Re: Selfies

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



What a great discussion.
 
Gregory
 
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: Selfies

Roger I see it like this.  It's not about swooning. It's about art.  It's about whether your have a curiosity or whether you change your opinion based oh how the work is created.    I think it's quit normal for a person with your background to have the questions you have.  Its even sort of interesting in that it clearly shows how a persons environment shapes whats important to them. Which can be very important in the  presentation of art.

I don't think it's a valid question if asked in the evaluation of the work beyond if it works or doesn't work as an element of the art.    These aren't journalistic.  

 

You are I believe overlooking an even simpler solution though.   The 2 attached image. haze or not to haze 2 photos  One is as just as shot.  The other is with contrast and clarity adjustments.  It quit possible that a light fog existed when shot and was corrected out of the images leaving the tight looking shape of the light.   Those are not as long of exposure as his nor do I know how bright his headlamps can be, or if they are adjustable.  I am also at Sea level in Winter so I don't have the same levels of UV to ad even more addition haze for the light. Now ad that he can't possible hodl very still or may even be moving his head a little and then using some frame averaging to sharpen up multiple exposures and the possibilities become endless.   (fyi Frame averaging can also be done in a dark room and even on a scanner if you are shooting with sheets of cow.)

 

I think if you only saw the end result of this video you could go into a conversation just like this.   How could he have made those branches separate tonally like that?   The light from all the branches wouldn't allow for this to happen naturally.  On and on.  right?   But in the end there are many ways for anything visually to happen especially when its in our make up to ask.  

 

So I do think you can do both and your question is valid when in a context other then whether this is good art or not good art.   In that regard I believe Jan's response is that he is present art and the comment is on how he did it.   Again I can only I Get Jan's point but I do also feel there can be a discussion of the technical but I think they are different topics of discussion.  In your original post I feel you have linked them.  and to be SUPER CLEAR  when I refer to I think and I feel.   It means its just my opinion of some text on the interwebs because thats my subjective opinion. 

 

One last note would be that I have a BFA from RIT in Applied photography. We didn't have many thermal dynamics classes for me to remember much from.  When I need to know Geo Physics I call Dr. Mark.  Now I might also call you. Do you ever use Real Flow? :-D  

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

But to continue in this line of conversation.  

On Jan 15, 2014 12:16 AM, "Eichhorn, Roger" <eichhorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't know Mark Stasiuk.
 
I think it would depend on the specific humidity rather than the relative humidity and temperature, but knowing two of them the third can be calculated, if you recall your thermodynamics.  However, I think the moisture in the air would be operative in the infrared, not the blue end of the spectrum.  and if it's humid enough to affect the light beam, would the distant scene appear as crisp as it is?
 
I don't see why you think I should ignore the technical aspects of the production of the art and just swoon at its result.  I think I can do both.  I don't have to see the crane or the brushed out wires to know that they had to be there.  I know enough physics to be sure of that.  And that, I think, makes my point. 
 
That is not the case with the light beam.  Seeing light beams is not our common experience.  We can't know if it was brushed in or not.  But, of course, it doesn't matter how it got there.  If it suits the artist's purpose, he could have painted it in, or did it with photo shop.  I actually like the result and would like to know if its a true physical phenomenon or not.  At least he didn't paint in a laser beam as is often done.
 
If it is a result of photons being scattered from the flashlight beam over the extended period of the exposure, I think that that would be fascinating.
 
Roger

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 14, 2014, at 9:04 PM, "Randy Little" <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Roger I don't know why it matters how they got there.   but you would also have to know the relative humidity and temp no?     Either way since this is an artist endeavor and not a technical one by the artist I personally don't feel it matters how they got there.   It would be for me like asking where the wires when in these image by my RIT classmates father.  
 
 
Do you question where the wires are and how they are gone, or do you just accept that you either like or dislike the work.  Do you like the light less if he added it?   Do you like the light more if he added it?   Does it matter as long as it fulfills its purpose in the composition?  
 
 
Roger do you know a Geo Physicist Mark Stasiuk? 


 


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 
So who is going to call him up?
 
On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:25 PM, Randy Little wrote:

Roger what I posed is what the list was started as.   That was my only point.   I didn't write that THAT LIST CREATORS DID.   Russ Kraus and Andrew Davidhazy.  
 
I'm not bashing what you said at all.  Which is why I asked how you felt about the any possible addition and if you felt that effected the image.    I also then stated that I believe those lights are not added.  I don't know I wasn't there. 
 
 


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Eichhorn, Roger <eichhorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I missed the "technical not the purpose of the list" in my reply.  The founder of the list is renowned for his contributions to the "technical" aspects of photography and has often sent us searching for his contributions.  I disagree with your assertion, but perhaps the list has morphed in such a way to exclude it.
 
roger

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 14, 2014, at 7:05 PM, "Eichhorn, Roger" <eichhorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I guess I'm an interested "other" and should just shut up and let you artists trash each other as you do so ably. 
 
roger

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 14, 2014, at 6:49 PM, "Randy Little" <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I would have to say Roger that I don't believe them to be added.  
 
Andrew technique doesn't' discount technical but its not the purpose of the list. 
 
 

The PhotoForum is an educational network and databank established to serve the photographic and imaging communities in general with a medium for exchange of ideas and with an accessible databank of informational files about a wide variety of photo/imaging subjects.

A major goal of this network is to serve as a communications link for photo educators, and interested others, dedicated to discussion of photography and imaging including aesthetics, processes, history, digital imaging, instructional strategies, criticism, equipment and techniques, especially, but not exclusively, as these apply in an educational setting.

 


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 
Ahem. This began with an accusation of a detail being faked. how is that educational?
 
 
On Jan 14, 2014, at 7:34 PM, asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Because, Jan, we are perhaps "interested* in how the picture was created,
from a technical perspective, including your favorite minutiae. If this
*photography* group was simply an Art Appreciation group, I could
understand your lament, but actually, it is a group of *technical*
photography folks, who are indeed interested in a lot more than the
feeling and mood of a photograph. Certainly, from an art perspective,
those are very interesting, and warrant a lot of attention and discussion.
But to claim that discussions of small details are not germane to this
photography group is rather missing the entire point of this email list.


Andrew



On Tue, January 14, 2014 4:17 pm, Jan Faul wrote:


Just offhand, I would say he is equipped with a remote shutter release,
and also he’s done this more than a few times and is obviously no rank
amateur. He’s got a style, he knows his equipment, and he’s looking for
shots of a certain style.

I don’t understand why you guys fail to see the big picture and can only
complain about the itty bitty points an minutiae. Is it jealousy or what?



On Jan 14, 2014, at 7:05 PM, Eichhorn, Roger wrote:


Haunting photos, but doesn't the flashlight beam in some of them have
to be faked?   The air seems clear and how much blue will be in a
flashlight to scatter in the air unless it's an LED or Hg lamp.  And he
sat perfectly still while the star trail was being exposed?

r.

Sent from my iPad


On Jan 14, 2014, at 5:40 PM, "Jan Faul" <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



http://news.yahoo.com/photos/photographer-puts-everyday-selfies-to-sh
ame-1389719641-slideshow/



Art Faul


The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Art for Cars: art4carz.com
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com
Camera Works - The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm
ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/


.










 

Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Art for Cars: art4carz.com
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
Camera Works - The Washington Post

.
 



 
 
 
 

Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Art for Cars: art4carz.com
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
Camera Works - The Washington Post

.
 



 
 
 

[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux