Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photography: Artist vs technician

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 4:16:41 AM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 8:03:24 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 12:35:51 PM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 12:35:52 PM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 12:35:53 PM

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/b...
or
http://tinyurl.com/9ztdv

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 12:38:12 PM

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.... 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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 2:30:19 PM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 2:35:01 PM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 2:45:55 PM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 2:57:51 PM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 4:48:56 PM

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
> >
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 4:51:38 PM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 4:51:39 PM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 4:56:08 PM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 4:57:25 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 5:06:52 PM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 5:09:50 PM

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.......
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 5:40:31 PM

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:D 87kb5$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.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 6:19:10 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 6:21:48 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 6:25:04 PM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 6:46:43 PM

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"
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 7:48:36 PM

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?
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 8:27:16 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 8:27:17 PM

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:D 87kb5$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......
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 8:32:17 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 8:32:18 PM

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
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 8:50:51 PM

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:D 87kb5$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:D 87kb5$p66$1@inews.gazeta.pl".
Who was it?
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 9:04:54 PM

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:D 87kb5$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.
June 8, 2005 10:27:01 PM

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
>
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 10:27:02 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 10:49:17 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 11:37:52 PM

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
>
June 9, 2005 1:02:31 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 1:46:19 AM

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
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 2:03:55 AM

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
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:31:32 AM

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
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:46:27 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:58:23 AM

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 ;-)
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 5:27:43 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 6:25:09 AM

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.
June 9, 2005 6:33:33 AM

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
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 6:33:34 AM

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.jh...

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

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 6:46:19 AM

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
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 7:03:07 AM

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?
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 8:31:46 AM

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
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 11:44:36 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 12:37:44 PM

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
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 1:14:36 PM

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
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 1:14:37 PM

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
    • 1 / 11
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!