Result from last week leading an autumn photo workshop. It's a piece of pine and larch woodland with a pathway running through it, which has pink tinged needles on it. Exposure 1 sec at f11, and moving the camera down during the exposure. Kind of impressionist I suppose, and the kind of image that seems to divide viewers into the love it/hate it camps.
It was interesting that one bit of discussion that making images like this fostered was about photography as art, with someone saying digital photography isn't really regarded as a real art form (in the same way as traditional b&w is), but that you could use photoshop to create something later that could be regarded as art. Interesting observation but not necessarily one I agree with.
Curious - what do you think - if one makes the image creatively in-camera would that make it more 'art' than using photoshop later, as its something other than a straight image or a manipulated straight image?
Thoughts?
Posted by Graeme Lee on November 6, 2007 at 9:01 AM
Man, I knew I shouldn't have eaten those mushrooms!!!1
Don't know John, but I'm pretty sure my gran has this type pattern on her curtains
I'm a bit of a purist andlack a creative eye so I'll leave to the talented people
Beautiful image John - the colours, textures and shapes are all fantastic. Very impressionistic - the greens and purples really set it off for me.
Regarding art I think some people will take a long time to accept digital as 'real' art (or as valid as traditional methods). My guess is that this comes from the widely accepted thought that anyone can take a digital camera and manipulate the image these days.
Digital is just a tool to create the final image. I like to get it as close as possible in camera to how I picture the final image because I’d rather not spend hours at the computer. But if I need to blend a couple of images I will.
To me digital is no less valid than working in the darkroom which I did for many years or spending 12 hours over a canvas with my oil paints. Use which ever method works best for the image. Who cares how the image was created as long as the final image is damned good? People should put more importance on composition and simply making fine images. It’s not what tools you use but what you do with them that creates art, photography or any other art form.
Just my thoughts,
Tristan
Posted by Mark Sisson on November 6, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Hi John, and nice to see some of your stuff on here, along with the challenging nature of your comments!
With a purely commercial hat on, the simple adage that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, tends to rule the day. If a client perceives it as artistic and/or meeting their brief/requirement then that is what matter's most.
From a creative perspective though, I believe that the art of a good photographer (digital or otherwise) is in recognising the potential of a capturing something that either instantly or with some applied creativity at a later stage, delivers against that vision. This sits comfortably with the other old adagae that a camera is a tool that helps you see without a camera, and therefore helps me from a creative perspective, although the need for commercial reality does seem to continually nibble away at me as the end of the month approaches too!
By the way, a nice picture too, and one I'd have had you (and one or two others) down as the artist behind by the way - so maybe that proves the point as well.
Thanks for the comments folks. Hope the colours are not appearing too garish - they were pretty staurated on the day due to overcast soft light, but I'm in the middle of calibrating a new Eizo and trying to get my laptop to match - aargh! It looked ok on one machine and not the other and then looked totally different in the web browser. Hmm? Might need to tweak it (back) a bit.
I think Graeme might need to avoid the tea his granny is offering him! Either that or the curtains were open and the northern lights were going hard at it!
Tristan & Mark - not trying to be provocative here with the 'is it art' line, as it is all so subjective, but rather I'm expressing a degree of curiosity about the notion that it might not be art BEFORE photoshop, but that afterwards could be. I've seen this before in the monthly mags - a photoshop tutorial where a drab/ordinary image is taken and tweaked and the resultant creation is then labelled as 'art' or even 'fine art'.
But yes as you said Mark - commercially, its whatever gets the job done for the client, and thats all that concerns me most of the time.
Posted by Philip Kirkham on November 6, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Hello John
I would regard this as art far more readily than a pile of bricks or a bed that has been wet in a gallery. I cannot see the difference between an image manufactured "in camera" or "in photoshop", in fact the former is more difficult.
I certainly like this image, the tones and movement appeal to me.
Best wishes
Phil
Posted by Chris Lloyd on November 6, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Personally John, I love it. I took something similar the other week but no where near as much colour as this. I also tried one zooming the lens in and out too which looked cool.
Chris.
Posted by Mark Sisson on November 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM
To clarify my viewpoint - if I have pre-conceived what I believe the potential from an image to be before I take it (ie that xyz technique, crop or whatever) will result in something I can pre-visualise at that moment - to me that is the art of a good photographer. The key here is the pre-visualisation and knowledge of what the subsequent processes can bring to the piece.
If I take an image I was not pre-conceiving to be anything other than it was when I took it (be that good, bad or indifferent) and in the process of spending sometime manipulating it, turn it into a piece of art or fine art - to me that is that art of a good graphic designer.
Both are right, both have a place, both can make good mony and earn plaudits (or not as the case may be) from their work, but only one can truly call themselves a photographer in my simple book.
Right - I'm off out with the camera now, and turning my damned PC off!!
John - is there any difference between a raw image file before being processed and a flat b&w neg before being printed in a traditional darkroom by a master printer? To me both are a starting point and you express your ideas through either process. I'm not saying everything happens after you've taken an image - <b>far from it</b> - just saying what you do with the image can have a big impact on how it is perceived. I'm sure a lot of Ansel Adams plates would not have half the impact as his final prints. Just some further thoughts off the top of my head ... I really had better do some work. Tristan
Posted by Andy Astbury on November 6, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Ooo...I have to say I have a bit of a different view than Phil and others - I DO see a difference between in camera and post effects; the former shows the photographer had the idea before they took the image, whereas the latter is just that, an after-thought.
Yes we all dodge and burn just like a master printer, and yes we do manipulate images, but usually we strive for the perfect rendition of our chosen subject and all the 'jigger-me-pokery' is used to enhance a 'real' view.
What you have done here is 'pure' art - you've obviously had this in your head and used the camera as an artist would a brush - something I for one am absolutely incapable of because the techy in me would not allow it - and I absolutely aplaude you for it John
I agree with Andy that I very much see a difference between in camera and post effects but I would strongly disagree that all post effects are simply an after thought. They can very easily be an after thought but I think you'll find that most consistently good photographers know exactly what they intend to do with an image post capture (if anything). Creating 'art' is not as simple as releasing the shutter nor is it simply reproducing exactly what you see in the viewfinder. Its what you see in your head. Tristan
Tristan- absolutely agree that both media are just starting points. What I was getting at in my post is not that issue, but the notion that some folks consider that an unmanipulated photo may not be art, but a manipulated one is. I was intrigued by that concept - almost that a 'straight' piece of work somehow is disqualified but one that has been tampered with is somehow imbued with an extra dimension. Anyway, dont really want to flog this one too much as its too subjective!
Just glad you like the picture. It was deliberate, as I'd wondered whether the pathway's colour would add an extra dimension. What fascinates me in these images is that the perception of depth is so well retained - subtle, but there.
Posted by Andy Astbury on November 6, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Tristan, John - I didn't quite phrase that correctly - I missed out the word 'possibly' and I was only referring to abstract type images
Posted by Brian Irving on November 6, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I like it too, so pleased you explained what the subject is, I would never have worked it out.
Brian
Posted by jack chapman on November 6, 2007 at 2:43 PM
nice idea John it works quite well, i love the subtle colour, however i feel a wider view might have been better
The wider view? I tried it, several times, and the problem is that because you have to move the camera, if your lens is wider than a slight tele the trees at the edge of the frame curve due to the lens angle of view! The wider you go the worse it gets, and the effect of 'depth' is lost also as the compression effect of the tele lens heads south. Trust me I've tried hundreds of variations on this theme!
It's a true abstract John, and I like it for its abstraction. Pure forms and colour without recognisable subject. This technique is interesting, as photographer can achieve everything from impressionistic look to total abstraction like you did just with control of length of camera movement.
As for in camera compared with after taught: my education is purely technical and I have struggled long time with "true" and "false" in our media. But if one thinks about painters or sculptures: how long it takes to create their masterwork? A week, a month? Do you think that line of thought is the same at the end as it was in the beginning? Maybe or maybe not. I can work out two different photos from same scan of slide or RAW image on two different days, because my inner feelings are changing. So I forced myself to work on an image come to final result and let it be like that, because otherwise I would never come to final version. So I don't split hair as to whether photograph was made in darkroom, lightroom or in camera. It's creative process that leads us to final result from start to finish and camera, enlarger and computer are just tools for our inner part to come out.
Uf it's time for me to stop this artsy bartsy drivel as it could get me into troubles.
Thanks for the comments folks. My take on pre or post 'manipulation' (and I have to say I'm not entirely comfortable with the M word) is that I prefer the in-camera approach. For one simple reason - it opens you up to luck, and the great unknown. Post work invariably reflects the limitations of your ability/imagination/creativity whatever. Allowing pure chance and the immediate inspiration of the day/mood/weather to impinge on the image creation might be a it self-indulgent but it certainly takes you into new areas of seeing and often surprises you with the outcome.
Posted by Danny Green on November 7, 2007 at 5:29 AM
Sorry for not having the time to explain why I like this but I really do, the colours, the texture, the vision, Great shot.
This has been a really interesting post - I have to say I agree more with Marko's view than John's. I don’t think post work reflects any limitation of imagination or creativity - very much the opposite in fact. As a comparison take painting - you could look at this as pure post work as you have complete control over every brush stroke. Control frees the imagination by allowing you to match as closely in print as to what you envision in your mind. Luck and the great unknown will not consistently produce good images. Your original post has a certain amount of luck involved but you knew exactly what you were trying to create and you did a damned good job of it. Just being argumentative
Posted by Elliott Neep on November 7, 2007 at 6:19 AM
Beautiful colours and great vision, John.
