Berries at the cemetary.
Rich
Printable View
Berries at the cemetary.
Rich
Berries and a ramdom fly.
Rich
An Ice enhancement. Texturized and slightly offset.
Rich
nice texture effect Rich
it takes what is a very good photo and makes it that little bit special
Excellent macros Rich... You got the reds perfect!
The after effects are like a tatoo on a beautiful woman. Some people might like it, but I see it as maring of perfection.
A highly representational photo is great agreed
An interpretive working of the photo is great also
There is no marring of anything here, unless someone is trying to pass the interpretation off as representation of reality - but that is not the case, is it?;)
Why must one be seen as a 'corruption of the other' of the other? - it does not make sense.
Rich is doing both - and Rich you are very good at both :)
Rich, I like your barries.
Excellent photos!!)
Steve, I was speaking for myself, and myself only... tweaking a perfect shot would be akin to drawing a moustache on one of the great classics. Just does not do anything for the shot.
John - that moustache analogy does not wash :p
Rich is not 'tweaking a perfect shot' - he is creating from it something different, which is art, whilst leaving the 'perfect' shot alone and posting that as well.
They become two separate things :D
Sure, you do not like one of them no problem I understand that and respect it - but it is not the other one 'ruined' - that is a very perverse way of looking at it :rolleyes::)
That is why I explained my viewpoint. It is just a viewpoint, an opinion. You like the modified shot, which is just fine. I like the original better that is all.
I would imagine there is room enough for both of Rich's works. The true test is which one would folks pay more money for. Anything else is just opinion.:)
Oh I understand John - its just the way you put it sometimes - sounds like you are critiquing the rationale not the art.
After all, its no different to tracing over a picture with the shape editor tool and producing an interpretive drawing, just using a filter instead ;)
I try not to degrade anybodies art. Whatever they create is great if they like it. I just have strong feelings for a very well done piece, and like any artist like to express my viewpoint.
I don't think anyone who is a regular on these forums could not know your viewpoint on photographic art John, that's fair enough.
[Did I just hear ' Stay on topic!' - I do believe I just did :eek:]
Rich - As always your photos are gorgeous. You demonstrate such artistry in enhancing them to new levels. Also, your genius with SBP is something I'm hoping to achieve.
It should never cease to amaze any of us the things for which some people are willing to pay a great deal of money. Unfortunately, much of it results from an aggressive agent and a great deal of "hype". Surely that isn't the "true test"?Quote:
Originally Posted by raynerj1
The berries are stunning as captured.
Nature is the best artist of all.
I'm prepared to accept the anthropomorphic statement at 'face value' but that said you would need to see them in real life would you not - otherwise the artist is the photographer.
This is one of the [agreeable] differences John and I have - he thinks a photograph can be 'perfect' - I 'know' it is never going to be like the real thing no matter how good you are.
Rich
very nice
maybe the berries would give a nice map
greetings
I'd prefer to think of an artist as someone who creates something from an idea or mind driven image, although I appreciate that the borders are fuzzy.
I've manipulated and tweaked enough pictures in Photoshop to know and appreciate how the efforts of nature can be enhanced and how the limitations of the camera can be compensated for. Granted it takes an artistic eye to be able to see where the adjustments can be best made, but that ability does not necessarily make one an artist.
I personally take photographs. I also produce graphic interpretations to present services and websites for my clients. I don't claim to be an artist on the basis of those efforts though.
Based on the evidence above, Molucca is a photographer, You, Steve are an artist. My comment above was to say that personally I thought the photographic shot of the berries was stunning, but for me personally the ice filter didn't add anything to it, it took something away.
Well I cannot at the end of the day speak for Rich.
But to me it is not a question of adding or subtracting anything as far as the photograph is concerned - its more a question of going off in a different direction and experimenting with what can be done - I repeat: the original photograph is still there - why does the filter version keep having to be compared with the original? - that is so narrow minded [no offence] - it would not be the case if Rich had traced it, so why is using a filter so different? :)
It's as if you were not allowed to do anything with a photograph except 'improve' it :rolleyes::D
Macro HDRI
Rich
Now that is very nice Rich. Perfect coloring, framing, focal length. Matter of fact I can't find one thing wrong with it. Can you?
John,
I have been wondering about viewing images. I see my monitor as a light source, like the difference between the sun and moon. The sun emits light and the moon reflects light.
The monitor has descrete dots of various colors that we see mostly close to the monitor.
Something printed as with an inkjet printer is an array of small dots of four colors for example. Printed things are viewed as reflected light. The brain merges all the dots and appears as various colors.
So, a difference in how the colors are generated. I liked the fuzzed image printed and viewed at a distance better than viewing it on screen.
Rich
Beautiful image.
A fuzzed image does not look as well printed, in my persoanal and very humble opinion. I have found that the less you fiddle with the camera's output the better the printed work will be. Particularily with portraits.
From this morning.
Rich
That's a beautiful rose Rich.
Oooooo... I like both of these photographs Rich. Very well done.
Trying to catch a drop in space.
Rich
A drop just before it falls. A drop falling, but the time is still too long.
Rich
Hi Rich...
Now those are hard shots to take if you are trying it manually. I would suggest a short depth of field, (Low F-stop) and a fast exposure. I would also do it totally in Manual. I would focus on the bottom of the berry and just adjust the tripod, so the frame is lower. I would not tilt it, becase that would throw off the focus. I would just lower it.
If you had a optical trigger then it would be pretty easy. Manually on the other had... just get a constant water flow so the drops fall regularly and "wing it".
Looking good so far! keep us posted and let us know how you finally accomplish it.
John,
I think I found a reaction time test for fighter pilots. I don't know if increasing the speed is too much for the aperature. It is fairly open as it is.
Do you have laser berries where you live?
Rich
Now that is pretty cool Rich.
Water droplets, Motorcycles on the open road, and Fireworks all fall into the same group of shots... It can be done... but it sure isn't easy.
There has to be a photodetector out there that you can rig up with one of those cheap "laser" pointers to trip the shot. Like I said earlier, your just need to set up the shot properly.
sounds like an interesting challenge. The hardest part will be setting the distance between the detector and the camera. See attached doodle.