Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] After a Rainy Day

Subject: Re: [OM] After a Rainy Day
From: "philippe.amard" <philippe.amard@xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:11:32 +0200
Amen :-)

Philippe, struggling with devils too ...



Le 15 juin 15 à 18:07, Bob Whitmire a écrit :

This could turn into an interesting discussion on the merits of cooking images, and what kind and how much and overall effect of said cooking on
the image in question.

Ken's image represents his vision. It does not look like a cliche. It looks
like his vision, or _a_ vision if we don't know Ken.

On the other hand, as I motorate around Maine, and most recently a portion of the United Kingdom, I had occasion to see a lot of photos of the type I used to make money doing, i.e. pretty pictures for tourists. They fell/fall
into three broad categories:

1) Boring/amateur/you really ought to practice more before putting this
stuff our for sale.

2) Hopelessly cliched, that is, for example, rock in foreground, smooth water, bright setting/rising sun in background, separated by colorful sky. These used to be called West Coast Landscapes, and they were amazing when they first started appearing and now they bring on the yawns. At least for me. These kinds of shots make the best postcards. In the rack they look like amazing photos, but upon examination and reflection, they have all the
requisite parts for great photos, but somehow they just don't make the
grade. Maybe there's too much information presented too perfectly.
Photoshop lets you do that, and you can get carried away with it if you're
not careful. And by "you" I mean me, too. <g>

And then there's 3) The good stuff. Some of the good stuff is
straightforward. Or b&w conversion. And some of it, as was Ken's, is
properly cooked via personal recipe to create something greater than the sum of its parts. Very little of it comes from beginners. Almost none, I'd say. Most of it comes from seasoned shooters who understand their equipment and its limitations, and who also understand their vision for the shot, and
_its_ limitations. Understanding the limits of vision in a specific
instance is perhaps the first among equals in a good shot. It's something I struggle with all the time. I mean really struggle. Jacob wrestling angels
kind of struggle.

I encourage Ken to keep cooking, and the rest of us to keep wrestling
angels. <g>

--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal


On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Paul Braun <pbraun42@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Nice. Love the richness of the colors, even if they were "helped". And
that
scene just screams Iowa.

Helped? Sure, why not? Didn't we do the same thing "back in the day"
by shooting Velvia and using polarizers?

Thanks, it really does say Iowa. This is on the east edge of town. If
you look one way, it's houses and businesses. The other way and it's
farm fields.


I'm not calling you out for "helping" - I do the same thing. I think you were saying that some had complained about the "cooking". A photo, unless it's a strict journalistic document, is a representation of the vision the photographer had in his/her mind when the image was captured. I really like
it.

--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye. Antoine de Saint Exupéry in Le Petit Prince.
NO ARCHIVE




--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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