If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On 1/23/19 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:02:17 -0500, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/22/19 7:11 PM, gray_wolf wrote: On 1/22/2019 5:11 PM, Ken Hart wrote: [snip] The photograph is a bit too "busy" for my taste. I noticed that one of the comments got real close to the infamous insult: 'Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera!' Akin to telling a chef: 'Great food! You must have some really good pots and pans!' TheÂ* author of the photo needs help. But how do you do that? In the world of visual arts I sometimes wonder if there isn't the equivalent of tone deafness in music. That's where a person can't tell the difference between a right not and a wrong note. AFAIK there's no cure for it. In my photography classes (so many, many years ago!), very strong emphasis was put on looking at other work and analyzing it: where is the light coming from, why did the photographer pick that angle, etc. After learning how to 'dissect' a photo, we were encouraged to copy one element of a photo: similar subject but different lighting, etc. Tone-deafness in visual arts? Maybe. I think a lot of it is 'feature-ism'. The photographer has the ability to saturate the colors, so he does. He has the ability to composite twelve images into one, so he does. The visual arts be damned whether it should be done; we have the technology so we must use it! And if it makes a garish, over-done image, well, we have taken the tech to the limit. The cure? Take away the photographer's technology (all of it!) and require him to use film- a limited quantity of it. My first reaction to eventually seeing the Stonehenge photograph was that it was just a variation on what has become a marine-scene cliche. You hype up sky, place rock in the foreground, use long exposure to blur waters, and the whole blown up by over-saturated colours etc. It should be finished off by printing on framed canvas and hung on a wall. Someone else's wall, not mine! -- Ken Hart |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:35:16 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote: On 1/23/19 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:02:17 -0500, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/22/19 7:11 PM, gray_wolf wrote: On 1/22/2019 5:11 PM, Ken Hart wrote: [snip] The photograph is a bit too "busy" for my taste. I noticed that one of the comments got real close to the infamous insult: 'Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera!' Akin to telling a chef: 'Great food! You must have some really good pots and pans!' TheÂ* author of the photo needs help. But how do you do that? In the world of visual arts I sometimes wonder if there isn't the equivalent of tone deafness in music. That's where a person can't tell the difference between a right not and a wrong note. AFAIK there's no cure for it. In my photography classes (so many, many years ago!), very strong emphasis was put on looking at other work and analyzing it: where is the light coming from, why did the photographer pick that angle, etc. After learning how to 'dissect' a photo, we were encouraged to copy one element of a photo: similar subject but different lighting, etc. Tone-deafness in visual arts? Maybe. I think a lot of it is 'feature-ism'. The photographer has the ability to saturate the colors, so he does. He has the ability to composite twelve images into one, so he does. The visual arts be damned whether it should be done; we have the technology so we must use it! And if it makes a garish, over-done image, well, we have taken the tech to the limit. The cure? Take away the photographer's technology (all of it!) and require him to use film- a limited quantity of it. My first reaction to eventually seeing the Stonehenge photograph was that it was just a variation on what has become a marine-scene cliche. You hype up sky, place rock in the foreground, use long exposure to blur waters, and the whole blown up by over-saturated colours etc. It should be finished off by printing on framed canvas and hung on a wall. Someone else's wall, not mine! Nor mine. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On 25/01/2019 09:19, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:35:16 -0500, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/23/19 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:02:17 -0500, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/22/19 7:11 PM, gray_wolf wrote: On 1/22/2019 5:11 PM, Ken Hart wrote: [snip] The photograph is a bit too "busy" for my taste. I noticed that one of the comments got real close to the infamous insult: 'Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera!' Akin to telling a chef: 'Great food! You must have some really good pots and pans!' TheÂ* author of the photo needs help. But how do you do that? In the world of visual arts I sometimes wonder if there isn't the equivalent of tone deafness in music. That's where a person can't tell the difference between a right not and a wrong note. AFAIK there's no cure for it. In my photography classes (so many, many years ago!), very strong emphasis was put on looking at other work and analyzing it: where is the light coming from, why did the photographer pick that angle, etc. After learning how to 'dissect' a photo, we were encouraged to copy one element of a photo: similar subject but different lighting, etc. Tone-deafness in visual arts? Maybe. I think a lot of it is 'feature-ism'. The photographer has the ability to saturate the colors, so he does. He has the ability to composite twelve images into one, so he does. The visual arts be damned whether it should be done; we have the technology so we must use it! And if it makes a garish, over-done image, well, we have taken the tech to the limit. The cure? Take away the photographer's technology (all of it!) and require him to use film- a limited quantity of it. My first reaction to eventually seeing the Stonehenge photograph was that it was just a variation on what has become a marine-scene cliche. You hype up sky, place rock in the foreground, use long exposure to blur waters, and the whole blown up by over-saturated colours etc. It should be finished off by printing on framed canvas and hung on a wall. Someone else's wall, not mine! Nor mine. How about THIS one for your wall, Eric? https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...50740_o.jp g? -- David B. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On 25/01/2019 11:33, David B. wrote:
On 25/01/2019 09:19, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:35:16 -0500, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/23/19 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:02:17 -0500, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/22/19 7:11 PM, gray_wolf wrote: On 1/22/2019 5:11 PM, Ken Hart wrote: [snip] The photograph is a bit too "busy" for my taste. I noticed that one of the comments got real close to the infamous insult: 'Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera!' Akin to telling a chef: 'Great food! You must have some really good pots and pans!' TheÂ* author of the photo needs help. But how do you do that? In the world of visual arts I sometimes wonder if there isn't the equivalent of tone deafness in music. That's where a person can't tell the difference between a right not and a wrong note. AFAIK there's no cure for it. In my photography classes (so many, many years ago!), very strong emphasis was put on looking at other work and analyzing it: where is the light coming from, why did the photographer pick that angle, etc. After learning how to 'dissect' a photo, we were encouraged to copy one element of a photo: similar subject but different lighting, etc. Tone-deafness in visual arts? Maybe. I think a lot of it is 'feature-ism'. The photographer has the ability to saturate the colors, so he does. He has the ability to composite twelve images into one, so he does. The visual arts be damned whether it should be done; we have the technology so we must use it! And if it makes a garish, over-done image, well, we have taken the tech to the limit. The cure? Take away the photographer's technology (all of it!) and require him to use film- a limited quantity of it. My first reaction to eventually seeing the Stonehenge photograph was that it was just a variation on what has become a marine-scene cliche. You hype up sky, place rock in the foreground, use long exposure to blur waters, and the whole blown up by over-saturated colours etc. It should be finished off by printing on framed canvas and hung on a wall. Someone else's wall, not mine! Nor mine. How about THIS one for your wall, Eric? SNIP https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...&oe=5CBE4F 5B Sorry about that! -- David B. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On 1/25/19 6:35 AM, David B. wrote:
On 25/01/2019 11:33, David B. wrote: On 25/01/2019 09:19, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:35:16 -0500, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/23/19 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:02:17 -0500, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/22/19 7:11 PM, gray_wolf wrote: On 1/22/2019 5:11 PM, Ken Hart wrote: [snip] The photograph is a bit too "busy" for my taste. I noticed that one of the comments got real close to the infamous insult: 'Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera!' Akin to telling a chef: 'Great food! You must have some really good pots and pans!' TheÂ* author of the photo needs help. But how do you do that? In the world of visual arts I sometimes wonder if there isn't the equivalent of tone deafness in music. That's where a person can't tell the difference between a right not and a wrong note. AFAIK there's no cure for it. In my photography classes (so many, many years ago!), very strong emphasis was put on looking at other work and analyzing it: where is the light coming from, why did the photographer pick that angle, etc. After learning how to 'dissect' a photo, we were encouraged to copy one element of a photo: similar subject but different lighting, etc. Tone-deafness in visual arts? Maybe. I think a lot of it is 'feature-ism'. The photographer has the ability to saturate the colors, so he does. He has the ability to composite twelve images into one, so he does. The visual arts be damned whether it should be done; we have the technology so we must use it! And if it makes a garish, over-done image, well, we have taken the tech to the limit. The cure? Take away the photographer's technology (all of it!) and require him to use film- a limited quantity of it. My first reaction to eventually seeing the Stonehenge photograph was that it was just a variation on what has become a marine-scene cliche. You hype up sky, place rock in the foreground, use long exposure to blur waters, and the whole blown up by over-saturated colours etc. It should be finished off by printing on framed canvas and hung on a wall. Someone else's wall, not mine! Nor mine. How about THIS one for your wall, Eric? SNIP https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...&oe=5CBE4F 5B Sorry about that! I'm not Eric, but it was my wall! It's a very nice beach scene. If I wanted an image that was slightly reminiscent of Monet, I'd go for it. But if I wanted a _photograph_ of a beach, I would pass. I've seen photographs of beaches, and that's not a photograph of a beach. But it's still very nice. -- Ken Hart |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
Ken Hart wrote:
On 1/25/19 6:35 AM, David B. wrote: Major Snip https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...&oe=5CBE4F 5B Sorry about that! I'm not Eric, but it was my wall! It's a very nice beach scene. If I wanted an image that was slightly reminiscent of Monet, I'd go for it. But if I wanted a _photograph_ of a beach, I would pass. I've seen photographs of beaches, and that's not a photograph of a beach. But it's still very nice. That is a mediocre snapshot that is/was in dire need of an ND filter, or much fixing to deal with those blown highlights. Certainly not worthy of any sort of serious display, -- Regards, Savageduck |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On 1/25/2019 9:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Ken Hart wrote: On 1/25/19 6:35 AM, David B. wrote: Major Snip https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...&oe=5CBE4F 5B Sorry about that! I'm not Eric, but it was my wall! It's a very nice beach scene. If I wanted an image that was slightly reminiscent of Monet, I'd go for it. But if I wanted a _photograph_ of a beach, I would pass. I've seen photographs of beaches, and that's not a photograph of a beach. But it's still very nice. That is a mediocre snapshot that is/was in dire need of an ND filter, or much fixing to deal with those blown highlights. Certainly not worthy of any sort of serious display, Damn, I'm really thinking about posting one of my "artistic" cat photos now. :-) ....or maybe not. :-) -- == Later... Ron C -- |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
Ron C wrote:
On 1/25/2019 9:03 PM, Savageduck wrote: Ken Hart wrote: On 1/25/19 6:35 AM, David B. wrote: Major Snip https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...&oe=5CBE4F 5B Sorry about that! I'm not Eric, but it was my wall! It's a very nice beach scene. If I wanted an image that was slightly reminiscent of Monet, I'd go for it. But if I wanted a _photograph_ of a beach, I would pass. I've seen photographs of beaches, and that's not a photograph of a beach. But it's still very nice. That is a mediocre snapshot that is/was in dire need of an ND filter, or much fixing to deal with those blown highlights. Certainly not worthy of any sort of serious display, Damn, I'm really thinking about posting one of my "artistic" cat photos now. :-) ....or maybe not. :-) Why not? ;-) A photograph is just a photograph after all, some are great, some are cliché, some are tuly awful, and some are truly awful clichés. https://www.dropbox.com/s/blqwlsvhhdwlfx6/IMG_4285.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On 26/01/2019 01:39, Ken Hart wrote:
[....] I'm not Eric, but it was my wall! It's a very nice beach scene. If I wanted an image that was slightly reminiscent of Monet, I'd go for it. But if I wanted a _photograph_ of a beach, I would pass. I've seen photographs of beaches, and that's not a photograph of a beach. But it's still very nice. You are absolutely right, Ken ..... It was NEVER a photograph! It has always been a painting by a real-life artist. You may view more of his work he- https://www.facebook.com/andrewgiddensart/ I really shouldn't tease! ;-) -- David B. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
In article ,
wrote: I am not a Facebook member and have no password, nor do I want to be a member. except that you already are, and there's no way to delete it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stunning Eagle Shot! | Brian C. Baird | Digital Photography | 29 | August 3rd 04 07:12 PM |
Stunning Eagle Shot! | Brian C. Baird | 35mm Photo Equipment | 14 | August 3rd 04 02:16 AM |