Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Irre levant
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
Sep 10, 2023 23:02:24   #
User ID
 
larryepage wrote:
Not all paintings done from reference photographs are pictorials. I know several really good, really creative painters who routinely work from reference material. One actually used a photograph of me to do a drawing of me as a demo for a class she was teaching. When finished, she was able to show the class both the photo and her drawing and showed them where she remained true to the photo and where she took artistic liberties. It was a lot of fun watching her work and listening to her commentary.

To me pictorialism is no less honorable than photography where the primary goal is absolute sharpness. And reference photos are very commonly used as sources for subjects that are difficult or dangerous to access or where conditions change rapidly and it would be difficult to work from life over a long period. Since the reference serves as a reminder, it does not limit creative thinking and work any more than sitting in situ for an extended period. Some artists combine life and reference. They may do their initial sketch or drawing on the canvas from life, return to the studio to build the painting's structure, then return to do final detail from direct observation. Or they may have a different sequence that suits them better.

Watercolorists very frequently work from reference material. Watercolor is very commonly done flat on a table, and painting is done in "color order," from light to dark. Try that from life. Then the artwork must be carefully transferred to the drying rack without tilting it and causing the colors to run.
Not all paintings done from reference photographs ... (show quote)

Was NOT referring to the use of *reference* photos in painting. I was referring to exactly what I described and not the various other genres mentioned in your reply.

I will add that the materials usage skill is so exacting, with really zero creative input or interpretation, that at one exhibition of the genre it was remarkably easy to sort out the ektachromes from the kodachromes. The degree of DoF is always exactly as in the source photo.

IOW the painter is, quite literally, serving as an accurate photographic printer. And here also camera usage is irrelevant. Toadally AI originated source photos can serve equally well as any camera originated photo.

Reply
Sep 10, 2023 23:16:40   #
Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN
 
As someone previously mentioned there is an entire genre of work that is cameraless photography. Photograms, cyanotypes, lumen prints and other similar contact processes are photographs. A camera is not needed for photographic images, only light and a recording medium.

Here is a fantastic recent exhibit of cameraless photography.

https://www.idsnews.com/article/2023/02/eskenazi-museum-to-host-cameraless-photography-exhibit

Additonally, here is a good book on the mater by a photographic historian

https://www.amazon.com/Emanations-Cameraless-Photograph-Geoffrey-Batchen/dp/379135504X

Reply
Sep 10, 2023 23:48:47   #
Harry13
 
"Hey, you left out Trane."

Hey, Ileft out a lot of people, including one of my favorites, Chet Baker. Nobody plays a ballad like Chet. I like Miles better overall but on some tunes, Chet is just marvelous! Too marvelous for words! <g>

Reply
 
 
Sep 11, 2023 00:00:14   #
fantom Loc: Colorado
 
Harry13 wrote:
"Not only is the use vs non-use of a camera irrelevant...."

Au contraire, it is everything. A painting is not a photograph and neither are images not made with a camera. Why are you guys in such a twist about this? Do painters get upset when you refuse to call what they create "photographs"? Does it matter what tools you use to create an image? And does it matter whether or not it represents the creators imagination or something that exists in reality? I think not. Why call it a photograph? There are lots of things in the world that ain't photgraphs. Does that mean they're worthless? Personally, I like Motzart better than any visual image that I ever saw, photo, painting or whatever. Thelonius Monk too! Not to mention Miles and Bird! I think you guys just like to argue. :-)
"Not only is the use vs non-use of a camera i... (show quote)


Kinda naive. And, sounds like you are just trying to cause controversy and start a time wasting debate.

Reply
Sep 11, 2023 08:15:47   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
User ID wrote:
Was NOT referring to the use of *reference* photos in painting. I was referring to exactly what I described and not the various other genres mentioned in your reply.

I will add that the materials usage skill is so exacting, with really zero creative input or interpretation, that at one exhibition of the genre it was remarkably easy to sort out the ektachromes from the kodachromes. The degree of DoF is always exactly as in the source photo.

