Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Making of Pilbara Storm  (Read 10082 times)
Patricia Sheley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 572


WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 14, 2012, 09:01:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I find this self querying thought insightful ....and inspirational toward a vision past surface and obvious... there will always be the batttle of why we photograph, what a photograph is or should be...but there is so much more ...the expression of exuberance of the moment as we experienced it at the time or during the time of wait and seeing more deeply. Yes, there are the old tunes of not the score , but the performance, but even that partial expression of howAnsel actually was fighting out these questions in his mind, alongside others in the short-lived group 64, during the battles leading up to thefirst MoMA exhibits etc, to say nothing of the arrival on scene of Edwin Land ( Land camera ) and how this help to inform in the pre-visualation
...in the pre-visualization of intent or moment...mix the viewpoints and approach of Minor White and Jerry Uelsmann and this is a place of extreme possibility and richness if we are willing to step back long enough to really see, and then move to the expression of that which excites us...

As an aside, as I have been relocated to Boston the last months from CT to help in the care of my husband through challenging surgeries, I have been able to slip away from time to time to poke around through some
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 09:19:45 AM by Patricia Sheley » Logged

A common woman...

www.patriciasheley.com
Patricia Sheley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 572


WWW
« Reply #41 on: July 14, 2012, 09:15:18 AM »
ReplyReply

...wonderful exhibits at the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem MA. A side of Ansel of which many have never been aware, including an expression of his exhuberance early in life (1920) that said it all for me...The family owns and does not exhibit that print but a negative print on loan from Arizona is on view. Sitting in hospitals I took the time to read the Letters : Ansel Adams 1916-1984. Unbelievably informing and illiminating... then also on view is the Jerry Uelsmann exhibit as part of the PEM Photographic summer.... We, and our "sticky" viewpoints and beliefs are easily opened and expanded moving back and forth through the somewhat unknown Adams work and the travels well after the foundation images are gathered in the magical travels of Uelsmann...just a thought if anyone is up this way for some very pleasant vision openers...

have missed you all, and even thinking in black and white I find my dreams requiring a wratten to get back there on awakening...

affectionate greeting to all, Pat
Logged

A common woman...

www.patriciasheley.com
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7463



WWW
« Reply #42 on: July 14, 2012, 09:47:01 AM »
ReplyReply

It's good to have you back on Lula, Patricia!

I saw the Uelsmann exhibit at PEM before Ansel's show went up, and I expect to get to Ansel soon.

As for youthful exuberance, I hope you sat through Uelsmann's early film on eating spaghetti.

Ansel and Jerry and Minor all pushed at the boundaries of expression, each in his own powerful way.

I hope your husband has a speedy recovery.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

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

Posts: 707


WWW
« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2012, 09:52:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Photorealistic....

Ansel Adams pictures are Black and White : Just how realistic is that?
We have just been brought up with BW images that is why we find it more realistic than say saturated colored ones.
I met a man in the desert. I showed him a picture; he did not see anything in it.

PK

Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2739



WWW
« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2012, 02:18:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Photorealistic....

Ansel Adams pictures are Black and White : Just how realistic is that?

This is brought up so many times, but it seems to be an apples to oranges (or perhaps oranges to limes) type of comparison.
 
Perhaps this choice was mostly about the technical limitations of color processes when he was in his most productive shooting years?  And while no one can argue with his greatness and the way he changed landscape photography during his lifetime, does he "define" the art of photography today? I don't say this because I think Peter's image is over the top, just more about seeing this argument brought up countless times to justify doing anything one wants to an image ... the standard "justification" statement.

I think Peter's image is fabulous and I believe he captured the essence and emotion of what he was seeing and feeling at the time  far better than his two companions.  To me that's one of the most important aspects of allowing a viewer to see through ones eyes, and is the most difficult. I've seen red sand and red rocks, and know how they can take on an almost iridescent glow in the right light.  While perhaps he's pushed it a little not many don't, and I love the image.  I do get uncomfortable with extreme manipulation of a location (as in the discussion about Alain's article) and feel when I shoot there is an expectation to present an image which is somewhat true to the scene ... especially things that are permanent and not man made.  I don't really care if others do it, but I do think it might be nice if they called their work photo-ilustration. Certainly anyone can to what they want, but calling in Ansel's name to try to justify it seems the wrong approach ... if you have to "justify" something, perhaps you are the person needing convincing?

Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2347


« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2012, 02:59:24 PM »
ReplyReply

... if you have to "justify" something, perhaps you are the person needing convincing?

Or someone has just told you they think it would be nice if you called your work photo-ilustration ;-)
Logged
MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 329


« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2012, 04:27:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I would have less of an issue with it if these 'made' pictures were referred to by their creators are digital art. I don't buy the 'to match the emotion of being there" argument, if a picture needs that much work take a better picture.
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608


WWW
« Reply #47 on: July 14, 2012, 05:55:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Wayne, I do agree and I did hesitate to "invoke" Ansel, but the reason it's become trite is because it is a well know, easily referenced sample to make a point - that point being the same one you made about emotion and the same one I had made previously, but which was refuted.  Had it been accepted, that would have been the end of the discussion, but when it's refuted with an almost dismissal, I think it is reasonable to bring into consideration the likes of Ansel and say, "well, do you say this is also not a photo"?

Let's face it - how many of us really see each other regularly in ideal modelled light and a creamy bokeh background?  But that's a very common and acceptable portrait technique.  We don't like it when the Photoshopping takes it into the realm of plastic, but who doesn't make use of some adjustments for effect?

If we want a photo-record, there's nothing wrong with that - it's a record shot.  If you want something to evoke art, there's nothign wrong with that - it's an art shot.  So on and so on, through the various genres and techniques.  They are all still photographs, and let's not for a moment think that film and chemical was never manipulated.
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2739



WWW
« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2012, 06:06:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I would have less of an issue with it if these 'made' pictures were referred to by their creators are digital art. I don't buy the 'to match the emotion of being there" argument, if a picture needs that much work take a better picture.
Good point, but normally the camera in no way captures what we see and usually is a very poor representation of what we see ... it might not be a matter of a better image, just a way to figure out how to get the data to show what was seen and felt (and certainly that process is interpretive).

Wayne, I do agree and I did hesitate to "invoke" Ansel, but the reason it's become trite is because it is a well know, easily referenced sample to make a point - that point being the same one you made about emotion and the same one I had made previously, but which was refuted.  Had it been accepted, that would have been the end of the discussion, but when it's refuted with an almost dismissal, I think it is reasonable to bring into consideration the likes of Ansel and say, "well, do you say this is also not a photo"?

Let's face it - how many of us really see each other regularly in ideal modelled light and a creamy bokeh background?  But that's a very common and acceptable portrait technique.  We don't like it when the Photoshopping takes it into the realm of plastic, but who doesn't make use of some adjustments for effect?

If we want a photo-record, there's nothing wrong with that - it's a record shot.  If you want something to evoke art, there's nothign wrong with that - it's an art shot.  So on and so on, through the various genres and techniques.  They are all still photographs, and let's not for a moment think that film and chemical was never manipulated.

When I saw your Ansel comment I guess I've just seen it so much lately that I finally "had" to throw in my 0.02 cents.  Between the thread on Alain's column and this one pretty much everyone has voiced an opinion, I've sort of stayed out because it's sort of a no one's right/no one's wrong, lose/lose debate. As far as Ansel, I think it's perhaps not so much about being black and white, but about the manipulation with exposure/development in both shooting and printing which makes his work more of an "artistic" endeavor.
Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608


WWW
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2012, 06:24:26 PM »
ReplyReply

When I saw your Ansel comment I guess I've just seen it so much lately that I finally "had" to throw in my 0.02 cents.  Between the thread on Alain's column and this one pretty much everyone has voiced an opinion, I've sort of stayed out because it's sort of a no one's right/no one's wrong, lose/lose debate. As far as Ansel, I think it's perhaps not so much about being black and white, but about the manipulation with exposure/development in both shooting and printing which makes his work more of an "artistic" endeavor.

I agree on all accounts.

Were it not for having spent most of my childhood travelling around so many of the remote regions of Australia, I may also have kept my mouth shut, but having seen it first hand and having experienced all manner of weather and events over decades I felt that dismissal of Peter's image as somehow unrealistic or overdone was out of place.  To each their own opinion, of course, and in particular as to whether or not one likes it.  I'm not saying people who don't like it are wrong!  I am saying that it is far less "baked" than they might imagine, particularly when you take into account the emotional aspects.
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1170


« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2012, 08:55:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Photorealistic....

Ansel Adams pictures are Black and White : Just how realistic is that?

Ask someone that is colour blind?
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608


WWW
« Reply #51 on: July 15, 2012, 01:49:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Monochromacy (particularly rod monochromacy) is very rare (even cone monochromacy is rare).

Most colour blind people do not see in "black and white".
Logged

viewfinder
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #52 on: July 15, 2012, 03:51:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I see this as largely an issue of degree,...had the photoshoping stopped at 'step 3' or possibly 'step4' everyone would have 'oohed and ahhed' over the result and admired the sensitive treatment and improvement over the original file.

At the end of the day it does not really matter whether the colours at pilbara were, or were not, like those in the final image,.....what matters is that the viewer believes and enjoys the result,..that he/she does NOT go straight into 'fake mode'.......

......I have never been to Pilbara, but, having now googled and researched images for the region, and re-examined the ORIGINAL image, I do (perhaps wrongly) feel that one woulde not see anything like the final image in that place,...the strange  unnatural atmosphere and overdone drama are entriely from photoshop,...and, as such, devalue the image from anything other than something that's been 'photoshopped'.

As mentioned before; plenty of people will love 'Pilbara Storm' and it will return money for it's creator, however, I'm surprised that it ( and the previous 'glowing island' fancy) has been given coverage on this site, since other photo 'fads' such as extreme HDR would be no-no's.
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608


WWW
« Reply #53 on: July 15, 2012, 04:19:10 AM »
ReplyReply

You're right - it's up to the viewer.  There are a lot of people on both sides of the fence and to varying degrees.  I think that's enough for anyone to admit that it's a good piece of art, even if they don't personally like it.
Logged

Patricia Sheley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 572


WWW
« Reply #54 on: July 15, 2012, 06:16:48 AM »
ReplyReply

What does landscape do?
by Les Walkling on March 12, 2012


In my garden, Pigment Print, 111cm x 111cm, 2010

• Landscape as a represented and a presented space, is both a real place and its simulacrum.

• Landscape as an environment, whose historical formation circumscribed by European imperialism, is where we either find or lose ourselves.

• Landscape as a wounded space, devastated by our ‘ecological crisis of reason’ promotes the genocide it betrays.

• Landscape as a cultural medium, naturalises its ideological construction as if it were inevitable and ‘natural’.

• Landscape thus becomes a principle means of enlisting ‘Nature’ in the legitimation of the superiority of modernity.

The task for settler culture, is the bringing into question these contradictions and ambiguity.


PS
(Les was photographing at the same site with Peter as those storms were kicking up...just took a look through link at end of Peter's article and found this ....)
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 06:18:46 AM by Patricia Sheley » Logged

A common woman...

www.patriciasheley.com
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad