-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Impressive Dynamic Colors (Superficial/Artificial) vs Washed Out Faded Colors (Originality/Natural)
- Thread starter ryder78
- Start date
The trick is to make a heavily processed image look largely unprocessed.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Because I find one popular type of photography to be boring? Do you like all forms of popular music?
glasswave
Forum Pro
If all you see is "Washed Out Faded Colors" and these seem original and neutral to you, you may want to have your vision checked.
More than likely, with some passage of time, you are thinking that the RAW images from your camera are very close to what your eyes see. Try this. Take a picture out your window on a gorgeous spring morning. Print the RAW neutral image, the punch it up a bit and hold each up to the scene, which is closer to what you really see?
Since that'll never happen, it makes no sense to even try.
glasswave
Forum Pro
Have you ever taken one? I feel that many of my images are somewhat good. I am still hoping that one day, I may even take a great photo. Perhaps we may be simply seeing via a different set of standards.
glasswave
Forum Pro
Well then, as I stated in the very next 3 words, "Or not at all..."
Our images should make some attempt to communicate something. Otherwise, why ever show them to anyone, or for that matter, even take them??
They should tell a story, and very close to zero individual images ever do. Unrealistic processing doesn't help.
glasswave
Forum Pro
Well, that still gives me nothing to go off. You may simply suck a photog. I doubt that, but again, sans any metric, we may be seeing eye to eye. I am getting the distinct impression tho', that you simply don't fancy B&W, so you, for the most part, dismiss the entire genre out of hand, as you seem to do with landscape.
OTH, given your math, you may prefer B&W 10 times as much a landscape. ;-)
I think your reference to music is quite apt, while I may not have an affinity fora certain genre (ie. death metal), I find I can still appreciate it, given a very talented artist. Perhaps that's where we differ.
glasswave
Forum Pro
While I can certainly the understand taking a photo, driven simply by the fact that the act of doing so brings one pleasure, they still represent an attempt to communicate...something. Otherwise, pushing the shutter with the lens cap on would be the same as off. The mere act of thinking about, then composing, then taking a photo represents an intent to communicate...something, if even just to "show places I've traveled to and they were sent home merely for the purpose of showing what was going on where ever I was."
Gee, what a concept. :-|
glasswave
Forum Pro
Again, an example would be most helpful. Your airplane image, does it tell a story? If not, is it wholly w/o merit? If yes, is it one in 10,000. Is an image that simply renders form, or perhaps color, in a pleasing way, w/o merit because it makes no pretense to tell a story?
ABA DABA
Senior Member
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,976
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,976
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
People will post-process to whatever point they consider is satisfactory. Sometimes their idea of what is satisfactory happens to be badly over-processed picture.
I don't think it requires any real explanation from Lee Jay, since it's obviously a matter of taste, no? If one genre doesn't do anything for you, then it doesn't and that's perfectly ok.
apaflo
Senior Member
User's glasswave and MoreorLess are trying very hard to provide a well rounded and well thought out philosophical view of the art in photography. The OP should pay particular attention to their articles... as should a couple of others posting in this thread.
In regard to the above exchange, let me quote from something Garry Winogrand (a Street Photographer whose work in the period from 1960 to 1980 is unparalleled) said:
"[...] that's a photograph -- They're mute, they don't have any narrative ability at all, you know what something looked like, but you don't know what's happening [...] There isn't a photograph in the world that has any narative ability, any of them.
They do not tell stories, they show you what something looks like, through a camera. The minute you relate this thing to what was photographed, it's a lie. It's two dimensional, it's illusional ..." <
Pay particular attention to that last paragraph! "They do not tell stories" and "The minute you relate this thing [the photograph] to what was photographed, it's a lie."
Photographs are not reality. Photographs are a communications medium. There is no story in a photograph, just a set of visual symbols (much like letters and words) which the photographer uses to implant a visual concept into the mind of each viewer.
A few posters here are mistaking the concept of liking or disliking the "visual concept" that a photograph communicates with some measure of quality for the mechanism and style of the means by which it is communicated. It is not necessary that anyone actually like a given photograph for it to be great photography.
I highly recommend a broader education on the psychology of visual perception as a means of better understanding photography and how it is a means of communications. To that end, the work of Rudolf Arnheim (1904-2007) is very useful. His short essay titled "Entropy and Art" is available online, <www.kenb.ca/z-aakkozzll/pdf/arnheim.pdf>, plus there are several books available, primarily "Art and Visual Perception", Revised, 1974, which is the classic work in this field.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum