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 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17 next>>
Jan 11, 2019 10:10:39   #
bpulv
 
dsmeltz wrote:
For thousands of years three groups have been at the forefront of moving technology ahead. The defense industry, scientists and artists. (Oh, and I guess scientists and artists hired by the defense industry) They all are constantly trying out the new and pushing for more. The so called "pure" art as represented by the SOOC crowd is really static art and rapidly becoming non-art.





| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:11:27   #
burkphoto (a regular here)
 
AndyH wrote:
Some quick tropes I've heard, with their real meanings...(not necessarily on UHH)

"I want to perfect the image when I take it" = "I don't know how to do post processing"

"You can't make a good image SOOC" = "I don't know how to do that"

"If you don't enhance an image, you're not making the best of it" = "I really like turning my sliders all the way to the right"

"Great photographers of the past didn't have post processing" = "They used magic to turn their negatives into images"

"You can create magic only in post processing!" = "I really, really, really like turning my sliders all the way to the right!"

I personally see virtually no difference between the film era post processing and the current era, except in the capabilities of the mechanisms. It's possible to overdo anything - and there were plenty of soft focus, artificially colorized, overly manipulated images a half century ago. Some of my high school classmates' graduation photos looked like they'd had Crayola applied, and "retouching" colors, frisket masks, and other mechanical tools were used to alter color balance, remove objects, and combine images.

Ah, but Nat Geo! Kodachromes! That's the ultimate SOOC! Riiiigggght. I remember getting those transparencies mounted right in the middle of the article about Africa or Nepal, no? They didn't make a negative of the transparency, shoot it through a screen to reduce it to printer dots, adjust the contrast, and print it on paper, did they?

Shoot however you like, but I do wish some photographic purists would come down a little from their high horses and recognize that other approaches can also be valid.

Andy
Some quick tropes I've heard, with their real mean... (show quote)


Thanks, Andy. Great post!

I worked with a color separations expert back in the 1980s. Al had worked for Nat Geo for 20 years. He explained how those Kodachromes made it into the magazine. It took a LOT of post processing! They had plenty of tricks...

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:23:03   #
anotherview (a regular here)
 
Achieving verisimilitude in photography presents its own challenge. It calls for true colors and mostly an undoctored product (except for removing distractions as you note). Visual balance and perceptual attraction become paramount to creation of a worthy photograph. The viewer should experience a sense of being there through the representation of the photograph. The artfulness producing this result should not call attention to itself. Instead, a visual feast will meet the eye of the viewer of a photograph done in verisimilitude.
AzPicLady wrote:
I'll weigh in here, although I know probably 90% of y'all will disagree with me. I'm neither. I do try to get things right in-camera, as doing so gives me credibility as a photographer. I may use LR or PS to make adjustments to try to bring the resulting photo to the point of expressing as nearly as possible what I saw. I draw the line at adding elements that were not there. I do sometimes subtract things like wires and posts that are in the way of my subject or distract from it. My mission in photography is to carefully record what God made. To add elements to a scene would violate that mission. To subtract man-made distracting elements from a nature scene does not violate it. Other people have different missions and different purposes. I enjoy their "playfulness" even though I wouldn't do it myself.

I do not think my way is better - just different.

Also, I really hate doing PP work! I'm so overjoyed when I open a RAW image and see that I don't have to touch it!
I'll weigh in here, although I know probably 90% o... (show quote)

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:24:23   #
Guyserman
 
Linda From Maine wrote:

The silhouettes in #1 are all home-made "stamp-brushes" made from my own pics


Excellent!

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:27:50   #
rond-photography
 
R.G. wrote:
Professionals and hobbyists typically have different mind-sets, and there's a reason for it. Professionals have to concentrate on giving the client what they're looking for, which typically means working to the highest possible technical standards. Hobbyists, on the other hand, concentrate on whatever they please and only have to suit themselves as far as technical standards are concerned. Most professional photographers aren't in a position where artistic interpretation or creative thinking are required, so it's not something they prioritise. On the other hand, we hobbyists can give ourselves free rein and be as artistic and creative as we want.

From the above observations I have concluded that the creatives can't look to the professionals and assume that they can expect understanding, appreciation and appropriate advice from them. Some professionals can and will show these attributes, but I suspect they are a minority. So the creatives have to be self-reassuring to a point, and have to learn to ignore negative criticisms about technical imperfections because that isn't what the creative prioritises. Some hobbyists aspire to producing professional-level photography so technical standards are important to them, but the creatives march to a different tune. If they can avoid disasters and come away with something usable, that's good enough for them.
Professionals and hobbyists typically have differe... (show quote)


Actually, pros will always post process, and they will, in many cases, manipulate. In your own words, they "have to concentrate on giving the client what they're looking for" which means doing what it takes to get that image delivered. I know a pro who showed me his portfolio. He had a shot of all the members of the board of a company - in one image. In reality, he shot them all separately. He did this on film and in the darkroom. Creativity is not limited to hobbyists!

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:35:52   #
AzPicLady (a regular here)
 
davyboy wrote:
Wow you put it beautifully!


