Just thought I'd post some recent photographs.
These are not composites.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh) Photographer John S. Dykstra Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:19 19:02:08 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/9.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/9.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Flash Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:19 19:01:39 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/10.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/10.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Flash Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Only two photos posted and I'm already intrigued. Post more, OP.
>>2819984
I built my own set out of three 4' x 8' boards, and used black chalkboard paint. I'm shooting with two Einstein e640s I bought last fall. This shot I used yarn for the lines instead of chalk. The theme for these shots is perception.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh) Photographer John S. Dykstra Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:18 19:01:15 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/10.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/10.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Flash Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2819984
This is the final image. I have more from this set, but they are not up to par with these four. This is my favorite of the set.
I've been lurking /p/ since 2009 and my photographs have been subpar up until 2016. This year I decided to figure out what my creative vision/message is instead of trying to find the right style.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:19 19:00:58 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/9.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 250 Lens Aperture f/9.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Flash Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Absolutely incredible.
Excellent job finding your vision and applying it.
Finally a good tripfag!
>>2819991
What's the difference between creative vision and style? How do you separate the concepts?
I'm asking because I'm still trying to find what i have to share. So far, everything i take feels like snaps.
>>2820000
Thank you!
>>2820001
Thanks! I have copies of these in color that I find appealing, simply because the rest of the set is still largely colorless, but I prefer to stick to B&W. I may do color in the future.
Here is one that isn't strong that I decided to keep in color. It won't be going into my public portfolio besides for Instagram.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 752 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:19 19:17:16 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/10.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/10.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Flash Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
I've seen the first two before on flickr I think and they're pretty neat and all, but I have to say I really love the last two. You clearly had something in mind and you successfully accomplished it with your photos so I don't really have much critique to offer except to say good work and I really like what you're doing now.
>>2819991
Do you adjust the shapes so they match in post-processing or are the images as shot?
Fantastic job either way. Really inspiring.
>>2820008
Here's the other one that was meant for color. It was going to be a part of a triptych about my own concept of creative thinking. I believe strong creative thought is a mix of subconscious associative thought and conscious linear thought. She represented the muse of the subconscious with the flame of passion, and at the other end was going to be a man roping a lightbulb above his head to represent linear conscious thought.
I ended up scrapping the project but ended up with this cool shot that doesn't really fit anywhere but on my hard drive. It was fun working with gold leaf though.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:19 19:19:28 Exposure Time 1/8 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/11.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Flash Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
These are fucking excellent mate. Do you have any way I can follow you like Flickr or Instagram or something?
>>2820002
>Finally a good tripfag!
Fucking newfag.
I have seen your stuff before and love it, great concept
>>2820002
Here's the way I see it: creative vision is the way you see the world - your opinion about life, your belief system, etc. - being visually translated in your artwork. It's your message; it's what you say.
Style is how you say what you say, and it only makes sense that you ought to know what you're going to say before you choose how you're going to make it sound. Style should support the vision, and I think that's why so many people have a hard time choosing an organic or authentic style - they have not sat down to think about the way they see the world and how they want to translate it.
Vision is the gift, style is the gift wrapping. I was trying to wrap an empty box for years with all types of attractive gift wrapping. People would look, think it's pretty, and move on. There wasn't anything inside the box. Now there is.
does every photographer need a creative vision? No. You can choose how you want to create, and many of you aren't seeking to create art. But if you want to be more than a craftsman, I would suggest delving into developing your creative vision.
I want to write an ebook on this eventually.
>>2820008
Thank you! I was afraid at first that I'd never make anything better than the first one. Sort of an irrational fear, and it's good to know that I'm only getting better.
>>2820012
There are very minor adjustments, but I never bring anything into the image that wasn't there on sight. Once school is over, I'm going to take more time with each shot so I don't have to adjust the shape. The image with the pillar had the least amount of adjustments, right alongside the tracing of the shadow.
>>2820027
Cheers mate. Wise words.
I was reading a nice book about this subject just yesterday. It's "Negative/Positive: A Philosophy of Photography" by Bill Jay. I recommend a look, even if it's only for the "From Humanism to Heroism" chapter.
Anyways, sitting down and finding your own vision, still takes a massive effort. It's not easy to walk through so much information your brain keeps eating daily, to find what truly matters to you.
Good luck and have fun.
These are well executed but conceptually sophomoric.
