Not sharpened

On 8/15/2015 7:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:41:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-08-15 20:51:03 +0000, PeterN said:

There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a
scene, or an interpretation of a particular object. We go to a casino
abut one very few months. If we go there, I will see if I can find a
more crowded room.
Here is a different treatment of a crowd. Makes me hungry for a hot dog.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/nathans.jpg

I guess there is no accounting for taste. I am sorry to say, I just
think those renditions are awful.
I just don't buy the artistic interpretation thing.

Is HDR not an artistic interpretation?

Every photo, as opposed to a snapshot, is an artistic interpretation.


--
PeterN

On 8/15/2015 7:46 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a scene,
| or an interpretation of a particular object.

I think of it as an expression. A photo of a woman
can be a photo of a woman, a moment, a human
condition, sexuality, the feminine principle in general...
To me, you express something and the subject is
part of your materials. Ansel Adams's mountain photos,
for instance. They don't move me because the mountains
are beautiful. They move me because I see a picture of
sublimity, which evokes a touch of the sublime in myself,
so that the result is a quasi-religious experience. As far
as I'm concerned, he might just as well have been shooting
rusty bicycles.

| Here is a different treatment of a crowd. Makes me hungry for a hot dog.
|
| https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/nathans.jpg
|

Makes me hungry for definition. I find it too vague, so
that it just suggests associations. Fruit flavored
cymbals viewed from behind a band onstage, maybe.
Is that a vase or a face? The colors are nice, though.



See my response to the Duck. I agree, it's not a great image at all.

--
PeterN

On 8/15/2015 7:46 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a scene,
| or an interpretation of a particular object.

I think of it as an expression. A photo of a woman
can be a photo of a woman, a moment, a human
condition, sexuality, the feminine principle in general...
To me, you express something and the subject is
part of your materials. Ansel Adams's mountain photos,
for instance. They don't move me because the mountains
are beautiful. They move me because I see a picture of
sublimity, which evokes a touch of the sublime in myself,
so that the result is a quasi-religious experience. As far
as I'm concerned, he might just as well have been shooting
rusty bicycles.

Do you mean bicycles as per Cartier?





| Here is a different treatment of a crowd. Makes me hungry for a hot dog.
|
| https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/nathans.jpg
|

Makes me hungry for definition. I find it too vague, so
that it just suggests associations. Fruit flavored
cymbals viewed from behind a band onstage, maybe.
Is that a vase or a face? The colors are nice, though.




--
PeterN

On 2015-08-16 00:50:23 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/15/2015 7:46 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a scene,
| or an interpretation of a particular object.

I think of it as an expression. A photo of a woman
can be a photo of a woman, a moment, a human
condition, sexuality, the feminine principle in general...
To me, you express something and the subject is
part of your materials. Ansel Adams's mountain photos,
for instance. They don't move me because the mountains
are beautiful. They move me because I see a picture of
sublimity, which evokes a touch of the sublime in myself,
so that the result is a quasi-religious experience. As far
as I'm concerned, he might just as well have been shooting
rusty bicycles.

Do you mean bicycles as per Cartier?

Cartier and Cartier-Bresson are two very different individuals.

I don't know of any Cartier bicycles.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/15/2015 9:11 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-16 00:50:23 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/15/2015 7:46 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a
scene,
| or an interpretation of a particular object.

I think of it as an expression. A photo of a woman
can be a photo of a woman, a moment, a human
condition, sexuality, the feminine principle in general...
To me, you express something and the subject is
part of your materials. Ansel Adams's mountain photos,
for instance. They don't move me because the mountains
are beautiful. They move me because I see a picture of
sublimity, which evokes a touch of the sublime in myself,
so that the result is a quasi-religious experience. As far
as I'm concerned, he might just as well have been shooting
rusty bicycles.

Do you mean bicycles as per Cartier?

Cartier and Cartier-Bresson are two very different individuals.

I don't know of any Cartier bicycles.



I was referring to Mr. Bresson.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bres...q2NTm21-STE%3D

http://tinyurl.com/q9l3axc




--
PeterN

On 2015-08-16 01:20:38 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/15/2015 9:11 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-16 00:50:23 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/15/2015 7:46 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a
scene,
| or an interpretation of a particular object.

