Forums › Forums › Farktography General Chat › This week’s contest › 04-06-11 – Artsy-Fartsy
- This topic has 73 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
ravnostic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 5, 2011 at 6:02 pm #39115
ennuipoet
ParticipantThoughts? Because there can bee only one…
For this theme, two is the way to go. #1 is sharp, tight, unmistakable as to the subject and intent. But this theme is artsy fartsy, so #2 with it’s quirk, ambiguity and motion lends itself to the theme. To put it another way, #1 I can see in National Geographic, #2 I can see in a high brow art photograph magazine.
April 5, 2011 at 6:53 pm #39116sleeping
ParticipantI’d like not to ask, but I’m in a quandary about one of my photos. The session was ‘bees’, literally, and there were lots of good images.
The second one is much more interesting, but I might crop it a little bit tighter if it was mine.
April 5, 2011 at 9:16 pm #39117clouddancer
ParticipantOpinions on any of the below, pour favor? All are Fark contest size. I don’t think I’m objective (?) enough on them, so I’d like outside opinion. I would probably only use two of these as I took some today for a more abstract feel (haven’t post-processed yet, but they are off the camera).
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r69/clouddancer19/Farktography/Artsy/berries2small.jpg
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r69/clouddancer19/Farktography/Artsy/berries1small.jpg
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r69/clouddancer19/Farktography/Artsy/blueflamesmall.jpg
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r69/clouddancer19/Farktography/Artsy/flame1small.jpg
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r69/clouddancer19/Farktography/Artsy/fallenflowersmall.jpgThanks.
April 5, 2011 at 10:24 pm #39118olavf
ParticipantI’m presuming street photography stuff is okay, but one should shy away from landscapes and the lot?
/I think I have FarkConaire’s Disease and am not thinking too good today
April 6, 2011 at 12:39 am #39119kashari
Participanthmmm…I just had a thought, can I use a picture of a painting I did? I’m not sure I’d really want to do this, but thought I’d ask.
eta: in case it makes a difference, the paintings are ‘reproductions’, ones that I did in an art class using a picture of a painting as a reference guide. So it’s not my ‘design’, but I did make some changes from the originals.
April 6, 2011 at 1:22 am #39120ravnostic
ParticipantOpinions on any of the below, pour favor?
Thanks.
I like #4 the best. What the heck is that?
Thanks for the opines on mine, guys!
April 6, 2011 at 1:45 am #39121ParticipantRav, That is essentially a huge propane torch. Husband got it recently when we had bunches of ice to help get rid of some of the really thick ice. It has other uses. It’s really pretty. The flame is blue, but the orange sparks are from rock salt that got put down in that area while the torch was going.
April 6, 2011 at 3:08 am #39122U-Man
ParticipantThoughts? Because there can bee only one…
For this theme, two is the way to go. #1 is sharp, tight, unmistakable as to the subject and intent. But this theme is artsy fartsy, so #2 with it’s quirk, ambiguity and motion lends itself to the theme. To put it another way, #1 I can see in National Geographic, #2 I can see in a high brow art photograph magazine.
I agree. I like both shots but the second fits this theme better. The caption could draw in a handful of ‘Fark votes’ (as opposed to photography votes).
April 6, 2011 at 7:57 am #39123ParticipantAre we allowed to overexpose via software exposure compensation or is that too much software involvement?
April 6, 2011 at 8:06 am #39124Farktographer
ParticipantIf you’re able to do it such that it looks like you did it with a camera (I’d say no more than +2 EV), then perhaps? I’d be worried that’s getting a little too dependent on the software instead of the photo, though.
April 6, 2011 at 8:35 am #39125ParticipantIf you’re able to do it such that it looks like you did it with a camera (I’d say no more than +2 EV), then perhaps? I’d be worried that’s getting a little too dependent on the software instead of the photo, though.
Ok, thanks. It’s a moot point for this shot anyway, I forgot I’d had to clean up a bunch of floating crap in the water.
April 6, 2011 at 12:24 pm #39126Elsinore
KeymasterIf you’re talking about moving the exposure slider for a RAW image, that’s fine.
April 6, 2011 at 1:08 pm #39127
orionidParticipantThoughts? Because there can bee only one…
For this theme, two is the way to go. #1 is sharp, tight, unmistakable as to the subject and intent. But this theme is artsy fartsy, so #2 with it’s quirk, ambiguity and motion lends itself to the theme. To put it another way, #1 I can see in National Geographic, #2 I can see in a high brow art photograph magazine.
Sorry I’ve been silent on this one, I’ve been busy with work the last few days. Ennuipoet pretty much summed it up. The image in my head was any photo where an old rich broad in a mink coat might look at it, and tapping the end of her eyeglasses on her chin, say something like “OOoohh, the photographer obviously wants to convey a sense of whatever” while John Q. Trailerpark would look at it and say “Why’d you take a picture of half a dude’s head?”
/nothing against trailers, used to live in one.
April 6, 2011 at 3:38 pm #39128Keymasterhmmm…I just had a thought, can I use a picture of a painting I did? I’m not sure I’d really want to do this, but thought I’d ask.
eta: in case it makes a difference, the paintings are ‘reproductions’, ones that I did in an art class using a picture of a painting as a reference guide. So it’s not my ‘design’, but I did make some changes from the originals.
I think something like this is fair game if it is included in some sort of context–some wall around the frame or whatever–or some sort of interesting small bit from the painting. But if you shoot and/or crop in such a way as to include the whole painting itself, then I think it toes the line..it’s basically a reproduction of the painting and not so much an original photograph, if that makes sense.
April 6, 2011 at 4:32 pm #39129QueenBee
ParticipantI also wanted to use a painting I recently did…but only a section and nice and close so you can see the strokes and the texture of the canvas. That’d be OK right?
http://i54.tinypic.com/30vypu0.jpg
Also, this would have to be linked if I decided to use it, right? (probably NSFW)
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘04-06-11 – Artsy-Fartsy’ is closed to new replies.