time). Talk about power and movement.
Great art demands your attention, it will follow you around the room.
This is the ultimate challenge for me. To go out into the eternally
amazing wilderness and recognize that moment when the various elements of
compositional power come together. And then create images that reflect the
overpowering emotions that I feel when I stand on a prtuclar spot in a
particlar time.
Is color landscape art? Has it been done before? If it has, does that fact
then invalidate the results? After all, why paint portraits? The Mona Lisa
is already hanging on the wall. Why paint landscapes? Hey, Monet did that.
Why bother trying? Because art is about more than a picture on the wall,
or the statue in front of the museum. It is about human endeavor. It is
about peoples responses to the world around us. Sometimes a picture of a
bell pepper becomes more than just a pepper; and sometimes a photo of a
flower becomes more than grass and petals.
Sherwood Veith
Too much intellectualizing. Yes, yes, yes. All photography is art, from
the passport Polaroids (a little extreme) and my 7 year-olds single use
snaps (of stuffed animals and Barbie dolls), to Galen Rowell, and David
Muench.
Art is creativity at its best and worst. Even more, art is totally
subjective - and your opinion of your own work is the most important. If
you say your work is art, then it is. As we become better "artists" our
opinion of our own work may change, but that helps us grow and improve.
To blow off an amateur's or novice's work because he/she is inexperienced is
to snuff out creativity, and possibly and ultimately good art.
Don't sweat the details, CREATE!
Woody
evp...@insync.net wrote in message <6l6fg0$egj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Is color landscape photography art? Jack W. Dykinga, Eliot Porter, Ernst
>Haas, an occaisional Muench, Jim Bones, Galen Rowell's Tibet photos,
several
>japanese photographers... I know there are more I am just not aware of
them.
>The thing that transforms normal photography into art is the seeing, the
>amount of personal involvement the photographer has with his/her subject
and
>the ability for us the audience to interact with that vision. A lot of
great
>looking landscape photography is just photography of great looking or
exotic
>landscape; Nothing wrong with that, it's just that sometimes I wonder where
>the photographer's heart, soul, intellect, sense of humor, sense of
>themselves is. I recently made my first trip to Big Bend National Park and
as
>a photographer I came away feeling defeated. As a human I came away feeling
>changed and charged up. Cheers, Ellis
>
>In article <35767ad4.2256261758@nntp.netcruiser>,
> dick...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> nv...@anv.net (Bob Zwarick) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <35762964...@mindspring.com>, sko...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>I probably wouldn't like
>> >|it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
>> >|why should I care if someone else doesn't? > >Bob
Ken Neely
Just a further opinion on the root subject :
I just participated in a local photo contest, and helped
move work during the judging. It was apparent from the
results that the basis of this whole issue is simply -
subjective opinion.
What constitutes art, anyway ?
There are only two criteria to apply - whether the artist
likes it ( in the case of non- compensated work) or whether
the public ( i.e. client) likes it.
Nothing else matters - It's nice, but not essential to the
intrinsic value of the work, if others appreciate and enjoy
it. If the makers are compensated for their work, in the
professional example, then it's essential that their client
like it. Doesn't necessarily make it "art" though. On the
other hand, if the maker likes it personally, it IS art.
Sorry if this doesn't fit the normal definition (whatever
THAT may be) of art, but like I said, it's entirely a matter
of subjective opinion.
KN
David Ingamells
Art is a pile of bricks in the Tate Gallery (London).
--
David Ingamells
remove 1aa1 from address before replying.
Quang-Tuan Luong <lu...@ai.sri.com> wrote in article
<357615B1...@ai.sri.com>...
Dan Wolfgang
> What constitutes art, anyway ?
In the words of the Joker (Jack Nicholson):
"The skull, the body... you give it all such feeling. I don't know if
it's art, but I like it!"
There ya go. Who cares if it's "art," so long as you like it.
Dan
Beakman
Sherwood Veith (sher...@telenet.net) wrote:
: Too much intellectualizing. Yes, yes, yes. All photography is art, from
: the passport Polaroids (a little extreme) and my 7 year-olds single use
: snaps (of stuffed animals and Barbie dolls), to Galen Rowell, and David
: Muench.
: Art is creativity at its best and worst. Even more, art is totally
: subjective - and your opinion of your own work is the most important. If
: you say your work is art, then it is. As we become better "artists" our
: opinion of our own work may change, but that helps us grow and improve.
: To blow off an amateur's or novice's work because he/she is inexperienced is
: to snuff out creativity, and possibly and ultimately good art.
: Don't sweat the details, CREATE!
: Woody
First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
words for it.
Second, I think that too many people give short shrift to "craft". There
is absolutely nothing low, demeaning, or inherently of little value in
craft, yet people seem to think that to call someone a great craftsperson
is somehow insulting. To my mind a great craftsperson should be put up
on the same pedestal (and sometimes an even taller one) than the "artist".
Therefore, I find nothing wrong in calling a photo hobbyist a
craftsperson rather than an artist. This does not mean that hobbist is
*not* an artist, it only means that just because someone takes pictures
and is creative he/she is not necessarily an artist, which brings me to my
last point...
I believe that an artist is someone who trys to *communicate* some
feeling, emotion, or message through a creative act. This means that the
intention of the photographer is paramount. If you take a picture of
your kid so that you can put it in the family album as a keepsake -- this
is *not* what being an artist is about (and there's nothing wrong with
that). If, on the other hand, you took photos of your kid because you
were trying to express some ideas you had about "life in suburbia", for
example, that would be art.
To say that someone is, or is not, an artist is neither a compliment or
an insult. It is merely a descriptive term for some specific type of
creative act.
David
--
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
David Fokos
bea...@netcom.com
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
evp...@insync.net
"If you can't name a thing, point to it." William Burroughs
"Look,there it goes." Laurie Anderson
According to Max Ernst and man ray there are three relationships involved in
the decisioning of what gets construed as art: there is the relationship
between the subject and the artist, then there is the relationship between
the viewer and the made object, and finally there is the relationship between
the artist and his/her audience. Color landscape photography is paradoxically
easy to reject/ difficult to accept for a modern "educated" audience, because
it mostly seems so impersonally made. It is, for the most part, hard to see
the "hand" of the artist at work, so they think that what is shown is a mere
recording of what was there. When we look at a stunning Ansel Adams or John
Sexton black & white print of a landscape, we think first: "what a print!".
Looking at a color image of the same scene I think our first impression must
be "wow! What a place!" Curiously I think that our Modern sensibilities have
both tuned us to the idea of nature as a place of beauty, and also turned us
away from the acceptence of a color photographic depiction of that beauty. If
we cannot have it at first hand, we want it obviously abstracted. Of course,
if you are the creater and the audience, all bets are off! Ellis Vener
In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
Mike McDonald
In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
> First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
> words for it.
By that logic then, sculpture isn't art. Painting isn't art. Drawing isn't
art. Doesn't leave much to be art.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Dirk J. Bakker
Hello,
Beg to differ. Another way of saying it is: using a typewriter does not
make one a writer. One is a discipline, the other a way of life, a
conviction. They're NOT mutually exclusive, mind you. Just not the same.
Dirk
Beakman
Mike McDonald (mik...@mikemac.com) wrote:
: In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
: bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
: > First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
: > words for it.
: By that logic then, sculpture isn't art. Painting isn't art. Drawing isn't
: art. Doesn't leave much to be art.
sculpture does not necessarily = art, nor does painting or drawing. I
draw a map to my house on a napkin, an illustrator paints a picture of an
insect for an entymological journal or a cross-section of the Earth for
National Geographic, or a sculptor makes perfect replicas of flowers out
of glass for a university. None of these things are art -- they are
craft and they should be praised as such. That still leaves an awful lot
of things which can still be called art, including SOME sculptures, SOME
paintings, and SOME drawings, but not all of them.
Michael Liczbanski
Didn't you know that
"the-art-is-what-I-consider-art-not-that-worthless-shit-you-think-is-art-you
-assehole!"
Michael
Mike McDonald wrote in message ...
>In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
> bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
>
>> First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
>> words for it.
>
> By that logic then, sculpture isn't art. Painting isn't art. Drawing
isn't
>art. Doesn't leave much to be art.
>
> Mike McDonald
> mik...@mikemac.com
>
Brian Ellis
Very well put.
Jay Wenner wrote:
> steven T koontz (sko...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : >
> : sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
> : then the rest of us..
>
Kerry Thalmann
Beakman wrote:
>
> Mike McDonald (mik...@mikemac.com) wrote:
> : In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
> : bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
>
> : > First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
> : > words for it.
>
> : By that logic then, sculpture isn't art. Painting isn't art. Drawing isn't
> : art. Doesn't leave much to be art.
>
> draw a map to my house on a napkin, an illustrator paints a picture of an
> insect for an entymological journal or a cross-section of the Earth for
> National Geographic, or a sculptor makes perfect replicas of flowers out
> of glass for a university. None of these things are art -- they are
> craft and they should be praised as such. That still leaves an awful lot
> of things which can still be called art, including SOME sculptures, SOME
> paintings, and SOME drawings, but not all of them.
Hi David,
What about SOME photographs? (BTW, I'm not being facetious. I'm real
curious why you think the others can qualify as either art or craft but
you left photography off the "art" list).
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://home.att.net/~k.thalmann/
David Hay Jones
If there's a choice between commercially successful photography and art
photography for a small audience, I'd choose commerical everytime.
David
Beakman
Kerry Thalmann (K.Tha...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Hi David,
: Kerry
Of course you are quite right -- SOME photography is art and some is
not. I did not intentionally leave it off the list, I was merely
addressing the previous post point-for-point.
PBurian
>
>If there's a choice between commercially successful photography and art
>photography for a small audience, I'd choose commerical everytime.
David:
In our summer issue, there are some landscape photos that were made by a stock
shooter specializing in the advertising market. He uses filters extensively (so
did Ansel Adams) His photos have created quite a controversy.
They are hot sellers for advertising, but some folks HATE the use of filters.
Peter Burian, Editor
Shutterbug's OUTDOOR & NATURE Photography
see also www.shutterbug.net
Jeffrey Nutkowitz
Pete, it's not just that some folks HATE the use of filters, it's that the
photographer in question's use of them was so annoyingly blatant and
essentially careless in terms of retaining anything resembling a 'natural'
look to the subjects in the images. For those among us with artistic
sensibilities of some sort with regard to landscape imagery, to those of us
who take great care in making filter use 'transparent', and for those of us
who actually know what the landscape looks like and are concerned about
retaining as much of that 'natural' character and sense of place in our
images (as opposed to simply making 'illustrations' and or as many sales as
possible), those obnoxious lines going through the treetops and mountains,
as well as those garish colors in the clouds, are unacceptable, and the
technique readily overwhelmed the subject matter. Grad neutral density and
colored filters have their technical limits, and in these particular
incidences, they were greatly exceeded by the requirements of the subject
matter and the otherwise decent compositions. There is no doubt that if I
were 'judging' those images, they would rank pretty low in the technique
scores, because the technique is so obvious (it has left physical evidence
of itself as distracting parts of the image) that it significantly
interferes with the compositions themselves.
--
Jeffrey Nutkowitz/Optiques Classic Photographic Imagery
Freelance Outdoor and Nature Photography Emphasizing a 'Sense of Place'
http://members.aol.com/OptiquesJN
"If you don't change the path you're on, you'll end up where you're already
going."
____________________________________________________________________
PBurian wrote in message
<199806131310...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
jwd
David Hay Jones wrote:
>
> If there's a choice between commercially successful photography and art
> photography for a small audience, I'd choose commerical everytime.
> David
vanilla. I like pina coladas, rainy afternoons and walks on the beach,
too. Wait, what was the point of this thread again?
regards
jwd
sorry couldn't resist ;)
Mike Shipman
I agree with Jeff in most respects, and also with Peter in others. We
all know art is subjective and that what works in one case falls
woefully short in another. My "peeve" with overuse of filters (which
Jeff described) is when the use of filtration is excessive, obvious, and
played off as "natural". To be fair, the images Peter refers to do have
filter info in the captions and are not being portrayed as "as is"
images, but the interpretations of a particular photographer, which a
person can find pleasing or not.
Altering the image in any way is the option of the image creator. That
is the art. If the purpose of the image is as art, then it doesn't
matter what type or how much manipulation is used. Again, the technique
may or may not appeal to you. I began as a purist, disliking filters,
darkroom and digital manipulation (other than corrective adjustments),
or other "alterations" which changed the image from the "natural".
However, in doing that I ignored and dismissed the possibilities these
techniques offer photographic "artists" who produce I also find
appealing.
So that this doesn't turn into a monograph, I will say this:
When the intent of the photograher is to create an image as an "art
piece" then there are no rules governing the limits to the amount of
manipulations applied to that image. When an image is created to portray
the "natural state" of any subject, the only manipulations that should
be acceptable are those required to achieve correct exposure and
printing. All other manipulations are perceived as an attempt to deceive
the viewer into believing (1) The photographer is better than he/she
truly is or (2) the image accurately portrays an event or subject which
can potentially be viewed by anyone.
