Welcome to World Photography Forum! | |
Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!
|
|
The Digital Darkroom The In-Computer editing forum. |
|
Thread Tools |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
I would define it by a tendency to emphasize technique over, preferably minimal, content; but fortunately usually relieved by enough exceptions, where the technique has been applied to a subject worth experiencing in itself.
Other mannerisms can become a fashion and allow to pass, eg all those milkfalls where one could argue there should be waterfalls and buildings so distorted by wide-angle lenses that it is impossible to see any craftsmanship and/or proportion. Conversely many subjects have too much diffuse but interesting content/detail to be thus condensed, or to use such artificial drawing of attention; it is them i am arguing for and I feel need a more restrained approach to PP & for which PS is less necessary. Last edited by Chris; 06-02-08 at 07:38. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
That’s always the case. Isn’t it Chris?
This reminds me of an old headline for a denim ad campaign: Tradition gets started when people take chance. If you don’t want to play by the rule, make a new one. Quote:
|
#74
|
||||
|
||||
[quote=Chris;26838]
....... and buildings so distorted by wide-angle lenses that it is impossible to see any craftsmanship and/or proportion. There is no credit to the photographer when taking a building face-on or at a slight angle, only to the Architect: this is just passive photography. Only by capturing the building at an unusual angle or from from a viewpoint that the Architect did not envisage, or by manipulating the image, can the photographer claim any credit for the photgraph: this is active photography. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
[quote=birdsnapper;26855]
Quote:
|
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
HDR processed images when first seen fall into the same category, Orton does as well. OOB images have a certain cuteness, and so it goes on. One needs to move outside of the application of raw technique or technology. Check this out, for photos that aren't just your standard macros and closeups. http://flickr.com/photos/98265926@N00/ |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
These techniques still require the original shot to be well composed and well exposed. It is just trying to take a documented scene and turning it into something "other". The abstracts that you linked to are very well done, but one page is enough and so should it be for all types of experimental photography. Master the technique, move on, then return to it when the skill is genuinely required. What this has now got to do with CS3 I haven't a clue! |
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As for HDR automatic exposure does pretty well, and if you can't get a half way decent composition out of a +6 megapix image something is seriously wrong. Personally since seeing the first batch of HDR image they rarely get a second glance. Quote:
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
[quote=birdsnapper;26855]
Quote:
I conclude that whereas at the start I was alleging that CS3 was just unecessarily expensive and complicated, I would now go further. PS was a product of the marketing industry and thus instrumental in trying to apply to real objects magical additional properties which they do not have. My first digital camera, bought for building site record shots, immediately revealed to me that it was a revolutionary aid in observing and learning about the world around me. Soon after, that it provided a way of sharing the joys of this process that was often appreciated by others. DSLRs are still not able to capture the wind, scent and sound that go with a particular landscape or nature study, so I am happy to be learning how composition and a degree of PP can provide mood in the same way that competent landscape artists always have done. For this a programme like NX produced like a glove for the camera by the manufacturer who designed the sensor and conversion firmware seems perfectly adequate. "Snaps" and totally unoriginal and unartistic if you wish to think of them that way. This really is my last post here & I look forward with interest to see how my "snaps" of two of yesterday's particular joys go down in the gallery. If it is like lead balloons, I will know to go elsewhere. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
The "snaps" you have posted are very good, but that's because you are attempting to freeze a very fast moving subject that will look completely different every time you press the shutter. That may well be hundreds of times. Every shot different. You don't need to add anything, the subject is giving you thousands of poses. A static building is just that. Static.The only thing that changes is light. Press the shutter hundreds of times and you will get the same shot. It is up to you, the artist, to decide how to make your shot capture something that every other photographer before you has missed. If all you are documenting is the existence of the building then that is fine. Living objects evolve before your eyes, even flowers will look different in the evening to how they look in the morning. This is where picking the moment is critical. Exactly as you have done for the fantastic shots of the kestrel. And no, they won't look out of place on Birdforum or Pbase.
With respect Nick |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|