Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

DIGITAL is not ART !

 
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-15-2004
"Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:GXDbd.9377$(E-Mail Removed) m:

>>
>> 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?
>


Frank Lloyd Wright's life seems to have revolved around spending money (on
cars, clothes, and other fine things). He spent most of his life being
"bailed out" by patrons -- people just gave him money because they liked
him.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-15-2004
"Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:buCbd.9330$(E-Mail Removed) :

>> 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"?


I guess you've never seen those experiments where they do a mock crime
and ask the "eye witnesses" what they saw, and what they heard?

[...]

>> 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

[snip bunch of stuff about focal lengths]
>
>
>> 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;


If you shoot one scene with two different cameras, and the colors are
different, and one has pincussion and one barrel, do you say that they
are both correct?


> 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?


If I take a photograph on a sunny day and it makes day appear to be
night, are you saying it is not a distortion?


>>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.


When one lens with barrel distortion makes an object appear curved it
distorts the spatial relationships. It makes objects that are in a line
appear to not be in a line. These issues have nothing to do with eyesight
at all. Not one of them.

Bob


--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nostrobino
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-15-2004

"bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9582D79EF8E66bobatcarolnet@207.69.189.191. ..
> "Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:buCbd.9330$(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>>> 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"?

>
> I guess you've never seen those experiments where they do a mock crime
> and ask the "eye witnesses" what they saw, and what they heard?


Sure, but there you are talking about perception and memory, not "lies." No
one is lied to in such experiments, are they?


>
> [...]
>
>>> 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

> [snip bunch of stuff about focal lengths]
>>
>>
>>> 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;

>
> If you shoot one scene with two different cameras, and the colors are
> different, and one has pincussion and one barrel, do you say that they
> are both correct?


They are both correct within the limitations of the respective instruments.
Similarly, if one person is very myopic and another has severe astigmatism,
they will of course not receive the same images. Such inaccuracies certainly
should not be confused with "lying." To lie is to intentionally deceive.

>
>
>> 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?

>
> If I take a photograph on a sunny day and it makes day appear to be
> night, are you saying it is not a distortion?


Depends on how you do that. I said at the outset that the camera CAN BE MADE
to lie. What you said, and what I am disputing, is "The camera always lies."


>
>
>>>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.

>
> When one lens with barrel distortion makes an object appear curved it
> distorts the spatial relationships. It makes objects that are in a line
> appear to not be in a line. These issues have nothing to do with eyesight
> at all. Not one of them.


All lenses have some degree of distortion. This cannot be helped. In most
cases, people will not even notice any distortion in a photo taken with a
lens with barrel distortion, unless of course you are speaking of a fisheye
lens which is an entirely different proposition.

You might as well be saying that any newspaper photo is a "lie" because it
contains halftone dots, which did not exist in the actual subject. Again, to
lie is to INTENTIONALLY DECEIVE. Camera lenses and photographic processes do
the best they can, within the limitations of the technology, to deliver
accurate images. It is just silly to claim that small inaccuracies which
cannot be helped, and which most people will never even notice, are "lies."

N.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nostrobino
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-15-2004

"Bruce Murphy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "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.


You were never part of it, and will not be missed.

N.


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

> "Bruce Murphy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...


> > 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.

>
> You were never part of it, and will not be missed.


So you're replying to a figment of your imagination? Maybe if you'd
bothered *reading* what I said you might have gotten something out of
it.

B>
 
Reply With Quote
 
C. Falise
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2004
i'm not one to defend the "pretty picture" people in general.
however your statement that the photographer does not create the thing,
merely records it is not true imho.
even an ethnographic documentary photographer must grapple with the layer of
interpretation that simply putting something in a frame and freezing it in
time imposes on the subject itself.
van gogh painted what he saw. he just didn't see what the rest of us see.
a great photographer shows us what he saw in his/her own way - it's never
literal or exact. what is left outside the frame of the camera (or the
reference of time itself) is as important as what is inside.
art often is simply an interpretation of a place and time filtered through
the eyes of the artist - whether it is a painter or a photographer.
-c.

"Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:wcT9d.14276$(E-Mail Removed) om...
>
> "bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns957D633DE9F80bobatcarolnet@207.69.189.191. ..
> > "Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> > news:TzR9d.8062$(E-Mail Removed) m:
> >
> >> It requires some kind of serious human effort. There doesn't have to
> >> be much if anything in the way of skill. When a kiddie in kindergarten
> >> makes a crayon drawing, it's art. The poorest art ever produced by the
> >> hand of man is still art.
> >>

> >
> > Curiously, my dictionary says that art is "the conscious use of skill

nad
> > creative imagination esp. in the production of aesthetic objects."
> >
> > I think the kindergarten kid uses 100% of the skill he has in the
> > production of his art. And in a very conscious and typically creative

way,
> > too.

>
> Exactly. The skill involved may be great or small, but art presumes that
> whatever skill and creativity exists, is used. The artist MAKES the thing,
> he doesn't merely record it. That's the important part. It's pretentious

to
> say that one has created "art" simply by taking a pretty photo, but there
> are photographers who for some reason like to believe they have done

exactly
> that.
>
> N.
>
>
>
> >
> > It's interesting that the definition that relates to aesthetic objects

in
> > fourth. The first three relate to acquired skills (The art of making
> > friends, etc.)
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > --
> > Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Nostrobino
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2004

"C. Falise" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:V15cd.6042$(E-Mail Removed)...
> i'm not one to defend the "pretty picture" people in general.
> however your statement that the photographer does not create the thing,
> merely records it is not true imho.


Note that I do not say, and have never said, that applies to all
photographs. It does apply to probably 99.9% of photos at least, but images
to which the photographer has contributed a substantial amount of PERSONAL
input are not merely records. But this means something more than choosing
subject, camera position, focal length, aperture, shutter speed and other
technical considerations that are more or less routine.


> even an ethnographic documentary photographer must grapple with the layer
> of
> interpretation that simply putting something in a frame and freezing it in
> time imposes on the subject itself.
> van gogh painted what he saw. he just didn't see what the rest of us see.


Well, I doubt that very much. While we cannot know exactly what another
person experiences, there is surely nothing in the human optical equipment
that would produce such images. I think it is plain that Van Gogh
deliberately painted abstractions of what he saw.


> a great photographer shows us what he saw in his/her own way - it's never
> literal or exact. what is left outside the frame of the camera (or the
> reference of time itself) is as important as what is inside.
> art often is simply an interpretation of a place and time filtered through
> the eyes of the artist - whether it is a painter or a photographer.


That may be true in some cases, but those things still do not make the
photograph anything other than a record. Any record also includes or
excludes according to what the person recording believes to be important,
and this may also serve to express his point of view. You can say the same
things about news reportage, which very often reflects the views of the
reporter. That doesn't make it art.

N.



> -c.
>
> "Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:wcT9d.14276$(E-Mail Removed) om...
>>
>> "bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:Xns957D633DE9F80bobatcarolnet@207.69.189.191. ..
>> > "Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> > news:TzR9d.8062$(E-Mail Removed) m:
>> >
>> >> It requires some kind of serious human effort. There doesn't have to
>> >> be much if anything in the way of skill. When a kiddie in kindergarten
>> >> makes a crayon drawing, it's art. The poorest art ever produced by the
>> >> hand of man is still art.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Curiously, my dictionary says that art is "the conscious use of skill

> nad
>> > creative imagination esp. in the production of aesthetic objects."
>> >
>> > I think the kindergarten kid uses 100% of the skill he has in the
>> > production of his art. And in a very conscious and typically creative

> way,
>> > too.

>>
>> Exactly. The skill involved may be great or small, but art presumes that
>> whatever skill and creativity exists, is used. The artist MAKES the
>> thing,
>> he doesn't merely record it. That's the important part. It's pretentious

> to
>> say that one has created "art" simply by taking a pretty photo, but there
>> are photographers who for some reason like to believe they have done

> exactly
>> that.
>>
>> N.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > It's interesting that the definition that relates to aesthetic objects

> in
>> > fourth. The first three relate to acquired skills (The art of making
>> > friends, etc.)
>> >
>> > Bob
>> >
>> > --
>> > Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
DarkRoom ForEver
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2004
The site have changed address:

http://henrystop.multiservers.com/

I found it with gooogle!

