NickTrop
Veteran
A bunch of us from RFF got together on April 16, 2011...
NickTrop
Veteran
Then we took some pics of our fair city
NickTrop
Veteran
NickTrop
Veteran
By the way... not to bump my own thread these were taken with a infrared converted Nikon Coolpix L20. - Nikon's low-end consumer point-n-shooter with no manual control. All "bokeh" you see was added in Photoshop using quick-select and lens blur features with careful use of "Quick Select" (mostly) and sometimes the pen tool to make a path.
Some have said these are "over-photoshopped" but I disagree...
Discussion Points...
1. Above incorporates classic street photography techniques. Mostly I use a Flip*Bak ($15), which is just a mirror that attaches to standard-size LCDs and acts as a waist-level finder for more steath shooting and gives you an ability to shoot quickly at non-eye-level angles easily for better comps.
2. Using "all auto" camera allows me not to worry about shutter speed, aperture, focusing - etc. There are more and more studies that say we (humans) are "horrible" at mult-tasking.
Question. Do "classic cameras" require too much "multi-tasking" to get it right in the street? They require you to (sometimes) meter, set aperture and or shutter speed, and or +/- exposure compensation, and focus. Hardly a "quick" or "stealthy" way of shooting ... And, this must be done while you're composing. To me, this is "multi-tasking" are results in screwed up shots too often. Isn't it better to take advantage of technology?
3. I don't consider the above "over-photoshopped" because they all use traditional effects... Simple filters, gradiated filters, sometimes cross-processing effects, and digital infrared, and lens blur effects that /I/ control. Everything above could have been done at practically any time since photography was invented. But it wasn't done because it was too difficult/impossible to do. You rarely saw someone shoot HIE with a gradiated filter on top of an infrared filter then cross process it for slide film - stuff like that. By doing so, you stay in the accessible "comfort zone". By adding lens blur in post, I can shoot at working apertures - get the benefits from that in terms of optical sharpness and still isolate the subject and control the amount I wish to apply without being "chained" to distance and aperture setting with optical physics dictating (unpredictably) the look of the OOF.
That I can do all this with a $100 camera (yes, and software... and some skill, but not much, in its use...) I'm beginning to more and more think that I shoot these old cameras (and I went on a binge recently - but with classic point-n-shooters) because I simply enjoy using them and film (a whole lot)... but not because they offer any real practical advantage over digital...
That said, I think that if you want to learn photography you will suffer if you don't spend a whole lot of time with film to understand how the camera works before switching over...
Some have said these are "over-photoshopped" but I disagree...
Discussion Points...
1. Above incorporates classic street photography techniques. Mostly I use a Flip*Bak ($15), which is just a mirror that attaches to standard-size LCDs and acts as a waist-level finder for more steath shooting and gives you an ability to shoot quickly at non-eye-level angles easily for better comps.
2. Using "all auto" camera allows me not to worry about shutter speed, aperture, focusing - etc. There are more and more studies that say we (humans) are "horrible" at mult-tasking.
Question. Do "classic cameras" require too much "multi-tasking" to get it right in the street? They require you to (sometimes) meter, set aperture and or shutter speed, and or +/- exposure compensation, and focus. Hardly a "quick" or "stealthy" way of shooting ... And, this must be done while you're composing. To me, this is "multi-tasking" are results in screwed up shots too often. Isn't it better to take advantage of technology?
3. I don't consider the above "over-photoshopped" because they all use traditional effects... Simple filters, gradiated filters, sometimes cross-processing effects, and digital infrared, and lens blur effects that /I/ control. Everything above could have been done at practically any time since photography was invented. But it wasn't done because it was too difficult/impossible to do. You rarely saw someone shoot HIE with a gradiated filter on top of an infrared filter then cross process it for slide film - stuff like that. By doing so, you stay in the accessible "comfort zone". By adding lens blur in post, I can shoot at working apertures - get the benefits from that in terms of optical sharpness and still isolate the subject and control the amount I wish to apply without being "chained" to distance and aperture setting with optical physics dictating (unpredictably) the look of the OOF.
That I can do all this with a $100 camera (yes, and software... and some skill, but not much, in its use...) I'm beginning to more and more think that I shoot these old cameras (and I went on a binge recently - but with classic point-n-shooters) because I simply enjoy using them and film (a whole lot)... but not because they offer any real practical advantage over digital...
That said, I think that if you want to learn photography you will suffer if you don't spend a whole lot of time with film to understand how the camera works before switching over...
Last edited:
GSNfan
Well-known
I don't know if you can use words and arguments to justify pictures, but for me those images are an assault to my visual sensors.
NickTrop
Veteran
An assault? Good! Thank you. If you're not visually "assaulting" someone you're being boring and not progressing - stuck in a time warp. Whenever art moves forward it "assaults" a group of traditionalists sensibilities. Nothing is worse that "boring". I'll watch a sh-ty film that takes aesthetic risks that others write off, and admire them for it - even if its not successful... say like the "assaulting" (visually and otherwise) work of Alejandro Jodorowsky, before I'd watch some boring Oscar winner...
Last edited:
GSNfan
Well-known
There is a thin line between going against the grain and actually destroying the canvas. I don't think this is progress, if thats what you think then its all good.
NickTrop
Veteran
The canvas is not destroyed. I did not abandon constraints. Compositionally, these are normal but I rarely shoot at eye-level because that's a constraint that is imposed by the technology. Bah. All street photography done from a viewfinder imposes this horrible restriction because most who do this are within a very narrow height range and too lazy to bend. The constraints imposed are my own - traditional gradients, infrared, cross-processing effects... but traditional stuff once done optically but now done in post - because I can... and smartly applied to "assault". It took Adams a lifetime to master a few simple tools to "assault" the senses. Software is even harder to master because it's more sophisticated than a stoneage "enlarger" and/or how many seconds to agitate a Jobo tank, and ridiculous "techniques" on how you twist and turn said development tank... I've mastered composition and software over a lifetime, as is evident in every picture I post.
You are a rare person who is privy to this genius. I am a reclusive artist because I am admittedly too selfish to share my vision with an undeserving world. Resist your inclination to resist, and recognize your good fortune to have stumbled upon my work.
You are a rare person who is privy to this genius. I am a reclusive artist because I am admittedly too selfish to share my vision with an undeserving world. Resist your inclination to resist, and recognize your good fortune to have stumbled upon my work.
Last edited:
GSNfan
Well-known
Imo in your photography world there are no audience.
Me, as an audiance told you (while others didn't even care) that I did not like this style and look and my eyes felt overwhelmed by it.
Instead of actually thinking about why someone might have reacted in such a way to those pictures, you're too busy with emotional language trying to 'convince' your audience with 'words' that those photos are good and its the audience's fault that they cannot see the 'progress' in them.
You either think the audience are idiots or you have confused this photography business altogether.
Me, as an audiance told you (while others didn't even care) that I did not like this style and look and my eyes felt overwhelmed by it.
Instead of actually thinking about why someone might have reacted in such a way to those pictures, you're too busy with emotional language trying to 'convince' your audience with 'words' that those photos are good and its the audience's fault that they cannot see the 'progress' in them.
You either think the audience are idiots or you have confused this photography business altogether.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
No artist can be all things to all people, nor should they be. Some like Picasso, others can't stand him. Picasso didn't give up on cubism because he "assaulted" the ignorant at the time who did not appreciate his vision. He was confident in his own genius and forged ahead. Thank God he didn't listen to these intellectual peons (laughed at them most likely). Still others gravitate toward run-of-the-mill boring portraits like the Mona Lisa, a tourist attraction mostly because - ya know, "it's art". This is why I don't share my genius with the world. Who the hell needs them? Their value won't go up until after I die anyway. Screw'em. Again, consider yourself fortunate. And your reply is the reason why I don't share my vision with the undeserving. But you shoot a GSN. I approve of this. I like GSN shooters - so there is hope for you.
The is rangefinder "style" photography using the tools (which require years to master) from this millennium. - Not 1959.
The is rangefinder "style" photography using the tools (which require years to master) from this millennium. - Not 1959.
Last edited:
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Maybe just try to step back a bit and take the images as a creative expression of the use of a uniquely modified camera.
If you take pointillist painting dot by dot, it's crap. The same goes for much of the work of all the masters in every medium. There are naysayers and sycophants but most of us are in the middle.
What was done here was just some use of color on extended IR images made with a digital camera. It used to cost over $20/roll to shoot Kodak EIR and get false color infrared. They always looked very unnatural since we don't see at the long end of the spectrum. Even so, some very gorgeous images have been made with it. Now we have modified point and shoots as well as the M8 for doing the same thing. It's a creative tool that needs to be explored by each person in their own way. A completely different way of seeing.
I've had my M8 for over a year and have experimented with its extended IR sensitivity and I'm still coming to grips with it.
If it's the colors that bother you, perhaps stained glass does as well. Sure, the images and their implementation may be different from every other Rittenhouse Square photo you've seen but that's good for us. We should be shaken up a bit once in a while. Just because it's a photograph doesn't mean that it has to be a perfect facsimile of reality. That's impossible, so take it as a creative expression and be happy that it's not just another collection of boring photographs that we see far to many of.
Phil Forrest
If you take pointillist painting dot by dot, it's crap. The same goes for much of the work of all the masters in every medium. There are naysayers and sycophants but most of us are in the middle.
What was done here was just some use of color on extended IR images made with a digital camera. It used to cost over $20/roll to shoot Kodak EIR and get false color infrared. They always looked very unnatural since we don't see at the long end of the spectrum. Even so, some very gorgeous images have been made with it. Now we have modified point and shoots as well as the M8 for doing the same thing. It's a creative tool that needs to be explored by each person in their own way. A completely different way of seeing.
