A stunning image of Stonehenge

On 23/01/2019 00:11, 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.

I believe the photographer to be fairly young and that he has only
recently embarked on making his living as a professional.

If you can offer him help/advice, I'm sure he'd welcome that. Try that
and see what happens. :-)

--
David B.

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.

--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

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.

technology isn't the problem nor is there any cure. people did the same
type of stuff with film as well as with paint and many other things.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

The cure? Take away the photographer's technology (all of it!) and
require him to use film- a limited quantity of it.

technology isn't the problem .

It;s part of it, but only iof you see it as a problem.

it's not any part of it nor is it a problem, although there are those
who like to blame it anyway.

nor is there any cure. people did the same
type of stuff with film as well as with paint and many other things.

But only those with the equipment which was relatively expensive investment
in the days of film now it's pretty much free, giving more people access to
such things, which means more crap can be produced by more people than ever
before, but hopefully a few will do something that is worth more than just
another one glance at a selfie.

it also means more masterpieces can be produced by more people than
ever before.

it also means more opportunities than ever before, which were once
thought to be impossible.

there will always be a range of crap and amazing stuff. what matters is
the artist, not the tools or technology used.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

The cure? Take away the photographer's technology (all of it!) and
require him to use film- a limited quantity of it.

technology isn't the problem .

It;s part of it, but only if you see it as a problem.

it's not any part of it nor is it a problem, although there are those
who like to blame it anyway.

Without the technology of smartphones do you really think the same number of
selfies would be taken by DLSRs instead.

no.

smartphones demolished the p&s market, and people were talking selfies
long before the word existed.

nikon coolpix 990, almost 20 years ago:
http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphot...ent/uploads/20
18/06/Nikon_Coolpix_990.jpg

slrs still have their place. you're not going to see a wedding
photographer show up with an iphone, for example.

nor is there any cure. people did the same
type of stuff with film as well as with paint and many other things.

But only those with the equipment which was relatively expensive
investment
in the days of film now it's pretty much free, giving more people access
to
such things, which means more crap can be produced by more people than
ever
before, but hopefully a few will do something that is worth more than
just
another one glance at a selfie.

it also means more masterpieces can be produced by more people than
ever before.

Depending what you mean by masterpieces do you think the number of
masterpieces as a percentage of crap has remained the same or gone up.

overall, roughly the same. there's just a higher volume of both. not
that it matters.

haters look at the crap. the rest of the world looks at the good stuff.
some of which is amazingly good and would never have been possible with
film.

Whisky-dave wrote:


Yes you can now climb a high building and take a selfie or stand on a
mountain top in a bikini for your social media account, but are they masterpieces ?


You can also fall off a mountain top in a bikini while taking a selfie.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Savageduck
wrote:

Yes you can now climb a high building and take a selfie or stand on a
mountain top in a bikini for your social media account, but are they
masterpieces ?

You can also fall off a mountain top in a bikini while taking a selfie.

that would be a masterpiece.

On 1/23/2019 11:56 AM, Savageduck wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:


Yes you can now climb a high building and take a selfie or stand on a
mountain top in a bikini for your social media account, but are they masterpieces ?


You can also fall off a mountain top in a bikini while taking a selfie.


Among my best missed images was a young lade taking hang gliding lessons
in a tank top.

--
PeterN

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 24/01/2019 11:07, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 01:02:09 UTC, David B. wrote:
[....]
Can you view THIS image?

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...&oe=5CCB6B 65


I think it rather special but have no idea who took the photograph.

Ah! Here's the story:
http://www.storytrender.com/68056/im...to-catch-fish/

--
David B.

from the story is says By Charlotte Nisbet.

Nope!

Paying attention to detail is MY forte!

The photograph was taken by Chen Chengguang

No matter. Thanks for looking, Dave. :-)

--
David B.