Yosemite

One4All wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
One4All wrote:
Arnor Baldvinsson wrote:

identified as "digital print," or something like that. I have no
quarrel with digitally manipulated images. The artist must reveal
his/her medium. Any digital artist that avoids this is a fraud.
What about photos that are manipulated on film/print?

The divide between digital photography and film photography is as
massive as that between film photography and painting.
Hardly.

We're talking about art media.
You are. And "art media" probably ain't digital photography.

Oh, lord.

That'd be "Lord". But let's dispense with formalities here.

What is it you were unable to articulate?

--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams wrote:
One4All wrote:
Oh, lord.

That'd be "Lord". But let's dispense with formalities here.

The lower case was intentional.

What is it you were unable to articulate?

What is it you don't understand?

--
John McWilliams

Eric Miller wrote:
So, now, with digital, you can put any element into your composition
with a few clicks of a mouse. If you are skillful, which Eric was not,
and which Roger exposed, you might get away with it. So much for the
incredulity of the American public. All Eric needs to do is identify
his work as a digital collage. That is, if he is a true artist.

Lets be clear, I exposed the fact that the moon was added. I didn't have
to; I could easily have added the same moon to the color image and in
the same position since the moon was added to the uncropped image as a
100% crop from another image taken on the same evening (it's actually an
eclipse and not a half moon, that's why it looks odd). When I posted the
image the way I did, nearly two years ago, I had no real intention of
"fooling" anyone. My sole intention was to make the image a better one.
It is at the end of a travelogue meant mostly for friends and family and
not for wide distribution.

I didn't have to add "if he is a true artist," and I apologize for
suggesting you were intentionally deceptive. Your reply has made me
more aware of how a digital image can "morph" beyond its original
purpose (for family/friends vs. wide distribution). I'm also putting
together a DVD of my images for family/friends. I've tweaked tones and
colors in PS, altho not adding anything. I've deleted some distracting
elements to improve the photos. Pre-digital, techniques were taught to
sandwich transparencies in an enlarger to achieve a desired effect. I'm
thinking maybe your fault was in not making the moon more believable to
knowing eyes.

In other words, photography is a medium, unlike oils or watercolors,
that people believe is a true rendition of the original scene when the
shutter was snapped. Somehow, the hand of the photographer is suspect,
as the hand of the painter is not. If the hand of the photographer is
not apparent in a photograph, the image is accepted. It just gets down
to whether the image pleases most people or not.

You're still a damned good photographer.

Arnor Baldvinsson wrote:
I've been reading everything I can get my hands on. Unfortunately my time
is limited due to work (I work for myself, almost always have) so I don't
have as much time as I would like.

While I was working (retired, now) I joined a local photo club & was
amazed (this is pre-digital) how these guys came up with such great
prints while working full-time. Somebody (the wife? the kids?) had to
be picking up the slack. It's been said that the law is a jealous
mistress. I think photography is the same way. I understand where
you're coming from. I've been there. The only thing I can suggest is,
capture what you can, save and archive it for the time when you retire
and have the time, altho you'll be faced with the same time issues. I
know.

Hi,

you're coming from. I've been there. The only thing I can suggest is,
capture what you can, save and archive it for the time when you retire
and have the time, altho you'll be faced with the same time issues. I
know.

I have every intention of making photography my business, long time before I
retire - don't think I ever will retire, don't really know what that isg
I'm approaching photography as any other business venture. I feel I have
the creativity to make up for lack of technical knowledge. I don't aim to
be the best of the best, just good enough that I and others can enjoy my
work and I can use it as an additional source of income. I have a lot to
learn, but I bet I can pick up a few things about photography as well new
programming languages and new software techniquesg So far, everything
sounds logical and makes perfect sense to me.

--
Arnor Baldvinsson
San Antonio, Texas