Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I really thought these were photographs

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:45:57 PM

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

Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
these

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...

Or the light in these

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...

Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
curiosity.

We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
such appreciation may only come with hindsight.

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/

More about : thought photographs

Anonymous
September 14, 2005 11:44:49 PM

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

Very cool idea!

I've seen a lot of photo-realism paintings in the past decade and they
all look stunning from some distance away. You would be surprised at
how different these look when even moderately close, even up to 5-10
feet.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:32:15 AM

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

Robert C. wrote:
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
> >
>
> What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality, and
> the artist did a superb job.
>
> --
> ~Robert C.

This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331mar...

But apparently it wasn't all he was working on, as he did plenty of
others in the 1980s, such as those in 1985 and 1986, respectivly

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331mar...
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/321cnt...

What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
time one feels impatient.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:42:10 AM

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

Robert C. wrote:
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
> >
>
> What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality, and
> the artist did a superb job.
>
> --
> ~Robert C.

This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331mar...

But apparently it wasn't all he was working on, as he did plenty of
others in the 1980s, such as those in 1985 and 1986, respectivly

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331mar...
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/321cnt...

What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
time one feels impatient.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:51:35 AM

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

Robert C. wrote:
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
> >
>
> What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality, and
> the artist did a superb job.
>
> --
> ~Robert C.

This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331mar...

But apparently it wasn't all he was working on, as he did plenty of
others in the 1980s, such as those in 1985 and 1986, respectivly

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331mar...
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/321cnt...

What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
time one feels impatient.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 2:33:45 AM

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

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
>
> Or the light in these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
>
> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
> curiosity.
>
> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
>

What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality, and
the artist did a superb job.

--
~Robert C.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 3:51:02 AM

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

> What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
> shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
> those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
> time one feels impatient.
>

Exactly.
Makes me think of something I read recently about digital shooters
(paraphrased): "I can shoot and then delete the ones that did not turn out
as I wanted or post edit them". I learned my photography in the days of
"manual cameras", and I still prefer to have complete control over my
photography, composing my pictures "in camera". My cameras: a Nikon FM2, a
Mamiya M645, and a Mamiya RB67.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 6:06:38 AM

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

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
>
> Or the light in these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
>
this is super-realism, it's not new, by any means, but incredibly spot
on.

http://www.yoshiyuki-fukui.com/english-site/super-real/...

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:16:46 AM

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

But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group
www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
>
> Or the light in these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
>
> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
> curiosity.
>
> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
>
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:16:47 AM

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

Gene Palmiter wrote:
> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look
> like paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
> photos...and why not...he probably painted from photos. Great
> technique...what message?

I don't know what the intended message was, but here's one:
-That even the mundane has it's own beauty--worth detailing and studying.
Have you ever really looked at familiar things? I mean REALLY looked?
Most don't. This artist did, and in the process, he/she surely gained an
appreciation for light, color, line, pattern, and design. All photogs would
do well to paint a bit, because it makes you notice things we tend to miss.
Most are too quick, or in too big a hurry to think about it, but try
studying even a dinner fork sometime. A great many of them are truly works
of art!
-That we pay little attention to them doesn't diminish this fact--rather our
attention simply dwindles until we only notice the spectacular. That's a
bad habit I often fall into as well.

I need to keep these things in mind with my own boring photography.
While looking for a "spectacular" sunset that never came, I shot a drab,
colorles rock.
This is what I got:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original

It's not spectacular, but it's one of my favorite shots from my recent trip
(click on the image to see a small gallery of other shots from the same
trip).
My "boring" black rock might not be a masterpiece, but it's art--and so is
that "boring" katsup bottle.
:) 
-Mark


>
>>
>> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the
>> gallery and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the
>> composition in these
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
>>
>> Or the light in these
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
>>
>> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
>> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
>> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
>> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
>> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it
>> with curiosity.
>>
>> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
>> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
>> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:16:47 AM

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

Gene Palmiter wrote:
> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look
> like paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
> photos...and why not...he probably painted from photos. Great
> technique...what message?
>>
>> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the
>> gallery and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the
>> composition in these
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
>>
>> Or the light in these
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
>>
>> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
>> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was
>> here
>> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for
>> later
>> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
>> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it
>> with curiosity.
>>
>> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
>> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true
>> that
>> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/

Gene Palmiter's three questions are three answers to his final
question.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 10:16:44 AM

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

Gene Palmiter wrote:
> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
> paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and
> why not...he probably painted from photos.

Indeed the vast majority of photorealistic work is painted from a
photo.

Makes it a lot less interesting, IMHO. If painted directly from the
scene, it is clearly something else than a photograph. Then it is the
expression of an artist's notion of exact rendition, which may be very
intresting in itself.

But I can't see how there is any more originality in painstakingly
copying a photograph, than it would be to go to the National Museum
here in Stockholm and painstakingly copy Rembrandt's "The Oath of the
Batavians".

In both cases, it's just a painted copy of an original. And
artistically, you might learn at least as much from copying Rembrandt
as from copying a photo.

Jan Böhme
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 11:17:57 AM

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

Gene Palmiter wrote:
> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
> paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
> not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Gene Palmiter
> (visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
> freebridge design group
> www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> > and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> > these
> >
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
> >
> > Or the light in these
> >
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
> >
> > Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
> > evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
> > that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
> > decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
> > interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
> > curiosity.
> >
> > We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
> > capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
> > such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
> >
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
> >

Truly and age-old question. As always, art on the fringe of whats
recognized as art is always controversial. Andy Warhol started this
kind of art. When I first saw it, many years ago, I thought is wasn't
art. Who cares about a tomato soup can that most of us have in our
kitchen cabinet? But as I've grown older, and hopefully matured a bit,
I begin to understand the art of and in the mundane.
It's kind of like how I've changed over the years with a lot of "stuff"
I own. When I was young, I'd buy something, and as soon as it became
just part of my "stuff", I started lusting for something newer, cooler,
with the latest and greatest whatever. Somewhere back in my forties, I
started getting attached to some of my old "stuff". Like the Sierra
Designs jacket I bought in the early 70's and wore all over the country
when I was a hippie, and camping all over the place since. I was sad
when it finally wore out.
I think those pictures are art. Someone said how can they be art if
they're just copies of photos. But they aren't just copies of photos.
As someone else pointed out, they have infinite depth of field,
something you can't do even with a large format camera. And they have a
distinct quality to them that photos don't have.
Even the amount of effort adds something to it's artistic value to me.
Maybe even more important, they have all of us arguing about them in
this thread, and other places as well. One definition of art is that it
stimulates thought, if no more than "Is it art?".
If it had only one or two atttibutes of art, I might not considerate
so. But is has more than that. If it has all those things, I think it's
art.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 11:47:35 AM

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

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> > and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> > these
> >
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
> >
> > Or the light in these
> >
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
> >
> > Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
> > evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
> > that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
> > decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
> > interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
> > curiosity.
> >
> > We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
> > capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
> > such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
>
> I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it up.
> Be that as it may, these are okay photographs. They do not do much for
> me, but the photographer might be onto something if he shoots more of
> them and does a better job with his photo editing. Whether or not these
> photos are called art is up to the beholder.
>
> The first photo was adjusted too much in a photo editor. This is the
> photo of the gentlemen sitting at the counter in the diner. Between the
> first two bar stools, there is some digital polarization that detracts
> from the quality of the image.

Here's a dollar, Shawn. Go to eBay and get a clue!
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:31:33 PM

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

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:51:02 -0400, "Robert C."
<robc638killspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>> What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
>> shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
>> those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
>> time one feels impatient.
>>
>
>Exactly.
>Makes me think of something I read recently about digital shooters
>(paraphrased): "I can shoot and then delete the ones that did not turn out
>as I wanted or post edit them". I learned my photography in the days of
>"manual cameras", and I still prefer to have complete control over my
>photography, composing my pictures "in camera". My cameras: a Nikon FM2, a
>Mamiya M645, and a Mamiya RB67.
>
But film shooters can also "shoot and then delete the ones that did
not turn out as I wanted or post edit them", can't they? They
certainly can, and do. Not delete as digital can be deleted, but the
negatives are never used; it's effectively the same thing.
Certainly, composition should be done in the camera, whether it's film
or digital. The fact that it's either doesn't change that.
In a sense, all the change to digital does is alter the way the final
product is arrived at. Many roads lead to the same place. That you (or
I) prefer one over the other does not make that road superior.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:32:14 PM

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

Gene Palmiter wrote:
>
> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
> paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
> not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?
>
I'm not sure, with super-realism but I think it was part of the
pop-art movement, and seemed to be a big americana thing. The images I
recall were always diners and shiny hotrods etc. Then there's the guy
who makes those 'sculptures' of tourists - Duane Hanson? (correction
'did' as he's passed on)

http://www.waloszek.de/f3_kal/02-duane-hanson.jpg

http://museen.aachen.de/img/lufo/l_sammlungen/hauptwerk...

http://www.kunsthal.nl/im/Duane_Hanson.jpg

http://www.the-artists.org/media-new/hanson-queenie.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/c3sxr

http://www.orlandoairports.net/goaa/images/artwork/trav...


--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:34:15 PM

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

"Mark²" wrote:
>
> Gene Palmiter wrote:
> > But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look
> > like paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
> > photos...and why not...he probably painted from photos. Great
> > technique...what message?
>
> I don't know what the intended message was, but here's one:
> -That even the mundane has it's own beauty--worth detailing and studying.
> Have you ever really looked at familiar things? I mean REALLY looked?
> Most don't. This artist did, and in the process, he/she surely gained an
> appreciation for light, color, line, pattern, and design. All photogs would
> do well to paint a bit, because it makes you notice things we tend to miss.
> Most are too quick, or in too big a hurry to think about it, but try
> studying even a dinner fork sometime. A great many of them are truly works
> of art!
> -That we pay little attention to them doesn't diminish this fact--rather our
> attention simply dwindles until we only notice the spectacular. That's a
> bad habit I often fall into as well.
>
> I need to keep these things in mind with my own boring photography.
> While looking for a "spectacular" sunset that never came, I shot a drab,
> colorles rock.
> This is what I got:
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
>

:o (

Pinging www.pbase.com [66.179.240.29]:

Ping #1: * [No response]
Ping #2: * [No response]
Ping #3: * [No response]
Ping #4: * [No response]

Done pinging www.pbase.com!


--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:34:16 PM

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

Paul Heslop wrote:
> "Mark²" wrote:
>>
>> Gene Palmiter wrote:
>>> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look
>>> like paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
>>> photos...and why not...he probably painted from photos. Great
>>> technique...what message?
>>
>> I don't know what the intended message was, but here's one:
>> -That even the mundane has it's own beauty--worth detailing and
>> studying. Have you ever really looked at familiar things? I mean
>> REALLY looked?
>> Most don't. This artist did, and in the process, he/she surely
>> gained an appreciation for light, color, line, pattern, and design.
>> All photogs would do well to paint a bit, because it makes you
>> notice things we tend to miss. Most are too quick, or in too big a
>> hurry to think about it, but try studying even a dinner fork
>> sometime. A great many of them are truly works of art!
>> -That we pay little attention to them doesn't diminish this
>> fact--rather our attention simply dwindles until we only notice the
>> spectacular. That's a bad habit I often fall into as well.
>>
>> I need to keep these things in mind with my own boring photography.
>> While looking for a "spectacular" sunset that never came, I shot a
>> drab, colorles rock.
>> This is what I got:
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
>>
>
>> O(
>
> Pinging www.pbase.com [66.179.240.29]:
>
> Ping #1: * [No response]
> Ping #2: * [No response]
> Ping #3: * [No response]
> Ping #4: * [No response]
>
> Done pinging www.pbase.com!

Works fine for me...
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 2:27:05 PM

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

In article <OA6We.6380$XO6.5783@trnddc03>,
Gene Palmiter <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:
>But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
>paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
>not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?

Artists have been painting from "photos" for hundreds of years. Indeed, the
"art" of photography arose from the use of the camera-obscura by the
portrait painter.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 2:28:51 PM

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

In article <1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
casioculture@gmail.com wrote:

> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
>
> Or the light in these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
>
> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
> curiosity.
>
> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.

I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it up.
Be that as it may, these are okay photographs. They do not do much for
me, but the photographer might be onto something if he shoots more of
them and does a better job with his photo editing. Whether or not these
photos are called art is up to the beholder.

The first photo was adjusted too much in a photo editor. This is the
photo of the gentlemen sitting at the counter in the diner. Between the
first two bar stools, there is some digital polarization that detracts
from the quality of the image.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 3:59:15 PM

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

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
>
> Or the light in these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
>
> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
> curiosity.
>
> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
>
Realism, if well done, has always impressed me. My parents, who were both
artists, said that it was a sign of my artistic naiveté......
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:02:44 PM

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

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126755127.124185.113940@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Robert C. wrote:
>> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
>> >
>>
>> What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality,
>> and
>> the artist did a superb job.
>>
>> --
>> ~Robert C.
>
> This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331mar...

He got the pepper too red........
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:08:28 PM

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

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:o A6We.6380$XO6.5783@trnddc03...
> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
> paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and
> why not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?
>
Sometimes the great technique is the message. I admire them for the brush
control.....The same thing that leads me to admire Dali.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:40:25 PM

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

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:

>But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
>paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
>not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?


The message is:

"Mike Henley has made yet another visit to Pseud's Corner."

Oh, how the zeitgeist is killing me. It's the new paradigm.

;-)
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:05:54 PM

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

Grinning from ear to ear.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:50:00 PM

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

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:

>Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
>and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
>these

Amazing. I like his work from the '70s the best, I think.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:09:34 PM

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

<< I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
photos...and why
not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?
>>

You appreciate the technical skill and the artist's eye. Give 100
artists the same photo, and only a very few can reproduced that photo
with reaslism to make you think you're looking at a photo! An artist
painted seascapes so realy that you swear you could see the moonlight
coming thru the breaking waves. My father (rest in peace) painted a
still life of some persimmons, so real you'd think you were seeing the
real things. Yes, it is a very different skill to paint like Picasso
or Renoir or like a camera.

Why does there have to be a message? Is there one provided by a
unaltered photography of the Eiffel Tower, or is there one of the
Eiffel Tower shot with a Cokin filter?!?! or solarized in a traditional
darkroom? No, merely artistic expression.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:13:56 PM

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

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
>
> Or the light in these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
>
> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
> curiosity.
>
> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/

About the only thing I could find that gave away that they were
paintings is the lack of out-of-focus areas in the 'close-ups' of the
pepper, salt, and sauce images. Infinite depth of field doesn't look
quite right to a photog.

Colin D.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:13:57 PM

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

In article <4328F504.84430644@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> > and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> > these
> >
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
> >
> > Or the light in these
> >
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
> >
> > Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
> > evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
> > that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
> > decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
> > interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
> > curiosity.
> >
> > We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
> > capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
> > such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
> >
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
>
> About the only thing I could find that gave away that they were
> paintings is the lack of out-of-focus areas in the 'close-ups' of the
> pepper, salt, and sauce images. Infinite depth of field doesn't look
> quite right to a photog.

Paintings? I sure was fooled! Even so, I don't consider it these images
to be pieces of art if all they are is a copy of someone else's work.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:13:58 PM

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

Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
|| In article <4328F504.84430644@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
|| Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
||
||| casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
||||
|||| Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at
|||| the gallery and I thought they were photographs. I even
|||| admired the composition in these
||||
||||
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
||||
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
||||
|||| Or the light in these
||||
||||
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
||||
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
||||
|||| Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that
|||| with time evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I
|||| forgot who it was here that said he photographed mundane
|||| scenes of ordinary things for later decades to entertain.
|||| Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving interesting and
|||| whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
|||| curiosity.
||||
|||| We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good
|||| attempts at capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it
|||| may well be true that such appreciation may only come with
|||| hindsight.
||||
|||| http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
|||
||| About the only thing I could find that gave away that they
||| were
||| paintings is the lack of out-of-focus areas in the
||| 'close-ups' of the pepper, salt, and sauce images. Infinite
||| depth of field doesn't look quite right to a photog.
||
|| Paintings? I sure was fooled! Even so, I don't consider it
|| these images
|| to be pieces of art if all they are is a copy of someone
|| else's work.

What is art but the artist's interpatation of what they see.
By what standard does it have to be a real, a copy or
imaginary?

--
--
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally
convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of
reflection." - Jules Henri Poincaré
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:30:34 PM

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

"Mark²" wrote:
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
> > "Mark²" wrote:
> >>
> >> Gene Palmiter wrote:
> >>> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look
> >>> like paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
> >>> photos...and why not...he probably painted from photos. Great
> >>> technique...what message?
> >>
> >> I don't know what the intended message was, but here's one:
> >> -That even the mundane has it's own beauty--worth detailing and
> >> studying. Have you ever really looked at familiar things? I mean
> >> REALLY looked?
> >> Most don't. This artist did, and in the process, he/she surely
> >> gained an appreciation for light, color, line, pattern, and design.
> >> All photogs would do well to paint a bit, because it makes you
> >> notice things we tend to miss. Most are too quick, or in too big a
> >> hurry to think about it, but try studying even a dinner fork
> >> sometime. A great many of them are truly works of art!
> >> -That we pay little attention to them doesn't diminish this
> >> fact--rather our attention simply dwindles until we only notice the
> >> spectacular. That's a bad habit I often fall into as well.
> >>
> >> I need to keep these things in mind with my own boring photography.
> >> While looking for a "spectacular" sunset that never came, I shot a
> >> drab, colorles rock.
> >> This is what I got:
> >> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
> >>
> >
> >> O(
> >
> > Pinging www.pbase.com [66.179.240.29]:
> >
> > Ping #1: * [No response]
> > Ping #2: * [No response]
> > Ping #3: * [No response]
> > Ping #4: * [No response]
> >
> > Done pinging www.pbase.com!
>
> Works fine for me...

yeah, 5 hours later! :o ) Cool, looks photoshopped though. a very
metallic edge, alien

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 10:12:44 PM

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

In article <jU6We.33929$ct5.23378@fed1read04>, Mark²
<mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>
>I don't know what the intended message was, but here's one:
>-That even the mundane has it's own beauty--worth detailing and studying.
>Have you ever really looked at familiar things? I mean REALLY looked?
>Most don't. This artist did, and in the process, he/she surely gained an
>appreciation for light, color, line, pattern, and design. All photogs would
>do well to paint a bit, because it makes you notice things we tend to miss.
>Most are too quick, or in too big a hurry to think about it, but try
>studying even a dinner fork sometime. A great many of them are truly works
>of art!
>-That we pay little attention to them doesn't diminish this fact--rather our
>attention simply dwindles until we only notice the spectacular. That's a
>bad habit I often fall into as well.
>
>I need to keep these things in mind with my own boring photography.
>While looking for a "spectacular" sunset that never came, I shot a drab,
>colorles rock.
>This is what I got:
>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
>
>It's not spectacular, but it's one of my favorite shots from my recent trip
>(click on the image to see a small gallery of other shots from the same
>trip).
>My "boring" black rock might not be a masterpiece, but it's art--and so is
>that "boring" katsup bottle.
>:) 
>-Mark
>
It took me a couple of seconds to realise that it was not a rock section
under a microscope. Nice textures, nice picture. And much more
interesting and "different" compared with a sunset.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 10:54:40 PM

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

Paul Heslop wrote:
> "Mark²" wrote:
>>
>> Paul Heslop wrote:
>>> "Mark²" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gene Palmiter wrote:
>>>>> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look
>>>>> like paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
>>>>> photos...and why not...he probably painted from photos. Great
>>>>> technique...what message?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what the intended message was, but here's one:
>>>> -That even the mundane has it's own beauty--worth detailing and
>>>> studying. Have you ever really looked at familiar things? I mean
>>>> REALLY looked?
>>>> Most don't. This artist did, and in the process, he/she surely
>>>> gained an appreciation for light, color, line, pattern, and design.
>>>> All photogs would do well to paint a bit, because it makes you
>>>> notice things we tend to miss. Most are too quick, or in too big a
>>>> hurry to think about it, but try studying even a dinner fork
>>>> sometime. A great many of them are truly works of art!
>>>> -That we pay little attention to them doesn't diminish this
>>>> fact--rather our attention simply dwindles until we only notice the
>>>> spectacular. That's a bad habit I often fall into as well.
>>>>
>>>> I need to keep these things in mind with my own boring photography.
>>>> While looking for a "spectacular" sunset that never came, I shot a
>>>> drab, colorles rock.
>>>> This is what I got:
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
>>>>
>>>
>>>> O(
>>>
>>> Pinging www.pbase.com [66.179.240.29]:
>>>
>>> Ping #1: * [No response]
>>> Ping #2: * [No response]
>>> Ping #3: * [No response]
>>> Ping #4: * [No response]
>>>
>>> Done pinging www.pbase.com!
>>
>> Works fine for me...
>
> yeah, 5 hours later! :o ) Cool, looks photoshopped though. a very
> metallic edge, alien

I agree that it looks odd, but that is exactly how it looked.
It was wet/splashed rock, and the strange water is actually moving, but
smoothed via a long exposure (a second or so). The rock appeared slick,
with a strange reflectance. Though it looked slippery, it wasn't. I didn't
alter that image in ANY way that affected it's texture or "look."
-Mark
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 10:58:13 PM

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

David Littlewood wrote:
> In article <jU6We.33929$ct5.23378@fed1read04>, Mark²
> <mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>
>> I don't know what the intended message was, but here's one:
>> -That even the mundane has it's own beauty--worth detailing and
>> studying. Have you ever really looked at familiar things? I mean
>> REALLY looked? Most don't. This artist did, and in the process, he/she
>> surely
>> gained an appreciation for light, color, line, pattern, and design. All
>> photogs would do well to paint a bit, because it makes you
>> notice things we tend to miss. Most are too quick, or in too big a
>> hurry to think about it, but try studying even a dinner fork
>> sometime. A great many of them are truly works of art!
>> -That we pay little attention to them doesn't diminish this
>> fact--rather our attention simply dwindles until we only notice the
>> spectacular. That's a bad habit I often fall into as well.
>>
>> I need to keep these things in mind with my own boring photography.
>> While looking for a "spectacular" sunset that never came, I shot a
>> drab, colorles rock.
>> This is what I got:
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
>>
>> It's not spectacular, but it's one of my favorite shots from my
>> recent trip (click on the image to see a small gallery of other
>> shots from the same trip).
>> My "boring" black rock might not be a masterpiece, but it's art--and
>> so is that "boring" katsup bottle.
>> :) 
>> -Mark
>>
> It took me a couple of seconds to realise that it was not a rock
> section under a microscope. Nice textures, nice picture. And much more
> interesting and "different" compared with a sunset.
>
> David

Paul thought it was "photoshopped" for a metalic look.
It wasn't. :) 
It's about a 1 second exposure, and the rock surface appeared exactly as
shown--with a strange reflectance from the just-set sunlight. The water
looks odd, too, since it's passing bubbles...smoothed by the low-light,
longish exposure. I was exposing for the rock face, and the reflection I
hoped would be created on the water--after it was smoothed a bit by a slow
shutter. It worked! :) 
Sometimes you get lucky...but this one came off just as I hoped.
-Mark
-Mark
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:11:31 AM

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

"Robert C." wrote:
>
> > What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
> > shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
> > those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
> > time one feels impatient.
> >
>
> Exactly.
> Makes me think of something I read recently about digital shooters
> (paraphrased): "I can shoot and then delete the ones that did not turn out
> as I wanted or post edit them". I learned my photography in the days of
> "manual cameras", and I still prefer to have complete control over my
> photography, composing my pictures "in camera". My cameras: a Nikon FM2, a
> Mamiya M645, and a Mamiya RB67.

I also learned my photographic skills with manual cameras, a 5x4 Wista
monorail, Rolleiflex, Horseman and Mamiya MF cameras, and Pentax
Spotmatic 35mm cameras. I can have 'complete control' over my 300D if I
choose, and I compose my pictures 'in camera', that is, in the
viewfinder, just the same as you do with your three cameras.

Further, I can choose the ISO speed I shoot at for the particular shot,
which is not within the film photog's camera control without changing
film or backs.

The fact that some shooters say "I can shoot and then delete the ones
that did not turn out as I wanted or post edit them" should not be taken
as indicating that digital camera users are not capable of deliberate,
thoughtful composition and exposure. That assumption is often made by
film types, and marks them as not having much knowledge about digital's
capabilities.

Colin D.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:11:32 AM

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

In rec.photo.digital Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

: The fact that some shooters say "I can shoot and then delete the ones
: that did not turn out as I wanted or post edit them" should not be taken
: as indicating that digital camera users are not capable of deliberate,
: thoughtful composition and exposure. That assumption is often made by
: film types, and marks them as not having much knowledge about digital's
: capabilities.

I agree. But I also notice that there are many more people taking digital
photos than I ever remember taking film photos. So there are likely to be
many more "snapshot" takers out there. There have always been a percentage
of photo takers that had no interrest in going through the process of
getting the best image possible, but simply in capturing the moment how
ever inexpertly they did so.

Think of how many people used to swear by the pocket 110, or disk cameras.
They were not trying to take publishing quality photos, just catch a
moment. Now there are lots of very good, inexpensive digital cameras
filling that niche. And with the camera cost being relatively low and the
processing costs being nil, there may be a higher persentage of picture
takers who are snapshoters. And there is nothing wrong with that. Even
now, with a nice camera, and ever increasing equipment, I still can be
found taking a snapshot from time to time. Hopefully my level of
experience allows my snapshots to be more effective than the ones taken by
my 7 yearold nephew, but you never know. :)  With film the cost of the film
and processing tended to be a limiter to how many photos a person would
feel comfortable taking. And thus many inexperienced (and people with
tight budgets) picture takers would take fewer photos. A 12 yearold with a
camera with only 12 images at his disposal was limited to that. But
digital frees up many people to take hundreds of pictures with the same
amount of care and thought, at no additional charge. The number of well
composed images has not increased, but the number of photos has. Thus the
percentages give the impression of digital being only poor images. But if
you compare the output of high end enthusiests, you would find that the
number and quality of each format (film and digital) are very equivalent.

The advantage of the current crop of digital cameras is that even with low
cost cameras, people can choose from image to image how much time and
thought they wish to give to that image. Of course each camera will have
its strengths and weaknesses and may give more or less control for the
more serious photographer. But even low end cameras have the potential to
capture an impressive image.

So between the better cameras, the higher percentage of inexperienced (and
not intending to become experienced) shooters the idea that digital
cameras are capturing more and more images with less and less expertise is
probably very true. But this has less to do with "digital" vs "film" than
the picture taking public. :) 

JMHO

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:11:32 AM

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

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:43292CB3.89C3708A@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> "Robert C." wrote:
>>
>> > What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
>> > shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
>> > those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
>> > time one feels impatient.
>> >
>>
>> Exactly.
>> Makes me think of something I read recently about digital shooters
>> (paraphrased): "I can shoot and then delete the ones that did not turn
>> out
>> as I wanted or post edit them". I learned my photography in the days of
>> "manual cameras", and I still prefer to have complete control over my
>> photography, composing my pictures "in camera". My cameras: a Nikon FM2,
>> a
>> Mamiya M645, and a Mamiya RB67.
>
> I also learned my photographic skills with manual cameras, a 5x4 Wista
> monorail, Rolleiflex, Horseman and Mamiya MF cameras, and Pentax
> Spotmatic 35mm cameras. I can have 'complete control' over my 300D if I
> choose, and I compose my pictures 'in camera', that is, in the
> viewfinder, just the same as you do with your three cameras.
>
> Further, I can choose the ISO speed I shoot at for the particular shot,
> which is not within the film photog's camera control without changing
> film or backs.
>
> The fact that some shooters say "I can shoot and then delete the ones
> that did not turn out as I wanted or post edit them" should not be taken
> as indicating that digital camera users are not capable of deliberate,
> thoughtful composition and exposure. That assumption is often made by
> film types, and marks them as not having much knowledge about digital's
> capabilities.
>
> Colin D.

I am not saying that there are not some digital photographers that cannot
take excellent protographs, and I have seen some of the potential of digital
photography. I have also seen the contrary; like on film too. What I was
getting at is that is that unlike film, the digital format allows for
instant delete of unwanted photographs whereas film does not allow for this,
and this was something that was mentionned on this NG on more than one
occasion
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:11:33 AM

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

In article <zwdWe.3075$6Z1.761800@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Robert C." <robc638killspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:43292CB3.89C3708A@killspam.127.0.0.1...
> >
> >
> > "Robert C." wrote:
> >>
> >> > What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
> >> > shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
> >> > those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
> >> > time one feels impatient.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >> Makes me think of something I read recently about digital shooters
> >> (paraphrased): "I can shoot and then delete the ones that did not turn
> >> out
> >> as I wanted or post edit them". I learned my photography in the days of
> >> "manual cameras", and I still prefer to have complete control over my
> >> photography, composing my pictures "in camera". My cameras: a Nikon FM2,
> >> a
> >> Mamiya M645, and a Mamiya RB67.
> >
> > I also learned my photographic skills with manual cameras, a 5x4 Wista
> > monorail, Rolleiflex, Horseman and Mamiya MF cameras, and Pentax
> > Spotmatic 35mm cameras. I can have 'complete control' over my 300D if I
> > choose, and I compose my pictures 'in camera', that is, in the
> > viewfinder, just the same as you do with your three cameras.
> >
> > Further, I can choose the ISO speed I shoot at for the particular shot,
> > which is not within the film photog's camera control without changing
> > film or backs.
> >
> > The fact that some shooters say "I can shoot and then delete the ones
> > that did not turn out as I wanted or post edit them" should not be taken
> > as indicating that digital camera users are not capable of deliberate,
> > thoughtful composition and exposure. That assumption is often made by
> > film types, and marks them as not having much knowledge about digital's
> > capabilities.
> >
> > Colin D.
>
> I am not saying that there are not some digital photographers that cannot
> take excellent protographs, and I have seen some of the potential of digital
> photography. I have also seen the contrary; like on film too. What I was
> getting at is that is that unlike film, the digital format allows for
> instant delete of unwanted photographs whereas film does not allow for this,
> and this was something that was mentionned on this NG on more than one
> occasion

So? A film photographer certainly has the ability to trash a photo he or
she doesn't like or perhaps manipulate it through chemistry to improve
it. The film photographer certainly takes a bigger financial loss when
he feels he has to discard an image.

