Art (Page 10): It is good to see you and Susan with the patience, faith, common sense, and REASONING to keep moving forward.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

It is good to see you and Susan with the patience, faith, common sense, and REASONING to keep moving forward.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

I don't think this is all wrong, I know it is all wrong thinking. The world is much to myopic in it's understanding of the subject called photography.

Let me offer a much better model for photography. Think of a table, and to keep it all simple and civil anything that can not fit on the table and lies outside the edge of the table we will assign to God or what ever deification you desire.

On this table we will assign simple objects to represent these things/notions in question. The salt shaker is painting while the pepper shaker is sculpture, togeather they are the seasonings. Meat is our national belief of states and country. Love is the plate holding the butter yet butter is desire and poetry is the knife to slice the butter on the plate separating the butter from the table.

I can go on and on identifying 'things' and giving associations to objects and abstraction or concrete 'things' we hold significant to these 'thing-nesses'. People will agree or contradict how in their opinion the objects and associations to those things. To that I could care less.

My assertion is to consider one simple truth, that photography is the table on which all of these things rests. Remember, the 'belief world' lies outside the table and it encompass that table, but the table is photography.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

artBob wrote:

I just looked at Pete Turner's work. Incredible adventures in color and composition. His work is just about those things, I think, somewhat like Minimal Art. For me, the question is, "Why are some Minimal creations very appealing? Is it that, in spite of their creators' attempts, they are somewhat metaphorical, e.g., conflict, happiness, etc.? Or is it that some are just so damn good the they move us, somewhat like pure music?"

Yes?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

JohnSwanda wrote:

So then would it follow that everything shot on slide film is a snapshot?

Uh, no.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

f8lee wrote:

Well, the thing those who claim SOOC "is the only way" are obviously ignorant of is that Ansel Adams (and his team) were renowned for his post processing capabilities in the darkroom.

Exactly, dodging, burning, etc. are all a form of processing, film or digital. Ansel, Weston, were relatively tame. Check out Wynn Bullock, Minor White, Imogen Cunningham, and Phillipe Halsman for manipulation! Brett Weston did more darkroom trickery than dad Edward Weston.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

SusanFromVermont wrote:

Thank you for your comments. This is the second time I tried to inspire Bipod to look beyond his seriously limited view of photographers and photography. You are right, he does seem to know a lot and has had some useful information to impart. Then he ruins the good impression with his negativity.

While his comments may apply to some, they certainly are not correct about most of the people and motives on UHH. The world is not perfect, but neither is it in complete ruin and disarray!

Right. It just moves on....

Shutterbug57

duane klipping wrote:

SOOC to me is a snapshot with no real vision. SOOC would only be a raw file untouched by processing flat and dull.

You obviously never shot Fuji 50 Velvia.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

JohnSwanda wrote:

Photography is particularly good at creating an il... (show quote)

YES! to your last sentence. That's the way in which I use post-processing. I don't go beyond trying to replicate reality as I saw it, except in rare cases in which I'm going for an abstraction or other special effect.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

burkphoto wrote:

Uh, no.

I was replying to rmalarz, who said any SOOC is just a snapshot. I disagree.

throughrhettseyes Loc: Rowlett, TX

If you shoot RAW you have to post process.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

JohnSwanda wrote:

I was replying to rmalarz, who said any SOOC is just a snapshot. I disagree.

As do I!

10MPlayer Loc: California

f8lee wrote:

Well, the thing those who claim SOOC "is the only way" are obviously ignorant of is that Ansel Adams (and his team) were renowned for his post processing capabilities in the darkroom.

Every photographer of any merit manipulates his/her image. Half the art of taking a photograph is in the composition. The other half is what happens in post. Anyone who thinks it's not art if you add or take away from an image to create something new is lacking in knowledge of what art is. That's putting it nicely.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

f8lee wrote:

Well, the thing those who claim SOOC "is the only way" are obviously ignorant of is that Ansel Adams (and his team) were renowned for his post processing capabilities in the darkroom.

You think Ansel Adams is the first to dodge and burn? No he's not!
I really don't understand why Adams is so often brought up to prove a point. I don't even particularly like his work. Too over-dramatic and repetitive for my tastes.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

10MPlayer wrote:

Every photographer of any merit manipulates his/her image. Half the art of taking a photograph is in the composition. The other half is what happens in post. Anyone who thinks it's not art if you add or take away from an image to create something new is lacking in knowledge of what art is. That's putting it nicely.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

rook2c4 wrote:

You think Ansel Adams is the first to dodge and burn? No he's not!
I really don't understand why Adams is so often brought up to prove a point. I don't even particularly like his work. Too over-dramatic and repetitive for my tastes.

Because he is famous, most photographers know of him.