Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-09-2008, 09:38 AM   #31
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,608
Different kind of painting effect. Instead of DOF and bokeh, this shot was taken in bright sun, somewhat backlit. To keep the colors (especially the yellow) from oversaturating I jumped heavily on the mid level contrast slider. The "painterly" effect was unintentional, but I was pleased with it nevertheless.



NaCl(playing with levels can achieve some interesting results)H2O

06-09-2008, 09:40 AM   #32
Not Registered
Guest




Among all the lens that I have had I think that the Mamiya 55 f1.4 has the more "temperamental" bokeh (you can see some pics here https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographer-s-marketplace/28670-super-ta...ro-more-2.html )
06-09-2008, 10:31 AM   #33
Veteran Member
mickeyobe's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,762
There are a number of beautiful pictures with out of focus areas whether by accident or intent in this thread.
On the other hand there are some badly out of focus pictures that cannot be considered as anything other than badly out of focus pictures.
Some people consider the photos produced by Lomo and Diana cameras and their ilk as art. But to be honest they are poor quality pictures made with poor quality cameras. The picture takers have no control over the results. But they sure know how to merchandise junk.

Mickey
06-09-2008, 10:47 AM   #34
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 942
QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
Different kind of painting effect. Instead of DOF and bokeh, this shot was taken in bright sun, somewhat backlit. To keep the colors (especially the yellow) from oversaturating I jumped heavily on the mid level contrast slider. The "painterly" effect was unintentional, but I was pleased with it nevertheless.


NaCl(playing with levels can achieve some interesting results)H2O
Lots of ways to skin a horse eh? Its true, it does have a painted appearance. It seems there are many ways to get a painted effect, down to what type of painting.

I'm learning a lot in this thread about how to approach this type of photography, thanks all for the ideas.

06-09-2008, 10:54 AM   #35
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
Different kind of painting effect. Instead of DOF and bokeh, this shot was taken in bright sun, somewhat backlit. To keep the colors (especially the yellow) from oversaturating I jumped heavily on the mid level contrast slider. The "painterly" effect was unintentional, but I was pleased with it nevertheless.
What if you crop a horizontal band of flowers so there is no green in the background? I think that would look fab!
06-09-2008, 11:00 AM   #36
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 942
QuoteOriginally posted by mickeyobe Quote
There are a number of beautiful pictures with out of focus areas whether by accident or intent in this thread.
On the other hand there are some badly out of focus pictures that cannot be considered as anything other than badly out of focus pictures.
Some people consider the photos produced by Lomo and Diana cameras and their ilk as art. But to be honest they are poor quality pictures made with poor quality cameras. The picture takers have no control over the results. But they sure know how to merchandise junk.

Mickey
I think the old 'what is art' discussion applies here. If someone sees something of interest in anything - then it is. If one doesn't see the abstraction, only the literal thing it is (to you, a blurry photo) then it isn't. No right or wrong answer, no harm in contributing.

FWIW, I really felt the Nokton at 1.4 was too soft. Its bokeh overpowered my initial assumption. I saw in it something I never appreciated fully before - that sharpness was not the reason I was appreciating what I saw any more from a lens. In fact, sharpness wasn't even important at all in the following images:

(Mind the resposts for those that may have seen these in the Nokton thread)





Again, not to say I think you're missing anything Mickey - just that 'junk' will always be in the eye of the beholder.
06-09-2008, 11:35 AM   #37
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK/Canada/wherever work takes me
Posts: 95
I agree with the pirate

lovely pics too; really dream like.

It would be boring if all photos were the same. Photos, like art are a personal thing. One persons c*** photo is another persons favourite photo.

Some photos might also not be very "good" but mean a lot to the photographer; the memories etc. it conjures up.

Its rather like the film vs. digital debate. Whilst digital is probably now at the point where it is technically "superior" (excluding larger formats), I still enjoy viewing film images. They have a different look, which is not always better or worse, just different.
06-09-2008, 11:55 AM   #38
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
.

Salty,

That shot is incredibly striking, for a strange reason - what you did with the mid-level sliders has resulted in it looking less 3 dimensional that the actual scene really was, while at the same time doing something with the colors of the yellow and orange tulips to make them look almost exactly like dabs of oil paint. Net effect is that the image looks just like an oil painting, or at least the bottom half does (as Robin points out, the green on the top half wasn't as affected, and it looks actually natural.) But very nice, I really like that image, it looks like an oil painting, not like a digital image PP'd to look like an oil painting.


And Kelly, thanks for posting these here, in fact those very images were what inspired me to start this thread in the first pace. Outstanding.

QuoteOriginally posted by thePiRaTE!! Quote
I think the old 'what is art' discussion applies here. If someone sees something of interest in anything - then it is. If one doesn't see the abstraction, only the literal thing it is (to you, a blurry photo) then it isn't. No right or wrong answer, no harm in contributing.

FWIW, I really felt the Nokton at 1.4 was too soft. Its bokeh overpowered my initial assumption. I saw in it something I never appreciated fully before - that sharpness was not the reason I was appreciating what I saw any more from a lens. In fact, sharpness wasn't even important at all in the following images:

(Mind the resposts for those that may have seen these in the Nokton thread)





Again, not to say I think you're missing anything Mickey - just that 'junk' will always be in the eye of the beholder.


06-09-2008, 04:43 PM   #39
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by thePiRaTE!! Quote
FWIW, I really felt the Nokton at 1.4 was too soft. Its bokeh overpowered my initial assumption. I saw in it something I never appreciated fully before - that sharpness was not the reason I was appreciating what I saw any more from a lens. In fact, sharpness wasn't even important at all in the following images
Only one word for those: lovely.
06-09-2008, 05:18 PM   #40
Veteran Member
mickeyobe's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,762
thePiRaTE!!

"I think the old 'what is art' discussion applies here. If someone sees something of interest in anything - then it is."

I think that anything may be "artistic", even a pile of horse manure or a midden.

But "art" is something created intentionally by a human being and the key word is "created".

One may appreciate a piece of driftwood or a rose or manure or broken pottery and they may very well be artistic but it is the same objects rendered in pen and ink or clay or oil paints or some other medium that may, possibly, be art. Especially if rendered by a person with skill and/or talent and/or luck.

Mickey

Last edited by mickeyobe; 06-09-2008 at 05:20 PM. Reason: Devil's advocate
06-09-2008, 05:31 PM   #41
Pentaxian
konraDarnok's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Albums
Posts: 961
This is a nice thread. I like it much.

Last edited by konraDarnok; 06-24-2008 at 01:12 PM.
06-09-2008, 07:16 PM   #42
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 942
QuoteOriginally posted by mickeyobe Quote
thePiRaTE!!

"I think the old 'what is art' discussion applies here. If someone sees something of interest in anything - then it is."

I think that anything may be "artistic", even a pile of horse manure or a midden.

But "art" is something created intentionally by a human being and the key word is "created".

One may appreciate a piece of driftwood or a rose or manure or broken pottery and they may very well be artistic but it is the same objects rendered in pen and ink or clay or oil paints or some other medium that may, possibly, be art. Especially if rendered by a person with skill and/or talent and/or luck.

Mickey
I agree to a point. I may take one step back in my classification though - simply that it is recognized and presented by a human as art, even if its just broken pottery. Sometimes symbolism is very powerful, even in found items or average scenes. Landscape photography is just landscape for example, but... is it art? I think so, even bad ones... its just bad art to me, not 'not' art ya know?

I noticed you didn't mention a photograph in your list though, intentional? (probably not) Theoretically, no human is creating the image (especially these days), but it is often an intentional manipulation of a device and environment to generate meaning, thus captured and presented. To explain my line here further, making a violin is an art for example, so is playing it, but the guy playing it didn't actually make anything... except noise, which the guy who made the violin is actually responsible for. I don't know. I guess my point is art is where I see it or where its shown - good or bad? Thats subjective, not exclusive. To me. heh.

Anyhoo, the point of the thread as I understood it was to show images that resembled being painted (and how), not necessarily artworks per say, so critiques to artistic merit are probably less appropriate than whether it simply looks painted or not. But don't take my huge reply to mean anything against your point of view, I just felt like rambling, hehe.

Last edited by thePiRaTE!!; 06-10-2008 at 06:57 AM. Reason: spel cheking
06-10-2008, 04:52 AM   #43
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
Thanks, Kelly. Your amazing Nokton images prompt me to use it as much as I could. That is the kind of effect I tried to achieve all the time. However, I cannot get Monet's style of bokeh these days. (I love Monet!)

Some more shots to share

VL 125 macro



Da 16-50/2.8



Fa* 300/4.5



A* 200 macro

06-10-2008, 05:18 AM   #44
Senior Member
Outlaw's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 108
This thread has certainly evoked some new ideas - here's one I like.

The fuzzy background pleases me.
Attached Images
 
06-10-2008, 07:56 AM   #45
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 1,076
Ever seen a movie that you loved but the critics hated? Yeah me too, and that's the nature of art. If a painting, photo, sculpture etc. reaches out to every viewer equally, is it perhaps too defined to be art? Heady stuff with no sure answer.

The neat thing about impressionism is that it's a broader category than many presume it to be. All impressionism isn't defocused, the tack sharp tulip shot being a great example. Also, being so defocused as to be unrecognizable isn't the definition of impressionism either--you can tell that Monet's Waterlilies are, in fact, waterlilies even though they are unfocused. Just as you can tell that Roentarre's ferris wheel is a ferris wheel--though unfocused

Remember also, Monet, Manet, Cezanne, Degas and the other original impressionists were not allowed into shows by the French Salons--the "boards" of artistic acceptance in France back then. It took decades for the Salons to understand and almost accept impressionism as an art form. Same seems to be applied to photography by some...

A couple more examples from an earlier post: a reflection shot, a tack sharp shot that is more color wash than anything, etc.
Attached Images
         
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
images, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K5 - How do I access "Custom Image" to change sharpness/saturation/contrast, etc ? Feudal1 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 11-03-2010 06:38 AM
Pentax Photo Browser "View Image" resolution? BobG Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 3 04-13-2009 03:56 PM
Does use of a TC "drop" the lens's projected image from the edge of the lens? m8o Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 10-25-2008 05:53 PM
Painting with light "The Cow Race To The Moon" Adrian Owerko Post Your Photos! 0 04-18-2008 09:53 AM
Experimenting with "painting w/ light" codiac2600 Post Your Photos! 3 04-27-2007 09:33 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top