TOTALLY TRIPPIN WITH THE D60!

We delve even deeper into the Artsy-Fartsy category with this infrared
shot.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89911233/original

Let this be a lesson for you kids out there...
One should never do drugs while driving or shooting with the Totally
Digital D60!

On Dec 4, 10:49 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
We delve even deeper into the Artsy-Fartsy category with this infrared
shot.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89911233/original

Let this be a lesson for you kids out there...
One should never do drugs while driving or shooting with the Totally
Digital D60!


Hey, don't make fun.......I really love this one! It's moody,
mysterious and downright brooding. I love these slow shutter speeds
and the artist's work with light. A very emotional and imaginative
pic. I see so much in this pic! That proves it, you're going to have
to buy a scarf and a beret you artist you! LOL!
Helen

On Dec 4, 11:19 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 10:49 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

We delve even deeper into the Artsy-Fartsy category with this infrared
shot.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89911233/original

Let this be a lesson for you kids out there...
One should never do drugs while driving or shooting with the Totally
Digital D60!

Hey, don't make fun.......I really love this one! It's moody,
mysterious and downright brooding. I love these slow shutter speeds
and the artist's work with light. A very emotional and imaginative
pic. I see so much in this pic! That proves it, you're going to have
to buy a scarf and a beret you artist you! LOL!
Helen

And yes, I know I will be flogged for my critique/opinion of this one,
but hey, at least I'm honest.

On Dec 4, 11:29 pm, wrote:

And yes, I know I will be flogged for my critique/opinion of this one,
but hey, at least I'm honest.

I appreciate that. I actually like this one a lot myself .... even
though the color seems a bit off.

On Dec 5, 3:29 pm, wrote:


And yes, I know I will be flogged for my critique/opinion of this one,
but hey, at least I'm honest.

Why? It's a real photo, it's quite original, it's not
falsely presented as some unique attribute of a
particular piece of hardware, the technique used is
clearly pointed out and explained and you liked it
for whatever reasons.

Nothing wrong with the above. It's crossposted,
yes. But it is also on-topic.

Not my cuppa, but that's beside the point.
Or rather: I need a cuppa to appreciate it....

On Dec 5, 6:51 am, Noons wrote:

And yes, I know I will be flogged for my critique/opinion of this one,
but hey, at least I'm honest.

Why? It's a real photo, it's quite original, it's not
falsely presented as some unique attribute of a
particular piece of hardware, the technique used is
clearly pointed out and explained and you liked it
for whatever reasons.

It is no more a "real photo" than the pentium pic.
Both of them are photos, plain and simple.

From Wiki:
========================
Photography is the process of recording pictures by means of capturing
light on a light-sensitive medium, such as a film or electronic
sensor.

Traditionally, the product of photography has been called a
photograph, commonly shortened to photo.
========================

Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the word "image," but it
means the same thing. It's just a pic.
The process of creating it is irrelevant. If I pour 10 cups of water
into a bowl, I still end up with water. Or in Photoshop terms, if I
leave the layers intact and save as a .PSD it is a file. But once I
flatten it and save it then it becomes a photo. These are my
definitions .... yours may be different. But it's still a photo.

On Dec 5, 11:21 pm, Annika1980 wrote:


It is no more a "real photo" than the pentium pic.
Both of them are photos, plain and simple.

Pentiums are "light sensitive media"?
Hmmm.... yes, of course....


From Wiki:
========================
Photography is the process of recording pictures by means of capturing
light on a light-sensitive medium, such as a film or electronic
sensor.
Traditionally, the product of photography has been called a
photograph, commonly shortened to photo.
========================


That is supposed to prove photography
is not the recording of pictures on
light sensitive media?


Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the word "image," but it
means the same thing. It's just a pic.

No, not at all. "Image" is most definitely not comfortable
to me, as it is off-topic in aus.photo. Image is what you
do in your composite work as well as the over-sharpened
crops. Photography is what you shot in this one.


The process of creating it is irrelevant.

Of course it isn't. Read the Wiki entry you quoted:
it says very clearly "photography *IS* the process
of recording pictures". Nowhere does it say it is
the process of *adding* photos to make them
look like something else. It says "recording", it
does NOT say "adding".


If I pour 10 cups of water
into a bowl, I still end up with water.

Agreed. But in a bowl, not in
cups. So?

Or in Photoshop terms, if I
leave the layers intact and save as a .PSD it is a file.

A Photoshop file. Not a photo.
The fact that Adobe calls it "Photo"shop
is just a marketing brand: it's got nothing to
do with photos.


But once I
flatten it and save it then it becomes a photo.

Assuming you modded before you flattened:
oh no, it doesn't. It is a Photoshop image now.
It ceased to be a photo.

These are my
definitions ....

No: you mentioned wiki's, then yours, then
you implied that wiki's are yours. Clearly they
aren't, as I just demonstrated.

yours may be different. But it's still a photo.

This one *is* a photo. It started life as one,
a single picture recorded in a light sensitive media.
The only thing you did was desaturate the colours,
or colour mix them away. If that. And maybe a bit
of sharpen, hard to say with such a small image.

In other words: you removed the colour data in the
original photo, but you didn't add or modify anything
from somewhere else to make it look like something
else.


Therefore, it is a photo and it richly deserves the
accolade as such, in the group of aus.PHOTO.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 6:51 am, Noons wrote:

And yes, I know I will be flogged for my critique/opinion of this one,
but hey, at least I'm honest.

Why? It's a real photo, it's quite original, it's not
falsely presented as some unique attribute of a
particular piece of hardware, the technique used is
clearly pointed out and explained and you liked it
for whatever reasons.

It is no more a "real photo" than the pentium pic.
Both of them are photos, plain and simple.

From Wiki:
========================
Photography is the process of recording pictures by means of capturing
light on a light-sensitive medium, such as a film or electronic
sensor.

Traditionally, the product of photography has been called a
photograph, commonly shortened to photo.
========================

Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the word "image," but it
means the same thing. It's just a pic.
The process of creating it is irrelevant. If I pour 10 cups of water
into a bowl, I still end up with water. Or in Photoshop terms, if I
leave the layers intact and save as a .PSD it is a file. But once I
flatten it and save it then it becomes a photo. These are my
definitions .... yours may be different. But it's still a photo.

And as in painting, the term can be corrupted.....Today, anything that any
person and/or animal throws onto a piece of canvas can be called a painting
and/or a "work of art". Jackson Pollock dribbled paint onto canvases from
above out of a glass and today these things sell for over a million dollars
a piece. And there are art "experts" who claim that they can tell a Pollock
from someone else's dribbles, and can make their opinions stick even when
forensic science can determine (by fingerprints) that a painting that they
say isn't a Pollock really is, because it has his fingerprints on it. Today,
photography is much the same....Anything that had a camera involved in it's
creation in any way whatsoever can be called a photograph. Far from
excluding a Photoshop reworking, it is welcomed, and makes the photograph
even more "artsy", and valuable.

In article
,
Annika1980 wrote:

We delve even deeper into the Artsy-Fartsy category with this infrared
shot.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89911233/original

Let this be a lesson for you kids out there...
One should never do drugs while driving or shooting with the Totally
Digital D60!

Brett, that's a fabulous shot. That's art, not artsy-fartsy. Congrats.

Reminds me of Steichen's "The Pond -- Moonlight" (Lots of poor quality
low-res images of this famous shot... Here's one:

http://digitalthink.fr/wordpress/wp-.../2006/04/1.jpg

-=- Rick

--
Richard Karash
Richard "at" Karash "dot" com