Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jael and Noa in the High Sierra

Expand Messages
  • Paul Fretheim
    Of course it s fabricated. No one exists as a large and smaller version simultaneously! The photo itself, however, is quite real. We were there last week.
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Of course it's "fabricated." No one exists as a large and smaller
      version simultaneously!

      The photo itself, however, is quite real. We were there last week. I
      was just messing around with the color of the part of the image with
      Jael in it and accidentally dropped in a smaller version of that part of
      the photo and it reminded me of the feel of the cover of an old Doors
      album (American rock band from the 60s). I just wondered if anybody
      else would find that look interesting. Apparently not . . .


      I don't think Jael liked it either. She hasn't said anything anyway. ;-)
      >
      >
      > Re: Jael and Noa in the High Sierra
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/message/21884;_ylc=X3oDMTJzYTRydm5zBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE4MjI3ODQ4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTAwNjQ5NgRtc2dJZAMyMTg4NARzZWMDZG1zZwRzbGsDdm1zZwRzdGltZQMxMjE3ODQ3NTY1>
      >
      >
      >
      > Posted by: "Howard Larson" hblarson43@...
      > <mailto:hblarson43@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Jael%20and%20Noa%20in%20the%20High%20Sierra>
      > hblarson43 <http://profiles.yahoo.com/hblarson43>
      >
      >
      > Sun Aug 3, 2008 5:11 pm (PDT)
      >
      > It looks like a fabricated photo. Nothing one should aspire to.


      Posted by: "Uri Cogan"


      >
      > The clone of the woman (Yael?) appears too similar; it's pasting into
      > the background is too obvious, and the scale of the pasted image
      > relative to the image of the girl does not look "right" to me. I would
      > have tried to flip it horizontally and position it on the other side of
      > the girl, but the lighting of that subject would still be problematic,
      > so it would have been best to use another image of the same person. This
      > can easily be done while shooting the panorama - just re-position the
      > subject that you want duplicated at the next shot in the series.
      Sorry but that is the way my friend spells her name. She is from
      Berlin, Germany.

      I have several other shots from that moment that I could have used. As
      I wrote above, that composition happened by accident when I was trying
      to do something else, and I just wanted to see what others thought of it.

      I like that pano with the multiple images of the little boy in the blue
      t-shirt. To his parents by 4 in the afternoon it probably feels like
      there are six of him running around!

      Thanks for the feedback!

      Paul Fretheim
    • Howard Larson
      ... Wrong? Not *wrong*. It is a matter of opinion, asked for and given if, perhaps, a little tersely. I prefer straight photography with a minimum of
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Uri Cogan <uri@...> wrote:
        >
        > Howard Larson wrote:
        >
        >
        > > It looks like a fabricated photo.
        > >
        > Fabricated, yes. But what's wrong with fabricated images? there is a
        lot of artistic potential there. See:
        > http://tinyurl.com/6zns87
        >
        >
        Wrong? Not *wrong*. It is a matter of opinion, asked for and given
        if, perhaps, a little tersely.

        I prefer straight photography with a minimum of manipulation. Found
        objects as opposed to arrangements. Technically good (I am no fan of
        the Krappy Kamera contest or prints of Polaroids with the adhesive
        marks showing).
      • paul womack
        ... Are you in the right forum ;-) BugBear
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Howard Larson wrote:
          > I prefer straight photography with a minimum of manipulation.

          Are you in the right forum ;-)

          BugBear
        • Howard Larson
          ... Abosolutely! :-) I don t consider using panotools a deviation from straight photography. In fact, I use panotools not for panoramas but to get
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, paul womack <pwomack@...> wrote:
            >
            > Howard Larson wrote:
            > > I prefer straight photography with a minimum of manipulation.
            >
            > Are you in the right forum ;-)
            >
            > BugBear
            >
            Abosolutely! :-)

            I don't consider using panotools a deviation from straight
            photography. In fact, I use panotools not for panoramas but to get
            large-format images from a small-format camera.
          • Uri Cogan
            ... This business of straight vs. fabricated images is not too clear to me. The only kind of photography that in my opinion, ought not to be manipulated at
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Howard Larson wrote:


              > I don't consider using panotools a deviation from straight
              > photography. In fact, I use panotools not for panoramas but to get
              > large-format images from a small-format camera.
              >







              This business of "straight" vs. "fabricated" images is not too clear to me.

              The only kind of photography that in my opinion, ought not to be
              manipulated at all, appears to be journalistic, and (hopefully, hah...)
              commercial advertising.

              Everything else, it seems to me, is fair game and is more a matter of
              taste than of integrity.

              The above may be too simple... my own experience in photojournalism
              tells me that the mere choice of lens, exposure, composition, and
              processing "manipulates" the final image to some degree, so in a certain
              sense, all photos are "fabricated".

              Cheers, Uri.




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Chris Thomas
              That s certainly not what we re talking about here.. This medium is not going to be confined by the traditional photography boomers like myself grew up
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                That's certainly not what we're talking about here..

                This medium is not going to be confined by the "traditional" photography
                "boomers" like myself grew up with!



                There's a place for everyone..

                Hopefully artistic endevours will continue to push into new directions, as
                materials and tools permit.





                Chris Thomas

                Photographer

                cell... 604-649-5352

                In North America

                call... 1-800-870-5110

                <http://www.christhomas.com/> http://www.christhomas.com



                -----Original Message-----
                From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                Behalf Of Howard Larson
                Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 8:31 AM
                To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Jael and Noa in the High Sierra



                --- In PanoToolsNG@ <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
                Uri Cogan <uri@...> wrote:
                >
                > Howard Larson wrote:
                >
                >
                > > It looks like a fabricated photo.
                > >
                > Fabricated, yes. But what's wrong with fabricated images? there is a
                lot of artistic potential there. See:
                > http://tinyurl. <http://tinyurl.com/6zns87> com/6zns87
                >
                >
                Wrong? Not *wrong*. It is a matter of opinion, asked for and given
                if, perhaps, a little tersely.

                I prefer straight photography with a minimum of manipulation. Found
                objects as opposed to arrangements. Technically good (I am no fan of
                the Krappy Kamera contest or prints of Polaroids with the adhesive
                marks showing).





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Howard Larson
                ... clear to me. ... hah...) commercial advertising. ... of taste than of integrity. ... certain sense, all photos are fabricated . ... In my mind, *straight*
                Message 7 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Uri Cogan <uri@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Howard Larson wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > > I don't consider using panotools a deviation from straight
                  > > photography. In fact, I use panotools not for panoramas but to get
                  > > large-format images from a small-format camera.
                  > >
                  >
                  > This business of "straight" vs. "fabricated" images is not too
                  clear to me.
                  >
                  > The only kind of photography that in my opinion, ought not to be
                  > manipulated at all, appears to be journalistic, and (hopefully,
                  hah...) commercial advertising.
                  >
                  > Everything else, it seems to me, is fair game and is more a matter
                  of taste than of integrity.
                  >
                  > The above may be too simple... my own experience in photojournalism
                  > tells me that the mere choice of lens, exposure, composition, and
                  > processing "manipulates" the final image to some degree, so in a
                  certain sense, all photos are "fabricated".
                  >
                  > Cheers, Uri.
                  >
                  In my mind, *straight* photography documents an object as it is.
                  *Fabricated* images are arrangements created by the photographer, not
                  objects *as found*.

                  And, yes, your definition of photojournalism is a form of
                  manipulation--the photographer's interpretation of the object if you
                  will--but still encompassed within the idea of straight photography
                  as anyone could encounter the same object as it naturally exists.

                  You are correct in that is a matter of taste. And, given an option,
                  there are people that will line up on one side or the other.
                • Howard Larson
                  And, I would hope, there is room for the voice of the traditionalist like myself who is using these tools in a *traditionalist* manner. ... photography
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    And, I would hope, there is room for the voice of the traditionalist
                    like myself who is using these tools in a *traditionalist* manner.

                    --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Thomas" <chris@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > That's certainly not what we're talking about here..
                    >
                    > This medium is not going to be confined by the "traditional"
                    photography "boomers" like myself grew up with!
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > There's a place for everyone..
                    >
                    > Hopefully artistic endevours will continue to push into new
                    directions, as
                    > materials and tools permit.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Chris Thomas
                    >
                    > Photographer
                    >
                    > cell... 604-649-5352
                    >
                    > In North America
                    >
                    > call... 1-800-870-5110
                    >
                    > <http://www.christhomas.com/> http://www.christhomas.com
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                    [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                    > Behalf Of Howard Larson
                    > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 8:31 AM
                    > To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Jael and Noa in the High Sierra
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In PanoToolsNG@ <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
                    yahoogroups.com,
                    > Uri Cogan <uri@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Howard Larson wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > It looks like a fabricated photo.
                    > > >
                    > > Fabricated, yes. But what's wrong with fabricated images? there
                    is a
                    > lot of artistic potential there. See:
                    > > http://tinyurl. <http://tinyurl.com/6zns87> com/6zns87
                    > >
                    > >
                    > Wrong? Not *wrong*. It is a matter of opinion, asked for and given
                    > if, perhaps, a little tersely.
                    >
                    > I prefer straight photography with a minimum of manipulation. Found
                    > objects as opposed to arrangements. Technically good (I am no fan
                    of
                    > the Krappy Kamera contest or prints of Polaroids with the adhesive
                    > marks showing).
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  • Uri Cogan
                    ... Absolutely yes; the freedom to adhere to whatever traditionalist values or techniques is all yours, and yet the very notion of photographing anything as
                    Message 9 of 14 , Aug 4, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Howard Larson wrote:

                      > And, I would hope, there is room for the voice of the traditionalist
                      > like myself who is using these tools in a *traditionalist* manner.
                      >






                      Absolutely yes; the freedom to adhere to whatever "traditionalist"
                      values or techniques is all yours, and yet the very notion of
                      photographing anything "as it is" eludes me.

                      Again, as a journalist I've discovered that my very presence at certain
                      events had modified the event, and my choice of what appeared to me as
                      worthy of a photo was likely to be influenced by my own biases; on top
                      of that, I could easily make a person appear "sinister" or "benevolent"
                      by mere choice of lighting and careful timing. So much for "objectivity".

                      To sum up - I no longer know what anything "is" though I certainly do
                      know how it *appears to me*.

                      Uri
                      http://www.uricogan.com


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • paul womack
                      ... You underestimate the power of the photographer. By choosing viewpoints, cropping (or lens length) time of day, weather conditions, the thoughtful
                      Message 10 of 14 , Aug 5, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Howard Larson wrote:
                        > In my mind, *straight* photography documents an object as it is.
                        > *Fabricated* images are arrangements created by the photographer, not
                        > objects *as found*.
                        >
                        > And, yes, your definition of photojournalism is a form of
                        > manipulation--the photographer's interpretation of the object if you
                        > will--but still encompassed within the idea of straight photography
                        > as anyone could encounter the same object as it naturally exists.

                        You underestimate the power of the photographer.

                        By choosing viewpoints, cropping (or lens length)
                        time of day, weather conditions, the thoughtful
                        photographer can go a rather long way towards
                        "creating" the photograph.

                        Given enough variation, an act of selection
                        becomes an act of creation.

                        e.g. the famous million monkeys with typewriters.

                        BugBear
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.