Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Art
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 next>>
Jan 11, 2019 07:47:00   #
dsmeltz (a regular here)
 
R.G. wrote:
Now you can include kids playing computer games .


Maybe they are artist/scientists?

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 07:52:22   #
rdubreuil
 
ngrea wrote:
Reading a Hog conversation that gọt a little warm about whether post processing removes the pure “art” from photography. It seems some think photography must be SOOC to be “real”.
It seems to me the post processing could be interpreted as being similar to what a painter or sculptor does. Is a blob of paint SOOT (straight out of the tube) more “authentic” than the final painting the artist does? Is the sculpture of less merit than the block of granite?
The color and the granite are both genuine, and can covey a message without manipulation, but the artist that changes them also brings us something from his/her mind and heart that conveys or evokes emotion.
A photograph never captures the view exactly the same as experiencing it in person. It conveys something of the photographers interaction with the scene (think Impressionism). And I enjoy abstract and highly manipulated photos that are completely unidentifiable as to the subject, just as I do an abstract painting.
So, I say let each person do and enjoy and share photography however they want. All approaches are equally valid.
Reading a Hog conversation that gọt a little warm ... (show quote)



| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 07:53:15   #
rdubreuil
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
Agree 100% but these types of conversations on UHH - as you've already seen - don't seem to change anyone's beliefs. There appears to be a large contingent of members who have forgotten how much you could and would "edit" via the wet darkroom, and who are judgmental about anything to do with digital photography outside their narrow personal vision. On the other hand, some folks just like to argue!

I feel fortunate to have connected with several talented members here, early in my membership, who encouraged my exploration in the digital darkroom. Now it's a joyful part of the hobby.

The silhouettes in #1 are all home-made "stamp-brushes" made from my own pics
Agree 100% but these types of conversations on UHH... (show quote)


Very nice composition/composite Linda, well done.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 08:10:19   #
traderjohn
 
Gene51 wrote:
Linda, this is called cognitive dissonance -

"In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort." - Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. California: Stanford University Press.

Three cognitive biases in particular are components of dissonance theory. The bias that one does not have any biases, the bias that one is "better, kinder, smarter, more moral, and nicer than average," and confirmation bias. - Tavris, Carol; Aronson, Elliot (2017). "Why We Believe -- Long After We Shouldn't". Skeptical Inquirer. 41 (2): 51–53. Retrieved 5 November 2018.

This helps to explain why people hold on to their incorrect beliefs in the face of logic, facts, and alternate explanations.

Or as a good friend of mine used to say, "denial is not just a river in Egypt."
Linda, this is called cognitive dissonance - br ... (show quote)


Or it explains their belief their biases their prejudices regarding the problem. Just because they say its so doesn't make it so. If you subscribe to those prejudices that ok. There are others in their field who think otherwise.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 08:10:44   #
larryepage (a regular here)
 
Gene51 wrote:
An example of "straight" photography from one of the guys you named as an example. So much for the notion that a non-manipulated image is art and one that is manipulated isn't.

The truth is that art can exist at both ends of the spectrum - I have seen amazing artistry with and without processing. While making art without post processing can be harder, that does not make it better - Ken Rockwell, who takes pride in the claiming that his images are straight out of the camera - https://www.kenrockwell.com/. By the same token, post processing beyond what looks good, aka Captain Kimo - https://captainkimo.com/hdr-photography-gallery/, Trey Ratcliffe - https://stuckincustoms.smugmug.com/.

Another way to look at it is to just examine how fine artists have interpreted the world around them - rarely is it photo-realistic, though for a while there has been a movement that does just that - https://www.creativebloq.com/illustration/examples-photorealism-10135012 and some pretty incredible work comes out of that style.

SOOC is NOT the only way to take pictures, but neither is full-tilt post processing. Both are interpretations - and both can be amazing. Both can be obscene aberrations as well.

For the record - I prefer the "highly manipulated" version of Moonrise Over Hernandez below. Though the first un-manipulated image is strong example of exactly what GIRITC really means.

.
An example of "straight" photography fro... (show quote)

This is a very good photo and good example of the need for post processing. But we always seem to forget the circumstances under which it was taken...no light meter and only a few seconds to act. How might the initial image been different if AA had had the time to employ his 'normal' process? Post processing, yes, always. But how different?
This photograph was a near-miraculous rescue of a snapshot.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 08:11:38   #
tdekany
 
Gene51 wrote:
He's just another kind of artist . . .And best dealt with using this product:







The new definition of SOOC - straight out of can!!!!

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 08:20:36   #
Blair Shaw Jr (a regular here)
 
Dear Linda:

This photo is so cool and playful and well done. Steven Spielberg would approve I am certain.

Thank s for your helpful hints to all of us and encouragement to do better.

It is appreciated.

Jimbo

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 08:22:26   #
Longshadow (a regular here)
 
Art is totally subjective.
Show 100 people an image, and there will be 100 different feelings and thoughts about what is seen.
A given image will have impact on some, yet be meaningless to others.

Love the composition LindaFromMaine.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 08:24:29   #
dsmeltz (a regular here)
 
traderjohn wrote:
Or it explains their belief their biases their prejudices regarding the problem. Just because they say its so doesn't make it so. If you subscribe to those prejudices that ok. There are others in their field who think otherwise.


?!?! Subscribing to prejudice without rational basis (contrary to actual facts) is NOT OK. Responsible adults try to recognize their own cognitive dissonance and seek to settle it through self examination. WHen it occurs in a "field" then through examination, study and peer review.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 08:37:12   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
larryepage wrote:
This is a very good photo and good example of the need for post processing. But we always seem to forget the circumstances under which it was taken...no light meter and only a few seconds to act. How might the initial image been different if AA had had the time to employ his 'normal' process? Post processing, yes, always. But how different?
This photograph was a near-miraculous rescue.


Thanks Larry!

And an excellent of example of an artist using the available tech and expertise to realize his creative vision . . .

I don't regard this example as a "near-miraculous" rescue, but more like an opportunity nearly missed. His basing the exposure on the moon's luminance was deliberate, and "knowing what he had" he processed the negative correctly to optimize the negative so that he would later be able to do what he did - even though it took years and many iterations to get to the final image that we all recognize as one of his "signature" images.

I think his exposure settings and composition, while rushed, were fully intentional. And in agreement with you, if he took his normal process, it would have most certainly resulted in a bunch bracketed images and wasted film of something other than what we got.

I think he makes that point in this account:

http://anseladams.com/ansel-adams-anecdotes/

Larry, from what I have gathered after reading his books and anecdotes - he was a huge proponent of pre-visualization, which when done correctly, leaves little to chance, or in other words, near-miracles. But that is just one person's opinion. . . It does make a good argument for the value of post processing - and an even better argument for getting it right in the camera - while blowing a huge hole that an SOOC image is somehow "perfect" - or as good as it gets - without the need for any post processing, and the corollary argument that post processing is unnecessary.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 08:37:49   #
dsmeltz (a regular here)
 
Longshadow wrote:
Art is totally subjective.
Show 100 people an image, and there will be 100 different feelings and thoughts about what is seen.
A given image will have impact on some, yet be meaningless to others.

Love the composition LindaFromMaine.


While art is subjective for a large portion of the observing audience, the same is not true for those participating in it. Art has rules. Some are natural (like this weird repetition of things three times) some are cultural (like the reaction to things that appear to be moving left to right vs right to left) and some are based on the progress of the given art up to the moment of the creation of a given work. Advancement in art is often achieved by those who thoroughly and objectively understand the rules of a form of art and then push or break those rules in a way that others who know those rules will see and appreciate.

