Photography: Artist vs technician

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Hi,

I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
architecture more.

So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
portriats.

- Siddhartha
537 answers Last reply
More about photography artist technician
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Cameras wrote:
    > I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
    > with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
    > ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
    > come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
    > traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
    > etc.

    Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
    Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
    recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
    that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

    I guess some people are attracted to photography as a creative medium,
    and view fiddling with the dials and software as a means to an end. At
    the extreme end of that scale are those who take stunning pictures with
    a pin hole camera, or the Cartier-Bressons who just point and shoot.

    Equally, I'm sure plenty of people get a kick out of tweaking an image
    in Photoshop and making a presentable image from a previously
    uninspiring picture; improving, or rescuing a shot. They are probably
    also interested (and can quote) the various characteristics of
    different filmstock, lenses and camera settings. They view the camera
    as a technical piece of equipment and as much a joy to use, as it is to
    actually view the pictures afterwards. These are the photographers who
    will take a meter reading, set the camera manually, bracket and ensure
    they used the right film for the conditions - or have already switched
    to digital.

    I suggest that there is a sliding scale and most of us are somewhere in
    the middle, attracted by both "painting with light" and the "gadget
    bag" to different degrees.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Siddhartha Jain wrote:


    > rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
    > much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
    > architecture more.

    The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo for
    printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the image
    completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
    counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you like.

    >
    > So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    > that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in

    Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
    reasons.

    > IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
    > at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
    > I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
    > portriats.

    Begin examining your photos more carefully, shoot for colour, tone,
    contrast, shapes, lines, shaddows, highlights ... etc. and you'll begin
    to see colour differently. One of the recent shootin shots:
    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
    is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a very
    pleasing image.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    >
    >
    >> rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not
    >> too
    >> much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes
    >> and
    >> architecture more.
    >
    > The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo
    > for printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the
    > image
    > completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
    > counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you
    > like.
    >>
    >> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different
    >> sides
    >> that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work
    >> in
    >
    > Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
    > reasons.
    >
    >> IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I
    >> can
    >> at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography
    >> because I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often
    >> some candid portriats.
    >
    > Begin examining your photos more carefully, shoot for colour, tone,
    > contrast, shapes, lines, shaddows, highlights ... etc. and you'll
    > begin to see colour differently. One of the recent shootin shots:
    > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
    > is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a
    > very
    > pleasing image.

    It pleases me not. Breaks _that_ rule, for me.

    Do you remember a thread about "The genre of photography you like
    least"? I thought there were some fine insights there.

    --
    Frank ess
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Frank ess wrote:
    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not
    >>> too
    >>> much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes
    >>> and
    >>> architecture more.
    >>
    >> The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo
    >> for printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the
    >> image
    >> completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
    >> counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you
    >> like.
    >>>
    >>> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different
    >>> sides
    >>> that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work
    >>> in
    >>
    >> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of
    >> varying
    >> reasons.
    >>
    >>> IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I
    >>> can
    >>> at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography
    >>> because I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often
    >>> some candid portriats.
    >>
    >> Begin examining your photos more carefully, shoot for colour, tone,
    >> contrast, shapes, lines, shaddows, highlights ... etc. and you'll
    >> begin to see colour differently. One of the recent shootin shots:
    >> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
    >> is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a
    >> very
    >> pleasing image.
    >
    > It pleases me not. Breaks _that_ rule, for me.
    >
    > Do you remember a thread about "The genre of photography you like
    > least"? I thought there were some fine insights there.

    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/397428190eeb1548/a599ba123ab69e6d?q=least+like+genre+photo.digital&rnum=1#a599ba123ab69e6d
    or
    http://tinyurl.com/9ztdv

    --
    Frank ess
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    For myself I use photography to record the life that my wife and I
    lead, sort of acting like a photojournalist. There is still an art
    aspect to the photography since a lot of what I am after is capturing
    the mood of where we were and what we were doing. My goal is to have
    photographs that bring back the memories of where we have been and what
    we have done. This changes how you take photos in a number of ways,
    the trip becomes as important as the destination. We travel a lot by
    motor home, I like to capture the whole of each day, what was the
    weather like in the morning, where did we stop for lunch, what was the
    scenery like along the way.

    Because I am documenting our lives I don't do as much Photoshoping as
    some people do, I know people who have added a nice blue sky with a few
    fluffy clouds to a photo that was taken when it was gray and overcast.
    I don't have a problem with them doing that if it makes them happy
    but it would ruin a photo for me. I will do a fair bit of dodge and
    burning, to bring out detail in the shadows for instance. In this case
    it is trying to get the photo to look like I remember seeing it.

    One of the odd, almost ethical, questions that I find myself faced
    with is whether to use a polarizing filter or not. The effects can be
    dramatic, for instance in this photo
    http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/44510148/original.jpg the sea and
    sky were not really those colors, the polarizing filter made them look
    better then in real life, except that at the time I was wearing
    polarizing sunglasses and so the photo is what I saw at the time. I
    try to get some photos with and without the filter so I can view it
    both ways.

    Scott
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    deloid wrote:
    > As a B&W photographer (35 years) and as a writer and artist (oil painting),
    > I have strong personal feelings about the new age of photography.
    >
    > My individual preference is the art of the capture of a real event. The
    > original composition, subject and lighting are most important to me and the
    > subsequent printing is perhaps only 10% as important. I like the concept of
    > historical documentation in the frame of photography thus I dislike
    > photomanipulation that disturbs the trust of the viewer. Of all my prints
    > the ones I dislike the most are my youthful ventures in darkroom
    > manipulation (adding clouds etc) which breached reality.
    >

    Uh Oh!! I think you've opened a pandora's box as to what is *reality*.
    One might argue that using a faster film is a *breach* of reality.
    While some might argue that the PP that how a technician interprets
    colours while printing colour negative film is alteration of reality.
    Also, the colours captured on film are function of the chemical used
    and the colours/light captured on a CCD/CMOS are a function of the
    various algorithms used by the manufacturer (even RAW images). So PP or
    no PP, an image is the photographer's interpretation of reality, IMHO.

    - Siddhartha
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Matt Silberstein wrote:
    > >So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    > >that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
    > >IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
    > >at the most identify 5-6 colours.
    >
    > Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with.
    > Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of
    > indigo.

    What I meant is that I can't tell the difference between various shades
    of a colour. So if I looked very closely at raven black and charcoal
    black, I might be able to tell the difference but I can never remember
    them. Same goes for say lemon yellow and some other yellow or magenta
    and red (much to the chagrin of my gf ;-) )

    >
    > >I am attracted to photography because
    > >I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
    > >portriats.
    >
    > Can you tell the difference between saturated and washed out color?

    Ohh yes!! I can. I immiediately found a difference in colours when I
    moved from the kit lens on my 300D to a Sigma 24-135mm. The colours
    looked deeper and more saturated. But I can't tell this difference
    unless its too pronounced. Very subtle changes in saturation or depth
    of colours eludes me.

    - Siddhartha
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Paul Furman wrote:
    >
    > Something I found interesting is a guy on one of these groups talking
    > about how his does simply documentary street scenes, with the intent
    > that they be valuable historical documents of life in our time. He was
    > insistent that there was no art to it, he simply picked a
    > 'representative scene' and strove for perfect technical capture. They
    > were quite nicely composed. The boring technical approach can produce
    > good art in fact. The art was in the honesty and care.
    >

    Yes, this is what I think I do. When I am behind the camera I am
    striving for technical accuracy in focus and exposure. So much so that
    my whole thought process is occupied with the technicality of taking a
    photograph. Ofcourse, I do fuss around composition but there is a
    certain something that seems to come some other photographers very
    naturally but doesn't seem to come to my brain.

    For example, me and my friend were taking some photographs of an old
    lady feeding stray dogs. My friend got several nice shots of the lady
    and some more shots around of people. And all I got was some odd shots
    with not so great expressions. Most of the time I was either late to
    shoot or my exposure was wrong. On the other hand, I was sitting on the
    beach with the sun setting and I got some good shots. Or, I was on the
    beach and my friends were in water playing and I got some really good
    shots of them. Just wondering if there is really a difference in the
    way our brains work or its just a mental block of some sort.

    - Siddhartha
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1118215001.686984.311410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    > that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
    > IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
    > at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
    > I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
    > portriats.
    >
    > - Siddhartha


    As a B&W photographer (35 years) and as a writer and artist (oil painting),
    I have strong personal feelings about the new age of photography.

    My individual preference is the art of the capture of a real event. The
    original composition, subject and lighting are most important to me and the
    subsequent printing is perhaps only 10% as important. I like the concept of
    historical documentation in the frame of photography thus I dislike
    photomanipulation that disturbs the trust of the viewer. Of all my prints
    the ones I dislike the most are my youthful ventures in darkroom
    manipulation (adding clouds etc) which breached reality.

