Breathing New Life .... ?

Error
  • You need to be logged in to vote on this poll

McGregNi

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 09:33
This is a follow-up to my recent 'Photo Effects' and the responses to some of that.

gwing wrote : 'Cough, splutter. There is great art, then there is art, then there is painting by numbers, then there is join the dots.

I don't have an opinion on where David Hockney would go on that scale. But I do have an opinion where push button computer effects lie'.



davidstorm wrote : 'I can see the merits of using filters like this to morph images in a video, but not so much for individual photos. Unless there is a brief to produce images like this, or a creative reason that makes it valid, there's no compelling reason to do it.

Where this differs from images manipulated by the likes of Autumnlight for example is that these are done just for the sake of it without any serious attempt to match a particular filter or processing technique to the a desired look for the final image. Maria's (Autumnlight) images are the opposite of this, the processing always complements the original image and makes it into something special that it may not have been originally. That is what I call artistry, these are not'



Fair points? I've been thinking about it, and the doubting seems to come down to 2 key aspects ... 1) if the effect does not complement the type of subject or photo genre, and 2) the process involved ('push button computer effect') is not as valid, presumably as compared to the traditional hand created art-form it is derived from - this is despite the result, it is the actual method of production that is being doubted.

Well what if the button push effect was more suited to the style of the photo, and what if the result of it was closer, or indistinguishable, from a similar hand created artwork? Would that make it better, more acceptable and valid?

So I have found a selection of my shots that meet these criteria - and I have restricted it the oil-painting style that is common for countryside scenes and decorative objects. Some of you may have fond memories of some of the images and the discussions about them . I can't imagine any of these in the Tate Britain, but think I can see them on the walls of the posh cafes and boutiques that surround the locations - I've certainly seen worse real oil-paintings for sale ....

What do you think ... is this a good new life for these images, and do they stand up against the 'real thing'? Give your views in comments, and also answer the poll question at the top - lets see what view prevails!


































































Thanks for participating, and don't forget to answer the poll question at the top !

PS ... and yes, these are all my own photos shot on the K7.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Last Edited by McGregNi on 26/03/2014 - 09:34

DrOrloff

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 09:42
David Storm is spot on.

Would you take a photograph of a painting? If so, why? Because that's just what these look like. Photographs of not particularly good paintings.

Oil painting is about the 3d texture of paint on canvas too and that is lost here. These are lifeless and soulless.

I think painting has a lot to teach photography, but not like this.
You can see some of my photos here if you are so inclined
Last Edited by DrOrloff on 26/03/2014 - 09:44

spinno

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 09:52
I must admit if I saw these pictures as paintings I'd appreciate them more as paintings. I tried the watercolour effect in an earlier version of PSE and whilst some of them weren't bad I eventually gave up on them as "just a toy" to play with....but then again Mrs Spinno sees my camera gear as "just expensive toys" to play with.
I say live and let live if people want to do this then fine, to me it doesn't add much to the creative side of photography but so what- if we all thought the same it would be a dull world we lived in.

aliengrove

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 10:04
A number of artists (my wife among them) sometimes use photographs as the model from which to create a painting. But they use paint, and it takes artistry to get the colours, textures and shapes correct. Running a digital filter on a photograph uses a set of algorithms to create a facsimile of a painting, and is a process over which you have very little control. So if you were to ask me, are these art, my answer would be a resounding no. If anyone is the artist, it is the person who wrote the software.

As for the this process breathing new life into old pictures, I guess that's a matter of personal taste. Most images undergo some processing anyway, so it depends where you draw the line. Personally, I'd draw the line long before I ended up with an ersatz oil painting. Printed on canvas, however, I guess some of these could look quite nice. But they'd still be images processed to look like something they're not. It could be useful for creating Christmas cards, though.
Last Edited by aliengrove on 26/03/2014 - 10:06

Gary Hickin

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 10:07
I totally agree- I find such filters/processing to be nothing more than a novelty with mediocre results at best. Time to get out my old paints and brushes !
DrOrloff wrote:
David Storm is spot on.


[quote:3496ace15f="DrOrloff"]David Storm is spot on.

Would you take a photograph of a painting? If so, why? Because that's just what these look like. Photographs of not particularly good paintings.

Oil painting is about the 3d texture of paint on canvas too and that is lost here. These are lifeless and soulless.

I think painting has a lot to teach photography, but not like this.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/original_gazart/
Last Edited by Gary Hickin on 26/03/2014 - 10:08

johnriley

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 10:51
My feeling is that some of the effects in Photoshop really are the worst side of Photoshop. Pushing a button isn't in itself art, although with serious intent and for a purpose it could be. Some effects make superb images, maybe canvas style effects with still life subjects being one example where I've seen some exciting stuff.

Art has to have some message that creates a response in the viewer, whereas these are I'm afraid just painting by numbers.
Best regards, John

Fletcher8

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 10:59
In 1874, a group of artists called the Anonymous Society of Painters, Sculptors, Printmakers, etc. organized an exhibition in Paris that launched the movement called Impressionism. Its founding members included Claude Monet, Edgar Degas, and Camille Pissarro, among others. The group was unified only by its independence from the official annual Salon, for which a jury of artists from the Académie des Beaux-Arts selected artworks and awarded medals. The independent artists, despite their diverse approaches to painting, appeared to contemporaries as a group. While conservative critics panned their work for its unfinished, sketchlike appearance, more progressive writers praised it for its depiction of modern life.

The point I would like to express is, we all have different tastes in relation to what is good or not so good in relation to everything, not just art. Personally I think any kind of experimentation has to be a good thing, photography being no different. With regards to filters, plugins and the creativity being the person who wrote the programme, would you apply the same thought to a camera or a lens?

What a persons choses to do with a camera, a lens or software and the final image, is about personal expression. Sometimes others may like the end result, or they may think the result awful.

“lifeless and soulless” Personally I thought images 8 & 9 worked fairly well with this processing technique. Would I print them out to display in my house?

Just a view, neither wrong or right!
Fletcher8.

RayB

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 11:11
Firstly - there isn't a "not sure" option in the poll, so I've not voted.

Here's why: I think effects have their place and in the right environment with the right subject matter they can work wonders - but many of the effects I see used are applied far too heavily or are just a "button press" that converts the whole image, not just a portion of it. Personally, I don't use them (very rarely use PS, tend to get all I need from LR) but I can appreciate that others are different.

MrB

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 11:59
I agree with Fletcher's points.

In addition, the use of the filter doesn't have to be the final step, but could be the starting point for further user input processing to create a different look.




Cheers.
Philip

SteveEveritt

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 12:18
Just a way of masking poor photos
My Flickr link

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans" (John Lennon)

geordie01

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 12:56
Sorry they do nowt for me.

gwing

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 13:01
Well I answered 'yes' to the poll although with reservations, still we were only offered a yes/no choice so no fence sitting possible.

I don't think any of the posted pictures are works of art, but I do like several of them, and prefer some of them to my memories of the originals. At the end of the day most of us are just trying to produce images we like, and we like different things, and I don't see any difference in principle between using say normal photoshop tone manipulation and photoshop effect filters.

For me, as a personal viewpoint, the merit/reward of an approach is fairly closely linked to the ability for individual expression and artistry it provides leading me to dislike 'push button' effects where expression is defined not by individual intent but the mechanics of the tool available.

That all said I do have on my office wall a 'photo' I took of Snowdon across Lynnau Mymbyr on new years day 2010 and which I 'converted' to a water colour painting I very much like. I don't claim this is great art, or indeed art of any form, and I would instead have painted a water colour of the scene by traditional means if that was within my abilities. Unfortunately I can't paint for toffee so this was the best I could do and I had a huge amount of fun playing with resolutions, contrast, canvas texture, brush stroke sizes, directions and density to get the effect I wanted. Actually this is the only photo i've 'painted' that way and haven't felt tempted to do more, maybe I should do another one.
Last Edited by gwing on 26/03/2014 - 13:03

paulyrichard

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 13:08
At the start photography was seen as a valid movement away from art and all it's impressionistic styles. Photography gave an explicit and unadulterated view on what was out there in the landscape etc. and provided us with more of an insight into what was taking place in the grand arena of life and it's environment...

So, what you are doing here is just totally ignorant and ill-befitting what photography is all about.
We all know what these effects are like, and so instead of wasting your time applying these effects why don't you concentrate on taking a far better picture and earning a more valued credibility...
"Ifamericatoldthetruthforjustonedayitswholeworldwouldfallapart "
"All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt

http://paulyrichard.wordpress.com/

gwing

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 13:13
paulyrichard wrote:
At the start photography was seen as a valid movement away from art and all it's impressionistic styles. Photography gave an explicit and unadulterated view on what was out there in the landscape etc. and provided us with more of an insight into what was taking place in the grand arena of life and it's environment...

So, what you are doing here is just totally ignorant and ill-befitting what photography is all about.
We all know what these effects are like, and so instead of wasting your time applying these effects why don't you concentrate on taking a far better picture and earning a more valued credibility...

I might be better to say "what I think photography is about"

ISO

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 14:22
It might be better to say "what I think photography is about"
Spot on gwing
I had better stop there.....
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.