 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Oh yeah? What school?
Northern Illinois University. Only took 2 years worth before moving to
Florida, tho.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>
> Still, I really don't like shots /without/ any focal blur. Aside from
> giving a sense of scale, it also gives a sense of depth, and helps add
> emphasis to some elements of the image (by literally putting them in
> focus), so you lose a lot if you don't use at least some subtle focal blur.
I tend to agree (even though I almost never use it in my POV scenes--due
primarily to the length of time it takes to render! I get impatient...) Thomas
mentioned some of the great photographers/filmmakers who didn't seem to want or
need it--Cartier Bresson, Frank Capra--and their work is of course quite
beautiful. Yet my own 'favorites' are the cinematographers (mostly of the
pre-1960's) who selectively used DOF for 'zero-ing in' on the important
elements of a scene, particularly close-ups of actors. Used well, DOF can take
a very 'cluttered' scene and bring out the most important element, focusing
attention on it (the surrounding details being even detrimental to the
emotional response that was intended.) Though I admit that part of that
*artistic decision* was purely a technical one--a rather shallow depth of field
due to 'slow' camera lenses of the time; and, for example, the 3-strip
Technicolor camera, which required enormous amounts of light--oftentimes
impractical. But given those limitations, some great art was achieved
nonetheless, with a true 'style.'
Regarding the first image here, I do have to agree with some of what Thomas has
said, though: I think the image would have been more effective if the cat had
been more or less totally in-focus, with perhaps a detailed background of some
sort that could then have been thrown *out* of focus. As-is, the cat looks
like a *very* tiny figure that the photographer had trouble focusing
on--there's no obvious 'point of interest.'
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I agree, I'm not a great fan of focal blur myself, I seldom use it preferring
> fog to cover up inadequacies in an image. :)
I have a tendency to go overboard with effects like focal blur, media,
radiosity, et cetera. Typically, I have to force myself to dial it back
to where it's barely noticeable... which is often where it looks best ;)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> It's alright ;) Everything is subjective of course!
Not to me, it isn't!
;)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:4a89f1c4@news.povray.org...
>
> 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.
>
Yes indeed, and which underlines the fact that debates similar to these now
have been raging for many, many decades.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:4a89ed2c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> 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?
I mentioned to Mike and, re-examining the photograph again, I become even
more convinced that the real troublemaker is the cat itself. Your comment
here seems to confirm this. The cat's personality (as the expression of
self-awareness which cats certainly possess) draws the viewer to its eyes in
an absolutely compulsive way, which makes any other possibility of focus
impossible, with the exception maybe of the point of its nose :-)
There are cases where the personality of the subject completely subjugates
the artist's actions. I know this can happen in photography, I think this
can also happen in portrait painting.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> schreef in bericht
news:4a89fefd@news.povray.org...
> The critter in it's original texturing ...
>
>
> Now.... to customize the texture!
LOL!
I love this.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
