Toronto Photography Meetup Group

TPMG.CA
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2025 1:15 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:24 am 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
A lot of people out there still use the term 'SOOC' in a very loose way, me thinks. While some frown upon any mention of post processing done to any photo, here's an interesting point of view, which I share and think should be standard among true photographers.
Read here


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:11 am 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
For most categories of art or non professional photography all talk of purity and "SOOC" is bull! I especially hate some film or digital photographers that talk "This is straight out of the camera, I don't believe in altering the image" or some such nonsense. What do they think showing an image on the screen is besides an alteration, and believe me there is nothing natural about scanning or the guts of a DSLR.

There are standards for "SOOC" at least for reporters. It's a pity that the POY didn't know about them until after the 2012 awards:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/2 ... questions/
Note that the last photograph violates the Reuters standard.

Quote:
A handbook of Reuters journalism
A guide to standards, style and operations

Photoshop and how to use it

Photoshop is a highly sophisticated image manipulation programme. We use only a tiny part of its potential capability to format our pictures, crop and size them and balance the tone and colour. For us it is a presentational tool. The rules are – no additions or deletions, no misleading the viewer by manipulation of the tonal and colour balance to disguise elements of an image or to change the context.


On my part I consider the taking of the photograph the most important part and what comes later just window dressing.

I will leave you with some famous quotes:

“To quote out of context is the essence of the photographer's craft”

“You see something happening and you bang away at it. Either you get what you saw or you get something else-- and whichever is better you print.”

“The photograph should be more interesting or more beautiful than what was photographed.”

“The photo is a thing in itself. And that's what still photography is all about.”


Last edited by Metrix on Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:21 pm 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
True, I'm annoyed by the use of SOOC, and disappointed by people who choose not to develop their digital photos like one would develop film. Anyway, I'm a violator of my own standard when it comes to film, sending it to a lab due to the lack of space. If you choose to do photography as art and shoot jpeg without processing them in post you might as well sell your camera


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:44 am
Posts: 148
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: www.cjsphotography.ca
I'm predominantly a street photographer. There simply isn't time to get it right in the camera 99% of the time.

When I first stared doing photography, specifically entering online challenges, I was very much against editing my photos beyond what Aperture could do. Now Aperture is only a sorting mechanism for my library and every image I keep goes through some combination of Nik's, GIMP, PTLens, PTGui, ....
The only time I don't touch an image in post now is when a ruleset of a challenge specifically says I can't.

Quote:
If you choose to do photography as art and shoot jpeg without processing them in post you might as well sell your camera
Couldn't agree more.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:56 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:15 pm
Posts: 1209
Location: Downtown Toronto
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.synowiec.ca
Venser wrote:
Quote:
If you choose to do photography as art and shoot jpeg without processing them in post you might as well sell your camera
Couldn't agree more.


What if your form of artistic expression involves shooting low quality jpegs and blowing them up really large in print? When it comes to art nothing is off limits and no one is doing it wrong. Nobody told Pollock to sell his paint brushes because he didn't use them in a conventional fashion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:44 am
Posts: 148
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: www.cjsphotography.ca
BaRTiMuS wrote:
What if your form of artistic expression involves shooting low quality jpegs and blowing them up really large in print? When it comes to art nothing is off limits and no one is doing it wrong. Nobody told Pollock to sell his paint brushes because he didn't use them in a conventional fashion.
Fair enough, but art and the appreciation thereof being entirely subjective, my opinion is pretty unwavering on this topic.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:39 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
Venser wrote:
Quote:
If you choose to do photography as art and shoot jpeg without processing them in post you might as well sell your camera
Couldn't agree more.


Hah. This is nonsense and one of the dumbest things I've read on here. Tops my best nuggets that's for sure. "True photographers?" "Art?" C'mon. You guys should know better than this. Only a true photographer shoots with Canon(:D).... primes... L glass... manually.... film... B&W.... Zeiss ... Leica... Medium Format.... Large Format..... My process is better because a yak pissed in my Rodinal at 5280' during a New Moon at just the right moment. You didn't know yak urine is the best fixer available? Rinse and fix in one stream. Silly.

