A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 10th 12, 08:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old August 10th 12, 08:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default 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  
Old August 10th 12, 10:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default 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  
Old August 11th 12, 01:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old August 11th 12, 02:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Rob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 236
Default 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  
Old August 11th 12, 02:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old August 11th 12, 04:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default 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  
Old August 11th 12, 04:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old August 11th 12, 05:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old August 11th 12, 05:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.