Discussion:
would you get bored of your own framed photos?
(too old to reply)
RolandRB
2010-04-05 06:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Let's say you want to enjoy your photography skills and show off the
detail you get from your MF images by putting the photo onto canvas
and hanging it from the wall like you had bought an original painting.
Would you get bored with it in a short time and prefer to give space
to a lesser photo taken by someone else? I am wondering if this has
happened to any of the MF photographers here. Maybe the photograph
could be disguised by turning it into more of an oil painting style
but I think that is more difficult than it sounds. Oil paintings do
not have out of focus areas and bokeh so how would you convert a
fairly detailed photo to a painting style and what tricks would you
use the deemphasize the more distant and less important areas while
avoiding a blurred effect?
Alan Browne
2010-04-05 19:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by RolandRB
Let's say you want to enjoy your photography skills and show off the
detail you get from your MF images by putting the photo onto canvas
and hanging it from the wall like you had bought an original painting.
Would you get bored with it in a short time and prefer to give space
to a lesser photo taken by someone else? I am wondering if this has
happened to any of the MF photographers here. Maybe the photograph
could be disguised by turning it into more of an oil painting style
but I think that is more difficult than it sounds. Oil paintings do
not have out of focus areas and bokeh so how would you convert a
fairly detailed photo to a painting style and what tricks would you
use the deemphasize the more distant and less important areas while
avoiding a blurred effect?
I print photographs as photographs. I frame them as photographs.

On canvas does not do much for me.

Making them look like paintings defeats the entire purpose of
photography. The only thing worse is an actual painting made from a
photo with shallow DOF, and then the painter paints the OOF areas as on
the photograph. Looks entirely wrong. Painters see everything in
focus. That's how the human eye works.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
s***@yahoo.com
2010-04-06 04:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by RolandRB
Let's say you want to enjoy your photography skills and show off the
detail you get from your MF images by putting the photo onto canvas
and hanging it from the wall like you had bought an original painting.
Would you get bored with it in a short time and prefer to give space
to a lesser photo taken by someone else? I am wondering if this has
happened to any of the MF photographers here.
I don't have too many of my own photographs hanging in my house and the
ones I do have mostly 8X10's. I think I have maybe 4 and all are printed
as photographs. I've seen those "trying to look like a painting" things
and IMHO those are right there with a velvet elvis painting. While I've
seen some really cool "digital enhanced images" I liked, the 'looks like
a painting' thing isn't one of them.

One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a portrait of
someone but without them being in the image.

http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1

Stephanie
RolandRB
2010-04-06 07:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by RolandRB
Let's say you want to enjoy your photography skills and show off the
detail you get from your MF images by putting the photo onto canvas
and hanging it from the wall like you had bought an original painting.
Would you get bored with it in a short time and prefer to give space
to a lesser photo taken by someone else? I am wondering if this has
happened to any of the MF photographers here.
I don't have too many of my own photographs hanging in my house and the
ones I do have mostly 8X10's. I think I have maybe 4 and all are printed
as photographs. I've seen those "trying to look like a painting" things
and IMHO those are right there with a velvet elvis painting. While I've
seen some really cool "digital enhanced images" I liked, the 'looks like
a painting' thing isn't one of them.
One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a portrait of
someone but without them being in the image.
http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1
Stephanie
What prompted this was some photographs of the Basel carnival I took.
I would prefer it in the form of an oil painting to hang on the wall
but keeping it strictly accurate so that what you are seeing is not
the artists impression but rather the real thing. I would get bored
with just the photo but for me as a painting it is more of a keepsake
and reminder of Basel. But I appreciate that although you can have out
of focus areas in photographs, it would look out of place in a
painting. I have photos with good depth of field but I would want to
deemphasize the parts that in a photograph you would show as out of
focus. I want somehow to keep the outlines as they are but rob it of
detail such that a face the other side of the street could be served
by a pink smear. I am wondering if it is possible to reduce the image
size of these areas and then expand them back again so that the
outlines are there but the contents robbed of detail and then put it
through a painting effect routine so that these areas become almost
impressionist while the detail that matters is more like a photograph
or a painting with too much realism.
Alan Browne
2010-04-06 19:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by RolandRB
Let's say you want to enjoy your photography skills and show off the
detail you get from your MF images by putting the photo onto canvas
and hanging it from the wall like you had bought an original painting.
Would you get bored with it in a short time and prefer to give space
to a lesser photo taken by someone else? I am wondering if this has
happened to any of the MF photographers here.
I don't have too many of my own photographs hanging in my house and the
ones I do have mostly 8X10's. I think I have maybe 4 and all are printed
as photographs. I've seen those "trying to look like a painting" things
and IMHO those are right there with a velvet elvis painting. While I've
seen some really cool "digital enhanced images" I liked, the 'looks like
a painting' thing isn't one of them.
One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a portrait of
someone but without them being in the image.
http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1
Interesting/dynamic compositions, but not "photography" per se.

More like "transparency collage".
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
s***@yahoo.com
2010-04-06 21:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Browne
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by RolandRB
Let's say you want to enjoy your photography skills and show off the
detail you get from your MF images by putting the photo onto canvas
and hanging it from the wall like you had bought an original painting.
Would you get bored with it in a short time and prefer to give space
to a lesser photo taken by someone else? I am wondering if this has
happened to any of the MF photographers here.
I don't have too many of my own photographs hanging in my house and the
ones I do have mostly 8X10's. I think I have maybe 4 and all are printed
as photographs. I've seen those "trying to look like a painting" things
and IMHO those are right there with a velvet elvis painting. While I've
seen some really cool "digital enhanced images" I liked, the 'looks like
a painting' thing isn't one of them.
One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a portrait of
someone but without them being in the image.
http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1
Interesting/dynamic compositions, but not "photography" per se.
More like "transparency collage".
Yes and in person they really PULL you into the image in 3 dimensions.
Not only do your eyes travel across the image, the seem to focus in and
out through the transparency? It's hard to describe but it's VERY cool
:-) I agree this has gotten away from "photography" and is computer art?
Not sure how you would define this.

Stephanie
Neil Gould
2010-04-06 21:40:21 UTC
Permalink
(stephe wrote)
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Alan Browne
Post by s***@yahoo.com
One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a
portrait of someone but without them being in the image.
http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1
Interesting/dynamic compositions, but not "photography" per se.
More like "transparency collage".
Yes and in person they really PULL you into the image in 3 dimensions.
Not only do your eyes travel across the image, the seem to focus in
and out through the transparency? It's hard to describe but it's VERY
cool :-) I agree this has gotten away from "photography" and is
computer art? Not sure how you would define this.
Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the images used
in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only "photography", but it's
"art".

This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite artistic.

http://www.uelsmann.net/
--
best,

Neil



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Alan Browne
2010-04-07 21:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Gould
(stephe wrote)
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Alan Browne
Post by s***@yahoo.com
One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a
portrait of someone but without them being in the image.
http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1
Interesting/dynamic compositions, but not "photography" per se.
More like "transparency collage".
Yes and in person they really PULL you into the image in 3 dimensions.
Not only do your eyes travel across the image, the seem to focus in
and out through the transparency? It's hard to describe but it's VERY
cool :-) I agree this has gotten away from "photography" and is
computer art? Not sure how you would define this.
Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the images used
in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only "photography", but it's
"art".
This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite artistic.
http://www.uelsmann.net/
Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as far
as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely done in
PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the relationship
to photography (recording with light) seems way off to me.

Uelsmann is more directly "photography" oriented but then manipulated
into surrealism. Some of the symbolism is powerful, but some seems
quite meaningless or facile. Certainly 'stock' for books or articles on
dreams, psychology and so on.

Neither float my catamaran.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
s***@yahoo.com
2010-04-08 02:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Browne
Post by Neil Gould
(stephe wrote)
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Alan Browne
Post by s***@yahoo.com
One of the coolest things I have seen lately is the work by Robert
Weingarten "The portrait unbound". His goal is to produce a
portrait of someone but without them being in the image.
http://www.high.org/main.taf?p=3,1,1,18,1
Interesting/dynamic compositions, but not "photography" per se.
More like "transparency collage".
Yes and in person they really PULL you into the image in 3 dimensions.
Not only do your eyes travel across the image, the seem to focus in
and out through the transparency? It's hard to describe but it's VERY
cool :-) I agree this has gotten away from "photography" and is
computer art? Not sure how you would define this.
Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the images used
in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only "photography", but it's
"art".
This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite artistic.
http://www.uelsmann.net/
Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as far
as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely done in
PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the relationship
to photography (recording with light) seems way off to me.
Well this isn't quite right. He interviews the people and THEN went out
and shot the images, some of which took a lot of travel/effort. I agree
this goes PAST photography as far as using his creativity but he did
shoot a lot of the images used. Obviously some of the space shots of
apollo moon landing etc he didn't :-)

Stephe
Neil Gould
2010-04-08 13:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Browne
Post by Neil Gould
Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the
images used in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only
"photography", but it's "art".
This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite artistic.
http://www.uelsmann.net/
Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as
far as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely
done in PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the
relationship to photography (recording with light) seems way off to
me.
I didn't claim that all elements in Weingarten's collage were "..his
creation...", nor do I think it is a determinant of whether the end product
qualifies as "photography". However, his images were collected and displayed
by those who had to determine whether they were, in fact, "photography", so
I can accept that determination over any presentation on the web.

Additionally, even if all of the content of a collage was obtained from
stock, but that stock was created via "recording with light", it would still
be "photography", so your attempt to draw a distinction escapes me.
--
best,

Neil



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Alan Browne
2010-04-08 20:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Gould
Post by Alan Browne
Post by Neil Gould
Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the
images used in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only
"photography", but it's "art".
This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite artistic.
http://www.uelsmann.net/
Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as
far as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely
done in PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the
relationship to photography (recording with light) seems way off to
me.
I didn't claim that all elements in Weingarten's collage were "..his
creation...", nor do I think it is a determinant of whether the end product
qualifies as "photography". However, his images were collected and displayed
by those who had to determine whether they were, in fact, "photography", so
I can accept that determination over any presentation on the web.
Additionally, even if all of the content of a collage was obtained from
stock, but that stock was created via "recording with light", it would still
be "photography", so your attempt to draw a distinction escapes me.
To me it is collage. That is where his creative impetus appears to lie.
On the page that stephe linked to there are no 'free standing'
photographs of his.

I don't really care how you or others see it. I'll see it as "not
photography".
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
Neil Gould
2010-04-08 22:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Browne
Post by Neil Gould
Post by Alan Browne
Post by Neil Gould
Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the
images used in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only
"photography", but it's "art".
This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite artistic.
http://www.uelsmann.net/
Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as
far as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely
done in PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the
relationship to photography (recording with light) seems way off to
me.
I didn't claim that all elements in Weingarten's collage were "..his
creation...", nor do I think it is a determinant of whether the end
product qualifies as "photography". However, his images were
collected and displayed by those who had to determine whether they
were, in fact, "photography", so I can accept that determination
over any presentation on the web.
Additionally, even if all of the content of a collage was obtained
from stock, but that stock was created via "recording with light",
it would still be "photography", so your attempt to draw a
distinction escapes me.
To me it is collage. That is where his creative impetus appears to
lie. On the page that stephe linked to there are no 'free standing'
photographs of his.
The point of inlcuding Uelsmans's work is that the idea of 'free standing'
is not all that important to photography. With the growth of digital
photography and printing, it's even less clear, since distinctions can't be
made solely on the basis of what's in an image.
Post by Alan Browne
I don't really care how you or others see it. I'll see it as "not
photography".
Then, it's a good thing your opinion doesn't matter much.
--
best,

Neil



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Alan Browne
2010-04-09 00:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Gould
Post by Alan Browne
Post by Neil Gould
Post by Alan Browne
Post by Neil Gould
Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the
images used in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only
"photography", but it's "art".
This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite artistic.
http://www.uelsmann.net/
Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as
far as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely
done in PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the
relationship to photography (recording with light) seems way off to
me.
I didn't claim that all elements in Weingarten's collage were "..his
creation...", nor do I think it is a determinant of whether the end
product qualifies as "photography". However, his images were
collected and displayed by those who had to determine whether they
were, in fact, "photography", so I can accept that determination
over any presentation on the web.
Additionally, even if all of the content of a collage was obtained
from stock, but that stock was created via "recording with light",
it would still be "photography", so your attempt to draw a
distinction escapes me.
To me it is collage. That is where his creative impetus appears to
lie. On the page that stephe linked to there are no 'free standing'
photographs of his.
The point of inlcuding Uelsmans's work is that the idea of 'free standing'
is not all that important to photography. With the growth of digital
photography and printing, it's even less clear, since distinctions can't be
made solely on the basis of what's in an image.
Post by Alan Browne
I don't really care how you or others see it. I'll see it as "not
photography".
Then, it's a good thing your opinion doesn't matter much.
Alas, neither does yours. And that's a better thing.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
s***@yahoo.com
2010-04-09 02:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Browne
Post by Neil Gould
Post by Alan Browne
I don't really care how you or others see it. I'll see it as "not
photography".
Then, it's a good thing your opinion doesn't matter much.
Alas, neither does yours. And that's a better thing.
Well the people running the High Museum in Atlanta called it photography
and says this on the page about the exhibit. Or is this just another
"hobby site"?

The person who created it said it was photography in the video they
played there. Maybe I should get the person who created this art to
contact you so you can clear this up? :-P

I think what would define this as photography is: It would not exist if
there were no photographic equipment.


Stephanie
Alan Browne
2010-04-09 18:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Neil Gould
I don't really care how you or others see it. I'll see it as "not
photography".
Then, it's a good thing your opinion doesn't matter much.
Alas, neither does yours. And that's a better thing.
Well the people running the High Museum in Atlanta called it photography
and says this on the page about the exhibit.
The person who created it said it was photography in the video they
played there. Maybe I should get the person who created this art to
contact you so you can clear this up? :-P
Go right ahead. I'm sure that that person can listen to a different
point of view. I have no desire to change anyone's opinion.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
I think what would define this as photography is: It would not exist if
there were no photographic equipment.
I see the end product as the art presented and as such it is collage.
That the inputs are photos are just that: inputs.

Bend those images too far with post processing and montage and they
become something else.

eg: If someone builds a sculpture out of stones, it is sculpture, not
stone masonry.

I've seen a lot of "old fashioned" collage work using photographs and
other inputs (as does this fellow) and it was called "collage", not
photography.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
s***@yahoo.com
2010-04-09 19:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Browne
Bend those images too far with post processing and montage and they
become something else.
eg: If someone builds a sculpture out of stones, it is sculpture, not
stone masonry.
But it's still stone. Carving it into a sculpture doesn't make it not
stone anymore.

Stephanie
Alan Browne
2010-04-09 20:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Alan Browne
Bend those images too far with post processing and montage and they
become something else.
eg: If someone builds a sculpture out of stones, it is sculpture, not
stone masonry.
But it's still stone. Carving it into a sculpture doesn't make it not
stone anymore.
Collage or a printed photo is still paper by that reasoning.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
s***@yahoo.com
2010-04-10 01:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Browne
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Alan Browne
Bend those images too far with post processing and montage and they
become something else.
eg: If someone builds a sculpture out of stones, it is sculpture, not
stone masonry.
But it's still stone. Carving it into a sculpture doesn't make it not
stone anymore.
Collage or a printed photo is still paper by that reasoning.
Well actually it is. A printed photo isn't stone or water..

Stephanie

Loading...