would you get bored of your own framed photos?
 

RolandRB wrote:
Let's say you want to enjoy your photography skills and show off the
detail you get from your MF images by putting the photo onto canvas
and hanging it from the wall like you had bought an original painting.
Would you get bored with it in a short time and prefer to give space
to a lesser photo taken by someone else? I am wondering if this has
happened to any of the MF photographers here.

I don't have too many of my own photographs hanging in my house and the
ones I do have mostly 8X10's. I think I have maybe 4 and all are printed
as photographs. I've seen those "trying to look like a painting" things
and IMHO those are right there with a velvet elvis painting. While I've
seen some really cool "digital enhanced images" I liked, the 'looks like
a painting' thing isn't one of them.

One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a portrait of
someone but without them being in the image.

http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1

Stephanie

would you get bored of your own framed photos?
 

On 10-04-06 0:12 , wrote:
RolandRB wrote:
Let's say you want to enjoy your photography skills and show off the
detail you get from your MF images by putting the photo onto canvas
and hanging it from the wall like you had bought an original painting.
Would you get bored with it in a short time and prefer to give space
to a lesser photo taken by someone else? I am wondering if this has
happened to any of the MF photographers here.

I don't have too many of my own photographs hanging in my house and the
ones I do have mostly 8X10's. I think I have maybe 4 and all are printed
as photographs. I've seen those "trying to look like a painting" things
and IMHO those are right there with a velvet elvis painting. While I've
seen some really cool "digital enhanced images" I liked, the 'looks like
a painting' thing isn't one of them.

One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a portrait of
someone but without them being in the image.

http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1

Interesting/dynamic compositions, but not "photography" per se.

More like "transparency collage".

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

would you get bored of your own framed photos?
 

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-06 0:12 , wrote:
RolandRB wrote:
Let's say you want to enjoy your photography skills and show off the
detail you get from your MF images by putting the photo onto canvas
and hanging it from the wall like you had bought an original painting.
Would you get bored with it in a short time and prefer to give space
to a lesser photo taken by someone else? I am wondering if this has
happened to any of the MF photographers here.

I don't have too many of my own photographs hanging in my house and the
ones I do have mostly 8X10's. I think I have maybe 4 and all are printed
as photographs. I've seen those "trying to look like a painting" things
and IMHO those are right there with a velvet elvis painting. While I've
seen some really cool "digital enhanced images" I liked, the 'looks like
a painting' thing isn't one of them.

One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a portrait of
someone but without them being in the image.

http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1

Interesting/dynamic compositions, but not "photography" per se.

More like "transparency collage".



Yes and in person they really PULL you into the image in 3 dimensions.
Not only do your eyes travel across the image, the seem to focus in and
out through the transparency? It's hard to describe but it's VERY cool
:-) I agree this has gotten away from "photography" and is computer art?
Not sure how you would define this.

Stephanie

would you get bored of your own framed photos?
 

wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
(stephe wrote)
One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a
portrait of someone but without them being in the image.

http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1

Interesting/dynamic compositions, but not "photography" per se.

More like "transparency collage".



Yes and in person they really PULL you into the image in 3 dimensions.
Not only do your eyes travel across the image, the seem to focus in
and out through the transparency? It's hard to describe but it's VERY
cool :-) I agree this has gotten away from "photography" and is
computer art? Not sure how you would define this.

Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the images used
in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only "photography", but it's
"art".

This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite artistic.

http://www.uelsmann.net/

--
best,

Neil



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

would you get bored of your own framed photos?
 

On 10-04-06 17:40 , Neil Gould wrote:
wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
(stephe wrote)
One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a
portrait of someone but without them being in the image.

http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1

Interesting/dynamic compositions, but not "photography" per se.

More like "transparency collage".



Yes and in person they really PULL you into the image in 3 dimensions.
Not only do your eyes travel across the image, the seem to focus in
and out through the transparency? It's hard to describe but it's VERY
cool :-) I agree this has gotten away from "photography" and is
computer art? Not sure how you would define this.

Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the images used
in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only "photography", but it's
"art".

This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite artistic.

http://www.uelsmann.net/

Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as far
as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely done in
PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the relationship
to photography (recording with light) seems way off to me.

Uelsmann is more directly "photography" oriented but then manipulated
into surrealism. Some of the symbolism is powerful, but some seems
quite meaningless or facile. Certainly 'stock' for books or articles on
dreams, psychology and so on.

Neither float my catamaran.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

would you get bored of your own framed photos?
 

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-06 17:40 , Neil Gould wrote:
wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
(stephe wrote)
One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a
portrait of someone but without them being in the image.

http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1

Interesting/dynamic compositions, but not "photography" per se.

More like "transparency collage".



Yes and in person they really PULL you into the image in 3 dimensions.
Not only do your eyes travel across the image, the seem to focus in
and out through the transparency? It's hard to describe but it's VERY
cool :-) I agree this has gotten away from "photography" and is
computer art? Not sure how you would define this.

Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the images
used
in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only "photography", but
it's
"art".

This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite
artistic.

http://www.uelsmann.net/

Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as far
as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely done in
PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the relationship
to photography (recording with light) seems way off to me.


Well this isn't quite right. He interviews the people and THEN went out
and shot the images, some of which took a lot of travel/effort. I agree
this goes PAST photography as far as using his creativity but he did
shoot a lot of the images used. Obviously some of the space shots of
apollo moon landing etc he didn't :-)

Stephe

would you get bored of your own framed photos?
 

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-06 17:40 , Neil Gould wrote:
Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the
images used in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only
"photography", but it's "art".

This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite
artistic.

http://www.uelsmann.net/

Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as
far as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely
done in PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the
relationship to photography (recording with light) seems way off to
me.

I didn't claim that all elements in Weingarten's collage were "..his
creation...", nor do I think it is a determinant of whether the end product
qualifies as "photography". However, his images were collected and displayed
by those who had to determine whether they were, in fact, "photography", so
I can accept that determination over any presentation on the web.

Additionally, even if all of the content of a collage was obtained from
stock, but that stock was created via "recording with light", it would still
be "photography", so your attempt to draw a distinction escapes me.

--
best,

Neil



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

would you get bored of your own framed photos?
 

On 10-04-08 9:44 , Neil Gould wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-06 17:40 , Neil Gould wrote:
Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the
images used in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only
"photography", but it's "art".

This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite
artistic.

http://www.uelsmann.net/

Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as
far as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely
done in PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the
relationship to photography (recording with light) seems way off to
me.

I didn't claim that all elements in Weingarten's collage were "..his
creation...", nor do I think it is a determinant of whether the end product
qualifies as "photography". However, his images were collected and displayed
by those who had to determine whether they were, in fact, "photography", so
I can accept that determination over any presentation on the web.

Additionally, even if all of the content of a collage was obtained from
stock, but that stock was created via "recording with light", it would still
be "photography", so your attempt to draw a distinction escapes me.

To me it is collage. That is where his creative impetus appears to lie.
On the page that stephe linked to there are no 'free standing'
photographs of his.

I don't really care how you or others see it. I'll see it as "not
photography".

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

would you get bored of your own framed photos?
 

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-08 9:44 , Neil Gould wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-06 17:40 , Neil Gould wrote:
Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the
images used in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only
"photography", but it's "art".

This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite
artistic.

http://www.uelsmann.net/

Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as
far as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely
done in PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the
relationship to photography (recording with light) seems way off to
me.

I didn't claim that all elements in Weingarten's collage were "..his
creation...", nor do I think it is a determinant of whether the end
product qualifies as "photography". However, his images were
collected and displayed by those who had to determine whether they
were, in fact, "photography", so I can accept that determination
over any presentation on the web.

Additionally, even if all of the content of a collage was obtained
from stock, but that stock was created via "recording with light",
it would still be "photography", so your attempt to draw a
distinction escapes me.

To me it is collage. That is where his creative impetus appears to
lie. On the page that stephe linked to there are no 'free standing'
photographs of his.

The point of inlcuding Uelsmans's work is that the idea of 'free standing'
is not all that important to photography. With the growth of digital
photography and printing, it's even less clear, since distinctions can't be
made solely on the basis of what's in an image.

I don't really care how you or others see it. I'll see it as "not
photography".

Then, it's a good thing your opinion doesn't matter much.

--
best,

Neil



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

would you get bored of your own framed photos?
 

On 10-04-08 18:13 , Neil Gould wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-08 9:44 , Neil Gould wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-06 17:40 , Neil Gould wrote:
Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the
images used in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only
"photography", but it's "art".

This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite
artistic.

http://www.uelsmann.net/

Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as
far as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely
done in PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the
relationship to photography (recording with light) seems way off to
me.

I didn't claim that all elements in Weingarten's collage were "..his
creation...", nor do I think it is a determinant of whether the end
product qualifies as "photography". However, his images were
collected and displayed by those who had to determine whether they
were, in fact, "photography", so I can accept that determination
over any presentation on the web.

Additionally, even if all of the content of a collage was obtained
from stock, but that stock was created via "recording with light",
it would still be "photography", so your attempt to draw a
distinction escapes me.

To me it is collage. That is where his creative impetus appears to
lie. On the page that stephe linked to there are no 'free standing'
photographs of his.

The point of inlcuding Uelsmans's work is that the idea of 'free standing'
is not all that important to photography. With the growth of digital
photography and printing, it's even less clear, since distinctions can't be
made solely on the basis of what's in an image.

I don't really care how you or others see it. I'll see it as "not
photography".

Then, it's a good thing your opinion doesn't matter much.

Alas, neither does yours. And that's a better thing.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.