Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 04 Apr 2012 (Wednesday) 08:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Composition and all that Arty stuff - discussion thread.

 
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Sep 07, 2014 15:13 |  #3601

ok, sorry, you guys are right of course, the tilt does increase the dynamics, I worded it incorrectly, I meant it has this underlying principle apart from just being a compositional technique.


website (external link) / flickr (external link) / ello (external link) / twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,553 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6343
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Sep 08, 2014 16:50 |  #3602

ziemowit wrote in post #17140693 (external link)
ok, sorry, you guys are right of course, the tilt does increase the dynamics, I worded it incorrectly, I meant it has this underlying principle apart from just being a compositional technique.

Exactly it is just another visual tool you can use....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sibil
Cream of the Crop
9,948 posts
Likes: 48873
Joined Jan 2009
Location: SoCal
     
Sep 08, 2014 18:22 as a reply to  @ airfrogusmc's post |  #3603

...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Sep 09, 2014 00:28 |  #3604

OhLook wrote in post #17138531 (external link)
Did you miss this in one of Z's posts?
I take "uniquely believe" to mean: find and use something that no one else (that you know of) has found and used. So, yes, an artist who "has nothing unique to say" (Gene, your words) can be called dishonest by this definition, but it's not the common meaning of the word.

But that's getting into being unique simply for the sake of being unique. Which can absolutely be more dishonest that doing something that is incredibly cliched.

You are aware that people come up with ideas independently, right?

Whether we're being honest or unique or not, art is about communication. And communication breaks down if there are not shared ideas, rules, languages, experiences, or whatever. People have to be operating under at least some similar common ground or else the viewer has absolutely no basis for saying how good or bad the art is. That being the case, the existence of such a common ground necessitates that a lot of identical things will HONESTLY be created by different people with them having no contact. I'm most familiar with this with regards to inventions and scientific theories...two people working on the same common ground (but unaware of each other) independently and HONESTLY come up with some truly original groundbreaking solution to life's problems. Only it CAN'T be unique, because people are operating under the same common ground (which also has to be the case if my art is supposed to be understood by anyone). Anything that you're thinking about, someone else has probably thought of it too. This is precisely why you'll hear about things like some scientist working his ass off on a project and then going to patent his invention and finding out that someone else (who he never even knew about) got there and patented it first.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Sep 09, 2014 07:04 |  #3605

we are still talking about dofferent things here, and I can't seem to able to explain myself well enough I think.


website (external link) / flickr (external link) / ello (external link) / twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,553 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6343
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Sep 09, 2014 09:12 |  #3606

Science to personal expression? I'm sorry, there is a math, physics and chemistry component to photography but it's on the technical side of the coin. None of us live in a bubble and we are all influenced by everything around us. I know my work is influenced by movies, literature, music, paintings and other photographers but I still have a way of expressing my feeling about things in a way that is mine. Learning to see is the hardest part of this thing. It is easy to be an imitator but hard to find your own path. I think it was Haas that said something like, and not 100% sure if he said it and I am paraphrasing, I would rather make an image that looks like mine that the maybe the masses don't get than make images that look like everyone else's image that everyone loves. I agree. Not trying to be different just photographing the natural way I see. My next exhibit is in May 2015 and will be titled Spontaneous Relationships and that is really what my work is about. That moment when things like foregrounds /backgrounds/subjects/​photographer to subject/tones/shapes come together, sometimes humorous but always spontaneously and they happen in a split second. One fraction of a second those relationships are there and a fraction of a second later they are gone forever. Has this type of work been done before? Absolutely, but I know I have captured moments that have never been captured before and maybe in a way that is unique to me and the way I see those moments.

I say just create from your heart and soul. Don't worry so much about whether or not it's been done. Do it honestly. Not for praise, not for shock, not for money, not for fame but only for you and the way you feel about what you are photographing. If you do this I have a feeling in the end it will all work out.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
Sep 09, 2014 10:51 |  #3607

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17143982 (external link)
Science to personal expression? I'm sorry, there is a math, physics and chemistry component to photography but it's on the technical side of the coin. None of us live in a bubble and we are all influenced by everything around us. I know my work is influenced by movies, literature, music, paintings and other photographers but I still have a way of expressing my feeling about things in a way that is mine. Learning to see is the hardest part of this thing. It is easy to be an imitator but hard to find your own path. I think it was Haas that said something like, and not 100% sure if he said it and I am paraphrasing, I would rather make an image that looks like mine that the maybe the masses don't get than make images that look like everyone else's image that everyone loves. I agree. Not trying to be different just photographing the natural way I see. My next exhibit is in May 2015 and will be titled Spontaneous Relationships and that is really what my work is about. That moment when things like foregrounds /backgrounds/subjects/​photographer to subject/tones/shapes come together, sometimes humorous but always spontaneously and they happen in a split second. One fraction of a second those relationships are there and a fraction of a second later they are gone forever. Has this type of work been done before? Absolutely, but I know I have captured moments that have never been captured before and maybe in a way that is unique to me and the way I see those moments.

I say just create from your heart and soul. Don't worry so much about whether or not it's been done. Do it honestly. Not for praise, not for shock, not for money, not for fame but only for you and the way you feel about what you are photographing. If you do this I have a feeling in the end it will all work out.

That's it. Do it honestly. All you can do is what you like and what feeds your soul. It won't necessarily be what feeds everyone else or maybe it is, doesn't really matter.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
19,502 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7378
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Sep 09, 2014 12:47 |  #3608

Clean Gene wrote in post #17143519 (external link)
But that's getting into being unique simply for the sake of being unique.

That's not what I meant.

You are aware that people come up with ideas independently, right?

Yes. One of my earlier posts acknowledged that they do.

People have to be operating under at least some similar common ground or else the viewer has absolutely no basis for saying how good or bad the art is. That being the case, the existence of such a common ground necessitates that a lot of identical things will HONESTLY be created by different people with them having no contact. I'm most familiar with this with regards to inventions and scientific theories...two people working on the same common ground . . . independently and HONESTLY come up with some truly original groundbreaking solution to life's problems. Only it CAN'T be unique, because people are operating under the same common ground. . . . This is precisely why you'll hear about things like some scientist working his ass off on a project and then going to patent his invention and finding out that someone else (who he never even knew about) got there and patented it first.

Not so analogous. Science and invention involve creativity, as art does, but much of what goes on in science excludes subjectivity in a way that art doesn't. Scientific findings are replicable.

I'll try a different kind of explanation. If you've ever been in love, you may recognize this experience. There are times at the early, unrealistic stage when you're with your loved one and the rest of the world drops away. Other people recede in importance; the two of you exist more fully than anyone else. Even the person's name is profoundly meaningful; other people's names are mere strings of letters. This state of mind is, obviously, something you created. You and your partner aren't objectively the center of the universe, it only seems that way to you.

Now imagine a parallel in photography. You're preparing to photograph something. You give the scene your full attention (okay, your equipment and technique necessarily get some attention, too). As you take in the scene perceptually and contemplate it, the world of other photographers becomes irrelevant because what's important at the moment is your involvement with what you see. (A lot of things become irrelevant, which is why, if taking pictures in public, I have to remind myself that if I step back, I should look around first to avoid crashing into someone or falling off the curb.) The resulting images will incorporate something of the way your mind works because they'll come from the mental process that you engaged while producing them. You recorded what seemed important to you about what was in your visual field. The next person would have done it differently.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceriltheblade
Goldmember
2,484 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2007
Location: middle east
     
Sep 11, 2014 05:35 |  #3609

^^^^ what an supurbly amazing piece of art!
I will have to look up Alexey Titarenko
i learn something new each day...and I love it


7D/5dIII
50 1.8 II, MP-E65, 85 II, 100 IS
8-15 FE, 10-22, 16-35 IS, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS, 100-400 ii, tamron 28-75 2.8
600 ex-rt, 055xproB/488rc2/Sirui k40x, kenko extens tubes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
Sep 11, 2014 08:52 |  #3610

IMAGE: http://imageshack.com/a/img901/6487/LArpKt.jpg

http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Sep 13, 2014 01:53 |  #3611

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17143982 (external link)
Science to personal expression? I'm sorry, there is a math, physics and chemistry component to photography but it's on the technical side of the coin. None of us live in a bubble and we are all influenced by everything around us. I know my work is influenced by movies, literature, music, paintings and other photographers but I still have a way of expressing my feeling about things in a way that is mine. Learning to see is the hardest part of this thing. It is easy to be an imitator but hard to find your own path. I think it was Haas that said something like, and not 100% sure if he said it and I am paraphrasing, I would rather make an image that looks like mine that the maybe the masses don't get than make images that look like everyone else's image that everyone loves. I agree. Not trying to be different just photographing the natural way I see. My next exhibit is in May 2015 and will be titled Spontaneous Relationships and that is really what my work is about. That moment when things like foregrounds /backgrounds/subjects/​photographer to subject/tones/shapes come together, sometimes humorous but always spontaneously and they happen in a split second. One fraction of a second those relationships are there and a fraction of a second later they are gone forever. Has this type of work been done before? Absolutely, but I know I have captured moments that have never been captured before and maybe in a way that is unique to me and the way I see those moments.

I say just create from your heart and soul. Don't worry so much about whether or not it's been done. Do it honestly. Not for praise, not for shock, not for money, not for fame but only for you and the way you feel about what you are photographing. If you do this I have a feeling in the end it will all work out.

There are not enough paths for everyone to get their own. Paths overlap, converge, and diverge all the time.

I never said that there was a science to personal expression. Those were your words, not mine. But if you're not working under some kind of common framework, then you can not accurately critique it. Cultural, symbolic, and linguistic systems influence how people think, and one cannot properly judge art without having some common understanding of such contexts. You can't have it both ways. If two people walking on the same path causes you to say that they are being dishonest or untrue to themselves, then you're dismissing the very frameworks that allow people to make INTELLIGENT criticisms of art in the first place. The very act of saying "that work is bad, and doesn't work" assumes the presence of a common working "language". And such commonalities NECESSITATE a large degree of overlap, otherwise there would be zero incentive for the artist to attempt to communicate with an audience.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Sep 13, 2014 02:02 |  #3612

OhLook wrote in post #17144337 (external link)
That's not what I meant.
Yes. One of my earlier posts acknowledged that they do.
Not so analogous. Science and invention involve creativity, as art does, but much of what goes on in science excludes subjectivity in a way that art doesn't. Scientific findings are replicable.

I'll try a different kind of explanation. If you've ever been in love, you may recognize this experience. There are times at the early, unrealistic stage when you're with your loved one and the rest of the world drops away. Other people recede in importance; the two of you exist more fully than anyone else. Even the person's name is profoundly meaningful; other people's names are mere strings of letters. This state of mind is, obviously, something you created. You and your partner aren't objectively the center of the universe, it only seems that way to you.

Now imagine a parallel in photography. You're preparing to photograph something. You give the scene your full attention (okay, your equipment and technique necessarily get some attention, too). As you take in the scene perceptually and contemplate it, the world of other photographers becomes irrelevant because what's important at the moment is your involvement with what you see. (A lot of things become irrelevant, which is why, if taking pictures in public, I have to remind myself that if I step back, I should look around first to avoid crashing into someone or falling off the curb.) The resulting images will incorporate something of the way your mind works because they'll come from the mental process that you engaged while producing them. You recorded what seemed important to you about what was in your visual field. The next person would have done it differently.

Everyone "does it differently" whether they're trying to or not. There are people who actually pore over scientific data in order to determine the exact logistics of Ansel Adams' photographs so that they can "shoot their own Ansel Adams photo". And even then, it's still not the same.

And that's the rare exception. Most people who get accused of copying are not going to such lengths. Is the result different? Yes, it's absolutely different, unless one chooses to just willfully ignore the differences and place all emphasis on the commonalities. If that applies to flat-out plagiarism, then it absolutely applies to the majority of photographs. Every time I walk out my front door, the world looks "different".




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
Sep 13, 2014 02:07 |  #3613

Less talk, more photos.


IMAGE: http://imageshack.com/a/img537/8616/vUr2Kb.jpg

http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,553 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6343
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Sep 13, 2014 08:20 |  #3614

Clean Gene wrote in post #17151389 (external link)
There are not enough paths for everyone to get their own. Paths overlap, converge, and diverge all the time.

If you are true to yourself you will find your path and be able to express your voice if you have one. It starts when you come to a realization that is is not about the single image but bodies of relating images and you start seeing visual relationships in your work and play on those relationships.

Again you know you are starting to get somewhere when other people start saying they recognize your work without seeing your signature.

Are you in your work?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,553 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6343
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Sep 13, 2014 08:35 |  #3615

Clean Gene wrote in post #17151400 (external link)
Most people who get accused of copying are not going to such lengths.

I see a lot of threads on forums like "let's see your ________ method" or "how can I take a picture like this." And then when everyone is shooting with the same equipment and following the same rules all the work starts looking the same. You see one guy make one really pretty picture and suddenly there are 50 people trying to recreate the same image. They ask questions like what lens and camera did you sue and what shutter speed and f/stop did you use. Rarely any questions about why did you take that photograph? How does it fit with your other photographs?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

429,465 views & 102 likes for this thread
Composition and all that Arty stuff - discussion thread.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Sanjeev Nanda
778 guests, 227 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.