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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Yosemite
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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Yosemite
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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Yosemite
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. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Yosemite
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Yosemite - clouds | Tim | Digital Photography | 3 | May 3rd 06 04:20 AM |
Photographs of Yosemite 2006 | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 9 | April 29th 06 05:32 PM |
Yosemite Recommendations | ron | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | June 8th 05 05:25 PM |
ansel admas and yosemite | tim | Photographing Nature | 1 | May 5th 05 07:10 PM |
July or August better for Yosemite/Sierras trip? | Charles M. Kozierok | Digital Photography | 53 | March 2nd 05 01:06 AM |