Evaluate My Photo

[yumidesign]

go for it..... pick the flaw

Edited April 15, 2009 by yumidesign

[The Vulcan]

Good. Colours a bit out but good composition and you've captured the atmosphere well

[yumidesign]

Good. Colours a bit out but good composition and you've captured the atmosphere well

from what i recall the color rendition is accurate, and the pastel colors and flat light a good contrast to the harshness of the surrounding scene

hint, the flaw is in the foreground

[hanno]

from what i recall the color rendition is accurate

I believe that the colors are accurate, but it still means that the picture (which is nice, BTW) lacks punch.

I'd crop or Photoshop out the log in the foreground.

[yumidesign]

from what i recall the color rendition is accurate

I believe that the colors are accurate, but it still means that the picture (which is nice, BTW) lacks punch.

I'd crop or Photoshop out the log in the foreground.

correct the flaw is about the log....... can not really crop out unless you crop to the kids faces which is where the 'punch' is located

[Kan Win]

I took the top part off as if was far too bright and touch off the bottom.

Yours truly,

Kan Win

[yumidesign]

I took the top part off as if was far too bright and touch off the bottom.

Yours truly,

Kan Win

your crop is too tight. its the juxtaposition of the children in the background that is an important element in this picture, the bright part of the background leads your eye to include this and croping the foreground does nothing about the nasty log

[canuckamuck]

Nice shot: the crop is fine, the colors needed a bump, and I got rid of that pesky log.

juxtaposition, lol! Classic art school speak.

[yumidesign]

Nice shot: the crop is fine, the colors needed a bump, and I got rid of that pesky log.

juxtaposition, lol! Classic art school speak.

Thanks very much. Nice job.

So you would call your work 'photography' or would it be..........

computer graphics

plural noun

another term for graphics [treated as pl. ] visual images produced by computer processing.

• [treated as sing. ] the use of computers linked to display screens to generate and manipulate visual images.

p.s. never went to art school.

Self taught!

Did teach photography at various schools though, one founded by myself

[canuckamuck]

Nice shot: the crop is fine, the colors needed a bump, and I got rid of that pesky log.

juxtaposition, lol! Classic art school speak.

Thanks very much. Nice job.

So you would call your work 'photography' or would it be..........

computer graphics

plural noun

another term for graphics [treated as pl. ] visual images produced by computer processing.

• [treated as sing. ] the use of computers linked to display screens to generate and manipulate visual images.

p.s. never went to art school.

Self taught!

Did teach photography at various schools though, one founded by myself

That is a really great question. I know there are many camps and the photography purists have some strong opinions about what is photography, and indeed the bigger question about what is art? I think my answer has to be that I personally do not feel the necessity to follow convention or terminology or a certain set of rules which apply to others, say journalists or historians. My goal is to make the image I see in my head. For example your village kid likely did have a foot, and that log was movable. So in a perfect world you would have shifted your angle or moved the log to get a better shot. But then you would have lost the moment. Well that is the way it was, but now you can Photoshop it, so why not. There is no cheating in art, only results. Unless you are being paid by a news agency or have some ethical obligation to shoot only straight images. Even then, journalists use a variety of skills and techniques to achieve a statement with their images.

When camera's began to have roll film and motor drives were invented. Nobody said they were cheating to take 20 shots of the same thing to get one good one. Photography itself has always been a technological process, in fact it has struggled to gain respect from the traditional art community, because it is largely a natural event captured through some device, not a work created by an artists hand. Today the evolution of photography is continuing and now the chemical process has become quaint and maybe even trivial, a page from history. Digital is now the standard. So at what point does it cease to be a photograph?

The funny thing is, that I believe that photography is closer now to an art form than it ever has been. More and more the image is about the photographers control over the medium and his ability to handcraft an image that previously existed in his imagination.

My belief is that part of photography has begun to shift towards a full artistic discipline.

