Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted

Dang. That Hawking documentaries something I might be working on supplying the cameras for the green screen stuff and the firm doing the CG is run by a mate of mine.

I love those satellite pics of the volcano. I'd love to see some high res versions.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

They're Real, they're inspired Body Kits for Mercedes’ miserly smart. So basically just body shells made to look like smooched versions of other famous cars. . .

Posted

I'm a bit dismayed with hte so-called photographer list...

I don't consider image compositing to be a form of photography.

photography is the art of capturing an image that you see with your eyes.

it's about framing, and colour balance tone etc.

compositing is not photography. it's digital art of another type. called photo manipulation.

and i hate those ones where they set up a scene. this also is not what i consider photography. this is installation making. yes it is taken with a camera, but a lot of the work has gone into hte set up of the scene. you would not be able to go out and see this.

Posted

Interesting, so you don't consider artist real photographers? Mind you that photo retouching has been around for over a century, my father use to do it when he took photography classes. Back in the day when the only option was film and I wasn't even a glimmer in my mother's eyes :mrgreen: The digital age has just made it easier. . .

But really, photography in all its forms is just another form of art. And there isn't just one way to do art, whatever form it takes. So I wouldn't agree that what they do isn't photography, just another way of expressing the artform of photography. It's just not the realistic form of photography, but few actually practice real. Everything from raw adjustments to taking multiple shots for increased dynamic range or collaged paranoramics are also all forms of image manipulation that is regular applied to so called real shots. There really isn't a pro-digital photographer who doesn't use manipualtion of some sort in their shots, if for nothing else than to make it look its best.

Posted

i consider anyone a photographer if they want to be, no matter what their skill level is, but the question is about photography as an art from. the focus on hte camera and taking the photo. retouching is a technique to bring thephoto to what you originally saw. not the same as manipulation. i never saw manipulation of any kind to be pure photography. it's manipulation. once it has been manipulated, you cannot appreciate the original shot. so it ceases being photography.

to call somebody a phtotographer, I think that you ought to be considering how they can capture an image. what perspective they used, combined with how they reproduced that image with their equipment.

if they aren't reproducing what they saw, how can you judge their perspective and reproduction technique? how can you judge their photographic skill?

instead, the emphasis is on the arrangement of the installation, or how they can collage.

Posted

So you don't think using techniques to express what the artist/photographer envisions as being valid if they had to do something to help create the image?

Isn't that like a sculptor telling another sculptor that because they don't work on the same raw materials that the other really isn't a sculptor?

I think to many photography is a method of expressing ideas and concepts. Either to capture the beauty of nature or express an idea or emotion. Since beauty is a concept just like ideas and emotions then don't you think they should have equal footing if they more or less use the same medium to express themselves?

And what if some of those images weren't created with manipulation? Some amazing shots have been set up in certain studios, just like Hollywood using a painting for a background, or putting people into costumes or using props and makeup. The shot would then be just like you taking a picture, just of a subject that was directed. But as you would say this is just my opinion but I like to be fair about these things and that's my 2 cents worth.

Posted

well let me say this, anyone can take a photo of an installation that has been set up.

if i go to an art show, and take a picture from front, does that make me the creator of the art piece?

what if i take somebodies photo and manipulate with other photos, who is teh artist then?

what are we looking at here, the photo or the manipulation? what is left of teh original photo that we might appreciate the work that went into hte use of the camera and the light?

the comparison of the sculptor. if both artists are sculpting teh material and present the fiished piece, then they are both indeed sculptors. however, if one of teh artists paints a still life that happens to have a bust in it that they sculpted, then is the resultant piece to be considered a painting or a sculpture?

but i can bottom line it if we're still not clear...

if i want to look at a photograph on deviant art , i go into hte photography gallery and i get exactly what i consider to be photography. if i want to look at what i am describing as photo manipulation (not photography) i go into hte photo manipulation gallery, and so on.

Posted
the comparison of the sculptor. if both artists are sculpting teh material and present the fiished piece, then they are both indeed sculptors. however, if one of teh artists paints a still life that happens to have a bust in it that they sculpted, then is the resultant piece to be considered a painting or a sculpture?

Actually I would liken it to one sculptor using different color clays to colorize the resulting sculpture versus someone who just uses a single raw material. Or a photographer using black and white film, or infrared film, double exposure, kirlian, using mirrors to reflect ghostly imaged into your shots, or the use of various color filters. Where does your idea of photography end and manipulation start? . . . You don't have to change your opinion, but just consider that the camera is just a tool for artistic expression and art is in the eye of the beholder as they say. . .

Besides, those guys also do plenty of regular photography work and even regular photos can be trippy. . .

009475l_01.jpg

The Photographer King Needs No Tripod

Disclaimer: No photo manipulation was used in the taking of this image, it's just an insane lens reviewer trying to get a hernia :mrgreen:

Or this one of Tokyo...

504x_tokyo-fisheye-3.jpg

Taken by Flickr user heiwa4126 using an ultra-wide fisheye lens.

Btw, for those interesting in practicing caligraphy...

korean_calligraphy_1.jpg

Touchscreen Calligraphy Tablet Concept Helps Perfect Your Korean

Definitely doable with today's tech and could be a definite boon to those wishing to learn Kanji and Kana as well as other calligraphy based writing styles.

Posted

I don't think i'm making things especially awkward.

I'm not being especially picky about things, I mean, I adjust some of my photos in order to get what i saw, I lighten some areas and darken other areas etc.

those two images you posted are most certainly photography in my view. there is no reason to say they aren't. also, using infrared filme etc is certainly photography. even in the film industry you see the definition used. the person who controls teh camera and lighting is called the director of photography.

anything done afterwards is referred to as compositing and effects.

this following image for example, is not an example of photography in my view

picturesknow.jpg

the artist may have taken hte original images, but the resultant product is not a photograph. it is a manipulated image. it is a fabrication.

you got to draw teh line somewhere and this image has gone way past that line. even if the line was quite vague, this is clearly past that line.

Posted

I agree. there's no craftsmanship in the same way some gobo who gets a picture of you and uses filters in PS is an artists. This isn't something from nothing it's somethign from something. Same if he'd made a book full of pages of the greatest writers in the world doesn't make him a great writer, they're just organisers.

I've seen artists like this guy before who create made up scenes of drama for stills. I must say I don't like the guys lighting at all it's harsh and way too contrasty it looks a little bit amatuerish actually. His Victorian people are a bit better though.

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...