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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Mr. Mark wrote:
"Siddhartha Jain" wrote So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides that attracts people with different leanings? IMO this is one of the more interesting observations I've read in this group. And the answer is yes. My collection of friends who are very into photography come from all different backgrounds and each of them has their own expressive style - some would even say that they don't have an expressive style because saying things like that sound artzy to them and they don't want to be considered artzy. Something I found interesting is a guy on one of these groups talking about how his does simply documentary street scenes, with the intent that they be valuable historical documents of life in our time. He was insistent that there was no art to it, he simply picked a 'representative scene' and strove for perfect technical capture. They were quite nicely composed. The boring technical approach can produce good art in fact. The art was in the honesty and care. I come from a fine art background but also shoot a lot of pictures for technical documentation of various plant species. That's what I love about photography is the blend of art & technique & good results can be achieved at either extreme. -- Paul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 san francisco native plants |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
For myself I use photography to record the life that my wife and I
lead, sort of acting like a photojournalist. There is still an art aspect to the photography since a lot of what I am after is capturing the mood of where we were and what we were doing. My goal is to have photographs that bring back the memories of where we have been and what we have done. This changes how you take photos in a number of ways, the trip becomes as important as the destination. We travel a lot by motor home, I like to capture the whole of each day, what was the weather like in the morning, where did we stop for lunch, what was the scenery like along the way. Because I am documenting our lives I don't do as much Photoshoping as some people do, I know people who have added a nice blue sky with a few fluffy clouds to a photo that was taken when it was gray and overcast. I don't have a problem with them doing that if it makes them happy but it would ruin a photo for me. I will do a fair bit of dodge and burning, to bring out detail in the shadows for instance. In this case it is trying to get the photo to look like I remember seeing it. One of the odd, almost ethical, questions that I find myself faced with is whether to use a polarizing filter or not. The effects can be dramatic, for instance in this photo http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image...8/original.jpg the sea and sky were not really those colors, the polarizing filter made them look better then in real life, except that at the time I was wearing polarizing sunglasses and so the photo is what I saw at the time. I try to get some photos with and without the filter so I can view it both ways. Scott |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message oups.com... So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid portriats. - Siddhartha As a B&W photographer (35 years) and as a writer and artist (oil painting), I have strong personal feelings about the new age of photography. My individual preference is the art of the capture of a real event. The original composition, subject and lighting are most important to me and the subsequent printing is perhaps only 10% as important. I like the concept of historical documentation in the frame of photography thus I dislike photomanipulation that disturbs the trust of the viewer. Of all my prints the ones I dislike the most are my youthful ventures in darkroom manipulation (adding clouds etc) which breached reality. I love the convenience and quality of digital photography but dislike it's current use in that too much can be changed in the computer beyond sharp masking, contrast, saturation. I dislike the commonly done alteration of group photos whereby a smiling face is taken from one shot then superimposed on a better shot. The photo, for me, is no longer real...it is not a documentation of a time or place. Interestingly though, and I don't know why, but I don't mind my alterations when I paint. Perhaps I know that oil painting is not a true document of reality but an acceptable depiction of altered reality. I now use digital for snapshots and my old medium format, 35mm stuff for the more serious documentation that I consider "historical art". I don't change my digital photos significantly. That said, you will find many points of view on this subject and I do enjoy a good photograph despite the methods used. If the photograph is digital though, I don't trust it's reality...it is more like a painting or "digital art". Dean |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
deloid wrote:
As a B&W photographer (35 years) and as a writer and artist (oil painting), I have strong personal feelings about the new age of photography. My individual preference is the art of the capture of a real event. The original composition, subject and lighting are most important to me and the subsequent printing is perhaps only 10% as important. I like the concept of historical documentation in the frame of photography thus I dislike photomanipulation that disturbs the trust of the viewer. Of all my prints the ones I dislike the most are my youthful ventures in darkroom manipulation (adding clouds etc) which breached reality. Uh Oh!! I think you've opened a pandora's box as to what is *reality*. One might argue that using a faster film is a *breach* of reality. While some might argue that the PP that how a technician interprets colours while printing colour negative film is alteration of reality. Also, the colours captured on film are function of the chemical used and the colours/light captured on a CCD/CMOS are a function of the various algorithms used by the manufacturer (even RAW images). So PP or no PP, an image is the photographer's interpretation of reality, IMHO. - Siddhartha |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Silberstein wrote:
So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can at the most identify 5-6 colours. Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with. Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of indigo. What I meant is that I can't tell the difference between various shades of a colour. So if I looked very closely at raven black and charcoal black, I might be able to tell the difference but I can never remember them. Same goes for say lemon yellow and some other yellow or magenta and red (much to the chagrin of my gf ;-) ) I am attracted to photography because I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid portriats. Can you tell the difference between saturated and washed out color? Ohh yes!! I can. I immiediately found a difference in colours when I moved from the kit lens on my 300D to a Sigma 24-135mm. The colours looked deeper and more saturated. But I can't tell this difference unless its too pronounced. Very subtle changes in saturation or depth of colours eludes me. - Siddhartha |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Furman wrote:
Something I found interesting is a guy on one of these groups talking about how his does simply documentary street scenes, with the intent that they be valuable historical documents of life in our time. He was insistent that there was no art to it, he simply picked a 'representative scene' and strove for perfect technical capture. They were quite nicely composed. The boring technical approach can produce good art in fact. The art was in the honesty and care. Yes, this is what I think I do. When I am behind the camera I am striving for technical accuracy in focus and exposure. So much so that my whole thought process is occupied with the technicality of taking a photograph. Ofcourse, I do fuss around composition but there is a certain something that seems to come some other photographers very naturally but doesn't seem to come to my brain. For example, me and my friend were taking some photographs of an old lady feeding stray dogs. My friend got several nice shots of the lady and some more shots around of people. And all I got was some odd shots with not so great expressions. Most of the time I was either late to shoot or my exposure was wrong. On the other hand, I was sitting on the beach with the sun setting and I got some good shots. Or, I was on the beach and my friends were in water playing and I got some really good shots of them. Just wondering if there is really a difference in the way our brains work or its just a mental block of some sort. - Siddhartha |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Siddhartha Jain wrote:
Hi, I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and architecture more. So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid portriats. - Siddhartha Absolutely, and this has nothing to do with digital. In the film days, some folks did all their work in camera, used a commercial printer. Others labored long in their darkroom doing much of their art there. One can be artistic in darkroom or at computer, just as others are more artistic with camera and seeing. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we
wanted. What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art, don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects. In many ways they sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36 Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting flames on the cutaway fenders. -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message oups.com... Hi, I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and architecture more. So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid portriats. - Siddhartha |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On 8 Jun 2005 10:35:01 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Siddhartha Jain"
in .com wrote: Matt Silberstein wrote: So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can at the most identify 5-6 colours. Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with. Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of indigo. What I meant is that I can't tell the difference between various shades of a colour. So if I looked very closely at raven black and charcoal black, I might be able to tell the difference but I can never remember them. Same goes for say lemon yellow and some other yellow or magenta and red (much to the chagrin of my gf ;-) ) Women (female mammals, actually) have a better color sense than do males. That said, this is a trainable talent. Go shopping for paint for a room and start paying attention to the slight differences. You will learn to distinguish them. Learn some language and you will do better. I am attracted to photography because I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid portriats. Can you tell the difference between saturated and washed out color? Ohh yes!! I can. I immiediately found a difference in colours when I moved from the kit lens on my 300D to a Sigma 24-135mm. The colours looked deeper and more saturated. But I can't tell this difference unless its too pronounced. Very subtle changes in saturation or depth of colours eludes me. The more you do, the more you be able to do. -- Matt Silberstein All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus, there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Tony wrote:
Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we wanted. What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art, don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects. In many ways they sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36 Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting flames on the cutaway fenders. Hey Tony, I certainly won't disagree with your observations, but what is art? Jackson Pollak and Leonardo Da Vinci produced "art", but it's strictly in the eye of the beholder. Currently, I look at photos by people like Jim Brandenburg, who have an artistic "eye" and the technical expertise to make a great photo. Hate to say it, but I would love to have that supercharged, chopped, flame painted 36 Ford in my garage. :-) Take care, Dick R. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"? | William J. Slater | General Photography Techniques | 9 | April 7th 04 04:22 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | John | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 7th 04 05:33 AM |
Study Photography in Venice | Venice School of Photography | General Photography Techniques | 0 | February 13th 04 06:17 PM |
Aerial Photography from Alaska, Yukon Territory & beyond | PNW | Photographing Nature | 0 | December 1st 03 11:19 AM |