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.

 
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
20,315 posts
Gallery: 76 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8478
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Sep 13, 2014 11:46 |  #3616

Clean Gene wrote in post #17151400 (external link)
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".

Gene, your tone sounds argumentative, but I don't know what you're arguing against.

I'm saying: Each person's work will be unique because it came from that person and the person is unique. Everyone's brain is wired differently, and everyone has had a different set of life experiences; and beyond those starting conditions, a photographer makes numerous conscious decisions when creating something.

You're saying: No one's work looks just like someone else's.

Where's the difference?


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Sep 14, 2014 01:20 |  #3617

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17151708 (external link)
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?

There are more than 7 billion people on the planet. How many faces can you look at before you start to notice that different people look like each other?

We're dealing with the limitations of human biology here, and it's the same reason why one death is a tragedy and a million deaths are a statistic. I can't recognize the unique signature in the work of millions of people because I, as the viewer, am operating with a human brain. People mentally lump racists, rapists, atheists, Christians, Muslims, criminals, hobos, strippers, customer service respresentatives, fast food employees, Americans, British, etc etc etc etc into the same group despite individuals within each group being vastly different. That's just stereotyping. That's just viewing different people as being the same person because the human brain lacks the capacity to truly know that many people on an individual basis.

Do you not even see the problem with implying the ability to look at that many artists' bodies of work and NOT start to see them as being the same?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,717 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6965
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Sep 14, 2014 08:10 |  #3618

Yeah and each one has a unique finger print....

So you think that the work of Adams looks the same as the work of Joel Peter-Witkin?

Yes there are many out there that follow the same rules and use the same equipment and worship the same safe calendar art aesthetic but those photographers are not creating art. Nothing wrong with that. They are having fun and making records of things and that is very cool and keeping the camera manufactures in biz. But very few photographs are meant to be art. Very few photographer are artists. Those that are artists have something to say more than that is pretty. They are the ones that see beyond the obvious.

Seems to me you are having a person struggle. You have choices. You can choose to not worry about it and work though it or you can quit. Not everyone has something to say. I knew a very good photographer (technically) that worked for years and finally woke up one morning and decided he was never going to make another photograph. I asked him why? He said that he finally realized that he had nothing to say visually. That's the reason he could never progress, visually speaking, vertically. I believe that if you have something to say and you are working in the right medium you will create things in ways that are yours. I see a lot of sameness but once in a while AHHHH there is something that is maybe old but remade fresh. And every once in a while I see fresh....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
20,315 posts
Gallery: 76 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8478
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Sep 14, 2014 11:01 |  #3619

Clean Gene wrote in post #17151400 (external link)
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.

Clean Gene wrote in post #17152987 (external link)
I can't recognize the unique signature in the work of millions of people because I, as the viewer, am operating with a human brain. . . . Do you not even see the problem with implying the ability to look at that many artists' bodies of work and NOT start to see them as being the same?

To borrow a term from math, Gene, it seems to me that these two statements of yours cancel out.


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
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 462
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Sep 14, 2014 11:22 as a reply to  @ OhLook's post |  #3620

Amazing...242 pages of discussions about Arty stuff and I have yet to read a terse concise definition of the word "Art". :rolleyes:


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,717 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6965
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Sep 14, 2014 11:53 |  #3621

chauncey wrote in post #17153589 (external link)
Amazing...242 pages of discussions about Arty stuff and I have yet to read a terse concise definition of the word "Art". :rolleyes:

Something by Adams that gets to it that and I think I've posted in this thread already. I think this could be said of any art form.

"I have been asked many times. "What it a great photograph?" I can answer best by showing a great photograph, not talking about one. However, as word definitions are required more often than not, I would say this: A great photograph is a full expression of what one feels about what is being photographed in the deepest sense, and is, thereby, a true expression of what one feels about life in its entirety." -Ansel Adam




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Sep 14, 2014 15:55 |  #3622

and now for something completely different:

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3913/15053186877_82bdc3b1cb_b.jpg

my flash work was always people (musicians, dancers, artists), so I decided to try smth new. took me a couple hours to find the best light was bare flash on flat white. what do you guys think?

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
20,315 posts
Gallery: 76 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8478
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Sep 14, 2014 18:47 |  #3623

ziemowit wrote in post #17154052 (external link)
and now for something completely different . . . what do you guys think?

If you were aiming at light and cheerful, you got it. This looks like a decoration for a nursery. Except . . . there's something of the uncanny valley about it because (1) the figures appear to be falling and (2) some are cut off at the edge. Both points are inconsistent with the "harmless and fun" feel. That is, they suggest that the little toys are in danger or are being hurt. But these are only my associations to the piece.

I don't know what the small black one near the center is. It doesn't have a face.

Curious to see what airfrog will say. He always maintains that a photo should look like the rest of the photographer's work, that the greatest compliment is when someone knew it was yours before seeing the name.


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
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,717 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6965
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Sep 14, 2014 18:59 as a reply to  @ OhLook's post |  #3624

:lol: I shoot things all the time that don't look like my work. (talking personal work here) I post a lot of that on sites like here to kinda see what floats but what I choose to show in exhibits is very different.

But having said that, am I the only one that see a connection between this and his street work? The placement of strong primary colors at first looks random like in Z's street work but the longer you look the more you see that's not case.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
20,315 posts
Gallery: 76 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8478
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Sep 14, 2014 20:20 |  #3625

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17154330 (external link)
But having said that, am I the only one that see a connection between this and his street work? The placement of strong primary colors . . .

I can't decode the placement of colors. The connection I see is the slight weirdness in the treatment of an ordinary subject.


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
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 276
Joined Nov 2011
     
Sep 14, 2014 20:55 |  #3626

The black thing in the middle is a duck...

People kicking the ball around

IMAGE: http://imageshack.com/a/img538/220/itpupR.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...
36,717 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6965
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Sep 14, 2014 21:31 |  #3627

OhLook wrote in post #17154462 (external link)
I can't decode the placement of colors. The connection I see is the slight weirdness in the treatment of an ordinary subject.

Check out the monochromatic (white in this case) B/G and the strong primaries. I see that in a lot of his street work.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
20,315 posts
Gallery: 76 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8478
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Sep 14, 2014 21:58 |  #3628

elrey2375 wrote in post #17154507 (external link)
People kicking the ball around

I like this arrangement with one exception, the car hood (?) in front, which doesn't seem part of the scene. The degree of blur takes a big jump between that and the next surface.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17154560 (external link)
Check out the monochromatic (white in this case) B/G and the strong primaries. I see that in a lot of his street work.

Okay, but why is all the blue in the bottom row?


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
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Sep 14, 2014 22:12 |  #3629

chauncey wrote in post #17153589 (external link)
Amazing...242 pages of discussions about Arty stuff and I have yet to read a terse concise definition of the word "Art". :rolleyes:

I've heard too many complaints about definition of art. I'll be the first in history to define it.

Art is beauty. Done.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 276
Joined Nov 2011
     
Sep 14, 2014 22:51 |  #3630

OhLook wrote in post #17154595 (external link)
I like this arrangement with one exception, the car hood (?) in front, which doesn't seem part of the scene. The degree of blur takes a big jump between that and the next surface.
Okay, but why is all the blue in the bottom row?

Maybe it's me, because I took it, but I go right to the triangle made by the two people and the ball. And the people are arranged in a triangle. I framed it as I did because I didn't want to get closer, I liked the position inside the frame from this spot. There was a car there and to be honest, I prefer that to just a piece of parking lot. It's actually less jarring to me because while the texture between the two parts might be different, the color is still dark. It reminded me of Koudelka and he's probably one of my favorite photographers.


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

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

439,528 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 alexandar
927 guests, 313 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.