If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On 10/12/2017 10:42 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/12/2017 12:32 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 12, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 12, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck * said: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg Now that's my type of image. I thought you might like the concept.;-) I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing and mix of color. Actually Pollack is not pure random. I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which resonates. His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very familiar with. One which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute in Utica, NY. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg My concept of abstract is determined by the original image. https://www.dropbox.com/s/865o53pgsnwaj7j/Marshall%20Point%20Lighthouse.jpg I always thought your concept of abstract was determined by what you did to the original image. The image tells me what to do. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xay7e4rqiz393m/Blaack%20Eyed%20Susan.jpg?dl=0 ...er, OK... And sometimes it tells me to do this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zza0n01cabpmecj/20170205_Flowers_0056.jpg?dl=0 Again, OK! ...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck to an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock? They are not intended to remind someone that they were at a certain place, or saw some object. They are designed to create a feeling. I will be one of the first to agree that probably more people don't like it, than do. Can't say for sure, I never took a survey. If I like it, that's all that counts. If someone else likes it, good. I have made someone else happy. We had a theme competition at my CC. The theme was hands. Here is an unmanipulated copy of my winning image, and my first runner-up, although, obviously neither are human hands. The concept is that my images are intended to be interpretations and representations. https://www.dropbox.com/s/dxhgrljhcp97mbi/Hand%20of%20Nature.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/mxkrww5aty119ut/Hands%20And%20a%20Foot.jpg?dl=0 Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread .. if we're into creating a feeling, here's one I created way back in 1969, long before Photoshop. https://www.dropbox.com/s/hjyxuv7h1x...Fire%2001b.jpg I was looking to create a feeling of drama and loss. The twist here is that the fire was that night but the photo was taken the morning after the fire. -- == Later... Ron C -- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:42:14 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:37:55 -0700, Old Geezerr wrote: On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 22:14:31 -0700, Savageduck wrote: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg Thought that you had found on old movie theater seat. Dave: There goes the happy moron. He doesn't give a damn. Gee I wish I was a moron. My God, maybe I am That last line would scan better if you substituted 'perhaps' for 'maybe'. :-) Could be. This is the way I remember it being said. Thanks for your comment, though. Dave: There goes the happy moron. He doesn't give a damn. Gee I wish I was a moron. My God, maybe I am |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:42:41 -0400, PeterN
wrote: On 10/12/2017 12:32 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 12, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 12, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck said: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg Now that's my type of image. I thought you might like the concept.;-) I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing and mix of color. Actually Pollack is not pure random. I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which resonates. His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very familiar with. One which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute in Utica, NY. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg My concept of abstract is determined by the original image. https://www.dropbox.com/s/865o53pgsnwaj7j/Marshall%20Point%20Lighthouse.jpg I always thought your concept of abstract was determined by what you did to the original image. The image tells me what to do. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xay7e4rqiz393m/Blaack%20Eyed%20Susan.jpg?dl=0 ...er, OK... And sometimes it tells me to do this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zza0n01cabpmecj/20170205_Flowers_0056.jpg?dl=0 Again, OK! ...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck to an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock? They are not intended to remind someone that they were at a certain place, or saw some object. They are designed to create a feeling. I will be one of the first to agree that probably more people don't like it, than do. Can't say for sure, I never took a survey. If I like it, that's all that counts. If someone else likes it, good. I have made someone else happy. We had a theme competition at my CC. The theme was hands. Here is an unmanipulated copy of my winning image, and my first runner-up, although, obviously neither are human hands. The concept is that my images are intended to be interpretations and representations. https://www.dropbox.com/s/dxhgrljhcp97mbi/Hand%20of%20Nature.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/mxkrww5aty119ut/Hands%20And%20a%20Foot.jpg?dl=0 Peter, I *like* what you do. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On Oct 13, 2017, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ): On Thursday, 12 October 2017 15:28:24 UTC+1, PeterN wrote: On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck said: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg Now that's my type of image. I thought you might like the concept.;-) I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing and mix of color. Actually Pollack is not pure random. I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which resonates. His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very familiar with. One which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute in Utica, NY. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg My concept of abstract is determined by the original image. https://www.dropbox.com/s/865o53pgsn...20Lighthouse.j pg I always thought your concept of abstract was determined by what you did to the original image. The image tells me what to do. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xay7e4rqiz393m/Blaack%20Eyed%20Susan.jpg?dl=0 -- PeterN So what did you do ? He listened to his image, and zapped it with something in his tool box. What do you feel about the fake Pollocks , do they give you the same feeling ? What fake Pollocks? I suggested that the gum wall shots evoked an impression of Pollock’s work. The only Pollock in this thread is the very real “Pollock #2, 1949”. BTW: It is huge. At 20+ ft long by 5 ft high it dominates the wall in the gallery, and immediately overwhelms, astonishes, and impresses the viewer as a great work of art. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Reason for an image, was ( Care for Some Gum?)
On 10/12/2017 11:38 PM, Ron C wrote:
snip Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread .. I changed the subject line. ;-) if we're into creating a feeling, here's one I created way back in 1969, long before Photoshop. https://www.dropbox.com/s/hjyxuv7h1x...Fire%2001b.jpg I was looking to create a feeling of drama and loss. The twist here is that the fire was that night but the photo was taken the morning after the fire. I like your vision. If the image conveys that feeling to you, from my POV, that is the most important element. Candidly, I am not certain that the line drawing technique used, conveyed that feeling to me. -- PeterN |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On Oct 13, 2017, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ): On Friday, 13 October 2017 15:14:44 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 13, 2017, Whisky-dave wrote (in ): On Thursday, 12 October 2017 15:28:24 UTC+1, PeterN wrote: On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck said: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg Now that's my type of image. I thought you might like the concept.;-) I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing and mix of color. Actually Pollack is not pure random. I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which resonates. His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very familiar with. One which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute in Utica, NY. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg My concept of abstract is determined by the original image. https://www.dropbox.com/s/865o53pgsn...t%20Lighthouse .j pg I always thought your concept of abstract was determined by what you did to the original image. The image tells me what to do. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xay7e4rqiz393m/Blaack%20Eyed%20Susan.jpg?dl=0 -- PeterN So what did you do ? He listened to his image, and zapped it with something in his tool box. Using a 'heard' of filters and plug-ins no doubt. What do you feel about the fake Pollocks , do they give you the same feeling ? What fake Pollocks? https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ja...d-ifar-1060415 I suggested that the gum wall shots evoked an impression of Pollock’s work. I wonder why. For me it was the random application, which was not a Pollock thing, his application just seemed random, and the color mix. The only Pollock in this thread is the very real “Pollock #2, 1949”. Yes I know but don;t see the pollock in the blaack eyes susan photo, even with teh two aa's. There is no similarity with any Pollock there, and nobody is claiming any. Peter has just promoted his concept of “sort of abstract” derived from his photography. Peter already knows I am not a fan of his particular “expressive" work. BTW: It is huge. At 20+ ft long by 5 ft high it dominates the wall in the gallery, and immediately overwhelms, astonishes, and impresses the viewer as a great work of art. Not having seen the original ... but then again does size really matter. No. However, in the case of that particular Pollock, just as it is for “The Night Watch”, size is an important part of the work, and the initial impact of both is breathtaking. I did a simialr thing at school the teacher was asking me to do some work for my course I wasn;t very good at art in the painting sense so just got some black paper only A3 size and started dipping a brush in my friends selection of paints and flicked the brush causing spots to appear all over my black paper and the kid sitting next to me, I called it the universe and passed my art CSE but only just. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On 10/13/2017 3:34 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:42:41 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 10/12/2017 12:32 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 12, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 12, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck said: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg Now that's my type of image. I thought you might like the concept.;-) I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing and mix of color. Actually Pollack is not pure random. I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which resonates. His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very familiar with. One which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute in Utica, NY. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg My concept of abstract is determined by the original image. https://www.dropbox.com/s/865o53pgsnwaj7j/Marshall%20Point%20Lighthouse.jpg I always thought your concept of abstract was determined by what you did to the original image. The image tells me what to do. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xay7e4rqiz393m/Blaack%20Eyed%20Susan.jpg?dl=0 ...er, OK... And sometimes it tells me to do this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zza0n01cabpmecj/20170205_Flowers_0056.jpg?dl=0 Again, OK! ...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck to an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock? They are not intended to remind someone that they were at a certain place, or saw some object. They are designed to create a feeling. I will be one of the first to agree that probably more people don't like it, than do. Can't say for sure, I never took a survey. If I like it, that's all that counts. If someone else likes it, good. I have made someone else happy. We had a theme competition at my CC. The theme was hands. Here is an unmanipulated copy of my winning image, and my first runner-up, although, obviously neither are human hands. The concept is that my images are intended to be interpretations and representations. https://www.dropbox.com/s/dxhgrljhcp97mbi/Hand%20of%20Nature.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/mxkrww5aty119ut/Hands%20And%20a%20Foot.jpg?dl=0 Peter, I *like* what you do. Thank you -- PeterN |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Reason for an image, was ( Care for Some Gum?)
On 10/13/2017 10:35 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/12/2017 11:38 PM, Ron C wrote: snip Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread .. I changed the subject line. ;-) *if we're into creating a feeling, here's one I created way back in 1969, long before Photoshop. https://www.dropbox.com/s/hjyxuv7h1x...Fire%2001b.jpg I was looking to create a feeling of drama and loss. The twist here is that the fire was that night but the photo was taken the morning after the fire. I like your vision. If the image conveys that feeling to you, from my POV, that is the most important element. Candidly, I am not certain that the line drawing technique used, conveyed that feeling to me. Yes, it's a YMMV thing as always with these things. As an aside: I was studying EE at the time and had just learned about using Kodalith for making printed circuit boards and started experimenting with it for photographic effects. I'll have to dig up the original negative for comparison. ~ Here's what I did for my end of summer twitter header. Intended to evoke the feeling of things closing down. https://www.dropbox.com/s/d9repn6y0t...r-Summer-1.jpg ~~ And for the heck of it, some artistic variations on forget-me-nots: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qo5pvh2fyo...%20%28C%29.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/41wvvg1vw9...%20%28D%29.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/xot9b5spj7...%20%28E%29.jpg -- == Later... Ron C -- |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Reason for an image, was ( Care for Some Gum?)
On 10/13/2017 12:38 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:35 AM, PeterN wrote: On 10/12/2017 11:38 PM, Ron C wrote: snip Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread .. I changed the subject line. ;-) **if we're into creating a feeling, here's one I created way back in 1969, long before Photoshop. https://www.dropbox.com/s/hjyxuv7h1x...Fire%2001b.jpg I was looking to create a feeling of drama and loss. The twist here is that the fire was that night but the photo was taken the morning after the fire. I like your vision. If the image conveys that feeling to you, from my POV, that is the most important element. Candidly, I am not certain that the line drawing technique used, conveyed that feeling to me. Yes, it's a YMMV thing as always with these things. As an aside: I was studying EE at the time and had just learned about using Kodalith for making printed circuit boards and started experimenting with it for photographic effects. I'll have to dig up the original negative for comparison. When I had my wet darkroom I used expired X-ray film for posterizatons, and would print through Vaseline covered glass, to simulate brush strokes. It would take hours to put brush strokes on the Vaseline, while tracing the projected image. I still do that using Corel Painter, but I often cheat and use the automated painting feature, and just touch up manually. ~ Here's what I did for my end of summer twitter header. Intended to evoke the feeling of things closing down. https://www.dropbox.com/s/d9repn6y0t...r-Summer-1.jpg Kewl. It's precisely what I was talking about when I implied that photo art need not be realistic. ~~ And for the heck of it, some artistic variations on forget-me-nots: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qo5pvh2fyo...%20%28C%29.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/41wvvg1vw9...%20%28D%29.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/xot9b5spj7...%20%28E%29.jpg I like the last one best. The subject is the flower grouping. To my eye in the first two images, the green stalk and leaves on the left keep drawing my eyes away from the flowers, because they are much brighter. -- PeterN |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On Oct 12, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ): On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck said: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg Now that's my type of image. I thought you might like the concept.;-) I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing and mix of color. Actually Pollack is not pure random. I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which resonates. His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very familiar with. One which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute in Utica, NY. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg Hijacking Snipped Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread. At least somebody recognised the hijacking for what it was. Thanks for that. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Care For Some Gum? | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 1 | November 5th 14 04:13 PM |
Does anybody really care . . . | Russell D. | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | August 26th 12 04:16 AM |
Why to care for our customers?? | Gungun | Digital Photography | 0 | March 20th 08 02:01 AM |
Negatran Care | John Rice | In The Darkroom | 1 | April 11th 06 06:01 AM |
The care of lenses | John | Large Format Photography Equipment | 3 | February 2nd 04 09:59 PM |