Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Landscape, but is it photography? I think not, CS6 Oil Paint utility  (Read 5671 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2920


« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2012, 01:14:23 PM »
ReplyReply

You do seem to be trying very hard to nail things down, give them names, define rules, stuff like that.
To nail things down - I'm trying very hard not to generalise about what you seem to be trying to do :-)

Perhaps, when it comes to creative activity in general (and the visual arts in particular), it really doesn't matter.
Perhaps when we call our stuff oil paintings and people show up only to discover that our stuff is straight B&W photographic prints, they'll be disappointed because that wasn't what they were looking for - it matters to them.

Personally, I like it when things are a bit fuzzy round the edges, and anarchic - it keeps me on my toes  Wink
Did Ansel Adams say something about fuzzy? ;-)
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 01:30:57 PM by Isaac » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6083


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2012, 01:35:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Leave it to our resident hairsplitter to clear things up! Wink Grin
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 2920


« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2012, 01:37:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Leave it to our resident hairsplitter to clear things up! Wink Grin
Leave it to our resident taunter to ...
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6083


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2012, 01:38:58 PM »
ReplyReply

What, no smiley!? Not friends anymore!?  Wink
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 2920


« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2012, 01:41:55 PM »
ReplyReply

What, no smiley!? Not friends anymore!?  Wink
It's boring.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2012, 03:13:48 PM »
ReplyReply

A few decades ago I criticized a friend who was making painterly photographs by analog means.

These are mimicking painting and are therefore not Pure Photography!

And of course Pure Photography was, well, uh, you know, the right thing to do and everything else was caving in to, uh, The Establishment, or to something that was, umh, Unworthy, Disdainful, and Uncool.

He pointed out to me that the abstracted, tightly cropped, but otherwise photographic images I was making at the time mimicked abstract painting to an equally bourgeois degree, and he was right.

You don't have to run filters to mimic other media, it sometimes sneaks up on you.  Then we decided Ralph Gibson was pseudo-cool but badly compromised by unconsciously aping David Hamilton (who was manifestly not REALLY a photographer) and should be ignored.  Judgments in these categories require a very fine comb.  Have kept my mouth shut until now.

If it sells, do it.  Your imagery is only good in proportion to the number of people who are affected by it.  Affecting people with your imagery puts food on the table and keeps the heat on during the winter.  Or it may get you arrested.  Attempting to apply any other evaluative criteria to imagery can only fill up LuLa's hard drives for no good reason.  But do what you have to do.  That was good enough for my immigrant fore bearers, and it's good enough for me.

Besides, that location has been shot so many times it should be illegal to take any further photos without shredding an equivalent older image and putting it into the compost heap.  It's way over quota for pure photography, but I think there is still some room left for painterizing.

I'll be done printing in about another hour and will be out of everybody's hair.
Logged
Tom Frerichs
Guest
« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2012, 05:20:58 PM »
ReplyReply

This one is fine and nicely done, IMO! You've got to start with a good image and that you have. You've put your spin on it and there's nothing wrong with that!

However, too many camera owners start with a turd and once polished using all their filters in PS, it's still a turd. All the tools in the world won't change it.

As someone with a significant body of work featuring feces--I find that the subtle differences in textures from different species to be fascinating--I resent your remarks. You are denigrating an important part of my work. 

Well, maybe not.

Cheesy:D:D
Tom
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6083


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 02, 2012, 06:15:29 PM »
ReplyReply

As someone with a significant body of work featuring feces...

And... yet another thread goes down the toilet! Grin
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 5164


« Reply #28 on: May 02, 2012, 07:45:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there a better (more useful) description for this than Digital Art?
The next step is to remove the process from the description entirely: "visual art" (which is now a degree option for art stidents). Or "stationary, two-dimensional visual art" if you do not wish to be confused with sculptors, movie makers, or the like.


Or how about "picture"?
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 02, 2012, 08:02:57 PM »
ReplyReply

It's Wall Art.  Nothin' more, nothin' less.  There are only two kinds of art, Wall Art and Non Wall Art.  Wall Art is the smaller subset, which is why we photographers can look down our noses at most other creatives.
Logged
Rudi Venter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #30 on: May 03, 2012, 08:30:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Photo? Art? Digital Art? Manipulated?

I don't care a tiny bit! It is beautiful and that is all that matters to me!!!

Well done and thanks for sharing!

Rudi
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 632


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 03, 2012, 09:06:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Plain and simple...I like it...a lot, including the sky.  I've got to try this technique my self. Eleanor

a900 file originally.  Near Zabriskie Point.  CS6 Oil Paint. 


Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2920


« Reply #32 on: May 03, 2012, 02:53:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Or how about "picture"?
Yes.

Can we persuade someone to pony up the big bucks just for a picture?
Do we need to give them something grander than that?
Logged
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 569


« Reply #33 on: May 04, 2012, 05:39:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Eleanor, Rudi...

Thanks for the kind words.

Rand
Logged
Arlen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #34 on: May 05, 2012, 11:05:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Rand, I like it too, regardless of what you call it. I've been playing with similar brush techniques in CS5; I'll have to check out what CS6 can do.
Logged
David Campbell
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2012, 12:29:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I had seen this effect done previously but did not know how it was done.

After reading this post, I then found that there was a plug in on the Adobe Labs site called Pixel Bender which has this oil painter filter included for CS4-5.
I think it is maybe a simpler version of the CS6 filter but it appears to work the same.

I could see this being very marketable. But then again, I think this will take off like overdone HDR images did.

So far I have had a lot of fun taking tack sharp landscapes and wildlife photos and turning them into these oil type paintings.

I have found that images with the following produce fun results:
hair
grass
beaches/rivers with stones (particularly if wet)
mountains with snow
dramatic clouds


Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad