Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Biweekly Shoot Out

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 5, 2004, 3:48 PM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Had some fun with paintout, difuse glow and negative applications with Dig Image Pro this weekend....
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 6, 2004, 8:05 AM   #2
Moderator
 
calr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 8,466
Default

I note that there have been no comments on this picture. I started to write one yesterday but deleted it because it came off too strong.

I do not care for this picture. It is not really a silhouette and with as much work as you have done with it, I think your efforts have failed. Just to look at it, I can't figure out what you were trying to do. Perhaps, if you left the color in, it would have helped.

A better place for this picture might be the digital art forum where you discuss your efforts and goals with others doing similar efforts.

Your comments and suggestions to my posting and those of others have always been good. I hope you will not take this as just a negative post, but rather as constructive criticism. I hope others, especially the mods, will comment either positive or negative so that mine is not the only opinion.

Have a good day and keep posting. Another new challenge coming up. I can hardly wait.
calr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2004, 8:42 AM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No problem calr, no offense taken and I'm glad you replied. I don't take issue with your opinon whatsoever and appreciate any commentary / critique Ireceive.I do have some concern and have commonly encountered just this kind of "controversy" over what does and doesn't fulfill the challenge, and even deeper than that, what is really legitimate in terms of a photo vs. a digitally enhanced image, thus, what foruman imagebelongs on. Example, some of the critiques on the "red" topic (not my shots in particular) were, to the effect, "...that's not really red...". My question was, "How red is red?" and whyis a degree of redness an issueas related to the challenge. Similarly, many of he posts for this challenge don't really fulfill the clean definition of "silhouette" either, particularly when color isretained in the image. One of the digital photog magazines has an editiorial about this (manipulation of digital imaging to create "great" photos)in the current issue. I keep encountering thisline (maybe it's justin my own mind) betweenphotography and art.

Just to clarify, this didn't reallystart as an effort to satisfy this challenge. I started blacking out the background of the originalorchid photo just to see if I could isolate the flower and to experiment with other digital tricks which I have yet to learn. Having run short on time to learn anything new, I resorted to some filters I hadn't tried before and thought, "what the heck, maybe it is, maybe it isn't".....

I do appreciate your reply and look forward to the next challenge....
  Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2004, 9:15 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
monkey143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,131
Default

I actually like this one, and think the top serves as a qualifier for the challenge. I really like the random yet pleasing shape this makes, and being isolated from a background just enhances this nice shape. A little hand-tinting might be a welcome variation. This almost looks like a negative, but not. Interesting. It looks like some of the removal of the background was not so successful in places - I might neaten that up a little. Otherwise, I like! :-)
monkey143 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2004, 2:00 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Quote:
I keep encountering this line (maybe it's just in my own mind) between photography and art.
Me too, and it annoys the devil out of me. Photography IS one of the arts. There is no line except thatwhich isartificially drawn. Wherever did the notion come from that a photograph must be an exactdocument of reality?

(But red is still not orange.:-))
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2004, 2:37 PM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It seems that the line I mention is that which lies between reality and deception. I picked up the mag (Digital Photo Pro)this morning and the article discusses howthe writer'sphoto of John Kerry wasstitched into a photo of Jane Fondaand made to lookas if he sympathized with her anti-war speeches in the 60's.

I do concur Barb, photography is an Art and orange is not red. How about Orangish Red? LOL
  Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2004, 4:31 PM   #7
Moderator
 
calr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 8,466
Default

Maybe the term "digital camera" should be changed to "digital art recorder." In my mind, a camera is something that records an image of the real world as seen through the lens. This has been the case since the first camera was built. The only thing that has changed with the advent of the digital camera is the medium used to capture the image.

Granted, photography is an art form. Granted, also, that people have been altering what comes out of the camera in the darkroom for as long as cameras have been taking pictures. The digital camera and some very powerful editing software has not only replaced darkroom touchups but has gone several orders of magnitude farther, prompting a new art form to evolve.

Here is my point. I think we are dealing with two different art forms, here. First, photographic art where the only alterations involve color and exposure corrections. Second, we have digital art which starts with photographic images and then, using the tools available, a new "artificial" image is created which could have never been created in the camera.

The two art forms are equally valid, just as watercolor and oil are two equally valid art forms. The problem I see here in the forums may never be resolved. That is the two art forms are confused. Many people here have little or no experience with a film camera or a darkroom. To these people, digital art and photography are the same thing. Not true!

I have been a photographer for about 35 years but it was only about ten years ago that I really started learning what I was doing. I have been using digital cameras for less than a year. I have sold my film camera and am currently exclusively digital. I am still taking photographs for photographic art and I still try to get the perfect image out of the camera.

RGRotts, I apologize for parking my soapbox in your thread. Barbara, I am not sure from your posting here but I think you are standing in the middle, somewhere, but leaning toward the idea that there is only one art form here. This will probably be argued 'til the cows come home and never be fully resolved. OK, I'm outa here and eagerly awaiting the next challenge.
calr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2004, 5:27 PM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Calr - Apology certainly not needed but accepted. I think these forums are great for just this kind of discussion. No one is forced to read or think beyond a quick glance. I rather enjoy the controversy and stirred the same pot in Betterphoto.com awhile back......received lot's of very interesting, philosophical comments.....write on, my friends....Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2004, 2:18 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Quote:
Barbara, I am not sure from your posting here but I think you are standing in the middle, somewhere, but leaning toward the idea that there is only one art form here.
I can't figure out what you mean here, mostly because I don't know what your definition of "art form" is, unlessit's what I call"medium." Words. Forever a problem, no?

The essence of art is meaning. A bunch of photographers can take photos ofnaked bodies, and the meaning in each photo can easily be different or there might be no meaning at all. Compare a Hustler photo with one taken by Bill Brandt and another by a National Geographic photographer. The intent and the meaning of each is different. The first is technically splendid but empty (to my eye), the second is art (to my eye), and the third is an excellently rendered document (to my eye). The problem here is that we're seeing MY definition of art, which isn't morevalid or important than anyone else's.

We can all argue until doomsday over what is and what isn't art, what is legitimate photography and what isn't, but in the end, the photo (whether manipulated or not) that we as individuals say is art, is the photo that speaks to us. Brandt speaks to me, but I doubt he speaks to a hundred per cent of the people.

Manipulation of photos: I see nothing impure or less photographicabout it. In painting, there's a designationcalled "mixed media." Maybe photography needs something similar.

And anyway, the medium isn't the message; it's merely the vehicle.

--Barbara
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2004, 6:44 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,435
Default

Let me jus add the word Digital to this Berenice Abbot quote:

Digital Photography can never grow up if it imitates some other medium. It has to walk alone; it has to be itself.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...eab141165.html
brtsergio is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:31 AM.