Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-23-2007, 10:23 AM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
me and my desktop photography thing..

pictures within pictures but can they all be considered photographs..???











imagine what coud be done with 20 mega pixels a wide angle lens and small prints or websized images..

its a good lesson in how a picture should be taken in the frst place thow.. the black and white derelict cottage looks nice in an arty crafty kinda way..

but i could browse thru my large picture collection and produce thousands of interesting but fake photographs useing the crop small (interesting) chunks out of bigger pictures techniques..

its pretty easy to get what appears to be a perfectly framed and skillfully taken photograph this way as well.. far easier than doing it properly in the first place..

here is an example of how to make five photographs from one single snapshot in the mountains photgraph..

trog

01-23-2007, 10:31 AM   #2
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
Well, "photograph" means light drawing (writing), not "taken in a single fraction of a second". I don't see why this wouldn't apply. A painter might take a week to complete a complex scene, it is still a painting. It is an image made via light sensitive materials and something to focus the light that hits it. Photograph. Being made of more than one photograph doesn't make it something else. Well, it makes it a collage, but it's still a photograph.

Nice work, by the way.
01-23-2007, 11:30 AM   #3
Veteran Member
jfdavis58's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 13 S 0357397-3884316
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 876
Not sure I get the point.

Something changes when you take a small chunk from a larger photography and the chunk stops being a photograph? Or are you building bigger images from disjoint smaller one; so little photos grow up to something different??

Sounds like splitting fine hairs either way; the result is still hair.
01-23-2007, 12:10 PM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bangor, Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,382
Trog,
I love you for your presistance. You take great photos and many of your ideas about lens quality are on the button. But... I think you are beating a dead horse here. And I do understand what you are saying. The original photo is great and that is what you framed and ment to capture. Now let's say a year goes by and the gentleman in the photo passes away. Are you going to accept your crop of him as a photo?

Regards,

01-23-2007, 01:49 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
Original Poster
"I love you for your presistance. You take great photos and many of your ideas about lens quality are on the button. But... I think you are beating a dead horse"

my real name is Don Quixote.. he he.. so beating a dead horse a few more times is probaby in my nature..

but i know something is wrong when i can just point my wide angle lens in the general direction of something and produce half a dozen images that would pass muster on a photo critique forum.. he he

the above "photographs" could be produced enmass.. and dont require any photographic skill.. and in essence represent what i will from now on call "desktop photogrpaphy"..

let me produce one of my "better" picture taken last week..

finished product..



original image for comparison purposes..



the first image will still print A3 size and does still resemble the original.. its part fake thow..

some skill as a photographer required plus some skill at image manipulation..

and i am not entirely against post camera image manipluation.. just the part of it that demeans the art of real photography..

trog

Last edited by trog100; 01-23-2007 at 02:08 PM.
01-23-2007, 08:29 PM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 296
.



QuoteQuote:
...i am not entirely against post camera image manipluation.. just the part of it that demeans the art of real photography..

trog
Stiil wrong, Trog.

Photography is not Art. Never has been and never will be.

It is a process, plain and simple. Neither is it confined to the use of the miniature camera obscura.

Art is in the Artist and how he/she/it cares to use the process as a means of expression of his/her/its Art.

May I, with all due respect, suggest that you broaden your understanding of this medium and it's use by visiting the photography shelves of your local lending library?

For my part, consider the subject well and truly knackered.

Ciao 4 Nao

Rolly
01-23-2007, 10:20 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
Original Poster
not really wrong rolly..

To imply there is an art to the process of taking pictures is not the same as suggesting that photography is "art"..

If we observe usage number 3 below we see for example "the art of conversation". Of course anyone with a basic grasp of the english language realises this does not mean conversation is "art".

though if we look at definition number 4 it would appear some people do consider photographs as "art". though i have never said photography is "art" myself as im not entirely sure it is.



Noun:Art

1 The products of human creativity; works of art collectively "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"

2 The creation of beautiful or significant things "art does not need to be innovative to be good"; "I was never any good at art"; "he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"

3 A superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation "the art of conversation"; "it's quite an art"

4 Photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication


to use your own words..

May I, with all due respect, suggest that you broaden your understanding of the English language


trog
01-23-2007, 10:50 PM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 296
Touche


art 1 |ɑːt| noun 1 the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power : the art of the Renaissance | great art is concerned with moral imperfections | she studied art in Paris.
• works produced by such skill and imagination : his collection of modern art | an exhibition of Tibetan art | [as adj. ] an art critic.
• creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture :[B] she's good at art.[/I]
2 ( the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance : the visual arts | [in sing. ] the art of photography.
3 ( arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects) : the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible | the Faculty of Arts.
4 a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice : the art of conversation.

But, where did I imply that there is no art to photography??


Last edited by Rolly; 01-23-2007 at 10:54 PM. Reason: Finger trouble
01-24-2007, 05:14 AM   #9
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bristol, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 112
trog,

Given your post at the top of this thread I may be beginning to understand your argument (not necessarily agreeing with it, but...).

I think you are saying that you want the photographer to have visualised and captured the final image at the taking stage.

Deconstrusting that for a moment...

Did he visualise it at the taking stage? In the case of your images at the top I assume from what you said that you visualised the complete (final) image, and that is what you "took". That's fair enought, no one would have a problem with that.

Going to your example of the mountain and water, you have cropped the "final" image. Now presumably, you visualised exactly what you wanted at the taking stage, but the limitation of your camera's format (aspect ratio) meant that you were forced into capturing a small amount of foreground tht you didn't want. You removed that at a later stage. I hope no one would have any problem with that either. Note that most (not all) photographers who use 6x6 format cameras do so for the convenience of cropping to either portrait or landscape without rotating the camera (which often has a waist level finder). Few (though some) regularly retain the square format in the final image. This is much the same thing as your mountain.

In your example at the top you have created several cropped images from one original. From your description this is not what you intended to do, nor does it seem that you approve of what you have done (except as an example of "what not to do"). These images were not what you imagined when you took the original photograph.

I think this brings up a number of questions. The first is whether there is any way we could tell that the result is what you intended at the time of taking. I think the answer to that is "no". Since we can't tell, it presumably does not matter. It's somewhat similar to the question of whether the tree falling in the wood makes a sound when there is no one there to listen. We could discuss it endlessly, but unless we can find something that has been affected by that sound it really doesn't matter either way.

The second question is whether it makes a difference when we can tell in some way that you have cropped to something you didn't originally visualise (practically this means that you have told us you did it). I would suggest it doesn't. Simply the fact that you have been "honest" doesn't change the final image. In a sense any image is a crop of reality (and indeed a "snapshot" of time), so to say that the image is cropped is superfluous.

But of course your original point dealt with a much wider subject than just cropping. What other manipulations can we apply to the image without anyone knowing? If I were to scan a slide I could leave dust specks on the resulting image, because they were there, but far more likely I am going to clone them out. If I do that, then what difference is it to clone out a distant gull? I would suggest none, and indeed when retouching a scan it is often difficult to tell the difference between the two. Maybe I clone out something more significant, or smooth out the complexion of a model - something I could have done at the time of taking with a "soft" filter.

And you say that you could go back to your library of past pictures and make thousands of new images from them. Well why not? I have known many darkroom workers who have done just that in the past and no one questioned whether what they were doing was photography. I know of people who for one reason or another are no longer able to get out and take photographs who are making great work at their computer from old images; how is this different? The creativity and skill are still there, and arguably the art aspect is greater than pressing the shutter release.

As I have said before in another thread, most of my film photography was in slides and I only ever did a very small amount of darkroom work. There were times when I felt that people manipulating and creating images in their darkrooms were in a different game from me, but it was photography and it was my choice not to take on that aspect of the craft.

My art, as you say, was in the taking, and I still feel that some people who say they can work on exposure after the fact from raw files or take photographs intending to change every one of them are making themselves a relatively hard task from what could have been handled in 1/100 second or thereabouts in the camera, but that is their choice (or maybe in some cases lack of skill).

But that doesn't mean it isn't valid to pick up an unedited image some time later and think that you can improve on it, or make it into something different, or combine it with something else. Whether you actually go on to do that or not is your choice. This is furthering the process of art.

You mention that one of your reasons for using jpegs (though I think discussion of raw and jpeg is an entirely different subject and I side mainly with you on it at the moment) is that you can capture many images in the time it takes a raw worker to take one. I don't think this is the voice of a "shutter" artist. I would have expected you to say that you take your time, carefully set up and consider your image before you press the shutter - not take hundreds of shots and select the one that seems to say what you want. Granted, bracketing has its place, but so does considered thought and planning. Maybe you should get yourself a medium format camera as I did two years ago, slow down a bit and learn to get it right first time?

Simon

Last edited by Simon; 01-24-2007 at 06:52 AM. Reason: Correct typo
01-24-2007, 06:56 AM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
Original Poster
nice post simon.. but..

"not take hundreds of shots and select the one that seems to say what you want. Granted, bracketing has its place, but so does considered thought and planning. Maybe you should get yourself a medium format camera as I did two years ago, slow down a bit and learn to get it right first time"

but we would have to dissagree on the learn how to get it right the firts time thing..

my son is worse (or better) at this than me.. he has a very good eye for a shot.. but he also knows that when framed and frozen in the camera it quite often dosnt quite work out as the eye sees it..

his technique is a fairly simple one.. even with a landscape.. mine is the same but to a lesser degree..

u first see something that looks like it will make a nice photgraph.. u frame and postion yourself and take your first shots.. u move your postion right or left u change your frame u kneel down to change your height.. u take 25 shots as opposed to just the one..

we often do joint shoots.. he on averager tends to do more "variations on a theme" than i do.. he is younger (and perhaps more enrgetic) than me.. he he he

but when the results are compared afterwards as they always are he will always have more "keepers" than i do.. the technique works there is no doubt about that..

with moving or live subjects its a must.. there is no get it right the first time.. u fire off bursts as as the subject does its thing and the odd one will be impressive.. most will fail.. not fail in the real sense simply not be as impressive as the one that catches the subject in the perfect pose..

its not just taking poorly thought out shots and hopeing if u take enough the odd one will work.. its taking lots of well thought out shots and knowing the odd one will have that "special" thing..

we just spent a week in scotland probably fired off a thousand pictures.. most of them are okay.. a few of them are "impressive"..

a bird shot from last week.. one of about four nice ones out of about thirty attempts.. not bad saying it was done in ten minutes during a stop for refreshments.. he he

its seems kind of cheating in some ways thow and i do take your point about learning to do it properly in the first place.. its pretty much what i am preaching..

also have seen examples of the method i used in my original multi picture post being used as par for the course in a certain photo critique forum.. i tried to point out the error of their ways but might as well have been talking to a brick wall..

its a crop but only to get rid of featureless snow..



trog

ps.. the bird is in what i would call the perfect pose.. they never stop moving.. multiple shots is the only way to get that "pose".. even then its more luck than judgement.. but strangely enough even with stationary objects multiple shots frames and angles still produces the best results..

its a pretty standard pro trick as well.. at one time only a pro could afford to waste film doing it but now we all can.. digital film is free..

Last edited by trog100; 01-24-2007 at 07:09 AM.
01-24-2007, 07:25 AM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
Original Poster
"But, where did I imply that there is no art to photography??"

u didnt rolly.. but the definition or usage of the word art to mean "superior skill" kinda makes my point of desktop photography demeaning the "superior skil" of real photography..

there isnt much "superior skill" involved in doing what i did with my first examples.. it does require an eye for what makes a good photograph (frame) and as such could be used to learn what picture should be taken in the first place..

trog
01-24-2007, 07:33 AM   #12
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bristol, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 112
QuoteOriginally posted by trog100 Quote
but we would have to dissagree on the learn how to get it right the firts time thing..
I don't know. I think you'll find we're closer on a lot of things than you imagine. It's just your restrictive view of how a photographer should express his art that I have problems with.

QuoteOriginally posted by trog100 Quote
with moving or live subjects its a must.. there is no get it right the first time.. u fire off bursts as as the subject does its thing and the odd one will be impressive.. most will fail.. not fail in the real sense simply not be as impressive as the one that catches the subject in the perfect pose..
Yes, but your recent examples were of landscapes. Granted, if you're shooting a sunrise things can change from second to second, but usually you have at least the time it takes to save a large file before you need to take the next shot. I agree when studying wildlife or sport a quick turnround can be advantageous, but even then more can often be achieved by well chosen moments than continuous (or motor-drive) shooting.

QuoteOriginally posted by trog100 Quote
its not just taking poorly thought out shots and hopeing if u take enough the odd one will work.. its taking lots of well thought out shots and knowing the odd one will have that "special" thing..
Yes, yes, yes. But it takes more than a second or two to "think" in that way.

QuoteOriginally posted by trog100 Quote
its seems kind of cheating in some ways thow and i do take your point about learning to do it properly in the first place.. its pretty much what i am preaching..
It's close, but not quite there. There's a limit to what you can do in camera, but if you get it as near to right as possible at that stage it makes any post-processing much easier (and, what will interest you, "lighter").

QuoteOriginally posted by trog100 Quote
also have seen examples of the method i used in my original multi picture post being used as par for the course in a certain photo critique forum.. i tried to point out the error of their ways but might as well have been talking to a brick wall..
I don't know quite what you mean here.

If a photographer has created several good images from a single shot, then good for him!

If you mean that people (I have been there) say, this image would be better if you cropped this or that off, then that is an effective, if slightly lazy, way of commenting on an image. Next time the photographer may frame it differently in the viewfinder, but in the meantime he can maybe make a more pleasing image from what he's got.

QuoteOriginally posted by trog100 Quote
its a pretty standard pro trick as well.. at one time only a pro could afford to waste film doing it but now we all can.. digital film is free..
I absolutely agree here and it can be very useful, but... and I am not saying that you do this, there is little skill in taking a thousand random images and finding that one of them is quite pleasant at the end of the day. This is not the same as the phenomenon whereby a casual snapshooter is depressed to find one unsatisfactory shot on a roll of 36 and a professional pleased to find one good one - we are talking different standards (distantly derived from a Patrick Lichfield quote, I believe).

Simon
01-24-2007, 09:50 AM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
Original Poster
i think the famouse pro is a bit touchy to someone saying or implying you only get the "good" pictures you get because you are able to fire of a hundred shots to my one.. i am sure its been often said..

"good" is a relative term it means different things to different people.. the skillfull "machine gun shooter" can think fast on his feet and fire of lots of potentailly good frames..

this is one of the "superior skills" that contribute to the "art" of photography..

we will just have to disagree as to what produces the best results the large but slow medium format approach or the faster smaller format approach.. think slowly and carefully or think fast and light.. both requre perhap a different kind of skill..

the machine gunner or sniper marksman that makes the best of his single shot..

i would place myself in the fast sniper category as opposed to the machine gunner.. but the machine gun in the right hands can be a devastating tool.. as can a large slow carfeully aimed cannon.. he he

medium format is definitly a more genteel approach in some ways..

most of my landscapes are done in what i would call a "drive by shooting" manner.. part of long touring trips.. see the potential stop the car and get out and take some pictures.. in an afternoon i can cover lots of ground and see lots of "potential"..

we are a kind of paparazzi in the landscape world.. probably unusal in this respect..

the more leisurely medium format approach just dosnt fit in with my cover lots of ground and drive by shooting technique.. i can equally see a place for it thow..

nice discussion by the way.. thanks for your input..

trog

Last edited by trog100; 01-24-2007 at 10:01 AM.
01-24-2007, 12:03 PM   #14
Veteran Member
foxglove's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Atlantic Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,049
Things change between the conception of an idea and its final execution. Many, many writers talk about their characters and stories taking on "a life of their own" during the writing process. They start with one idea, but between sketching out the story and the final product, it changes. Much the same thing as taking a photograph and later cropping some away. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see. If that's what's bothering you, then I think you're being waaaaay too purist.

Julie
01-24-2007, 12:44 PM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
Original Poster
i dont think u have read the thead foxglove else u would know i was bothered by a little more than "cropping some away"..

take the small bird example.. i have cropped a lot of that away no problem.. no one wants to look at a lot of flat snow and its removal has improved the photogrpaph..

take a look at the Scottish mountain landscape and tell me what u think i have done to improve that.. ??

and simon it appears u didnt look very closely at the mountain landscape either..

"Going to your example of the mountain and water, you have cropped the "final" image"

trog

Last edited by trog100; 01-24-2007 at 12:52 PM.
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!
camera, dslr, photographs, photography, picture, pictures
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
desktop help please yeatzee Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 21 07-30-2011 12:18 PM
Off Brand Desktop Suggestions Deiberson Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 35 04-14-2011 03:53 AM
New PC desktop NaClH2O Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 33 10-11-2010 09:54 AM
CNNmoney predicts that the end of the desktop PC is near MRRiley General Talk 18 07-26-2010 02:55 AM
Desktop died - what is important in replacement? barondla Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 72 02-19-2010 08:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:30 PM. | 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