A wide range of creative avenues are available to both digital and film
photographers; they just go about the post-processing work flow
differently. For someone to say that a digital photographer cannot
compose photos within the camera to the same degree that a film
photographer can is silly.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:11:33 AM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:10:07 -0400, "Robert C."
<robc638killspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:43292CB3.89C3708A@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>>
>>
>> "Robert C." wrote:
>>>
>>> > What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
>>> > shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
>>> > those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
>>> > time one feels impatient.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>> Makes me think of something I read recently about digital shooters
>>> (paraphrased): "I can shoot and then delete the ones that did not turn
>>> out
>>> as I wanted or post edit them". I learned my photography in the days of
>>> "manual cameras", and I still prefer to have complete control over my
>>> photography, composing my pictures "in camera". My cameras: a Nikon FM2,
>>> a
>>> Mamiya M645, and a Mamiya RB67.
>>
>> I also learned my photographic skills with manual cameras, a 5x4 Wista
>> monorail, Rolleiflex, Horseman and Mamiya MF cameras, and Pentax
>> Spotmatic 35mm cameras. I can have 'complete control' over my 300D if I
>> choose, and I compose my pictures 'in camera', that is, in the
>> viewfinder, just the same as you do with your three cameras.
>>
>> Further, I can choose the ISO speed I shoot at for the particular shot,
>> which is not within the film photog's camera control without changing
>> film or backs.
>>
>> The fact that some shooters say "I can shoot and then delete the ones
>> that did not turn out as I wanted or post edit them" should not be taken
>> as indicating that digital camera users are not capable of deliberate,
>> thoughtful composition and exposure. That assumption is often made by
>> film types, and marks them as not having much knowledge about digital's
>> capabilities.
>>
>> Colin D.
>
>I am not saying that there are not some digital photographers that cannot
>take excellent protographs, and I have seen some of the potential of digital
>photography. I have also seen the contrary; like on film too. What I was
>getting at is that is that unlike film, the digital format allows for
>instant delete of unwanted photographs whereas film does not allow for this,
>and this was something that was mentionned on this NG on more than one
>occasion
>
Absolutely right.
And why is the instant delete feature wrong?

I've had pros tell me it's because it fosters an "irresponsibility" on
the part of the photographer, in that he's no longer taking
photography seriously because there's no penalty for doing it wrong.
While I suppose that's true to an extent, it also fosters much more
spontaneity, which means (IMO) more serendipitous shots.

It also assumes that the photographer should be more concerned with
the technical aspects of the pictures than with the subject.
With professionals, that's undoubtedly true. But there are far more
amateurs than pros taking pictures. And those amateurs are enjoying
their photography. Aren't they supposed to be doing that? Is
photography supposed to be more about rules than results?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:11:34 AM

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

[...]

> And why is the instant delete feature wrong?

[...]

> I've had pros tell me it's because it fosters an "irresponsibility" on
> the part of the photographer, in that he's no longer taking
> photography seriously because there's no penalty for doing it wrong.

[...]

> It also assumes that the photographer should be more concerned with
> the technical aspects of the pictures than with the subject.

> With professionals, that's undoubtedly true. But there are far more
> amateurs than pros taking pictures. And those amateurs are enjoying
> their photography. Aren't they supposed to be doing that? Is
> photography supposed to be more about rules than results?
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Replace "g" with "a"
> funktionality.blogspot.com

I guess it is because I an just so damn passionate about things (it's in my
character) that I always have to make every one do it my way. You are right,
photography is about enjoying the medium and amateurs are enjoying their
photography. Digital, whether P&S or dSLR's have opened photography to many
people.

I have advanced myself to almost professional level: I shoot professional
grade films (Portra 160VS, EPP, Velvia 100), get them developped at a
professional lab with professional printing including colour denitometer
readings. I do portrait work in the studio and outdoors, as well as scenics.
I still prefer shooting 120 format in the studio. Nostalgia maybe about the
"SHEKLUNK" of the shutter?

I tried my hand with digital cameras (last year) and was not impressed (this
year's models may be different): I find the bodies unconfortable and the
lenses awkward (give me a fixed-focus 105mm anyday), not to mention setting
manual exposure for studio lighting (the camera, a Canon, I can't remember
what, kept trying to override the flash). Maybe when a Full Frame sensor is
made so that lens compensation is no longer required and I can use my full
set of lenses; maybe if the sensor technology can increase shadow detail,
and also increase colour depth (or have these already been solved), I will
be in a position to get into digital.

~Robert C.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:39:08 AM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:10:07 -0400, Robert C. wrote:

> I am not saying that there are not some digital photographers that cannot
> take excellent protographs, and I have seen some of the potential of digital
> photography. I have also seen the contrary; like on film too. What I was
> getting at is that is that unlike film, the digital format allows for
> instant delete of unwanted photographs whereas film does not allow for this,
> and this was something that was mentionned on this NG on more than one
> occasion
The difference is of no importance - it is the end result that counts.
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
September 16, 2005 12:45:29 AM

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

Shawn Hirn wrote:

>
> I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it up.
> Be that as it may, these are okay photographs. They do not do much for
> me, but the photographer might be onto something if he shoots more of
> them and does a better job with his photo editing. Whether or not these
> photos are called art is up to the beholder.

They're not photographs, they're paintings.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:28:30 AM

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

In article <srhi-FD9C1D.10285115092005@news.giganews.com>,
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:

>I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it up.

*sigh*. Willful ignorance is one of the saddest things in the world. I
suspect it took you far longer to compose your reply than it would have done
to type "define zeitgeist" into google.

To save you the trouble, the zeitgeist is the spirit or characteristic
property of the era. For example, Rubik's Cubes were part of the '80s
zeitgeist.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:28:31 AM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:28:30 GMT, Chris Brown wrote:

>>I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it up.
>
> *sigh*. Willful ignorance is one of the saddest things in the world. I
> suspect it took you far longer to compose your reply than it would have done
> to type "define zeitgeist" into google.
>
> To save you the trouble, the zeitgeist is the spirit or characteristic
> property of the era. For example, Rubik's Cubes were part of the '80s
> zeitgeist.

Now why did you go and explain "zeitgeist"? That'll annoy some of
our denizens that need their daily doses of schadenfreude*.