DarkRoom ForEver


 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2004
Nostrobino wrote:
> "C. Falise" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:V15cd.6042$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> i'm not one to defend the "pretty picture" people in general.
>> however your statement that the photographer does not create the
>> thing, merely records it is not true imho.

>
> Note that I do not say, and have never said, that applies to all
> photographs. It does apply to probably 99.9% of photos at least, but
> images to which the photographer has contributed a substantial amount
> of PERSONAL input are not merely records. But this means something
> more than choosing subject, camera position, focal length, aperture,
> shutter speed and other technical considerations that are more or
> less routine.
>
>> even an ethnographic documentary photographer must grapple with the
>> layer of
>> interpretation that simply putting something in a frame and freezing
>> it in time imposes on the subject itself.
>> van gogh painted what he saw. he just didn't see what the rest of
>> us see.

>
> Well, I doubt that very much. While we cannot know exactly what
> another person experiences, there is surely nothing in the human
> optical equipment that would produce such images. I think it is plain
> that Van Gogh deliberately painted abstractions of what he saw.
>
>


That may be so, but I believe there _are_influences—physical and
psychological—that determine the artist's _experience_, and that is what
he paints. It requires something in addition to physics be included in
the definition of "see", which may be difficult for some inflexible
thinkers.

Van Gogh may have been medicated with a chemical that actually changes
the color of eyeballs as well as having that effect and others on other
parts of the body. The world may have reached his "seer" filtered
through a yellow, grainy haze. So in painting what he saw, the product
did not match "ordinary" experience.

It's been demonstrated the human organism's sensory apparatus is subject
to input from internal as well as external sources. A Yogi can turn off
perception of pain, at will.

As an example of the facility of complex organisms' ability to control
sensory input to the brain (and I presume _apprehension_ based on that
input), think about the implications of a cat experiment: with a sensor
implant, impulses in the auditory nerve were recordable. When a "click"
sound was introduced into the cat's environment, for every click there
was a corresponding spike in a graph of the auditory nerve activity.

After a few minutes of this, the cat apparently "determined" the click
wasn't worth its attention, and while the click continued, the graph
showed diminishing response amplitude and eventually no spikes.

A mouse was placed where the cat could see it. Immediately, the spikes
reappeared. Attention turned on the conduit between the outer world and
the cat's brain.

I think it may be possible to make definitive statements about optical
equipment in the abstract, but in a world where that equipment operates
in connection with living organisms, it is impertinent to isolate it.
Not all the "art" in an art object is in the object. Not all the art in
an art object is placed there—nor apprehended—consciously or
purposefully.


--
Frank ess


 
Reply With Quote
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2004
"Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
newslRbd.9557$(E-Mail Removed) m:

[...]
> Depends on how you do that. I said at the outset that the camera CAN
> BE MADE to lie. What you said, and what I am disputing, is "The camera
> always lies."
>

[...]
>>
>>

> All lenses have some degree of distortion. This cannot be helped. In
> most cases, people will not even notice any distortion in a photo
> taken with a lens with barrel distortion, unless of course you are
> speaking of a fisheye lens which is an entirely different proposition.
>
> You might as well be saying that any newspaper photo is a "lie"
> because it contains halftone dots, which did not exist in the actual
> subject. Again, to lie is to INTENTIONALLY DECEIVE. Camera lenses and
> photographic processes do the best they can, within the limitations of
> the technology, to deliver accurate images. It is just silly to claim
> that small inaccuracies which cannot be helped, and which most people
> will never even notice, are "lies."
>
> N.
>
>


"to intentionally deceive," is only one usage of the word "to lie." Since
cameras are inanimate objects, they don't have intentions.

Another use of the word "to lie" is "to create a false or misleading
impression," [Webster]. Photographs almost invariably create false and
misleading impressions, especially among untrained observers, but even
trained experts argue about the content of photos.

The fact that the film may accurately record the light that falls on it
does not alter the fact that people are deceived and misled by the images
they see. It does not matter how technically or scientifically accurate the
recordings are or become, as long as people are deceived by the photos, the
camera will be a liar.

Bob



--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
 
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