Breathing New Life .... ?

Errr Pot calling kettle, considering the photo yourself have just posted

Like I have said before photography is a hobby which is open for experimenting with, this way it doesnt get boring, I take it all filters, software, tripods any lens that's not a 50mm or anything else that helps a photographer create a picture is not allowed either.

Yet again Nigel you have triggered elitist comments and just because it does not conform it is wrong. Well it's not wrong it's called having fun.

By the way, I thought they were quite good not something I like as such but it's nice to see something a bit different, other then the normal birds and black and white photos we tend to get.

Well, I was answering what I saw as just criticism in the previous 'effects' thread that some of the shots content did not suit the particular effects applied. I was not concerned of course because those images were processed for a video purpose of fun and shock value.

Here I have specifically chosen a selection of images that matched a new criteria - ie: they are of scenes that I felt are of a type that is commonly reproduced by oil painters - of all abilities! I am exploring whether translating these more 'suitable' subjects into the computer generated representation of the other artistic form satisfies that particular complaint.

If your photographs don't look like photographs then, quite frankly, you've missed the whole point of the medium.

No

Maybe it's better to just call the results 'images' rather than photographs or paintings. Then they can be judged on their own merits without preconceptions.

Hopefully.

Not my thing, but if it floats someone's boat, then that's absolutely fine.

Saw plenty rubbish masquerading as art in the Baltic (that's Gateshead quayside, not Norway ... lol) a few weeks ago

There are so many ‘held positions’ and ‘contra behaviour’ views in both these threads, I find I can’t get my head round them.
Signing off now for a bit of sanity.

I can understand that the photos of me having fun at the farm did not suit the 'Plastic Wrap' approach ... So what is it about the content of these photos here that does not suit the style as they are presented?



So the whole point of the medium is to produce something that looks like a photograph? Could it not also be to produce something that looks like what is being photographed?

It seems here John that you are focussing on my 2nd aspect in my intro ... [(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.]

You clearly are rejecting the method involved - yet you have not referred to the actual results. Obviously you know the origins of the shots and the 'push button' creation which is behind your response. But it is strange not to comment on the content or actual appearance of a photograph when commenting isn't it? I've never known comments here to only refer to the technique of production in isolation from the actual image in front of us.

I wonder, if I had packaged and delivered these to people, printed on beautiful canvas and expensively framed, would people react to them in the same way as here?

I think what I was referring to (as others have picked up on within this thread) is that there is artistry applied to the way in which some process their images. This could involve applying textures, vignettes, brushes, layers, contrasts, colours, levels or almost anything you can think of in any image processing software. However, to me, the artistic approach is not to simply apply a pre-determined filter to a complete image, it is to use the tools provided in a selective manner, with individual control and skill to produce a final result which is formed from a person's individual input and skill. Like using a paintbrush and paints to paint a picture.

Again, these images do not demonstrate anything like this and they look to me like a faint pastiche of what they were, made plastic and unreal by what has been done to them by a set of algorithms, and not by a person's own input.

Regards
David

Let me be upfront about this: I think the results of the 'oil-painting' preset are dreadful, truly dreadful.

But

1) I have seen worse 'paintings' on biscuit tins. That shouldn't be any kind of comfort, but in the ranks of awfulness I would not automatically relegate these to the bottom

2) some artists are very skilled at using photo-realism as their representational style. I don't think their work is widely criticised for trying to ape another medium.

3) some of us (I am one) occasionally use others' presets to achieve the 'look' wanted for a photograph. Think Silver Efex Pro, eg. The process is in principle no different from pressing the oil-painting button.

Do I detect in some of the comments in this thread a wish to police the boundaries of what is properly photographic?

I can't speak for anyone else, but certainly not from me. I have no problems with whatever processing anyone wishes to apply, I was simply commenting from an artistic point of view.

Regards
David

Almost certainly not. Almost anything benefits from being carefully and sympathetically, even extravagantly, presented.

The thing is that if you have a process, such as traditional painting, that depends on artistry and craftsmanship and skill that process has value and can be appreciated for its own sake in addition to the quality of the resulting image.

If the process is mechanical and can be mass applied by anyone to thousands of images at the click of a button the process itself has no inherent value and the output image must stand alone on its own merits. Some may like it more than the original, some less. And once the initial novelty has worn off the trend seems to generally be towards the less rather than the more.

Yes, I should have made clear, since my post followed yours, that I wasn't writing a response to what you said, David. More a general musing on a number of contributions to the thread as a whole.

To be fair I have seen worse than some of these in an expensive frame with a price tag of thousands of dollars on them. But I have long ago given up any pretence of understanding the art world and now have a simple rule of only valuing paintings I buy according to how much I like them and nothing else.

And, sorry Greg, I wouldn't be buying any of these. Not even for the price of the ink it would take to print them.