Artistic bent, or, anyone can do it?

[Guest CJS2]

Just been looking through the posts, noticed the following coments from Rabster and Finelpix:-

 

Rabster:

"I've got a couple of ropey pics for the Challenge, I'm hoping to get something worth entering over the next few days. My problem is I'm not very artistic, I can take a picture of a building OK, but I struggle spotting an angle to make it look more interesting or dynamic. I'm hoping the comps on here will help me look at subjects in a more abstract manner."

 

Finepix:

"I'm the same at the moment. Wandered down to Frimley Green earlier as there are a couple of quirky old buildings (if you know where to look ), but didn't get anything worth posting. Away again Saturday so if I haven't got anything by Friday, I've missed another one ... I NEED INSPIRATION "

 

First things first, both have inspired me with great pictures. I can echo their obvious frustrations, I certainly have never considered my self as 'artistic' although I do have a feel for asthetics, is that the same thing??? not quite?

 

Seem to remember verious coments from top photographers over the years, they amounted to, 'film is cheap, the moment is only there breifly'. I think it was Sir David Baily, '1 good picture per roll, 1 memorabl per 10 rolls, if you are lucky'? Sure I've herard similar from Lord Lichfield as well.

 

The advent of digital pic'y taking, has put a real, 'any one can do it' feel on photography. Does any one else agree. You still see the choped heads, fingers on the lense snaps, however I have seen pictures recently that were outstanding, shown to me as 'hoiliday snaps', the individuals did not realise just how good some of the pictures were.

 

One therfore askes the question, "give 100 monkies a digital camera, will they eventualy produce the ultimate picture"?

 

 

CJS2

Edited March 5, 2006 by CJS2

[Blue Marlin]

hehehe ur prolly right bout all this digi revolution fella

 

i've been called a monkey... plus i aint got a clue

 

edit:

still aint produced an ulimate pic tho lol

Edited March 5, 2006 by Blue Marlin

[paul mc]

The same can be said for a lot of proffesoinal things when i tried playing golf i used to hit one brilliant shot on every round that even a pro would be proud of but the rest of the round would be dire, or if you playabout with a football after a while you may curl one shot right into the top corner, the skill is doing it consistintly or when you want to do it and not just by chance.I agree with the digital change it has made photography open to the masses if it wasnt for digital cameras i would probably never bought a decent camera, i think a monkey would be insulted if compared to me tho

Edited March 5, 2006 by paul mc

[Steve Randles]

Some excellent comments here that I have to agree with, but one phrase springs to mind with ref to Finepix's and Rabsters comments.

 

"Familiarity breeds contempt"

 

We have all seen that nice house on the corner of the street a thousand times, we have seen it in every season of the year, in every light condition possible, now we dont look at it anymore, but we can see it from the corner of our eye and picture it in our minds eye. This is where I think that "block" sets in for us all, because we stop looking we also stop seeing.

 

For the UK photographer who walks up and down his/her street, there may be nothing he/she would photograph, but if you did the same in the States or Oz, you would find lots of shots. Its the same as if an American or Australian walked your very own street, they would also be finding intersting things to shoot, that you overlook on a daily basis.

 

So how do we overcome this? For me I always try to view the scene as if I have never seen it before, I'll look for some interest in both foreground and background, lines that will lead the eye into the photo and then perhaps a viewpoint that you would not normally see in a photo. An approach I use is "How can I make this different"

 

But the digital cam age has allowed us to experiment taking as many shots as we want with the facility to be able to view them instantly on the LCD screen, or a few hours later on the PC, we dont have to wait a couple of days for film to be developed and printed, then throw most away because they are rubbish.

 

And I do agree that anyone can take a decent picture and digital gives the instant results that makes the learning curve that much easier to get to grips with. Without the prohibitive cost of film processing.

 

Steve

[Blue Marlin]

Some excellent comments here that I have to agree with, but one phrase springs to mind with ref to Finepix's and Rabsters comments.

 

"Familiarity breeds contempt"

 

We have all seen that nice house on the corner of the street a thousand times, we have seen it in every season of the year, in every light condition possible, now we dont look at it anymore, but we can see it from the corner of our eye and picture it in our minds eye. This is where I think that "block" sets in for us all, because we stop looking we also stop seeing.

 

For the UK photographer who walks up and down his/her street, there may be nothing he/she would photograph, but if you did the same in the States or Oz, you would find lots of shots. Its the same as if an American or Australian walked your very own street, they would also be finding intersting things to shoot, that you overlook on a daily basis.

 

So how do we overcome this? For me I always try to view the scene as if I have never seen it before, I'll look for some interest in both foreground and background, lines that will lead the eye into the photo and then perhaps a viewpoint that you would not normally see in a photo. An approach I use is "How can I make this different"

 

But the digital cam age has allowed us to experiment taking as many shots as we want with the facility to be able to view them instantly on the LCD screen, or a few hours later on the PC, we dont have to wait a couple of days for film to be developed and printed, then throw most away because they are rubbish.

 

And I do agree that anyone can take a decent picture and digital gives the instant results that makes the learning curve that much easier to get to grips with. Without the prohibitive cost of film processing.

 

Steve

 

 

Spot on target Steve, it couldn't be said better... as bananarama profoundly once said - 'it aint what u do but the way that u do it.... that's what gets results!' hehehe

 

m8, your words have inspired me

[Guest CJS2]

Further consideration . . .

