All Forum Comments
Comment by Critical-i posted on what is art at 14/03/2010 - 17:55
Monobod wrote:
I always find these discussions to be fruitless. Sometimes I think the detractors say what they say because they do not understand Photoshop and simply use it badly, getting bad results, which then turns them off the package. Then, forever more they say it is not necessary.
This is of course a bit of nonsense. If one takes images in raw, then ACR is absolutely necessary to produce a printable image file. The raw data will always need a degree of work done on it to fine tune the white balance, exposure level and correct slight excesses at both ends of the histogram, I do not believe that even those most careful always take an image that has a perfect histogram straight out of the camera. Digital raw images also need a carefully targetted degree of sharpening, something that is often done crudely in camera when taking jpeg files.
Photoshop does for the digital photographer exactly what could be done for the film photographer in his dark room. It enables the photographer to produce the finest possible final image. But is does so in a non poluting environment with the ability to retrace your workflow right back to the raw image. Non destructive enhancement. Try that with film!
CS4 is a modern marvel, used with intellegent care it is the best tool a digital photographer could have and an essential for the professionals.
Hear hear!!! I always find these discussions to be fruitless. Sometimes I think the detractors say what they say because they do not understand Photoshop and simply use it badly, getting bad results, which then turns them off the package. Then, forever more they say it is not necessary.
This is of course a bit of nonsense. If one takes images in raw, then ACR is absolutely necessary to produce a printable image file. The raw data will always need a degree of work done on it to fine tune the white balance, exposure level and correct slight excesses at both ends of the histogram, I do not believe that even those most careful always take an image that has a perfect histogram straight out of the camera. Digital raw images also need a carefully targetted degree of sharpening, something that is often done crudely in camera when taking jpeg files.
Photoshop does for the digital photographer exactly what could be done for the film photographer in his dark room. It enables the photographer to produce the finest possible final image. But is does so in a non poluting environment with the ability to retrace your workflow right back to the raw image. Non destructive enhancement. Try that with film!
CS4 is a modern marvel, used with intellegent care it is the best tool a digital photographer could have and an essential for the professionals.
It's funny how people make a "virtue" out of avoiding something they don't want to learn. For me it was French
Comment by Critical-i posted on Pentax users hate photoshop at 17/01/2010 - 19:47
DoctorJeff wrote:
I mainly used Photoshop (oldish version) for cropping and adjustments to brightness and contrast. However, having tried a number of image editing programs (both free and paid-for) I note that all the ones for PC are the same in one respect: Re-size the image, and it stays at 72 pix-per-inch. So you first have to re-sample and then scale down. An oldish version of Photoshop elements for the Mac did it in one step without resampling - the long dimension of a 10mp image (3800-odd pixels) becomes 10" at 380 mp at very acceptable print quality.
Not true. I never resize the image, I just alter the resolution to get the desired dimensions. The print wizard with most printers does this automatically when you pick the appropriate paper.I mainly used Photoshop (oldish version) for cropping and adjustments to brightness and contrast. However, having tried a number of image editing programs (both free and paid-for) I note that all the ones for PC are the same in one respect: Re-size the image, and it stays at 72 pix-per-inch. So you first have to re-sample and then scale down. An oldish version of Photoshop elements for the Mac did it in one step without resampling - the long dimension of a 10mp image (3800-odd pixels) becomes 10" at 380 mp at very acceptable print quality.
Comment by Critical-i posted on Pentax users hate photoshop at 16/01/2010 - 23:44
Greytop wrote:
More madness..... though possibly some degree of misinformation between the security guards and the police too
In what way was this a terrorist incident? The Police clearly had no grounds for invoking section 44 or wasting so many resources on a non-issue. Typical of the MET, they will never learn.More madness..... though possibly some degree of misinformation between the security guards and the police too
Comment by Critical-i posted on Photographer's rights gets a higher profile at 10/12/2009 - 02:03
mikew wrote:
And the Italian hunting lobby to shoot out the lens. Real style I thought.
I wonder how long a Gatso camera would last in Texas And the Italian hunting lobby to shoot out the lens. Real style I thought.
Comment by Critical-i posted on Photographer's rights gets a higher profile at 05/12/2009 - 15:54
Anvh wrote:
Mike are you talking about the Netherlands now?
We already discuss that topic and like you portray it is not true.
You must carry an ID but you only need to show it when you're being stopped by the police and even then they mostly only ask it when they are writing a ticked for you.... so nice
But if they can't ID you, you need to go to the station right, probably also in the UK so what is worse, ID yourself or going to the police station?
We aren't the UK that hang cameras everywhere
But you DID invent the Gatso!! Grrrrr. Mike are you talking about the Netherlands now?
We already discuss that topic and like you portray it is not true.
You must carry an ID but you only need to show it when you're being stopped by the police and even then they mostly only ask it when they are writing a ticked for you.... so nice
But if they can't ID you, you need to go to the station right, probably also in the UK so what is worse, ID yourself or going to the police station?
We aren't the UK that hang cameras everywhere
Comment by Critical-i posted on Photographer's rights gets a higher profile at 03/12/2009 - 14:10
johnriley wrote:
To be fair to the NT, I've never had any problem arranging indoor photography by appointment.
Outdoor photography is fine anyway.
Not if you plan to publish the photographs. Rights to ALL photographs of NT property (even if taken from non NT property) supposedly belong to the National Trust Photo Library (which is a commercial company) - even if taken with permission or for one of their competitions. To be fair to the NT, I've never had any problem arranging indoor photography by appointment.
Outdoor photography is fine anyway.
Recently they forced many stock sites to remove all pictures of NT property from their sites, and strictly speaking even if you put photos on Flikr you are infringing their rules.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=31655667
Whether this would stand up in court I dont know. The fact is that the NT can ban photography ON THEIR PREMISIS if they wish, but handing a monopoly to a commercial company of which many NT board members are also board members strikes me as not entirely consistent.
And just try becoming a member of the NTPL. Its dominated by top UK photographers and almost impossible to join.
One of them even resigned in protest.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=31875141&q=Nationa...
Comment by Critical-i posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 24/10/2009 - 01:23
hamiltonsmith wrote:
Hi folks
The simple fact is in the UK there is no law against taking photographs in public places. There is a potential problem of taking images of for instance the inside of military bases and the likes even from the public road and that is fully understandable. No police constable has the right to force you to delete images from your card. A pc is there to uphold the law not to make it. I also personally do not take images of kids in the street but that is my personal thing. It must be remembered that many shopping Centres for instance are Private Property and can insist on no photography. You legally can take images on public roads of public places and the public at large. It is a freedom thing.
Ian
Are you aware how few areas in the UK are actually public property? As a few examples, any farmland in the UK, any National Trust property, and most of London, including the South Bank, Canary Wharf, most of Mayfair etc etc. are private land. You may have right of way, but that does not entitle you to do anything other than cross it. Hi folks
The simple fact is in the UK there is no law against taking photographs in public places. There is a potential problem of taking images of for instance the inside of military bases and the likes even from the public road and that is fully understandable. No police constable has the right to force you to delete images from your card. A pc is there to uphold the law not to make it. I also personally do not take images of kids in the street but that is my personal thing. It must be remembered that many shopping Centres for instance are Private Property and can insist on no photography. You legally can take images on public roads of public places and the public at large. It is a freedom thing.
Ian
Check out AP this week, Poole council tried to stop a photographer shooting on a public beach and quoted local bylaws.
The real police (by that I mean paid and professional) I seldom have more than a polite chat with, but private security guards, park wardens and plastic "community support" officers are another issue I'm afraid.
Comment by Critical-i posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 22/10/2009 - 23:55
Anvh wrote:
Art = "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others"
Does that come close???
link
Interesting but seems a bit too easy. It means anyone can be an artist just because they say they are, but are they actually creating art?Art = "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others"
Does that come close???
link
According to my uncle, who was a moderately famous artist and sculptor as well as a teacher,
"Any human artifact can" (and I quote) "be regarded as art if it can stand critical analysis from an artistic perspective in isolation from any assessment of its functional or practical usefulness".
Now I suppose this means the same thing, but with a twist - its not only a circular argument but also implies a degree of consensus from some self-appointed elite. Seems to be the case though as far as I can tell.
Indeed, he was the first to admit that something totally mundane could suddenly become art simply because it resonated with a famous gallery owner or collector. And where the wolves lead, the sheep follow.
A lot of photography falls into this category. Just about any half decent B&W documentary print from the 1960's is now collectable for instance.
However, as you say that does not stop some of us from trying to communicate something through photography which goes beyond the physical image itself, even if we never get past the establishment.
Comment by Critical-i posted on Artist or Photographer? at 21/10/2009 - 23:21
If you live in the UK, security guards have no rights in law. They cannot demand that you do anything at all - they cannot for instance prevent photography of a premises unless you are physically standing on private property in which case all they can do is ask you to leave or call the police.
If they touch you or your equipment they are guilty of assault and you would be able to sue the company that hires them. Nor is it up to them to enforce photography policy regarding the building and you are not obliged to tell them your business. Its easier to say you are an amateur of course, just taking pics for a hobby.
But even if you are not, and you are on public land, there is nothing they can do. The owners of the building would have to take action against a publisher of any photos of their property if it was "improperly" used, but thats as far as they can go.
If you were actually a professional and published the shot as editorial, its unlikely they would be able to do much about it anyway. They would only have a case if the image was used for advertising.
Note, you cannot copyright a building. The only reason you may need a property release was if you intended to exploit the building's image for commercial purposes in which case its safer to have a release. In practice its very hard to enforce if the building is part of the normal skyline.
If they touch you or your equipment they are guilty of assault and you would be able to sue the company that hires them. Nor is it up to them to enforce photography policy regarding the building and you are not obliged to tell them your business. Its easier to say you are an amateur of course, just taking pics for a hobby.
But even if you are not, and you are on public land, there is nothing they can do. The owners of the building would have to take action against a publisher of any photos of their property if it was "improperly" used, but thats as far as they can go.
If you were actually a professional and published the shot as editorial, its unlikely they would be able to do much about it anyway. They would only have a case if the image was used for advertising.
Note, you cannot copyright a building. The only reason you may need a property release was if you intended to exploit the building's image for commercial purposes in which case its safer to have a release. In practice its very hard to enforce if the building is part of the normal skyline.
Comment by Critical-i posted on Image Copyrights at 13/10/2009 - 03:50
Having enjoyed a discussion with Stepan on creating art in photography, I would be interested in a concensus of what is art.
Art is not artifact, nor are artists necessarily artizans, though they may be both.
An artifact may have artistic merit, but if it has utility it is not art.
A performance may be aesthetically pleasing, but if it has an ulterior goal (such as a sport) then it is not art.
Noone has this issue when trying to distinguish a textbook or instruction manual from a fictional novel or poem, nor when trying to distinguish a gymnast from a ballet dancer, so why do people get so hung up about it in representational art? The distinction is the same.