Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-08-2015, 03:17 PM - 1 Like   #31
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,248
Just buy a cheap UV filter and put vaseline on it... like, seriously:

How to achieve a soft-focus dreamy look | Discover Digital Photography

04-08-2015, 04:36 PM   #32
Pentaxian
Uluru's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,400
It is magical; imagine this lens to use when recording digital movies with a DSLR.
It can virtually save tens of thousands of dollars of post production and time lost to achieve similar effects.
Excellent addition for wedding photographers, children and people photographers, videographers, etc.
04-08-2015, 05:57 PM   #33
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1
I have lo lite. Camaras
04-09-2015, 01:19 AM - 1 Like   #34
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,248
QuoteOriginally posted by ravikirant911 Quote
I have lo lite. Camaras
I think the news of this lens gave this guy a stroke...

04-10-2015, 03:17 PM   #35
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,197
QuoteOriginally posted by Vylen Quote
I think the news of this lens gave this guy a stroke...
That is soooo wrong...
and sooo wrong that I literally laughed out loud at it
04-18-2015, 03:49 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,548
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
Just because the artist declares their work to be art, doesn't mean it is to everyone. I'm verring off topic, but no one can declare something to be artistic for someone else, without the other person's permission. I can only make that declaration for myself.

I was actually ranking paint flinging ahead of using the Velvet lens, mainly because paint flinging is far more purposeful and more accurately represents what the artist is attempting to communicate. Taking blurry, hazy photos with limited control over the final result is more like putting a typewriter in front of a monkey.
+1. An artist is somebody who can convince enough people he is doing art. Not the other way arround.

If you do exactly the same thing even before but nobody know about it or recognise it, this isn't gonna work. This is even more true to me for art that is on the polemic side like Pollock art. If a normal person does the same kind of thing but better but is not that good at public relations, he might never be recognized.

Art is also used as a medium for money investment and is bound to the same bubles and risk you would have against stock. The art you think is so trendy and universal today can be something nobody care of tomorrow.

This is also used for money laudering. A politic buy an expensive piece of Art for display with the country money and the artist in exchange give high donation to the political party... Much more comon than one might think. To this work you need high relation and the politic will ask the museum (that is dependant uppon budget the politics give it) to have enthousiastic critic arround the piece of Art.

Anyway why we should respect other people creativity, art and also views, one must remain able to have critical view and not accept everything "as this". After it is only free minds that allowed modern Art to exist. At the times, it was not at all trendy to like it.
04-18-2015, 04:01 AM   #37
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
+1. An artist is somebody who can convince enough people he is doing art. Not the other way arround.

If you do exactly the same thing even before but nobody know about it or recognise it, this isn't gonna work. This is even more true to me for art that is on the polemic side like Pollock art. If a normal person does the same kind of thing but better but is not that good at public relations, he might never be recognized.

Art is also used as a medium for money investment and is bound to the same bubles and risk you would have against stock. The art you think is so trendy and universal today can be something nobody care of tomorrow.

This is also used for money laudering. A politic buy an expensive piece of Art for display with the country money and the artist in exchange give high donation to the political party... Much more comon than one might think. To this work you need high relation and the politic will ask the museum (that is dependant uppon budget the politics give it) to have enthousiastic critic arround the piece of Art.

Anyway why we should respect other people creativity, art and also views, one must remain able to have critical view and not accept everything "as this". After it is only free minds that allowed modern Art to exist. At the times, it was not at all trendy to like it.
IMO art should not, ever, be define with any reference to money.
04-18-2015, 05:33 AM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,548
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
IMO art should not, ever, be define with any reference to money.
There the theory and there the practice.

I think that a copy of a good piece of Art can be truely great and I don't see any reason to buy more to get the original... I may want to respect the intellectual rights but no more. But how much would you pay for the original of a Van Gogh and a very good copy? Why a legitimate copy of contemporary art would be value more than an unautorized one even if they look identical? Things are strange. Even more so there no more copyright holder for Van Gogh and many other classic. Any quality copy should be as good.

I think with photo than can be replicated to infinite and broadcasted through the internet we are even more aware of that as photographers.

But money is more an attribute of famous Art. The point was more that what get you recognized as an artist is being famous and this go deep with social skills more so than everything else and even to greatly leverage it, you may have to be flexible in more than a way.

Artists names look similar to brand to me. Recognition might be more important than actual result/work.

04-18-2015, 01:39 PM   #39
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,663
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
IMO art should not, ever, be define with any reference to money.
As an artist, I hope that money will come later on...
04-19-2015, 12:19 AM   #40
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by repaap Quote
As an artist, I hope that money will come later on...
Of course. Hope so too. But money should not be involved (IMO) in defining Art.
Art is, by all means, subjective. Money is as objective as can be.

Then there's a relation between those two. It fluctuates as any market but it changes nothing to the object itself which is (or not) Art.
And we can also probably discuss for years about what is art and what is not.

But if we need to check the monetary value to decide if an object is art or not I think there's something completely bogus. Not to mention a lot of art objects can't even get value (but for insurance purposes).
04-19-2015, 05:15 AM   #41
Loyal Site Supporter
AquaDome's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New Carlisle, IN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,399
Jackson Pollack's "paint splatter" work is expression in context without portrayal.
Just because you wouldn't buy it doesn't make it not art.
04-19-2015, 05:54 AM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,548
QuoteOriginally posted by AquaDome Quote
Jackson Pollack's "paint splatter" work is expression in context without portrayal.
Just because you wouldn't buy it doesn't make it not art.
Also it is not because some would buy it that it is.
04-19-2015, 07:01 AM   #43
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by AquaDome Quote
Jackson Pollack's "paint splatter" work is expression in context without portrayal.
Just because you wouldn't buy it doesn't make it not art.
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Also it is not because some would buy it that it is.
Both of you are right and it proves money should not be of any consideration to determine if something is ART or not.
Can we move on ?
04-19-2015, 07:02 AM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,663
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Of course. Hope so too. But money should not be involved (IMO) in defining Art.
Art is, by all means, subjective. Money is as objective as can be.

Then there's a relation between those two. It fluctuates as any market but it changes nothing to the object itself which is (or not) Art.
And we can also probably discuss for years about what is art and what is not.

But if we need to check the monetary value to decide if an object is art or not I think there's something completely bogus. Not to mention a lot of art objects can't even get value (but for insurance purposes).
This is true. I actually don't think about money when I begin my work. But some idea of that hopefully coming in during process floats in. Will I get this sold...and for what prize...but then again. Money is not good for starting point.
04-19-2015, 11:55 AM   #45
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,548
QuoteOriginally posted by AquaDome Quote
Jackson Pollack's "paint splatter" work is expression in context without portrayal.
Just because you wouldn't buy it doesn't make it not art.
I think if somebody like his work he would be better to play doing it himself for fun instead of buying it. Less expensive, more fun, more personnal.
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!
f1.6 in pk, lens, lensbaby, lensbaby velvet 56mm, mount, pentax news, pentax rumors, uv filter, velvet, velvet 56mm f1.6
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Fuji XF 56mm f1.2 R Lens - Like New Qwntm Sold Items 0 09-27-2014 05:27 PM
Nature Morning Buck in Velvet 45 Mike Post Your Photos! 2 07-20-2014 02:37 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax mount. Like new in original package. $315 grahame Sold Items 8 11-20-2013 09:18 AM
Sears 80-200mm PK-mount lens doesn't mount on K1000 kylemsguy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 09-19-2013 11:44 AM
New 500 f5.6 in Pentax mount WPRESTO Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 10-04-2011 03:13 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:31 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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