Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 78

Thread: SLM's photographic, artistic conundrum/crisis

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,738
    Well when you're taking a photo of something that a lot of people have never seen and perhaps will never have the chance to see in their lives, like the northern lights, isn't it a bit disingenuous to take photos that don't actually portray them in a realistic manner? I mean, think of all the people who have gone to great lengths to try to see something like that with the belief that they would see something that looks like all of those photos, when in reality it just doesn't, not to the naked eye.

  2. #42
    Corvette Enthusiast Kchrpm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    7,564
    Fun fact: nearly every single photo you've seen of fancy far-off space stuff is greatly spliced/tweaked, often to represent the UV light and other waves that would not be normally visible to the human eye.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5440225.html



    The new image, a false-color compilation of shots taken during the course of 841 orbits of Hubble between 2003 and 2012, contains roughly 10,000 galaxies in a vast variety of shapes and sizes.
    Get that weak shit off my track

  3. #43
    Crime Fighter Cam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    4,386
    Again, art is not required to replicate reality.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,738
    I would argue that photography is in a unique category of art in that it involves recording reality. The simplest way I can put it is this... No one really cares if someone makes a painting of a woman that isn't realistic, but people reject magazine photos of models that have been excessively manipulated after the fact. And the reason is that photos carry a certain responsibility in that they are presented as a depiction of something real, and I think distorting that to an excessive degree is somewhat misleading.

    Kch, I think that distant space photos and other photos that are taken with instruments that are far, far different from the capacity of the human eye are just understood to be a somewhat distorted version of reality. I mean, from some research online, it looks like the equivalent focal length of the hubble telescope is something like 57600mm. A "normal" DSLR lens is around 24-70mm. When you're dealing with photos taken with things like that, it's not even starting off as anything the human eye could ever see anyway, so I don't really have so much of an issue with that.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,063
    Just take whatever photos you want.

  6. #46
    Director Freude am Fahren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    4,916
    Is it journalism? No? You're good.

  7. #47
    反重力 Rikadyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,483
    surrealist photographers would disagree with you.

    also:
    not mine, but M31 with a 100mm
    https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotog...a_single_shot/

  8. #48
    Crime Fighter Cam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    4,386
    Photography can be whatever you want it to be. You just cannot harp on others that do not have the same ideals as you.

    Now make something beautiful... or ugly.

  9. #49
    Corvette Enthusiast Kchrpm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    7,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Sad, little man View Post
    people reject magazine photos of models that have been excessively manipulated after the fact
    They do that because those magazines are seen as not selling art, but as trying to sell an image attainable through a product/service, but in the process are setting unattainable goals for women who are then beating themselves up over it. It's an odd blending point between art, journalism and truth-in-advertising.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cam
    Photography can be whatever you want it to be. You just cannot harp on others that do not have the same ideals as you.
    QFT. Just like any other art form, it's about self expression. Rather than saying what photography should or shouldn't be, you can say what kind of photography you're most interested in making.
    Get that weak shit off my track

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Kchrpm View Post
    They do that because those magazines are seen as not selling art, but as trying to sell an image attainable through a product/service, but in the process are setting unattainable goals for women who are then beating themselves up over it. It's an odd blending point between art, journalism and truth-in-advertising.


    QFT. Just like any other art form, it's about self expression. Rather than saying what photography should or shouldn't be, you can say what kind of photography you're most interested in making.
    If I post up highly edited photos of the stars and northern lights taken in a remote area which are enhanced far past anything you could actually see, then wouldn't people similarly strive to go to those places in the hopes of seeing something like that? But ultimately it's unattainable, because even if you drive hours away from civilization in the middle of the night, the sky still won't look like that.

    How is this any different from photoshopped models in magazines? I'm basically saying "look what you can see if you drive all the way out here on a clear night." But it's not true. In fact, I myself did this in hopes of both seeing and photographing something like this. And now, I have photos that look like this, but it wasn't really as amazing as I thought it would be.
    Last edited by Sad, little man; September 7th, 2016 at 06:40 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •