You spoilsport. Now the "good" photographers no longer can blame the "bad" photographers for bad business...
I don't know how common this knowledge is, but these days, much product photography may not actually be photographs, but renderings:
https://www.screenage.com.au/ikea-catalogue-3d-renderings/
...its very sad the only way you can have conversations is by calling people names and insulting them.
Depends on whether you are starting out with an intention to create something that is part photograph and part post-processing.Maybe I'm prejudiced, but thinking you'll get it right later in the computer makes you sloppy at the time you need to do your best. If the angle is wrong., you can't correct that later. If the composition is wrong, or the subject isn't acting "right", you can't correct that. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
Depends on whether you are starting out with an intention to create something that is part photograph and part post-processing.
While in current times the "post" part is typically digital, that doesn't have to be digital.
Think of things like hand coloured prints or bromoil work or the formerly ubiquitous "bride and groom together in a wine goblet" wedding album print - the modern version of which is quite disturbing:
https://bobbleheadsme.com/personali...d-bride-and-groom-in-wine-glasses-p-1177.html
View attachment 276996
Hi MikeI don't get that impression of Drew at all. I rather appreciated his response to my observation that Ansel Adams is accessible and facile for the masses in the way that Kinkade is.
my local lab will turn a photograph into a 3D object made of lucite, its quite remarkable, not as nice as that thoughDepends on whether you are starting out with an intention to create something that is part photograph and part post-processing.
While in current times the "post" part is typically digital, that doesn't have to be digital.
Think of things like hand coloured prints or bromoil work or the formerly ubiquitous "bride and groom together in a wine goblet" wedding album print - the modern version of which is quite disturbing:
https://bobbleheadsme.com/personali...d-bride-and-groom-in-wine-glasses-p-1177.html
View attachment 276996
maybe I am misreading what he has said and his intent, sure sounds like insults to me.
..."bride and groom together in a wine goblet" wedding album print - the modern version of which is quite disturbing:
https://bobbleheadsme.com/personali...d-bride-and-groom-in-wine-glasses-p-1177.html
View attachment 276996
....A world in which you're not allowed to say that shit is shit is a world that's eventually full of shit.
that's right I don't plod the narrow path, because it is too narrow and I see nothing on it ...and the path is full of closed minded bitter people...
I'd rather plod on the path not taken, or rarely taken, better view and more interesting people
Maybe ...
but both Adams and Kinkade had a beautiful way of rendering light and turning an ordinary scene into something otherworldly. Peter Lik too but he is more of a showman than art for every-man ( or woman ), Like Adams Kinkade allowed for people without much $$ to enjoy his work. Lik's slot canyon phantom photograph is absolutely beautiful at least as beautiful as any Ansel Adams image I have ever seen. Its too bad there is so much hatred thrown toward people who have made money using photography or people who don't use a camera like everyone else.. its really sad..
Well, getting it wrong in camera was not something you could know until it was too late - event over, film developed, turned out blank or whatever. Now, the back of the camera will show you what you got. You can quickly review to see if it's good enough. And software allows you to fix up any image - digital photo or a scan of a negative or a scan of a print or even something you did in MS Paint. Are computer image manipulation skills photography? Seems that they are, now, just as much as darkroom work is photography.
I think most of the film that's shot only ever sees a scanner. So, its "print" stage is digital, anyway.
One will only see problems in a photograph on the camera back, if and only if they are looking for them. Most people are to focused on the subject or subjects to inspect the whole frame. That is just one of the differences between a gwc and a good photographer.
He adds some brushes strokes and charges for an original? who cares, he actually did something ... and plenty of people bought his work, and enjoy it. Photographers can be charlatans, start another "limited edition" by changing mat size or developer, or print the images in cards or posters to be sold at the gift shop, and THEY are long dead, don't even print them ... pumping the well dry.Did you know that Kinkade is not a photographer, but a painter who lithographs a painting 10,000 add some brush strokes to each and charges for an original?
From what I can tell, everyone checks the images if they can.
How many rolls of film were left unchecked when Winogrand died again? Was it hundreds, or thousands? Or that Vivian. How many rolls did she develop again?
But here in Northern California all I see is barber wire on both sides of highways with "no trespassing" signs left & right, mixed up with "no parking at any time". You feel like you're in a tube and can't even get out. We have national parks, but those feel like zoos where everyone is following the same "vista points"….
He adds some brushes strokes and charges for an original? who cares, he actually did something ... and plenty of people bought his work, and enjoy it. Photographers can be charlatans, start another "limited edition" by changing mat size or developer, or print the images in cards or posters to be sold at the gift shop, and THEY are long dead, don't even print them ... pumping the well dry.
Why is it OK for one to do it but not the other?
One will only see problems in a photograph on the camera back, if and only if they are looking for them. Most people are to focused on the subject or subjects to inspect the whole frame. That is just one of the differences between a gwc and a good photographer.
So which does which? Does the "guy with camera" inspect the frame and the photographer actually focus on the subject? Or is it the other way around? Are you suggesting a photographer would not check the images taken? Or the guy with camera wouldn't check the images? From what I can tell, everyone checks the images if they can. There's nothing virtuous about not looking at the back (the back will tell you when there's no card installed - the viewfinder will not). And now most people look at the back to compose the picture - even if their camera has a viewfinder. There are a million Sony A6000 cameras out there that are all used just that way.
I know he's not a photographer. Perhaps you should talk to Drew. He used him as a straw man in his argument as he attempted to suggest that his work was inferior like Lik's work ... so inferior to Masters of photography that he puts on a pedestal and worships. Adding and and subtracting elements from photographs has been going on since 1839 when Talbot used pencil to retouch a paper calotype negative. Maybe you should learn a little bit about the history of photography and photographic practices and what has been part of photography from its invention before you make comments that adding and removing elements from a photograph isn't photography.As usual you miss the point. Kinkade is not a photographer, so he work should not be considered in the conversation about photograph. Just as adding and removing major objects from photographs is not part of photography and since you are part and parcel of that group, you are not considered part of photography. Call what ever you do anything but photography.
As usual you miss the point. Kinkade is not a photographer, so he work should not be considered in the conversation about photograph. Just as adding and removing major objects from photographs is not part of photography and since you are part and parcel of that group, you are not considered part of photography. Call what ever you do anything but photography.
Did you hear that, jnantz? You ain't shit!
Question for you: why do you take umbrage with what Drew Wiley says, but you seem to abide the tripe that comes from this guy in nearly every single post?
I know he's not a photographer. Perhaps you should talk to Drew. He used him as a straw man in his argument as he attempted to suggest that his work was inferior like Lik's work ... so inferior to Masters of photography that he puts on a pedestal and worships. Adding and and subtracting elements from photographs has been going on since 1839 when Talbot used pencil to retouch a paper calotype negative. Maybe you should learn a little bit about the history of photography and photographic practices and what has been part of photography from its invention before you make comments that adding and removing elements from a photograph isn't photography.
Are you also suggesting Yousuf Karsh is part of my group that is "not considered part of photography" ? Every portrait he made was retouched, just as I learned how to do with a graphite leads and a knife. Your definition of what photography is makes absolutely no sense.
If you are interested in furthering your photographic knowledge, about the history and practice of photography, using Light to Draw, here are some texts that are not very expensive and might be useful.
https://www.amazon.com/History-Photography-1839-Present/dp/0870703811
https://www.amazon.com/History-Phot...+of+photography&qid=1623425723&s=books&sr=1-5
https://www.amazon.com/World-Histor...of+photography&qid=1623425723&s=books&sr=1-11
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Alterna...ristopher+james&qid=1623425808&s=books&sr=1-1
you mean they were photographers? you said adding and removing objects was not photography?Just because early photographers added and removed objects from photographs does not show nor prove that the practice is accepted in mainstream photography. The fact that you do that shows that you do not do work in photography, merely is photography to achieve your purposes, yet you are out of mainstream photography. I will commend you on your ability to attack those who have demonstrated superior knowledge with trivial and obscure cockamamie. Very well done. Of that you are among the stars.
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?