passage

I like the pastel feel to the colors. It gives me the sensation of spinning around the woman.

Elves commented:"It made us wonder who is this woman and what is she thinking". Now I see that I was completely right answering:"She is a fashion model and like many such person think about nothing special." Looking for explanation why the backgound was blurred in such a strange way I

asked stupid question reffering to terrosists.

(which upset at least 2 oversenvsitive).

Further more after seeing the original non manipulated Photo by Maurice and having read the whole dispute between Maurice and Tonny Dummet, I've got an enlightement:

1) Maurice had problems not only with the background,it wasn't DOF problem as I supposed first, he simply didn't care what he was shooting then corrected it in the Photoshop.

2) There was no idea behind such manipulations.

(Any attempt to find explanations is outrageous,and not proper.)

3) Tony is right it has nothing to do with film, digits or even electrons. It's just photographer attitude wrong.

 

Some of digital photographers think that digits makes photography simpler and find it as a special

shortcut in bothersome traditional technology.

Shoot whatever it is, technology will makes a photo out of it. This is what Tony is against.

One of the things that I like about photography is how what you end up with on paper/slide/computer file can be so different from what you perceived with your own eyes at the moment you took the picture.

 

An easy example would be the more limited dynamic range of film/CCDs compared to the human eye. This one alone makes a bland snapshot with your regular single-use camera actually different from what you saw when you took it.

 

The brain has a lot to do with this, because it sometimes lure you into thinking a photo will be great because you have context at exposure time, but looking at the picture afterward it can look like anything else.

 

You have to put yourself into the right state of mind where can "see" things that your eye cannot see, be it a technical thing like higher saturation than expected or something more artistic like the emotion of the subject.

 

Maurice's picture is certainly art, it is very nice (not the best I've ever seen, but still quite acceptable!). But the questions are the following: what kind of art is it? Is that the kind of art on topic on this site?

 

My personal opinion is that photography ends at the print, slide or computer file (the one generated right from a digital camera sensor). Some effects are still possible, for example fiddling with the printing process, but it is getting borderline.

 

"Photoshopping" would be another thing, just like hand colouring for example. Both are very acceptable way to produce art IMHO, but how related your hand colouring or PhotoShop skills are to your photographer skills, that remain to be seen.

tony, pawel, give me a break! when i said i didn't care, i also said "about the perfect shot..." as in: perfect timing, perfect lighting, perfect exposure no matter how debatable, vague or subjective the term "perfect" may be, i was talking not only in the general context of a composition but also in the manner/method in which i take my photos...

We must take into account the limitations of this medium (message board) so please try to stay in context...

Pawel, you said yourself that this is a model thinking about how pretty she is, where i saw someone else in her so don't come breaking my legs now about my attitude towards what i do. i have uploaded 176 photos on this site, only 16 of which show extensive use of photoshop so save me also the rethorics about nihilism...

peace

P.S. To Amy (Powers): i think i need one of those T-shirts!

I have to throw in my 2 cents of philosophy on this debate, and my personal motivations. First, I like the "image," or whatever you want to call it. I agree with Tony that it has nothing to do with silver gelatin versus CCDs.

 

Although I doubt I will buy a digital camera for some time, I respect the work of those who can use one effectively, regardless of how much post-shot "manipulation" occurs. Debates like this will continue on for a long time, but I must agree with Mary Ball way back in this discussion that this forum will never satisfy everyone, and that as "artists" we should be able to learn from the work of others, get new ideas, and develop our own creativity and vision, whether you use a CCD or a lot of smelly chemicals to produce an image.

 

To me the most satisfying aspects of photography are creating the image (with a fully manual camera), and discovering how closely the resulting print or slide resembles what I had in mind when I took the picture. That process alone IS enough to keep me excited about photography for a long time.

 

Thanks for the education and new ideas. This site is not perfect, but IMO it's the best one out there right now.

On Monday I said boring, boring two weeks on a row.

I must say now that the debate has been fun, congratulations forummates.

 

I think that heavy photoshopworks doesn´t fit in here. Photoshopartists have a lot of places to show there work. I say more 1/125s work and less two day´s computerwork...

Well done. However, I am still baffled as to how this was done. I love the eye catching effect the yellow dress has on the overall photograph. As for composition, it feels as if it's missing something...

Nice work!

my turn table makes noises too... but i have Abbey Road on MP3

Maurice.

 

You really don't know where to stop with digital travesties do you ? ;-)

I know you won't believe me, Maurice, but no-one's breaking your legs. In my case I was just quoting your own comments about your work and discussing them. I believe I quoted them accurately and in context. You were talking about MY alleged killer instinct for the perfect shot, which you contrasted with your casualness towards your own shots (the "perfect shot" doesn't exist on its own by the way. It's being able to recognise the failures that counts). Now you tell us that you meant something else apart from a plain reading of your comments and that this is a limitation of the text-based bulletin board medium. Fair enough. Can we agree on the following: you weren't looking through the viewfinder. Generally, you couldn't care less about your shots. Often, you have nothing to say in them. You admit to manufacturing this particular image.

 

Elves, how about awarding the POW to a photographer who DOES have something to say, and who DOEs care about what s/he's doing? (and who uses one of those dang viewfinder contraptions?). An earlier suggestion for a compulsory photographer's comment (this wouldn't be hard to arrange, once a photograph had achieved POW-candidate status) might have saved us all a whole lot of hot air.

 

I'll even take Dan's mother's advice here too and offer something positive in Maurice's defence: I don't think the cropped feet ruin this picture.

 

 

 

A viewer suggests to convey more information, in regard to the meaning of a picture, by the authors. In reply to such a request the answer is twofold: Either the image is so poor,- that it needs a detailed description! Or the viewer is too unskilled, in order to interpret the image methaphysically within close approximation! Besides,- how an individual perceives any image is in the eyes of the beholder.

Herman writes .. how an individual perceives any image is in the eyes of the beholder.

This is the way I perceived ``passage'' ..

This POW was an important one for the ``elves''. Right from the first time I saw it evoked a strong sense of currency and sensitivity to the events we have all lived through the last week or so.These events have been captured graphically by the world media and eventhose here on photo.net. Some photo.netters were probably lost andmany have felt the horrors of this event at their doorstep. Maurice sharedsome of this with us last week - see his commentsand photos. We were all a witness .. even on the other side of the planet.The impact has been global and as Maurice said last week (though I don't see it now in his comments), there is a strong feeling of a before and an after - our world has made a ``passage'' from before to after ..

Most have seen ``passage'' for what it was before .. a photo of modelon a street catwalk (and its subsequent photo/image dissection). I chooseto see it for what it is after .. a new symbol of hope! The flow of her gownis remarkably similiar to that of the gown that adornsLady Liberty(7th Street would probably be the same distance north from the WTC as the Statue of Libery would be south). What words of hope and inspiration (the words of Emma Lazarus are here) are written at her feet/pedestal (those controversial feet!)?Her right arm is not held in the air, but I sense that her look is movingupwards and forwards - a sign of recomposure. Life has been a blur this last week, she has beendamaged but she will move on to inspire those who see her here, just asLady Liberty to the south has done for many, thelast 115 years.It amazing what feelings/emotions a photo can evoke, even if they were never intended .. this is just the way I saw it.

i wasn't looking in my view finder...

you could have simply read my bio that would have saved me from repeating myself... But, seriously tony, i realize that i must have offended your sensibility. please forgive me for that. The fact that i don't look in that darn viewfinder shouldn't be interpreted as a lack or a total absence of care... i simply enjoy doing it that way. i enjoy estimating and seeing if the results match what i thought they would be. they often don't... but i'm learning in order that they do. 3 months ago, i had no idea that i would one day, enjoy taking pictures as much as i do now... i am sorry that we are having this discussion around what i consider to be a flawed example of what i do as well as a flawed example period. but please, do not assume that i don't care. and, Tony, also take this cookie for thoughts! to vuk: oh no!!!! does that mean i'm a pervert?

HOLA MARCOS Thanks elves Im rolling now! This was a good for nothing print I had somewhere, and look at it now.Well ok a bit clumsy still but give me time and youll see.

you forgot to desaturate... ;-)

After posting the above boutade I read your bio, I find your approach to photography interesting and to me it reflects that you care.

Finding and being able to identify a moment worth of taking a print is what this is all about. But I think you underestimate your intentions you would not be able to capture such moment if you were not trying, at least, to repeat what that scene is telling you.

ps by fear of "alerting" my "subjects". I some times use a tripod on street photography.

 

Tony, I have to defend Maurice, though he clearly doesn't need it. I think you did take his comments out of context "you are relentless and determined in your pursuit of the perfect shot where you see, i couldn't care less about mine" I really think Maurice meant the pursuit of the perfect shot and not his overall attitude toward photography.

 

There are many times I see an expression on my kids faces that I would love to have a "perfect" copy of, but I don't have the equipment or the skill to achieve it. That I'm unwilling to break the bank to get the equipment and lug it to the beach where it would get promptly ruined in order to capture THE SHOT, should not make me an illigitimate member of this forum. I own several point and shoot cameras...does that mean that I'm not taking this hobby seriously enough? I have actually pointed my camera at something and snapped the shutter without looking through the viewfinder before, so should I retreat to a lesser forum for my sin?

 

Reading your comments reminds me of Bill Watterson the creator of Calvin and Hobbes. Probably the best cartoon of the last 30 years. I was in love with that strip until I read an interview with him in which he revealed himself to be a cartooning elitist who seemd to have no interest in works that he didn't feel met his standard of artistic merit or that violated his standards of commercial promotion. I can't enjoy his work nearly as much as I used to. I don't want that to happen when I look at yours and I don't think you'd like for that to happen either.

 

Recognize that your skill level is likely a combination of a very special set of genetic and fostered characteristics as well as your ethic to produce the best image possible. The rest of us are trying to find our way, some are investing great amounts of money and time and others are trying to 'get that woman on my digital card' to paraphrase Maurice. We all post here because we feel welcome to do so, and because we have found a place to share what we enjoy.

 

This site is called Photo.net, not inspiredphotographer.net, and I think it is best to keep it that way. My stuff is not in your league, but I have fun putting it up here and feeling part of a large community of people with the same interest, from a variety of backgrounds and skill levels. When Photo.net becomes a forum for the elite, the inspired or the rigorous, who use the proper equipment in the proper way, let me know and I'll be the first to get out of Dodge.

 

Aloha

but I thought that digital imagining can take care of technical flaws; this one has just too many to assume they are intentional (a halo around her face, a background that is too obtrusive, and .... her head ... you have to go through lotsa garment before you notice she has a head (and thinking she is not)... and then you cut off her feet for no particular artistic reason. Maybe I am just bitching around here but it's sorta disappointing especially since i like the overall feel of it. Sorry .... MVS

I also thank Michael Walter.. Well said!

Tony says "Photography is writing with light." ... absolutely right !! ... And on my other hand, if I owned a fashion magazine I might think of buying this one for my cover.

 

 

If you read my comments above, nothing I have said has anything to do with any supposed "skills" that have been attributed to me by others in this thread. So Maurice, Walter and others: please don't impute to me an egotistic intent or an "eliteism" that is simply not there. Egotism is not a permissible position in such forums. I'd be a fool to try it, and you'd be fools to let me do so. Eliteism (especially over equipment, Walter) was not part of my position either. If there were not enough "smileys" and "in my humble opinions" throughout my comments, I apoligise, but point out there are many others guilty of that omission here, from both the "pro" and "con" schools of thought.

 

As for the rest of the discussion, as long as there are Art Schools and discussion forums such as this there will be those who seek to cram everything into the existing Salon, and there will be those who believe it is more appropriate to build a whole new museum with its own separate values and goals. The adherents of one philosophy will say that everything is possible and permissable. The defenders of the other will readily agree, but express the caveat: "each in its proper place". Eventually the child must leave its parents, stand on its own two feet and make its own way in the world.

 

a postcard by any other name is still a rose...

Maurice,

 

IT IS A GREAT SHOT, IGNORE THE IGNORANTS. GOD HELP THE NEXT DIGITAL POW.

Available only in XXXXXXXXL