This is a technique I've been playing with for years now, using longer lenses and deliberately throwing the focus out - by a precise amount. Precisely what amount varying from subject to subject, so its rather...er...imprecise. This variation on the theme is against water that has the sun shimmering off it, and the light refracts around the oof bits in pleasingly abstract way.
EOS 1DMk2n, 70-200 + TC 1.4x, 1/8000 @ f4, ISO 100
Can I have a sticker of your stick on a stick to stick on my fridge?
I like it, composition is what makes or breaks these sort of images, this pleases my eye!
Like your way of seeing thing differently. So please keep posting these precisely imprecise unpredictable images.
Ed
Posted by eric weight on March 8, 2010 at 11:09 AM
Well, it's interesting John; I'll give you that. I just wondered if the comp might be even stronger with the two trunks either dead centre or on the righthand third? Thought provoking as ever. eric
Posted by Karen Summers on March 8, 2010 at 11:09 AM
well it is clever not sure about it yet will keep looking
Posted by David Kjaer on March 8, 2010 at 12:01 PM
The only thing predictable about you John is that you are unpredictable. Not sure about this one! I'm predictable when it comes to your images though - I just have to have a look!
I quite like it, it's like a mosaic-ish dendrite effect, I am sure I have seen it in some biology text book
Posted by jack chapman on March 8, 2010 at 1:28 PM
i like it, certainly an excellent compostion and the effect is interesting, is it black and white? i almost feel like i can see some colour in it but may be imagining
Posted by Rene de Heer on March 8, 2010 at 2:08 PM
I like it because it is so different!
Rene de Heer
I look at these, and as I have previously indicated, I like them, but I have a question.
Given this type of image is labeled "creative" & "arty" do you now think we are sufficently far enough down the road that the art world will seriously accept them, other than the few purists that never will, or are they still seen as the 'poor relation' because of the camera?
T
Posted by David Sewell on March 9, 2010 at 4:15 AM
Not my cup of tea, John, but it is nice to see something different on here and predictable you are not!
Tom W - I think we are even more considered the 'poor relation' of 'proper' art with the advent of digital.
Anyone that can afford a digicam is an artist now it seems, and the gulf between the wider 'art' establishment and regular (digital) photography is in my experience much wider because if it was considered 'easy' to make pictures with film cameras, its even easier now with digital.
Amongst the various photo mags several talk of making your pictures into 'art' by the use of some plug-in or other, and a lot of people buy into that painting-by-numbers approach.
Funnily in the painting world it seems the same though, any hack with a brush and a brass neck can slap a dose of oil on a plank and call it art and get taken seriously. Wander into the Turner Prize arena and its even more disturbing with sheds morphing into boats morphing back into sheds for £25K, but thats ok because they are the work of artists. I on the other hand as a time-served carpenter would immediately be disqualified for the lack of art credentials, but my shed would be bloody well made! Its not about the shed, its about the idea.
Following Carl Andre's brick pile at the Tate which created a furore, a crofter from the western isles contacted the Tate to ask if they would consider a pile of peats for their collection, explaining that unlike Andre's flat lifeless brick pile the peat stack was a work of genuine art, reflecting the skill of the cutter, the art of the stack, and that each person had their own individual way of stacking the peats so much so that individual islander's stacks could be identified easily. As a highlander I loved this notion that the everyday peatstack, hard won out of necessity, should be art, Sadly the Tate did not and the crofter was politely told to p155 off. No art credentials - thats the problem. Come out of college with a goatee and sandals and and overdraft and you're all set though.
Bottom line is that the word 'art' is an ambiguous and mercural term, impossible to pin down, and not often properly applied. Fine art is an even more troublesome avenue - 'fart' as I like to call it, which several photo forums will have you believe consists of nudes, old wooden window frames, or b&w , and if you can get all three in the one frame you'll get loads of bravo superb and wow responses.
Anyway, I'll keep doing what I do, if you all keep giving me feedback, good bad or indifferent!
Wonderful reply. I love the story about, but dispair at the outcome of, the peat(turf) stack as I too have my own unique way of stacking turf - may be I should copyright it giving it some artistic credentials! Alias, unfortunately for me, it is was borne out of necessity as I could never use a slean well
The childhood smell of a peat fire in damp air; eh, where did it all go wrong, my last house didn't even have a chimney (this one does), and I have a block of turf, on display, to which most everybody who notices it asks "What is that?" My reply- "An old radiator"
Discussion
20 repliesEOS 1DMk2n, 70-200 + TC 1.4x, 1/8000 @ f4, ISO 100
I like it, composition is what makes or breaks these sort of images, this pleases my eye!
the Jurys out on this one.
It needs more looking at
Like your way of seeing thing differently. So please keep posting these precisely imprecise unpredictable images.
Ed
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
David
Rene de Heer
Cheers,
Chris
Given this type of image is labeled "creative" & "arty" do you now think we are sufficently far enough down the road that the art world will seriously accept them, other than the few purists that never will, or are they still seen as the 'poor relation' because of the camera?
T
David
I like arty pics. i do like this.
Mark.G
Tom W - I think we are even more considered the 'poor relation' of 'proper' art with the advent of digital.
Anyone that can afford a digicam is an artist now it seems, and the gulf between the wider 'art' establishment and regular (digital) photography is in my experience much wider because if it was considered 'easy' to make pictures with film cameras, its even easier now with digital.
Amongst the various photo mags several talk of making your pictures into 'art' by the use of some plug-in or other, and a lot of people buy into that painting-by-numbers approach.
Funnily in the painting world it seems the same though, any hack with a brush and a brass neck can slap a dose of oil on a plank and call it art and get taken seriously. Wander into the Turner Prize arena and its even more disturbing with sheds morphing into boats morphing back into sheds for £25K, but thats ok because they are the work of artists. I on the other hand as a time-served carpenter would immediately be disqualified for the lack of art credentials, but my shed would be bloody well made! Its not about the shed, its about the idea.
Following Carl Andre's brick pile at the Tate which created a furore, a crofter from the western isles contacted the Tate to ask if they would consider a pile of peats for their collection, explaining that unlike Andre's flat lifeless brick pile the peat stack was a work of genuine art, reflecting the skill of the cutter, the art of the stack, and that each person had their own individual way of stacking the peats so much so that individual islander's stacks could be identified easily. As a highlander I loved this notion that the everyday peatstack, hard won out of necessity, should be art, Sadly the Tate did not and the crofter was politely told to p155 off. No art credentials - thats the problem. Come out of college with a goatee and sandals and and overdraft and you're all set though.
Bottom line is that the word 'art' is an ambiguous and mercural term, impossible to pin down, and not often properly applied. Fine art is an even more troublesome avenue - 'fart' as I like to call it, which several photo forums will have you believe consists of nudes, old wooden window frames, or b&w , and if you can get all three in the one frame you'll get loads of bravo superb and wow responses.
Anyway, I'll keep doing what I do, if you all keep giving me feedback, good bad or indifferent!
The childhood smell of a peat fire in damp air; eh, where did it all go wrong, my last house didn't even have a chimney (this one does), and I have a block of turf, on display, to which most everybody who notices it asks "What is that?" My reply- "An old radiator"