I've had my M8 for over a year and have experimented with its extended IR sensitivity and I'm still coming to grips with it.
If it's the colors that bother you, perhaps stained glass does as well. Sure, the images and their implementation may be different from every other Rittenhouse Square photo you've seen but that's good for us. We should be shaken up a bit once in a while. Just because it's a photograph doesn't mean that it has to be a perfect facsimile of reality. That's impossible, so take it as a creative expression and be happy that it's not just another collection of boring photographs that we see far to many of.
Phil Forrest
NickTrop
Veteran
Phil - you understand modern rangefinder style photography. Congrats.
GSNfan
Well-known
You're comparing yourself with Picasso? Are you really serious with this post or its some sarcastic attack on God knows who?
But as far as words are concerned, here is a tip. When someone does not like your work, you have two options, find out why and secondly, simply ignore them... You cannot argue your work into acceptance.
If you want to know what I think of art in photography check your other thread in the philosophy section.
People pay money for honest opinion on their work, and here honest opinion gets people angry even though its through a face-less, name-less medium where no one loses face... Human nature is a marvel of contradictions.
NickTrop
Veteran
GSNFan, your argument above is a false dilemma. You can attempt to educate and explain - which is what I did, in addition to other options in this circumstance. Not just "listen" or "ignore" as provided in your false dilemma. I've already stated that I don't care if my work is accepted or not. I have no interest in the opinion of the moronic masses either way, as they are not bright enough to appreciate my vision in the first place, and also undeserving of it. Likewise, I reject the use of my talent and skill to "sell (stupid) soap". And, yes, I was comparing myself to Picasso.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
People pay money for honest constructive criticism, not for "assault to my visual sensors."
The photographer here needs to be applauded for bringing out some emotion in at least one person. So you don't like it. That said, offer up your thoughts on what elements you don't like.
Right now the argument is too much like feeding kale to a six year old and hearing them say it's "icky." They don't offer up any thoughts as to why it's icky: too bitter, texture, whatever. Instead they just keep saying it's "icky."
So is the kale steamed enough? Is it too salty? Not enough salt? Needs butter?
Simply saying something is bad is not constructive and people don't pay for that.
Just because a camera was used doesn't mean that a photograph as you want to see it needs to be made.
As for comparing to Picasso, his work is an acquired taste. If you look at many of the great photographs by "the masters" they are boring. You'll say so yourself. Then you hear one was done by Cartier-Bresson or Robert Frank or Winogrand and all of a sudden it's a masterpiece. That's a load of crap too. It's sycophancy. I've seen landscapes by Ansel Adams that were incredibly dull and I said so. Then I was let on that it was an Adams photo and I said "so?" Some photos are really good, some are amazing and most are just the normal moments in everyday life, which can seem awfully boring. If an artist decides to paint all over an IR image of a city with color then so be it. It's probably more interesting than photos of grandkids or puppies taken with thousands or tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment when a disposable film camera could have been used to take just as bad of an image.
Phil Forrest
The photographer here needs to be applauded for bringing out some emotion in at least one person. So you don't like it. That said, offer up your thoughts on what elements you don't like.
Right now the argument is too much like feeding kale to a six year old and hearing them say it's "icky." They don't offer up any thoughts as to why it's icky: too bitter, texture, whatever. Instead they just keep saying it's "icky."
So is the kale steamed enough? Is it too salty? Not enough salt? Needs butter?
Simply saying something is bad is not constructive and people don't pay for that.
Just because a camera was used doesn't mean that a photograph as you want to see it needs to be made.
As for comparing to Picasso, his work is an acquired taste. If you look at many of the great photographs by "the masters" they are boring. You'll say so yourself. Then you hear one was done by Cartier-Bresson or Robert Frank or Winogrand and all of a sudden it's a masterpiece. That's a load of crap too. It's sycophancy. I've seen landscapes by Ansel Adams that were incredibly dull and I said so. Then I was let on that it was an Adams photo and I said "so?" Some photos are really good, some are amazing and most are just the normal moments in everyday life, which can seem awfully boring. If an artist decides to paint all over an IR image of a city with color then so be it. It's probably more interesting than photos of grandkids or puppies taken with thousands or tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment when a disposable film camera could have been used to take just as bad of an image.
Phil Forrest
Chinasaur
Well-known
*sits down, pops open a beer, props feet up, grabs bowl of popcorn, looks at GSNFan, looks at Nick...*
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Somehow I am reminded of Charlie Sheen. 
Sorry Nick, I'm not a fan of your new style, but you don't care, nor should you.
Sorry Nick, I'm not a fan of your new style, but you don't care, nor should you.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
- GSNFan doesn't want to play
I'm an ENTP (Jung personality profile) we like to debate for the helluvit. @FrankS - Charlie Sheen? Was I that over the top? Where are the babes? Where are the illegal substatances... Ah - too old for alla dat anyways... Sorry you're among the detractors... It's coo' you're still okay in my book. So is GSNFan.