Wired article

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

On 2015-03-15 02:40:53 +0000, Mayayana said:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

Why is it I am unimpressed?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:49:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-15 02:40:53 +0000, Mayayana said:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

Why is it I am unimpressed?

You believe photography is a representational art?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-03-15 02:55:06 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:49:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-15 02:40:53 +0000, Mayayana said:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

Why is it I am unimpressed?

Because it unrealistically presents the scene? Much like some HDR
efforts?

Touché

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-03-15 03:05:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:49:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-15 02:40:53 +0000, Mayayana said:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

Why is it I am unimpressed?

You believe photography is a representational art?

Personally I don't like the idea of derivative work. If you are going
to screw with images, don't use classics use your originals.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck:
Why is it I am unimpressed?

Tony Cooper:
Because it unrealistically presents the scene? Much like some HDR
efforts?

You beat me to it. My take is "Because it is ugly and doesn't meet my
definition of art, but no worse than the 99% of the HDR I have seen."

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 22:10:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-15 03:05:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:49:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-15 02:40:53 +0000, Mayayana said:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

Why is it I am unimpressed?

You believe photography is a representational art?

Personally I don't like the idea of derivative work. If you are going
to screw with images, don't use classics use your originals.

Fair comment.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 3/14/2015 10:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-03-15 02:40:53 +0000, Mayayana said:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

Why is it I am unimpressed?


Although you deny liking abstract, your sense of composition proves you
have an inate feel for abstractionism. You simply prefer realism to pure
essence. I have a strpng preference for abstract.

This:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140726_4926.jpg

became this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swirl.jpg

Which became this:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swirl2.jpg

The maker can go as far as they want to. Unless you're being
commissioned, only the maker has to like the image.




--
PeterN

On 3/14/2015 11:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:49:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-15 02:40:53 +0000, Mayayana said:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

Why is it I am unimpressed?

You believe photography is a representational art?


Accurate reproduction is more of a craft than an art. The image becomes
are once the mkaer has done something to interpret the scene. That
doesn't mean going as far out of the box as I sometimes do. Sometimes
to become art, all that is needed is shadow & brightness control and
cropping to taste.

--
PeterN

On 3/15/2015 1:10 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-03-15 03:05:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:49:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-15 02:40:53 +0000, Mayayana said:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

Why is it I am unimpressed?

You believe photography is a representational art?

Personally I don't like the idea of derivative work. If you are going to
screw with images, don't use classics use your originals.


Are you ruling out inspiration.

--
PeterN