A nice portfolio of photos

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by aniramca, Jan 2, 2008.

  1. At least you acknowledge that they are art works, but I can only put
    down many of the sour comments in this thread as jealousy.

    They are all photographic renditions which produce a pleasing result -
    sentimental perhaps, not to everyone's taste, perhaps, but stunning in
    their effect.

    If you and the other contributors to this thread never modify the images
    our of their camera in the darkroom or the computer, to change tonal
    range or colour contrast, then frankly I'm amazed. If they do, then
    here's someone who (mostly) does it superbly even if a bit o.o.t.!

    The fact is that, regardless of the tonal rendering, the compositions
    are mostly excellent and the subjects at least look as if they have some
    joy in their lives.

    I wish my magic trickery was as good as these. But I agree I wouldn't
    want to do it all the time!

    Mike
    [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
    --
    Michael J Davis

    Now with added pictures at www.flickr.com/photos/watchman

    <><
    He took so long to get the photo he said he was 'composing'
    that I thought he might be doing just the opposite.
    <><
     
    Michael J Davis, Jan 4, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. aniramca

    Phil Guest

    Using your own images as a contrast to these we are discussing, I find
    your formal arrangements appear to be well thought out and
    purposefully executed. Your "people" shots are highly interesting in
    that they are not only nicely arranged but one gets the feeling that
    he is eavesdropping on momentary slices of life frozen in time. For me
    they provide an emotion in which I can identify with. It is art
    without self-indulgence and manipulation. I'm not criticizing the
    work, initially presented, as much as I may be "critiquing" relative
    to how I respond to it.
    Where there may be a lot to see and contemplate in your images, I
    don't see that in the others. For me(and I emphasize, for me), beyond
    the sizzle there is no steak.
     
    Phil, Jan 4, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. aniramca

    Allen Guest

    Good point. And who is to say that the OP doesn't "see" just as his
    posted pictures look. No one can know how I see, nor can I know for sure
    how anyone else sees.
     
    Allen, Jan 4, 2008
    #23
  4. aniramca

    Gordo Guest

    Very true. Just think of what Ansel Adams did to his prints in the darkroom.
    Lots of manipulation.

    Gordo



    Whether they were done with Photoshop or Corel Painter matters not to
    me.
    The end result is what counts. No, it isn't a photo in the traditional
    sense and it certainly isn't "real" but then what photo is?
     
    Gordo, Jan 4, 2008
    #24
  5. aniramca

    Scott W Guest

    Take a look at the group AA helped formed.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64
    The photos the OP linked to are the type that Adams was fighting
    against with his own photography.

    "Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers
    who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and
    direct presentation through purely photographic methods"

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 4, 2008
    #25
  6. Well, thanks! Yes, composition is important to me.
    OK, that's a more balanced comment - and one which I would generally
    agree with; it was just the negativity that was coming through this
    thread in general.

    His photos have inspired me to attempt to be bolder in some of my
    'retouching'. ;-} So it's not all bad!!

    Thanks for your views.

    Mike
    --
    Michael J Davis

    Now with added pictures on http://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman

    <><
    Even Photographic newsgroups sometimes lose perspective.
    <><
     
    Michael J Davis, Jan 4, 2008
    #26
  7. aniramca

    George Kerby Guest

    Right.

    E. How did Adams meet the darkroom challenges?
    In addition to trying combinations of various papers and developers (see
    technical aspects), he engaged in "rather intricate dodging and burning."
    This means he increased (burning), or decreased (dodging) the light from the
    enlarger through the negative to the photographic paper to achieve the
    balance of values he visualized. In this case he also used cropping. Because
    he wanted all five prints to be precisely the same size, and he had to crop
    (cut off) the right side of three of the prints to eliminate a distracting
    shape, he had to crop all five. He says this attention to small detail is a
    matter of his "desire for perfection."

    http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/surfseq.html
     
    George Kerby, Jan 4, 2008
    #27
  8. aniramca

    Scott W Guest

    The dodging and burning that Adams did is very different then the
    images the OP gave us the link to. When Adams was done you have a
    photo that looked like the scene he shot, he did not add in fake mist
    and fog to give his photos a fairy tale look.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 4, 2008
    #28
  9. aniramca

    Allen Guest

    If the sky is black to you, the grass is gray, etc.
    Allen
    he did not add in fake mist
     
    Allen, Jan 4, 2008
    #29
  10. aniramca

    George Kerby Guest

    Agreed.

    But what have been "purely photographic methods" to him, including, as I was
    taught back years ago, "dodging and burning" while exposing the negative in
    camera, would not be considered by some of his time, to be purely
    photographic. Same applies today.

    What ever rocks our boats, as they say...
     
    George Kerby, Jan 4, 2008
    #30
  11. aniramca

    Scott W Guest

    Up, there are newspapers and magazines that have fired photographers
    for darkening a sky to make it look more dramatic.

    This is true, if people like photos that have been heavily manipulated
    then who is to say they are wrong.

    On the other hand I would hate to see this become the norm in
    photography. I for one would not enjoy viewing the photographs in say
    National Geographic if I felt they had gone through this level of
    editing.

    When someone says that they like this type of photography there will
    be some that read that and push some to doing this kind of thing to
    there own photos. The OP certainly has the right to say what hi
    likes, but I for one want to voice my opinion that I would hate to see
    photograph drifting more and more to these kind of images.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 4, 2008
    #31
  12. aniramca

    Annika1980 Guest

    AA and his f/64 group were against the adding of elements to a photo
    such as would be done by painting onto the photo or using multiple
    exposures. But he had no qualms about working the heck out of his
    negatives in the darkroom until they became creations that certainly
    looked nothing like what he saw when he took the photos.

    Most news agencies today have the same principles. Nothing should be
    added or subtracted from the scene, except via cropping. But don't
    think for a second that the photos you see in National Geographic
    looked anything like that straight from the camera. All of them have
    been heavily manipulated.

    I don't apologize to the idiot trolls who cry about my photos being
    Photoshop creations because I have used certain techniques to make
    them look better.

    Hell, even Jessica Alba wears makeup.
     
    Annika1980, Jan 5, 2008
    #32
  13. aniramca

    Gordo Guest

    This is one of the few good discussion threads in this newsgroup. No name
    calling, respect for other's opinions, admission that there are other points
    of view that are valid, thoughtful, intelligent comments, etc. etc.

    Would that all threads would follow this model.

    Hopefully,
    Gordo
     
    Gordo, Jan 5, 2008
    #33
  14. aniramca

    The One Guest

    Nice manipulation, pity they aren't photos.
     
    The One, Jan 28, 2008
    #34
  15. aniramca

    Peter Guest

    They may not be pure photographs to your eye, but they are art.
    I have never understood where the line should be drawn, when a photograph,
    that is not a catalogue representation, no longer a photograph. AA did
    manipulations in the darkroom. Today we have a digital darkroom.
     
    Peter, Jan 30, 2008
    #35
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.