Which is fine, because I get the impression you're a young art student. You'll grow out of it.
>>2820094
Hi, can you provide more insight as to what you mean by conceptually sophomoric, as well as what you get from these images?
>>2820122
Not him, but it's just a surface level playing with perspective. You're not really showing us anything new, or more accurately, you're not really showing us anything about your thoughts on the subject beyond it can be played with.
Fun pictures. Neat pictures. A definite step above what most people are doing, but it's not really challenging us in any ways, not revealing anything about you or your views.
>>2820126
This is precisely what I meant.
Fucking thank you for someone on this board actually knowing what words mean.
I really do like these, I just think you should be careful getting carried away about having found what you "want to express" or however you put it.
They're the photographic equivalent to cool geometric sketches in a grid notebook. In no way, shape, or form bad, but certainly not high art or theoretical expression.
>>2820122
>conceptually sophomoric
verbal diarrhea
>>2820122
This guy has a point >>2820128 and a good one at that
My advice though would be to cultivate what you've got going on. Obviously you really enjoy something about what you're doing which means you're headed in the right direction. Keep doing things but at the same time, try to diversify in any way you can while still maintaining your own standards and ideals, and you'll get where you want to be in your photography. You don't have to completely change what you're doing, but as long as you push yourself it'll evolve and grow. And years from now you'll be doing stuff that eclipses what you're doing right now, even if it feels impossible at the moment.
>>2820126
It's not about visual perspective, the visual perspective is an analogy. Take the first image for example: At first sight, it is a man crouched in a small box. Then you realize the box is a drawing, and the man is drawing the box.
The man is boxing himself in.
Knowing that this is drawing is an anamorphic illusion, it calls to mind the idea that many of our boundaries are self-imposed. The box is not really enclosing him and the lines are not stopping him from crossing. This brings to question the use of the camera itself. The box is only seen from one perspective. Any movement would break the illusion. The boundaries are imaginary, and a change in one's perspective will break the illusion.
These images aren't about the visual illusions and the fact that I can make them look cool, but the illusions themselves are metaphors for the illusions we hold in our mind. The whole concept for this series is on taking a step toward a different perspective, a different angle on life, to gain greater insight and perhaps set yourself free.
The image with the pillar is about how we hold onto our dark places more than they hold onto us. A change in perspective would show that the black square is not truly encompassing her.
The outline of the shadow refers to how we tend to try to define ourselves and the lives around us when we can't even see the whole picture. The viewer should look at the image and think how it would be near impossible for a person to actually trace their own shadow since it would move with the person, and that is my way of saying that you simply can't define something you only have a glimpse of.
I hope some of this puts it into context for you. The whole series is on mental perspective. Visual perspective is merely a reference to the meaning.
>>2820135
Now show this, don't tell it.
We're asking for refinement, not overhaul.
it's artsy brusspup.
i'm glad you moved past your "strobist tutorial with hipster chix" phase, though.
>>2820137
I think they're pretty self-evident, and more consideration beyond "these look cool" can reveal layers of meaning. I do think, as the series grows, the message will be easier to understand, but I'm not trying to spoon-feed a fairly simple, yet important thought. The reason I'm enjoying this series is not for the anamorphic illusions themselves, but for what they mean to me.
>>2820128
How are they an equivalent to geometric sketches in a grid notebook? These speak about changing a person's perspective on life; geometric sketches speak nothing.
>>2820139
Thanks, those were shallow images that were simply meant to look nice.
>>2820142
There's a point where you're simply chewing fat.
>>2820156
In other words, these could get redundant unless I have other points to convey through the series. I can see that.
>>2820152
In what way do they speak that?
Don't project your own inner musings into how art will be interpreted. That farce is a large issue in the art world today.
Refine your concept so it actually shows this. It's too layered to actually communicate what you're saying to anyone. Anyone that tells you they see anything deeper than than surface level abstraction here is over-analyzing.
Make it digestible. Or ignore my critique if you want. But your stated motives are clearly not being represented so well despite the high aesthetic appellations.
>>2820162
Put your trip on isi
>>2820162
>Refine your concept so it actually shows this. It's too layered to actually communicate what you're saying to anyone. Anyone that tells you they see anything deeper than than surface level abstraction here is over-analyzing.
The only exception here is the first image and that's because it's such a common and obvious visual metaphor.
>>2820162
Ok, can we take the OP image for example?
I think it's simple to see that the man is drawing a box with chalk. He also looks presumably confined in a tight way. It's a fairly dark looking image. I think the idea that he's boxing himself in is really, really easy to catch onto.
Now when people realize that it's an anamorphic illusion, they realize that changing the perspective will break that illusion. The man, appearing confined, is not really bound by anything but an illusion.
I understand what you mean by making it more "digestable", and that's certainly good advice, but I don't think it's a problem. I've had many people pick this up without me saying anything more than explaining the anamorphic illusion bit. It really just takes a bit of reflection on the viewer's part, and I think the initial visual impact works to hold the viewer's attention long enough to attempt to figure out how the image was made, and then to understand why the artist made it and what the artist meant by it.
I think these images posted on /p/ might cloud or color the way these images are viewed, because they're much more than eye candy.
Thanks for expressing your opinion though, I really do appreciate it. I'm not defending my POV because I'm married to these images or because I'm conceited, but simply because I don't see these images the way you do and would like to continue discussing our opposing viewpoints so I can gain more understanding as to why these didn't translate for you. No disrespect meant at all.
>>2820167
See the post above yours.
>>2820168
I don't think most great art can be appreciated on a great level without having any context. I also think people with different life experiences will get more or less out of a given image, regardless of how.. literal.. the concept is or isn't depicted. In the end, a person tends to see what they want to see, and when a person is approaching art as eye candy, they tend to only get eye candy from it, no matter the author. It's kind of how you can get much more from reading certain books at a later age in life than you did when you were 18.
If they don't translate, then I've done my job poorly, but I do contest that I have a lot to say with these images and that they're not simply eye candy. If the images have interested the viewer enough for him or her to inquire about its purpose, then I have a lot of insightful comments to share that will give an already appreciated image some authentic depth. But if the viewer is not interested in what the artist meant with the image, then no amount of spoon feeding will get the ideas across.
>>2820170
You give yourself way too much credit.
>>2820170
It's more the opposite that's true. Overanalysis is a sugar pill.
>>2820171
I don't understand, sorry.
>>2819984
Loved this when it appeared in the selfie thread, and >>2819991 is fantastic...has this brooding, esoteric quality to it. Says something about duality to me.
Would be interesting to see how far you can push the geometry.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 838 Image Height 1024 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2819984
Can you explain your processing style? start to finish?
How do you sharpen particularly?
do you have a website?
I see far too many photographs every day and only for seconds, thus I never put any thought in it.
Where I try to find a statement in an image are photographers for whom I know some background or those in which I suspect more than focus for eye candy, possibly due to an exhibition, previous positive evaluations or other special circumstances. In the latter case one can speak of over-analysis, since I just do not know if the photographer went that extra mile.
Here on /p/ I've never analyzed shots further than their simple looks! I expect simple shot, so even in the first sight of your photographs, Michigan. This is probably where the discussion above originated - you can view images in different ways, not everyone sees the same way nor does everyone see several of them. This will always be fuel to the discussion.
The attached photo has recently been issued in the newspaper to advertise the exhibition of some local photographers. I've wondered why they chose such a boring shot, again this was my first sight.
>>2820170
>I don't think most great art can be appreciated on a great level without having any context
Any art can be appreciated on any level with any amount context. It's all entirely dependent on a number of factors relating to the audience. It's all chaos. Your job as a communicator is to sort that out, through photography of course and not all of your explanations. You didn't do that here. Case closed.
>>2820283
I'd like to see what you consider successful conceptual photography.
>>2820291
I'd feel awkward giving you the name of someone I know. Sorry. I suppose I could explain his work a bit if you really gave a shit, though.
>>2820299
*someone I know personally
and fyi I've never actually discussed his work with him before
>>2819984
I love your shots, OP
>>2820283
>any art can be appreciated on any level with any amount of context
Do you honestly think that art is only ever truly successful if it's readily apparent to each and every individual what it is explicitly about?
>>2820312
You seemed to grossly misinterpret my statement.
>>2820321
You must hate art museums.
>>2820325
No, I quite like them.
>>2820137
you are an imbecile
>>2820174
its just a bunch of bitter fags try to knock you down
>>2820465
Bitter or just insecure?
Had a similar experience a couple years back. People got shitty and condescending with me because I found what I wanted to do early on. They would piss and moan that I needed to "do other things" and "get out of my comfort zone" because of they took a long time to find out what they wanted then so should everyone else, right?
>>2820509
>Bitter or just insecure?
Definitely both. Also mix in a handful of arrogance, a tablespoon of jealousy and a pinch of salt, and you've created the concoction known as /p/.
>>2820515
/p/ is excellent at looking at your work, and fighting tooth and nail to find things to tear down about it. we are excellent at telling you why you're wrong, or what you shouldn't have done.
The second it comes to building something, fixing something, improving something, creating and contributing something, or coming up with ideas of our own, we suddenly scurry back to the holes in the wall to disappear.
It's like a middle manager being transferred to a new restaurant. He doesn't have any new ideas to help the place out, but he'll justify his paycheck by changing the direction that the employees mop the floor.
>>2820520
>>2820515
>>2820509
>>2820465
Nah. It's legit critique. I'm one of the at least two who were here last night. There's no bitterness or insecurity here, and I don't see how you could get bitterness/insecurity out of "these are good, strive to do better".
I'm legitimately impressed by both the level of visualization of a concept and its execution. You don't see this every day.
This does not change the fact that as a whole these images do not effectively communicate what Op intends them to.
Now if we break off from that point a moment, through the course of the discussion, it's revealed that has a different belief in how much a work should speak for itself. I think he's very wrong here and will eventually change his mind, but we're not going to convince him here (which is why I dropped out of the conversation).
Op even freely admits early on that he thinks these piece's function aren't to communicate his ideas, but to garner interest in the audience so the audience seeks an explanation. That's fairly disappointing because from my point of view, that's a lazy and self-important attitude.
Speaking of bad attitudes, you two or however many you are need to get your heads out of your asses. Some of us are here to help and to dismiss criticism, especially when it isn't remotely all negative as being "insecure and bitter" is being an ignorant shit.
Oh and for the record, just because the insecure and bitter are insecure and bitter doesn't make them wrong. Just tends to make them more negative and defensive. You know, like your posts are.
>>2820573
>How much a work should speak for itself
I've heard both extremes on this. Somebody with an MFA disagreed when I said my work should speak for itself, but now you're doing the exact opposite. Its an interesting discussion to have and think about, but I don't think there is a hard and fast rule about how much should be communicated visually vs verbally in photography. Everyone has their own way of doing things, but all that matters is if it's doing what you want. Bearing in mind, of course, that you can't please all no matter how much you try.
>>2820667
>now you're doing the exact opposite
The tl;dr is that it's important to have an an opinion on it. It's also fairly important in criticism to explain where you're coming from. This allows the audience in general and the artist in particular to know whether or not they agree with your base assumptions. This is part of considering whether or not an artist takes the c&c and incorporates its ideas into their own work and to what degree.
>>2820674
While what you say is true, there is a very thin line between sharing an opinion and stating something as if it were a fact. And most people get so impassioned with their own line of thinking that they tend to skew towards the latter.
>part of considering whether or not an artist takes the c&c and incorporates it
When Michigan even tried to refute or disagree with the criticism here, People started disagreeing further and one even said he "gives himself too much credit". Really it was that comment alone that read as insecure, since it's characteristic of an insecure person to feel uncomfortable around people who are surer of themselves. That, and another poster said he can't have possibly found his style so soon, as if there's a fixed timeline to a photographer's growth.
>>2820689
>While what you say is true, there is a very thin line between sharing an opinion and stating something as if it were a fact. And most people get so impassioned with their own line of thinking that they tend to skew towards the latter.
I kinda disagree here and it has a lot to do with the schools that I went to.
The culture was to always vigorously defend your view. The assumption was that you were intelligent enough to realize that when someone was stating opinion as fact, that they were stating an opinion. Arguing over such technicalities or rhetoric misses the the actual points raised and is thus a waste of time. This isn't to say that it was frowned upon to seek clarification -- but that's an entirely different matter from "yeah, well that's post hoc propter hoc", or "that's just your opinion".
One of the worst things you can do to yourself when you're learning, and in general, is to get caught up in the shape of an argument and not the argument itself (which I guess has the obvious exception of when you're studying logic or rhetoric, but elsewhere it's pretty damn true).
Hey there, I don't have time to reply to all of these right now but I appreciate the comments and compliments.
To the Anon whose opinion it is that my work does not speak for itself (I either misspoke or you misinterpreted me - doesn't matter either way,) but I didn't mean that I don't think a work should be unreadable, but I do think people should approach fine art photography with the mind that most everything in the image was done with a purpose. I think it's good to let people figure it out on there own, and not to make things too literal, especially when I think art is a two way conversation and a person's interpretation of a work can be just as meaningful to them, even if it is a little different, as the original intention. However, I also think, for those that can't come to their own satisfying conclusions or understand the meaning at all, something like an artist's statement - short yet succinct - can give satisfying context that opens up the whole concept and therefore series.
There is a reason why Art History is its own field of study, and a large part of that is to give art context in which it can be understood.
All this said, if you were to speak about changing the impact of mental perspective in a person's life, how would you improve these images? I thought using visual perspective as both a visual hook, anchor, and metaphorical device worked pretty well, but apparently not. What would you do yourself to push these forward.
Thanks!
Great shots!
I get what the other anons are saying, I'm reminded of the new craze for long, action-packed, uncut shots in films. They look amazing but they can at times serve more as distraction than immersion. So it could be said that you had the intention, but was caught up too much in what made sense to you and what looked good and not enough in what would make sense to the viewer. I'm not sure how you'd go about making your pictures clearer with their intended message, but I think that they are great as they are and a very good place to be stepping up from.
It's too nerve-wrecking posting my own conceptual photography, I do it in fuck-whatever locations with whatever I have at hand and some friends. This sole one I'm somewhat more confident in.
An argument could be made that the image is too vague, it can mean anything to anyone and therefore has no meaning itself, but I tried to aim for that. A cop-out maybe, but I love discussing interpretations of anything, and if the discussion can be about something I created myself, even better.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Photographer Alon Shechter Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:03:30 19:38:18 Exposure Time 1/2500 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 6000 Image Height 4000 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2820820
>There is a reason why Art History is its own field of study, and a large part of that is to give art context in which it can be understood.
That's obfuscatory neo-art. Participation within a subculture.
Please be aware that there is more to effect artistic communication than the ego of the self-referential art world.
I don't want to see a talented artist fall victim to that. That tangent of art is dying anyway with the extreme democratization of the arts through social media and technology, and its death is precisely why that establishment of thought is trying so hard to envelop current artists.
>>2820698
>One of the worst things you can do to yourself when you're learning, and in general, is to get caught up in the shape of an argument and not the argument itself
Could you explain the difference between the shape of the argument and the argument itself? I think I know what you're getting at, but I'm not quite sure.
>>2820820
>All this said, if you were to speak about changing the impact of mental perspective in a person's life, how would you improve these images? I thought using visual perspective as both a visual hook, anchor, and metaphorical device worked pretty well, but apparently not. What would you do yourself to push these forward.
I started to make some suggestions, but realized my suggestions would change the entire conceit of the project.
>>2820915
Basically, a good, valid idea can be expressed poorly. That through superior rhetorical skills it can be argued down doesn't change the value of the idea. If you're focusing on just the rhetoric or grammar of an expressed idea, you're not interacting with the idea in any meaningful way. Kinda like here, think about when people get spastic over whenever there's a white border. They're not interacting in any meaningful way with the photograph itself. It's just self-indulgent wankery.
Calling someone out for sloppily communicating an idea is the same thing. If your position is actually superior show it's superior by tearing down the idea, not the framing of the idea. Anything less is a waste of time or self-indulgence.
>>2820934
>Calling someone out for sloppily communicating an idea is the same thing. If your position is actually superior
what does calling out sloppy communication have to do with being superior?
ffs not everything is about better/worse. Stop comparing everything.
>>2820939
>what does calling out sloppy communication have to do with being superior?
Nothing. That's the point.
>ffs not everything is about better/worse. Stop comparing everything.
You do realize this is all framed in a conversation about debating competing ideas, right? As in directly comparable ideas.
>>2820934
And what happens if the opposite is true? If an idea is expressed well, but is complete bull? I've met with both proper ideas expressed poorly and poor ideas expressed very well. I've done a pretty good job at searching for the value in any argument I'm given, which gets really frustrating when you hear something that sounds really great and "makes sense" but actually is either complete horse shit, or isn't some hard, irrefutable statement that I need to take to heart. This not even taking into account the fact that what they're saying potentially carries a lot of bias. I've always believed that you can have two differing arguments and both of them can be "right" in that they're valid and understandable, even when individuals will usually agree more with one side than the other. For example if one person thinks art should speak for itself, but another thinks that the viewer should decide what it's about - I can't really claim one is right and the other is wrong, because they're both perfectly sound.