 

Question one:

The advent of the instant print without a PC? Good or bad? Seen a few of these recently as well, still get the decent picture, but there is a lot of dross in between, why? Croping is perhaps the answer, with a little tweeking on the 'unsharp mask'? Not studied these new fangled devices, can they crop, or sharpen? Do they all work with memory cards?

 

Question two:

I have a personal issue with any photograph that are submitted having been 'manipulated' on a PC, other than crop, lighten/darken, contrast, minor colour ballance and sharpen. Anything more, and it should be a seperat class, its not the original photograph, its electronic/digital manipulation?? And before anyone jumps down my throat, I see electronic/digital layer manipulation as artistic, something along the lines of 'impresionist' painting, its in the mind of the artist, it certainly aint what was in front of the lense. As such, it is not a photograph? Define the word 'photograph'?

 

Does it still come under the 'anyone can do it' heading though, and are we still with the monkies?

 

CJS2

[Blue Marlin]

Further consideration . . .

 

Question one:

The advent of the instant print without a PC? Good or bad? Seen a few of these recently as well, still get the decent picture, but there is a lot of dross in between, why? Croping is perhaps the answer, with a little tweeking on the 'unsharp mask'? Not studied these new fangled devices, can they crop, or sharpen? Do they all work with memory cards?

 

Question two:

I have a personal issue with any photograph that are submitted having been 'manipulated' on a PC, other than crop, lighten/darken, contrast, minor colour ballance and sharpen. Anything more, and it should be a seperat class, its not the original photograph, its electronic/digital manipulation?? And before anyone jumps down my throat, I see electronic/digital layer manipulation as artistic, something along the lines of 'impresionist' painting, its in the mind of the artist, it certainly aint what was in front of the lense. As such, it is not a photograph? Define the word 'photograph'?

 

Does it still come under the 'anyone can do it' heading though, and are we still with the monkies?

 

CJS2

 

dunno about question 1 as i've never had any of my pics printed (yet) but i hear what your saying. i'm still in the colour balance / sharpen category at the mo so others here are probably much more qualified than me to comment, my opinion can only be based on personal faffing. tho i've today figued out how to put text on a photo, woohooooo!!!

 

i'm trying to learn some more about photoshop at the mo so gimme a couple of weeks and i'll be able to confirm if monkies can produce a decent pic hehehe

 

as for defining the word 'photograph' sorry had to... google it

 

http://www.google.mu/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+photograph

A photograph (often just called a photo) is an image (or a representation of that on e.g. paper) created by collecting and focusing reflected electromagnetic radiation. The most common photographs are those created of reflected visible wavelengths, producing permanent records of what the human eye can see.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph

 

whaaa!?!?!?.... shocking

 

edit:

hehehe sorry u asked for that one CJ

Edited March 5, 2006 by Blue Marlin

[nursejudy]

Criteria.

* Color or B&W photo

* Crop, Contrast/Brightness and levels are only done in digital photo manipulation..Further editing is discouraged

* Framing is not allowed

* 2 entries maximum/person

* 500 - 700 pixels length down the longest edge of the photograph, 150KB maximum file size

 

this is taken from the rules of the competion

 

I am only just learning to crop ...not managed the contarst/brightness so far!!!!

 

If any enhancement has been performed then as long as its not in the competion ,surely thats ok.

The pictures that are being posted in the Pic of The Day ,make me wish I had sought more advice before buying my camera,I seem to be having great difficulty remembering what to do with the settings when i try the camera on manual!!!!!

[Steve Randles]

Define the word 'photograph'?

 

What is Photography?

 

Photography: Greek "drawing with light" from photos = light, and graphis = stylus, paintbrush or graphê = representation by means of lines, drawing.

 

Photography is the technique of recording, by chemical or mechanical means, a permanent image on a layer of material sensitive to light exposure. However, we need the artistic or creative side to have the perfect photo. Photography is a way to bring your imagination, your concept, your ideas, your composition of the way you see the world to life on film. We all see the world differently therefore all of us produce unique and different photographs. Photography is a broad subject that eventually boils down to a mixture of art and science.

 

from

 

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/authors/elton64.htm

[Steve Randles]

I here what you are saying Cj, and I agree also. I could with a bit of work make every "photo" I post so damn good looking that everyones jaw would be trailing the ground, but as you say, its not what was captured neither was that the scene in front of the camera!

 

But still, photographs have been manipulated for many years before the digital age, splicing of cloud backgrounds into negaitves, using slide processing for photos and vice versa and all manner of darkroom shananigans have occurred and been discovered. Indeed many of the curent digital editing tools available have been developed to replace the darkroom originals that have existed for years (so I am told).

 

Take any magazine, book, brochure, catalogue, website or indeed anywhere where photographs are published and its 99.9% certain that image is edited or corrected in some way, This would also ring true if you had done the same 20 years ago.

 

Its relatively easy for me and people with image editing expierience to spot a doctored image, even the real pros at doing this leave tell tale signs behind, I'm just glad that so far its not happening here.

 

Re question #1 I crop in the camera, what I post is what was photographed, if I got it right when taking the picture, I wont need to crop in editing software. If I do neep to crop it, it generally wil lose some quality and I will like it less and therefore not use it.

 

Steve...