IOW the painter is, quite literally, serving as an accurate photographic printer. And here also camera usage is irrelevant. Toadally AI originated source photos can serve equally well as any camera originated photo.
Was NOT referring to the use of *reference* photos... (show quote)


I did a little bit of research about this subject. There are at least three or four dimensions of what goes on, and some of these craftspeople are making a good living at a legitimate business. Some may be doing it involuntarily, and some are surreptitiously copying the works of others without permission, many using original material that has been posted online.

What was most interesting to me was that a quick search revealed the same sort of ethical and legal discussions that are going on in this forum. Some were almost word for word the same. Those doing it illegally revealed the same "so what?'" underlying attitude, and those cautioning about legal exposure used identical language to caution against copying without permission.

Reply
Sep 11, 2023 11:34:50   #
User ID
 
larryepage wrote:
I did a little bit of research about this subject. There are at least three or four dimensions of what goes on, and some of these craftspeople are making a good living at a legitimate business. Some may be doing it involuntarily, and some are surreptitiously copying the works of others without permission, many using original material that has been posted online.

What was most interesting to me was that a quick search revealed the same sort of ethical and legal discussions that are going on in this forum. Some were almost word for word the same. Those doing it illegally revealed the same "so what?'" underlying attitude, and those cautioning about legal exposure used identical language to caution against copying without permission.
I did a little bit of research about this subject.... (show quote)

What goes around comes around.

UHH is most verrrrrry clearly NOT any hotbed of original thinking ... more like a wet blanket. This Discussion section bears that out and the Gallery section hugely reinforces it.

How to determine IF this is NOT a painting ?
How to determine IF this is NOT a painting ?...
(Download)

And likewise ???
And likewise ???...
(Download)

And ????
And ????...
(Download)

Reply
Sep 11, 2023 14:53:55   #
Stephan G
 
srg wrote:
SOOWU?


The opposite of SOOTB. Shot Out Of The Bottle.


Reply
 
 
Sep 11, 2023 15:19:47   #
cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX
 
Harry13 wrote:
"Not only is the use vs non-use of a camera irrelevant...."

Au contraire, it is everything. A painting is not a photograph and neither are images not made with a camera. Why are you guys in such a twist about this? Do painters get upset when you refuse to call what they create "photographs"? Does it matter what tools you use to create an image? And does it matter whether or not it represents the creators imagination or something that exists in reality? I think not. Why call it a photograph? There are lots of things in the world that ain't photgraphs. Does that mean they're worthless? Personally, I like Motzart better than any visual image that I ever saw, photo, painting or whatever. Thelonius Monk too! Not to mention Miles and Bird! I think you guys just like to argue. :-)
"Not only is the use vs non-use of a camera i... (show quote)


Wow! And people on this forum sometimes call me weird.

Reply
Sep 11, 2023 18:13:05   #
davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.
 
R.G. wrote:
The definitions are simple enough. What are not so simple are the meanings that we end up with through common usage. The best we can do is persist in proper usage of the terms and hope that it rubs off on those who misuse the terms.

You're right in noting that the root source is relevant. If the root source is an image generated by a photographic imaging device, it's a photograph.

If that image becomes modified because of post processing it becomes a modified photograph.

That isn't automatically a bad thing because photographs, regardless of how good they are, are never a perfect capture of reality. And regardless of whether the post processing is good or bad, it doesn't stop being a photograph because of those modifications. It goes from being an SOOC photograph to being a modified photograph. Almost all photographs ever taken have been modified in some way.

If the post processing is done well it becomes an enhanced photograph.

"Modified" and "enhanced" should not be dirty words in the world of photography.
The definitions are simple enough. What are not s... (show quote)


Let’s not forget the snapshot!

Reply
Sep 11, 2023 18:41:07   #
hookedupin2005 Loc: Northwestern New Mexico
 
Curmudgeon wrote:
I have to say it once again, my camera has never, not even once. captured the image I saw. Ever since I bought my first scanner, long before I bought my first digital camera, Photoshop has allowed me to show the world what I really saw.


I would argue that is not exactly true....If you snap a photo, and use PP to remove powerlines, or an old, dead tree, or whatever, The "enhanced" photo is not what you saw, when you took the photo.(I am NOT against PP, by the way)

Reply
Sep 11, 2023 19:15:59   #
User ID
 
hookedupin2005 wrote:
I would argue that is not exactly true....If you snap a photo, and use PP to remove powerlines, or an old, dead tree, or whatever, The "enhanced" photo is not what you saw, when you took the photo.(I am NOT against PP, by the way)

You cannot possibly know what he saw, so what he saw is none of your bidnez. YOUR bidnez is limited to only what he selectively shows you. Thaz just how it is and how it always has been.


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
 
 
Sep 11, 2023 19:47:25   #
fantom Loc: Colorado
 
User ID wrote:
You cannot possibly know what he saw, so what he saw is none of your bidnez. YOUR bidnez is limited to only what he selectively shows you. Thaz just how it is and how it always has been.


No, not necessarily, as evidenced in the picture below.

Only a small handful of people see what I saw when I took the picture----- Apaches pursuing a stagecoach, as seen from Ford Point in Mon. Valley.



Reply
Sep 11, 2023 22:29:07   #
Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC
 
" I wondered if I could do anything in the arts until I discovered I seemed to have a natural talent for photography. John I certainly get this... Your talents in photography are stunning in my minds eye... Especially your surreal Recent False Color Infrared renderings
https://www.behance.net/gallery/81406943/Recent-False-Color-Infrared-Photos

And congratulations John on your Masters Degree at SFSU...
Albeit your time working as a darkroom technician is delightfully reflected in your image artistry on https://www.behance.net/JohnSwanda where your creativity has indeed flourished.
Seems that some have an intrinsic visual aptitude that comes from within...

That said, my background in music comes from a very early tender age singing choral music in my family's church choir... btw, young boys have an absolute pure and perfect soprano range with only a faintest hint of 'laryngeal' vibrato that taints many feminine voices in their soprano register... That is until boys' testosterone levels rise rapidly during puberty thus eliminating the aforementioned angelic ethereal tonality (Please listen to the Vienna Boys' Choir of boy sopranos and altos based in Vienna, Austria. Likely the best boys' choirs in the world.)
a.k.a. The voices of angels Listen carefully while they perform "Laudate Dominum" by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGL6nfT6kY8

Now compare those amazing young boys to "O Holy Night" by feminine sopranos and altos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VfYKmJkxl0

Ok, it's wasn't until I was 15 that I turned attention to acoustic six string... fell immediately in love with same. Did Gigs with various other musicians during college though I had to work in other paradigms to pay the bills. In college I meet a gifted young art major from NYC who took me there to purchase my first SLR... LOVE! What an incredible tool! Did the Crafts Fair circuit with clones of Ansel Adams renderings but it was way too labor intensive...
Turned to portraiture and have never looked back.

btw I obtained a Cosmologist License so I could do makeup in commercial salons... Got heavy into bridal makeup artistry since it generated a huge revenue stream for me. Besides I loved "painting face" as it's known in the industry on these lovely ladies... Learned their language and hung out a Sephia and MAC... Trained and hired one of my agency represented colleagues as an assistant MUA so we could work Weddings Together... I did the Bride and the MOB while she did the Bridesmaids... we made far more in less than 2 hours than I ever did shooting a 10 hour wedding event!

Below is my real love... An acoustic six string... Also in frame is our Studio's MUA... now a represented Fashion Model by T.H.E. Agency (Washington DC). If anyone should need a totally gifted high end Fashion Model in the DC marketplace I highly recommend Samantha Miller https://www.theartistagency.com/talent/samantha-miller?

Many thanks John and to all others here... My Best Wishes on your photographic journey
Cheers! Thomas

Nothing gets between me and a Martin Six String
Nothing gets between me and a Martin Six String...
(Download)

Reply
Sep 11, 2023 22:46:59   #
Harry13
 
cahale wrote:
Wow! And people on this forum sometimes call me weird.


Weird because I like music more rhan visual arts? Or because I obvously like jazz? Or because I don't think visual art is limited by technology? Harry

Reply
Sep 11, 2023 23:12:04   #
cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX
 
fantom wrote:
No, not necessarily, as evidenced in the picture below.

Only a small handful of people see what I saw when I took the picture----- Apaches pursuing a stagecoach, as seen from Ford Point in Mon. Valley.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.