* Not exactly the right word, but close enough.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 2:24:44 AM

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

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the
>> gallery and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the
>> composition in these
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
>>
>> Or the light in these
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
>>
>> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
>> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
>> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
>> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
>> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it
>> with curiosity.
>>
>> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
>> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
>> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
>
> I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it up.
> Be that as it may, these are okay photographs. They do not do much for
> me, but the photographer might be onto something if he shoots more of
> them and does a better job with his photo editing. Whether or not
> these photos are called art is up to the beholder.
>
> The first photo was adjusted too much in a photo editor.

Ha ha ha!!!
Now THAT is a truly funny post...but he clearly won't understand WHY it's
funny.
:) 
The bottom line, I guess, is that the funny post is a testament to the
incredible work of the painter.
Simply astounding work.

>This is the
> photo of the gentlemen sitting at the counter in the diner. Between
> the first two bar stools, there is some digital polarization that
> detracts from the quality of the image.

Grin. :) 
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 2:31:45 AM

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

wilt wrote:
> << I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
> paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
> photos...and why
> not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?
>>>
>
> You appreciate the technical skill and the artist's eye. Give 100
> artists the same photo, and only a very few can reproduced that photo
> with reaslism to make you think you're looking at a photo!

A "few"?
I would put money on NONE out of a 100 painters could do it.
Perhaps 1 in a 1000 or more.
Just the skill of mixing colors that preciesely is extrordinarily difficult.
It is a skill most artists don't ever have to master, because most paintings
do NOT require that kind of accuracy. Most painting styles use an extremely
simplified color range--even some of the greatest portraits of all time use
colors that clearly and unmistakably mark it as a painting due to the color
palatte.

>An artist
> painted seascapes so realy that you swear you could see the moonlight
> coming thru the breaking waves. My father (rest in peace) painted a
> still life of some persimmons, so real you'd think you were seeing
> the real things.

Your father was far more skilled than you think. He was one in....a lot
more than a hundred.

>Yes, it is a very different skill to paint like
> Picasso or Renoir or like a camera.

Yes!

> Why does there have to be a message? Is there one provided by a
> unaltered photography of the Eiffel Tower, or is there one of the
> Eiffel Tower shot with a Cokin filter?!?! or solarized in a
> traditional darkroom? No, merely artistic expression.

Absolutely.
See my other post if interested.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 2:52:54 AM

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

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
>
> Or the light in these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...

I'm dubious - they look realistic in that they look like a photograph, not a
scene.

Duncan.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 2:52:55 AM

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

Duncan J Murray wrote:
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the
>> gallery and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the
>> composition in these
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tal...
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sab...
>>
>> Or the light in these
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424sch...
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210dou...
>
> I'm dubious - they look realistic in that they look like a
> photograph, not a scene.

Something that looks like a photograph can't be a "scene"??

????

What would you call photo-realistic painting???????
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 4:22:55 AM

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

Art is often a re-interpretation of other work or reality or a
synthesis.
I am not a fan of super realism.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 5:27:54 AM

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

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> : The fact that some shooters say "I can shoot and then delete the ones
> : that did not turn out as I wanted or post edit them" should not be taken
> : as indicating that digital camera users are not capable of deliberate,
> : thoughtful composition and exposure. That assumption is often made by
> : film types, and marks them as not having much knowledge about digital's
> : capabilities.
>
> I agree. But I also notice that there are many more people taking digital
> photos than I ever remember taking film photos. So there are likely to be
> many more "snapshot" takers out there. There have always been a percentage
> of photo takers that had no interrest in going through the process of
> getting the best image possible, but simply in capturing the moment how
> ever inexpertly they did so.
>
> Think of how many people used to swear by the pocket 110, or disk cameras.
> They were not trying to take publishing quality photos, just catch a
> moment. Now there are lots of very good, inexpensive digital cameras
> filling that niche. And with the camera cost being relatively low and the
> processing costs being nil, there may be a higher persentage of picture
> takers who are snapshoters. And there is nothing wrong with that. Even
> now, with a nice camera, and ever increasing equipment, I still can be
> found taking a snapshot from time to time. Hopefully my level of
> experience allows my snapshots to be more effective than the ones taken by
> my 7 yearold nephew, but you never know. :)  With film the cost of the film
> and processing tended to be a limiter to how many photos a person would
> feel comfortable taking. And thus many inexperienced (and people with
> tight budgets) picture takers would take fewer photos. A 12 yearold with a
> camera with only 12 images at his disposal was limited to that. But
> digital frees up many people to take hundreds of pictures with the same
> amount of care and thought, at no additional charge. The number of well
> composed images has not increased, but the number of photos has. Thus the
> percentages give the impression of digital being only poor images. But if
> you compare the output of high end enthusiests, you would find that the
> number and quality of each format (film and digital) are very equivalent.
>
> The advantage of the current crop of digital cameras is that even with low
> cost cameras, people can choose from image to image how much time and
> thought they wish to give to that image. Of course each camera will have
> its strengths and weaknesses and may give more or less control for the
> more serious photographer. But even low end cameras have the potential to
> capture an impressive image.
>
> So between the better cameras, the higher percentage of inexperienced (and
> not intending to become experienced) shooters the idea that digital
> cameras are capturing more and more images with less and less expertise is
> probably very true. But this has less to do with "digital" vs "film" than
> the picture taking public. :) 
>
> JMHO
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>
All true, Randy, but when push comes to shove, I suspect that you, like
most others would consider those snapshots vastly more precious than a
few perfectly artistic shots, should you be deciding which to save from
the flood.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
!