 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:59:08 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> Oops! Well it doesn't work for me, sorry.
>
>It's alright ;) Everything is subjective of course!
Absolutely! ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I sincerely think that honestly and freely discussing issues is a great way
> to progress. We may not agree, even fundamentally, but at least we both
> learn something I am sure.
What really makes this discussion fascinating to me is the fact that no
one knew until yesterday evening that I took this photo, so there was
quite a bit less held back.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot schrieb:
> And that is exactly what I mean in the first place! "some subtle focal blur"
> (Clipka) "very light like the haze of mountains" (Mike). Whatever technique
> used, it should be almost imperceptible to the eye, or at least not impede
> upon the overall meaning of the image, and highlight the important parts of
> it.
... unless (and I dare to say "of course") the focal blur or fog is the
protagonist of the image, so to speak.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymous org> schreef in bericht
news:4a896244@news.povray.org...
>
> ... unless (and I dare to say "of course") the focal blur or fog is the
> protagonist of the image, so to speak.
of couse "of course" :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:4a89585c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> What really makes this discussion fascinating to me is the fact that no
> one knew until yesterday evening that I took this photo, so there was
> quite a bit less held back.
Yes, interesting, isn't? No brakes, just flailing around of arms and legs
:-)
Seriously, I believe one does not have to be squeamish to give one's
critical opinion on a piece of work, but it asks for some time and effort to
do it right and correctly.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> Consider the cat. When looking at a photograph, or a painting, one wants to
> understand the intentions of the artists (not always clear, I agree). Why
> did he do this? Or why did he not do that? Here, the whole image is out of
> focus except part of a paw. What is the intention? What is the message? What
> does it tell me?
A study in comparative sentience? The plane in focus defines the closest
part of the cat to the viewer and the framing of the shot places that
plane of focus almost coincident with the picture surface. So the
picture space begins just at the limit of the cat's bodily space along
the viewing axis.
What humans sentiently perceive to be their personal, bodily space is a
very important thing to them psychologically. At a very basic level it
involves a sense of self. What about cats?
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> (Guess what my major at university was :P )
>
Oh yeah? What school?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> Of course you are right about this in principle. However, if "art" means
> that every single item of whatever production by whoever throws a dot of
> paint or pushes a button or shoots an image should be considered just that,
> art, I disagree. Art is no free meal so to speak, neither was it when it was
> merely a "skill" performed by a crafter.
>
The closest I have come to a universal tenent with Art is:
"Meaning lies with the viewer."
Sometimes tough to accept.
Othertimes no help at all.
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>
> Ah, but I was going for something different. I wanted the focus to be on
> something different. I have many pictures of my cats with their eyes in
> focus.... Rules are meant to be broken. He often sits with his front
> paws outstretched and together like that, so I thought I'd emphasize the
> paws.
Isn't it at least one back paw?
Anyway, I actually figured you were just trying out the logical and
compositional extremes, but okay, you were focusing not on the eyes. The
awareness of the eyes de-emphasized is, arguably, a big part of the picture.
I see it didn't work, and the intent is lost on people ;)
Are you sure? Thomas reacted precisely (though adversely) to the tension
of "focused paw, blurry eyes", and you did claim to want to "break
rules". You broke the rule, you got a reaction. Whaddayouexpect?
You want everyone to cheer or something? ;)
The bicycle in the
> back killed it,
I agree that more thought to the background could have improved things.
Given the subtleties involved with a famously kitchy subject, a sense
of greater intentionality and less of a random, "grab shot" feel, would
have helped distill viewer reactions.
and I don't think my focus/DOF was where I really
> intended it to be.
Oh? But you 'hung it on the wall' anyway? Don't float that crepe. If
you hung it, you meant it.
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The critter in it's original texturing ...
Now.... to customize the texture!
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '3832235292_f4d84d01ae_o.jpg' (35 KB)
Preview of image '3832235292_f4d84d01ae_o.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
