Untitled

Comments welcome

You know Ransford, I am beginning to think that too many of the individuals who rate images on this site are anti-Photoshop; Unfortunately they don't know how to appreciate new images or even manipulation techniques beyond their through-the-lens raw camera bias. I appreciate equally both perspectives (and in between) although I'm a confessed Photoshop junky. I say all of this (1) because I hate 3's; and (2) I believe if you can't see the merit of a 4 or 5 in an image why rate it? This image is underrated---nice work.

I had not looked at the ratings until you brought them to my attention. I value your comments far more than the ratings, which I usually ignore. I think you are right on the antiPS element. There seem to be a lot of purists who have the misguided belief that the art of photography ends with the click of the shutter. They know nothing of the history of art or photography; they are modern "primitifs," Henri Rousseaus without his imagination. If Stieglitz were alive today, he would be a PS devotee, Georgia would insist on it. Same is true of Steichen, Man Ray and other photographers, not to mention Monet and Odilon Redon (Picasso and Braque would probably work with Illustrator).

As far as this image is concerned, I did not expect it to be well-received. Perhaps not a 'great' photo, I think it is quite original. This is a picture I did for ME, and I'm quite happy with it.

Now, I like approval, even flattery, as much as the next guy, but I've always gone my own way, the public be damned, and I'm not going to change now, certainly not because of ratings.BTW your House on Fifth Avenue series is excellent. I didn't see your name on Ben S new page, which I discovered recently. His is an attempt to get a group to contribute serious criticism and you should take a look: Five

Funny you would say that about Stieglitz; I have pondered the same about Ansel Adams; he was so dedicated to his reverence for nature I doubt he would change, augment, or manipulate anything. And while a number of his photographic compositions bother my academically trained sense for picture plane enhancement/placement/eyelevel---yada, yada, yada, I find a very most deep appreciation for his patience.

 

Many times I think modern primitives may be too good for them. Moreover, I see them as Ansel Adam want-ta-bes and while there is little wrong with that form of inspiration, Adams was a craftsman and perfectionist to a fault. There are far too many wide (and super wide) angle nature shots on this glorious path. Me, I have to find my own way, follow my nose and try not to get it or me into too much trouble; but what the hell, there is no fun in doing everything right is there? (relative right? relative wrong? etc.). Man Ray s iron, Duchamp s inverted bicycle wheel and urinal, Giacomo Balla s man pointing, Picasso s Baboon and Young; works of the Cubists, the German Expressionists (especially Kathy Kollwitz) and the Dadaists (although few listened during their time) all say emphatically--create do not imitate! (sorry, guess I got on a soap box here). Take care . . . ( can not get the HTML to present text correctly) Thanks for your comments and support and for the heads up on the discussion board.

 

A story: I was very much taken by the flower photos of a successful photographer. I emailed her and asked how she cropped so superbly. In return, her assistant answered indignantly, "She does not crop." On the one hand I was impressed with her ability to frame in the camera; on the other, I wondered why on earth she insists on being stuck with the camera frame.

My take on all this is as follows: Digital art is technical -- artists are afraid of it. On the other hand, photographers suffer from feelings of inferiority because of the traditional disdain of painters. Photoshop is a program and has no such feelings, but it feels like technology so a lot of photographers disdain it. What is amazing to me is that the creativity PS offers is mindblowing. What is wrong with these guys? Answer: Fear of nonconformance.

I'm including an image I saw on PN. On the left is the original version. I commented that I liked the picture but not the building in the background and offered my version (right) with a clear shot of the Mediterranean, which I believe was right back there. He said he liked my version but he couldn't do that sort of thing because it was cheating. I let it go at that. But this is not the same as slightly curling the lips of the Mona Lisa to make a better smile; this is a blue pot on a wall. Anyway, you get my point. I'll do whatever it takes to make my picture better.

Ha! I wonder what he would say of my Sea Port Reprise, it is composed of eight different skies, manipulated reflections in the water, rendered stars and additional clouds and hours of blending trials for each element. Some how that word smells of witchcraft!

 

On another note, I wonder why you even bothered with this piece; it s static, not visually intriguing and the only interesting point in the composition, the odd shape of the stucco fence, carries a rhythm abruptly cut off by the lens crop. I thought I would put my two cents in since I offered the critique. Eliminating the partial view on the left and raising the rhythm (curve) of the fence and flower pot opening, the composition is more interesting, asymmetrical and intriguing. Less is more . . .

 

Your treatment is best, and it is just a blue pot on a wall. Came across a critique you might enjoy: "I'm not digging the photoshop filtering. ... This sort of processing just makes things look unfocused and confused, at least to my eye. I can't see the subject through the filtering. My reaction is "oh, he used a filter technique" and that's where my involvement with the image ends." Of course, I didn't just use a 'filter technique,' I used curves and layers and masks and blends, and you name it, and all this guy does is flick a shutter.

 

Interesting, I had no idea that there was such a contingency of pseudo purest on this site; With fine art and abstract categories, one would not expect radical reactions there but they sometime occur. My greatest fun moments are when I manipulate nature or an object to the point they (the purest) can't tell whether its real or Memorex ---this will continue to be a challenge and fun on this site. Actually, the scrutiny serves as a kind of testing ground for the E-commerce site I am building.