This topic is locked to prevent further replies.
yssirk123 wrote:
My take on the HooDoos.
A new sky! I guess our western skies are a bit much if you're not used to them.
AzPicLady wrote:
It was very bright. That was part of the problem. I actually thought the sky here looked pretty drab compared to reality.
Probably where we differ, "reality."
My thought is that the camera rarely sees even the way our eyes do, much less the way we "see what we want to see," our "reality." The sky was not important at all to my seeing, and its saturated color, along with the very high-key sand, distracted from the strangeness and beauty of the hoodoos, the range of which the camera could not capture.
What the "real" sky looked like is basically unknowable. What I would like to draw others' attention to, what strikes me, is the core of well done photography as I do it. Showing others what they might have missed is an ancient calling of artists. We have to "lie to tell the Truth,"in other words exaggerate and perhaps change things to make a statement. Even the art and photography that appears "realistic" has such exaggerations of Form.
Do you work along the lines of manipulating the "reality" the camera records?
kenievans wrote:
I haven't participated in a few weeks. Here is my entry.
Wow, Keni. So bright and so imaginative. Fun!
artBob wrote:
Probably where we differ, "reality."
My thought is that the camera rarely sees even the way our eyes do, much less the way we "see what we want to see," our "reality." The sky was not important at all to my seeing, and its saturated color, along with the very high-key sand, distracted from the strangeness and beauty of the hoodoos, the range of which the camera could not capture.
What the "real" sky looked like is basically unknowable. What I would like to draw others' attention to, what strikes me, is the core of well done photography as I do it. Showing others what they might have missed is an ancient calling of artists. We have to "lie to tell the Truth,"in other words exaggerate and perhaps change things to make a statement. Even the art and photography that appears "realistic" has such exaggerations of Form.
Do you work along the lines of manipulating the "reality" the camera records?
Probably where we differ, "reality." br... (
show quote)
Not sure what you're asking. I personally strive for reality with as little manipulation as possible.
Added a family pet to the portrait.
GeorgeK wrote:
Added a family pet to the portrait.
Every family needs a pet.
Off the beaten path for sure.
My take. Wonderful image to work with. Thanks.
fergmark wrote:
Off the beaten path for sure.
Not that far, actually. It's on Hwy 93 above Vegas. Interesting treatment here.
jburlinson wrote:
My take. Wonderful image to work with. Thanks.
I'm thinking maybe it's better in B&W than in colour. Well done. Mind sharing how you did it?
Gave it a little more breathing room at the top and worked on bringing out the colors and details of the hoodoos.
AzPicLady wrote:
Not sure what you're asking. I personally strive for reality with as little manipulation as possible.
I'm interested in what you consider reality. I see no objective reality, as the camera records differently from our eyes, and our eyes see as our mind controls. The differences are often small, but that is where fine photography resides. Is this similar to your thinking, or do you have a different take?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.