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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting overdone. So don't do it. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 8/10/2012 3:02 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote: Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting overdone. So don't do it. You beat me to it. -- PeterN |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: : On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote: : Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure : using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective : in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting : overdone. : : So don't do it. Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right. Bob |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: : On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote: : Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure : using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective : in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting : overdone. : : So don't do it. Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right. Of course he's not right. Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they don't, that's fine too. Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 11/08/2012 10:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote: On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: : On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote: : Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure : using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective : in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting : overdone. : : So don't do it. Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right. Of course he's not right. Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they don't, that's fine too. Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich. Horses for courses. Its an individual thing and calling the shot to express what the photographer sees. I like to see dynamics in water, always have. That white fluffy stuff has its place, its something to lift an image and separate the water from the background but it has problems in long exposures where movement of trees/ferns detract. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 2012-08-11 09:49 , Rob wrote:
On 11/08/2012 10:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote: On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote: On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: : On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote: : Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure : using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective : in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting : overdone. : : So don't do it. Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right. Of course he's not right. Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they don't, that's fine too. Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich. Horses for courses. Its an individual thing and calling the shot to express what the photographer sees. Exactly my point. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:43:43 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: : On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote: : On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne : wrote: : : On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote: : : Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure : : using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective : : in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting : : overdone. : : : : So don't do it. : : Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right. : : Of course he's not right. : : Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to : do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they : don't, that's fine too. : : Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of : fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich. Foolish or not, I'll assume whatever responsibility you care to assign me for my opinion. I think blurry water usually looks silly, even tacky. I believe I ridiculed it long before Rich did. Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be encouraged. Bob |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 2012-08-11 11:19 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:43:43 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: : On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote: : On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne : wrote: : : On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote: : : Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure : : using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective : : in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting : : overdone. : : : : So don't do it. : : Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right. : : Of course he's not right. : : Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to : do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they : don't, that's fine too. : : Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of : fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich. Foolish or not, I'll assume whatever responsibility you care to assign me for my opinion. I think blurry water usually looks silly, even tacky. I believe I ridiculed it long before Rich did. It has been ridiculed many times in the past, long before the internet gave voice to the ill informed such as Rich and the easily influenced as yourself. Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone currently posting on Usenet. There ya go! It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be encouraged. Who claimed that? What I object to is that anyone should say what an artist or photographer should or should not do. Rich should not. You should not. That doesn't mean you're forced to like it or approve of it. And like Rich, your approval or not of it is absolutely meaningless. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce said:
Robert Coe wrote: Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be encouraged. What, in your opinion, defines "good art"? Note; You are asking each of us our opinion of what defines "good art", Just in this room we have a group who are going to be hard pressed to reach a consensus. So I I am going to make my way through your post commenting along the way, to finish with my opinion of what I believe defines art. I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different people at random, you would get ten very different answers. I agree. As stated above, it is going to be tough to find two who agree, close maybe, but even then we will be inclined to come to our individual interpretations of what each of the others have stated, and still not agree. I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or "brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals. That is probably true for many "artists". However, there are certainly those artists who do not follow that school of modesty and immersion in their work, but assume a role of "artistic arrogance" defying critics and viewers alike, who make any judgement of their work. Now apply that to photography; what makes an image "good art"? Is it something that more people like (lowest common denominator) or something that a few experts in the field really like (highest common factor). With regard to photography we have a few categories to work through before we get to "photographic art". First we should agree that not all of the products of the camera, darkroom and computer are "art". Some of that product is deliberate intentional art, some is accidental art. Photojournalism does not start from a position of being produced as art, some of that work, can, and does reach my definition of art (see below), usually accidentally, sometimes deliberately. The deliberate documentary can also be in both the accidental and deliberate art category. However, as with photojournalism, the production of "art" is not the typical intent. The family documentary, or snapshot is usually shot without pretension or intent to create art, but the shooter might unwittingly produce a photograph which could be absolutely defined as 'art". Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less? No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art. It's a bit like comparing an expensive, exclusive publication aimed at a very discerning audience to a tabloid newspaper or cheap novel that sells millions of copies to a mass market. Which is "better art"? I don't have answers to any of these questions but I would be very interested to hear your and others' views. OK! Let's get my definition out of the way. To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance, photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes the uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response, be it one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter, nausea, or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art". A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap here, as there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two categories as "art". A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it, disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of "art". That is probably just a snapshot. So for those who say they hate a particular style, or process, let's say HDR, or long exposure, by investing an emotion of hatred, they elevate any such work to be declared "art" whether they like it or not, even if the individual who produced that HDR image, or "silky" waterfall had no intention of declaring it "art". -- Regards, Savageduck |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 2012-08-11 09:41:17 -0700, Savageduck said:
On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce said: Robert Coe wrote: Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be encouraged. What, in your opinion, defines "good art"? Note; You are asking each of us our opinion of what defines "good art", Just in this room we have a group who are going to be hard pressed to reach a consensus. So I I am going to make my way through your post commenting along the way, to finish with my opinion of what I believe defines art. I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different people at random, you would get ten very different answers. I agree. As stated above, it is going to be tough to find two who agree, close maybe, but even then we will be inclined to come to our individual interpretations of what each of the others have stated, and still not agree. I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or "brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals. That is probably true for many "artists". However, there are certainly those artists who do not follow that school of modesty and immersion in their work, but assume a role of "artistic arrogance" defying critics and viewers alike, who make any judgement of their work. Now apply that to photography; what makes an image "good art"? Is it something that more people like (lowest common denominator) or something that a few experts in the field really like (highest common factor). With regard to photography we have a few categories to work through before we get to "photographic art". First we should agree that not all of the products of the camera, darkroom and computer are "art". Some of that product is deliberate intentional art, some is accidental art. Photojournalism does not start from a position of being produced as art, some of that work, can, and does reach my definition of art (see below), usually accidentally, sometimes deliberately. The deliberate documentary can also be in both the accidental and deliberate art category. However, as with photojournalism, the production of "art" is not the typical intent. The family documentary, or snapshot is usually shot without pretension or intent to create art, but the shooter might unwittingly produce a photograph which could be absolutely defined as 'art". Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less? No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art. It's a bit like comparing an expensive, exclusive publication aimed at a very discerning audience to a tabloid newspaper or cheap novel that sells millions of copies to a mass market. Which is "better art"? I don't have answers to any of these questions but I would be very interested to hear your and others' views. OK! Let's get my definition out of the way. To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance, photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes the uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response, be it one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter, nausea, or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art". A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap here, as there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two categories as "art". A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it, disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of "art". That is probably just a snapshot. That doesn't quite read coherently. Let me rephrase that last remark. ;-) A work which leaves one indifferent, not provoking the viewer to the level of hatred, or the ability to express any personal emotional investment, is certainly not art. So for those who say they hate a particular style, or process, let's say HDR, or long exposure, by investing an emotion of hatred, they elevate any such work to be declared "art" whether they like it or not, even if the individual who produced that HDR image, or "silky" waterfall had no intention of declaring it "art". -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photogs rights "Slim" threat, as in, "thin edge of the wedge??" | Seymore | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | April 10th 10 09:07 AM |
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ | \The Great One\ | Digital Photography | 0 | July 14th 09 12:04 AM |
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode | ashjas | Digital Photography | 4 | November 8th 06 10:00 PM |