- This topic is empty.
Who needs 5×4?
-
rm wrote:
It’s not ‘photography’ as ‘artisic endevour’. More ‘photography’ as graphic design or interior decorating I guess :lol:
I think it can be if that’s how it’s shot.
If the “artist” finds a buyer, then it can be a bonus.
I wouldn’t necessarily split out photography/art /graphic design/interior decoration.
After all, many people have reproductions of the great master painters on their walls. But I doubt those great masters were motivated by future interior design fashions.
Andy
Nor me.
But if I took a 6mb scan of the Monalisa cropped it to just the smile and blew it up to 10×4 and stuck it in the reception at work I recon some of the artist original intent might be lost.
How about a Jackson Pollock print on a Brit Pop Manc Band album cover?
Now it’s clear enough to me that the former is interior design and the latter graphic design. The repurposing of the image radically changes the intent — and, as everyones actually agreed, the quality requirements. I recon that’s posably where ‘photography’ is at a disadvantage compaired to some other creative acts. The original is the negative, or perhaps the RAW. Every presentation of the shot involves a repurposing that carries as much weight as the original intent of the photographer. It’s nie on imposable to apreciate the orignal ‘as the artist intended’ in the way you can with a painting or live music.
Very interesting points RM and I wouldn’t disagree although perhaps we are venturing off topic again.
But I feel that viewing distance and visual perception are worth further consideration.
The RPS are currently assessing L, A and F submissions on a digital projector of approx 1000×800 pixels resolution. This is then projected up and viewed at a considerable viewing distance.
This surprised me at first and I’m still not concinced by their approach. Their arguement is that the brain is a very clever interpolator and can fill in any gaps. What is being seen is practically an optical illusion but those guys have conviced me that this viewing distance they cannot tell the diffeence between this and a projected slide.
But they key point is that the RPS are looking at photography, not resolving power. They want to see soul in the photographs they assess rather than the pixel peeping or squinting through a loupe.
So going back to my original question? Who needs 5×4? Does resolved detail in every blade of grass really give a photo more “soul”. Was my photo selected because every bluebell petal could be seen in crystal clarity? I don’t think so.
Andy
amcinroy wrote:
But the key point is that the RPS are looking at photography, not resolving power…
In which case the RPS are not looking at photography in its entirety.
Surely resolving power has to be part of it, particularly when it comes to print?amcinroy wrote:
It was chosen because it is a good photograph that met their needs…
But as an ‘artist’, does it meet yours?
Just an honest question…Rob.
Same answer that’s already been given.
Personally, and with out seeing the final print, that kind of fuzzyness in a print anywhere it’s in my eye line would, and does, distract me. I wouldn’t be getting ‘man I’m feeling that tranquil location’. I’d be getting ‘bloody hell is it time for a new pair of glasses already?’.
Rob wrote:
But as an ‘artist’, does it meet yours?
Just an honest question…Rob.
I think he’s already hinted at an answer to that one, and it’s NO! :D
Rob wrote:
In which case the RPS are not looking at photography in its entirety.
Surely resolving power has to be part of it, particularly when it comes to print?I have asked them that question too. I am not wholly convinced but I do believe that photography is more about communication if ideas and emotions rather than communication of raw detail. The RPS have decided what is more important to them. And I think that is a fair approach to take in their assesment
Rob wrote:
amcinroy wrote:
It was chosen because it is a good photograph that met their needs…
But as an ‘artist’, does it meet yours?
RM, are you answering my questions for me?
For my web gallery I went with a portrait version which does meet my artistic needs. These guys needed a landscape version which I feel is slightly weaker.Andy
rm wrote:
Personally, and with out seeing the final print, that kind of fuzzyness in a print anywhere it’s in my eye line would, and does, distract me. I wouldn’t be getting ‘man I’m feeling that tranquil location’. I’d be getting ‘bloody hell is it time for a new pair of glasses already?’.
ROTFL this is a classic post, you should have added …. ‘bloody hell is it time for a new pair of glasses already or a large format camera :lol: :lol: :lol:
On another note,
The RPS are suggesting that it won’t be long before they see their first ARPS by camera phone. A notable panel member I have spoken with has suggested that this will happen soon.
I believe that someone has already achieved FRPS using a cheap polaroid.
Again, it’s my theory that photography is about communication in an image. If resolution helps with this then that’s fine. But resolution for resolutions sake is misguided photography.
Andy
amcinroy wrote:
Again, it’s my theory that photography is about communication in an image. If resolution helps with this then that’s fine. But resolution for resolutions sake is misguided photography.
Andy
My thoughts exactly, you don’t hear art lovers saying ‘I can’t stand that Monet painting, it’s all a damn blur! Even with my glasses on you can’t tell if it’s grass or a green carpet!’.
On the photography side, we do have far too many experts on the technical points of making a photograph who’s galleries are a study in blandness and the lack of personal vision is almost super human (honestly not directed at anyone posting here, these are the odd ‘pontiff of photography’ who get quoted on forums regularly). Doesn’t really matter if their stuff is on digital, film or gold plated goose feathers, it’s artistically vacant. Then we have people posting polaroid shots that display all the ‘worst’ elements of photogrpahy we are supposed to have overcome, bad light falloff, off-colour, soft images, lack of detail etc. etc. and for some they are the pinnacle of expression. Each method of arriving at a final image is valid and excels above all others in certain circumstances, there is no ultimate format or camera.
Photography is possibly the oddest medium, sometimes I think some photographers are either programmed by frequently updated downloads or just masters par excellence in straight faced irony. Take one recent incident, a guy posted on a web gallery a pic taken on medium format B&W (not here) and a photographer gushed ‘wow, it’s just not possible to get this kind of quality with digital, this level of tonality and shading leaves digital cold’. He did not take kindly to me reminding him that in order for him to have viewed the image it had to be scanned to digital format and saved in 8 bit compressed jpg, therefore it was not possible for the image to surpass anything digital could achieve. Weird stuff.
I must say, i would be of the same opinion as andy for certain sorts of images etc
I work with a pro photographer on a bunch of Audio visual jobs
I have just finished one in castlecomer in kilkenny, where we enlarged some images from my clients D200 to over 3 metres wide
andthen cold press laminated them to board. and they look stunning
and my client actually has disgarded his mamiya kit for the D200 as he feels he gets just as useable images from the D200 but he can carry it around much easier
I wonder would it be useful to have a “PI Legendary Threads” forum… where all the great posts should reside. A super read this. Thank you all.
Hehe. This one is certainly a blast from the past.
A great read, I agree.
Your helpful bump might not do much for community relations but it sure gave me a laugh.
This one had it all.Andy
I tell ya Andy… I could pull at least 20 priceless quotes out of this thread.
Some of us do enjoy the PI equivalent of a Corrie every now and again.
I’ve been digging up many an old thread and have had some great reads… but this one is a real classic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
