Gorgeous Kathleen! Should I have fixed these things?

[apaflo]

That picture would have been better with more dof.

It is valid to say that you would like it better with more depth of field. But it is also valid to say that others would disagree. It's not a case of it would or would not be better, just a case of a style that will appeal to some and not to others.

Photographs are not "better" just because we individually like them. Look at all the folks who claim Rhein II by Andreas Gursky is a bit of garbage they would put in the trash, yet anyone who actually does understand art will explain that it is great art (and the proof is clear enough, it sold for $4.3M). The significance is that we shouldn't grade art by whether we like it, but by it's qualities as art. That is true even when we distinctly dislike the style.

I would like that picture better if it had just a slight bit less DOF. Note that the edited image I posted did exactly nothing to "fix" any lack of DOF, but rather did the opposite. My point however was not to better emulate an illusion of reality, it was to clarify the beauty that is visually communicated by the image in order to heighten the viewer's persception of it.

To quote Ansel Adams, "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." Blurring part of the image can make the concept much sharper...

 

[Derrel]

To quote Ansel Adams, "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." Blurring part of the image can make the concept much sharper...

Wow, descending to the ridiculous. I like your style. Maybe if the OP would have had one of those ultra-fast f/0.7 oscilloscope lenses rigged up, the shot could have been elevated to masterpiece level, you know, with say, just one eyelash in good focus, and the rest blown out to really,really,realllly out of focus.

 

[pixmedic]

That picture would have been better with more dof.

It is valid to say that you would like it better with more depth of field. But it is also valid to say that others would disagree. It's not a case of it would or would not be better, just a case of a style that will appeal to some and not to others.

Photographs are not "better" just because we individually like them. Look at all the folks who claim Rhein II by Andreas Gursky is a bit of garbage they would put in the trash, yet anyone who actually does understand art will explain that it is great art (and the proof is clear enough, it sold for $4.3M). The significance is that we shouldn't grade art by whether we like it, but by it's qualities as art. That is true even when we distinctly dislike the style.

I would like that picture better if it had just a slight bit less DOF. Note that the edited image I posted did exactly nothing to "fix" any lack of DOF, but rather did the opposite. My point however was not to better emulate an illusion of reality, it was to clarify the beauty that is visually communicated by the image in order to heighten the viewer's persception of it.

To quote Ansel Adams, "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." Blurring part of the image can make the concept much sharper...

wait...so...
someone who doesn't think a piece of art that sold for millions is "great" doesn't understand art?
that's a pretty slippery slope your treading there. especially considering you just said "Photographs are not "better" just because we individually like them."

there is no other way to grade art other than whether we like it or not. otherwise, noone would have paid 4 million for a piece of art.
art by itself has no intrinsic value. it doesn't produce anything, we don't eat it, it doesn't give us warmth...etc etc.
arts ONLY value is the value we personally place on it as an individual. without those personal opinions, art is nothing except what it is to its creator.

 

[ronlane]

So you are saying that Pixmedic, Derrel and Braineack don't know photography? Gotta call bs on that one.

 

[pixmedic]

I think we can all agree here, that the model is indeed, Gorgeous.

 

[apaflo]

man...why do people keep insisting on bringing up the word "style".
"style" is a joke. its a buzzword newbies and artists that are legends in their own often mind use to justify technical errors and an inability to learn basic photographic fundamentals and posing.

People bring that up because it is important. Knowing the difference between what is good art and what is just art that you like is a requirement to any understanding or meaningful discussion of photography past the beginner level.

Style is not a joke, it's not a buzz word. It has nothing at all to do with what you imagine are errors or inabilities.

 

[apaflo]

So you are saying that Pixmedic, Derrel and Braineack don't know photography? Gotta call bs on that one.

Your BS though. I have never said any such thing.

 

[pixmedic]

man...why do people keep insisting on bringing up the word "style".
"style" is a joke. its a buzzword newbies and artists that are legends in their own often mind use to justify technical errors and an inability to learn basic photographic fundamentals and posing.

People bring that up because it is important. Knowing the difference between what is good art and what is just art that you like is a requirement to any understanding or meaningful discussion of photography past the beginner level.

Style is not a joke, it's not a buzz word. It has nothing at all to do with what you imagine are errors or inabilities.

art is subjective. there is no "good art" or "bad art". there is only "art", and the individual persons response to it.
but you cant take every picture that has technical errors and correct it just by calling it "artistic license"
OOF is OOF, missed focus is missed focus, poor WB is poor WB, and so on. putting a label on it that says "art" or "style" does nothing but lend to the incredibility of those words. the word "style" is grossly overused. I mean, obscenely so, to the point that it really has little to no relevant meaning anymore. style has a LOT to do with errors and inabilities when it is used by someone lacking fundamental knowledge to justify bad technical errors.

you cant say that art is subjective in one breath, and then in the next breath, say that some piece of art is great and we just don't understand it if WE dont think its great too.
you know what is a real requirement to any understanding or meaningful discussion of photography past the beginner level?
an actual understanding of photography past the beginner level. you know....things like the exposure triangle, understanding light, DOF, WB, composure.....all those "rules" you seem to think that people dont need to follow.

 

[apaflo]

wait...so...
someone who doesn't think a piece of art that sold for millions is "great" doesn't understand art?
that's a pretty slippery slope your treading there. especially considering you just said "Photographs are not "better" just because we individually like them."

Ask anyone who has studied what art is. A Master of Fine Arts degree level or higher.

there is no other way to grade art other than whether we like it or not. otherwise, noone would have paid 4 million for a piece of art. art by itself has no intrinsic value. it doesn't produce anything, we don't eat it, it doesn't give us warmth...etc etc. arts ONLY value is the value we personally place on it as an individual. without those personal opinions, art is nothing except what it is to its creator.

Grading the quality of art has very little to do with personal likes. I don't personally have any desire to produce anything like most of the great art that I've ever seen. It just doesn't appeal to me at all. But I know that, whether I happen to like Picasso or not, his work is absolutely great. Same with Gursky, just not to the same degree.

The price of Rhein II was almost certainly based on perceived intrinsic value and just as certainly had little to do with whether the buyer actually liked it as art or not.

 

[TheGiant]

I would personally clean up the hair in post.. At least the few loose strands on the left side of her face.

 

[pixmedic]

Art only sells because someone likes it. It has everything to do with individual likes and dislikes. A fine art grade means nothing without someone willing to spend money on it.

But this thread isnt about fine art, or its grading system. Its about a portrait. Not a piece of fine art. A portrait, with technical flaws that can be easily corrected.
I dont really the OP mentioning anything about trying to get his work into a museum.

 

[manicmike]

Thread level Epic in 3..2...

 

[apaflo]

man...why do people keep insisting on bringing up the word "style".
"style" is a joke. its a buzzword newbies and artists that are legends in their own often mind use to justify technical errors and an inability to learn basic photographic fundamentals and posing.

People bring that up because it is important. Knowing the difference between what is good art and what is just art that you like is a requirement to any understanding or meaningful discussion of photography past the beginner level.

Style is not a joke, it's not a buzz word. It has nothing at all to do with what you imagine are errors or inabilities.

art is subjective. there is no "good art" or "bad art". there is only "art", and the individual persons response to it.

Art may well be subjective, but yes there is good and bad art. It's fairly clear that several individuals through recorded history are known to have produced good art. Virtually anything they did is thought of as good art.

Any given individual might well be unable to distinguish between good and bad art... But that doesn't mean the distinction does not exist!

but you cant take every picture that has technical errors and correct it just by calling it "artistic license"
OOF is OOF, missed focus is missed focus, poor WB is poor WB, and so on. putting a label on it that says "art" or "style" does nothing but lend to the incredibility of those words. the word "style" is grossly overused. I mean, obscenely so, to the point that it really has little to no relevant meaning anymore. style has a LOT to do with errors and inabilities when it is used by someone lacking fundamental knowledge to justify bad technical errors.

Perhaps that is all at times true, but not a word of that applies to the OP's image. I for one did an edit on it, and nothing I did was directed at what you are calling errors or mistakes. In fact a couple of the things you say are wrong, I purposed exaggerated!

And I have shown another image, which clearly has to be called "great photography", that uses exactly the same basic style!

Now, you don't have to like that style, but your arguments are a rant rather than logical.

 

[pixmedic]

People bring that up because it is important. Knowing the difference between what is good art and what is just art that you like is a requirement to any understanding or meaningful discussion of photography past the beginner level.

Style is not a joke, it's not a buzz word. It has nothing at all to do with what you imagine are errors or inabilities.

art is subjective. there is no "good art" or "bad art". there is only "art", and the individual persons response to it.

Art may well be subjective, but yes there is good and bad art. It's fairly clear that several individuals through recorded history are known to have produced good art. Virtually anything they did is thought of as good art.

Any given individual might well be unable to distinguish between good and bad art... But that doesn't mean the distinction does not exist!

but you cant take every picture that has technical errors and correct it just by calling it "artistic license"
OOF is OOF, missed focus is missed focus, poor WB is poor WB, and so on. putting a label on it that says "art" or "style" does nothing but lend to the incredibility of those words. the word "style" is grossly overused. I mean, obscenely so, to the point that it really has little to no relevant meaning anymore. style has a LOT to do with errors and inabilities when it is used by someone lacking fundamental knowledge to justify bad technical errors.

Perhaps that is all at times true, but not a word of that applies to the OP's image. I for one did an edit on it, and nothing I did was directed at what you are calling errors or mistakes. In fact a couple of the things you say are wrong, I purposed exaggerated!

And I have shown another image, which clearly has to be called "great photography", that uses exactly the same basic style!

Now, you don't have to like that style, but your arguments are a rant rather than logical.

wait, explain to me why the other image you showed "clearly HAS to be called great photography"
do you see how that statement there, suggests that you are saying that you are right and everyone else's opinion is wrong? is that what you are actually saying?

whether on purpose or not, you have placed yourself in a position of claiming yourself to be an expert on not only art, but portrait photography as well. (didnt you state in another thread that you didnt do portrait photography? maybe im thinking of someone else) I think you should show some credentials before making such blanket statements about what we have to accept as a great photograph.
because if it is the image you linked earlier....its nice... its not great, its not fantastic, but nice.
my arguments arent arguments at all. they are what I consider technical flaws with the photograph.
apparently, i am not the only one on the forum who has photography experience that thinks the same thing.
you can justify your edits with whatever beliefs you want, but it does not make your opinion any more valid or invalid that the rest of ours.

now, you were right about one thing. my comment about excuses indeed does not apply to the OP, because DGM is not making any excuses for his picture. he is not trying to justify it with buzzwords. he is just asking for opinions. which is what he got.

 

[pixmedic]

People bring that up because it is important. Knowing the difference between what is good art and what is just art that you like is a requirement to any understanding or meaningful discussion of photography past the beginner level.

Style is not a joke, it's not a buzz word. It has nothing at all to do with what you imagine are errors or inabilities.

art is subjective. there is no "good art" or "bad art". there is only "art", and the individual persons response to it.

Art may well be subjective, but yes there is good and bad art. It's fairly clear that several individuals through recorded history are known to have produced good art. Virtually anything they did is thought of as good art.

Any given individual might well be unable to distinguish between good and bad art... But that doesn't mean the distinction does not exist!

but you cant take every picture that has technical errors and correct it just by calling it "artistic license"
OOF is OOF, missed focus is missed focus, poor WB is poor WB, and so on. putting a label on it that says "art" or "style" does nothing but lend to the incredibility of those words. the word "style" is grossly overused. I mean, obscenely so, to the point that it really has little to no relevant meaning anymore. style has a LOT to do with errors and inabilities when it is used by someone lacking fundamental knowledge to justify bad technical errors.

Perhaps that is all at times true, but not a word of that applies to the OP's image. I for one did an edit on it, and nothing I did was directed at what you are calling errors or mistakes. In fact a couple of the things you say are wrong, I purposed exaggerated!

And I have shown another image, which clearly has to be called "great photography", that uses exactly the same basic style!

Now, you don't have to like that style, but your arguments are a rant rather than logical.

wait, i get it now...
by your exact logic...

you HAVE to accept this photo as "great", because it uses a basic shallow DOF style.
now your arguments are just a rant.
see what I did there?


View attachment 65010