Prixnobeldefoot: Some of the pictures are interesting.However, I find it sad that none of those have a "natural" look.I know Photography is a visual art, but I feel that nowadays people tend to value more visual effects than content, you have to make it appealing to the most people possible. It has to pop out...
Like #3, let's give them a sunset, some flowers, add some contrast and saturation and done. It's well executed but it's s been done a million times. I find it rather cliché.
I like #1 and #7 because they're intriguing in a way.
As an another academic, I agree with you Mr Craw!. 'Art' is not just something that is pleasant; nor it necessarily something that is provocative or controversial. It needs more. It needs to be based in ideas and in the communication of those ideas. To this end it IS often challenging and difficult because that is what it is supposed to be. It is not art BECAUSE it is controversial but being so does not negate its value as 'art'. I would like to know if the photographer who 'had a wee' on his film was Andres Serrano and his 'Pis$ Chr$t'? If so I suggest ThatCamFan has a good read about what Serrano was trying to do with his work, but unfortunately it takes far longer to try and understand it than it does to simply dismiss it. I have seen some great photos of flowers and bugs that COULD be art, but not that many. Most of them are simply decorative photos of flowers and bugs. (And it's not a photography thing - most paintings aren't art either.)
response to Thatcamfan: You may know what you like, but you seem to know little about art. Art has been 'controversial' since the Renaissance. I'm not suggesting that these image are necessarily art, but to suggest that ' the controversial is just a bullcrap word d*cks use' is the kind of bullcrap argument that d*cks who know nothing about art use.
dylanbarnhart: What really matters in a picture is the content. Seeing the face expression of someone you know doing something crazy is more interesting than looking at another pixel-perfect postcard-wannabee landscape.
What really matters in a picture is the content. Seeing a pixel-perfect postcard landscape is more interesting than looking atthe crazy facial expression of a someone-wannabee you-know-what doing nothing.
RStyga: How is the winning shot "wildlife"??
But why is a pigeon in a city less wild than a pigeon in a forest? Or pigeon in a field?
Is the goose a pet? Why can't a wild goose be photographed in a city?
dvilaplana: Haven't you watched "The Planet of the Apes"?? We all must be careful. This is just the first step... Now we give them a camera and then they will rule the world!
Maybe this was how the whole thing started. Monkey takes picture; humans take credit away from monkey; monkey plans to 'get back' at humans; more monkeys take up the cause; learn to use technology to take revenge. About a month or two from now, Charlton Cheston kneels on a beach in front of the Statue of Liberty. And it could so easily have been avoided ...
Stacey_K: I've used one of those box cameras in the picture, it actually was pretty decent :P
I've got a few and still use them occasionally. Wonder if my grandchildren will be able to use my Samsung in 2084?
It may just be my age, but I don't understand why there is such a problem with people understanding this concept. When I started to learn photography I began with 35mm, moved to 120 (6x4.5 and 6x6) and then to 4"x5" view cameras. It's what one did, and we all learned that each different format required had different focal lengths that were normal, wide angle and telephoto. A 90mm lens was a short tele on 35mm, close to normal on a 6x6 and wide angle on a 4x5. The term 'equivalent' as used here just seems to get in the way.
gtstone: The title of this article took me back to 1966-1967 when I took workshops with Minor White. One of his big themes was the concept of "equivalence" (or sometimes "equivalents") where he would show us image after image of clouds and try to get us to understand that the image of a cloud-scape was "equivalent" to a feeling he wanted to convey. Similarly sea-scapes and rocks.
Here's a link about this:http://jnevins.com/whitereading.htm
He never talked about photographic technique: he had lab assistants to help us with that. What he wanted to talk in about in class was how we would respond to a print (as opposed to "react").
Another frequent theme was pre-visualization: you don't look for something interesting to photograph, you look for something that will make an interesting photograph. You look around and pre-visualize what a print of what you see before you would look like considering all the steps to get there. I often wonder what he would have done with with Photoshop!
Lee:There are two different purposes for photography being discussed here, and it is really the difference between 'taking a photograph' and 'taking a photograph of'. It is possible to (of course!) to make an aesthetically pleasing photograph of a predetermined object--with a known subject--but this is a different thing to what White was talking about. And it's not a simple either/or dichotomy, but they ARE different philosophical approaches to making images. Nether is 'best' just more or less appropriate at different times.
Peter in Canberra: I'm a Nikon user and I liked the look of the Metz 44 AF-1 from an aesthetic perspective - looks about as compact as the SB-600. Haven't taken the plunge though. How have users found it?
I've got the 52 AF-1 (used on a D700 and D800) and like it. I was thinking of buying a Nikon flash but have used Metz flashes for more than 30 years so went that way. It's performing very well! (I still have an old Metz 402 wet cell flash, but alas, no battery any longer.)
arhmatic: Same bubbly design, but sure, we are all pros, ergonomics are important, style, look, portability is not important, right?
Are we talking of a tool or a fashion item? Maybe it should come in a leopard skin print with rhinestones. If you buy a camera just for its looks you're buying for the wrong reasons.
Bob in CO: Teru Kage; dgeugene1: have to agree with you both. Looked at most of the other images on Simon Harsent's website and come away with the impression most his images are ordinary. His baseball field shots "The Beautiful Game" were most ordinary. His "Salt Moon" is 24 pictures of the same light on water, only one of that group of 24 is needed. His work as a whole show little discernment, with good and bad given equal space. He displays approx 250 images with 10-20 being special.
Sorry, but you are missing the point of Harsent's images. This is evident by your claim of his images in 'the beautiful game' are of baseball fields. They are soccer fields. I know that this may seem pedantic, but if you don't bother to find out what he is doing or why, don't comment.
munro harrap: In case you wombles do not know, photographer is the no 1 most dangerous profession. The percentage killed relative to the total number makes it so.It is an occupational hazard, and everyone who goes unarmed into a war to record it knows this. No ideology is involved, no politics are needed to cloak mass murder, but unfortunately her generation were inspired by a few in mine who fancied what they did made a difference.
Recording conflicts we in the West started ourselves was a futile irony that just never occurred to them strongly enough to keep them at home safe with their terrified stressed families and friends.
How many more?
Personal attacks are the sign of a weak argument, and you really have no knowledge of my background and interests. But I am sorry that you see the world so clearly in terms of right and wrong; us and them. That any hate-filled terrorist outrage occurs is tragic. Innocent people died in the 9/11 attack. Innocent people died when US bombs fell on Iraq and Afghanistan. Innocent people died when Germany bombed Guernica and London. Innocent people died when Britain and the US dropped bombs on Dresden and Berlin. Innocent people died when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and Darwin. Innocent people died when the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Innocent people died in Nazi death camps. Innocent people died in the British concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer War. Innocent people died in the US carpet bombing and napalm attacks in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. And that is just a small portion of the twentieth century. So where is the 'moral responsibility?
The situation in the Middle East is complex, and the problem with your understanding of that situation is evident by your statement, 'It is that simple'. NOTHING about the history of the conflict in the middle east is 'that simple' and thinking it does shows a lack of understanding of history. Many of the current problems are the result of hundreds of years of religious and political conflict.
'The West' cannot be equated with 'the Taliban'. 'The west' is a shorthand way to describe an amorphous and disparate grouping of different countries and a billion people; the other is group of religious fundamentalists. The Taliban could be better compared to a group like neo-nazis, a tiny group with their own agenda WITHIN a larger society.
Should you not also find it funny that you like to lecture 'westerners' about their history? Accepting the fact that both 'sides' have behaved badly for centuries is not being PC. To be honest I have no time for either side in this conflict.
Most of the Taliban may be Afghans, but very few of the Afghans are Taliban. And while Al Qaeda may well have trained the terrorists, the people who flew the planes were Saudi nationals. Why did the US not invade Saudi Arabia? And what part did Iraq play in the attacks that caused Bush so much disgust that he felt compelled to invade them? None that I can see.
Alliances in that part of the world are always shifting, and while it may be hard to accept the US government must bear some of the responsibility for training and arming the Taliban in the first place. The US, Britain and Europe have long had their fingers in the middle east--it goes back millennia--and most nations have had or still have imperialist intentions of some sort. The US is no different--it's just that they use the media to help them to justify what they do in the name of 'freedom'.
It may be true that Islamic fundamentalists want to do away with me but most Islamic people are not fundamentalists.
To Malikknows: A couple of things here. The problems in Afghanistan go back centuries before the attack on the World Trade Centre, and in many ways while it was not 'the west' that directly caused that particular attack, we have to carry much of the blame because of the way we have acted over the last few centuries. But the Afghan people had nothing to do with 9/11. While the Taliban had assisted Al Qaeda, it was not the Taliban that hijacked the planes and the people who flew them were Saudi nationals. The US trained many of the Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters originally, too (when they thought that they they could be 'useful' to the west), so the mess is the result of many people's interventions. It would be nice if things were black and white, but the truth behind such issues are always a murky grey.
Edlolim: Elections-Journalists-Women, Wow this is a powerful "Trio" to an Afghanistan 'mind' to digest. They insist to behave as a cruel and primitive people.
Anja: RIP -
Condolences to family and friends.
It's a tragedy that such a great photographer has been killed in the line of duty--but it's not the Afghan people who killed her, and they are not 'cruel and primitive'. Only some of them. Unfortunately such people exist in all cultures and countries. That's why people like Anja Niedringhaus are so important--to remind us that there is both good and evil in the world.
Don't get me wrong--I don't mind panoramas, but as Samuel Goldwyn said, 'A widescreen just makes a bad film twice as bad.'
Nikonworks: Doesn't work for me.
Your 'collages' are like serving good coffee in a Mickey Mouse shaped cup.
The cup distracts you from the taste of the coffee in the cup.
The best for regular panos is ICE.
One of its best features is the ability to even out exposures from frame to frame,unlike your exposures which have adjoining frames with significant exposure variations which make for even more distractions for viewers of your collages.
My first thought upon viewing your collages was "This is the work of a very lazy shooter".
I find it amazing that Barney Britton tries to give people another alternative to traditional panoramas, and gets pilloried for his efforts. A lot of people seem to be saying 'you don't know what you're doing. You should be using ICE/Hugin/ etc.' What rot. If you want to produce a panorama, do it. If you want to expand your repertoire and produce something that is visually interesting, open yourself up to other ideas.
Zafar Kazmi: col·lage [kuh-lahzh, koh-] Show IPA noun, verb, col·laged, col·lag·ing.noun1.a technique of composing a work of art by pasting on a single surface various materials not normally associated with one another, as newspaper clippings, parts of photographs, theater tickets, and fragments of an envelope.
What is described here is image stitching/panorama, not collage.
Be careful of dictionary definitions. They are, by nature, retrospective. Technically it isn't image stitching as there is no attempt at correcting alignment or blending. What is described here is a collage made with digital images rather than paper and paste. Keep up! This IS the 21st century after all!