This could turn into an interesting discussion on the merits of cooking
images, and what kind and how much and overall effect of said cooking on
the image in question.
Ken's image represents his vision. It does not look like a cliche. It looks
like his vision, or _a_ vision if we don't know Ken.
On the other hand, as I motorate around Maine, and most recently a portion
of the United Kingdom, I had occasion to see a lot of photos of the type I
used to make money doing, i.e. pretty pictures for tourists. They fell/fall
into three broad categories:
1) Boring/amateur/you really ought to practice more before putting this
stuff our for sale.
2) Hopelessly cliched, that is, for example, rock in foreground, smooth
water, bright setting/rising sun in background, separated by colorful sky.
These used to be called West Coast Landscapes, and they were amazing when
they first started appearing and now they bring on the yawns. At least for
me. These kinds of shots make the best postcards. In the rack they look
like amazing photos, but upon examination and reflection, they have all the
requisite parts for great photos, but somehow they just don't make the
grade. Maybe there's too much information presented too perfectly.
Photoshop lets you do that, and you can get carried away with it if you're
not careful. And by "you" I mean me, too. <g>
And then there's 3) The good stuff. Some of the good stuff is
straightforward. Or b&w conversion. And some of it, as was Ken's, is
properly cooked via personal recipe to create something greater than the
sum of its parts. Very little of it comes from beginners. Almost none, I'd
say. Most of it comes from seasoned shooters who understand their equipment
and its limitations, and who also understand their vision for the shot, and
_its_ limitations. Understanding the limits of vision in a specific
instance is perhaps the first among equals in a good shot. It's something I
struggle with all the time. I mean really struggle. Jacob wrestling angels
kind of struggle.
I encourage Ken to keep cooking, and the rest of us to keep wrestling
angels. <g>
--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Paul Braun <pbraun42@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Nice. Love the richness of the colors, even if they were "helped". And
> > that
> > > scene just screams Iowa.
> >
> > Helped? Sure, why not? Didn't we do the same thing "back in the day"
> > by shooting Velvia and using polarizers?
> >
> > Thanks, it really does say Iowa. This is on the east edge of town. If
> > you look one way, it's houses and businesses. The other way and it's
> > farm fields.
> >
> >
> I'm not calling you out for "helping" - I do the same thing. I think you
> were saying that some had complained about the "cooking". A photo, unless
> it's a strict journalistic document, is a representation of the vision the
> photographer had in his/her mind when the image was captured. I really like
> it.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|