Wednesday, July 21
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am...
Archived Posts
-
▼
2010
(289)
-
▼
July
(30)
- "Old Oak" by Micles.
- Bacon.
- Cat vs. iPad
- To all you young men out there, this is how you yo...
- Happy 49th Birthday to Martin L. Gore of Depeche M...
- Thai food.
- Ever wanted true typography on your website, in yo...
- Lightning strike!
- YOU select the subject of the next quiz.
- Things in fours.
- Róisín Marie Murphy, former singer and lyricist fo...
- Name That Dino!
- U2, "Beautiful Day"
- Terence Trent D'Arby (now Sananda Matreiya), "Sign...
- The Clash (RIP Joe Strummer), "Rock The Casbah"
- Morphine (RIP Mark Sandman), "The Night"
- Psychedelic Furs (Richard Butler), "Don't Be a Girl"
- The Wallflowers (Jakob Dylan, son of Bob), "One He...
- Just moods and images today.
- Holding back the years...
- Go ahead and click play. You know you want to.
- A short quiz about random things.
- Red House Painters.
- Philip Quast as Javert singing "Stars" for the Les...
- Two unreleased tunes by Brendan Perry.
- Dead Can Dance — "I Can See Now / American Dreamin...
- Help?
- This goes out to you romantics.
- Testing streaming audio directly (without using a ...
- "In the practice of meditation, all thoughts are ...
-
▼
July
(30)
7 comments:
all very nice but I'm loving the picture of the sand dune for some reason. :)
The reason being, it's magnificent!
I did read on dude's site (his handle is Macindows, dunno his real name), that:
"Digital composition created in Photoshop CS4. Colors have been decreased and faded into a blueish accent, increased contrast and light addition of vignetting.
Nikon D700, AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED, Adobe Photoshop CS4."
So it's been manipulated. Some purists hate this, some see it all as part of a "new art" - even post-processing requires a keen eye and artistic skills, and a lousy original photo can never be saved (garbage in, garbage out rule).
The flower was taken with a macro lens, but it and the city pic are otherwise unretouched (supposedly - the color saturation looks high to be for natural light, but then I'm not a pro).
I'm of the school of thought that if an image pleases the eye and evokes emotion, then it's good art, however it was made. Or you know, horrifies the eye if it's supposed to do that (holocaust pics, et al). In other words if it achieves it's desired effect, it's valid. "Art" is not something ruled on by some court of snobbish artists somewhere.
Imagine when Renaissance painters began employing camera obscuras to help them achieve life-like perspective. Vermeer used a pinhole camera to project a "photographic" image (upside down) onto a canvas on which he'd drawn a grid!
I imagine the medieval artists were rolling in their graves, but the Renaissance produced some of the best art ever made by human beings, and that for me ends the discussion. Technology will always be a tool for the creative to use well or use poorly; it will never make you a great artist.
/soapbox
P.S. NIKON! =P
I think I used to have the top picture on my lounge wall in Cardiff, in black and white though. However having read your comment, maybe not. It was incredibly similar though. We obviously have great taste!
*That should've been "we all obviously have great taste".
You got me! The Blue greens of the city and the soft yellow of the daisy just fills my soul and puts a smile on my face. It's amazing what colors do to us.
Photographs can affect a person's mood so much, can't they?
Thanks for commenting =)
Post a Comment