Nightski

With all the discussion going on about "seeing" the art in photography, I thought this episode would be helpful and informative. This particular episode is about how color works in photography. Ted Forbes uses some very abstract images in the video, and he explains why they work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP0OyqECAS4

Please, let's keep the discussions civil. Let's be respectful of each other's differences. Hopefully everyone will take something away that they can use in critique.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Nicely done; points well made with excellent examples.
I agree that color theory could, and should enter into critiques more often tha it does.

Dave

windshoppe Loc: Arizona

Some interesting examples and commentary on them, but I would question the title of the piece. There is very little content that I would consider having to do with color "theory." I was anticipating a discussion of basic principles of color use, how those principles can be applied, and, perhaps, why they work from the psychological standpoint of the viewer. I found none of that in this piece.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Thanks for posting this Sandra and irrespective of the "title" it was immensely interesting. The Adobe Koler site is a great find indeed. To anybody wishing to produce the more artistic type of image this video will be very useful.

But when you have slaved away for hours getting the colours looking good in your artistic piece will it be approved by the moderators here or should one post it in a more open minded forum. I would love to think it could be posted and welcomed here but.......................

Nightski

Did you hear the part where he talks about being precise about what you shoot, Billy? Did that part manage to penetrate your brain at all???

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Whats that statement mean Sandra ya lost ol'Billy. Wat ya trying to say?

Nightski

I am saying that your attitude that people should practice sloppy camera work because they can just fix it in post is not an attitude that is appreciated or wanted in the Photo Critique Section.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Perhaps you would like to reproduce where I advised that sloppy "should be practiced" because I really cannot recall that one Sandra. I would be likely to say get it so its reasonable in a Raw file and let Photoshop work its magic.
And I realise my honesty can cause problems but Im merely following lightroom on that one. He states clearly he is not interested in reputation as long as he is honest to himself. Rather admirable I thought and good advice to follow.
Some take delight in boring the butt off of each other with concerns about varifocals or whatever they are called with ISO concerns debates about lenses etc and others learn to use Photoshop. Not sure what makes one way right and the other way wrong? Is there a right and wrong in photography or should it be the end result that's important rather than the journey to get there.
I freely admit I am an end result merchant so is that a sin? My hero Mr Adams no less spent much much longer in the darkroom perfecting an image than he ever did taking the shot.
Perhaps the silly boy was misguided lol.
You have quite rightly this morning written words praising minnie. Ask her how much effort she devotes to Photoshop as compared to the shot itself. She I believe will get it as good as is can be without breaking into a sweat knowing her PP skills can make a reasonable shot great.

And I did not recall that being said in the video but that's quite normal for me. I am at least 50% and getting worse. I cannot watch TV and hear dialogue and the cinema is a waste of time. So I use a laptop with head phones to watch a vid but still do not catch all the words.
But you will be pleased to know whilst my hearing deteriorates alarmingly my good looks and sparkling humour remain in full strength.
Oh I was forgetting charm and charisma!!

DavidT Loc: Maryland

In the first post, Nightski wrote: "...Please, let's keep the discussions civil. Let's be respectful of each other's differences..."

Then, she goes on to impugn Billyspad's photographic style. Maybe, she did it with a lighthearted poke, but it could easily be interpreted as quite vicious. I know "vicious" is not her style.

Nightski

How did you interpret my comment to billyspad as impugning his photographic style, David? I didn't even discuss his photographic style. I addressed his rude critique style in answer to his question. billyspad does not understand what polite critique is. He doesn't understand that honesty can be delivered with sensitivity. His critique is often rude and insulting and I won't allow that in the critique section. I have addressed this problem with him many times. I also have addressed his judgmental comments about certain groups of people. As a manager it is my job to keep things civil. billyspad is often times very uncivil. I have had many complaints about it.

DavidT Loc: Maryland

"Nightski wrote:
Did you hear the part where he talks about being precise about what you shoot, Billy? Did that part manage to penetrate your brain at all???

Billyspad wrote:
Whats that statement mean Sandra ya lost ol'Billy. Wat ya trying to say?

Nightski wrote:
I am saying that your attitude that people should practice sloppy camera work because they can just fix it in post is not an attitude that is appreciated or wanted in the Photo Critique Section."

Although I fully agree with you that Billy can be quite blunt and rude with his criticisms (as he certainly has been with some of my posts), your comments above weren't about his critiques, they were about his attitude on how he shoots pictures. Maybe that was not your intent.

Nightski

Okay, David, I can see how I did not communicate what I meant very well. I was referring to a post where billy announced that the "photo was not in focus, but that was okay because it can be fixed in photoshop". If I have time later I will find it. I can't remember now who he said that to, but I had several pm's about it. He does that. He tells everyone to just go out and shoot mindlessly and he says that if you take enough shots, you're bound to get one right. That is not what this section is all about. I started this section because I was a very new photographer and I wanted to create a place where people could openly give criticism on how the shot was taken so that I and others could improve their photography skills. That is what I want from this section. A place for people to learn to frame things up right in the first place. I realize that post work is a fact of life in photography, but I believe strongly that a photograph will never reach it's full potential unless it is framed properly and shot properly.

Sorry that I communicated so poorly. I did not mean to put down billy's shooting style in an insulting way whatsoever. I apologize.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Certainly the use of color relationships can be an important element in composition.

But perhaps one should refrain from over-analyze it. Let's say, you gave a camera to a five-year-old for a day; you can reasonably expect to discover all sorts of color relationships going on in the resulting images - be it complimentary colors, triads, primary colors, etc. Afterall, it's a colorful world out there! But that doesn't mean the photographer (in this case, the young child) intentionally thought about those relationships while happily snapping away. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... and colors are just colors.

Nightski

This is true, Rook. It's how I've captured my favorite colour images so far. I've never purposely shot for colour. But, learning to think about it when I am shooting might prompt me to shoot something a little differently and possibly more successfully. I am always open to learning new techniques that might improve my skills.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

A very new photographer probably should never presume to know what photography is nor what a good criticism is either! At least a couple decades of serious study would be a minimum prerequisite.

Examples of what that is are easy enough to find. Lets examine one that is common...


While your last statement is superficially true, it begs the question of what is "framed properly and shot properly" and can it be answered outside the context of post processing?

With enough experience to answer the first question necessarily comes the ability to realize that photography is not, and cannot be, divided into distinct and separate parts, one that is camera operation without consideration of later processing and another that is processing only. The two are tied, they are not separable, they cannot be considered (at any level that approaches much less is advanced) without knowledge of and cooperation with the other.

Framing is only properly done knowing what kind of processing will follow. Exposure must be done knowing about the processing that follows. Composition, camera angles, and every other aspect of camera operation necessarily has to be considered in light of Post Processing.

And obviously Post Processing is done to extract the image that camera operation was designed to produce.

Nobody is going to get far without realizing how tightly bound the two are. And once that is realized, photography is complex enough to allow exploring it for decades as more and more is learned...

But the stated purpose for the section is nonsense; it is guaranteed nonproductive and argumentative.