Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Making Images - Pete Meyers  (Read 8445 times)
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2005, 10:59:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Sleming,

To suspect that my comments were directed at you, well, I'm hesitant to suggest paranoia....

But to respond to your post.  The final output of camera obscura was not a photograph.  Therefore it doesn't fall within the bounds of my suggested definition.  

Photography may well be involved in part of the artistic process.  And it often is.  Artists who produce oil paintings, water colors, charcoals, ... often work from photographs.  Collage artists may create a portrait of a young girl and use rolls of film for her curls.   We call none of the final products "photographs".

To assume that Pete spent weeks sitting at his computer tweaking the image seems to be a rather naive reading of his article.  A more realistic reading would be that he worked and worried over the image for weeks before he arrived at a version that pleased him.

Was his final output less than reality?  Or did he spend the time producing something closer to reality?  Only he can say for sure.

Was his intention 'reality', visual impact, or something else?  His call.

I'm sure there are people who have assigned themselves a set of rules that don't allow them to attempt to improve their images post shooting.  (One sees this frequently on the web.)

(There are also people who climb Everest without oxygen.  And wearing tennis shoes while pushing a '83 Chevy Nova for all I know. That, in my book, doesn't change the view from the top.)

If one finds it amusing or ego boosting to never tweak their images, fine.  But I wish they wouldn't attempt to beat others over the head with their personally installed crown of thorns.
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2005, 03:12:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You claim to not be interested in these "artistic/terminology" topics.
Nah, it's all those dumb ideas about such topics I'm not interested in.  My own ideas are pretty intellegent, of course.

India this time was just a month to a spiritual retreat place I go to every year in the Punjab.  Otherwise, I spend a lot of time in Bombay for my musical instrument manufacturing business.  I haven't done much pure touristing in India and I've never taken pictures.  Some day.  Next time I want to combine a long Nepal trekking trip with India.
Logged
Robert Spoecker
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162



« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2005, 05:12:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Narrow-minded foolishness.....It is only the results that count.[CODE]
Well, if making money counts, then a narrow minded and moribundly conservative marketing approach is maybe not so foolish. I've lived in the desert near Palm Springs since 1970 and I've had the worst sort of reactions to my music, musical instruments, paintings, sculptures, video tapes, philosophy, personal appearance, etc. in the Low Desert (Palm Springs, Palm Desert, etc.) of any of countless places I've traveled to all over the Western USA to to sell my stuff. The Low Desert is great for selling whatever it is that conservative rich folks waiting to die want to buy. Probably REAL photography with no pollution from any creativity would suit them fine. Bah, phooey.

Oooops!  I'm logged in on my brother's computer and I don't want to credit him with my humbuggery.  He's an old curmudgeon too, but we each have our own style.

Didger
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2005, 05:27:02 PM »
ReplyReply

A few random thoughts:

Getting it right in-camera is always a good thing. No matter what post-processing preferences one has, a properly exposed and focused image will always improve the quality of the end result.

The amount and type of appropriate post-processing depends heavily on the end use for the image. For photojournalism, courtroom evidence, etc. only basic adjustments like white balance, levels, curves, noise reduction, and sharpening would be acceptable, but cloning things in or out of the image or any kind of compositing would not be. For portraits and such, cloning to remove blemishes or distracting background details is acceptable, even expected. For graphic arts work, the only limit is ones tools and imagination.

As to the digital vs. film debate, the comments quoted by Andres are disingenuous elitist snobbery, pure and simple. For that statement to be true, the photographer making the statement could not use Velvia or other films that increase color saturation, could never use color filters when printing to correct for any differences between the intrinsic color balance of the film and the ambient light at the time of the shot, and could never push/pull develobment to adjust image tonality. I'd be willing to bet a considerable amount of money that the gentleman in question violates at least one of these boundaries on a regular basis. "Narrow-minded foolishness" is a very good description indeed. I've gone the digital route because digital can always beat film when compared head-to-head in terms of color accuracy, image detail, and general quality of results. The only area where film is still viable is in large format, where there is not yet direct digital competition. But even those days are numbered, as technology improves and costs come down. Film is good, but digital is better, and the gap between them is widening. If you shoot film because you like to, that's great. People still ride horses and steam trains because they like to also. But unlike equestrian and steam rail fans, many film enthusiasts seem to be in denial about the advantages of digital over film, and claim that film has some kind of special essence that cannot be duplicated with digital. I have not found this to be the case. Any image characteristic intrinsic to film can be duplicated digitally with the right tools and expertise.
Logged

philthygeezer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2005, 09:56:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
When I was 16 I got my first camera, a mouldy ( really green with mould) Argus C3. This was in 1957. I fixed it, cleaned it, took it apart, rebuilt it and along the way, built an enlarger (to do mural sized images) from old bellows cameras from the 20s. I obtained the print paper army surplus which was cheap albeit requiring rather some arcane post processing to prevent fogging. Why do I mention all of this antiquated tech? Because what I really wanted was to be able to create images like a painter and not merely shoot some snaps and be done with it. My dreams were to create something that did not exist, could never exist. It was not possible to do what I wanted...until now. Mr. Myers' article on post processing hits the mark in all respects and those that are willing to give up instant gratification and wish to make a mark in this world with their images need to learn as an artist learns, delving deeply into whatever modalities they chose, be they film or digital, computer manipulations...whatever. I, too, have chosen the path of using computers to enhance, create, modify and so forth and it is through this wonderful new medium of computer enhanced image making, my dream of childhood is finally coming true. As a professional artist ( sculpture and photography) for nearly half a century one can always grow with new ideas and if those ideas require tech, it is for the taking. Learn your tools but do not let them dictate their terms...dictate your own and make it happen. One can take fine pictures even with a pinhole, after all, and one can take garbage with a Canon 1DS mk2. It is all in the eye of the artist and her or his mind. The main thing is to work and work, paint and paint photograph and paint whatever be it on canvas or camera or on computer. It is all the same thing. Be honest to yourself and get critiques from others who you respect. Learn from your successes and your mistakes. Don't be offended by comments that do not reaffirm your images but try to understand that just maybe this critique points out ways to get better. Think openly about what you are trying to do and see if those ideas are being communicated as well as they can be. I think that Mr. Myers says that it is not the particular technique that is significant but that the artist is determined no matter to make the image count and be as wonderful as he can make it. That is what an artist must do and if it takes weeks and weeks to do it, so be it. Life without the pursuit of a passion is not a life at all. Good for Peter Myers for being honest about his. Professor Neil Fiertel, Dept of Art and Design, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
That's one of the best first posts I have seen on a forum.

 Welcome to the cantina from a U of Eh graduate.
Logged

[span style='font-size:5pt;line-height:100%']My photos on photo.net  -----  My photos for your screensaver.[/span]
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad