PBase

Posted: **Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:57 am**

prinothcat wrote:
sean_mcr wrote:Flickers two billionth photo http://flickr.com/photos/88646149@N00/2000000000/

and quite frankly it does nothing for me... but that's only my opinion.

I'd have to agree

Posted: **Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:51 am**

djwixx wrote:
sean_mcr wrote:DJwixx

I hope Eugene Smith's own photograph explains his quote better then I ever could.

Absolutely - the photograph does say it all. But how many people would genuinely experience a moment like that? Given that the shot was posed, I wonder if there was more depth of feeling to the viewer than the photographer, which most would argue is the point of a photograph? I think my point is the same - how do you define depth of feeling? Wanting to take a photography is a feeling, but how deep is that feeling? How does a macro shot, a nature shot, a local newspaper journalism shot qualify with that same depth of feeling, yet they are all photographs taken by a photographer, again depending on how you qualify a photographer?

I see what your point is and if you read my previous response in this thread I believe I made a similar point, obviously far less eloquently Again, how do I become that photographer without the obvious mistakes of the journey along the way?

P.S. I'm enjoying this discussion and find it insightful, so please don't take anything I'm saying as an attempt to be contrary - it's merely an exchange of opinion. At the end of the day, the whole subject is...........................subjective, so opinion, right, wrong, or simple opinion will vary wildly.

Hiya, pal

I'm enjoying it to

Smith meant a feeling for your subject more then anything else, and he brought it to everything he shot. His subject was humanity which is a big scope I know. But on the street, on a battlefield, in a garden and in a bath his subjects were treated with same amount of attention and importance. It was his insight that stood him out, it's what stands all great and good photographers out

http://thinkinpictures.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/the-walk-to-paradise-garden/

In my opinion there's never been a better time to get in to photography. There's never been so much Interest in it and as Interest grows opportunities arise. Photography is not under threat, it's growing not dying.

Enjoy the journey, look back (at what's been given us) once in a while so you know where you've come from. It'll help you get to where you want to be

Cheers

Sean

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:02 am**

Several quotes about photography I like are:

"Most photographers show every photo they take and boor the audience to death. A good photographer shows only photos that show quality of image and: tell a story: capture a feeling; express an emotion; document an event of importance to more than him(her)self. A great photographer is sought by other photographers who admire the body of work and wish to emulate that vision of the subject." - unknown

Paraphrase: Ansel Adams was being featured on a segment on an hour long quality program like Sunday Morning shortly before his death. He was taken to a favorite location in Yellowstone or Point Lobos and was interviewed while setting up and taking a photo. He took one photo and then he started packing up to leave. He was asked if he was only going to take one photo and his response was "I got the picture I wanted, did you?"

Posted: **Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:22 am**

Thought this might be of interest
http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/

Posted: **Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:20 am**

Its impossible to take a picture of what the human eye sees unless it is completly flat lighting as the human eye can see a much greater contrast range than film or a sensor and the angle of veiw of the lens matched the human vision, we also see and register colour differently.

In my personel opinion there are two main types of photography not including digital art and that is record photography and pictorial photography. Pehaps the question should have been does anyone just take record photographs. :wink:

Posted: **Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:45 pm**

Photographs do not tell stories - they show you what something looks like. To a camera.

Gary Winogrand

Cameras do not see the world in the same way that people do, they give impressions of the world and the subjects within it and you can use photography to give true impression or false impressions. They have a certain way of capturing the world that is like nothing else and it's to be embraced and cherished. I thank the stars that a camera can't record every shade of light and colour in one photograph or have the FOV of the human eye.

I like how the world looks to a camera, that's straight photography.

Posted: **Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:18 pm**

Gee you don't like the contrasty tree right smack in the middle with lots of plain sky on the right. :roll:

Looks like the tree could have had potential to make a nice photo... Not that I could have done any better...

sean_mcr wrote:
prinothcat wrote:
sean_mcr wrote:Flickers two billionth photo http://flickr.com/photos/88646149@N00/2000000000/

and quite frankly it does nothing for me... but that's only my opinion.

I'd have to agree

Posted: **Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:49 pm**

Who is "better" (a very subjective term) - one highly skilled with a camera or with digital post processing? Was it "better" to have great skill with camera capture or in the darkroom? Are photo illustrators not artists? Is someone who paints in oils "better" than someone using watercolors? Not opinions, just something to contemplate...

Posted: **Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:36 pm**

See this gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/karlg/grabtown
for an example of 3 different exposures failing to capture what I saw and how exposure fusion (a type of HDR) and some work in Photoshop yielded an image that, to me at least, is a more accurate representation of the scene that inspired me to take a picture in the first place.

I look forward to the day when we have the technology to capture and display the range of light our eyes can see. Until then, a lot of the scenes that I find beautiful will require a lot of craft and a bit of art to get an image that best represents what they looked like.

Posted: **Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:11 pm**

Photographic art can still be what we actually see. Take for instance, this photo ... taken yesterday during a hike at a beautiful park.

It is "as I saw it" ... the only "fixes" to it, if they can be called that, were a very slight change in contrast (which you can do in your camera - I choose to do it on my computer).

Peace,
Nancy

PBase

Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?

Re: Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?

Re: Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?

Re: Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?

Re: Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?

Re: Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?

Re: Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?

Re: Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?

Re: Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?

Re: Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?

Re: Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?