    I love the convenience and quality of digital photography but dislike it's
    current use in that too much can be changed in the computer beyond sharp
    masking, contrast, saturation. I dislike the commonly done alteration of
    group photos whereby a smiling face is taken from one shot then superimposed
    on a better shot. The photo, for me, is no longer real...it is not a
    documentation of a time or place. Interestingly though, and I don't know
    why, but I don't mind my alterations when I paint. Perhaps I know that oil
    painting is not a true document of reality but an acceptable depiction of
    altered reality.

    I now use digital for snapshots and my old medium format, 35mm stuff for the
    more serious documentation that I consider "historical art". I don't change
    my digital photos significantly.

    That said, you will find many points of view on this subject and I do enjoy
    a good photograph despite the methods used. If the photograph is digital
    though, I don't trust it's reality...it is more like a painting or "digital
    art".

    Dean
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Tony wrote:
    > Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we
    > wanted.
    > What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
    > photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
    > don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects.

    For once I am agreeing with Tony, perhaps I should be concerned!

    But I think it's entirely true that most texts on photography, and
    discussions by photographers, are very, very poor on "art", and by
    "art" I do *not* mean "artzy", far from it; too many people, especially
    amongst photographers, seem to have the naive misconception that "art"
    is something you do whimsically, with a twist of the waist and a mess
    in the mind, but that bastardization is far from the truth. In fact,
    "art" has been formalised since antiquity and refined over the
    millenia, and it could easily take a lifetime to get familiar with; it
    is literally a discipline, in that it requires immense discipline.

    I think in photography it would be useful to distinguis between the
    "craft", and the "art". The "craft" is all issues of equipment and
    "technique", particular to photography, but photography really has *no*
    "art" that should set it apart from drawing, painting, sculpture,
    architecture, cinematography or any visual medium; "art" is just "art",
    and to be illiterate in it, and too many are, won't be changed by a
    practice of the "craft" of photography, however long or frequent,
    regardless of how many cameras you own or years you've used them for.

    Those who come from a background of "fine arts" though, the formally
    trained ones at least, and their texts, seem rich on the "education" of
    art. The best photographers I have seen are those who come from a
    background of painting, drawing, sculpture, architechture or so on, not
    .. Their "art" may not be obvious to all. And here it is useful to
    distinguish between "art" and "taste"; like I said before, "art" is a
    language that has its conventions and formalities, and though you may
    "break the rules", it's usually evident when an "artist" "breaks the
    rules" that they are quite familiar with them, rather than when someone
    who is clueless about them does it, which, unfortunately in common
    misconception, they usually have no rules to start with yet they want
    to "break the rules"! "Taste" on the other hand, is whether you like a
    thing or not, and too often people mistake it for "art". A piece of
    "art", if you've trained yourself or had been formally trained, can be
    admired regardless of taste, and in fact, that should be the case. The
    more you learn about "art", the more your tastes develop, and become
    aligned to what "art" actually is, hence an "artistic taste"; a little
    akin to wine, but not to confuse here, the more you learn about it, the
    more you appreciate a "fine wine" and its subtleties.

    I could've perhaps written more about this but I've just become
    distracted and my train of thought interrupted, and I have to go.

    Regards.


    > In many ways they
    > sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
    > Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
    > flames on the cutaway fenders.
    >
    > --
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    >
    > "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1118215001.686984.311410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
    > > post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
    > > results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
    > > and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
    > > rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
    > > much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
    > > architecture more.
    > >
    > > So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    > > that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
    > > IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
    > > at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
    > > I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
    > > portriats.
    > >
    > > - Siddhartha
    > >
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote

    > So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    > that attracts people with different leanings?

    IMO this is one of the more interesting observations I've read in this
    group. And the answer is yes. My collection of friends who are very into
    photography come from all different backgrounds and each of them has their
    own expressive style - some would even say that they don't have an
    expressive style because saying things like that sound artzy to them and
    they don't want to be considered artzy. :)

    --
    Mark

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Mr. Mark wrote:
    > "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote
    >
    >>So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    >>that attracts people with different leanings?
    >
    > IMO this is one of the more interesting observations I've read in this
    > group. And the answer is yes. My collection of friends who are very into
    > photography come from all different backgrounds and each of them has their
    > own expressive style - some would even say that they don't have an
    > expressive style because saying things like that sound artzy to them and
    > they don't want to be considered artzy. :)

    Something I found interesting is a guy on one of these groups talking
    about how his does simply documentary street scenes, with the intent
    that they be valuable historical documents of life in our time. He was
    insistent that there was no art to it, he simply picked a
    'representative scene' and strove for perfect technical capture. They
    were quite nicely composed. The boring technical approach can produce
    good art in fact. The art was in the honesty and care.

    I come from a fine art background but also shoot a lot of pictures for
    technical documentation of various plant species. That's what I love
    about photography is the blend of art & technique & good results can be
    achieved at either extreme.

    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    I've been a professional photographer since 1966. Only when I discovered
    Adobe Photoshop did I truly feel I was creating my best possible images. I
    feel I am now a complete artist ... capturing the image and then completing
    it in Photoshop. It is a lot more rewarding than just sending my work to the
    color lab.

    Craig Flory
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
    > post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
    > results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
    > and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
    > rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
    > much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
    > architecture more.
    >
    > So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    > that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
    > IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
    > at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
    > I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
    > portriats.
    >
    > - Siddhartha
    >
    Absolutely, and this has nothing to do with digital. In the film days,
    some folks did all their work in camera, used a commercial printer.
    Others labored long in their darkroom doing much of their art there.
    One can be artistic in darkroom or at computer, just as others are more
    artistic with camera and seeing.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    >
    >
    >> rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
    >> much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
    >> architecture more.
    >
    >
    > The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo for
    > printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the image
    > completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
    > counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you like.
    >
    >>
    >> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    >> that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
    >
    >
    > Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
    > reasons.

    There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.

    > One of the recent shootin shots:
    > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
    > is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a very
    > pleasing image.
    >
    This points to a Tom Hudson image in the "Breaking the Rules" mandate of
    the Shoot In, where half the image is very out of focus, and the colors
    pastel. Did you mean to point to your image in the same gallery, where
    the colors are way more pleasing??

    --
    John McWilliams
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1118252755.592266.304920@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >>
    >> Something I found interesting is a guy on one of these groups talking
    >> about how his does simply documentary street scenes, with the intent
    >> that they be valuable historical documents of life in our time. He was
    >> insistent that there was no art to it, he simply picked a
    >> 'representative scene' and strove for perfect technical capture. They
    >> were quite nicely composed. The boring technical approach can produce
    >> good art in fact. The art was in the honesty and care.
    >>
    >
    > Yes, this is what I think I do. When I am behind the camera I am
    > striving for technical accuracy in focus and exposure. So much so that
    > my whole thought process is occupied with the technicality of taking a
    > photograph. Ofcourse, I do fuss around composition but there is a
    > certain something that seems to come some other photographers very
    > naturally but doesn't seem to come to my brain.
    >
    > For example, me and my friend were taking some photographs of an old
    > lady feeding stray dogs. My friend got several nice shots of the lady
    > and some more shots around of people. And all I got was some odd shots
    > with not so great expressions. Most of the time I was either late to
    > shoot or my exposure was wrong. On the other hand, I was sitting on the
    > beach with the sun setting and I got some good shots. Or, I was on the
    > beach and my friends were in water playing and I got some really good
    > shots of them. Just wondering if there is really a difference in the
    > way our brains work or its just a mental block of some sort.
    >
    > - Siddhartha
    >
    My brother-in-law used to live in a Bay Area town that had a lot of old
    Victorian homes. He proposed to the city council that they finance him to
    photograph all the homes in town, documentary style, and make up a book that
    could be kept in the city hall for its historical interest. He presented
    them with a few samples to give them an idea of what they would get. They
    turned him down, citing a lack of funds, but I thought that it was a good
    idea for any town that had a lot of architecture of historical significance.
    It would also amount to a lifetime's work for a photographer if the town
    were large enough.......
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    William Graham wrote:
    > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
    > news:d87kb5$p66$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
    > > John McWilliams wrote:
    > >
    > >> Alan Browne wrote:
    > >
    > >>> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
    > >>> reasons.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.
    > >
    > > Two more were added last week. Please do keep up! ;-)
    > >
    >
    > I just went into it to meet girls......

    Me, too. It really pissed my wife off.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
    <chadwick110@hotmail.com> in
    <1118228604.175364.208440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

    >
    >
    >Cameras wrote:
    >> I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
    >> with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
    >> ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
    >> come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
    >> traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
    >> etc.
    >
    >Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
    >Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
    >recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
    >that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

    How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?

    [snip]


    --
    Matt Silberstein

    All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
    a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
    there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
    end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
    or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    On 8 Jun 2005 00:16:41 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Siddhartha Jain"
    <losttoy@gmail.com> in
    <1118215001.686984.311410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
    >post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
    >results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
    >and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
    >rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
    >much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
    >architecture more.

    I wonder if someone, starting perhaps with an Adams, might consider
    landscape photography an opportunity for *artistic* (even *ARTISTIC*)
    expression.

    >So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    >that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
    >IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
    >at the most identify 5-6 colours.

    Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with.
    Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of
    indigo.

    >I am attracted to photography because
    >I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
    >portriats.

    Can you tell the difference between saturated and washed out color?


    --
    Matt Silberstein

    All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
    a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
    there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
    end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
    or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    >
    > Yes, this is what I think I do. When I am behind the camera I am
    > striving for technical accuracy in focus and exposure. So much so that
    > my whole thought process is occupied with the technicality of taking a
    > photograph. Ofcourse, I do fuss around composition but there is a
    > certain something that seems to come some other photographers very
    > naturally but doesn't seem to come to my brain.
    >
    > For example, me and my friend were taking some photographs of an old
    > lady feeding stray dogs. My friend got several nice shots of the lady
    > and some more shots around of people. And all I got was some odd shots
    > with not so great expressions. Most of the time I was either late to
    > shoot or my exposure was wrong. On the other hand, I was sitting on the
    > beach with the sun setting and I got some good shots. Or, I was on the
    > beach and my friends were in water playing and I got some really good
    > shots of them. Just wondering if there is really a difference in the
    > way our brains work or its just a mental block of some sort.


    Art can be learned in my experience (if you want to). At least it gets
    better with practice and more exposure. Take a class or read some books
    on art appreciation, composition, color, etc. Some might say that ruins
    a person's natural instincts but some art teachers can critique a
    budding artist's work without crushing their individuality. Most artists
    come from a family with artists in it so they grew up thinking that way.
    It's not magical and can be learned to an extent.

    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
  21. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    On 8 Jun 2005 00:16:41 -0700, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
    >post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
    >results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
    >and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
    >rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
    >much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
    >architecture more.
    >
    >So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    >that attracts people with different leanings?

    Read what you wrote above, and think about it.
    The answer, it should be obvious, is "yes".

    --
    Big Bill
    Replace "g" with "a"
  22. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Mike Henley wrote:

    > [...]

    Say ... from which context-free grammar generator did you obtain that
    output?
  23. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    John McWilliams wrote:

    > Alan Browne wrote:

    >> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
    >> reasons.
    >
    >
    > There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.

    Two more were added last week. Please do keep up! ;-)

    >
    >> One of the recent shootin shots:
    >> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
    >> is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a very
    >> pleasing image.
    >>
    > This points to a Tom Hudson image in the "Breaking the Rules" mandate of
    > the Shoot In, where half the image is very out of focus, and the colors
    > pastel. Did you mean to point to your image in the same gallery, where
    > the colors are way more pleasing??

    No. While there's nothing wrong with the color palette in my shot, in
    replying to Sid' post, I chose that photo as it has a pretty wide range
    of blue in it for him to study. That part of it is oof is of no
    consequence in that regard ... or any other regard for that matter.
    There are probably many other examples in and out of the SI, but in
    recent memory, that one sticks out.

    My shot is more 'blotchy' in the color sense, less graduated than Tom's
    shot.

    Cheers,
    Alan


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  24. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
    news:d87kb5$p66$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
    > John McWilliams wrote:
    >
    >> Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    >>> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
    >>> reasons.
    >>
    >>
    >> There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.
    >
    > Two more were added last week. Please do keep up! ;-)
    >

    I just went into it to meet girls......
  25. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
    >Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
    >recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
    >that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

    And don't forget it also attracts collectors and gearheads who love to
    have the latest and greatest neck jewellry.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    McLeod wrote:
    > On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and
    >> science.
    >> Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
    >> recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to
    >> it that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.
    >
    > And don't forget it also attracts collectors and gearheads who love
    > to
    > have the latest and greatest neck jewellry.

    Sheltered life that I lead, I just learned "BlingBling".

    --
    Frank ess
  27. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Charlie Self wrote:
    >
    > William Graham wrote:
    >
    >>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
    >>news:d87kb5$p66$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
    >>
    >>>John McWilliams wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
    >>>>>reasons.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.
    >>>
    >>>Two more were added last week. Please do keep up! ;-)
    >>>
    >>
    >>I just went into it to meet girls......
    >
    >
    > Me, too. It really pissed my wife off.
    >

    I noticed that someone posted "news:d87kb5$p66$1@inews.gazeta.pl".
    Who was it?
  28. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Paul Bielec wrote:

    > I noticed that someone posted "news:d87kb5$p66$1@inews.gazeta.pl".
    > Who was it?

    eh? Me. Why?

    By the way Paul, do you want to be a mandator?

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  29. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we
    wanted.
    What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
    photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
    don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects. In many ways they
    sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
    Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
    flames on the cutaway fenders.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1118215001.686984.311410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
    > post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
    > results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
    > and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
    > rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
    > much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
    > architecture more.
    >
    > So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    > that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
    > IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
    > at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
    > I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
    > portriats.
    >
    > - Siddhartha
    >
  30. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Tony wrote:
    > Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we
    > wanted.
    > What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
    > photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
    > don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects. In many ways they
    > sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
    > Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
    > flames on the cutaway fenders.
    >
    Hey Tony,
    I certainly won't disagree with your observations, but what is art?
    Jackson Pollak and Leonardo Da Vinci produced "art", but it's
    strictly in the eye of the beholder. Currently, I look at photos
    by people like Jim Brandenburg, who have an artistic "eye" and
    the technical expertise to make a great photo.
    Hate to say it, but I would love to have that supercharged, chopped,
    flame painted 36 Ford in my garage. :-)

    Take care,
    Dick R.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    On 8 Jun 2005 10:35:01 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Siddhartha Jain"
    <losttoy@gmail.com> in
    <1118252101.618168.176190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:

    >Matt Silberstein wrote:
    >> >So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    >> >that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
    >> >IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
    >> >at the most identify 5-6 colours.
    >>
    >> Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with.
    >> Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of
    >> indigo.
    >
    >What I meant is that I can't tell the difference between various shades
    >of a colour. So if I looked very closely at raven black and charcoal
    >black, I might be able to tell the difference but I can never remember
    >them. Same goes for say lemon yellow and some other yellow or magenta
    >and red (much to the chagrin of my gf ;-) )
    >
    Women (female mammals, actually) have a better color sense than do
    males. That said, this is a trainable talent. Go shopping for paint
    for a room and start paying attention to the slight differences. You
    will learn to distinguish them. Learn some language and you will do
    better.

    >> >I am attracted to photography because
    >> >I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
    >> >portriats.
    >>
    >> Can you tell the difference between saturated and washed out color?
    >
    >Ohh yes!! I can. I immiediately found a difference in colours when I
    >moved from the kit lens on my 300D to a Sigma 24-135mm. The colours
    >looked deeper and more saturated. But I can't tell this difference
    >unless its too pronounced. Very subtle changes in saturation or depth
    >of colours eludes me.

    The more you do, the more you be able to do.


    --
    Matt Silberstein

    All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
    a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
    there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
    end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
    or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
  32. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
    with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
    ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
    come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
    traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
    etc.

    "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com>
    :1118215001.686984.311410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
    > post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
    > results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
    > and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
    > rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
    > much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
    > architecture more.
    >
    > So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    > that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
    > IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
    > at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
    > I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
    > portriats.
    >
    > - Siddhartha
    >
  33. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
    an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers. They see a picture by
    Cartier-Bresson and immediatly start talking about the subject not being in
    the sharpest focus possible. I've heard people discuss the unrealistic
    colours of an Eggleston and the lack of enough greys in brassai or too many
    greys and not enough blacks and/or whites in Doisneau - who spent years
    photographing in the grey streets of winter Paris.
    This strikes me as mostly the need to say "something" but not even having
    the language to discuss art - any art. Including photography.
    BTW - I know I'm in the minority on hot rods, but I find them an
    abomination from a design and aesthetic point of view. This does not mean I
    wouldn't like to pilot one in a midnight drag race on Mulholland drive,
    although I suspect that is mostly the lingering inner teen who wants the
    chicks to see him as a truly cool dude.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Dick R." <dickr@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:11aei7tcuo87s95@corp.supernews.com...
    > Tony wrote:
    > > Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing
    skills we
    > > wanted.
    > > What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
    > > photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
    > > don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects. In many ways
    they
    > > sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a
    36
    > > Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and
    painting
    > > flames on the cutaway fenders.
    > >
    > Hey Tony,
    > I certainly won't disagree with your observations, but what is art?
    > Jackson Pollak and Leonardo Da Vinci produced "art", but it's
    > strictly in the eye of the beholder. Currently, I look at photos
    > by people like Jim Brandenburg, who have an artistic "eye" and
    > the technical expertise to make a great photo.
    > Hate to say it, but I would love to have that supercharged, chopped,
    > flame painted 36 Ford in my garage. :-)
    >
    > Take care,
    > Dick R.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:02:31 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

    > Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
    >an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers. They see a picture by
    >Cartier-Bresson and immediatly start talking about the subject not being in
    >the sharpest focus possible. I've heard people discuss the unrealistic
    >colours of an Eggleston and the lack of enough greys in brassai or too many
    >greys and not enough blacks and/or whites in Doisneau - who spent years
    >photographing in the grey streets of winter Paris.

    Personally, I've always thought photography was best as a literal
    interpretation of whatever the camera saw. Everything else added that
    doesn't enhance the realism is the "art" part and subject to
    interpretaiton. I don't like garishly colour landscapes or abstracts.
    They seem to be interesting for about 10 seconds. I'll never remember
    them. But I will remember a well-done photo of something interesting.
    -Rich
  35. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote

    > Art can be learned in my experience (if you want to). At least it gets
    > better with practice and more exposure.

    Pun? :)

    --
    Mark

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
  36. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    > One of the odd, almost ethical, questions that I find myself faced
    > with is whether to use a polarizing filter or not. The effects can be
    > dramatic, for instance in this photo

    An interesting question. To my mind the point is to take a picture that
    captures your gut feeling or the mood of the place, or part of it. On that
    basis your fantastic beach may have come out with a wishy washy burnt out
    light blue sky (ok I know it can't be blue AND burnt out) and lifeless
    foliage. It may be more accurate, but not so near the thing that impressed
    you about the place.

    I'm not saying I can do that.


    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk
  37. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

    >Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
    >an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers. They see a picture by
    >Cartier-Bresson and immediatly start talking about the subject not being in
    >the sharpest focus possible.


    What is even worse is when some technicians look at Cartier-Bresson's
    work and pronounce that it succeeds because it complies with the
    "Rule" of Thirds, or some other stupidly simplistic specification for
    composition that just happens to be their flavour of the month/year.
  38. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Roxy d'Urban wrote:
    > I would never hang somebody else's photographs in my house, but I would
    > hang a nice piece of art by somebody else in it.
    >

    Sounds more like jealosuy to me ;-)
  39. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Matt Silberstein wrote:
    > On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
    > <chadwick110@hotmail.com> in
    > <1118228604.175364.208440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >Cameras wrote:
    > >> I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
    > >> with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
    > >> ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
    > >> come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
    > >> traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
    > >> etc.
    > >
    > >Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
    > >Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
    > >recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
    > >that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.
    >
    > How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?

    Dunno. Why don't you go ask the same question on a painting, sculpture
    or weaving newsgroup, in a thread without the word "photography" in the
    heading. That way you might be on topic.
  40. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1118215001.686984.311410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
    > post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
    > results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
    > and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
    > rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
    > much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
    > architecture more.
    >
    > So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
    > that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
    > IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
    > at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
    > I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
    > portriats.
    >
    > - Siddhartha

    I prefer to get as near to your final result (that you see in your minds
    eye) with the camera & then use PS to get the last drop of sparkle from a
    shot.
  41. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:43:57 -0700
    In message <kbudnWvfDZsD-zrfRVn-pg@giganews.com>
    "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

    > Sheltered life that I lead, I just learned "BlingBling".

    What the heck is "BlingBling" ?

    Is it related to "BitchSlap" ? (A term I've been understanding better
    every day for several years now... ;^)

    Jeff
  42. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Confused wrote:
    > On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:43:57 -0700
    > In message <kbudnWvfDZsD-zrfRVn-pg@giganews.com>
    > "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Sheltered life that I lead, I just learned "BlingBling".
    >
    > What the heck is "BlingBling" ?
    >
    > Is it related to "BitchSlap" ? (A term I've been understanding
    > better
    > every day for several years now... ;^)
    >

    1. bling bling
    n. synonym for expensive, often flashy jewelry sported mostly by
    African American hip-hop artists and middle class Caucasian
    adolescents.

    v. to "bling-bling;" the act of sporting jewelry of a highly
    extravagant gaudy nature.
    n. "Man, I gots tha bling-bling, yo."

    v. "Damn Johnny, you sure be bling-blinging it tonight!"

    http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1471629/20030430/bg.jhtml?headlines=true

    If I recommember correctly, the context was Upgrading Cameras as
    adornments for neck-hanging.

    --
    Frank ess
  43. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On 8 Jun 2005 15:37:12 -0700, eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Tony top-posts:
    >
    >> Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
    >> an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers.
    >
    > I don't need a room full of art kooks^H^H^H critics to tell me what is
    > or is not good. Do you?

    I often find interesting new perspectives in the prose of
    people who have dedicated lots of time to thinking and learning
    about art.

    I don't defer to their judgement nor abandon my own. But I want
    to hear what they have to say.

    --
    Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
    Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
    questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
    --Josh Micah Marshall
  44. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
    > Mike Henley wrote:
    >
    > > [...]
    >
    > Say ... from which context-free grammar generator did you obtain that
    > output?

    This output: "[...]"?