This smacks of Freud's Narcissism of Minor Differences. How that works is basically this: FACT: We all do more or less the same thing. Very few things are immensely different and there's almost no such thing as original. This gets our egos all pissed off so we seek out these minor differences and scream about them like fools so we can feel like individuals. You really don't want me to expand on that because then we're getting into Lacan and nobody wants that. Anyway, SOOC is an arbitrary line. Yup, that means minor (or major if you ask someone desperate to be different) differences between different cameras. Should the phrase be "Straight Out of My Camera"? It's just a way of saying "I used an arbitrary limited set of tools to come to this finality." To arbitrarily draw a line that is fine, it gives us a baseline. Freud's narcissists get worked up that such a baseline can't exist of course and sure, that is true with a certain amount of granularity but so what? Sign signified and all sorts of perception issues that get more and more esoteric and unaccessible the closer one gets to originality. The so what is not the answer to what art is or a thing that makes a "true photographer." Art does not equal original.

And the pursuit of originality thing? Ridiculous. To smarten up on that I suggest you read Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Not about photography but about (one of the things it's about) art and the pursuit of. I'm under no illusion that anyone will. Just helps to have read the good stuff written roughly 100 years ago, and more in some cases, that goes over these ideas far better than we will so we can talk about it better. Or, you end up looking like a privileged middle class white kid going on about Socialism yet has never picked up the Manifesto, never mind Das Kapital. The PetaPixel article mentions how long people have been trying to split this fine hair. And for nothing. Those artists that are truly brilliant and take a medium to a new place are extraordinarily rare. For example, I'm pretty well read by average and I can count on one hand the authors that have been truly original in the last 100 years. Photography is not much different. And I don't think the people who are going to be taking it in great new places are going on about it. Then again, some authors did...

Ironically, it's the people at the forefront of technology that will take photography in new places. There are so many schmucks of varying talent running around with cameras now that everything has been done. The guy that creates a new way to do it will be the original one, like Nicéphore Niépce and Louis Daguerre. The rest of us are just narrow/short sighted onanistic egoists trying to feel important when we go on about being original and our true artistry. Look through the hole in the camera, press the button. If you twiddle with sliders in front of the computer don't go congratulating yourself that you did it different, that you're original or that you know what art is. You can't possibly believe you're the only dude in a dark room with a computer that sees the world that special way you do. And so what? Does that change anything for you? Fleeting sense of superiority working out well for you? Enjoy the process not some ego you've strapped to it.

For the record, I like SOOC. I like to get as close as possible in camera to what I want for practical as well as aesthetic reasons. I don't derive as much joy from pushing sliders around as I do taking pictures. I'd much rather shoot.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:22 pm 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
I think you confuse SOOC with some sort of post done minimally after the fact, do you?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:44 am
Posts: 148
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: www.cjsphotography.ca
ions wrote:
Wall of text.
You put a lot of words in my mouth from one simple statement. You're also arguing points neither of us made.


Last edited by Venser on Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:41 pm 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:50 pm
Posts: 8965
Location: Ajax
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 25 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/lxdesign
even for those posting files SOOC... there is usually some form of adjustment before posting, whether it be contrast, or curves adjustment. I know a guy that primarily shoots jpeg and posts stuff SOOC on the Fred Miranda forum all the time, but you have to sometimes wonder if he didn't do some kind of adjustment or use some sort of D lighting or something in camera to get the perfect results.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:42 pm 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:26 pm
Posts: 1155
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanfaust/
What does SooC even mean today when I can even do numerous effects right in my camera. Even for film people - the film you choose affects the image. SooC from the start is already filled with countless processing decisions before, during and after a photo is taken.

Regardless - art is subjective and everyone should just pursue what floats their boats and not worry what the dude next door is doing. Less talk and more art.

J.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:34 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:33 pm
Posts: 1076
Location: Oakville
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/people/26908528@N04/
ions wrote:
Venser wrote:
Quote:
If you choose to do photography as art and shoot jpeg without processing them in post you might as well sell your camera
Couldn't agree more.


Hah. This is nonsense and one of the dumbest things I've read on here. Tops my best nuggets that's for sure. "True photographers?" "Art?" C'mon. You guys should know better than this. Only a true photographer shoots with Canon(:D).... primes... L glass... manually.... film... B&W.... Zeiss ... Leica... Medium Format.... Large Format..... My process is better because a yak pissed in my Rodinal at 5280' during a New Moon at just the right moment. You didn't know yak urine is the best fixer available? Rinse and fix in one stream. Silly.

This smacks of Freud's Narcissism of Minor Differences. How that works is basically this: FACT: We all do more or less the same thing. Very few things are immensely different and there's almost no such thing as original. This gets our egos all pissed off so we seek out these minor differences and scream about them like fools so we can feel like individuals. You really don't want me to expand on that because then we're getting into Lacan and nobody wants that. Anyway, SOOC is an arbitrary line. Yup, that means minor (or major if you ask someone desperate to be different) differences between different cameras. Should the phrase be "Straight Out of My Camera"? It's just a way of saying "I used an arbitrary limited set of tools to come to this finality." To arbitrarily draw a line that is fine, it gives us a baseline. Freud's narcissists get worked up that such a baseline can't exist of course and sure, that is true with a certain amount of granularity but so what? Sign signified and all sorts of perception issues that get more and more esoteric and unaccessible the closer one gets to originality. The so what is not the answer to what art is or a thing that makes a "true photographer." Art does not equal original.

And the pursuit of originality thing? Ridiculous. To smarten up on that I suggest you read Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Not about photography but about (one of the things it's about) art and the pursuit of. I'm under no illusion that anyone will. Just helps to have read the good stuff written roughly 100 years ago, and more in some cases, that goes over these ideas far better than we will so we can talk about it better. Or, you end up looking like a privileged middle class white kid going on about Socialism yet has never picked up the Manifesto, never mind Das Kapital. The PetaPixel article mentions how long people have been trying to split this fine hair. And for nothing. Those artists that are truly brilliant and take a medium to a new place are extraordinarily rare. For example, I'm pretty well read by average and I can count on one hand the authors that have been truly original in the last 100 years. Photography is not much different. And I don't think the people who are going to be taking it in great new places are going on about it. Then again, some authors did...

Ironically, it's the people at the forefront of technology that will take photography in new places. There are so many schmucks of varying talent running around with cameras now that everything has been done. The guy that creates a new way to do it will be the original one, like Nicéphore Niépce and Louis Daguerre. The rest of us are just narrow/short sighted onanistic egoists trying to feel important when we go on about being original and our true artistry. Look through the hole in the camera, press the button. If you twiddle with sliders in front of the computer don't go congratulating yourself that you did it different, that you're original or that you know what art is. You can't possibly believe you're the only dude in a dark room with a computer that sees the world that special way you do. And so what? Does that change anything for you? Fleeting sense of superiority working out well for you? Enjoy the process not some ego you've strapped to it.

For the record, I like SOOC. I like to get as close as possible in camera to what I want for practical as well as aesthetic reasons. I don't derive as much joy from pushing sliders around as I do taking pictures. I'd much rather shoot.


+1
Doowutchyalike & I'ma do what I like just don't harsh my mellow by telling me what I need to do to be a 'true photographer' or an artist...
...because none of us are and at the same time we all are.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:42 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
PotatoEYE wrote:
I think you confuse SOOC with some sort of post done minimally after the fact, do you?


No. I'm not confusing technical issues because to get bogged down in that crap misses the point altogether. When I indulge in gear, and I unabashedly admit I do, I do so out of gear fetishism. Altogether something else. My point of getting as close to SOOC as possible (out of my camera(does this distinction make a difference?)) is because the photography is what I enjoy. Fiddling with sliders is an explicitly different exercise that can be tightly related.

If I'm misunderstanding distill it into one simple statement for my puny brain to understand please. What's the point of this thread? If I understand correctly we are talking about the acronym SOOC and how that has a slippery meaning. My response was boofuckinghoo. Flippant remarks were made about how if a certain (arbitrary) process wasn't followed it wasn't art and gear should be sold. You have to back that stuff up and frankly it's indefensible. This becomes the same argument as gear whoring or being obsessed with anything arbitrary that isn't the art. And that's making the massive unfair leap that that is what we're all after and judging those that just want to take pictures because they enjoy doing so. If we want to talk art theory let's go, but I'm not going to be led down a path to granular technical nonsense or get the tldr response. I hate that shit. And if anyone really wants to talk art theory in this respect without being grounded in the basics don't make me sick utsc2006 on you, the way she wields her Art History degree can be deadly. I've restrained her so far. ;) I've seen this "I'm original and what "they're" doing is not" argument so many times in not only photography, but music and literature endlessly as well. It applies to all arts. You fired that vase in what kiln? OMG philistine! And that is by no means the end of it. To all the Holden Caulfields out there look at what Stephen Dedalus realizes and think about it. You go create the art that is closest to god, change it all, straight out of your camera. I will laugh along with Joyce at you. Don't misunderstand, it's not all dire and there's nothing wrong with a Sisyphean task. If you enjoy the journey to the peak does it matter if you ever get there? Look through the hole and push your personal rock up the hill. Release the shutter, release the mind and create images as you see the world. Asking more of yourself is futile, judging others for doing so is empty.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:25 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:46 pm
Posts: 3168
Location: North York
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/thericyip
There's a photo of me floating around in the archives with a booger in my nose. Thanks, SOOC... could've fixed it with one click.

Note: If you find it, delete it and do NOT repost it... *shudders*


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:30 am 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:37 pm
Posts: 468
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 3 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eastyorkphotography/
Image


Andy Wharhol is disappointed with this thread.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:02 am 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:49 am
Posts: 2012
Location: Leaside
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
It seems the author of the article has never shot Polaroid or sildes....while it is possible to manipulate those mediums with chemicals and temperatures, for the most part the exposure is set when the shot is taken.

And that's the same with SOOC JPEGs, to me the processing options in the camera is like selecting a different types of film before taking the shot, indooor, outdoor, vivid, mono, etc.

In my job of producing catalog shots I shoot JPEG and try to get everything right in camera because I want to spend as little time as possible in processing; I spend less than a minute processing each image because there are many more waiting. I don't have the time to waste processing a RAW file, and due to the nature of the shots I can't do batch.

Personally I wonder why people worry about whether an image is SOOC or not.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:41 am 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
Exactly, why worry if it's processed after or not. To Chris, once again you seem to get pissed with some underlying message nobody included, perhaps? SOOC means no post processing was used whatsoever, you don't do SOOC as I know you shoot raw and develop raw digital negative in LR. Getting it right in camera and not processing at all is SOOC. Hope this helps define it. As to the contemporary art followers, I don't think either Pollock or Warhol is a great artist. Hyped up because they went against the traditional thinking, just like some great artists before them, however, their art doesn't have the same value to me as, let's say Klimt does. Contemporary art is all about conceptual message, not the art of the craft, which is a shame to me, subjectively.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:25 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
PotatoEYE wrote:
Exactly, why worry if it's processed after or not. To Chris, once again you seem to get pissed with some underlying message nobody included, perhaps?


Quite likely but I think that's because there's nothing here. You can't, or at least shouldn't, make flippant statements about art and people having to throw away their cameras because they don't see things as you do. Those are big statements to make. I thought there was thought behind it. I looked at the statements and applied critical theory to them and found nothing and thoroughly showed that.I make no excuse for well thought out explanations based on sound, albeit literary, theory.

PotatoEYE wrote:
SOOC means no post processing was used whatsoever, you don't do SOOC as I know you shoot raw and develop raw digital negative in LR. Getting it right in camera and not processing at all is SOOC. Hope this helps define it.


I know the definition of SOOC. And I stated as much above at least once. What I do does not mean that I don't know the definition of SOOC. I know what a tea house is, that does not mean I've been to one. I fiddle a bit because I either don't quite like the result the camera came up with or I didn't get quite right. Playing with film again I am treating that as SOOC. It's an arbitrary line I am drawing but I think it's done at a meaningful point. If it will help you granular pedantics I'll call it Straight Out of Camera and Developing Film Process. Feel better? Is there a point made? Either way I'm not to tore up about. If I don't like the results I look to see how I can change my process to make them better. But, for me, the more processing something has had the less I think of it. Digital or chemical. Yes, this makes me a hypocrite with my adoration for Ansel. More than a single frame? I'm not interested. The more heavily edited the less I care about something as a photograph. Perhaps those who heavily edit their images should sell their cameras and just use images they find online to create their "art"? My enjoyment in photography is derived from taking a set of equipment to capture some light at a particular moment in time. Heavily editing that moment later with equipment I consider separate does nothing for me. Is the computer after the fact also just a piece of equipment to relay that moment? Sure. But, it's on the other side of the arbitrary line I've drawn - that many have drawn. And sure, sometimes I'm a hypocrite about it. Let me make this clear - my argument is that this argument of trying to deconstruct what SOOC means is empty. Yes, one gets to feel smug by saying how complicated that really means but to what end? If that's to their own ends and they get something positive from it then great. There is fun to be had in emulsions and tone curves. But when you throw empty hyperbole around like

PotatoEYE wrote:
here's an interesting point of view, which I share and think should be standard among true photographers.
Read here


And the article is a crock of shit. Some dumbass feels smug because he knows a bit about the chemistry of developing film and it's certainly not "straight." No shit. So what? Looking at something a little more granularly does not grant permission to be dismissive.

Which gets followed by:

PotatoEYE wrote:
True, I'm annoyed by the use of SOOC, and disappointed by people who choose not to develop their digital photos like one would develop film. Anyway, I'm a violator of my own standard when it comes to film, sending it to a lab due to the lack of space. If you choose to do photography as art and shoot jpeg without processing them in post you might as well sell your camera


There are going to be reactions to statements like this. As art? You decide? As I said above. Insulting nonsense. It does nothing for making the simple point of saying "Hey guys, remember, even though you say SOOC there is a complicated process with a pile of variables taking place so it's not always pure k?" When a neophyte shares a picture with me they took with X camera and I ask, did you use Ps at all? and they answer "no, straight out of camera" I know what they mean. Nobody has to sell their cameras because of it. We have a collective agreement about what that means. The details of which are for individual enjoyment, not judgement.

PotatoEYE wrote:
As to the contemporary art followers, I don't think either Pollock or Warhol is a great artist. Hyped up because they went against the traditional thinking, just like some great artists before them, however, their art doesn't have the same value to me as, let's say Klimt does. Contemporary art is all about conceptual message, not the art of the craft, which is a shame to me, subjectively.


Again, be careful about making statements if you can't back them up. I repeat, you don't want to be the middle class white Canadian kid spouting off about Socialism cluelessly. You are very demanding on yourself in what you're after and you have very specific, and rigid, tastes and opinions. This is fine, it's great, you manage to create fantastic images because of this but when you're going to take these rigid definitions of your own creation dismissively out into a public forum you have to be prepared to back them up with a well thought out foundation, not just opinion.

If we want to talk about art and art theory there's a canon that has to be read. Otherwise it's just opinion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:15 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:37 pm
Posts: 468
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 3 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eastyorkphotography/
You can't make opposing statements to prove whatever moot point it is that article is desperatly trying to make. Either you think we should throw our cameras away or we should not care about sooc.... I'm confused.

What I'm also confused about is your love and somewhat lack of knowledge about Klimt. Dude had much less influence on his contemporaries than pollock or Warhol ... Which by the way the correct use of the term contemporary by art historians is just anything produced after ww2... So your use of the term above is incorrect if you wish to state that all contemporary art has some agenda and a lack of craft. It's a very blanket statement that doesn't really prove anything.

If we look at their work only...klimts art was ignored for ages compared to its popularity now. Heck, you can buy it at ikea. He had influence pushing the art nouveau style...and the Vienna secession but had little direct influence with his artistic talents.

Compare that to pollock who brought us some of the best examples of automatism and built on the work of Dali, Breton and Masson. Or Warhol who used countless mediums to explore the ideas of celebrity and mass production and creation of pop art. You can't deny his influence on the art world.

Aesthetically you may like and understand Klimt better but his use of grotesque and erotic forms was met with the same reaction as Pollocks drip work or Andy's use of pop cultural images. He plays the same wow factor cards they did. You can't possibly separate him if you wish to talk about going against the grain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:42 pm 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
My Klimt reference was to show that going against the commonly used preconceptions in art doesn't have to be empty of the craft itself, hiding behind the theoretical search for something new. I don't appreciate theoretical art, I appreciate art I don't have to read the statement to understand. While I can understand why people do it, it doesn't mean it's going the right way...bringing out any good within the craft. All it does is diminish the craft of painting. Yes, minimalism everywhere is what today's society is about. The Wow factor is what drives modern artists, not the passion for technical or aesthetic or even emotional perfection, or all of the above. The same should be said about photography. People forget the craft of telling a story, it's all aesthetic now that it is mainstream. Oh, I got the exposure right, oh look at that bokeh, oh look at how sharp this photo is. I'd rather there was more quality than quantity, wouldn't you?
All of this debate about definitions and concepts has no meaning other than academic, which I have no interest in, because I live in the real world, not on paper.
By the way, this world probably has different values than yours does ;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:15 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
Venser wrote:
ions wrote:
Wall of text.
You put a lot of words in my mouth from one simple statement. You're also arguing points neither of us made.


I was ignoring this because agreeing with the idea that someone should sell their camera because they shoot jpeg was is and will remain foolish. But it dawned on me where you're coming from and I can see how you would see that. This thread is just one part of many ongoing discussions PotatoEye and I have had so I was taking an educated guess from experience what direction he was going to go and trying to preempt him.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:48 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:37 pm
Posts: 468
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 3 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eastyorkphotography/
That's ok Potatoeye...I like turtles too


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:52 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:15 pm
Posts: 1209
Location: Downtown Toronto
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.synowiec.ca
PotatoEYE wrote:
Contemporary art is all about conceptual message, not the art of the craft, which is a shame to me, subjectively.


Why worry about the message, meaning or feeling of an image or piece of art; when you can spend your life focusing on the "art of the craft"

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:16 pm
Posts: 659
Location: downtown
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
that's a happy little bush right there


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:21 pm 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:50 pm
Posts: 8965
Location: Ajax
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 25 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/lxdesign
this is becoming way too much reading for me :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:57 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
We should have a beer soaked theory meet. After March. Now we do.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:01 pm 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
Lol


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
I've seen lots of images which people claim are sooc. Many of them are good, but pp would make them better.

Just two weeks ago I met with a (PJ) student who claims they are told/taught to get it right in the camera and she was a bit
offended when I told her I've never seen a "perfect" image which had no pp.

This same student was upset because a venue she wanted to attend and take pictures at told her NO. So I asked her what did you do?
She sheepishly said she didn't go. My reply.... When they say NO, you GO anyway. how else are you ever going to get anything?
I've been kicked out of or asked to leave 100s of places, but not before I get my shot.

If you believe your sooc image is as good as you can get it. Good for you, thats what makes the saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder
so true.
a great man once said " I can turn a bad photo into great art "


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:50 pm
Posts: 113
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jscottharrison/
I was just reading how machine gunning and "fix it later" mentality has harmed many a photographer. On the other hand, it's created many a photographer.

Oh...that was on a film shooter group. :)

I do believe claiming that having the ability to fix my lack of skill in using my camera correctly after all these years is, in itself, "art" would be a bit defensive and perhaps lying to myself. When I first look at my negative/screen I know when I missed and it always leads to the second consideration of whether or not I can save it or it has to end up something else.

Claiming that a photograph that lacks post isn't "art" is ...well...has been mindboddling.

SOOC to me means "what the photographer visualized" not "literal". Visualizing, using my camera correctly, develop, scan, post, print...it all goes better if I do the first thing right.

Has anybody read the story of Adam's "Monolith"? First shot was with a yellow filter, second with dark red. The yellow was a literal interpretation of the scene and the second shot was what he felt...and the rest was history.

“I felt I had accomplished something, but did not realize its significance until I developed the plate that evening. I had achieved my first true visualization!”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:29 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:17 am
Posts: 1528
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
BaRTiMuS wrote:
What if your form of artistic expression involves shooting low quality jpegs and blowing them up really large in print? When it comes to art nothing is off limits and no one is doing it wrong. Nobody told Pollock to sell his paint brushes because he didn't use them in a conventional fashion.


Or what if you're a documentarian/journalist/purist whose form of art is in the truth of the image itself, rather than what 'truth' you can inject into it? Some of, in fact probably all of the most powerful images I've seen came from film, not digital, and involved little or no retouching. Right now I'm thinking of images of war, from WWI and WWII, and Vietnam.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group