Thanks, Davy.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:36:56   #
tdekany
 
rond-photography wrote:
Actually, pros will always post process, and they will, in many cases, manipulate. In your own words, they "have to concentrate on giving the client what they're looking for" which means doing what it takes to get that image delivered. I know a pro who showed me his portfolio. He had a shot of all the members of the board of a company - in one image. In reality, he shot them all separately. He did this on film and in the darkroom. Creativity is not limited to hobbyists!


Anytime the issue of raw vs jpeg or SOOC vs PP is discussed or argued on UHH (the only forum I have seen it happen), I try to see the work of the anti raw/PP crowd. Without fail, either there is no photo from them or their photos are snapshots at best.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:40:21   #
xt2
 
Sorry to say that this issue has been hashed out sooooo many times already. To each their own... The forum is full of this conversation, that never goes anywhere. Let's try something new...



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 10:40:57   #
AndyH
 
burkphoto wrote:
Design. An artfully designed urinal.


Art and craft serve different masters. MOMA is filled with utilitarian objects that fulfill Louis Sullivan's maxim, Form Follows Function. It is also full of beautiful things that do not fulfill any function.

If you've ever sat in an Eames chair, and then in a Wassily Chair, you'll know that design trumping actual comfort is not a good place to plant your backside. If you've lived in a leaky Frank Lloyd Wright house or a dark LeCorbusier flat, you'll realize that there is a difference between great art and great design. An Eames chair as a sculpture is a beautiful thing, worthy of display, it's just not a very good chair.

The analogy to photography is this. Pure "Art" photographs can be admired for all sorts of reasons, and from all sorts of aesthetic viewpoints. The gauzy pictorialists of the early 20th century and Diane Arbus both represent aesthetic viewpoints, but both are often dismissed as poor craft by those with different viewpoints. But these aren't craft - they are not designed to sell a product, please a portrait client, or depict a journalistic event.

So can the photojournalist or commercial photographer create art? Of course. Look at some of AA's "product shots" and portraits, or almost any of the great shots form Life magazine's 70+ year run. Don't tell me the famous photo of the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square or the child fleeing the napalm attack are not art.

I like many different artistic viewpoints, and I do try to open my mind to new ones and new aesthetics. But yes, the snooty world of fine art can sometimes be so pretentious that the aesthetic becomes laughable.

With no disrespect to the artist, his family, or his many admirers (which included Andy Warhol), I present to you the little known (to me) works of the artist Fred Sandback, a minimalist whose "installations" of yarn and string, accopanied by "installation sketches" archivally framed and matted (sketches on yellow legal pads for the most part), were the main feature of the Fred Sandback Museum, in the small, working class town of Winchendon, Massachusetts for more than ten years. The grand opening, in 1981 saw Warhol and other glitterati flying in to attend, and I toured it a few days later with an artist friend. Each room featured yarn strung from one surface to another, one room had only a single strand running from wall to ceiling. When we entered it to view the installation, there were a couple of Sandback admirers vigorously arguing whether the string lying on the floor was a part of the installation, and if so, what its meaning might be. By the time we returned through that room, the custodian had apparently answered the question with a dry mop.

My point is simply this - enjoy whatever aesthetic and look pleases you, but please don't force it down the throats or others. And please don't look down on others who have a completely different aesthetic, even if it's admiration for a piece of yarn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Sandback

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:41:12   #
davyboy (a regular here)
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
What is not clear about my last sentence in what you quoted:

"The silhouettes are all home-made "stamp-brushes" made from my own pics"

(other than I didn't edit out the #1 reference when I decided not to post two shots )

Now I understand thanks for responding. I wasn’t criticizing you 😊

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:42:09   #
amyinsparta
 
I think if the end product is uplifting and makes people happy that they viewed it, that's all that matters.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:42:20   #
Tomcat5133
 
Their has been a lot of forums about this lately.
I had the pleasure of working with Pete Turner Photographer who
did work that was breakthrough at the time. Looking at it today
it is not a revelation like it was in years ago. Art should be judged
by each viewer. If you are in the pro world today like marketing
you have to make critical decisions about was is good or great.
Mr. Turner passed away a few months ago.









| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:45:31   #
Longshadow (a regular here)
 
AzPicLady wrote:
I'll weigh in here, although I know probably 90% of y'all will disagree with me. I'm neither. I do try to get things right in-camera, as doing so gives me credibility as a photographer. I may use LR or PS to make adjustments to try to bring the resulting photo to the point of expressing as nearly as possible what I saw. I draw the line at adding elements that were not there. I do sometimes subtract things like wires and posts that are in the way of my subject or distract from it. My mission in photography is to carefully record what God made. To add elements to a scene would violate that mission. To subtract man-made distracting elements from a nature scene does not violate it. Other people have different missions and different purposes. I enjoy their "playfulness" even though I wouldn't do it myself.

I do not think my way is better - just different.

Also, I really hate doing PP work! I'm so overjoyed when I open a RAW image and see that I don't have to touch it!
I'll weigh in here, although I know probably 90% o... (show quote)


Everyone has their own mission in photography.
For someone to tell a person their mission is wrong is, well, wrong.
Just because one's philosophy doesn't align with another's doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong,
it means they don't have the same philosophy.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:48:20   #
Linda From Maine
 
davyboy wrote:
Now I understand thanks for responding. I wasn’t criticizing you 😊
No worries, and now we've clarified for others too

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:56:10   #
traderjohn
 
davyboy wrote:
Stop quoting your God please



| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 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.