mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 23, 2010 9:28:41 GMT -5
This photo was taken just after dawn on an overcast day. It turned out flat and featureless and dull, garbage, just perfect for deletion. So I experimented - nothing to lose. Using Photoshop Elements 4.0 Enhance > Brightness/Contrast and Filter > Sharpen more > Sharpen more Herewith the end result. I am very pleased. It shows details including striations in the ice that I did not see when I took the picture. There is also a glow emanating from the sculpture that was not apparent in the real thing. The background is now weird but I find it pleasing. The finished photo is quite impressive when seen large. Not art but salvageable. I really enjoy working in my undark darkroom. Mickey
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 23, 2010 14:54:13 GMT -5
Here is another Photoshop rescue. The bell pepper was originally only good for a salad. A bland salad. Mickey
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Feb 23, 2010 18:16:44 GMT -5
Mickey,
First, I like what you've done. But they are digitally manipulated images; no longer photographs.
You ask people to "critique mercilessly". Sorry, I can't, any more than I could write a critique on Turner's use of colour in The Fighting Temeraire or Carlos Jobim's disturbing chord progression Dm7->Bb7->G7 in Desafinado. I just ain't qualified - but I like 'em.
PeterW
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 24, 2010 6:27:13 GMT -5
PeterW,
You are right. Slides and movies and prints made chemically in a darkroom or camera (Polaroid) are photographs. But pictures in any print or ink medium or electronic medium or any media that are not first or second generation (negatives or their subsequent prints) images cannot truly be called photographs.
As for critiquing: Turner ... Never. Jobim's chord progression ... I wouldn't recognize it if I heard it so I wont let it bother me too much.
So what can I call my pictures? Pixelgraphs? What is Greek for pixel? Maybe pixel is Greek? Electronic mutation graphs? Genetically modified graphs?
I had better drop the Greek "graph" part and call them images. My apologies to my Greek friends Gus and Bill and Bill and The Captain and Mike and Voula and Stavros. Pixelimages? Electronic mutation images? Genetically modified images? Aha! Eureka! NERDIMAGES.
Mickey (Nerdimager)
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Feb 24, 2010 7:25:21 GMT -5
Mickey,
How about Electrikon, from Electronic Ikon? Or maybe Digikon, from Digital Ikon? Or possibly Pixikon, from Pixel Ikon
PeterW
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 24, 2010 9:43:35 GMT -5
PeterW,
I think your fondness for Zeiss may be unconsciously influencing your choice. But I am sure Stavros and Voula et al would approve.
Mickey
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Feb 24, 2010 11:48:00 GMT -5
Mickey, Possibly. There had to be a connection with cameras somewhere, but I've always been a bit of an iconoclast (ouch!), in the non-religious sense, and like having fun coining new words. I would have liked to come up with one derived from Anglo-Saxon or from Middle English as a change from Greek or Latin. No doubt Geoffrey Chaucer could, but I couldn't think of one. Sorry, folks. Getting rather OT. PeterW
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Feb 24, 2010 12:00:02 GMT -5
You are right. Slides and movies and prints made chemically in a darkroom or camera (Polaroid) are photographs. But pictures in any print or ink medium or electronic medium or any media that are not first or second generation (negatives or their subsequent prints) images cannot truly be called photographs. Nonsense! (meant in a curmudgeonly, tongue-in-cheek way) Photography means "painting with light." It doesn't specify a medium. A photograph taken with an electronic sensor is every much a photograph as one taken on an emulsion spread on plastic or glass. And a photographic print, however produced, is a photographic print. Sorry guys. I can't agree with you on this one :-) Gene
|
|
|
Post by herron on Feb 24, 2010 13:06:19 GMT -5
Sorry guys. I have to side with Gene on this one, too. A lot of manipulation used to go into traditional prints made with chemicals in a darkroom, from the chemicals themselves, to exposure time, dodging and burning, filters, even to the type of paper used. I can even recall sandwiching two Ektachrome slides and exposing them (as if they were negatives) to make some really exotic-looking prints. If I can find them when I get home, I'll post them. The point is, photography is painting with light, as Gene mentions, and your shots, Mickey, however manipulated, qualify as those light images. BTW - I like the pepper!
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Feb 24, 2010 18:05:54 GMT -5
Mickey, this is a fun image. Eye catching, and whimsical. Gene Here is another Photoshop rescue. The bell pepper was originally only good for a salad. A bland salad. Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2010 18:45:34 GMT -5
I think some folks are getting a little elitist. As Gene said "photography" is painting with light. IMO it doesn't matter if the image is projected on film or on a sensor. The same process is occurring-the light sensitive material is reacting to different levels of light projected on it.
One of my real pet peeves is the reference among some digital photographers to call their pictures "captures." I don't "capture" anything. I "shoot" pictures and I "take" pictures.
That being said, I think it is easy to get carried away with image modification. Gene's photograph is over manipulated for my taste--but all of our tastes are different. Virtually every digital photograph needs some tweaking--just as ever photographic print has always been adjusted to some degree--unless it was done by an automated machine.
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by herron on Feb 24, 2010 19:29:55 GMT -5
I guess I can understand the term "capture." After all, it is a moment in time captured by whatever medium it is being used ... film, digital sensor, or whatever comes next.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2010 21:57:40 GMT -5
Saying "capture" for me is like saying something is "problematic." We used to just be able to say, "There's a problem." Totally despise that word.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 25, 2010 4:09:40 GMT -5
Talk about Pandora's box or opening a can of worms. I think I have been shot down. What say you PeterW, iKonoclast? "I would have liked to come up with one derived from Anglo-Saxon or from Middle English as a change from Greek or Latin. No doubt Geoffrey Chaucer could, but I couldn't think of one. " LIKENESS. It sounds enough like Loch Ness to have genuine English antecedents. Now to "capture". Does that not generally refer to getting hold of and usually confining something alive and keeping it alive such as an ant in a jar or a lion in a cage? I think it is far too melodramatic for the act of getting a picture of even a charging elephant. Now for the question - how does one obtain a likeness? Does she/he take it or make it? I hope I have lit a fire. ;D Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2010 10:50:02 GMT -5
I take pictures
|
|