nomade 1 Posted April 12, 2002 It's difficult to decide about this one... Hmm, I think it's because it's a bit overloaded... Link to comment
jerrymat 5 Posted April 13, 2002 As I see this on the computer monitor, I can tell it loses its effect because it needs to be a large wall print. Also, the conversion to j-peg and inclusion on this web site made it lose much of its tonality. Link to comment
John Peri 1,039 Posted May 26, 2002 This is a superb bit of art by any standard or comparison. It would make an extraordinary painting too. Link to comment
steve_bell2 0 Posted May 27, 2002 I would be more impressed if it were done in the darkroom rather than the computer. i'll upload one by an artist named David Hockney. it's really amazing. Link to comment
jerrymat 5 Posted May 27, 2002 Thank you for the uploaded work by Hockney. It is good indeed. Was it made by pasting up images and rephotographing? I hope you see that his is a three dimensional photograph with perspective while mine was intended as a two dimensional surface work, hence the word "tiles" in its title. Tell me why you favor the darkroom over the computer, please. What has the technology to do with the image? Would you favor more the home made emulsion on a glass plate used in a pinhole camera and printed on egg home made albumin paper? Would you like best a photograph made by a blind photographer? Or perhaps be impressed most by a mountain picture made by a one-legged climber? Link to comment
John Peri 1,039 Posted June 17, 2002 Let me enter very briefly this debate. I prefer rasberries to strawberries personally, but that is my culinary preference, it does not mean that one fruit is of better quality than the other. I don't really see how one can compare photography to painting or, more recently now, to computer enhanced imaging, unless it is in the final rendering or impact of the image? Both the works posted here are highly imaginative and decorative. Painting has a long history which dates back to paleolothic times. Photography is an evolving science (some may argue painting also) which has a following in its own right. The computer has now opened the door to a new means of expression which, like painting and traditional photography can also be used in the creative process. Why do some object? Is it because the think it's "easier"? It's also "easier" to write a book on the computer than via longhand. Link to comment
hayward 0 Posted November 28, 2002 Nice work - it's cool how your're experimeting anf getting out of the box. This is from the album cover of the Talking Heads' "Songs About Buildings and Food" from 1977. It was formed from a zillion polaroids taken by adjusting a tripod in a grid pattern, laying them out and shooting the result. I'm sure if they had Photoshop then they wouldn't have done it that way. It's a pity I couldn't find a larger image, though. Link to comment
jeff d 1 Posted December 2, 2003 This one is too busy for me. There are too many competing images pulling my eye from one to the next. I do not see a "symphony" here, rather, a cacophy. Perhpas the way to resolve this noise is to get the orchestra to play the same notes. I would choose to remove all mirrored images go with the resulting flow. Everything would cascade in the same direction. But, that is my idea, not yours. To each his own. Perhaps cacophy is what you are looking for, in a symmetrical sort of way. Link to comment
linda carlson 0 Posted December 29, 2010 I just came across this image while browsing collage/nudes. I like it very much Jerry! And...you could have so many derivative images, complete in themselves from the overall composition. Linda Carlson Link to comment
Recommended Comments
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