lone fisherman

[mysteryscribe]

It is what it is, and that's all what it is...

 

[sthvtsh]

Is this actually a photograph?

If so, can you post the original?

 

[mysteryscribe]

Sorry I textured it before I saved it the first time I think. I might have an older version somewhere I'd have to search the harddrive this will give you an idea how it was done.

 

[mcktheknf]

I don't see how it gets any better than seeing a couple of old guys fishing on shore, or on a pier. I guarantee there is a lot of reminiscing going on, with a few "big fish" stories mixed in. I've heard that to be a good fisherman you have to be naturally lazy. I like that. Not a good photo, but a great picture anyways.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Now I'm curious... I'm curious as to why you think it isn't a good photo. I can always use the tips. So please feel free to critique it.

That goes for anyone else as well. Now I am serious here not being sarcastic at all. I know I have that reputation.

 

[mcktheknf]

Personaly, I think it's a great picture (but I love fishing). I guess I'm used to everyone taking their stuff into photoshop, and to be honest, that insults me a little bit. PS... i give lessons in sarcasim.

 

[sthvtsh]

I hate that you photoshopped it this way, but I think it looks like it's probably a good picture as an original

 

[mysteryscribe]

Well I have to admit that the tint and texture are digital. The image was made with a pieced together cut film camera. But none of that changes the basics of photography.

I was thinking more along the lines of well "

1. The composition must be off since there isnt a huge amount of empty space on the left of the picture.

2. Or the highlights are blown out.

3. Or you just dont have enough contrast in the shot.

That kind of thing. To be absolutely honest, I'm afraid I was baiting you a little. Since you seem to understand that photography is not a one size fits all occasions sort of thing, you didn't rise to it. Good for you.....

The shot actually in and of itself has some things going for it but that's neither here nor there. Truth is i'm from a different time and place in photography. When I learned the craft about forty years ago, I learned from a painter who was hungry enough to lower herself to teach photography at a tech school. So for me photography is more about emotion than technical stuff, but you do have to know the technical stuff to be able to put in the emotions.

There are a whole lot of new ways to do the same old things. The tint that you see on this image could just as easily been done with pigment on the print. The texture can be faked with a screen while printing. So there is nothing new under the sun.

That said, I have no use for digital as an art from, but that don't mean I can't or won't use it. It's all rock and roll to me in the end. It's the image that counts not how you made it.

Some of mine I see the beauty in and no one else does, some a few people see it, and some I doubt that even a mother could love but then in the end we only have to please ourselves and our customers. Since I'm retired I only have to please myself. Stop mumbling "damn good thing." I heard that.