Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > DIGITAL is not ART !

Reply
Thread Tools

DIGITAL is not ART !

 
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:


> If I look at a scene with both eyes, then close one, the scene
>has a slightly reddish cast. If I close the other eye instead, the
>scene has a slightly bluish cast. I'd hesitate to assert that either
>of your eyes would give an image identical to either of mine, were
>there a way to make that comparison.


> My optometrist tells me this is quite common.


I have the same thing.

Also, my left eye is "crooked". I've noticed that the frame in the
viewfinder of my cameras looks level to me when it is actually rotated
counter-clockwise by about 8 degrees. I have taken *many* crooked
photos because of this. I have to conciously make the frame look 8
degrees clockwise for the image to be level, if I don't have anything in
the image to use as a reference. When I take a shot in a hurry, it is
usually rotated.

If my right eye does not do the same thing, then maybe my brain is
working overtime processing my vision.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2004
(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:09:15 GMT, "Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>That's not lying, though. The camera makes a two-dimensional
>>representation of a three-dimensional world, and it does this
>>reasonably accurately. There are all sorts of differences between the
>>way your eye sees things and the way a camera sees things. For one,
>>the film or sensor of a camera is a flat plane; the retina of your eye
>>is essentially a hemisphere, and there is just no way of PERFECTLY
>>making a representation of a spherical image on a flat plane. Why do
>>you say the camera lies? You might say with equal justification that
>>it's your eye that lies.

>
>


I can't find the original message on my server, but I think it was in
response to me, so I will reply to it from here.

Of course the eyes lie. All of the senses do. But that isn't a response
to my charge about the camera (i.e. two wrongs do not make a right).

People who say "the camera never lies" usually say so because they have a
photo that seems to imply a certain fact that never existed.

Like a photo I took in college that seemed to show a security officer
striking a student. He didn't really, but it sure looked like it in the
paper. Or telephoto images that seem to make two objects appear in close
proximity when they are not. Or a myriad of other circumstances.

Camera lenses distort geomety. Camera sensors (film, ccd, whatever)
distort not only color, but also luminance. Cameras distort spatial
relationships. Have I left anything out? Oh yes, cameras distort time
too.

Time, geometry, space, color, brightness. Not much else they can distort.
The new digicams distort sound too, but that's a whole other issue!!

It's up to the photographer to decide what aspects of reality he want's
to record (within the limits of the gear), and how he want's them to be
portrayed on the print.

No one expresses it better than Ansel Adams, who discusses the inner
vision, of deciding what the image shall portray and deciding what steps
need to be taken in order to end up where the minds eye wanted to go.
There's not much in his written work devoted to "capturing reality" or
being "true to the scene". It's all about how to maniuplate the various
media to acheive the desired image. The camera always lies.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Colin D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2004
Prometheus wrote:
>
> In article <eeWad.14533$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
> Nostrobino <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> >
> >"Skip M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:QqUad.26110$hj.4702@fed1read07...

> -Cut----------
> >> No more than the brush made a painting.

> >
> >No brush ever made a painting. A brush is a tool absolutely useless without
> >the skill and intent of the artist holding it. A camera on the other hand
> >you can give to a monkey and it will take pictures.

>
> The monkey will not apply the rules of composition, a person can.
> --
> Ian G8ILZ


An abstract painting which won an art award was in fact 'painted' by a
chimp - and the gallery hung it upside down to boot. What price the
'art conosseurs' (sp?) that perpetrated that?

Most paintings are just that - paint on a substrate. But now and then,
a painting will cause a reaction in the eye of the viewer that
transcends and envelopes the viewer in an experience beyond and greater
than the mere paint-on-substrate. A photograph can do exactly the same,
if it is good enough. In each case the image speaks independently of
the material medium, and when that happens, you have *art*.

Colin
 
Reply With Quote
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2004
"Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:7O9bd.14606$(E-Mail Removed) m:

>>
>> Thats why, historicaly, there have been so many "starving artists".
>> They did
>> what pleased them, not what pleased others.

>
> There have NOT, "historicaly [sic] . . . been so many 'starving
> artists'." Most good artists have in fact made a very nice living, and
> some have become moderately wealthy. It is true that there have been
> large numbers of people
>


Whoh.

There are many, many, many, many artists (literary and musical,
particularly) whose works are considers "classics" and foundations of
modern culture and art, who made little, if any money in their lifetimes.

Bach comes to mind. His works were so "valuable" his heirs used his
manuscripts to wrap fish with.

Frank Lloyd Wright never made any real money, except on one commission.

There are some wealthy artists. The only person who I ever heard of who
became an artist because it was a good way to make money was Chuck Berry.
I have, however, met countless people who say "I would love to do X (some
art) but there's no money in it.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2004
"Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:eeWad.14533$(E-Mail Removed). com:

>> I composed it, made sure the lighting was appropriate, exposed it
>> properly, decided to shoot in color or black and white, worked the
>> print in the darkroom, cropped it, any number of things.

