Sheila Smart Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 As I have more or less given up on stock (!), I am devoting more of my time to POD sites where I have a modicum of control over pricing. I downloaded the latest Topaz Impressionist filter and have now uploaded some of my efforts to YouTube. It's only five minutes so if you get some spare time! http://youtu.be/OtwOB1QLaQ8 Cheers Sheila Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeRay Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Way to go I think. Like yourself I've been veering more towards this type of work. Not enough to present at this moment but I'm getting there. Nice conversions btw +1 from me. Might be of interest. https://jessicadrossin.com/store/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertSnapper Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I wonder what Cezanne or Monet would say ?! A nice effect. I can see those being quite sellable. I'd imagine that the print market for 'hanging on the wall' type of pictures is also quite crowded tho ? (i've no experience of Print on Demand). Thanks for sharing. ReeRay's link (jessicadrossin.com...), reminds me of the work you see in the Trevillion picture library ( www.trevillion.com ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lastrega Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 + 1 Yes, it is. I love your photographic portraits anyway, but I very much liked the work you've done here. Thanks for posting - hopefully these will do very well for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Pixel Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Sheila, your processing and convertion of photos into pictures is very nice but I should say thay you have a great photographic eye and your photos are artistic as they are! You can try to sell converted and non converted photos. Your photos of Sydney are stunning! Your view is fresh and new for us! Good luck and many sales! By the way, I wait for a great snowstorm in Moscow. When it comes, I will go and shoot the embassy of Australia to Russia. )))) It is located in an old and picturesque part of Moscow. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Even Turner? Nice work Sheila. Picked out a couple I really like, The street artist and little girl sat on the beach. Would you be able to give some idea how long on average it takes you to process an image to finished product? If you want painterly effects straight out of camera, not so good as yours, use Fuji and set high sharpness and high noise reduction settings. Wish you the best in your newish venture. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I love your work, Sheila, and I actually prefer the unaltered versions. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I love your work, Sheila, and I actually prefer the unaltered versions. Paulette +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Lovely stuff and it certainly looks like art to me. The base pics are super, which is significant part of the success of what you are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Sheila, to address the premise in your title: Is it art or what? I have my feelings about this and I also have my thoughts. Are we moving towards a time in Art when we humans push a couple of buttons to get to the end result? Maybe we're there already. For Visual Art to be valid, must we go back to using paint brushes and chisels? Probably not, but why than are we trying to capture that painterly look in photography? One odd thing that you did in your YouTube video, Sheila, is showing the transitions from your "straight" images to your Impressionist images, like a magic trick. What's the point of that, showing how you do your tricks? Sure we all want to earn money for work; that's a given. But . . . the other issue is Is it art or what? Respectfully, Edo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arletta Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Lovely work, congrats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Is it art or what? Well, your conversions are definitely artfully done, and I think that most people would consider some of your original photographs to be "art" (without getting into the endless arguments about what constitutes art and whether or not photography is really an art form). I experimented a bit with "painterly" conversions and decided it wasn't for me. I also wasn't very good at it, leading me to believe that getting excellent results is an art in itself. Surprisingly, most of the prints that I have sold on FAA have been images that have also leased as regular stock here on Alamy and elsewhere. Were they potentially art? One or two perhaps (subjectively speaking). All the others were strictly documentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I think Sheila's question is more 'is it something a consumer will see as a decorative product' rather than a deeper question of whether it's Art. I don't often find myself thinking about creating Art but if I did I'd go back in the bar and partake of a bit more of the vintner's art until the impulse went away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Great Art Sheila. It would like to see you go even further away from the photography with some images. It doesn't matter how long it took to actually alter the photograph or how easy it was to press the buttons to make the art. The end result is the result of your lifetime of looking, recording and interpreting. A ballet dancer makes great art in milliseconds, but the art part is a result of years of practice. Japanese calligraphy, exactly the same thing. Done is seconds but only after a lifetime of study. Here is something from wikipedia: ----------- "Japanese calligraphy was influenced by, and influenced, Zen thought. For any particular piece of paper, the calligrapher has but one chance to create with the brush. The brush strokes cannot be corrected, and even a lack of confidence shows up in the work. The calligrapher must concentrate and be fluid in execution. The brush writes a statement about the calligrapher at a moment in time (see Hitsuzendo, the Zen way of the brush). Through Zen, Japanese calligraphy absorbed a distinct Japanese aesthetic often symbolised by the ensō or circle of enlightenment. Zen calligraphy is practiced by Buddhist monks and most shodō practitioners. To write Zen calligraphy with mastery, one must clear one's mind and let the letters flow out of themselves, not practice and make a tremendous effort. This state of mind was called the mushin (無心 "no mind state"?) by the Japanese philosopher Nishida Kitaro. It is based on the principles of Zen Buddhism, which stresses a connection to the spiritual rather than the physical.[12]" ------------- We should never place ourself in the narrow silo of straight photography. There is a much bigger world out there, and our photography should borrow and riff off of all forms of art. Anything goes, as long as it communicates. Here is an image that I made quickly and easily, but dreamed about for 40 years. It is a telephoto view from my our first apartment after I got married. Bill Brooks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 That would be "art" in my world, Bill. A haunting image. I have a feeling that the original, unmanipulated photo was just as evocative, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Thanks John I am glad we can share our emotions. The scene haunts me to this day. It was a happy time because I had just started on a great marriage. However it was also the winter of my discontent, as I wanted to quit my job as a Photo editor and become a pro photographer. The manipulated image I posted, is what I saw when I looked out my window. The un manipulated image (black and white not blue and white, no dog, no grain, no blurring of the branches) is what the camera saw when it looked out the window. The dog did not walk through the park. The dog is from a completely different image, taken years later. So you have two things creating the manipulated image. Camera and brain. So my answer to the original question is that, yes it is art. Art is everywhere, but you have to see it. If it communicates, then the medium or method doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 One of the problems I've had with these "painterly" effects is the way they scale. That is to say the quality of the effect depends on how big you print them and of course how close they are viewed. Up close they tend to look very obviously digitally altered and from a distance they look very much like the original photograph. I'm not saying this is the case with Sheila's pics - just my own experience. I liked the parrot and the yellow flowers where the impressionist look very much extended the original shapes in the picture. I would certainly describe those as art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Thanks John I am glad we can share our emotions. The scene haunts me to this day. It was a happy time because I had just started on a great marriage. However it was also the winter of my discontent, as I wanted to quit my job as a Photo editor and become a pro photographer. The manipulated image I posted, is what I saw when I looked out my window. The un manipulated image (black and white not blue and white, no dog, no grain, no blurring of the branches) is what the camera saw when it looked out the window. The dog did not walk through the park. The dog is from a completely different image, taken years later. So you have two things creating the manipulated image. Camera and brain. So my answer to the original question is that, yes it is art. Art is everywhere, but you have to see it. If it communicates, then the medium or method doesn't matter. I have nothing against digital manipulation per se. I guess what bothers me is that when photographs are intentionally made to look like paintings (or sketches, etc.), it cheapens both mediums IMO. Why is it necessary to say that digitally manipulated images look like something else that already exists? Wouldn't it be better to treat them as a totally new art form? I don't really see an etching or painting when I look at your image, but something brand new. BTW, for some reason, your image brought to mind an old Jesse Winchester song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 "I have nothing against digital manipulation per se. I guess what bothers me is that when photographs are intentionally made to look like paintings (or sketches, etc.), it cheapens both mediums IMO. Why is it necessary to say that digitally manipulated images look like something else that already exists?" --JohnM I might pull up a little short of that, John. But basically that's what I was asking about: why does turning a perfectly good photograph into a faux Impressionist painting make the image more worthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Many artists do cross over between mediums. Music and theatre = opera. Music and video = music videos. Comic books and video = Superhero motion pictures. Music, dance, theatre = ballet. Poetry and music = songs. Novels adapted = theatre or motion picture. Found objects embalmed = art. Acting, photography, theatre, writing, painting, carpentry, music = motion picture Look at the career of Leonard Cohen. Poet, novelist, songwriter, singer, stage entertainer, graphic artist, flaneur, Buddhist monk. Remember when former folksinger Bobby Dylan went from acoustic guitar to electrical? Fans were outraged. How about a surrealist painter like Alex Colville who looks like a photographer but is not a photographer? http://www.alexcolville.ca/gallery/ I think rather than cheapen either medium, the crossover enriches both mediums and creates a new one. Crossover opens a whole new creative direction for artists. Try it, you will like it. I think that the internet does not display painterly effects well. This effect looks much better when very large and viewed close. The effect is too subtle for a small size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I might pull up a little short of that, John. But basically that's what I was asking about: why does turning a perfectly good photograph into a faux Impressionist painting make the image more worthy? Edo I would say that if a perfectly good photograph is converted to a faux impressionist painting, and then that faux impressionist painting communicates more to the viewer than the perfectly good photograph, then the conversion has been both successful and worthwhile. Art is about communication of feelings from one human to another. The artist has to let the viewer inside his/her head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Supper time in the Brooks' household. I think we should ban all tech discussions on this forum and stick to the big issues like art. I once worked in a art department where book designers had fistfights over font design. Reminds me of college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted November 5, 2014 Author Share Posted November 5, 2014 Even Turner? Nice work Sheila. Picked out a couple I really like, The street artist and little girl sat on the beach. Would you be able to give some idea how long on average it takes you to process an image to finished product? If you want painterly effects straight out of camera, not so good as yours, use Fuji and set high sharpness and high noise reduction settings. Wish you the best in your newish venture. Allan After using the filter for a week or so, I can normally pick which actual filter to use just by looking at the "original" photograph. If the image has a modern look about it, I use a filter to portray that (and vice versa). It's difficult to explain in writing but if you use the filter (there is a free trial of it), you will get to understand. While using the filter, I am always thinking of who and why, folk would want to buy it. Mind you, I am always thinking of that when snapping for stock which, at the moment, I am not! Of course, it's not new using a photograph as a derivative of a painting - "painters" have been doing that surreptitiously for years! I found one US "painter" using photographs as derivatives without the knowledge or permission of the various photographers (about 300 of them). After contacting the POD sites and suggesting they might lose their safe harbour protection under DMCA if they did not do something, all four of the PODs took him down. One for the good guys! That Google Search by Image found the original photograph might indicate that he was actually manipulating the photographs with filters rather than painting them on a canvas but as this guy always said that the original was not for sale, it would indicate that software was used, rather than brushes. I also found a UK "painter" using my work and even won competitions with the derivative and was hanging the work in local galleries. I was soon on his case and he told the journalist (to whom I dobbed him in) that he had "forgotten" my condition in an email that he would have to contact me if he was selling the works. I digress! Thanks for the comments. It does tend to be addictive and I am now finding that I can use images from my "old" Canon D60 which wasn't the sharpest in the box as one does not need sharp (or even correctly exposed) originals. Sheila Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Supper time in the Brooks' household. I think we should ban all tech discussions on this forum and stick to the big issues like art. I once worked in a art department where book designers had fistfights over font design. Reminds me of college. Bon appétit. It's only tea time here in Vancouver. Now back to the gentle art of keywording... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 why does turning a perfectly good photograph into a faux Impressionist painting make the image more worthy? We want to sell our pics. Lots of people (especially the general public) like the effect. Simples. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.