Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: More photos

Subject: [OM] Re: More photos
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:22:13 -0800
Tom Fenwick wrote:
> Yes and no; as posted it was a pretty accurate representation, but it was
> painted/drizzled/splattered.  I wasn't over keen on the original; the photo
> is quite a small portion of the painting...
>
> Tom
>
> On 10/12/06, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
>> Correct me if I'm wrong but I viewed the horse as a chalk drawing which
>> meant the original would have had a rather flat look.  That's why I
>> preferred your original to Moose's jazzed up version.  But if you tell
>> me that is was a painting and Moose's looks more like the original then
>> I'll change my view.  Just my particular bias to keep things looking
>> more or less like real life... except, of course, beautiful, young 60
>> year olds who want to look a few years younger.  :-)
>>     
Tastes and opinions vary. I do in many cases like to try to create an 
accurate representation of my subjects, especially natural ones.

On the other hand, I'm aware that our visual system is not even as 
unbiased as a camera. So if I take a picture of a landscape and the 
immediate result is not as I recall it, I am quite happy to alter the 
image to more closely conform with my recollection. As there is no 
absolute way to check, and anyway I know my imaging system differs 
considerably from that of the photographic imaging system, I feel I've 
not done any disservice to accuracy.

Certainly, this is in the traditions of much landscape painting and of 
the legendary landscape photographers of the early last century, who did 
all sorts of things to their images in the darkroom to match the vision 
in their mind.

On the other hand, I consider portrait photography to be as much art as 
accurate reproduction. In addition to the artful use of makeup, 
lighting, props, backdrops, etc., a good photographer elicits a human 
response from the subject that results in a good portrait. So I see a 
portrait as something unlike any image of the subject that would be 
encountered in everyday interaction with the subject. I don't in the 
least disagree that a good photographer may often elicit a response that 
is revealing of the subject's true character. So a portrait may be both 
not true to life and unusually true to life at the same time. It is, in 
any case, at least partly a creation of craft or art, however you may 
wish to call it, rather than "like real life".

I feel that the same situation may apply to some inanimate subjects ones 
encounters. Wandering about in Camden, ME one slightly foggy day, I 
encountered an outdoor table with a painted top. Flat light and faded 
paint left it fairly blah, but I saw something else in it. So I stood on 
a chair and took a picture. With some perspective correction and other 
PS work, I had what I had only envisioned at the beginning 
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Creatures/pages/DSCF0510.htm>. As a 
found object, the table is interesting, but I find it much more 
interesting and pleasing to me as recreated into something like what I 
imagine the original artist's creation or intent may have been. But I 
don't really know, and the image must stand on it's own merits.

I felt the same way about Tom's picture of the horse painting. As a 
found object, it's mildly interesting. As a collaborative work of art by 
the original artist, Tom and then me, I find the resulting image 
arresting. Whether it is an accurate representation of the found object 
or not isn't of concern to me. As with the detail hidden in posted 
images, I really enjoy seeing something strong hiding in plain sight 
under a rather ordinary appearing image.

Moose

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz