nom Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 <html> Critique please. All photos with M6 + Summicron 50. <br>The first one is a traditional click, the other two with some Photoshop help.<br>Are we ready for the future? Digital can be art as well? Why most digital manipulated photos look so "shouting"? <p> <img src="http://www.jordan.gr/ebay/thnos.jpg"> <img src="http://www.jordan.gr/ebay/s.jpg"> <img src="http://www.jordan.gr/ebay/barka.jpg"> </body> </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl smith Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 Usually digitally manipulated photos are overdone. They're too obviously manipulated, to the point where for most people they cross over in to digital art. The effect to me varies. Jerry Uelsmann for example does some unusual work in the darkroom, and similar work to that really doesn't bother me as long as somebody does it well. Too many people think that by having a computer and the necessary software that they can do it well. It's simply not true, so sometimes I think people go in to overload at the amount of crap that gets posted. Possibly they do it for learning, but when they don't take constructive criticism, somehow I doubt that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_hovland Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 Art is about intent and actualization of intent, not about medium. I've seen some good digital manipulations, but most of them are fast food for the eye. I think excellent straight photography has a longer shelf life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_hovland Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 I think the two pictures that have texture added would stand up without it, particularly the boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_hovland Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 Photography doesn't need to apologize for what it does best, and neither does any other medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gib Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 of the digital filters available in Adobe Photoshop Elements or just the rolls royce version of PS, I prefer the subtlety of dry brush and watercolour. If you use watercolour, I find it darkens the image considerably, to bring the brightness back, you can use Enhancements, Levels, the sliders on the histogram are easy to preview changes to black, white and midtones. The two digitally effected images look like silkscreens and I suspect that printed and matted in a nice frame would look very very well on anyone's wall. Your first shot is excellent. By the way who is this Art guy anyway? regards, Bill Gibson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackflesher Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 It is your art, so you get to display it any way you want... FWIW, I prefer the "traditional" image by a large margin to the manipulated ones. As already stated, I too think the boat would have stood up on its own and would like to see it posted -- perhaps as original and as a B&W. Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 I met Jerry Uelsmann, went into his darkroom with him, saw the set up he has, and he explained some of his "tricks". This was back in 1969. I spent many hours mastering those techniques, but I don't have his vision of the world. I went back to straight photography. If the average photographer had to put as much time, effort and expense into computer manipulated images as required for gelatin silver prints most would soon realize that they are producing digital crap, and find something else to fill up their idle moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nom Posted August 25, 2002 Author Share Posted August 25, 2002 <html> Jack,<br> Well, it wouldn't be really interesting... You see, I shot this photo on a day with a silly light with this manipulation in mind. I spent about two hours trying to make something interesting. Here is the original photo: <p><img src="http://www.jordan.gr/ebay/BOAT.JPG"><br>I would like to make clear that I did not call my photos "art". In fact, my post has two questions:<br>1) Critique about my photos ... and <br>2) About digital photos and art.<br> </body> </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_smith12 Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 "Digital can be art as well?" Jordan, Your digital rendering of the boat shows the answer to your question. Unequivocally Yes! It matters not whether some like it and some don't. Andy Warhol made a rendering of a campbell soup can and that image is a "Modern Art" icon. The digital boat is analagous to Warhol's soup can. Monet made impressionistic paintings of gardens. His images were based on his visual image of an actual garden. Critique?? For what it's worth, I prefer images two and three. The fact that both are reworked digital images is irrelevant to me. I find the digital boat more interesting than the original boat. I do, however, love the color captured by the original. Perhaps I liked being "shouted at." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackflesher Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 Jordan: Well, I played around with your original in both color and B&W and have to agree nothing really worked. In this case, I would say that your digital manipulation of the original is far more aesthetic as "art". Can digital be art? IMO if Mapplethorpe got a (large) government grant to produce images of human waste and assorted bodily fluids mixed together with various icons for addition to the collection of photography at NYMOMA, then by all means a digital manipulation (or anything else) can and should be considered art too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_travis Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 "Well, it wouldn't be really interesting... You see, I shot this photo on a day with a silly light. . ." I would suggest taking a basic community course in art before trying any "artistic" manipulation. When I first saw the digatal boat snap, I thought it was two pictures. When seeing the photographic image, it's easy to understand why. You've place the horizon right smack in the middle. Was there any reason why this was done? I think what makes this uninteresting is the way you've chosen to shoot it, and not the scene itself. So the first thing I would do in PhotoShop is crop to correct for the poor framing. I, for one, am not looking forward to the future if it means ignoring the lessons of the past, for I am a strong believer that "throught the mastering of craft lies creativity." (Bill Tice) And yes, I do think that you indeed did imply that you've created art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iván Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 Hi, Jordan: I think your first image is a very good one. I would agree about considering it in the art category. The other ones seem not to belong in the same category and I even assume you thought the same way or you hadn't taken them through the filters. In summary, I don't think digital is art by itself the same as plain photography is not art by itself: it is not the medium but what we do with it. IMHO. Regards, Jordan. -Iván Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrence_beck1 Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 Dear Mr. Travis,You obviously have a very inflated opinion of yourself. Jordan asked a question, posted some images, and you arrogantly replied that he should take a community art course. I might suggest you do the same as I found all but his sky manipulation far more interesting and artistic than anything I've ever seen you post.Jordan asked:"Are we ready for the future? Digital can be art as well? Why most digital manipulated photos look so "shouting"?" How and where does this imply that he's created art? And why the chip on your shoulder?L.Beck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_chi Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 I like both, but the original boat image more because I just do... I don't mind the 'digitized' version but I find often when it is put thru heavy PS filter like this it doesn't seem 'real' or even surreal, sometimes 'too perfect' because the etching is so 'consistently inconsistent'... It just loses the human 'touch' which I find in 'unmanipulated' photos more. It's up to how you want to express the shot at the end of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hart Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 I particularly like the boat. I'm no expert on these matters, but given where the point of interest lies I wonder whether some drastic cropping would give it more punch? I have dared to have a go and will try to upload it, but if it doesn't work it's just a rectangle round the boat and the 'dock' next to it. Just a thought...:-)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nom Posted August 26, 2002 Author Share Posted August 26, 2002 I know that my English is not so good, but it looks like some times it's really bad! But at least some people understand exactly what I mean. (Thanks Lawrence) Now I know that for some people "critique" means "insult" or something like that. Next time I will go out and shoot some pictures instead of posting. On the other hand I really enjoy the real critique from the rest of you my friends. Ken, I really liked your answer. Thank you and all of you that answered my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 Yes, i think so but i prefer real life photography.I enjoyed your art might try it myself.Mmm your post has just given me a idea for my next photo post.Thanks for sharing.Ps sometimes to develop a thick skin has its uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_chi Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 Jordan, I hope you don't mind me 'digitally manipulating'(PS) your boat image to see how it can be made to look er... 'different' (art is a complex thing...). Sometimes what looks 'dull' in colour may look interesting in b/w... which photoshop does a pretty good converting job... I even tried a slight motion blur which gave it a very romantic look in my opinion... but I came back to a 'straight' shot at the end with your photo... Come to think of it, will anyone really put a PS filter over the breathtaking qualities (some may dispute that) of your 50mm summicron? (I believe I have seen ppl on this forum using Kodak Gold 200 on their Leica lens, now that... I think is disputable!) :) Keep up with the postings!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nom Posted August 26, 2002 Author Share Posted August 26, 2002 Ken, I don't change my Summicron quality for anything else, still, cameras and lenses do not make photos. For me, Leica M is primarily "feeling" and inspiration. I could live with less quality, all major brands would do fine to me as my capabilities do not surpass their qualities. But I absolutely love the feeling of M-system. Digital IS the future, so I start walking in this area. I already use digital only to "repair" some photos. In this case I was just experimenting and playing. I tried many things in PS too before I end with this photo. My opinion is that it is "nice" and of course much more interesting than the original, which was intentionally shot as is, with PS manipulating in mind. My experience so far is that some friends do not like the digital printouts because they find them too perfect. We are not talking about manipulated photos, just prints from slides printed with an Epson 890, normal contrast, normal saturation. My first reaction was that the expression "too perfect" was silly. I am not so sure any more though. Maybe photography has more areas for us to investigate than we used to believe there could be. We live in a most interesting decade, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_travis Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 Mr. L. Beck, I've yet to see you post any image, or you've posted and I've missed it. At least Mr. Koussis has the courage to do so. So before you critique either of us and have me take your seriously, I need to know more about your background, beside your ostentatious display of ignorance and ill breeding. I merely pointed out what many would agree is a major compositional error, and that is placing the horizon in the middle of the picture. No one, who is vaguely familar with traditional art would have made this mistake. This, in itself was enough for me to think that the digital manipulation was actually TWO different pictures. I also find that the orginal picture has several elements that should lead to a successful picture: a great sky; interesting forground (boat and pilings); great tonality; wonderful mood. The hour spent in PhotoShop may better have been served by exploring the possibilities that this scene held. And yes, I still do think Jordan IMPLIED that he was creating art. And in response to that I suggest that he learn something about art before flippantly trying to create it with an hour's worth of PhotoShop. It's bad enough that we're getting all of these desaturated b&w photos, now we're to be treated to digital art too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nom Posted August 27, 2002 Author Share Posted August 27, 2002 Mr. Glenn Travis, I had enough of this already. We all know the "rule of thirds" Mr. Travis, it was the first thing to learn after "shutter speeds" and "diaphragms" 29 years ago. We also know that we can brake the rules when we want to emphasize something, or when we "TRY" to show something. I try because I love photography, Mr Travis, everyday people like me try and fail many times in their lifes, you know! Your knowledge about "major compositional errors" and "art" seems superficial and your photos in your photo-net portfolio are below average. The fact that you are an architect -as your photo-net bio informs me- do not automatically make you a photographer or an artist or a gentleman. You already said TOO much about me, just because of a horizon that I intentionally put in the middle of a picture! You are definitely NOT the person to criticize me and I would appreciate if you do not criticize again any photo that I will submit in the future. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrence_beck1 Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 "It's bad enough that we're getting all of these desaturated b&w photos, now we're treated to digital art too?" By this comment, Mr. Travis, you imply that there is such a thing as "digital art". In fact You state it ! "Are we ready for the future? Digital can be art as well?" You are such a provincial "wannabe" that you don't realize that English is not Mr. Jordan's first language... that by asking "Digital can be art as well? " Jordan meant "Can digital be art as well?" This went in one ear and out the other, Mr. Travis. SEE SPOT RUN. Capish? Learn to read before you critique. That Jordan has a better sense of composition than you is no reason to get your bloomers ruffled! I don't remember reading anywhere on this forum that I had to enter your "exclusive club" of Republican Leica owners by submitting my images for your approval. I wrote in my previous post: "Jordan asked a question, posted some images, and you arrogantly replied that he should take a community art course. I might suggest you do the same as I found all but his sky manipulation far more interesting and artistic than anything I've ever seen you post." My opinion. And probably the opinion of many on this forum... "So before you critique either of us and have me take your seriously, I need to know more about your background, beside your ostentatious display of ignorance and ill breeding." When did you become the director of this forum, Glenn? I didn't realize I had to answer to you before I was privileged to post on your forum. Suggest you make that clear, in the future... as I wouldn't be reading this forum if I knew the moderator were a lemur. Digital will replace you, Mr. Travis... as you are clueless. very sincerely yours, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_wiley2 Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 These look alot like the "pictorialist" effects you used to see in magazines like Popular Photography in the 50's and 60's. Back then they would use texture screens and lith masks to achieve the desired effect. Typically, they were applied to salvage lackluster images, only to make things worse. Of course digital images can be art, but heavy-handed effects such as these tend to put things into the "arts and crafts" category. Definitely not what I would consider "Leica Photography." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfie wang Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Actually, piezography creates better photographs than what can be created in the darkroom using traditional methods. There is no doubt that trad darkroom work in a few years will be surpassed entirely by inkjet printing ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now