Really, I would think that if an idea is not expressed well then it does drag down the value of the argument, though. I'm not just talking about receiving clarification because I didn't understand, I'm talking about taking something and telling it in a way that makes it sound so very different or confusing that it's capable of leading me to conclusions that are different from what you intended. If this is the case, it's really the arguer who's to blame for not saying what they wanted to say properly. If it was their intention to say something and it "came out wrong", then it'd be to their benefit to look at how they can better articulate their thoughts. This ensures best that people can be expected to understand what they say - and misunderstandings might still occur - so that everyone knows exactly what's being said and precisely what's being argued.
>>2820955
I would "like" this post if I could.
Will catch up to this thread with responses later. Super busy today, sorry.
>>2820955
>first bit
As for the "more than one "right" idea" Go with whatever seems most right to you or fits your needs at that time. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds and such. If later on you decide that was a mistake or not optimum, then fold that into your new gestalt. You're going to fuck up, you're going to rock out, you're going to change in some ways over time. In a lot of ways, the important thing is to not get paralyzed by choice in situations like that and not do anything or wait to long.
> If this is the case, it's really the arguer who's to blame for not saying what they wanted to say properly.
This is kinda true, but of little value to you. Your job isn't necessarily to educate the other person or improve their ability to argue. What I'm talking about is you maximizing your benefit from an interaction.
>>2820573
>This does not change the fact that as a whole these images do not effectively communicate what Op intends them to.
>picture of a guy drawing himself INTO a BOX
GEE GOLLY GOSH WHAT EVER COULD IT MEAN?!
>>2819984
Damn Michigan, your style is 10/10
Feel free to tear me a new one, but here's a recent photo that isn't as beautiful or balanced but I'm pretty into the fact that I made a lightbulb and chalk looking like space or a small explosion. Mixed lighting with strobes and a 2 second exposure?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 752 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:22 08:13:51 Exposure Time 2 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/11.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Flash Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2823450
should of just used the strobe, still an amazing pic tho
>>2823458
Thanks, man! The only reason I exposed for that long was the sweet lens flare. Otherwise I wouldn't have exposed for the incandescent light.
>>2819984
I like your work. And I don't say that often here.
Some of the naysayers in this thread sound like they are fluffing their own ego's, or are just bitter and jealous.
Expecting the artist to do all the work for you is pure intellectual laziness, in my opinion.
Wanting everything handed to you on a plate is a sad symptom of the modern, consumerist world we live in. Take a bite...digest without tasting...move on...
It just strikes me as a McArt viewpoint. Convenience culture.
I like having to think about what I'm looking at! And I like the randomness of the possibility that what I think it's about isn't what the artist intended. It's still art, just art from a different angle. And, given the perspective angle of this project, that in itself suggests another angle!
You have inspired me to go out and shoot some stuff today, and I'm going to at least try not to make them crappy snapshits this time. Thank you.
>>2823544
> fluffing their own ego's
>ctrl+f "I", "my"
You talk about yourself a lot for someone accusing others of egotism.
>>2823547
OK, I'll bite.
There is a great deal of difference between slagging someone off, and constructive criticism. Almost the entire thread was people using their words to tell an artist that his images didn't speak clearly enough to them. On a board about communicating with images???
But I saw little, if any, positive steps he could take other than the usual, vague "you'll understand when you're older" shit you usually get from people who don't understand, but want to sound wise.
Please explain to me how:
>I like your work
>those assholes are probly jelly
>Imma goin out to shoot some shitty pics
Is egotistical?
You know what I think? Posting to tell someone that you've noticed all the "i's" and "my's" in their post comes across as a bit, well...egotistical.
But I didn't come here to argue with shut-ins. I came here to say "Well done, Op. You did what I couldn't...but I will try harder"
Instead of "you should try harder".
Have a nice day. I hope some good photographs you take this weekend improves your sour mood.
>>2823558
Please explain to me how:
>I like your work
>those assholes are probly jelly
>Imma goin out to shoot some shitty pics
Is egotistical?
You did it for me.
