Opera magna

[Khshayathiya]

I thought about starting another thread, that I intend to use for those photographs that are no longer products of a tourist's eye, in search for the more or less naked beauty of the world, but to those that are products of a butcher's perspective. I chop'em, I twist'em, I roast'em and finally, I post them on the internet for your enjoyment...




In order to make the meaning of the poll clearer, I will quote a discussion I've had with Stine and ShadeofDawn:

What I meant about photography and painting having become one is this:

At first, photography had the ambition to claim it was an objective, non-distortive representation of nature (after all, it was nature that did the job of creating the image, right?...). And some still claim that today, like the news reporters.

How true is that claim? The photography has begun to be ever more the product of a point of view. The artist always seems to try to make nature look unusual (although the term prefered might be picturesque or spectacular). The very fact of choosing one particular angle or one particular framing or focus brakes the vast network of inter-dependancies that exist in nature. Therefore, artistic photography serves more to illustrate the VISION of the artist than the REALITY of nature. Ergo, the difference between painting and photography is one of means, not one of fundamental purpose.

[claudeEGYPT]

Cant see them! Keep roasting though

Claude

[Khshayathiya]

This is one of the posts in the other thread, containg some photos I had edited more brutally than I usually do...

New edited photos, people!

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e166/Khshayathiya/ana1.jpg

This was made using the "fresco" mode in PhotoShop. I like that - the colour reminds me ot Leonardo's sketches, while the pose and particularly the cheek line remind me of either Boticelli or Rafael.


http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e166/Khshayathiya/Ana4.jpg



http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e166/Khshayathiya/ana3.jpg

This is my favourite, but the more I look at the first, the more I like that one... My biggest disappointment with this last image is the R, which isn't very clear. But I needed the same colour for the initial and the final and that reddish-brown was too good for the D to let go...

[Khshayathiya]

And this one I did today.


http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e166/Khshayathiya/Stillupright.jpg

I chose this format because I wanted this picture to remind the viewer of the Japanese prints. I wanted it to appear as a mixture of calligraphy and watercolour.

If I succeded, you be the judges!

[Khshayathiya]

Thanks for the quick reply, Claude! I didn't even have time to post my images! What do you think?

[ShadeOfDawn]

i wouldnt say paiting

perhaps graphic design, but that and Photography can be the same thing/co-exist nicely

[Alday.J]

Hi, Khshayathiya !
Well, honestly, I don't vote, I don't have any idea about this question... I think no. It's "just" made a photomanipulation wich can consider also as a graphic kind apart (hope it's easy for you to understand what I wrotte, folks !). You turn your pic into something very graphic, okay ? But it's still a photography. I will be honest with you. Photoshop filters ARE fine, but more... sorry, I mean MORE efficient if they are apply LOCALY. And I always prefer do a texture myself that I applied as a layer upon the photography, that just do a filter. With that way, your stuff have immediately what we call in french a "cachet" (a "touch" if you prefer but that's not the exact word).
My two cents. ;)
Cheers, Khshayathiya !!!
Julien.

[Khshayathiya]

Thank you for your sound oppinion, Julien!

I'm just a beginner and, as such, exagerate in many ways. I expect to improve over the following months. But, in order for me to do this, I will need advice from you all.

Thanks in advance!

[Barret_wallace]

i belive it's called digital art :)

[Khshayathiya]

Hmmm...

I guess I am being somewhat obscure about the definition of "photography", "painting" and "editing".

In what the MEANS that the artist uses are concerned, I totally agree with you - a photo will never become a painting (although the fact that painters like Canaletto used in the 18th century the camera obscura does make painting a bit like photography).

What I am questioning is the ARTISTIC PURPOSE.

For many centuries, the aim of painting has been to faithfully ("photographically", we might say today) record the surrounding environment. One should only think of the various still lives painted by flemish painters...

However, in the 19th century, the Impressionist movement challenged that view, claiming that the purpose of painting was no to record NATURE, but the painter's VISION of the nature. It culminated in the 20th century with the coming of abstract art.

Returning to photography - a criminal investigator may take photos in order to objectively record facts (position of the corpse, blood stains and whatever else the movies describe in such delicious detail), but the aim of the artist is completely different.

He explores his subjects in search of the emotion they produce. He then takes a photo so as to induce the same EMOTION in others, that is to say, to communicate his VISION. So, at this stage, photography has the same AIM as the Impressionist painting.

But photography has gone even beyond that and now we can speak of the "abstract photography", when the artist purposfully removes the clues that might render his model reconizable (at this moment, I can only think of William De Rosa, http://www.pixiport.com/gallery-e59.htm, particularly GE59-02), an obvious attempt to emulate the abstract painting.

So, by the fact that a photographer edits his image, does he no want to stress the VISION in his mind, to the detriment of the REALITY his camera had recorded? As such, does he not create a painting?

[Khshayathiya]

I am looking forward to hearing your comments on these other edits.

I know the techniques employed are rather cheap and not exactly spectacular, but I'd welcome any piece of advice and hint as to how I could improve them.

Also, I'd like to know if you think the frame and text happily complete the image or if, on the contrary, do nothing but clogg it to death...

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e166/Khshayathiya/Eva2copy.jpg


http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e166/Khshayathiya/Eva4copy.jpg

[claudeEGYPT]

Hey Khshayathya!

I agree that photography is capturing nature in the way that the photographer sees as beautiful. And that can be a mind's eye painting in itself. The artist may like something that no one else likes, but that's photography isnt it? Opinions opinions opinions.

My opinion on photoshopping photos, editing them, manipulating them..etc. Is that Nature is beautiful with out the editing, God did a good job of making the world look good with out photshop. Decades ago photography was bound to photography only, when there wasnt any software available for editing.
However if you can exaggerate what you view as "pretty" without disturbing the picture.. That's great!

Claude

[BrianT]

"Decades ago photography was bound to photography only, when there wasnt any software available for editing."

Yup, there wasn't any software for editing. But not long after the first camera was invented, editing was explored to make pictures better. This includes color filters, blur filters, taking multiple photos (for 2 exposures) then splicing them, and even manual (scissors & glue) cropping in the dark room. I'm sure there are more old-fashioned-editing ideas I haven't thought of here.

No photo will become a painting, but parts of it might. Matte painters and concept artists use photographic elements to achieve realism. There are many ways to capture an image: paint it, photogragh it, render it with 3d software. Hell, software like Bryce will get you a pretty nice looking image at the press of a button. The end result is the same - to convey something. Personally, whether I take a picture, paint, draw, build 3D graphics, or compose any kind of image I think about the same exact things: values, colors, shapes & patterns, focus, composition, mood, etc...

BrianT's photos: http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=58459
BrianT's concepts: http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=58713

[Morbid]

I think a photo is a photo as long as you don't change the big elements of it. When you tweak stuff like colors and levels or even clone small stuff like distracting elements (noise, scratches and stuff like that), it's still a photo in my opinion. When using ps filters, moving stuff around, adding/removing bigger elements and stuff I think it actually turns in to something else. I would say it turns in to an "altered photo" (new category :P). But I have no idea where to draw the line between them.

[Khshayathiya]

Thank you all for your reply and for the votes!

Here are some new photos.

This is the orogonal, taken in Murano, Italy.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f220/Vistaspa/IMG_1647.jpg

I knew from the beginning it would not work like this and that it would require editing.

This is an intermediary image:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f220/Vistaspa/oldlamp.jpg

I got to it by cropping (obviously...) the original, desaturating it completely, than adjusting the colour levels (midtones yellow and red, highlights yellow and red, shadows red).

This is the final resut:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f220/Vistaspa/Extinguished1.jpg

I have used for this last one various hints I have found on the net (http://www.idigitalemotion.com/tutorials/photo_manipulation_composition.html), so I agree I cannot claim too much praise for the outcome. It's all got to do with layers and masks.

I chose the frame and the font to fit the whole subject.

I hope you will agree that the third picture is far better than the first and that a ruined photo turned into a decent image (all right, I won't say "painting") by photomanipulation.

[Barret_wallace]

you should post this in the technique thread :)

[Khshayathiya]

Here is a new "walk-through". I hope you like this manner of presentation...

Here is the initial shot, which I took somewhere in Venice. Interesting artwork, nice texture - so I was rather pleased with the photo I had taken. Untill, one day, I joined the CA and realised there were so many things I could to to improve it.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f220/Vistaspa/Floaredepiatra1.jpg

Step one - my favourite. Desaturation, than colour level control. As usual, I went for yellow and red (quite a personal obsession, these brownish tones). Better contrast, and an altogether more dramatic photograph.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f220/Vistaspa/Floaredepiatra2.jpg

Then I decide to go a step further and add all the masks and layers I've already told you about in the previous post. To cap it all, I add a texturated frame - a stone wall. I have desaturated that as well, then tweaked the contrast/brightness, then set the opacity of the layer to half (I think...). The advantage of this kind of framing is that it allows the eye to relax after being quite heavily bombarded with heavy tones and contrasts, while not entirely leaving the atmosphere.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f220/Vistaspa/Floaredepiatra3.jpg


But I thought I had gone too far. So I have cut the "fancy shit" (I really like that expression! Did you come up with it, Berret?) and turned to a more picturesque approach. So, I have selected various portions of the image using the magic wand tool, set to various levels of tolerance, to get smaller or wider areas, created several layers, enhanced the colour balance and finally added some filters, like Watercolour. Ir now seems a lot more poetic than it was at first, without being as aggressive as the third version.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f220/Vistaspa/Floaredepiatra4.jpg

How about them? Any oppinions?

[Khshayathiya]

A new game, ladies and gents!

This is, I gues, what you might call a collage of various bits and pieces to be found in, on and around the Exeter Cathedral. The point of the game is to experiment with formats (portrait vs. landscape) and with degrees of compositional saturation.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f220/Vistaspa/InquisitorIIImic.jpg




http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f220/Vistaspa/InquisitorIVmic.jpg



If you should like to do so, I am, as always, looking forward to your criticism

[ShadeOfDawn]

Those images are now no longer part of photography IMO. They are graphic design, digital manipulation or Photoshop works.

They've been modified too heavily to be considered Photography.

The border on the background is distracting because of the low resolution, generally i prefer a plain border (i use the exact same black border on all my photographs now lol, mostly because im lazy and everything goes with black)

[Khshayathiya]

Yeah, you're right - no more photography! The challenge drains me of any trace of artistic honesty and I just have to go and rip every other image apart!

Is the frame really distracting? I wouldn't choose black, though... The image is dark enough as it is...

The thing that really bugs me is the focus - the cardinal/bishop/inquisitor should have been fully focused, while the evil whisperer should have been a bit more blury.

[ShadeOfDawn]

i quite like black frames around dark pictures - i think it draws more focus to the focal point in the picture (which is usually light)

like the fire in my recent pics two threads down