I said all of that to say this. I am a photographer and my images are photographs. My photography gear includes my computer, and I will use it to make the best images I can, even if the final image loses all resemblance to the original capture. If you want to call that computer graphics, that is fine, but then what do I call the stuff I create in Illustrator or in Flash? I think it is better to call them digital images or if you must, manipulated digital images. But I will call them photographs.

[yumidesign]

Nice shot: the crop is fine, the colors needed a bump, and I got rid of that pesky log.

juxtaposition, lol! Classic art school speak.

Thanks very much. Nice job.

So you would call your work 'photography' or would it be..........

computer graphics

plural noun

another term for graphics [treated as pl. ] visual images produced by computer processing.

• [treated as sing. ] the use of computers linked to display screens to generate and manipulate visual images.

p.s. never went to art school.

Self taught!

Did teach photography at various schools though, one founded by myself

That is a really great question. I know there are many camps and the photography purists have some strong opinions about what is photography, and indeed the bigger question about what is art? I think my answer has to be that I personally do not feel the necessity to follow convention or terminology or a certain set of rules which apply to others, say journalists or historians. My goal is to make the image I see in my head. For example your village kid likely did have a foot, and that log was movable. So in a perfect world you would have shifted your angle or moved the log to get a better shot. But then you would have lost the moment. Well that is the way it was, but now you can Photoshop it, so why not. There is no cheating in art, only results. Unless you are being paid by a news agency or have some ethical obligation to shoot only straight images. Even then, journalists use a variety of skills and techniques to achieve a statement with their images.

When camera's began to have roll film and motor drives were invented. Nobody said they were cheating to take 20 shots of the same thing to get one good one. Photography itself has always been a technological process, in fact it has struggled to gain respect from the traditional art community, because it is largely a natural event captured through some device, not a work created by an artists hand. Today the evolution of photography is continuing and now the chemical process has become quaint and maybe even trivial, a page from history. Digital is now the standard. So at what point does it cease to be a photograph?

The funny thing is, that I believe that photography is closer now to an art form than it ever has been. More and more the image is about the photographers control over the medium and his ability to handcraft an image that previously existed in his imagination.

My belief is that part of photography has begun to shift towards a full artistic discipline.

I said all of that to say this. I am a photographer and my images are photographs. My photography gear includes my computer, and I will use it to make the best images I can, even if the final image loses all resemblance to the original capture. If you want to call that computer graphics, that is fine, but then what do I call the stuff I create in Illustrator or in Flash? I think it is better to call them digital images or if you must, manipulated digital images. But I will call them photographs.

thats quite a thought provoking 'thesis'....... i'll have a think about it and get back to you

Edited April 24, 2009 by yumidesign

[yumidesign]

thats quite a thought provoking 'thesis'....... i'll have a think about it and get back to you

I take issue with a few of your ideas, it is obvious that you have an excellent handle on the subject and that you are very articulate, if, in my mind a little confused

But please……. how can you include in your photographic gear a computer. Please think again. A camera is a camera and a computer is a computer. This is a really simple premise. Yes a camera these days is a computer but it is still called a camera

Be aware, if you do not use language that has meaning to effectively communicate using words that describe what is universally understood we can only reach misunderstanding and conflict and we will suffer because of it.

You say that digital (what ever that means) is standard. This is simply not true. I do not look through my view finder and think how the image could be digitized or manipulated to achieve some end result. I may adjust some elements on the computer later, but they are generally physical adjustments of my idea of the original image and not part of the process of creating the original image. Those who use computer graphics imput an image and work on it using computer programes to create artworks, by definition this is called computer graphics

Photography has always been an art form, misunderstood by some.

Da Vinci knew that it was about creating an image, the art of creativity

[The Vulcan]

So you would decry Ansel Adams pre-visualising an image and exposing (via the Zone system) with this pre-visualisation in mind. He would make numerous bracketted exposures with an eventually target. He would then develop his negative accordingly and subsequently spend MANY hours fusing various exposures, dodging, holding and burning in to create what the photographic world regards as the definitive photographic works of art. Now, before you contest this, I spent 3 months in 1978 on one of his courses.

Was not Adams actions with enlarger, developer and manipulation his "computer" - what's the difference? One is a darkroom, the other is a lightroom.

Photography is about "that moment in time", capturing it and recording it.

What ever "instruments" you use to acheive this - IT'S STILL PHOTOGRAPHY.

Edited May 4, 2009 by The Vulcan

[yumidesign]

So you would decry Ansel Adams pre-visualising an image and exposing (via the Zone system) with this pre-visualisation in mind. He would make numerous bracketted exposures with an eventually target. He would then develop his negative accordingly and subsequently spend MANY hours fusing various exposures, dodging, holding and burning in to create what the photographic world regards as the definitive photographic works of art. Now, before you contest this, I spent 3 months in 1978 on one of his courses.

Was not Adams actions with enlarger, developer and manipulation his "computer" - what's the difference? One is a darkroom, the other is a lightroom.

Photography is about "that moment in time", capturing it and recording it.

What ever "instruments" you use to acheive this - IT'S STILL PHOTOGRAPHY.

a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose! is a rose

[canuckamuck]

If it was a simple as a rose you might have a case. Photography, like love, is a many splendored thing I understand you are trying to make a hard definition of photography. Good luck with that.

My computer is my new darkroom, when I bought my first enlarger I considered it photography equipment, so why not my PC. It does the same work, it just does it wayyyy better.

When I said digital is now standard, I meant it is THE standard medium used today. as film is now used by very few people. If you shoot digital you have to be aware of how the many processes affect the shot. Especially the computer and CCD (chip) in your camera If you just look and snap then you are limiting your potential. it was the same in the film age, maybe even more so.

Davinci died a couple hundred years before the first photograph by the way.

[lifeincnx]

So you would decry Ansel Adams pre-visualising an image and exposing (via the Zone system) with this pre-visualisation in mind. He would make numerous bracketted exposures with an eventually target. He would then develop his negative accordingly and subsequently spend MANY hours fusing various exposures, dodging, holding and burning in to create what the photographic world regards as the definitive photographic works of art. Now, before you contest this, I spent 3 months in 1978 on one of his courses.

Was not Adams actions with enlarger, developer and manipulation his "computer" - what's the difference? One is a darkroom, the other is a lightroom.

Photography is about "that moment in time", capturing it and recording it.

What ever "instruments" you use to acheive this - IT'S STILL PHOTOGRAPHY.

a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose! is a rose

Actually good Will said, "a rose by any other name is just as sweet." If you capture your images using a digital computer, Yumi my friend you have already introduced a computer into the creative process. After all, it is chip (image processor) based. So, instead of dealing with the world of film grain your creative feet are now firmly planted on RGB pixel soil.

The question should not be film versus digital capture, or camera versus computer scenerio. It should not be a be a question of what tools are used but what positive outcome was achieved by the photograper and his/her toolchest. Back in "the day" I masked images using a plastic Rubylith overlay and an Xacto knife - a tedious pain but with great results. Then along came Xerox Ventura Publisher, then Adobe Pagemaker, then Quark Express, and now Adobe InDesign. I have not cut a ruby since and sure don't plan to, though I still enjoy mixed media. When Photoshop introduced age old graphics techniques of layers and air brushing to it's toolbox arsenel, the world of graphics arts, digital or otherwise, was forever changed. If one can make the techo jump they will always be better for it as they have a much firmer grasp of the initial concept from doing it by hand (such as masking, manual exposure setting, etc.).

So make the creative leap my friend or the world will pass you by, one pixel at a time.

[yumidesign]

So you would decry Ansel Adams pre-visualising an image and exposing (via the Zone system) with this pre-visualisation in mind. He would make numerous bracketted exposures with an eventually target. He would then develop his negative accordingly and subsequently spend MANY hours fusing various exposures, dodging, holding and burning in to create what the photographic world regards as the definitive photographic works of art. Now, before you contest this, I spent 3 months in 1978 on one of his courses.

Was not Adams actions with enlarger, developer and manipulation his "computer" - what's the difference? One is a darkroom, the other is a lightroom.

Photography is about "that moment in time", capturing it and recording it.

What ever "instruments" you use to acheive this - IT'S STILL PHOTOGRAPHY.

a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose! is a rose

Actually good Will said, "a rose by any other name is just as sweet." If you capture your images using a digital computer, Yumi my friend you have already introduced a computer into the creative process. After all, it is chip (image processor) based. So, instead of dealing with the world of film grain your creative feet are now firmly planted on RGB pixel soil.

The question should not be film versus digital capture, or camera versus computer scenerio. It should not be a be a question of what tools are used but what positive outcome was achieved by the photograper and his/her toolchest. Back in "the day" I masked images using a plastic Rubylith overlay and an Xacto knife - a tedious pain but with great results. Then along came Xerox Ventura Publisher, then Adobe Pagemaker, then Quark Express, and now Adobe InDesign. I have not cut a ruby since and sure don't plan to, though I still enjoy mixed media. When Photoshop introduced age old graphics techniques of layers and air brushing to it's toolbox arsenel, the world of graphics arts, digital or otherwise, was forever changed. If one can make the techo jump they will always be better for it as they have a much firmer grasp of the initial concept from doing it by hand (such as masking, manual exposure setting, etc.).

So make the creative leap my friend or the world will pass you by, one pixel at a time.

from your lofty position you are assuming an awful lot….having worked with Quark and Photoshop for more than 20 years and worked as a teacher of photography including the subject of digital photography I do have some idea as to the potential of computer graphic programmes and the life of pixels. What I was discussing is what things are called. An aircraft is called that although it flies using a computer. A digital camera is called a camera although it is run by computer technology. And when images are downloaded to a computer you can use computer graphics to alter that imputed information to create another form.

With all your knowledge expressed here you could re write the Oxford dictionary

ps

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519 AD) described camera obscura in Codex Atlanticus. Johann Zahn's Oculus Artificialis Teledioptricus Sive Telescopium was published in 1685. This work contains many descriptions and diagrams, illustrations and sketches of both the camera obscura and of the magic lantern. source: wikipedia

[canuckamuck]

ps

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519 AD) described camera obscura in Codex Atlanticus. Johann Zahn's Oculus Artificialis Teledioptricus Sive Telescopium was published in 1685. This work contains many descriptions and diagrams, illustrations and sketches of both the camera obscura and of the magic lantern. source: wikipedia

I think you have your camera obscura mixed up with chiaroscuro.

The first photograph belongs to the 1800's, not the renaissance.

If images sketched by hand, using a camera obscura for a tracing pattern constitutes photography in your book, how can you possibly dismiss actual photos altered in a computer environment as being photography?

[lifeincnx]

ps

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519 AD) described camera obscura in Codex Atlanticus. Johann Zahn's Oculus Artificialis Teledioptricus Sive Telescopium was published in 1685. This work contains many descriptions and diagrams, illustrations and sketches of both the camera obscura and of the magic lantern. source: wikipedia

I think you have your camera obscura mixed up with chiaroscuro.

The first photograph belongs to the 1800's, not the renaissance.

If images sketched by hand, using a camera obscura for a tracing pattern constitutes photography in your book, how can you possibly dismiss actual photos altered in a computer environment as being photography?

check mate

[yumidesign]

So you would decry Ansel Adams pre-visualising an image and exposing (via the Zone system) with this pre-visualisation in mind. He would make numerous bracketted exposures with an eventually target. He would then develop his negative accordingly and subsequently spend MANY hours fusing various exposures, dodging, holding and burning in to create what the photographic world regards as the definitive photographic works of art. Now, before you contest this, I spent 3 months in 1978 on one of his courses.

Was not Adams actions with enlarger, developer and manipulation his "computer" - what's the difference? One is a darkroom, the other is a lightroom.

Photography is about "that moment in time", capturing it and recording it.

What ever "instruments" you use to acheive this - IT'S STILL PHOTOGRAPHY.

you are telling us that khun adams worke up one morning and had a vision of the end result of a photograph of mountains with all the darkroom work that you have detailed……… i don’t think so, i suggest it was more like this……

there was no divine intervention.

with knowledge, imagination, opportunity and luck he worked and experimented with ideas involving darkroom techniques on existing images which then enabled him to visualize the final result when looking at a scene, using these techniques.

[yumidesign]

ps

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519 AD) described camera obscura in Codex Atlanticus. Johann Zahn's Oculus Artificialis Teledioptricus Sive Telescopium was published in 1685. This work contains many descriptions and diagrams, illustrations and sketches of both the camera obscura and of the magic lantern. source: wikipedia

I think you have your camera obscura mixed up with chiaroscuro.

The first photograph belongs to the 1800's, not the renaissance.

If images sketched by hand, using a camera obscura for a tracing pattern constitutes photography in your book, how can you possibly dismiss actual photos altered in a computer environment as being photography?

more mumbojumbo.

my reference to Da Vinci to what was and is still called a camera. Mediums aside it did not and still does not produce computer graphics.

simply put, In photography, chiaroscuro, is just using low ambient light which the following examples show. source: twitter

this one shot by candlelight

[canuckamuck]

ps

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519 AD) described camera obscura in Codex Atlanticus. Johann Zahn's Oculus Artificialis Teledioptricus Sive Telescopium was published in 1685. This work contains many descriptions and diagrams, illustrations and sketches of both the camera obscura and of the magic lantern. source: wikipedia

I think you have your camera obscura mixed up with chiaroscuro.

The first photograph belongs to the 1800's, not the renaissance.

If images sketched by hand, using a camera obscura for a tracing pattern constitutes photography in your book, how can you possibly dismiss actual photos altered in a computer environment as being photography?

more mumbojumbo.

my reference to Da Vinci to what was and is still called a camera. Mediums aside it did not and still does not produce computer graphics.

simply put, In photography, chiaroscuro, is just using low ambient light which the following examples show. source: twitter

this one shot by candlelight

No the camera obscura did not produce computer graphics, it didn't produce anything at all. It was simply a sketching aid which helped an artist render a scene more precisely. Which by your highly selective standards is somehow photography, but adjusting an image in Photoshop is making graphics I guess. You need to work on your definitions, because what do I call the decals on my bike or all the illustrations on the internet. I guess their not graphics because graphics come out of cameras now. The word camera and the word photography are not specifically linked by the way. Having an in camera town council meeting has nothing to do with photos. Camera is another word for chamber

[yumidesign]

ps

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519 AD) described camera obscura in Codex Atlanticus. Johann Zahn's Oculus Artificialis Teledioptricus Sive Telescopium was published in 1685. This work contains many descriptions and diagrams, illustrations and sketches of both the camera obscura and of the magic lantern. source: wikipedia

I think you have your camera obscura mixed up with chiaroscuro.

The first photograph belongs to the 1800's, not the renaissance.

If images sketched by hand, using a camera obscura for a tracing pattern constitutes photography in your book, how can you possibly dismiss actual photos altered in a computer environment as being photography?

more mumbojumbo.

my reference to Da Vinci to what was and is still called a camera. Mediums aside it did not and still does not produce computer graphics.

simply put, In photography, chiaroscuro, is just using low ambient light which the following examples show. source: twitter

this one shot by candlelight

No the camera obscura did not produce computer graphics, it didn't produce anything at all. It was simply a sketching aid which helped an artist render a scene more precisely. Which by your highly selective standards is somehow photography, but adjusting an image in Photoshop is making graphics I guess. You need to work on your definitions, because what do I call the decals on my bike or all the illustrations on the internet. I guess their not graphics because graphics come out of cameras now. The word camera and the word photography are not specifically linked by the way. Having an in camera town council meeting has nothing to do with photos. Camera is another word for chamber

gobbledygook