Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do You Manipulate Your Images  (Read 9923 times)
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3197



WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2011, 11:49:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I would suggest you read "THE CAMERA" by "MR. ANSEL ADAMS", you don't have to read the whole book, ...the FIRST CHAPTER will do! It's called "VISUALIZATION" and I read it when I was very young... It really helps if you take advanced knowledge into account when you find you have a passion on something (like photography for example).

I don't think its rightful for you to call principles of the masters of photography "narrow-minded".
Just because Ansel Adams worked in a certain way does not make it a principle. It's nothing more than a methodology that suited him and his subject matter. Though you can certainly learn a lot about photography by studying his work processes.


As you for statement saying an artist should pre-visualise an image completely before taking the shot to be art is such a really daft statement. In fact I'd I'd say that may be useful advice for beginners to consider [as a learning tool], but once you know what you are doing you can shoot in many, very different ways.
When I used film I carried two cameras, one with B+W and one with colour and I knew what I'd get when I shot with either as the options after developing were quite limiting compared to toady's way of working. Now with experience I can take a shot as I simply know there is a good image there or simply work quite spontaneously, but it is not until I get back to my computer do I then draw the image out of the RAW file and how it ends up may well depend on my mood that day and when I revisit it, I may do a very different image again.
One of my favourite images works well as a B&W or as several very different types of colour shot. I captured this image by without over thinking things and only did this particular shoot as an aside and after getting a shot I had pre-visualized, which is why I was in that location and decided to make the most of it and so shot someone else too.
I don't have to preplan what I'm doing when riding my bike over rough terrain as I'm well practiced, same goes for photography as with experience your skills need less conscious thought.

BTW an awful lot of art and creativity comes from happy accidents. The artistic skill lies in being able to recognise when a mistake is gold to be mined.

Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2011, 12:20:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Just because Ansel Adams worked in a certain way does not make it a principle. It's nothing more than a methodology that suited him and his subject matter. Though you can certainly learn a lot about photography by studying his work processes.


As you for statement saying an artist should pre-visualise an image completely before taking the shot to be art is such a really daft statement. In fact I'd I'd say that may be useful advice for beginners to consider [as a learning tool], but once you know what you are doing you can shoot in many, very different ways.
When I used film I carried two cameras, one with B+W and one with colour and I knew what I'd get when I shot with either as the options after developing were quite limiting compared to toady's way of working. Now with experience I can take a shot as I simply know there is a good image there or simply work quite spontaneously, but it is not until I get back to my computer do I then draw the image out of the RAW file and how it ends up may well depend on my mood that day and when I revisit it, I may do a very different image again.
One of my favourite images works well as a B&W or as several very different types of colour shot. I captured this image by without over thinking things and only did this particular shoot as an aside and after getting a shot I had pre-visualized, which is why I was in that location and decided to make the most of it and so shot someone else too.
I don't have to preplan what I'm doing when riding my bike over rough terrain as I'm well practiced, same goes for photography as with experience your skills need less conscious thought.

BTW an awful lot of art and creativity comes from happy accidents. The artistic skill lies in being able to recognise when a mistake is gold to be mined.


In the chapter "visualization" Mr. Adams, doesn't speak about his process or his work as you quote, he develops a philosophy of how photography should be approached, you will find an identical philosophy from any other master of photography that ever commented on the subject.... I think you should quote on things that you know... All the rest is your opinion, I don't share it and I don't have to either..., but you certainly are entitled to quote it, just don't refer to things you don't know about, otherwise you end up twisting them. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 21, 2011, 12:29:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I think you have to be more specific of the processes. ......

P.S. I don't think its rightful for you to call principles of the masters of photography "narrow-minded".

I did, see post # 20 (this is a repeat comment)

And secondly, let me be more precise, I meant to say I find your devine  and critiqueless following of these principles to the letter very "narrow minded". You are constantly asking for a "discussion" about them but you ridicule, attack and belittle anybody who doesn't agree with your mindless adoration of them.