As for art? What is that these days? A pile of bricks on the floor, a dirty bed, or the mona lisa?
IMO, anyone who argues that one form of photography is more artistic than the next is nothing more than puritanical and needs to get a sense of perspective. I am rather confused about the notion that modern photography is detached and too readily manipulated.
Are there people still out there that believe black and white prints are 'pure' and straight from the negative without any cropping, dodging, burning, selective exposure, multiple exposure... I used to do more to my black and whites than I do to my digital 'captures'.
Same here with B&W Eliott - perhaps it is because generally people have no idea what goes on in the darkroom so they accept it more easily over digital which more people have a better grasp of.
Which comments brings me back to my first comments at top:
There's a feeling expressed there that a RAW, irrespective of content, is like a neg and that it only becomes a finished 'vision' as a consequence of being worked on - like a b&w neg.
Tristan (argumentative is good!) you're partly right "Control frees the imagination by allowing you to match as closely in print as to what you envision in your mind. Luck and the great unknown will not consistently produce good images. "
Control (imho) doesn't free the imagination - it simply allows you to operate within the confines of your skill and imagination to your best ability. However I agree that luck and the great unknown dont always produce good images, but what they do manage to do sometimes is bring in an element that you could never ever have envisaged and although often it's superfluous or downright wrong, sometimes, just sometimes it adds a wee bit of magic.
Re Tristan " Same here with B&W Eliott - perhaps it is because generally people have no idea what goes on in the darkroom so they accept it more easily over digital which more people have a better grasp of."
Hmm! Theres an utterly breathtakingly astonishing thread been running in the Alamy contributors forum a few months back regarding jpg files following Alamy's request that all submissions be in jpg format, The lack of knowledge being demonstrated was amazing - and as several contributors have commented there it reflects really badly on the agency that so many of their contributing photogs dont even have a grasp of the fundamentals of file types, image resizing and compression.
On more people having a better grasp of digital I'm referring to the fact that a large proportion of people these days have access to some kind of photo editing software. Knowledge and understanding of how to use the software and about the fundamentals of digital images something else that is lacking in many.
I think we probably actually agree on everything here anyway - it makes a good discussion though. Luck can most certainly add a bit of magic and very good point on control doesn’t free the imagination - I guess what I was trying to say was that with a painting I can produce anything my imagination can think of (as long as i have the skill to paint it) where as typically with a photograph it’s not always possible to capture what you have in your head as you have to work with what is in front of you. i.e. I can't just conjure up the light and weather conditions of Turner's Hannibal crossing the alps at will but on canvas I potentially could. I think I'd better leave it there before I vanish completely into my own imagination .... if I'm not there already....
Discussion
25 repliesIt was interesting that one bit of discussion that making images like this fostered was about photography as art, with someone saying digital photography isn't really regarded as a real art form (in the same way as traditional b&w is), but that you could use photoshop to create something later that could be regarded as art. Interesting observation but not necessarily one I agree with.
Curious - what do you think - if one makes the image creatively in-camera would that make it more 'art' than using photoshop later, as its something other than a straight image or a manipulated straight image?
Thoughts?
Don't know John, but I'm pretty sure my gran has this type pattern on her curtains
I'm a bit of a purist andlack a creative eye so I'll leave to the talented people
Regarding art I think some people will take a long time to accept digital as 'real' art (or as valid as traditional methods). My guess is that this comes from the widely accepted thought that anyone can take a digital camera and manipulate the image these days.
Digital is just a tool to create the final image. I like to get it as close as possible in camera to how I picture the final image because I’d rather not spend hours at the computer. But if I need to blend a couple of images I will.
To me digital is no less valid than working in the darkroom which I did for many years or spending 12 hours over a canvas with my oil paints. Use which ever method works best for the image. Who cares how the image was created as long as the final image is damned good? People should put more importance on composition and simply making fine images. It’s not what tools you use but what you do with them that creates art, photography or any other art form.
Just my thoughts,
Tristan
With a purely commercial hat on, the simple adage that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, tends to rule the day. If a client perceives it as artistic and/or meeting their brief/requirement then that is what matter's most.
From a creative perspective though, I believe that the art of a good photographer (digital or otherwise) is in recognising the potential of a capturing something that either instantly or with some applied creativity at a later stage, delivers against that vision. This sits comfortably with the other old adagae that a camera is a tool that helps you see without a camera, and therefore helps me from a creative perspective, although the need for commercial reality does seem to continually nibble away at me as the end of the month approaches too!
By the way, a nice picture too, and one I'd have had you (and one or two others) down as the artist behind by the way - so maybe that proves the point as well.
Mark
I think Graeme might need to avoid the tea his granny is offering him! Either that or the curtains were open and the northern lights were going hard at it!
Tristan & Mark - not trying to be provocative here with the 'is it art' line, as it is all so subjective, but rather I'm expressing a degree of curiosity about the notion that it might not be art BEFORE photoshop, but that afterwards could be. I've seen this before in the monthly mags - a photoshop tutorial where a drab/ordinary image is taken and tweaked and the resultant creation is then labelled as 'art' or even 'fine art'.
But yes as you said Mark - commercially, its whatever gets the job done for the client, and thats all that concerns me most of the time.
I would regard this as art far more readily than a pile of bricks or a bed that has been wet in a gallery. I cannot see the difference between an image manufactured "in camera" or "in photoshop", in fact the former is more difficult.
I certainly like this image, the tones and movement appeal to me.
Best wishes
Phil
Chris.
If I take an image I was not pre-conceiving to be anything other than it was when I took it (be that good, bad or indifferent) and in the process of spending sometime manipulating it, turn it into a piece of art or fine art - to me that is that art of a good graphic designer.
Both are right, both have a place, both can make good mony and earn plaudits (or not as the case may be) from their work, but only one can truly call themselves a photographer in my simple book.
Right - I'm off out with the camera now, and turning my damned PC off!!
Mark
Yes we all dodge and burn just like a master printer, and yes we do manipulate images, but usually we strive for the perfect rendition of our chosen subject and all the 'jigger-me-pokery' is used to enhance a 'real' view.
What you have done here is 'pure' art - you've obviously had this in your head and used the camera as an artist would a brush - something I for one am absolutely incapable of because the techy in me would not allow it - and I absolutely aplaude you for it John
PS - you've been at them Fly Agarics havn't you
Just glad you like the picture. It was deliberate, as I'd wondered whether the pathway's colour would add an extra dimension. What fascinates me in these images is that the perception of depth is so well retained - subtle, but there.
Brian
As for in camera compared with after taught: my education is purely technical and I have struggled long time with "true" and "false" in our media. But if one thinks about painters or sculptures: how long it takes to create their masterwork? A week, a month? Do you think that line of thought is the same at the end as it was in the beginning? Maybe or maybe not. I can work out two different photos from same scan of slide or RAW image on two different days, because my inner feelings are changing. So I forced myself to work on an image come to final result and let it be like that, because otherwise I would never come to final version. So I don't split hair as to whether photograph was made in darkroom, lightroom or in camera. It's creative process that leads us to final result from start to finish and camera, enlarger and computer are just tools for our inner part to come out.
Uf it's time for me to stop this artsy bartsy drivel as it could get me into troubles.
Cheers,
Marko
Danny
As for art? What is that these days? A pile of bricks on the floor, a dirty bed, or the mona lisa?
IMO, anyone who argues that one form of photography is more artistic than the next is nothing more than puritanical and needs to get a sense of perspective. I am rather confused about the notion that modern photography is detached and too readily manipulated.
Are there people still out there that believe black and white prints are 'pure' and straight from the negative without any cropping, dodging, burning, selective exposure, multiple exposure... I used to do more to my black and whites than I do to my digital 'captures'.
There's a feeling expressed there that a RAW, irrespective of content, is like a neg and that it only becomes a finished 'vision' as a consequence of being worked on - like a b&w neg.
Tristan (argumentative is good!) you're partly right "Control frees the imagination by allowing you to match as closely in print as to what you envision in your mind. Luck and the great unknown will not consistently produce good images. "
Control (imho) doesn't free the imagination - it simply allows you to operate within the confines of your skill and imagination to your best ability. However I agree that luck and the great unknown dont always produce good images, but what they do manage to do sometimes is bring in an element that you could never ever have envisaged and although often it's superfluous or downright wrong, sometimes, just sometimes it adds a wee bit of magic.
Re Tristan " Same here with B&W Eliott - perhaps it is because generally people have no idea what goes on in the darkroom so they accept it more easily over digital which more people have a better grasp of."
Hmm! Theres an utterly breathtakingly astonishing thread been running in the Alamy contributors forum a few months back regarding jpg files following Alamy's request that all submissions be in jpg format, The lack of knowledge being demonstrated was amazing - and as several contributors have commented there it reflects really badly on the agency that so many of their contributing photogs dont even have a grasp of the fundamentals of file types, image resizing and compression.
I think we probably actually agree on everything here anyway - it makes a good discussion though. Luck can most certainly add a bit of magic and very good point on control doesn’t free the imagination - I guess what I was trying to say was that with a painting I can produce anything my imagination can think of (as long as i have the skill to paint it) where as typically with a photograph it’s not always possible to capture what you have in your head as you have to work with what is in front of you. i.e. I can't just conjure up the light and weather conditions of Turner's Hannibal crossing the alps at will but on canvas I potentially could. I think I'd better leave it there before I vanish completely into my own imagination .... if I'm not there already....