«

Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective in
the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
overdone.

On 8/10/2012 3:02 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
>> Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
>> using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective in
>> the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
>> overdone.
>
> So don't do it.
>
>
You beat me to it.

--

PeterN

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
<> wrote:
: On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
: > Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
: > using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
: > in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
: > overdone.
:
: So don't do it.

Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.

Bob

RichA <> wrote:
>Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
>using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective in
>the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
>overdone.


Agree 100%. Like all overdone cliches and gimmicks such as spot
colour, inappropriately shallow depth of field, the "rule of thirds"
and badly done HDR, it should go out of fashion after a time. But
sadly, for some people it won't.

Bruce wrote:

> RichA <> wrote:
> > Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
> > using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
> > in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
> > overdone.
>
>
> Agree 100%. Like all overdone cliches and gimmicks such as spot
> colour, inappropriately shallow depth of field, the "rule of thirds"
> and badly done HDR, it should go out of fashion after a time. But
> sadly, for some people it won't.

Welcome to the world of digital where, not only can the photographer
attempt to pull off an effect time and time again, without any
additional financial cost, but they have a miriad of software to help.
These cliches and gimmicks have always exsisted. However, in this day
and age of "throw-away photography" these cliches and gimmicks are
reproduced in such huge amounts everything is out of fashion before
anybody notices in was ever in fashion.
One area digital photgraphers have it harder than photographers of
yesteryear.... trying to find new "fashions" nobody has yet attempted.
It is an almost impossible task.

MC

On 11/08/2012 10:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <> wrote:
>> : On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
>> : > Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
>> : > using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
>> : > in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
>> : > overdone.
>> :
>> : So don't do it.
>>
>> Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.
>
> Of course he's not right.
>
> Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to
> do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they
> don't, that's fine too.
>
> Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of
> fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich.
>

Horses for courses. Its an individual thing and calling the shot to
express what the photographer sees.

I like to see dynamics in water, always have. That white fluffy stuff
has its place, its something to lift an image and separate the water
from the background but it has problems in long exposures where movement
of trees/ferns detract.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:43:43 -0400, Alan Browne
<> wrote:
: On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
: > <> wrote:
: > : On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
: > : > Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
: > : > using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
: > : > in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
: > : > overdone.
: > :
: > : So don't do it.
: >
: > Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.
:
: Of course he's not right.
:
: Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to
: do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they
: don't, that's fine too.
:
: Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of
: fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich.

Foolish or not, I'll assume whatever responsibility you care to assign me for
my opinion. I think blurry water usually looks silly, even tacky. I believe I
ridiculed it long before Rich did.

Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone
currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do
what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that
something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be
encouraged.

Bob

Robert Coe <> wrote:
>Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone
>currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do
>what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that
>something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be
>encouraged.


What, in your opinion, defines "good art"?

I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different
people at random, you would get ten very different answers.

I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or
"brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up
to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals.

Now apply that to photography; what makes an image "good art"? Is it
something that more people like (lowest common denominator) or
something that a few experts in the field really like (highest common
factor).

Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image
that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than
one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less?

It's a bit like comparing an expensive, exclusive publication aimed at
a very discerning audience to a tabloid newspaper or cheap novel that
sells millions of copies to a mass market. Which is "better art"?

I don't have answers to any of these questions but I would be very
interested to hear your and others' views.

On 8/11/2012 12:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce <> said:
>
>> Robert Coe <> wrote:
>>> Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long
>>> predates anyone
>>> currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists'
>>> right to do
>>> what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue,
>>> that
>>> something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should
>>> not be
>>> encouraged.
>>
>>
>> What, in your opinion, defines "good art"?
>
> Note; You are asking each of us our opinion of what defines "good art",
> Just in this room we have a group who are going to be hard pressed to
> reach a consensus. So I I am going to make my way through your post
> commenting along the way, to finish with my opinion of what I believe
> defines art.
>>
>> I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different
>> people at random, you would get ten very different answers.
>
> I agree. As stated above, it is going to be tough to find two who agree,
> close maybe, but even then we will be inclined to come to our individual
> interpretations of what each of the others have stated, and still not
> agree.
>
>> I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or
>> "brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up
>> to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals.
>
> That is probably true for many "artists". However, there are certainly
> those artists who do not follow that school of modesty and immersion in
> their work, but assume a role of "artistic arrogance" defying critics
> and viewers alike, who make any judgement of their work.

And also the many inbetweeners.


--
Peter

On 8/11/2012 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-08-11 09:41:17 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce <> said:
>>
>>> Robert Coe <> wrote:
>>>> Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long
>>>> predates anyone
>>>> currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists'
>>>> right to do
>>>> what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue,
>>>> that
>>>> something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should
>>>> not be
>>>> encouraged.
>>>
>>>
>>> What, in your opinion, defines "good art"?
>>
>> Note; You are asking each of us our opinion of what defines "good
>> art", Just in this room we have a group who are going to be hard
>> pressed to reach a consensus. So I I am going to make my way through
>> your post commenting along the way, to finish with my opinion of what
>> I believe defines art.
>>>
>>> I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different
>>> people at random, you would get ten very different answers.
>>
>> I agree. As stated above, it is going to be tough to find two who
>> agree, close maybe, but even then we will be inclined to come to our
>> individual interpretations of what each of the others have stated, and
>> still not agree.
>>
>>> I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or
>>> "brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up
>>> to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals.
>>
>> That is probably true for many "artists". However, there are certainly
>> those artists who do not follow that school of modesty and immersion
>> in their work, but assume a role of "artistic arrogance" defying
>> critics and viewers alike, who make any judgement of their work.
>>
>>> Now apply that to photography; what makes an image "good art"? Is it
>>> something that more people like (lowest common denominator) or
>>> something that a few experts in the field really like (highest common
>>> factor).
>>
>> With regard to photography we have a few categories to work through
>> before we get to "photographic art". First we should agree that not
>> all of the products of the camera, darkroom and computer are "art".
>> Some of that product is deliberate intentional art, some is accidental
>> art.
>>
>> Photojournalism does not start from a position of being produced as
>> art, some of that work, can, and does reach my definition of art (see
>> below), usually accidentally, sometimes deliberately.
>>
>> The deliberate documentary can also be in both the accidental and
>> deliberate art category. However, as with photojournalism, the
>> production of "art" is not the typical intent.
>>
>> The family documentary, or snapshot is usually shot without pretension
>> or intent to create art, but the shooter might unwittingly produce a
>> photograph which could be absolutely defined as 'art".
>>
>>>
>>> Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image
>>> that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than
>>> one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less?
>>
>> No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art.
>>
>>> It's a bit like comparing an expensive, exclusive publication aimed at
>>> a very discerning audience to a tabloid newspaper or cheap novel that
>>> sells millions of copies to a mass market. Which is "better art"?
>>>
>>> I don't have answers to any of these questions but I would be very
>>> interested to hear your and others' views.
>>
>> OK! Let's get my definition out of the way.
>> To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance,
>> photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes
>> the uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response,
>> be it one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter,
>> nausea, or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art".
>>
>> A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure
>> photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap
>> here, as there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two
>> categories as "art".
>>
>> A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it,
>> disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of
>> "art". That is probably just a snapshot.
>
> That doesn't quite read coherently.
>
> Let me rephrase that last remark.
> A work which leaves one indifferent, not provoking the viewer to the
> level of hatred, or the ability to express any personal emotional
> investment, is certainly not art.


Which viewer? What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it? I may not
think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.


>
>> So for those who say they hate a particular style, or process, let's
>> say HDR, or long exposure, by investing an emotion of hatred, they
>> elevate any such work to be declared "art" whether they like it or
>> not, even if the individual who produced that HDR image, or "silky"
>> waterfall had no intention of declaring it "art".
>
>


--
Peter