Breathing New Life .... ?

Ah well, there goes my early retirement plans then .... But, um, does anyone know of any biscuit tin makers?

Painting, amongst many other things, is about the application of a medium that has a tactile three dimensional texture and quality that is infinitely varied in approach and application by a real person.

These examples you have given us are flat, lifeless, trite nonsense.

To be brutally frank, I have really wondered despite your verbosity, that in this and the other thread you were pulling our collective legs to put it mildly.

I'm posing this all as a question - the title gives it away. I'm not trying to make any statement with the images, rather the images are there to raise the questions. I think its fair to say they're doing a good job of that! Of course, I as always want it to be stimulating and interesting.

What is fascinating I find is the different attitudes between the various genres & presentations. In the previous thread, the shots were of a more personal nature - me & the family, so there was a greater acceptance it seems of my own choices. Here it is different .... the subject in these images is less personal, and are the sort of things we would all shoot in various ways, so it seems they are regarded as a more common property ... for that the responses are much stronger, and the entire vaidity of the idea is questioned, as if I have infringed some sacred boundaries, boundaries of taste as well as the artform 'definitions'.

But Ken we didn't see an answer to my earlier question ...

The complaint about the farm images was that the effects were unsuited to the subjects (such as the plastic wrap over myself and the tractor) - I can accept this, and there was a clear shock/novelty purpose.

So what now is it about these particular images of gardens, English landscapes and tourist hotspots that makes you reject them equally as unsuited to the oil painting effect?

Anyway, I look at this sort of behaviour, ignorance and lack of understanding as a saving grace...it must be wholly representative of the 'hobbyist' approach and those who don't know any better within that arena, because that's where it all takes place and that's where they will always stay.
For them, creative seeing and 'having an 'eye for things' in photography doesn't mean much, it's more about the processing...when really, the processing of an image shouldn't supercede the photograph and absolutely cannot if the photograph has merit and is a good one.

The point in photography is to apply one self and take great pictures...not to wallow in poor and mediocre image making.

I appreciate all your thoughts here, but I must say I think the real ignorance at play is simply you own misunderstandings.

Misunderstandings of what? There is nothing to understand in the pressing of a user preset button and turning trash into...well, into something that is only more deserving of a right click and the delete button.

Well , I was referring to misunderstandings about the thread, of my own purposes in posing these images as questions - I think I've been clear enough about that, and mostly it has been entered into with a great spirit.

I look forward to benefiting from more of your superior understanding when I share more of my hobbyist trash in future.

Ha ha, good for you Nigel.
I'm stunned by the rudeness and arrogance in this thread. I'm an illustrator, and in the 80s we routinely painted 'super real' images with more and finer detail than a photograph. Some 'superior' people sneared at that, but I would like to see them try. I haven't the patience to paint like that any more
I thought that within the genre of push-button effects and commercial 'art', some of these were pretty effective and definitely the right subject matter. I can imagine lots of customers; they will undoubtedly own cats (just a generalisation, but I bet I'm right

OK, that's encouraging ... so you think I should at least keep all my photos in the recycle bin for now then?

Leaving out the sniping, which doesn't add to any debate, the consensus seems to be a dislike of effects just applied by touching a button. There's no skill in that in particular, so I don't think we can argue artistic merit for it.

We'll have to have a competition again sometime for manipulation and see what people can really do when they do it with artistry in mind. I set one a while back in the weekly competitions and some good ideas were posted.

It seems it was a monthly competition:

https://www.pentaxuser.com/competitions/monthly-competition--7---digital-filters...

I'll look forward to entering that competition John - don't like my chances though - my only interest is in adding to the debate, but I had to respond to the particular attitude expressed which is the cause of any sniping.

I must correct a misconception as well - that of the 'one button press' effects. That is not at all accurate in fact - the specific Sagelight effects used have quite an extensive panel of controls and options, including brush sizes, stoke lengths, the type of texture to the 'paper' and whether the brush is smooth or rough - all of which can be finely controlled with 100 point precision.

Of course, this won't make people think any more favourable about the actual results, but it is important to understand that there is a lot of control and choice available.

Bye the way, you may have missed my question after your earlier comment - things moved on so quickly ...

'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?'

John, that competition only enforces what i'm saying, in regard to the images being poor and mediocre, at best.
Otherwise, if you had a fantastic, thought provoking, emotional, and/ or image that had something quintessential to say, would you really apply an effect to it, such as these shown by the host of this thread?

These effects are just insubstantial and inferior components that are fundamentally opposite of what photography is all about.

Nigel, with reference to your unanswered question. I thought I had answered it really, in that I felt the effects applied just destroyed the underlying content. In effect, my feeling is that you presented the effects as the content.

An example would be making a portrait sepia toned, perfectly valid in itself, but presenting it as "an example of sepia toning" rather than as a portrait of a person that reflected something of their character. The sepia toning could add to that, but it wouldn't be the point of the image.

I appreciate that point, no I don't think it was made before ... I was under the impression that you were ignoring the content and end result. All interesting stuff