Bathing robin

Interesting capture of the Robin, but the quality of the image is less than spectacular. Quite a bit of noise, blurred distractions close to the camera, and the colors appear washed out... almost like it was shot on film and scanned in.

El true on all counts, I confess. I shot this with a DRebel and a 100-400mm lens.The shot was taken through the spindles of the railing of my deck. The foto was color corrected using the eyedropper sampler, run through the high
pass filter in PS CS for sharpening, and finally despeckled in the noise filter in an attempt to get rid of some of the noise, which it actually did, but unfortunately not enough.

I really didn't post this pic here for it sharpness or clarity or even its color
compositiion. I just wanted to see if anyone might have any opinions as
to any value or similarity it might have relative to art, impressionist, or otherwise, bcause...

One thing that disturbs me about this forum is the seeming obsession most
critics have with an image's sharpness and clarity, contrast and exposure, as if those are the only criteria by which to judge a picture. Photography is
supposed to present itself as an art as well as a science, and in light of
that, we should also understand that photography in the artistic sense
revels in the unorthodox, and rules and schmules be damned.

My complaint here is in no way directed at elbirth. Hell! At least he said
hello, which is more than any of the other 43 viewers of this thread to date
have seen fit to do. And I thank him for his remarks. But science aside, I
was just wondering if anyone thinks there is any artistic merit to my picture. I mean, you have to admit, it's kind of different, isn't it?

Sorry for the rant.

I have to agree with you some there... admittedly, I was viewing the photo from a perspective that looks for the quality in it, rather than the creativity and artistic value. Perhaps if you had pointed out your intent from the start, others may have viewed it from the point of view you're looking for and responded accordingly.

When I stop and take another look at it with what you said in mind, I begin to see what you were going for. I wonder how it would look again with less noise (I'd suggest NoiseWare or Noise Ninja, as they perform quite well), and if it'd help/hurt your attempt.
The distortion around the edges of the picture add a nice element to it, but the portion on the right I feel would be better suited if it took up less room over there and didn't cover part of the Robin's wing. If it matched more closely to the haze created at the bottom, it might work better.

I'm not a really big art person myself, so I can't really judge it with a "real" artistic eye. Like I said originally, I like the image for your capture of the position of the Robin, that turned out very nicely.
And don't worry, no offense taken by your rant. You have a very good point there.

Here's another example to better emphasize what I mean than does the
picture above. This is from a foto shoot two weeks before. The leaves are
blown out, and yadda, yadda, yadda. There's no way I figured I could post
something like this here. Yet, the more I looked at it subjectively, the more
I thought it could be saved and posted somewhere; so, I painted in the
blown out portion of the leaves and posted it on another non-photography forum that has an art section that includes but is not limited to photography. Both images were viewed as art for art's sake, without any consideration given to the criteria we use here. And the point of this is simply that these people know and recognize the difference between photography as art and photography as a technical exercise and crtiqued the photos correctly as they
were intended to be--as art. You brought up a good point in that maybe I
should have asked for a critque of the picture solely for any art value it might have, but I hate doing that, because as adults and professionals, we should be able to recognize the differences without be led by the nose, which I resent others doing to me. Oh, well, I'm sure there are others like you who see my point but perhaps don't care enough to bother with a reply. That's too bad, because I would really like to see other works posted here that may be technically terrible but artfully interesting by and to others who appreciate such things. Just think of the lively discussions
we could have about things other than contrast, exposure, and EXIF data.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I totally agree with Mr.Barclay here. Although, I would prefer to see a seperate folder for "art" images where sharpness, focus, EXIF data, etc., are not an issue. As for the picture you posted, I think it has potential, but it needs something else to add to it. The colorful section on the right side of the picture draws me away from the actual subject. That is my two cents

I have a niece who graduated from art school. She uses photographs as a medium for expressing her artistic skills in graphic design and painting. Her work is impressive. I find that I resort to creating art from photographs as an afterthought, typically as a way of salvaging an image that is poorly exposed or composed. Like this one. I rarely share my photographic "art" with my niece, but I don't hesitate to talk about my photographs.

Basically, if the intent is to create art from photographs, fine. If we're just making a not so great image look better, I'm less sympathetic (though guilty of doing it many times).

I happen to like the first pic of the robin very much. Yes, impressionistic. I looked closely to see if was "photoshop'd" and decided I couldn't tell. It doesn't matter. It looks like a robin in a birdbath just on the other side of a bush as I might spot it on a hazy summer morning. Well done.

I would like to give my opinion about photography, art and this forum.
Everybody who is interested in photography will have he's / her reasons.
(to share interesting views with others, family pictures, art, ...)

Today with digital photography all pictures can be turned into artistic works or some kind of art. There will always be somebody who likes.

For this forum I believe that art photographs fit as long as the picture was taken with that intention. If art was created via post processing, it should be mentionned in the original posting together with a request for the feadback expected.

Hello I think that you will find that the "temperment" of the forum, just like any other community, is a lot more friendly if you are not perceived as having an ongoing chip on your shoulder.

I frankly, am more of a "technician" than "artist" (likely the engineering part of my engineering/architectu​re background) and really don't tend to comment on "artsy" shots or manipulations. If I don't like a particular style, I try to recognize that that is my preference, but also recognize that others may very well like or enjoy it. Therefore, I will usually look but not "speak" to those issues. Others may or may not do the same.

With regard to basics, most great artists (my architecture side taking the lead) learned and practiced the fundamentals and then were able to aesthetically, and creatively handle the elements of their craft to produce works of varying styles.

Anyway, welcome and keep sharing. Both in what you post and what you can contribute to the posts of others.

Chip on my shoulder?

I think the suggestion for a Photography as Art category is a good one, but
I don't think it would work here. Even so, it would be nice to have such a venue where we all could show off the different crazy things you can do to
a photogragh using the innumerable third party filters available to pc users.
But of course, only Photoshop owners would be able to make use of such
a setup. But I do think some sort of free-form arena would be a fun thing
have here and might persuade some to post material that they'd otherwise
not post because they think it's inappropriate.

Liked your Ice Blue, maderito.

That's much what the "Share Images" forum is about vs. the Critique Corner.

OIC

Never been there. I'll check it out. Thanks.

(Hi-and just for the record, this is the first time I've clicked on this post)
I agree with dn7elson, that it seems a bit harsh attitude, but I thought that I would but in my two cents, for what it's worth....
There was a whole topic recently about this, about people's posts not getting responded to, but darn if I cannot find it now!@#$@#

This is a forum and I think no one should feel obligated to post in responce to any photo. If everyone was obligated to post a responce to every photo they view, then I dare say it would get quicky overwhelming in here. Personally, I would like to say though, in deciding which photos to respond to, a post is very unlikely to warrant a responce from me if it is just a picture with no explanation or even a "critiques wanted" or some type of verbiage along with it.

Maybe if anything all this 'worrying about how many responces vs how many times the post was viewed' tells us, it is that maybe the views counter should be removed!

I would not take it so personally when someone looks at your photo without answering to it, and take some of the rancor from your posts.
Your tone makes it seem that to you, we are just a bunch of technically obsessed snobs who do not understand art, who only respond to other "perfect" photos. We cannot "bother" with a reply? We do not "see fit" to
reply to a post? Do you reply to every post you look at?

I don't know what else to say.

Julie

being a graphic design major myself and having played my fair share of photoshop tennis matches i can say there's definately a niche for this type of photo manipulation/illustrat​ion and some great stuff can come out of it. hell, it's what a lot of graphic designers do for a living.

here are a couple of mine i've created over the last couple years for fun.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Very nice work Rob_m. You've got a future there. :P