Wired article

On 3/15/2015 5:22 AM, Rich A wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 10:49:05 PM UTC-4, 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 someone or a monkey could achieve the same result tossing paint on a canvas?


Muttering someting about infinite monkeys and Shakspear.

--
PeterN

On 2015-03-19 16:32:01 +0000, PeterN said:

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.

All well and good, that is your shot and you are free to do with it as
you please. My issue with the images featured in this book is the fact
that they were not originals they were cheap snapshots of classic Adams
& Weston images which were then udulterated. At best you might call
them derivative, but certainly not original or pleasing.

Just like you I can take any of my images and apply motion blur or any
variety of filters to come up with something which might or might not
work for all sorts of reasons. It just isn't my thing.
http://adobe.ly/1x5brtX

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-03-19 16:40:18 +0000, PeterN said:

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.

Nope!
....but that wasn't inspired, just hijacked.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:38:35 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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.

There is no way that one can produce in two dimensions an accurate
representation of a three dimensional scene. The best that one can do
is present a representation. The impression the viewer receives from
this can be affected by such things as the optical geometry, the
lighting and exposure of the image, the shaping of the boundaries of
the image, light, shade and sharpness within the image etc.

There is an element of art in the application of all of these things
which do affect the accuracy of the impression the viewer recieves of
the original three dimensional object.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:31:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-19 16:32:01 +0000, PeterN said:

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.

All well and good, that is your shot and you are free to do with it as
you please. My issue with the images featured in this book is the fact
that they were not originals they were cheap snapshots of classic Adams
& Weston images which were then udulterated. At best you might call
them derivative, but certainly not original or pleasing.

Just like you I can take any of my images and apply motion blur or any
variety of filters to come up with something which might or might not
work for all sorts of reasons. It just isn't my thing.
http://adobe.ly/1x5brtX

Quite good. You should try doing that to a similar image of multiple
cars.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-03-19 21:10:14 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:31:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-19 16:32:01 +0000, PeterN said:
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.

All well and good, that is your shot and you are free to do with it as
you please. My issue with the images featured in this book is the fact
that they were not originals they were cheap snapshots of classic Adams
& Weston images which were then udulterated. At best you might call
them derivative, but certainly not original or pleasing.

Just like you, I can take any of my images and apply motion blur or any
variety of filters to come up with something which might or might not
work for all sorts of reasons. It just isn't my thing.
http://adobe.ly/1x5brtX

Quite good. You should try doing that to a similar image of multiple
cars.

Something such as this?
http://adobe.ly/1OaQgw2


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:03:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-19 21:10:14 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:31:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-19 16:32:01 +0000, PeterN said:
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.

All well and good, that is your shot and you are free to do with it as
you please. My issue with the images featured in this book is the fact
that they were not originals they were cheap snapshots of classic Adams
& Weston images which were then udulterated. At best you might call
them derivative, but certainly not original or pleasing.

Just like you, I can take any of my images and apply motion blur or any
variety of filters to come up with something which might or might not
work for all sorts of reasons. It just isn't my thing.
http://adobe.ly/1x5brtX

Quite good. You should try doing that to a similar image of multiple
cars.

Something such as this?
http://adobe.ly/1OaQgw2

Yes, but I feel that all cars should be equally blurred.You probably
need layers to do it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 3/19/2015 11:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:03:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-19 21:10:14 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:31:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-19 16:32:01 +0000, PeterN said:
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.

All well and good, that is your shot and you are free to do with it as
you please. My issue with the images featured in this book is the fact
that they were not originals they were cheap snapshots of classic Adams
& Weston images which were then udulterated. At best you might call
them derivative, but certainly not original or pleasing.

Just like you, I can take any of my images and apply motion blur or any
variety of filters to come up with something which might or might not
work for all sorts of reasons. It just isn't my thing.
http://adobe.ly/1x5brtX

Quite good. You should try doing that to a similar image of multiple
cars.

Something such as this?
http://adobe.ly/1OaQgw2

Yes, but I feel that all cars should be equally blurred.You probably
need layers to do it.

Hmm, I was thinking sequentially blurred. [YMMV]

==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 2015-03-20 03:02:11 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:03:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-19 21:10:14 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:31:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-19 16:32:01 +0000, PeterN said:
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.

All well and good, that is your shot and you are free to do with it as
you please. My issue with the images featured in this book is the fact
that they were not originals they were cheap snapshots of classic Adams
& Weston images which were then udulterated. At best you might call
them derivative, but certainly not original or pleasing.

Just like you, I can take any of my images and apply motion blur or any
variety of filters to come up with something which might or might not
work for all sorts of reasons. It just isn't my thing.
http://adobe.ly/1x5brtX

Quite good. You should try doing that to a similar image of multiple
cars.

Something such as this?
http://adobe.ly/1OaQgw2

Yes, but I feel that all cars should be equally blurred.You probably
need layers to do it.

Probably. That was iust a down & dirty quick rendition to meet your
challenge. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-03-20 03:02:11 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:03:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-19 21:10:14 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:31:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-19 16:32:01 +0000, PeterN said:
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.

All well and good, that is your shot and you are free to do with it as
you please. My issue with the images featured in this book is the fact
that they were not originals they were cheap snapshots of classic Adams
& Weston images which were then udulterated. At best you might call
them derivative, but certainly not original or pleasing.

Just like you, I can take any of my images and apply motion blur or any
variety of filters to come up with something which might or might not
work for all sorts of reasons. It just isn't my thing.
http://adobe.ly/1x5brtX

Quite good. You should try doing that to a similar image of multiple
cars.

Something such as this?
http://adobe.ly/1OaQgw2

Yes, but I feel that all cars should be equally blurred.You probably
need layers to do it.

OK!
I have added another rendition to that Collection. I used the "Path
Blur" using a seperate masked layer for each car.
I kept the criteria for each path the same:
Speed: 170%
Taper: 20%
End Point Speed: 155%
Strobe strength: 20%
Strobe Flashes: 6

--
Regards,

Savageduck