Just going a bit crazy with the processing here ... but I kind of like it.
Your thoughts.
I like it! You took it far enough for me to accept the result as a playful interpretation of a perfect autumn day. Exaggeration for effect
Interesting rendition but just too intense for me.
Not keen on the blue but the other colours are very effective.
rlaugh
Loc: Michigan & Florida
Is that second island on the left? My home is on Sage Lake!
Nice composition, love the reflection, but the blue is too intense for my taste.
KTJohnson wrote:
Just going a bit crazy with the processing here ... but I kind of like it.
Your thoughts.
At first I recoiled in horror but then looking at it... hmmm..
Except for the sparkles on the water which looks "processed" to me, other than that, it could be a night scene (with color).
KTJohnson wrote:
Just going a bit crazy with the processing here ... but I kind of like it.
Your thoughts.
I agree with Linda. You went just far enough to get a great effect. More graphic art than photography; but it is the image that counts, not what you categorize it as. This image is very pleasing to me.
Erich
ebrunner wrote:
I agree with Linda. You went just far enough to get a great effect. More graphic art than photography; but it is the image that counts, not what you categorize it as. This image is very pleasing to me.
Erich
Once upon a time photography and graphics art were two easily discernbable categories. However, I suggest that the boundaries between graphics arts and photography, have changed, they have become much more blurry if they even exist. Certainly much harder to define. Shall we try?
How about .... The addition of text and different fonts for advertising? Hmmm. Could do that in the film days with paper letters. How about .. the image has extensive post processing applied such that the result is fundamentally different from the original. Ok but what about fashion and portrait photography? The editors soften skin, thin hips, remove blemishes. They do a lot of work. They add advertising. But the results still look fundamentally like the models.
I think it is going to be hard to define. I’d love to hear other’s thoughts.
JD750 wrote:
Once upon a time photography and graphics art were two easily discernbable categories. However, I suggest that the boundaries between graphics arts and photography, have changed, they have become much more blurry if they even exist. Certainly much harder to define. Shall we try?
How about .... The addition of text and different fonts for advertising? Hmmm. Could do that in the film days with paper letters. How about .. the image has extensive post processing applied such that the result is fundamentally different from the original. Ok but what about fashion and portrait photography? The editors soften skin, thin hips, remove blemishes. They do a lot of work. They add advertising. But the results still look fundamentally like the models.
I think it is going to be hard to define. I’d love to hear other’s thoughts.
Once upon a time photography and graphics art were... (
show quote)
I have to admit that I use the cliche: "I can't tell you what it is; but I know it when I see it". This, of course, does not define graphics art. In your photograph, you have pushed the processing beyond what one could see in the field. The colors, while spectacular and pleasing to my eye, are not what I would expect to see if I came across the same lake during a stroll. But that raises a question about "long exposure photography". You are lengthening the exposure time so that the result is something you did not and cannot observe in the field. Is this then graphics art or is it photography? What about the term "trick photogarphy" that we used to bandy about? Is this graphics arts in disguise? I think we could go round and round and probably never come up with a definition that we all agree on.
Erich
ebrunner wrote:
I have to admit that I use the cliche: "I can't tell you what it is; but I know it when I see it". This, of course, does not define graphics art. In your photograph, you have pushed the processing beyond what one could see in the field. The colors, while spectacular and pleasing to my eye, are not what I would expect to see if I came across the same lake during a stroll. But that raises a question about "long exposure photography". You are lengthening the exposure time so that the result is something you did not and cannot observe in the field. Is this then graphics art or is it photography? What about the term "trick photogarphy" that we used to bandy about? Is this graphics arts in disguise? I think we could go round and round and probably never come up with a definition that we all agree on.
Erich
I have to admit that I use the cliche: "I ca... (
show quote)
Eric, I cannot take credit for the image. That is not my image. The image and the post belong to KTJohnson.
I was just commenting on the difficulty of pigeonholing art. FYI for me, my first reaction was similar to yours but after I stared at it a while, I liked it. To me, it could be a night scene.
I thank you all for taking the time to look at this and then to give me your input. I appreciate it.
To rlaugh, I don't think there is a house anywhere on this lake in Montmorency County, Michigan.
rlaugh
Loc: Michigan & Florida
KTJohnson wrote:
I thank you all for taking the time to look at this and then to give me your input. I appreciate it.
To rlaugh, I don't think there is a house anywhere on this lake in Montmorency County, Michigan.
Oh, ok..that's a different Sage Lake...the Sage Lake I'm talking about is in Ogemaw County Michigan!!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.