Again, if the purpose is purely art, then have at it. I appreciate good
work regardless of the medium. However, if you try to pass an image off
as something I can go out and see for myself, yet has been fiddled with
to the nth degree, I will cease to enjoy or trust your work in the
future (maybe at least for a while, I can forgive).
============================================================
Mike Shipman
Blue Planet Photography :: "Art From Earth" ::
http://www.webpak.net/~man/gallery/gallery.htm
The Northern Goshawk: From the Egg to the Air
http://www.webpak.net/~man/feature/gost.htm
============================================================
Kerry Thalmann
PBurian wrote:
> In our summer issue, there are some landscape photos that were made by a stock
> shooter specializing in the advertising market. He uses filters extensively (so
> did Ansel Adams) His photos have created quite a controversy.
Hi Peter,
I finally got around to picking up the summer issue (at the grocery
store again), so I thought I'd add my two cents.
If the photographer is happy with the results and is achieving the
commercial success he desires, then it doesn't really matter what anyone
else thinks. Heck most people would be happy with one or the other
(desired results or $). If the photographer in question is getting
both, more power to him.
> They are hot sellers for advertising, but some folks HATE the use of filters.
That said, MY OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCE is for a more natural look. Yes,
Ansel Adams did use filters (and so do I), but he did so to create a
result that was both believable and pleasing to the eye. For me
personally, I use filters with the same goal in mind. If the filter
makes the shot look unrealistic, then I don't use the filter (or throw
the result in the garbage when editing). IMHO, filters should not be
relied on to create images that are so unbelievable that they could
never possibly occur naturally. For instance, I have spent a lot of
time out in the mountains, and I have never seen a natural occurance
where the top portion of the trees are almost completely black, yet the
bottom 2/3 are bright green. An image that depicts such is immediately
offensive to my eye, and I know right away that it was created using a
graduated ND filter (with the location of the graduation poorly
placed). In the particular article you are referring to, I was able to
tell exactly what filters were used even before I read the captions.
For me personally, I find such obvious filter use distracting. I know a
lot of people say that they use grad ND filters to better record, within
the limited dynamic range of the film, what their eye sees. Perfectly
valid (IMHO), but when the use of such a filter causes the image to look
unnatural in any way, it ruins it for me. Again, this is all based on
my own personal preferences. If the photographer is happy and well
paid, what I prefer is of little consequence.
I do use filters myself, but try not to rely on them excessively. When
I make an image using a filter, the goal is that the image looks so
natural nobody will even suspect a filter was used. The filter I use
the most is the polarizer. However, I only occasionally use it for the
traditional use of darkening a blue sky. The shots I take that most
often involve the use of a polarizer don't even have the sky in them.
My most common use of the polarizer is to remove glare from wet, green
foliage. I shoot a lot in a wet climate and prefer to shoot waterfalls
and foliage on overcast days, often during a drizzle or immediately
after a rain. I find the foliage looks its most lush at such times.
Even with a nice high overcast (no direct sun), this creates glare on
the surface of every leaf. A polarizer eliminates this glare and lets
the natural lush green color show through. The result is perfectly
natural looking, because rather than add color, I am removing something
that is masking the true color of the natural foliage. I also
occasionally use warming filters when shooting in open shade or at high
elevation. There is an excess of blue light in those situations. Most
people don't even notice it at the time (the brain knows that grass
should be green, not blue-green and compensates). However, the film
sees and records the blue cast and the resulting transparencies have an
unnatural blue look. A warming filter (anti-blue) helps get things back
to what our eye perceives as a more natural color balance. The trick is
not to over do it. Just enough warming to get a natural result without
excess (two much warming can dull a bright blue sky or add a yellow cast
to any neutral colored objects - clouds, snow, etc.).
So, I certainly don't HATE filters. I prefer natural looking results
and use filters with that as my goal. Anything else to me looks
excessive and unnatural.
PBurian
Jeff:
> because the technique is so obvious (it has left physical evidence
>of itself as distracting parts of the image) that it significantly
>interferes with the compositions themselves.
OK, I will not argue with that. However, in advertising photography, which is
what Darwin Wiggett mostly does, this does not seem to be true.
Food for thought: Camera club rules about what is "good" and "bad" in
photography do not necessarily apply universally. (I'm not implying that you
endorse camera club rules, here.)