>
> So you're a technician. A technician is not an artist. (In no way does
> this denigrate the work of the technician, which can be very valuable
> in photography as in other fields.)
>
>


There are *almost* no artists who are not technicians.

It is true that technique alone is not sufficient for art, but it is also
true that it is nearly impossbile to create art without technique.

Rare virtuoso untrained talent excepted, of course.



Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
Prometheus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Colin D
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Prometheus wrote:
>>
>> In article <eeWad.14533$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
>> Nostrobino <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> >
>> >"Skip M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >news:QqUad.26110$hj.4702@fed1read07...

>> -Cut----------
>> >> No more than the brush made a painting.
>> >
>> >No brush ever made a painting. A brush is a tool absolutely useless without
>> >the skill and intent of the artist holding it. A camera on the other hand
>> >you can give to a monkey and it will take pictures.

>>
>> The monkey will not apply the rules of composition, a person can.

>
>An abstract painting which won an art award was in fact 'painted' by a
>chimp - and the gallery hung it upside down to boot. What price the
>'art conosseurs' (sp?) that perpetrated that?


I think I asked if art can be 'accidental'.

>Most paintings are just that - paint on a substrate. But now and then,
>a painting will cause a reaction in the eye of the viewer that
>transcends and envelopes the viewer in an experience beyond and greater
>than the mere paint-on-substrate. A photograph can do exactly the same,
>if it is good enough. In each case the image speaks independently of
>the material medium, and when that happens, you have *art*.


Now that is the best definition yet; how many viewers must you ask?
--
Ian G8ILZ
 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Self
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2004
Colin D responds:

>An abstract painting which won an art award was in fact 'painted' by a
>chimp - and the gallery hung it upside down to boot.


I seem to recall that. But are we sure the chimp didn't paint it upside down?

Charlie Self
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them." George Orwell
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nostrobino
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2004

"bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9581D69622C59bobatcarolnet@207.69.189.191. ..
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:09:15 GMT, "Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>That's not lying, though. The camera makes a two-dimensional
>>>representation of a three-dimensional world, and it does this
>>>reasonably accurately. There are all sorts of differences between the
>>>way your eye sees things and the way a camera sees things. For one,
>>>the film or sensor of a camera is a flat plane; the retina of your eye
>>>is essentially a hemisphere, and there is just no way of PERFECTLY
>>>making a representation of a spherical image on a flat plane. Why do
>>>you say the camera lies? You might say with equal justification that
>>>it's your eye that lies.

>>
>>

>
> I can't find the original message on my server, but I think it was in
> response to me, so I will reply to it from here.
>
> Of course the eyes lie. All of the senses do.


I have no idea what your basis is for saying that. Your eyes register images
according to what's in front of them. Those images are not exactly the same
as OTHER imaging devices it's true, but where is the "lie"?


> But that isn't a response
> to my charge about the camera (i.e. two wrongs do not make a right).


I don't see any "wrongs" there in either case. Flies' eyes do not see the
same as ours either, but that certainly doesn't mean that one or the other
(or both) are "lying."


>
> People who say "the camera never lies" usually say so because they have a
> photo that seems to imply a certain fact that never existed.
>
> Like a photo I took in college that seemed to show a security officer
> striking a student. He didn't really, but it sure looked like it in the
> paper. Or telephoto images that seem to make two objects appear in close
> proximity when they are not.


Sure, telephoto lenses appear to cause spatial compression, and wide-angle
lenses appear to cause spatial expansion. In neither case does "lying"
occur. Your eye-brain system makes an error about relative distance because
of the way the image presents objects. But nothing in that image is a "lie."
The image does not SAY the objects are any closer together than they really
are. If you know it's a telephoto shot you expect and can properly evaluate
the spatial compression. A normal lens shot looks correct to us because
object sizes and angles appear as we expect them to appear--not because the
lens is more truthful than a much longer or shorter one.

Even the slightly convex rear-view mirrors that warn "objects are closer
than they appear" do not actually lie. They present a slightly wider field
of view than the eye's (and therefore more than the brain expects) over that
included angle, nothing more.


> Or a myriad of other circumstances.
>
> Camera lenses distort geomety. Camera sensors (film, ccd, whatever)
> distort not only color, but also luminance.


Those are not "distortions" except from your (or the average human's)
perspective. Where does it say that the human perspective must be the only
correct one? A fly does not see things the same way you do; neither does a
spider. Neither do animals, which generally have much better night vision
but poorer resolution than humans (both differences because of the
reflective layer behind the retina which makes light pass through it twice.
How about owls and various small nocturnal mammals that have extraordinary
night vision? Are all those examples "distortions" of luminance?


>Cameras distort spatial
> relationships. Have I left anything out? Oh yes, cameras distort time
> too.


As already noted, they do not "distort spatial relationships" and they don't
"distort time" either. That the camera can see things differently than you
do only shows that there are different ways of seeing things. You have to be
incredibly arrogant to believe that only humans see things in the proper
way.

N.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nostrobino
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2004

"bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9581EED9C9143bobatcarolnet@207.69.189.191. ..
> "Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:7O9bd.14606$(E-Mail Removed) m:
>
>>>
>>> Thats why, historicaly, there have been so many "starving artists".
>>> They did
>>> what pleased them, not what pleased others.

>>
>> There have NOT, "historicaly [sic] . . . been so many 'starving
>> artists'." Most good artists have in fact made a very nice living, and
>> some have become moderately wealthy. It is true that there have been
>> large numbers of people
>>

>
> Whoh.
>
> There are many, many, many, many artists (literary and musical,


No, I don't think so. There may have been "many" and perhaps even "many,
many"--but certainly not "many, many, many, many."

Just kidding. Actually I don't even think there were "many," if we are
counting only really good artists. If you are counting all the would-be
artists who never had what it takes but regarded this as simply not being
properly appreciated, then you can probably string all those "manys" out for
some distance, yes.


> particularly) whose works are considers "classics" and foundations of
> modern culture and art, who made little, if any money in their lifetimes.
>
> Bach comes to mind. His works were so "valuable" his heirs used his
> manuscripts to wrap fish with.


<shrug>
Van Gogh's innkeeper accepted one of his paintings as part payment and then
used it to patch a leak in the roof. I didn't say there weren't ANY, I said
there were not so many.


>
> Frank Lloyd Wright never made any real money, except on one commission.


Was "[making] real money" an important goal of his? Or did he work for the
sake of his work?


>
> There are some wealthy artists. The only person who I ever heard of who
> became an artist because it was a good way to make money was Chuck Berry.
> I have, however, met countless people who say "I would love to do X (some
> art) but there's no money in it.


There you are, then. Some people need the promise of substantial money as an
incentive to work, others find incentive enough in the work itself. Either
way is okay. One famous writer (but I forget who) said, "There's no good
reason to write except for money." On the other hand, those people you met
who "would love to do X . . . but there's no money in it" probably were
perfectly correct in terms of their own expectations. Art is extremely
competitive as far as recognition and commercial success is concerned, and
people who are not highly motivated but require the promise of financial
reward are well advised to forget it--they should probably go get a
government job or something.

N.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Murphy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-15-2004
"Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> "bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns9581D69622C59bobatcarolnet@207.69.189.191. ..
> > Of course the eyes lie. All of the senses do.

>
> I have no idea what your basis is for saying that. Your eyes register images
> according to what's in front of them. Those images are not exactly the same
> as OTHER imaging devices it's true, but where is the "lie"?


Noone is precisely sure how vision works, but we *are* sure that it is
quite far from a naive 'image of what is in front of them'.

> I don't see any "wrongs" there in either case. Flies' eyes do not see the
> same as ours either, but that certainly doesn't mean that one or the other
> (or both) are "lying."


No, but there is a huge amount of subjectivity in both. I imagine that
the various optical illusions where our eyes /do/ lie would be
ineffective on flies and vice versa.

> Sure, telephoto lenses appear to cause spatial compression, and wide-angle
> lenses appear to cause spatial expansion. In neither case does "lying"
> occur. Your eye-brain system makes an error about relative distance because
> of the way the image presents objects. But nothing in that image is a "lie."
> The image does not SAY the objects are any closer together than they really
> are. If you know it's a telephoto shot you expect and can properly evaluate
> the spatial compression. A normal lens shot looks correct to us because
> object sizes and angles appear as we expect them to appear--not because the
> lens is more truthful than a much longer or shorter one.


aha, so since images can't /say/ anything, they can't be a lie either.
What an interesting handwave. WIth this little distinction you make,
this conversation is now over.

> As already noted, they do not "distort spatial relationships" and they don't
> "distort time" either. That the camera can see things differently than you
> do only shows that there are different ways of seeing things. You have to be
> incredibly arrogant to believe that only humans see things in the proper
> way.


"proper way". If a human sees something, and the sees a photographic
representation of it *which is different*, then there's nothing wrong
with saying the photographic representation has distorted the vision
of that thing.

To handwave human vision as 'just one of lots of ways of seeing
things' and ignore it is incredibly stupid.

B>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Call for Digital Art and Photography from L.A. Center for Digital Art Rex Bruce Digital Photography 0 02-22-2008 06:44 PM
Call for Digital Art and Photograhpy from L.A. Center for Digital Art rexbruce@gmail.com Digital Photography 0 02-22-2008 06:02 PM
compuer nail printer nail art painting Nail Art Printer Computer Salon Digital Paint MUST HAVE arcade Computer Information 1 11-30-2006 04:11 PM
compuer nail printer nail art painting Nail Art Printer Computer Salon Digital Paint MUST HAVE arcade Computer Information 0 11-30-2006 02:40 PM
boutique and fine art royalty free images - free fine art image offer Andrew Mowat Digital Photography 0 09-14-2004 05:35 AM



Advertisments