| Author |
Message |
rezz50
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Sep 06 06:52
Reply
Martin's comment strikes to the heart of the discussion and bears repeating:
" Showing the world in all its diversity means also showing people's personal view of this world by creating their personal images. "
(I'm adding this one to my Quotations file for future reference.)
Perhaps our views of the world as it should be are just as important as the "reality" of the world as it is.
|
bere
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Sep 06 22:13
Reply
Hi all,
I'm not shure we have reached a point where we could lean back and say: Settled!
We still disagree and that's OK. The majority of the participants of that discussion are in favor of 'touching the pic'. So it will be.
I've just browsed thru WOOPHY's daily new load of pics and the questions came up, unwanted, but not to suppress: Is this how it looks in that town or is it as it should look? I didn't like that thought.
How about that: Pics used in WOOPHY which fall under one of the categories Landmarks and Buildings, Nature or Objects should be marked by the producer if 'touched' with the remark 'touched'.
What do you think?
Regards to all! Bernd
|
Bernadette
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Sep 06 23:17
Reply
As already said in this discussion, I'm on the side of "touching pict", but I also understand POV of "purist".
*Agree with you Bern, to precise that the photo is 'retouched", I think I have always given the detail in my comment when appropriate(I had a quick look to my collection)
*Marcos & Fred I think you are very near of my way of thinking
*Martin I'm like Rezz very fond of what you said. How to be sure that our reality is the same then an other one reality?
*ALINE, Wahoooo, bravo, what a sucess with your topic! thanks for having proposed it. It was nice to share our advices.
Greetings to all
|
ortho158
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Sep 06 10:58
Reply
The question of art vs photography is a very old one. 150 years ago (in 1859), Baudelaire wrote about that. He said that 'photography is the last refuge for incompetent painters' ... (isn't that nice?). There is a lot about it on the Internet; see, e.g. http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/artists.htm
|
|
Bernadette
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Sep 06 22:34
Reply
if you read what I wrote earlier in this topic : I make photos and I edit them because I'm unable to draw or paint something.
I'm very fond of Beaudelaire who is my favorite poeter and one more time, I'm in full agreement with him.
So I learn something about him tonight with you
Thanks Ortho.
|
Aline
Member
|
# Posted: 26 Sep 06 13:27
Reply
@Bere
I agree, for me it would be good to be able to identify the "touched" picture, but what are the limits before saying a picture is touched ?
If I change the brightness, the contrast, the framing on a whole picture, I can say : It is adjusted, but not touched.
IF I change the contrast on a part of the picture, or If I erase a default, or if I copy and paste part of a picture on another, I can say : "It is touched"
It is my own rules, and, as I see on this forum, shared by some members. Surely not by all of them.
---
@Ortho158 : on my mind, the Baudelaire'sentence looks very reductive (Maybe because out of the context)
I don't know if you think the same, because you remark "isn't that nice ?" could be very ironic or could be aswell appreciative ;-)
It is as diificult to be a good photograph than a good painter, and I speak here about UNTOUCHED pictures. The aim and the difficulties are not the same, but the challenge is as great.
With same eyes and the same world than everybody else.. with sober tools as the point of view and the framing, the good photograph has the power to give another release of our own world.
And most.. increasing the power of the look we can have on the world, he give us the possibility to change our own relationship with this world. The good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly, the attractive and the boring, all categorie can explode under the photograph's look and in front of our eyes.
The TOUCHED pictures, as the other side, are more as another way to create another world
In this domain, marvelous things can be done. As paintings or "collages" or tapestries...the photography is, in this case, not more than a tool for collecting elements which be used for the construction of something else.
But when it is not more than darkening a sky on a landscape, changing the place of an object, I have to admit I'm not very interested in. (I did it, and I'll do, I fully admit it can be done and I can appreciate pictures like that) but it is for me .... too easy. As .. just a trick.
For me, the challenge is somewhere else.
This is the reason I'm not at ease with pictures "touched but without the evidence it has been touched"
|
Emma
Member
|
# Posted: 12 Oct 06 21:11
Reply
Like all of you, I find it okay to enhance the pics in PSP or Photoshop. I always look at the levels, the brightness and the saturation. If necessary, I brighten up the picture a bit, but only to make it stronger, like the dark room photographers used to do.
I seldom crop, as I try to find the right composition while taking the picture.
There are some real beauty's over here!
|
ENBr4x4
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jan 07 10:31
Reply
I suppose its more of the image in the eye of the photographer, and his job is to modify his photo to reflect that.
|
Online now: Guests - 2 Members - 2