JCC Post your photography.

Ahh ok now that you've used some terms I looked them up and get what you're saying. So I pushed some buttons and played with the photo and now completely get what you're saying I need to do with them once I view the originals. I feel like an idiot, and enlightened idiot though.

The hard part for me is to view everything surrounding the focal point. I am struggling to grasp that which is what is lacking in my photos. The gorilla never changes no matter what buttons I push because I must've captured him well(?). The rest of the photo changes a lot depending on the rest of the levels in the photo.



[image=http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k87/s65horsey/DSCF2665_3.jpg]

[image=http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k87/s65horsey/DSCF2665_2.jpg]

 

I appreciate epic's understanding of my view, though I should say that I think Dani understands where I'm coming from, thanks to some discussion about it. For my own part, I think I put too much an emphasis on my own view, though I hope people understand why it's important to me. Clearly everything has its place, but at the same time, I can't honestly say that I find any of those four original photos to be particularly interesting. When you're surrounded by photographers all the time, and their work, you see a wide range of work, from the traditional to stuff that's pretty unusual. This becomes something resembling a standard, or at least a point of reference, and when you see photographs that are pretty ordinary, or not really challenging, your instinct is to write them off as maybe interesting to look at for a moment, but nothing more. That's just my own perspective. Just today, I took a lot of 4x6 machine prints to the professor I'm doing an independent study with. He asked me, essentially, what I'm working toward, or to use another term, "what's the point?" I don't have one right now for the work I showed him, and I need to figure something out. That's where I'm coming from now. My style and overall approach is changing, but I'm still falling into the trap of being focused on what the photographs look like, even though they look much different than most of what I've done in the past. It isn't enough for me to have interesting photographs-- they need to be part of a larger body of work, and cohere into something meaningful. Most of the photographs I take won't fit this, and that's true of everyone. When I find more of a focus, I think my work will improve with it.

lol appeal to authority


There's nothing wrong with educated authority, at least to some extent. If you've undertaken a meaningful and rigorous study of something, it means you are or at least should be more knowledgeable about it than the average person. I don't see a problem with that.

And I don't ever understand what that means. Can't a photograph be taken and unaltered?

When it comes to digital images, it's virtually impossible for something to be unaltered. In some places, you'll see the term "straight out of the camera" used, which is misleading. The settings you have your camera on contribute to the look your image has, as do the settings you use in any kind of editing program. I zero out my RAW files before editing in Lightroom, which wipes out Adobe's influence for the most part, but if I posted a zeroed photo, it would look very flat and unappealing.

In film, you're choosing a film stock and therefore a particular look. You can leave it at that, but even then, not really. You or someone else is choosing for you a developer and fixer solution for you, among other things. The method of development contributes to the look of a film negative. You can go on and on.

I think perhaps its me still stuck in the dark ages of print photography and hesitant to move into the world of digital (even though I have a digital camera) and I still want the shots to speak for themselves rather than me decide what the shots speak for.

It's not the dark ages. Film is still very popular in art photography, and in fact some film equipment is getting more expensive at the medium and large format level. The Mamiya 7, a rather unique 6x7 medium format camera, has gone up in value a lot over the past two years. This is a bit problematic for me, as I'd like to own one, but have to find some kind of great deal, as a friend of mine did ($750 for a Mamiya 7 I and 80/4-- KEH has the same thing for $1,539 right now).

Sometimes you have to shoot a lot and then figure out what those photographs say. The above-mentioned friend likes to get his ideas of bodies of work from a particular image, rather than the other way around.

if it was altered at all, it is definitely the least altered of the four you posted. it looks pretty natural to me, though. possibly some tweaking with the contrast in certain areas, but possibly not. somet

 

KW, I read thru your entire post and the impression I got was like listening to Da Vinci, Degas, or another painter. Reading your passages I can completely understand why Artists such as you command so much money for their work. I can understand what it means to be a patron of the arts or an art collector now. Thank you, I get the connection of art.

And I apologize for being so harsh to you and so mean. I wish you all the best.

 

Well this isn't relevant but I guess it's not too far off topic - but no, I'm not a graphic designer nor do I really want to talk about what I actually do on the JC because of well, this kind of discussion. But I'm definitely far, far from a graphic designer. I wouldn't really say it's lame to crap on an artistic opinion though, because that's kind of what you're doing towards me - my opinion was an artistic one to artistically disagree with his opinion.


Anyways, art school is all about crapping on each others work in a harsh manner. That's how it's done. This isn't art school though I suppose. Touche SLG, touche.

 

like quix, i tend to like contrasty b+w and also more expressionistic uses of shadow and light, so that, in part, may be why i responded to that photo. though i don't think this is particularly extreme in that respect - yes, there are areas where detail and clarity is compromised, but i don't think it overpowers the whole. it's a wide range, but a pleasant one to my eyes. another reason i took to it might be that i like a work that forces me to "work" to get a hold on it - this photo is busy and that kind of excites the crap out of me.

i don't think it's a brilliant piece, but it stands out from the others in that group of four and appeals to me, if only on a purely aesthetic level. it's true, that alone wouldn't pass muster in the art world, and i guess if i was positioning myself to be a critic or professional photographer/artist i would be a little more discerning or rigorous in my criticism, but i'm not so i can simply appreciate it for its strengths and forgive it its weaknesses.

 

The thing I love about this photograph is the way the photographer is able to show complete disdain for pretty, non-artistic photographs by having the two people in the photo with their backs turned to the beautiful rainbow in the background. So artistic. It takes a person with a very keen eye to see what the photo is meant to capture. It fills me with joy that I am such a person.

 

Well, aside from the self-congratulation, that is a most interesting interpretation. I can see that being possible. I'm not sure if I buy it, but with that interpretation in mind, I can now see this photo working alongside others in a series, perhaps in a series where traditional "hopeful" things are either rejected or looked at in something other than the usual way. The girl's flinging hair is a problem, though, and draws too much attention to itself. If she wasn't there, I think it would be a different and perhaps better photograph.

However, I can also see the rainbow as being part of a trio of things that turn their backs on the storm, with the girl and the person in the boat as being the other two.

Regardless, it's a good reminder to do what one photo instructor has admonished students before to do, which is to really look at a photograph.

 

DOUBLE RAINBOW! WHAT DOES IT MEAAAN?!

 

I thought it was clear that her hair was supposed to show that there's more to taking a picture than making it nice and pretty. That you're not taking a family photo at a studio at the mall. You're supposed to be making art. I suppose I should have included that thought in my above post but I assumed it would be obvious based on what I discussed.

 

I'm surprised it took this long!

 

[image=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LaGbvGYBtvA/THVoHBp6gTI/AAAAAAAAABU/xg9UEPiSIkU/s1600/rambo2x.jpg]

 

[image=http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL359/11069771/19661693/386813327.jpg]

 

well, exactly. which is what kw did and somehow flustered about 6 of you all at the same time in the process. odd that!

in other news, Roper, you are so full of ****

 

there's 6 of her?

 

approximately

 

that is amazing.

 

This thread has absolutely everything I hate about discussing art. Thanks gang.

 

[image=http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/4526/dublindp.jpg]

 

i like the "here honey, hold this pipe bomb" statue.

 

Went to the racetrack today with my dad's canon eos rebel T3i. Got some shots I really like!

[image=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7013/6699310837_82066e80a8.jpg]

[image=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7007/6699309941_565011f091.jpg]

[image=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7028/6699308653_a059957288.jpg]

The story behind this next image is that the jockey's son was excitedly pointing and yelling "That's my dad!" It was adorable and obviously the dad was really excited that his son was there to watch him ride.
[image=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7028/6699306667_b12d4ef3d1.jpg]

The track is right on the bay so I took some sunset shots (sorry KW!) with the Golden Gate bridge and this playful dog was adorable!

[image=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7164/6699311281_5b30b12cd8.jpg]

[image=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7147/6699297843_a36755f4af.jpg]

[image=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7035/6699311615_b5e3705a9b.jpg]

 

Really cool, Lisa. I'm a sucker for sunset shots.

 

Great shots! The monochrome and sunset with the pier elements are my favorites of the bunch.

 

Well, just for you then:

[image=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/6703709241_30e72d4513_b.jpg]

[image=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7170/6703730501_3a0b4a7ea7_b.jpg]

[image=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7016/6703795109_72513d6511_b.jpg]

The last one there is as "Arizona Highways" as you can get, and that's not a good thing. I took it mostly because I could.

 

[image=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7013/6699310837_82066e80a8.jpg]

This.

 

Thanks for the comments guys!

Quix - funny story about the pier, when I initially took the shot I didn't like the pier elements. It looked a bit different in person so I made my mom move the car. But when I was looking at the pictures I was like "Whoa that looks really different and I actually like it."