So I'm done with this discussion and will follow Mr Walkers advice I linked to before.
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2011, 12:50:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I did, see post # 20 (this is a repeat comment)

And secondly, let me be more precise, I meant to say I find your devine  and critiqueless following of these principles to the letter very "narrow minded". You are constantly asking for a "discussion" about them but you ridicule, attack and belittle anybody who doesn't agree with your mindless adoration of them.

So I'm done with this discussion and will follow Mr Walkers advice I linked to before.
In reply No 20, there is nothing about any process. There is some "serendipity and continued development.. can lead to..." but no explanation of why and what process (no reasoning). In your other quotes you accept "visualization as well as other methods..." now (by "critiqueless") you say I should criticize a fundamental, which of all applies? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
« Last Edit: October 21, 2011, 12:56:33 PM by fotometria gr » Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2011, 01:08:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Just because Ansel Adams worked in a certain way does not make it a principle. It's nothing more than a methodology that suited him and his subject matter. Though you can certainly learn a lot about photography by studying his work processes.


As you for statement saying an artist should pre-visualise an image completely before taking the shot to be art is such a really daft statement. In fact I'd I'd say that may be useful advice for beginners to consider [as a learning tool], but once you know what you are doing you can shoot in many, very different ways.
When I used film I carried two cameras, one with B+W and one with colour and I knew what I'd get when I shot with either as the options after developing were quite limiting compared to toady's way of working. Now with experience I can take a shot as I simply know there is a good image there or simply work quite spontaneously, but it is not until I get back to my computer do I then draw the image out of the RAW file and how it ends up may well depend on my mood that day and when I revisit it, I may do a very different image again.
One of my favourite images works well as a B&W or as several very different types of colour shot. I captured this image by without over thinking things and only did this particular shoot as an aside and after getting a shot I had pre-visualized, which is why I was in that location and decided to make the most of it and so shot someone else too.
I don't have to preplan what I'm doing when riding my bike over rough terrain as I'm well practiced, same goes for photography as with experience your skills need less conscious thought.

BTW an awful lot of art and creativity comes from happy accidents. The artistic skill lies in being able to recognise when a mistake is gold to be mined.


Thank you, jjj. You put the issue very well, IMHO.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #45 on: October 21, 2011, 02:22:40 PM »
ReplyReply

just don't refer to things you don't know about, otherwise you end up twisting them.

Take your own advice, put THAT in your pipe, light and inhale deeply.
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 21, 2011, 02:35:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Take your own advice, put THAT in your pipe, light and inhale deeply.
Very clever... if one is out of reasoning (or never being in), he things of alternatives to prove himself clever! Wink Funny too... Grin In your sense of humor Roll Eyes Respectfully and totally yours, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



WWW
« Reply #47 on: October 21, 2011, 04:11:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Take your own advice, put THAT in your pipe, light and inhale deeply.

No need for that advice Jeremy, I think he has had plenty of that by the looks of his "reasoning" and "logic". Let's stop feeding the troll, otherwise he will never go away  Wink

And Mike, sorry for taking your thread so far off topic, and I do support the statement on your blog. Every image is manipulated, only the extend to which and how concious the decision by the photographer varies.



Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
Corvus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #48 on: October 21, 2011, 11:27:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think Theo's problem is so much the content of his posts but
rather the tone.

His idea of visualization is presented as if it was some kind of divine
revelation in which he can speak ex cathedra and pontificate on what is
and what is not the one true path to art. He does not express an opinion
but asserts a dogma.  He says he wants a dialogue but his whole stance
precludes this from the beginning. He even has his inner circle of
apostles which he consults with - his "Great Masters". I think this is
what most grates on the nerves of most of us on this forum.

So far as I can make out he is on some kind of holy war to save art
photography from the great unwashed mass of pathetic struggling
snapshooters out there.

He may have something of value to say on these issues but, speaking for
myself, I don't need to get it from some self-appointed photographic messiah.
Logged
Corvus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #49 on: October 21, 2011, 11:33:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I have nothing against photo manipulation or editing, it really depends on the purpose of the picture or the subject itself.

