|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/31/2009
|
I also found Ludlum very good in his domain, Andre, but the movies... oh well, let's say quite different than the original stories. ;-) I wonder why they have to deviate that much when the original story is good by itself.
Pushing the limits of good taste may be good too. It's the thought that if it is good then it has to be much, that I find so absurd. This would imply that quality is exclusively a matter of quantity.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Andre Denis
{K:66407} 3/26/2009
|
Hi Nick,
I understand what you mean. It doesn't matter what it is. Fashion, furniture, cars, landscaping, food, or digital photography, there are always some people who will push the limits of good taste. But that's okay too. The world is made up of all kinds.
I used to like the Harry Palmer movies too. A great part for Michael Caine. I also got hooked on Robert Ludlum books quite a few years ago.
Andre
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/24/2009
|
Yeah, that guy is always cool! You can put good old James without money somewhere on the Antarctic and 2 weeks later you meet him on the Bahamas as the big boss of 20 luxury hotels and three casinos, and with at least 57 girls framing him ;-) Well, could it be that his popularity is the result of the wish of too many people to have all that? ;-)
On a continuation of this, I can also sit and watch such a movie for relaxing and fun. What I am always eager to see is the next insanities of Q, that is. ;-) (Oh well, scientists and their toys again.) But movies of that kind about espionage appeal more to me when the story is dense and unforseeable. I like that kind of "they knew that we didn't know that they didn't know that we knew." and the more behind the scene attitude of movies like "The Ipcress File" or "Enigma". Perhaps I like the idea too much of acting in the background and not being known at all. Anyway, Harry Palmer is for me the elegant beating of a james Bond an expressionless face and a minimum of physical action. ;-) Running fast is never as fast as mentally putting the pieces of a chess game on the checkerboard.
About "sharpness" practiced up to those unbelievable levels, it depends as always on the intention. Was the intention to generate a pixelized appearance, so turn the knob all the way up if it has to be. But most of the time it is not that. It is the intention to generate a "good classical" image, for which then the exaggerated sharpness is taken as a naturally good thing. Which is of course senselessness and "coarse" perception. It reminds me of what happened when the Romans first faced Greek culture. Had the greek girl a nice ring and a fine golden chain around its neck, so the roman girl took 20 rings as big as possible and 35 golden chains in the hope that more would be also better. I hope you understand what I mean. But after some decades they also realized that elegance and nice appearance was not a matter of quantity. So I am quite sure that all these exaggerations of sharpness and saturation etc are only the "children illness" of something new that of course tunrs many too enthusiastic at the start.
I am curious about the further evolution of such things.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Denis
{K:66407} 3/22/2009
|
I understand completely Nick.
The knobs and dials of Photoshop and other post processing tools can be like an addiction to excess with a lot of people. Another turn of the sharpness dial must be added along with a couple of turns of the saturation dial. All the time forgetting that it isn't like that in the real world.
I understand people trying tricks and effects for the fun of it. But, it isn't always good photography.
I just finished reading an article on wildlife photography by a veteran of digital photography. He stated that the number one sin these days by photographers is the over use of sharpening.
Hey, btw On the other hand...I still like a good James Bond movie :)
Andre
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/22/2009
|
Surely, Andre, I can only second you with that. Of course there is much room for any kind of images, movies, whatever. The thing is that an always more and more spectacular and "happy" view is expected as a "guarantee" for "good" simply because it satisfies some personal needs.
But the always more and more brilliant casing was bought with a big cost of content. For example movies as you say. You only need to let even more cars explode and let even nicer smiles shine in sunlight, etc, and soon the movie is "great". Most of the block basters of the season are actually potatoes - completely foreseeable, primitive plot, no finer character nuances than "good" or "bad", but you know, when James Bond appears then the movie is "great". ;-)
This has to do with a monopolizing of the very meaning of "nice" by some few criteria that have been raised to the exclusive state of "niceness". I'll try to explain it with another example in my kind of music. Nowadays in hard rock and heavy metal you will always have in each and every band the guitarist playing always faster and faster. So it is only then "nice" when the solo contains 3000 notes per second and the focus is no more on the song itself but on that solo. And so you hear for 10 minutes tirilili-taralala-lililali-lalaluli, with no break, no bridge, no tension, no atmosphere, no nothing, but it is a great song because the guitarist had a new world record in virtuosity. I don't have anything against such a virtuosity of playing but I do have much too much against limiting taste to just that. The parallel to photography would be a higher and higher sharpness, for example, and you can already see that this has entered minds so forcefully that many too many people completely oversharpen their images by sliding the USM-knob of PS to 150% and they don't even see that all contours are completely pixelized. When I tell them, they ask "Pixelation? What pixelation?" This is then the ultimately "nice" image. Add some 300% saturation and soon you return to the coarse computer graphics of Space Invaders of which we were talking in the other message. (So, perhaps the times of our youth return in disguise, that is! ;-))
Anyway, I hope I was able to differentiate well enough. Have an nice Sunday!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Denis
{K:66407} 3/22/2009
|
Hi Nick,
I believe there is room for a lot of different types of images to be appreciated. As you say, they don't all have to scream "look how nice this image is" I was talking to my wife about a movie we watched the other night. It was a little upsetting and quite intense at times. She told me she didn't like it very much. I told her that just because a film isn't light hearted or likable that doesn't mean it is a bad film. The same thing can be true for photography, I believe.
Andre
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/21/2009
|
The snow is white, Gustavo. It doesn't have anything that can overburn if you shoot it from such a distance that its micro crystals are not visible. And exactly this was also why the contrast remained so high, why the wood has good textures also in the shadows, and why after all this image has been chosen along with a couple of other images of mine for being used for the book:
http://www.buchhandel.de/detailansicht.aspx?isbn=978-3-89574-690-1
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/21/2009
|
Thanks a lot Andre, and actually thanks a lot after a long time because of yet another submission that left me no free second until now. The new one was about... lawyers! For heavens sake, what the heck can one photograph for a flyer of a new office of attorneys for law? At the end they chose the images I took for completing the film when I was ready with some streets or buildings and the like. Now guess what? Those few images at the end of each film were images of grass, trees and the like. Go figure! ;-)
About this image, the "little pieces of humanity" as you say... Well, this is a very good definition of all that. This is why I think that those pieces should be always allowed to speak their language on an image without much intervention of the photographer. You see, trying to press the own perception on them only distorts their own language. This is what I try to say when I say that the photographer is not the one to "translate" the message. The photographer is only the one to tranfer the message as original as possible, and so he/she better stays out of the way, avoiding to add any adjectives to the subject for introducing the own "glorious" signature. Best way to photograph, for me, is to not be there while shooting. I think I understand better and better the work of people like Ansel Adams. His images never really said: "Look how nice!" For me they only said: "Look."
Cheers and thanks again!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 2/26/2009
|
Muy buena la composición, para mi gusto tal vez con demasiado contrastes que hace que las altas luces estén muy quemadas.
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
M jalili
{K:69009} 2/18/2009
|
Yes my friend really I like it .
Regards .......
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 2/18/2009
|
And I am glad if you do, Yazeed!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 2/18/2009
|
Many thanks, Hárës!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 2/18/2009
|
Thanks a lor Dave! I am quite happy with this one too.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 2/18/2009
|
Many many thanks again, Marcio!
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 2/18/2009
|
Thank you very much for the nice detailed comment, Stan!
I had to try this one a couple of times until it really worked, and so I am especially glad if you find it good.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 2/18/2009
|
I am glad of you like it, Aziz!
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Denis
{K:66407} 2/18/2009
|
Hi Nick,
First, I would like to say thank you for the dedication. and secondly and more importantly, congratulations on having some of your images selected for publication. The free translation from German may lose something in translation, but I think I get the idea. I think a lot of people, including myself, enjoy images like this one because they are little pieces of humanity that we can all relate to. There is a certain beauty in the "everyday items" that are so often overlooked.
Congratulations again Nick, and good luck on any future submissions.
Andre
|
|
|
|
|
M jalili
{K:69009} 2/17/2009
|
I like it so much ..............
|
|
|
|
Hárës
{K:7888} 2/17/2009
|
Very beautiful composition.
|
|
|
|
Dave Stacey
{K:150877} 2/17/2009
|
Very well done composition, Nick, along with the technical details of lighting and exposure!
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Marcio Janousek
{K:32538} 2/17/2009
|
Strong image that makes me go all the way ...Great control of exposure !!
|
|
|
|
Stan Hill
{K:35352} 2/17/2009
|
I like the snow cover and the tones brought out against the snow in the wood. It gives a real winter, lonely touch to the image. Exposure and details are nice. Not easy to master a snow shot.
Be well, Stan
|
|
|
|
aZiZ aBc
{K:28345} 2/17/2009
|
EXCELLENT , .. love it ..
|
|
0 
