Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Aug 10, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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.
     
    RichA, Aug 10, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    You beat me to it.
     
    PeterN, Aug 10, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    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
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 10, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    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, Aug 10, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    MC Guest

    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
     
    MC, Aug 11, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    Rob Guest

    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.
     
    Rob, Aug 11, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
    : > : 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, Aug 11, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    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.
     
    Bruce, Aug 11, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    And also the many inbetweeners.
     
    PeterN, Aug 11, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest


    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.
     
    PeterN, Aug 11, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Therefore, if I comment that any image is just a snapshot, it is thereby
    elevated to art?

    BTW I never said I didn't consider Jackson Pollock's work as art.
     
    PeterN, Aug 11, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    :
    : > I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.
    :
    : It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start
    : feeling and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of
    : being declared art, you have established a personal opinion,
    : intellectual response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the
    : level of a work of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it,
    : defines it as art whether you like it or not.
    : If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked
    : about the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would
    : firmly establish an indifference to it.
    :
    : Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it
    : closely, I have no doubt that it is art.
    : ...but that is my opinion.
    : Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute, Utica, NY.
    : < http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k >

    Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that piece is helped by the background
    on which they displayed it.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 11, 2012
    #12
  13. I've said it before ... but only one thing determines
    what is "art":

    The opinions of the "artist" and the "dealer" and the
    pocketbook of the buyer.

    In other words, what is art is decided by the opinion makers
    of the art world. Who determines who is an opinion maker
    of the art world is other opinion makers of the art world.
    The definition is circular.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Aug 11, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Even if its a bad HDR?
    It is definitely art. The art of deceit.
    Most is craft.
    While much of wedding work is cliche and documentary, a good event
    photographer will bring out the best in people. it may be through good
    use of lighting, the ability to catch the right expression, timing, etc.
    One of the major reasons you don't see a lot of artistic event
    photography is that most people won't pay for it. They think cousin Joe
    can do as well, because his images are almost well exposed.

    Simply using myself as a first person example.
     
    PeterN, Aug 11, 2012
    #14
  15. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    So, in your opinion, there is no difference at all between the
    'artistic value' of a $0.49 postcard and that of a $500,000 print?

    If so, why would someone pay $500,000?

    Or perhaps compare two prints of similar size, both mounted and
    framed, one costing $50 and the other $500,000. Why pay $500,000 when
    you can fill the same size blank space on your wall for $50?
     
    Bruce, Aug 11, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    Interesting, because the Duck thinks that price is irrelevant.
     
    Bruce, Aug 11, 2012
    #16
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    According to your reasoning a beginning artist does not produce art. At
    what price must the price sell to be considered art.
     
    PeterN, Aug 12, 2012
    #17
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Cue the dogs playing poker. If you really want to come off as
    intelligent, instead of parroting quotes from intelligent people (a
    common trait of those who think it makes them appear intelligent), try
    displaying some intelligence of your own.
    Overdone themes are overdone themes and there is nothing you can say
    that can validate their existence.
     
    RichA, Aug 12, 2012
    #18
  19. RichA

    RichA Guest

    A long time ago, someone who understood art suggested that people who
    can't afford good art (pretty much most people now as real art
    continues to set records at auctions as the rich move away from stocks
    and bonds) suggested prints of good art were better to decorate a home
    than mediocre paintings.
     
    RichA, Aug 12, 2012
    #19
  20. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    Simply determines what is art... TO THEM.


    TO THEM, and their own.


    So stop worrying about their little world. Enjoy your own instead.

    ... or $100M, or $1, or is given away.

    Of course it does, just as them denigrating a $10 work doesn't mean it
    isn't.

    Depends on whose "definition" you use.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Aug 13, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.