    I don't recall obtaining that output. :-p

    Would you like to point out precisely what you're talking about?
  45. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    RichA wrote:
    > On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:02:31 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
    >>an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers. They see a picture by
    >>Cartier-Bresson and immediatly start talking about the subject not being in
    >>the sharpest focus possible. I've heard people discuss the unrealistic
    >>colours of an Eggleston and the lack of enough greys in brassai or too many
    >>greys and not enough blacks and/or whites in Doisneau - who spent years
    >>photographing in the grey streets of winter Paris.
    >
    >
    > Personally, I've always thought photography was best as a literal
    > interpretation of whatever the camera saw. Everything else added that
    > doesn't enhance the realism is the "art" part and subject to
    > interpretaiton. I don't like garishly colour landscapes or abstracts.
    > They seem to be interesting for about 10 seconds. I'll never remember
    > them. But I will remember a well-done photo of something interesting.
    > -Rich
    >
    To me, the 'art' part is not in manipulation of the image after taking
    the picture, but in selection of camera angle, composition, lighting,
    and other factors. 99% of my pictures simple record a piece of reality,
    as nearly as possible. That is not to say I don't try to make sure that
    the image recorded is showing what I felt was the reason for taking the
    picture.


    --
    Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
  46. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Dick R. wrote:
    > Tony wrote:
    > > Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we
    > > wanted.
    > > What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
    > > photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
    > > don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects. In many ways they
    > > sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
    > > Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
    > > flames on the cutaway fenders.
    > >
    > Hey Tony,
    > I certainly won't disagree with your observations, but what is art?
    > Jackson Pollak and Leonardo Da Vinci produced "art", but it's
    > strictly in the eye of the beholder. Currently, I look at photos
    > by people like Jim Brandenburg, who have an artistic "eye" and
    > the technical expertise to make a great photo.

    I disagree here, and this is something that I've read books about
    lately; as I said in my other post in this thread, art had been
    formalised since antiquity and it has its conventions and language, and
    those from a background of "fine arts" are well versed in them. What
    you're referring to as being in the eye of the beholder is more
    accurately referred to as "taste". Someone knowledgeable in "fine arts"
    will appreciate the artistic merits of a piece or art, not matter what
    his tastes are. The chances are though that the more you know about
    fine "art", the more "refined" your taste becomes. To use the wine
    analogy again, if you're knowledgeable enough about wine you'll
    appreciate the subtleties in the taste of a "fine wine", and appreciate
    it as a no-mediocre-thing and the work of a master winemaker, whether
    you like its taste or not.


    > Hate to say it, but I would love to have that supercharged, chopped,
    > flame painted 36 Ford in my garage. :-)
    >
    > Take care,
    > Dick R.
  47. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
    message
    > >Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
    > >Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
    > >recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
    > >that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.
    >
    > How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >
    > --
    > Matt Silberstein
    >

    It doesn't differ at all.

    A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere virtuosity,
    these may be interesting but never grab you. An astounding visionary who
    cannot control his (brush, camera, violin, chisel,..........) cannot
    communicate, you come out of the gallery shaking your head thinking there
    may be something in there somewhere - but where.

    The great artists are those who have both the vision and the ability to
    capture it in their chosen medium.

    David
  48. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:16:41 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
    > post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
    > results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer and
    > work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep rooted
    > disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too much into
    > portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and architecture
    > more.
    >
    > So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides that
    > attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in IT
    > Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can at the
    > most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because I enjoy
    > producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid portriats.
    >
    > - Siddhartha

    I've seen some truly wonderful photographs made by other people, and I
    have also seem some truly magnificent paintings made by other people too.

    I would never hang somebody else's photographs in my house, but I would
    hang a nice piece of art by somebody else in it.

    Am I weird?

    --
    email: drop rods and insert surfaces
  49. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Roxy d'Urban wrote:
    > On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:16:41 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Hi,
    >>
    >>I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
    >>post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
    >>results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer and
    >>work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep rooted
    >>disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too much into
    >>portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and architecture
    >>more.
    >>
    >>So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides that
    >>attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in IT
    >>Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can at the
    >>most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because I enjoy
    >>producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid portriats.
    >>
    >>- Siddhartha
    >
    >
    > I've seen some truly wonderful photographs made by other people, and I
    > have also seem some truly magnificent paintings made by other people too.
    >
    > I would never hang somebody else's photographs in my house, but I would
    > hang a nice piece of art by somebody else in it.
    >
    > Am I weird?
    >
    Yes.
    I have numerous photographs made by others in my home. Else I wouldn't
    have records of the family and friends as they grow up... I value those
    records.


    --
    Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Systems Cameras Product