- Jun 1, 2019
That was your photo? Geez, I thought it was Bidkev's..... damn. I need new glasses....I.... I thought we had something... when you "liked" my photo that one time. I thought it meant something, that it was special. I'm starting to think you've "liked" other photos here too, maybe even on other forums! How can you go and destroy me so... so nonchalantly. Publicly, none the less! Here: here's my "like". Take it. Spit in it. Break it. Rub salt into it. Kick it to the street. Nothing can hurt as bad as how you've just cast me aside.
You take the "k" out of "like". You're despicable.
Ummm, that was a light attempt at humor (soob), tbh I took the photo but didn't recall processing but going back into LR it seems I did some interperation of the artists original.One is allowed, of course to question the good taste of this painter. By the way the detail shown is seemingly not "SOOB" it seems from this rendering of the complete work published in The Guardian :
View attachment 797852
I got it, I got it ! Anyway it was a smart example demonstrating that presenting one's colored view of the scene is the rule rather than the exception.Ummm, that was a light attempt at humor (soob), tbh I took the photo but didn't recall processing but going back into LR it seems I did some interperation of the artists original.
...and that being the case, it seems to make the most sense for anyone creating/sharing images for enjoyment (as opposed to a paying client) to approach PP with a mindset of personal expression of vision, rather than "am I doin' it right?"... I think this is what @spdavies was getting at. It seems like a distinction worth making, since the thrust of the OP seems to be more about things people might be doing simply because it's what they (mis?)understand to be currently acceptable fashion (but maybe I'm wrong).presenting one's colored view of the scene is the rule rather than the exception.
Perhaps re-read my OP before misinterpreting it so thoroughly. Third-to-last line.But it does. It comes back to what I said previously. The only person who knows if it's right is the person who made it. Period. Now, you can agree or disagree with the processing style, that's fine, perfectly acceptable. But what you and some others are suggesting is that a style of processing you personally disagree with doesn't deserve the same attention, or is in fact ruining threads in this forum. That there's a lemming mindset in at least one thread that has become the norm, and it's...why was it again? To get attention, to stand out?
As far as I'm concerned folks can process away to whatever extent they choose. Everyone's work deserves a look. I will look at them, and I can appreciate their EFFORT with a like, even if the photo doesn't tickle my fancy.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Conversations evolve. At this point, most are commenting on that evolution, not your first post.Perhaps re-read my OP before misinterpreting it so thoroughly. Third-to-last line.
I am discussing trends and disproportionate ratios. Not judging certain styles as good or bad.
And for the same reason, the individual samples from Art that have been used in this thread don't add much.
That's all taken as a given, surely.Photography continues to evolve. Some people's attitudes don't.
There are different genres of photography, just as in every type of art.
In journalism, very strict rules apply.
In NatGeo contests, very strict rules apply but they are different rules.
In real estate, rules vary by location (I understand wide-angle lenses which make rooms look larger are not allowed in some places - Canada?)
In landscape photography, there is a conservative faction which looks down on boosted contrast and saturation.
However, such images are popular with the "uneducated" public and so many photographers enhance their images in that way - to the distaste and disdain of the "conservatives" - definitely not getting any "likes" from them!
Now, with the advent of digital imaging, the photographic art has been liberated from the inherent limitations of chemicals and paper.
With digital capture and processing, the sky's the limit and some reach for the sky.
It's a new period in photographic history, just like Pictorialism and the f/64 Group.
Some will choose to limit themselves to past traditions and that's fine.
Some will take advantage of the new technology and will create new kinds of photographic images.
Some will be excellent, some will be just average and some will be poor.
There are no rules in art.
Of course, anyone can like or not like these "trends".
Appreciation of art, after all, is a matter of personal taste.
I'm not sure why some seem to feel they need to announce to the world that they disapprove, but that's OK.
There's a tradition for that also, in painting, where the official "salons" resisted and denounced every step forward in modern painting styles.
Art marches on.