Peter Burian, Editor
Shutterbug's OUTDOOR & NATURE Photography
see also www.shutterbug.net/ONP/
PBurian
>When an image is created to portray
>the "natural state" of any subject, the only manipulations that should
>be acceptable are those required to achieve correct exposure and
>printing
Yes, as I said before there is a big difference between "art" or "interpretive"
or "advertising" photography and a true documentary nature photo. And there is
a lot in between that which cannot be categorized as either.
As long as a published image includes info on digital or filter manipulation,
it is not "bad". You may not like it, or feel the technique was overdone, but
it is not "dishonest" either.
Sometimes I'm surprised at how conservative we can be in 1998. Maybe this is a
backlash against rampant technology and the feeling that the statement "The
camera does not lie" has been forever destroyed.
Frankly, the camera always lied. If not, the photographer did. These days, he
is under a lot of pressure to tell us what he did while in the old days, no
such pressure existed.
PBurian
>And I'd choose art photography. I also prefer chocolate ice cream to >vanilla.
I like pina coladas, rainy afternoons and walks on the beach, >too.
Thank you for this meaningful analogy. The definition of a "good" photo, of a
"bad" photo, of "art" vs. "commercial" is so subjective.
PBurian
>So, I certainly don't HATE filters. I prefer natural looking results
>and use filters with that as my goal. Anything else to me looks
>excessive and unnatural.
Kerry: fair enough!! Thanks for acknowledging there are no absolutes.
i.e. "good" vs. "bad" technique.
Peter
PBurian
Another thought on this topic.
A reader submits a photo for critique and the "expert" tells him it has high
impact, but excessive use of filters. The technique is too obvious, competing
with the composition for the viewer's attention.
The guy writes back to say this about that same photo.
"Here is a copy of a contract with Tourism Canada indicating the photo will be
used in their 1999 ad campaign, on billboards, brochures and in international
magazine ads. And a letter from American Photo, indicating it has won Grand
Prize in their photo contest. And a printout from my stock agency, indicating
it has sold 12 times in the past two years, mostly for advertising, for a total
of $15,000."
Yes, the above is fictional, but I know several stock shooters who could say
that -- or something similiar -- about several of their "over-filtered" or
"over-manipulated" images.
So, who is right and who is wrong in this analogy??
PBurian
Art???
I thought Art was someone who sang with Paul Simon.
Loved the comment about folk art.
"One man's art is another man's junk".
Peter
stans...@mailexcite.com
> As long as a published image includes info on digital or filter manipulation,
> it is not "bad". You may not like it, or feel the technique was overdone, but
> it is not "dishonest" either.
Granted, but how often is that done. Have you seen the ads for travel to
Seattle that show the space needle on the shore of the Puget Sound? This is
a gross misrepresentation of the site where the space needle is and the
publishers don't reveal it.
Call it what you will but they are losing trust. It is the loss of trust
that will hurt the most. Today, there are a few photographers whose images
are "always" suspect in my mind because they published digitally altered
images and did not make that fact clear to the public.
>
> Sometimes I'm surprised at how conservative we can be in 1998. Maybe this is a
> backlash against rampant technology and the feeling that the statement "The
> camera does not lie" has been forever destroyed.
>
> Frankly, the camera always lied. If not, the photographer did. These days, he
> is under a lot of pressure to tell us what he did while in the old days, no
> such pressure existed.
True, but anybody who has ever taken pictures knows exactly how the camera
lies and has mentally compensated for it. The crass use of digital
manipulation to fool the public is hard to compensate for. Worse is the near
extremest way the photo publications defend this stuff and equate it with a
more traditional and trustworthy image. They are violating the trust of
their readers and slowly losing it in the process. Can anybody truly claim
that a digitall picture using separate images combined to show a bald eagle
fighting with a polar bear over a fish has the same genuine quality as a
negative or slide that actually captured that moment? If you think so then
you are a prime candiate for cubic zirconium "diamonds" and "faux" pearls.
How many people would pay to see and "hear" me play the piano if I was faking
it at the keys while the technicians played a disk by Van Cliburn over the
sound system.
Digitial alteration of images is much more like creating a painting than
taking a photograph.
RUSSELL B BARBER
Ken Neely wrote in message <357EA797...@earthlink.net>...
>There are only two criteria to apply - whether the artist
>likes it ( in the case of non- compensated work) or whether
>the public ( i.e. client) likes it.
>
>KN
Just my own two cents here - For me, it is art if it evokes an emotional
response in me. It does not need to be awe inspiring or cause tears to
spring to my eyes, but if I feel something, if it moves me in some small
way, it is art.
Russell