Thanks sstarr for that refreshingly sane and reasonable opinion.
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #50 on: October 22, 2011, 03:38:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think Theo's problem is so much the content of his posts but
rather the tone.

His idea of visualization is presented as if it was some kind of divine
revelation in which he can speak ex cathedra and pontificate on what is
and what is not the one true path to art. He does not express an opinion
but asserts a dogma.  He says he wants a dialogue but his whole stance
precludes this from the beginning. He even has his inner circle of
apostles which he consults with - his "Great Masters". I think this is
what most grates on the nerves of most of us on this forum.

So far as I can make out he is on some kind of holy war to save art
photography from the great unwashed mass of pathetic struggling
snapshooters out there.

He may have something of value to say on these issues but, speaking for
myself, I don't need to get it from some self-appointed photographic messiah.
A fundamental is dogmatic by definition, there is nothing to discuss there, its a fundamental! Art can not be created if there is no vision of the result and this is not my opinion or approach, is the opinion of all artists of any kind of art. An artist visualizes first, then decides the technique to use for his art to have the impact intended and finally executes his art! What can be discussed is if a new visualization appears during executing the project that leads the artist to change his path..., if this is still art or not, but again visualization and artistic approach can't be disconnected. What makes art "great" or "poor" is of course the result, which can be poor even if it was correctly executed but the "codes" used have nothing, or little or even useless result for society. This is another topic that can be discussed along with how perception of art changes with society's values. As such, anything that is presented as art but in reality is a creation made to impress is false. This false can take advantage of the inability of the receiver (or group or receivers) to decode it and pass as art while in reality is ...fraud. The later is also under discussion to some extend. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5479



WWW
« Reply #51 on: October 22, 2011, 10:36:36 AM »
ReplyReply

What is art is ultimately decided by recipients, not creators. The recipients neither know, nor care, whether visualization was involved or not. Ergo, for something to be considered art, visualization is totally irrelevant.

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #52 on: October 22, 2011, 11:21:32 AM »
ReplyReply

...

Interesting.  Now you are telling us what we are allowed to discuss.

There's nothing really left to say except ... you are entitled to your religious beliefs and opinions.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 22, 2011, 12:13:29 PM »
ReplyReply

For those of us who are skeptical of Theo's claims to be the ultimate arbiter of Art and/or Photography, I suggest checking his website, as I did.

I found nothing that contradicted his stated views under the "Gallery" link. What do others think?

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542


WWW
« Reply #54 on: October 22, 2011, 12:20:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think the issue was whether he was a hypocrite, but whether his views represented anything other than his personal idiosyncratic aesthetic.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 22, 2011, 02:02:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think the issue was whether he was a hypocrite, but whether his views represented anything other than his personal idiosyncratic aesthetic.
Very good, majority and minority aesthetics..., majority and minority... very old discussion..., but personal? I don't get it, saying what the masters of art are saying is now personal?... I was also looking to other peoples sites.... Now I know. Regards,Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
 P.S. Art was never in history of man kind for majorities.
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #56 on: October 22, 2011, 02:16:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think the issue was whether he was a hypocrite, but whether his views represented anything other than his personal idiosyncratic aesthetic.
Nothing I ever quoted was my view. What is your ...view? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #57 on: October 22, 2011, 02:18:22 PM »
ReplyReply

For those of us who are skeptical of Theo's claims to be the ultimate arbiter of Art and/or Photography, I suggest checking his website, as I did.

I found nothing that contradicted his stated views under the "Gallery" link. What do others think?

Eric
Thanks.
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #58 on: October 22, 2011, 02:26:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think the issue was whether he was a hypocrite, but whether his views represented anything other than his personal idiosyncratic aesthetic.
"Was" is past tense! ...as well as "represented", ....so fundamentals of art is now past tense! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
 P.S. Life can continue with these values, to make some happy, ....is present tense... Cool
Logged
Corvus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #59 on: October 22, 2011, 02:58:11 PM »
ReplyReply

there is nothing to discuss

I rest my case.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad