Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Aug 10, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
    using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective in
    the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
    overdone.
     
    RichA, Aug 10, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    So don't do it.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 10, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    You beat me to it.
     
    PeterN, Aug 10, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
    : > Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
    : > using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
    : > in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
    : > overdone.
    :
    : So don't do it.

    Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 10, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    Agree 100%. Like all overdone cliches and gimmicks such as spot
    colour, inappropriately shallow depth of field, the "rule of thirds"
    and badly done HDR, it should go out of fashion after a time. But
    sadly, for some people it won't.
     
    Bruce, Aug 10, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    MC Guest

    Welcome to the world of digital where, not only can the photographer
    attempt to pull off an effect time and time again, without any
    additional financial cost, but they have a miriad of software to help.
    These cliches and gimmicks have always exsisted. However, in this day
    and age of "throw-away photography" these cliches and gimmicks are
    reproduced in such huge amounts everything is out of fashion before
    anybody notices in was ever in fashion.
    One area digital photgraphers have it harder than photographers of
    yesteryear.... trying to find new "fashions" nobody has yet attempted.
    It is an almost impossible task.

    MC
     
    MC, Aug 11, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Of course he's not right.

    Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to
    do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they
    don't, that's fine too.

    Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of
    fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 11, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    Rob Guest

    Horses for courses. Its an individual thing and calling the shot to
    express what the photographer sees.

    I like to see dynamics in water, always have. That white fluffy stuff
    has its place, its something to lift an image and separate the water
    from the background but it has problems in long exposures where movement
    of trees/ferns detract.
     
    Rob, Aug 11, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Exactly my point.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 11, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
    : > : On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
    : > : > Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
    : > : > using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
    : > : > in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
    : > : > overdone.
    : > :
    : > : So don't do it.
    : >
    : > Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.
    :
    : Of course he's not right.
    :
    : Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to
    : do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they
    : don't, that's fine too.
    :
    : Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of
    : fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich.

    Foolish or not, I'll assume whatever responsibility you care to assign me for
    my opinion. I think blurry water usually looks silly, even tacky. I believe I
    ridiculed it long before Rich did.

    Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone
    currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do
    what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that
    something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be
    encouraged.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 11, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    What, in your opinion, defines "good art"?

    I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different
    people at random, you would get ten very different answers.

    I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or
    "brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up
    to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals.

    Now apply that to photography; what makes an image "good art"? Is it
    something that more people like (lowest common denominator) or
    something that a few experts in the field really like (highest common
    factor).

    Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image
    that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than
    one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less?

    It's a bit like comparing an expensive, exclusive publication aimed at
    a very discerning audience to a tabloid newspaper or cheap novel that
    sells millions of copies to a mass market. Which is "better art"?

    I don't have answers to any of these questions but I would be very
    interested to hear your and others' views.
     
    Bruce, Aug 11, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    It has been ridiculed many times in the past, long before the internet
    gave voice to the ill informed such as Rich and the easily influenced as
    yourself.
    There ya go!
    Who claimed that? What I object to is that anyone should say what an
    artist or photographer should or should not do. Rich should not. You
    should not.

    That doesn't mean you're forced to like it or approve of it. And like
    Rich, your approval or not of it is absolutely meaningless.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 11, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    Note; You are asking each of us our opinion of what defines "good art",
    Just in this room we have a group who are going to be hard pressed to
    reach a consensus. So I I am going to make my way through your post
    commenting along the way, to finish with my opinion of what I believe
    defines art.
    I agree. As stated above, it is going to be tough to find two who
    agree, close maybe, but even then we will be inclined to come to our
    individual interpretations of what each of the others have stated, and
    still not agree.
    That is probably true for many "artists". However, there are certainly
    those artists who do not follow that school of modesty and immersion in
    their work, but assume a role of "artistic arrogance" defying critics
    and viewers alike, who make any judgement of their work.
    With regard to photography we have a few categories to work through
    before we get to "photographic art". First we should agree that not all
    of the products of the camera, darkroom and computer are "art". Some of
    that product is deliberate intentional art, some is accidental art.

    Photojournalism does not start from a position of being produced as
    art, some of that work, can, and does reach my definition of art (see
    below), usually accidentally, sometimes deliberately.

    The deliberate documentary can also be in both the accidental and
    deliberate art category. However, as with photojournalism, the
    production of "art" is not the typical intent.

    The family documentary, or snapshot is usually shot without pretension
    or intent to create art, but the shooter might unwittingly produce a
    photograph which could be absolutely defined as 'art".
    No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art.
    OK! Let's get my definition out of the way.
    To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance,
    photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes
    the uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response,
    be it one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter,
    nausea, or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art".

    A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure
    photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap here,
    as there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two categories
    as "art".

    A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it,
    disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of "art".
    That is probably just a snapshot.

    So for those who say they hate a particular style, or process, let's
    say HDR, or long exposure, by investing an emotion of hatred, they
    elevate any such work to be declared "art" whether they like it or not,
    even if the individual who produced that HDR image, or "silky"
    waterfall had no intention of declaring it "art".
     
    Savageduck, Aug 11, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    That doesn't quite read coherently.

    Let me rephrase that last remark. ;-)
    A work which leaves one indifferent, not provoking the viewer to the
    level of hatred, or the ability to express any personal emotional
    investment, is certainly not art.
     
    Savageduck, Aug 11, 2012
    #14
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    And also the many inbetweeners.
     
    PeterN, Aug 11, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest


    Which viewer? What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it? I may not
    think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.
     
    PeterN, Aug 11, 2012
    #16
  17. RichA

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    For the most part, SD, I think you have a decent definition of Art;
    however, my view goes a bit farther in a couple of areas.

    First, in order to qualify as Art, I think we have to look back to earlier
    views of the subject and add that Art is produced by somebody who actively
    develops a certain skillset in an area: ie, doesn't just pick up a camera
    and point it at a subject in order to capture an image. The artist would
    try to learn as much as he or she can about the subject to master the medium
    and develop a certain style of his or her own.

    This is not to say that Art can only be produced by an Artist who has a post
    secondary degree or Art school certificate, merely that the Artist has
    devoted more time and energy learning how to produce a work in his or her
    field than would normally be exhibited by the average lay person.

    This would, for the most part, rule out casual participants in the
    activity.

    Second, I'd throw into the mix the idea that thought plays at least as big a
    part in the viewer's reaction as emotion, which is to say that a work that
    causes somebody to think more critically or inquisitively about the subject
    of the work should also qualify as Art, even if the viewer doesn't
    experience much of an emotional response to the work itself.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Aug 11, 2012
    #17
  18. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    Any viewer.
    His dislike and/or hatred of it makes it "Art".
    It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start
    feeling and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of
    being declared art, you have established a personal opinion,
    intellectual response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the
    level of a work of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it,
    defines it as art whether you like it or not.
    If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked
    about the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would
    firmly establish an indifference to it.

    Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it
    closely, I have no doubt that it is art.
    ....but that is my opinion.
    Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute, Utica, NY.
    < http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k >
     
    Savageduck, Aug 11, 2012
    #18
  19. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    That all makes perfect sense to me, and underscores, and expands my
    opinion in this little discussion.
     
    Savageduck, Aug 11, 2012
    #19
  20. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Therefore, if I comment that any image is just a snapshot, it is thereby
    elevated to art?

    BTW I never said I didn't consider Jackson Pollock's work as art.
     
    PeterN, Aug 11, 2012
    #20
    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.