I think of it as an expression. A photo of a woman
can be a photo of a woman, a moment, a human
condition, sexuality, the feminine principle in general...
To me, you express something and the subject is
part of your materials. Ansel Adams's mountain photos,
for instance. They don't move me because the mountains
are beautiful. They move me because I see a picture of
sublimity, which evokes a touch of the sublime in myself,
so that the result is a quasi-religious experience. As far
as I'm concerned, he might just as well have been shooting
rusty bicycles.

Do you mean bicycles as per Cartier?

Cartier and Cartier-Bresson are two very different individuals.

I don't know of any Cartier bicycles.

I was referring to Mr. Bresson.

Can't help yourself can you? It is Cartier-Bresson, the name is
hyphenated, Cartier isn't his first name, that is Henri.


http://tinyurl.com/q9l3axc



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/15/2015 9:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-16 01:20:38 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/15/2015 9:11 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-16 00:50:23 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/15/2015 7:46 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a
scene,
| or an interpretation of a particular object.

I think of it as an expression. A photo of a woman
can be a photo of a woman, a moment, a human
condition, sexuality, the feminine principle in general...
To me, you express something and the subject is
part of your materials. Ansel Adams's mountain photos,
for instance. They don't move me because the mountains
are beautiful. They move me because I see a picture of
sublimity, which evokes a touch of the sublime in myself,
so that the result is a quasi-religious experience. As far
as I'm concerned, he might just as well have been shooting
rusty bicycles.

Do you mean bicycles as per Cartier?

Cartier and Cartier-Bresson are two very different individuals.

I don't know of any Cartier bicycles.

I was referring to Mr. Bresson.

Can't help yourself can you? It is Cartier-Bresson, the name is
hyphenated, Cartier isn't his first name, that is Henri.


http://tinyurl.com/q9l3axc



Oops!
But he did a lot of bicycle shots.



--
PeterN

| Ansel Adams's mountain photos,
| for instance. They don't move me because the mountains
| are beautiful. They move me because I see a picture of
| sublimity, which evokes a touch of the sublime in myself,
| so that the result is a quasi-religious experience. As far
| as I'm concerned, he might just as well have been shooting
| rusty bicycles.
|
| Do you mean bicycles as per Cartier?
|

I'm afraid you went over my head with that
one. I just tried to think of an example of
something prosaic.

On 8/15/2015 9:44 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| Ansel Adams's mountain photos,
| for instance. They don't move me because the mountains
| are beautiful. They move me because I see a picture of
| sublimity, which evokes a touch of the sublime in myself,
| so that the result is a quasi-religious experience. As far
| as I'm concerned, he might just as well have been shooting
| rusty bicycles.
|
| Do you mean bicycles as per Cartier?
|

I'm afraid you went over my head with that
one. I just tried to think of an example of
something prosaic.


http://tinyurl.com/q9l3axc

--
PeterN

On 2015-08-16 02:36:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 17:00:00 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-08-15 23:40:27 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:41:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-08-15 20:51:03 +0000, PeterN said:

There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a
scene, or an interpretation of a particular object. We go to a casino
abut one very few months. If we go there, I will see if I can find a
more crowded room.
Here is a different treatment of a crowd. Makes me hungry for a hot dog.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/nathans.jpg

I guess there is no accounting for taste. I am sorry to say, I just
think those renditions are awful.
I just don't buy the artistic interpretation thing.

Is HDR not an artistic interpretation?

Is a saturation, acontrast adjustment, or a B&W conversion an artistic
interpretation?

No. HDR is just another tool to stretch DR. Unfortunately some HDR
implementations in the past (...and I fear currently) have been over
cooked. That leads to the nauseating over-saturation and unwanted halo
glow effects.

With HDR less is more, and subtlety is possible. The current merge to
HDR in LR CC does a very good job of expanding the DR, providing
results free of all that stuff many find distasteful.

HDR is not evil, and does not have to result in the horrific "Kinkadeish" glow.

BTW: I don't, as you might be implying, actually use HDR as much as you
think, only when it can be useful.

The point that I was gently trying to make is that what Peter does is
what he likes to do,

So? I figured that was a given.

and a little stretch of a different kind is a
glass house.

....and you are implying what?

--
Regards,

Savageduck