While there are many examples from Picasso to Andy Warhol that show this, the best might be Mondrian. In the early works of Mondrian, his early training is very clear. But when viewed as a whole, you can watch small aspects of early works (like the way tree branches intersect in a view of an orchard) slowly develop within the "rules" until suddenly a simplified view of those intersections becomes a grid with colored sections. Those who knew the rules followed and when he had his breakthrough they got it. Sometimes artists have a break through that is not "gotten" during their lifetimes. They were too early. And I am sure there are many who had a breakthrough way too early and are lost to obscurity due to an audience unready for their achievement.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 08:45:58   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
R.G. wrote:
Most if not all SOOC advocates are doing their thinking from a narrow and highly personalised viewpoint. I suspect that most of them have their roots in film where getting it right in camera was not far from being a necessity (at least financially) rather than just being a nice idea. And on top of that, the possibilities for creativity with film were very limited compared to what PP gives us with digital, and in the days of film, creativity in processing was seen by many as a low priority side issue that would be pursued by only a few dedicated and technically capable individuals. As a consequence, anything other than very basic post processing (by today's standards) was generally perceived as a technical extravagance. I suspect that with some people, something of that mind-set persists to this day.
Most if not all SOOC advocates are doing their thi... (show quote)


SOOC advocates have never done a studio fashion shoot, and submitted their work to an agency, which then gives the work to a team of retouching experts to make a very good picture perfect. In the old days the tools were airbrush and frisket, and dodging and burning, Marshall's retouching inks and dyes, and internegatives. Today the tools are layers and masks and dodge and burn, and contrast and saturation adjustments, etc. And this is when the image is made in studio, where there is 100% control over the light and shadow. Below is an example of what a Creative Director in an ad agency might require of an image retoucher - the notation would apply equally to a film or digital image.


(Download)

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 08:50:40   #
Longshadow (a regular here)
 
dsmeltz wrote:
While art is subjective for a large portion of the observing audience, the same is not true for those participating in it. Art has rules. Some are natural (like this weird repetition of things three times) some are cultural (like the reaction to things that appear to be moving left to right vs right to left) and some are based on the progress of the given art up to the moment of the creation of a given work. Advancement in art is often achieved by those who thoroughly and objectively understand the rules of a form of art and then push or break those rules in a way that others who know those rules will see and appreciate.

While there are many examples from Picasso to Andy Warhol that show this, the best might be Mondrian. In the early works of Mondrian, his early training is very clear. But when viewed as a whole, you can watch small aspects of early works (like the way tree branches intersect in a view of an orchard) slowly develop within the "rules" until suddenly a simplified view of those intersections becomes a grid with colored sections. Those who knew the rules followed and when he had his breakthrough they got it. Sometimes artists have a break through that is not "gotten" during their lifetimes. They were too early. And I am sure there are many who had a breakthrough way too early and are lost to obscurity due to an audience unready for their achievement.
While art is subjective for a large portion of the... (show quote)


Rules? There are rules?

I just know what I like...

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 08:57:17   #
Linda From Maine
 
Jimmy T wrote:
Linda, what an excellent picture! Most importantly your attitude is one of tolerance, and encouragement, which is a delightfully fresh breeze here on the Ugly Hedgehog site.
Jimmy, if not for you and many other wonderful UHH members, I'd have succumbed to the siren's song to join UHH's G.O.P. (grumpy old people) club long ago Many thanks to all who enjoyed my moon composite!

Gene51 wrote:
Linda, this is called cognitive dissonance - ...Or as a good friend of mine used to say, "denial is not just a river in Egypt."
Most excellent, thank you Gene! It can oftentimes be helpful to understand why people say the ridiculous and confounding things they say within these mustard yellow pages

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 09:00:34   #
boberic (a regular here)
 
The entire discussion begs the question What is Art? Answer is quite simple. Whatever the viewer thinks it is. Sorta like asking whats any thing worth--Simple answer- what ever someone is willing to pay. My opinion--and my opinion is always correct (for me anyway) I judge an image by whether I like it. I don't care how the image was created. Those who judge any image that's not SOOC as somehow a lesser image are snobs, who maintain their false belief that they are the ultimate judge of "What is art"

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.