[foxglove]

I see two different ideas coming from this.

1. A "Fix this picture" thread. I guess it would be like open critique of a picture, with a posting of results and what was done to get that result.

Isn't that more or less what the "post your pictures" forum is for? I think perhaps we're all pulling our punches on critique a little there, or not being explicit enough in asking for concrete advice when we want it. This got discussed to death at dpreview, I think the answer is to say when you post, "I'm not happy with this, please tell me what I can do to make it better." Perhaps offering to provide the full size file to anyone who wants to take a whack at it would help. But I see your point that having a challenge along these lines could be interesting too.

2. Artistic Interpretation thread. Much like what was done here.

This I think would be best suited to the challenges and games section, as has been suggested.

Both are fun, interesting and a great learning tool. I'm keen for whatever everyone else wants to do.

Julie

[WMBP]

I see two different ideas coming from this.

1. A "Fix this picture" thread. I guess it would be like open critique of a picture, with a posting of results and what was done to get that result.

2. Artistic Interpretation thread. Much like what was done here.

Well, if your #1 imagines someone posting a photo and asking others to fix it, then I was proposing a third idea: When one of us does something especially interesting in post-processing to one of our own photos, we could post both the original unprocessed version and the processed version, explain what we did and why, and ask for comments either complimentary or critical. Perhaps someone else would offer to take a crack at the photo, but that would not be necessary. An "interesting" photo would be one that needs some work in post-processing that goes beyond the normal quick tweaks to contrast.

I'm not pushing this idea at all, just saying what I personally would really be interested in. Some here are, I am sure, post-processing aces and I'd love to see how they're handling problems. Others here no doubt are, like me, post-processing amateurs, and perhaps we could help one another and learn together how to improve our photos. Oh, in my view, critique would be open-ended, so that it would be perfectly legit for a commenter to say, You should have done this or that differently when you took the photo in the first place.

But as I said, I'm not lobbying for the idea.

WMBP - To answer your question as to who would be host. I would like to do it just to get the ball rolling and then pass the reins on when the time is right. I think Wildherre started something good here and it's just a habit of mine to see something I was involved with grow (for lack of a better explanation - It's 3:30 am here - gotta hit the sack!).

I don't remember asking this question, Alvin. I certainly have no objection to you doing the honors!

Will

[trog100]

i would like to see a photo critique forum.. and whilst realizing that this can a be a touchy subject i woud place severe restrictions on what could be done to the "image"..

there really are two entirely seperate issues involved here.. there is the "artistic"side of things where pretty much anything goes and the more mundane technical side of things like how to produce a good image in the first place and how to put right one that isnt so good..

the first "interpretation" example kinda moved further towards the "artistic" side of things than i expected..

the orignal sombre picture of a of an old gravestone surrounded by not overly cared for grass ended up as an example of symbolic stone carving..

to me this was not the iinterpretation of a photograph it was the blatant altering of it and its meaning..

i think u/we need to lay out the ground rules more clearly whatever avenue is explored..

just my thoughts on the subject for whatever they are worth..

trog

ps.. one further thought springs to mind.. it could be argued that with raw data there is no original image.. once u take the viewpoint that the raw data is simply that "data" not an image.. my entire arguement about altering the original image goes right out pf the window.. he he

[foxglove]

to me this was not the iinterpretation of a photograph it was the blatant altering of it and its meaning..

You're assuming that the photograph (or any photograph, for that matter) has one, and only one, "true" meaning. But we all understand any pictorial representation, be it a photograph, a painting, or whatever, from our own experience. The creator of the image may have had a particular meaning in mind, but even if you know what that was, you still view the image through your own life's filters. There are plenty of artists who refuse to talk about the "meaning" of their work because they want the viewer to give it their own meaning.

Look at the responses to some of the posted pictures here - the interpretations of the exact same image can be so different. Heck, the photographer can see many meanings! For example, I took a (rather crappy) photograph of two flies mating on a dead fish:



Sometimes I look at it and see the cycle of life starting over, the dead fish bringing life to the flies. Sometimes I see it simply as death and decay, and the flies as agents of destruction. Sometimes I focus on the irony, dead fish as marriage bed. Whatever. It depends on my mood.

I don't think anything has an immutable meaning, not even a simple statement like "That dog has fleas." Okay, it's a factual statement, but we each react differently "I ought to give it a flea bath" "Oh crap, I'm going to get fleas on me!" "What a filthy animal" "What a negligent owner" etc.

The whole point, I think, was to see how different people would interpret the image, regardless of what wildherre originally intended taking the picture in the first place. Wildherre, correct me if I'm wrong!

Okay, I'll stop rambling, this is what happens to your brain when you live with an artist!

Julie

[trog100]

"You're assuming that the photograph (or any photograph, for that matter) has one"

yes i am assuming that.. mind u i have taken many a random picture and been surprized at the result..

"how different people would interpret the image" but in which way.. techncally or artistically..

Artistic licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"artistic license".. but as u say u do live with an artist.. he he

trog

[wildherre]

another shot from the old cemetery.. Flickr Photo Download: Makeever Cemetery

[Alvin]

Wildherre - this is really nice! This is not the original raw? You played around with the colour quite a bit, did you not? What else did you do?

[wildherre]

I did play with it a bit, the artistic licence interpretation thing .. Looking at the thumbs of the raws this shot was bland looking but after taking a closer look I remembered that I shot it directly into the sun , blocking it(the sun) behind the tombstone. When I started playing with the raw image I backed the exposure down to where the sky wasnt overexposed & it started to happen,, Just played with the colors until I got what I liked. I tried to keep the sky blue & the grass green & the tombstone natural looking... oh, here is the original. Flickr Photo Download: Makcem

[trog100]

"artistic licence interpretation thing"

when u posted that one i nearly said.. that one has plenty of "interpretation"... he he he..

one thing u cant do thow with raw is put back blown highlights..

so artistically good technically poor.. he he

trog