whats up with ansel adams anyway
im not being a dick but for the renown he has amassed i simply do not see the artistic merit
I actually like the gaga a lot. I love her music.awesome bro
i think he was mocking gaming w's artistic brow-level.he has no right, with the level of his artistic brow
[/img]http://pub.gamingw.net/56304/AlbertRenger-PatzschGlassesc1927.jpg[/img]
i'll show you
those Araki photos are pretty boring and that whole fish-pussy/dick-mouth/roped up japanese women bullshit is pretty awful.
it's so... bourgeois :sport:
*splatters some paint, ties up lady gaga in the nude, and takes some pics*
yup here's my art, this is how i am expressing myself
"art"save phrases like this for real shit like mondrian, basquiat and pollock, not that garbage
my 5 year old nephew could do better
obvious joke
-1 respect point
"art"lol you're completely missing the point.
my 5 year old nephew could do better
lol you're completely missing the point.hirst is better than that guy tho and hirst is just awful
I'm not saying it's not art, I'm saying that it's completely boring garbage kinda like hirst
Common subjects [of mapplethorpe's] include flowers, especially orchids and calla lilies; celebrities, including Andy Warhol, Deborah Harry, Richard Gere, Peter Gabriel, Grace Jones, and Patti Smith (a Patti Smith portrait[4] from 1986 recalls Albrecht Dürer's 1500 self-portrait[5])ya well I got bjork and lady gaga
If you're talking about damien hirst I disagree I think he's cooli don't care
(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/8481/bradley528084.jpg)mmmmmmmmm.... :)
i don't care
mmmmmmmmm.... :)
Well maybe if you were important enough someone would say that they don't care about you in an internet forum toomaybe.... one day
photography is swell, but pretty much none of the shit in this thread.
also Lewis Hines. apparantly he was a social worker dude so I'm not sure how well he does as a straight up photographer but I like some of them (some others are kinda too worthy for me but I guess this is a consequence of photographing child labour).
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/glimpse-jpg.jpeg)
why would it be pointless? it'd be pretty cool if you're a photographer and you love photography and you're making a topic about photography, that you'd be able to say what you think makes a particular photograph good. and part of the reason I'm asking is because I kind of doubt that you can. I realize that people who aren't trained in artistic analysis can't just sit down and write detailed essays about a work of art, but you should still be able to give some sort of reason why you think this araki guy's photos are so good that you call him your idol. maybe you have a really good reason I'm missing? after you didn't answer I was trying to troll you into making a rebuttal, but just because they're "trolls" doesn't make them valid points. I am making valid points why the things you like are bad now respond
earl: what do you want me to reply to? there's no point responding to someone like dietcoke because he's already got his opinion formed and it's not my job to make him like a photo. if you want i could write up why i like a particular picture but that would also be pretty pointless. seriously if you guys hate these photographs i'd really like to see what you think of the whole yale photography school's banality themes nowadays. i get the feeling that most people here are just into flashy photography, but i honestly didn't expect much more. i was just posting photos i like.
here is some really cool stuff that I guess can be considered photography http://home.f01.itscom.net/spiral/research.html
it's only been mentioned on GW twice before and last time esiann made a good joke about child neglect.
seconded...very appetizing..you gotta love tit bondage
daddy like.
are those faux vintage? if so I hate them but if not then they're Visually Pleasing and more importantly they create an atmosphere
edit: I just saw the date: 1971. this is the real deal guys.
why would it be pointless? it'd be pretty cool if you're a photographer and you love photography and you're making a topic about photography, that you'd be able to say what you think makes a particular photograph good. and part of the reason I'm asking is because I kind of doubt that you can. I realize that people who aren't trained in artistic analysis can't just sit down and write detailed essays about a work of art, but you should still be able to give some sort of reason why you think this araki guy's photos are so good that you call him your idol. maybe you have a really good reason I'm missing? after you didn't answer I was trying to troll you into making a rebuttal, but just because they're "trolls" doesn't make them valid points. I am making valid points why the things you like are bad now respond
specifically the first guy actually, the rest of them are at least pretty alright except maybe the cityshots person
well said
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/phomul.canalblog.com/42.jpeg)
didn't know that about araki. that's really fucked up. why is he popular? why is this cool?Well I was referring to only one particular set of photos he did, and the vast majority of his work does not involve his participation in sex acts with tied up young immigrant prostitutes.
This photograph is good.
This photograph is good.
Well I think photos are only good if they're interesting but maybe that's because I don't understand a lot of art theory
yes ragnar I love going into to places like those and exploring for real.
On a more serious note than my previous note, it is true abandoned places are appealing to those that are depressed and like to escape to the internet. NOT LIKE ME THOUGHH ;_;
Some awesome modern photographs are here. (http://www.stuckincustoms.com/10-principles-of-beautiful-photography/) Apparently the dude talks about HDR which stands for High Dynamic Range. A tutorial can be found >>>> http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/
I would try it but im just gonna stick to photoshop
Well I was referring to only one particular set of photos he did, and the vast majority of his work does not involve his participation in sex acts with tied up young immigrant prostitutes.
I've been told that his work should be considered as a whole, but even if you do I don't think it's anything to be celebrated considering that it pretty much amounts to an uncritical slideshow of fetishes, sex workers, and a general glossing over of a lot of the ugly realities involved in a lot of the subject matter covered by him.
it's a celebration of the status quo, and I can see why that would appeal to a lot of people.
what do you think of this photo?
what i like about araki is that he likes sex (yes, like all of us), but he isn't afraid to admit it. he uses his choice of medium to express what is natural to almost all of us, yet what we all try and keep repressed in society. especially with his rope/bondage themes - there is basically no trace of fetish in today's society save for the underground circles, and he has the courage to bring it out and publicize it. Even though i'm not into that, I am really appreciative of the work he does.
In this you, and apparently this Araki guy too, are a few dozen years behind your time. In case you haven't noticed, sex, and even the fetishish side of sex, is leaking through pretty much everywhere from ads to entertainment to science to art.I believe I saw a Pistachio commercial yesterday involving a dominatrix. During an NFL game.
(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3884/c9a160e5615ebb75026fe99.jpg)also, i believe i took this same picture when i was 3 at my great grandma's house in California.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/12/2009_in_photos_part_1_of_3.htmlSome really nice pictures there.
that site in general is really really good for photojournalistic images
HDR is fucking terrible 99.9% of the time it's used. Including in pretty much every photo of that link.And who the fuck are you?
And who the fuck are you?
David Hill
And who the fuck are you?if some of the earlier photos in this thread were garbage then these are dung. *strolls in thread* "yeah, well who who the fuck are you to say HDR photos suck most of the time, you worthless subhuman fecal stillborn baby? HDR is fucking magnificent when done tastefully... check these babes out :fogetcool:" *posts hollywood movie poster shit*
HDR imaging is as valid of a photographic style as - say - black and white, but it needs to be done tastefully... which I agree most of the time it is not. Also many amateurs make the mistake of taking otherwise boring scenes or poorly composed shots and trying to make them look cool via tonal compression. They're missing the point.
David Hill does some of the most brilliant HDR imaging work I've ever seen... though I think he also composites some of his images as well. Here's a taste:
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/3771939437_ae96b43507_o.png)
(http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3022/davehill1.jpg)
(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9210/davehill2.jpg)
http://www.joeyl.com/
this guy is really good, too. it's kind of mind-blowing that he's only 19 years old and already working with companies like warner bros to take images for twilight. his older stuff in his portfolio isn't that good, but his photos have been getting exponentially better as he posts more things.
David Hill does some of the most brilliant HDR imaging work I've ever seen... though I think he also composites some of his images as well. Here's a taste:I never quite got HDR. Photographers have been doing this kind of stuff for a long time, taking photos and then massively editing them in Photoshop. I can see why they'd want to use it, but the problem is that it often ends up completely ruining the light contrast. The point of HDR, after all, is to differentiate between areas with different luminosity and then reconcile them.
lol those HDR photos are some of the worst shit ever. lol ragnar is pretty spot on in comparing it to auto-tune, except it's more like lil wayne, kanye, or someone else obnoxious using autotune as opposed to someone fun like T-Pain.Yes. This is it. The autotune of photography.
lol those HDR photos are some of the worst shit ever. lol ragnar is pretty spot on in comparing it to auto-tune, except it's more like lil wayne, kanye, or someone else obnoxious using autotune as opposed to someone fun like T-Pain.
yeah all his stuff is cheesy as hell. is the point of HDR to make everything look airbrushed and fake??
i was trying to find a good comparison like metal music but this is perfect.
@ragnar: the only reason i like joey L is because i've been trying to get into studio lighting recently and it's pretty hard. it's impressive he's only 19 and so successful. i have no desire to take photos like him, though.
if you're talking about david hill i have to disagree with you. Mama Luigi posted some pieces from the advertising section of david hills website. check out his other stuff Im pretty sure you wont like it but at least you wont find everything cheesyit's all cheesy. When he's not doing ridiculous HDR advertisement photos, he's doing boring B&W portraits and landscapes. Artistically, it's the equivalent of a painting of a mountain or snowy forest you'd see hanging above a bed in a hotel room or in some kind of lobby.
Whoa I leave for a day and this place turns into a shitstorm about HDR, haha. Okay, let's have a serious discussion about it then.
What is it that people don't like about HDR imaging? Is it only when it is fake looking/overcontrasty? I could easily understand distaste in that; but then I would argue coming from that perspective any photo modified to be an inaccurate representation of what really was should be equally scoffed at (ergo: black and white, sepia tone, etc). But I do not share this view: historically, we've always created artistic interpretations of our reality that include our emotions and feelings towards the subject matter.
The point of HDR in it's purest form is - yes - to reconcile the enormous range of light that our eye can see but the camera cannot capture in one shot. To capture the large range of light in a scene which contains bright brights and dark darks, it may be necessary to take 3 photos in succession which capture a different exposure. These photos are then merged to create the raw HDR image. A raw HDR photo should look no different than a LDR photo other than a better representation of light... closer to what our eyes can see (ergo less blown highlights and more detailed shadows). The problem? HDR displays are expensive... I think even a 37 inch HDR display is like $40,000... so we can't even currently look at these photos in their purest form in any meaningful way. HDR images contain far more detail that can't be seen on our screens!
The fanciful and unrealistic images we short-handedly call HDR are actually not HDR images. They are the result of an HDR photo being compressed to display properly on our LDR screens - and this compression process is where the creative liberty comes in regarding how the artist wants their photo to look. Some choose to make unrealistic representations of what they saw... some chose to make very accurate representations of what they saw in their viewfinder.Pop quiz, which of these is the HDR image?: (Click to reveal)(http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/img1/mbucrk_h-01.jpg)
(http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/img1/mbucrk_h-02.jpg)
(http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/img1/mbucrk_h-03.jpg)Answer: (Click to reveal)Who cares? All three aim at being photographs, and shouldn’t be judged on whether they were processed with HDR imaging or some other method. If you must know, all 3 are HDR processed images.
I accept that people have different tastes, but it disturbs me how some people act downright elitist and in my opinion it's rather deplorable.I like this image. (Click to reveal)(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/farm3.static.flickr.com/2349/1940187826_cc402ca75e_b.jpeg)
It's aesthetically pleasing and dream-like - the colors are vivid and beautiful, and it reminds me of Legend of Zelda or something (I think someone pointed it out earlier). This photo isn't created by snapping a picture and auto-tuning it. I assure you a bit of work went into the creation of this light-art, having done some successful (and unsuccessful) HDR work myself. Is it a realistic representation of wherever that is? Of course not! Is this guy the next Leonardo Da Vinci? Hell no. I guess it just goes to show how wide availability of the tools have allowed your average person to create beautiful art.
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/dl.ziza.ru/other/072007/23/polaroidkidd/31_polaroidkidd_133537.jpeg)
I accept that people have different tastes, but it disturbs me how some people act downright elitist and in my opinion it's rather deplorable.I think it all boils down to what you appreciate in art. I mean if you look at art as some sort of means to convey a message or self expression, some high-tech digitally enhanced boring photos are of little interest especially if they require some crazy expensive screen to fully appreciate.
I guess it just goes to show how wide availability of the tools have allowed your average person to create beautiful art.