Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Liberty  (Read 4371 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5479



WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2011, 01:26:18 PM »
ReplyReply

... I'm happy that folks like and buy my work no matter how many mediocre images I combined to make it.

Do those folks know you did it?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2011, 01:34:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope that eventually the issue of what is a photograph and what is a composite will die out much like the difference between film-based and digital-based images. To me it's like calling a painter a composite artist when he uses oils and acrylics on the same canvas.


You analogy doesn't apply. It's not a question of technology, like the advent of digital over film. It's the recognition of an art form for what it is. A photograph is not the same thing as photographic collage. Neither is a watercolor the same thing as an oil painting. And there's no reason why they should be considered so and there's also no reason why they both can't be considered fine art. I'm sure you're a very fine artist whether your work is a photograph or a photographic collage. You're working in two different art mediums and there's no reason why both shouldn't sell.
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2011, 01:41:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't agree with Justan on this one. I think the colors in the color version approach the Marlboro ad level of oversaturation, and the color contrasts are hokey. The B&W version, on the other hand, is powerful, if a bit over-dramatic. Interesting stuff, Dave.

Yep.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2011, 06:10:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope that eventually the issue of what is a photograph and what is a composite will die out much like the difference between film-based and digital-based images. To me it's like calling a painter a composite artist when he uses oils and acrylics on the same canvas.

I do not believe this is an accurate analogy.

Everyone on earth understands that painting = NOT real.

However, many people have the expectation that photography = a capture of reality. When the composite is an attempt to capture "more" of reality than a single capture can get, this does not have to be for "artsy" reasons but can in fact be for scientific reasons.

Not all photography is art or for artistic sales. In fact, most photography is NOT for these reasons ...




When I show a landscape of the Superstition Mountains to locals, one version with houses, telephone poles, etc. and another version of the same shot with no trace of habitation and a different sky entirely I have never been questioned as to how or why. Both versions sell about the same. I know there are still those who think I've sinned against the gods of photography. That doesn't bother me at all. I'm happy that folks like and buy my work no matter how many mediocre images I combined to make it.

When you put photos together for artistic reasons, you have an open license to create and amend as you please, to the tune of "whatever sells" and pays the bills, so long as the buyer knows it's a composite/alteration.

This is especially true when photographs are not taken for artistic reasons. For example, if I put together a pictorial "wildlife" book, and I represent that these photos were taken by me in a rainforest (while in fact the photos were of "pets" I paid to be able to take shots of 50 miles from my house), this is fraudulent. It doesn't matter that the photos are "nice," or even of real animals, by not actually taking the photos in a wild rainforest I am defrauding the public.

Another example: if I put out a pictorial book on "tornadoes" ... and all I did was tweak and Photoshop some "cloudy day' shots into looking like tornadoes, I am again defrauding the public. And, even as an "artist," if I sell these things as "tornado" fine art prints, unless I clearly make this known I am again defrauding the public.

So I do not at all agree that "painting" and photography are in the same class artistically, because everyone on earth understands that a painting of a tornado is "fake" ... while most people would believe that a photograph of a tornado is "real." Again, I don't think that there is anything wrong with Photoshopping a tornado into a photograph and calling it "art" ... but the buyer should be aware of this for it to be an ethical sale IMO.

Jack



.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2011, 06:19:29 PM by John Koerner » Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2011, 06:36:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been thinking of putting the following disclaimer on the back of each of my prints and on my website:

"This image (like all other photographs, paintings, symphonies, etc.) is a work of fiction. It was constructed from one or more images, some or all of which may have used certain mechanical devices (such as cameras, computers, paint brushes, pencils, software, etc.) in their production. Any similarity between the content of this image and any aspect of reality is coincidental and probably, like beauty, exists only in the mind of the viewer."

No, I am definitely not a photojournalist.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Dave (Isle of Skye)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 961


Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2011, 07:33:43 AM »
ReplyReply

...anything more than the ability to skillfully combine two pretty average photographs into one interesting collage.

Thanks for that Popnfresh, that is very much appreciated and yes I agree, it is very much a skill, but also quite easy to do when you know how. But having said that, I am also more than happy to proclaim that it is something I very rarely do, because the ultimate satisfaction for me is to capture reality, genuinely and truthfully as it appears before me. Getting up several hours before dawn, to take shots of what I hope to be a fantastic landscape shot with fantastic light, really is what it is all about for me, irrespective of success or failure and is what drives me, day after day, week after week and month after month, I would gain no pleasure just slapping two pretty average images together and having a lay in bed till noon, because that was all I was capable of. And maybe it is this drive that has made me want to learn all there is (or at least all I can find) about photography, imaging and also manipulation techniques. So yes I seem to have got reasonably good at this thing called 'Photography', but for me compositing images is a rarely used skill, that I can do quite well if and when the fancy takes me.  Grin

Dave (UK)
« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 10:43:28 AM by Dave (UK) » Logged

Photography Tuition holidays on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2011, 11:33:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Dave, you've demonstrated on several occasions that you have considerable talent. I look forward to seeing more of your work here.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3197



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2011, 11:37:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you. You, of course, are entitled to think that rationalizations are the same as being rational, etc.
Brilliant.  Grin

And good argument about how a B+W image is not representative of reality.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2011, 01:03:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Brilliant.  Grin

And good argument about how a B+W image is not representative of reality.

It is if one is colorblind.   Grin
Logged
Dave (Isle of Skye)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 961


Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.


WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2011, 01:30:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Dave, you've demonstrated on several occasions that you have considerable talent. I look forward to seeing more of your work here.

I am humbled, thank you very much indeed.

Dave (UK)
Logged

Photography Tuition holidays on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5479



WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2011, 04:09:10 PM »
ReplyReply

... And good argument about how a B+W image is not representative of reality.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 04:11:04 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1876


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2011, 07:37:20 AM »
ReplyReply

^Funny, I remember STTNG being in color. . . . . . . . . ..  [wink]
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5479



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2011, 01:58:13 PM »
ReplyReply

^Funny, I remember STTNG being in color. . . . . . . . . ..  [wink]

Indeed. But you still got the message, didn't you, in spite of the lack of color. Because the reality of the message, the very essence of it, was in the gesture, not color. If anything, by eliminating color as distracting, the message got clearer (or the reality more real, i.e., obvious, clear). For the same reason as Lightroom's Amount slider in the Detail panel turns black and white, so that you can better/easier judge the reality of the sharpening effect.

B&W photography exists much longer than color. Does it mean that all the photography before color was not representative of reality, was fake? Does it mean the D-day photos were fake, just because they were b&w? There are photographers who even today shoot b&w (Sebastiao Salgado comes to mind). Does it mean that the plight of the refugees of the world he shoots is less real?

And if you want to engage in a semantic hairsplitting, the likes of "what is reality" or "what the definition of 'is' is", I suggest you study the following philosophical piece first: Wink
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 08:15:08 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1876


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2011, 10:01:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Slabodian,

First, thank you for taking the time to respond. I can tell by the comments that you put some effort into the reply.

Either you feel I deserve some kind of patronizing and dismissive retort, or you are evading while being confused about what it is you’re trying to evade.

Anyway, I hope the retort was good for you. While it did score points on the smug scale, it wanted so badly for substance that the delivery was, well, kinda under-exposed. Heh.

You’re usually a rational guy and so I’ll re-state the question. Are you ready? Here we go…

The question is, in your opinion, when exactly does “interpretation” become “composite” to use your terms.

Is it when you put a ND filter in front of the lens? Is it when you convert the image to B&W? Is it when you use an adjustment layer? When? To put the same question another way: When exactly, in your opinion, has an image become a composite - something that it wasn’t, when it was first recorded?

I'm saying it’s a verrrrrrry slippery slope, and in fact, if one is logical, the process or “composite” starts somewhere between the point of composition and the time the image is worked on in ACR, PS or whatever the equivalent sw of choice may be.

You opened the door. If you don’t want to respond, that’s okay. Some find it easier to tap dance and patronize than to make an honest reply to a reasonable question.

> And [if] you want to engage in a semantic hairsplitting, the likes of "what is reality" or "what the definition of 'is' is", I suggest you study the following philosophical piece first:

Golly, well played, sir! I couldn’t agree more. Ya know, I spent 8 of my 10 years in college at a state university. Sure it was only a public school, but in my time there I earned an embarrassment of sheep skins. Some of those degrees were in fields that in part studied the fellas you mentioned and many others, over many years and in great depth. By about the end of my time at the U my career path was leaning towards teaching a college kids a field called intellectual history.

But I digress. I believe I'm up to your stated level of qualifications. If you feel up to chatting about “is” I'm sure your account would be as entertaining as your post above.

But, sigh, I have to do my own face palm at this point, and hold it there for too a long moment. Because, you see, your little rant amounted to another deflection and is not the topic at hand.

Really, I'm after Slabodian’s opinion on when an image is an interpretation and when it is a composite. If you can do that without further song and dance or going all weak in the knees that would actually be useful to the conversation at hand.

I’ll be happy to discuss the other topics as time permits.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad