29 September 2006

The Walk - discussion

Regarding previous published picture.
J. S-g:
I think you overdid the vignetting here, in the sense that it would greatly benefit from more feathering. At least to me, that is.

C Wett:
Hi Joakim,
first of all, I appreciate your honesty, I really do.

Regarding the vignetting, it is interesting to discuss. You are quite right that it is "overdone", if I'm trying to "fake" the analogue equivalent of bad lenses.

Instead, I would say that to me, the effect I added, contributed to the atmosphere of the picture. It added the feeling of a strong winter sun in early springtime... that's it to me.

I have stopped worrying about whether my post processing looks "genuine" or not (i.e. analogue), it is not about that to me. Digital is my medium and my material.

You could see this as developing the copies in a too hot developer, or by having an unexpected elbow pointing in into the composition. Look at the lamps on The Rambler below, do they look genuine? Either it is a failed photo, since it doesn't work - or it makes the difference in positive terms.

Hail to the norm deconstruction. :-)

This was 'about photography' as well. :)
Any more views, Dear F:ers?


F said...

The impression of the picture is what matters.(as Strömholm says) How you achieve that is of no great importance. At least not to me.

F said...

It's a matter of taste and sometimes the ambition to create a certain atmosphere could be overdone. I've seen this when digital images are created but this is also true for prints made in the darkroom. Quite often, my creations are tossed in the bin because of this. However, when it comes to your image it passes with distinction - I like it a lot.
- Abeku

F said...

I have stopped worrying about whether my post processing looks "genuine" or not (i.e. analogue), it is not about that to me. Digital is my medium and my material.

This is the point, I think -- the place where we stumble. Many people try to or think they are, recreating analogue in digital post processing.

On the other hand, many are not -- as we see here (what a wonderful point, and well taken by a film-head like myself!)but the viewer may assume (incorrectly) that they are.

Seems like we run into trouble when we assume either.

One more point made for keeping the mind open . . .

F said...

the above comment is mine

--Jeanne (with the poor mind!)

F said...

I think we have to accept the difference between analog and digital image. I my experince the digtal image needs post processing to become "alive". Certainly you can overdo this, not in your case Christian, but you see a lot of examples of this. They even teach it in Photo magazins etc.


F said...

What they teach in many of the magazines is the "Perfect Way To Kill A Photo" - its Perfect. :)

F said...

"50 ways to kill a photo"

Read all about it:)


F said...

I'll share with you all this wonderful quote. I'm sure you know the American Magizine "Popular Photography"

"Popular Photography" is to Photography as "The Sound of Music" is to Music.

-- Ted Orland

channeled by Jeanne :)

F said...

I totally agree with you on the theoretical level. And I wasn't talking about genuine or not.

I might be that I am too bound to the analogue way of thinking (I'm open for that possibility), but I did not think that the vignetting contributed to the mood. To me, it became an effect - and I got disaffected.

To you, and most of everyone else, it did not become and effect, and you did not become disaffected. Great!

J. S-g.

F said...

that was a really funny quote, thanks for sharing!

Joakim, sure, get your point. Anyway does(not) do it. :)