- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,297
- Format
- Multi Format
I feel the same and I appreciate your honesty Bob.
Last edited:
I feel the same and I appreciate your honesty Bob.To the OP I think this whole idea stinks. I can hear the giggles now if something like this actually happened here. Sorry
To the OP I think this whole idea stinks.
Kind of like click-baits at the bottom of a web page, the content has nothing to with the picture (not that I know first hand.)
Half the time, you don't even use a camera...where does that fit in?
Yes.As time goes on "photrio" seems increasingly strange to me.
Yes +1Yes.
Too much for my taste. May be it's time to configure a special discussion board for those ...There are (is?) a handful of really out there threads at the moment ...
That is the purpose of tags and publishing the definition of the tags. It removes the secret language and if anything creates dialog (I think I can attest to that already). It also potentially clarifies things. Rather than arguing which of the three (and probably more actually) definitions of "Digital Negative" is correct, create a tag for each of them along with a simple definition.
How did an old dyed-in-the-wool British civil servant like you end up in California and don't say that you went because you'd heard that LSD was catching on and you assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that this was a move to restore the British currency following that tea incident in some East Coast harbourVoluntary, then why bother?
Lets form a select committee to look into forming a feasibility study to consider thinking about investigating the idea to cogitate on scheduling a group to plan looking into to this idea!
Standards in art? Really?
The only tags I need is "film" or "analog print" or "alternative".
The rest is not an art in my personal standards.
And we have entire gallery here to meet my simple standards.
So, to me all standards in art are in this gallery.
I have heard people just in general refer to any RAW file as a digital negative to signify that it replaced the film negative in purpose (i.e, the master image). I understand it does not meet the informal standard of many who understand the digital negative process.
Photrio:Digital Negative(RAW file master)
(may not work in many tagging systems unfortunately)
Photrio: Digital Negative [Adobe Std: DNG file]
Photrio: Digital Negative [hybrid digital/analog process]
Photrio: xxDigital Negativexx [RAW file master]
Remind me not to vote for you for the Standards Committee.
It would help people decide for themselves whether the image meets their expectations for a photograph, a work of graphic arts, a composite image, etc.
Every committee which is trying to set standards on art reminds me commies buldozering art show in the park in Moscow.
Many artists who didn't met KGB and Party standards on arts ended up .... As recognized and successful artists in Westren World.
Chrushov yelled on Ernst Neizvestny for been not in the arts standards and ... Ernst Neizvestny made statue of Chrushev on Chrushev last place on Earth.
Dosvidanya tovarish N.
To the OP
Puzzlement over the veracity of photographic pictures is a natural response in the era of the smartphone and photoshop. Once upon a time things were different and the manipulation of images involved sufficient work to discourage the majority of amateur photographers who were satisfied if they were able to be proficient at cropping dodging and burning black and white pictures. A little study of the history of photography shows that manipulation of photographs in more complex ways for propaganda or profit began immediately following the invention of photography and has continued ever since. Recent developments have placed these abilities in the hands of everyone and even permit the automated production of "better" family snapshots by editing the picture so that the eyes of someone who blinked are replaced automatically by open eyes. Under these conditions confusion about veracity of pictures is understandable, and personally you have my sympathy, I learned photography in a simpler world when there was only film.
However I feel that the approach you recommend to us, of organizing a system of documentation for the processes that generated the picture, may be too complex for an organization like Photrio to accomplish. But more importantly I think it misses an important point, which is that in many cases it is impossible to know the veracity of a picture, and this uncertainty is not fatal to the appreciation of the picture for what it is, be it smartphone snapshot with edited eyes, fine-art masterpiece with dodging and burning, photoshopped online blog image, photoshopped commercial media production or whatever, it is a picture, a picture made by humans for a reason. For each individual the ability to deal with the question "why does that picture exist?" is in my opinion more useful and helpful than dealing with the question "how was that picture made?"
It seems to me you may be in search of mastery of the complex business of images, of which photography is small subset. I urge you to continue your quest, the path may take you into many interesting areas of experience, much may be learned about image making, and if the journey proves enjoyable this may be the most that can be expected. Bon Voyage.
Red canoes are really important - at least in the Canadian (CAPA) versions.What is a camera club type of shot?
In the club I was in in New England, it was fur, feathers, and lighthouses. In that club, the quality level was very high at least. In a group I joined somewhere else, HDR was "in" and for any subject. Overall, yes, it's the initial impact of a shot that gets the higher scores in most camera clubs. If there's much thought required to "get" the photo, it won't do as well.Red canoes are really important - at least in the Canadian (CAPA) versions.
I was simply trying to show the irony in your statements. On one hand you decry "standards in arts" which I completely agree. Also agree with everything above. However, although you are entitled to your opinion, you do not think anyone who is producing a digital print is an artist. Isn't that your own attempt to define what is and what is not art?
The 'red canoe' me laugh out loud. I'm very familiar with PSA photographs. Often there is all punch and no substance. When you see them all in a string, like their monthly PDF they send out. You can see how hard it might be to out-impact each other. If I recall, "impact" is the most important quality of the image.Red canoes are really important - at least in the Canadian (CAPA) versions.
Immediate impact is probably the most important characteristic, because people/judges rarely get much time with any particular "image" (I use "image" because so much of what is viewed now is viewed on a screen). Camera clubs rarely seem to accommodate series or collections of prints.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?