I'm glad someone liked the stylization. Photography is better in color, and color photography is better in a painterly way. And painting doesn't care about Pantone.
I'm glad someone liked the stylization. A photograph is better in color, and a color photograph is better in a painterly way. And a painterly way doesn't care about Pantone.
Alexander Lisovsky, Good setup.))) Everything just came together really well. After all, not every photograph would be suitable for this kind of processing! So, the foundation is still the first frame! ) Thank you! I've come back to it more than once...)
In general, stylization doesn't necessarily involve a shift to brushstrokes. I remember being amazed by how Evgeny Grigoriev stylized a still life: http://www.photographer.ru/nonstop/picture.htm?id=404147 Later, it turned out that many photographers are moving away from the "correct" colors to "their own." Take Anzor Bukharsky, for example.
"There are a lot of filters these days. I woke up this morning and there were 10 more filters in the world. There's room for improvement," says my teacher Kaledin, opening the prism on his smartphone and immediately loading images.
Unfortunately, Corel didn't improve the authorization mode after version 4 (I might be wrong), and version 4 was deleted from the internet due to lack of demand. I also like PortableFotoSketcher. And DAP, while beautifully designed, didn't work for me in practice.
Actually, I was referring to Serg Tix. From my own experience, I can say that to advance both photography and editing, you need real-life, hands-on teachers. You can join a photography club or any lively photography community. But theoreticians who explain "how to do it" but can't actually follow their own templates are not in demand anywhere.
I just don't see his messages, so I, like another evil and unlucky troll, responded to your call. Who did you study with? Osmachkin or Musorin? I can't figure it out based on the filter you selected.
I'll name names that few people know. In the 1980s, I went to a photography club at the Rodina Cultural Center on Bezymyanka Street. There were professional photographers there from the aircraft factory, one of whom had the memorable name of Nekhoroshev. They got us into the club with a huge Belarus enlarger, an APSO drum glossing machine, film reels, concentrated developer, and other equipment. Then I studied with forensic expert Marat from the Leninsky District Department of Internal Affairs; I can't remember his name right now. In Tolyatti, Anatoly Ryzhov taught me about digital photography and photo processing, for which I bow deeply to him. I listened to Nikolai Kuzovkin (now a photographer in Moscow) and professional photographers from VAZ (primarily Stanislav Ivanovich Kazakov) at the Tolyatti photography club called "Territory of Light."
I'm sure of two things. 1. Every photo needs to be processed (maybe because I love processing photos). 2. Nobody cares (I certainly don't) how the end result is achieved.
I've processed this photo many times. Yesterday, I even did several "painting-like" treatments; Nikolai Semenov's work reminded me of Corel. I liked this treatment yesterday.
We had a training course in "Household Photographer," led by Alexander Vasilyevich Fedorenko. We had FKD and Salut cameras and all that junk you're describing. There, they taught us how to shoot sharply, with proper exposure, and how to print according to GOST standards.
I see you were taught this too. It's probably important for a photographer. But modern photography equipment can do all this just as well as you can. Focus, expose correctly, and print. So what's left for you, as a photographer? Add a few effects? I follow a lot of young people on Instagram and Facebook, and I see that they don't bother with any editing, yet they produce beautiful photographs. And you, excuse me, only have well-focused pictures.
Alexandr Popov, perhaps better than mine. When I discovered this courtyard in Samara and started photographing it from different angles, local residents came running, thinking I was an accomplice to the arsonists.
Well, even if we admit that "...it doesn't matter how the end result is achieved....", then at least the end result should be somehow "beautiful" (in any sense of the word), I guess... Can this be said about this image?
Well, even if we admit that "... I don't care how the end result is achieved....", then at least the end result should be somehow "beautiful" (in any sense of the word), I guess... Can this be said about this image?
Sergey Chubarov, if I show my work, it means my internal censor and my eyes have missed it. Sometimes the eyes don't notice mistakes (the chalkboard effect). Well, I'd like to see this work in print. Maybe I wouldn't like the processing. I never thought there would be fans of "imitation painting" processing; I just like it. And a lot of what photo sites offer today, for example, I don't like. Even if everything is clean and the background is perfectly positioned. Even if thousands of viewers are delighted.
Is someone molding you? No. Oh, so you were told your photos suck? But no one's forcing you not to take photos that suck. Take as many as you want. So no one is molding you to fit anyone else's mold.
Is someone remaking you? No. Oh, you were told your photos suck? But no one is forcing you not to take crap photos. Take as many as you want. So no one is remaking you to fit anyone's mold.-)
Serg Tix, well, if you're interested, I'll say that none of your works posted here impressed me. And I was extremely offended that you used obscene language about my portraits of Yevgeny Yevtushenko, while Yevgeny Alexandrovich, for example, chose my portrait of himself for posters because he personally liked it.
Literary talent is no guarantee of impeccable visual taste. The portraits are terrible.
Serg Tix, I went to an exhibition of Yevgeny Yevtushenko's photographs during the Soviet era; it was held in Samara at the Zvezda Cultural Center. Yevtushenko was a seasoned amateur photographer. But arguing about taste is pointless. Just turn off your perception when you see my photographs. It will save you a lot of trouble.
And to be honest, they reminded me of the paintings of my teacher, Kaledin. He, too, would sit on a dead horse for years, coaxing it to rise using various methods. I hope the metaphor is clear.
Alexander Lisovsky, you see, you yourself write "painting-like." "Painting-like" is like painting-likea fake painting. In painting, it is the painting itself that is valued, not the imitation. Imitation will never be on the same level as painting. In other words, you have done something to your photo: it has neither become a painting nor a photograph.
Marina Glebova, as you probably know, many painters, starting with da Vinci, used the camera obscura to avoid worrying about secondary matters—composition of the painting, conveying the proportions of the setting and the figure. They, according to your classification, are "fakers-sub-photographers." I know many samurai photographers who believe that a photograph should be taken with a gimbal camera on a hand-made plate. I've seen works by artists made with genuine brushstrokes the size of a palm. I value the image itself, not the technique. I create what I want with my photographs. And I know photographers who even paint photographs on the computer without brushes.
Alexandr Popov, so go ahead, who's stopping you? And feel free to discuss filters. But: 1) Anyone can express their opinion in a public forum; 2) Don't tell others: "there's something beautiful for you in the other thread," etc.; 3) Yes, I think you have absolutely no understanding of art, either painting or photography, which is probably why you always try to shut down conversations on these topics.
Image quality isn't determined by the technique used.
Alexander Lisovsky, I'm not talking about quality. I'm saying that an imitation is always a fake. Actually, I have no doubt that 99% of the site's users have happily tried all these filters. They played with them. But they didn't show them.
By the way, I'm not against photo art. But real photo art is something completely different.
The platform's format is intended for the page to discuss the frame being displayed. It doesn't create the premise for a pointless argument about preferences.
Alexandr Popov, who told you that? If so, we wouldn't be seeing this conversation in the shared feed.
In short, Alexander, if you find such conversations pointless, it only means you don't understand it. Is it worth showing everyone? If you don't understand, don't disturb others. It's always because of you that conversations devolve into arguments.
I hope you'll let us discuss filtering programs a little longer...we'll quietly...
Alexandr Popov, as much as you like ) And if I suddenly want to say something, I'll join your conversation. After all, it's visible in the general feed, so it's a general conversation.
Alexandr Popov, as much as you like. And if I suddenly want to say something, I'll join your conversation. After all, it's visible in the general feed, so it's a general thread.
Marina Glebova, if you don't get banned, you'll read it.
Bliki Na Vode, Deushka, Glebova is the only person I UNBANED. That's a lot. I'm not compatible with her, of course, but I can still communicate with Sagittarius men; my second wife has been a Sagittarius for 17 years.
Alexandr Popov, this isn't about men and women)), not Sagittarius men and Libras)). This is about photographers)))
Bliki Na Vode, There are PEOPLE here with their wild passions, hopes, and beliefs. And photography is just an excuse and a way to express themselves without censorship.
Alexandr Popov, it turns out we have different goals))
We're sitting here, discussing filter programs. And then you burst in with a straight photograph and an author's connotation—everyone here is a fool, listen properly. But we don't need it that way.
Alexandr Popov,
In fact, in this work, it makes sense to talk about connotation as imparting a certain authorial attitude (creating secondary meaning) to a real photograph. The method of stylization when processing as a painting is the creation of connotations through aesthetic manipulation during processing of the original. The author thereby positions the frame as "art," creating a corresponding signifier through appropriate processing. I don't see anything wrong with this; it has a right to exist. It's just that, as Marina Glebova correctly noted, everyone has probably gone through this stage, because it's interesting. A photographer dreams of becoming an artist, albeit the easy way. The history of photography knows of a similar obsession—the "pictorialism" movement—though manipulations were performed both during the shooting stage and during processing (I'm referring to film photography).
As for this shot, I'll say it's not bad, in my opinion, as the subject matter is well-chosen for this unobtrusive stylization.
Basically, photographing with a monocle, shooting with a wide-angle lens, or shooting with a soft lens is also stylization of the image.
Alexander Lisovsky, stylization is an emphasized imitation of the original features of a particular style. Therefore, shooting with a monocle or a wide-angle lens is not stylization. They don't imitate anything. They actually photograph in this way, distorting reality. The use of different printing methods also alters the image, but this is also not stylization.
Alexander Lisovsky, Therefore, shooting with a monocle or a wide-angle lens is not stylization. They don't imitate anything. O.
Marina Glebova, Not quite. If, of course, we understand stylization as a special case, in this example as stylization of a painting. By and large, a monocle doesn't imitate any particular author, but rather a "painterly style." As a result, lines that serve as "separators" between objects in photography are transformed into "connectors." Tactile impressions give way to optical ones, and recognizability to fantasy. From the reality of existence to the illusory nature of appearances.
Alexander Zeonoff, I disagree. A monocle doesn't imitate, it creates its own style.
Marina Glebova, It's understandable, because a monocle is just one of the inventions of a photographer who dreamed of becoming an artist, using all available means to "imitate" a painting's style.)) That's all for now....I have to go.
Marina Glebova, you could say that, but you have to understand that pictorialist photographers were imitating their older artist brother. Photography at that time followed painting, which, incidentally, is clearly evident in Malakhov's diaries about the pictorialists. That's all for now.
Alexander Zeonoff, I could be wrong, but the monocle isn't an artist's invention, but an ordinary low-quality (and possibly single-element) lens from the early days of photography, the distortions of which humanity struggled to overcome by creating optical designs and glass masses with different properties. Whether the photographer who broke the front lens of his lens and then discovered a cool drawing dreamed of becoming an artist or was just cursing is unknown.
Alexandr Popov, but the front lens in the monocle is the only thing that survived.
It's all becoming more banal. It's become possible to exploit painting techniques to produce recognizable, and therefore marketable, images. Obtained in a unique way, to boot. And in an incomparably shorter time. The profit margin is obvious.
Photography with a monocle, shooting with a wide-angle lens, or shooting with a soft lens are also stylized images.
Unfortunately, it's not stylization, but rather the production of an image by optical means.
Alexander Zeonoff,
The monocle is just one of that photographer's inventions.
The monocle is not the invention of that photographer who... A monocle is the simplest lens, consisting of a single converging lens (Zababurin, Portrait Photographic Optics. 1934). Due to its physical properties (aberrations, coma, astigmatism, and all sorts of other effects), a monocle creates a rather specific image, rather than imitating something arbitrarily invented. How to use it is another matter. I used it to shoot macros; what style would you define it as?
Alexander Lisovsky, The monocle is not the invention of that photographer who... A monocle is the simplest lens, consisting of a single converging lens (Zababurin, Portrait Photographic Optics. 1934). Due to its physical properties (aberrations, coma, astigmatisms of all sorts), a monocle forms a rather specific image, rather than imitating something arbitrarily invented. How to use it is another matter. I used it to shoot all sorts of macros; what style would you define it as?
Malakhov, well, the means are different, hence the different styles of the image. If you want a caricature instead of a portrait, shoot with a wide-angle lens; if you want a soft effect, use a soft lens. So, you got a photo of "insects in a sunny haze."
Alexander Lisovsky, There's also a magic cure—cheap Chinese macro lenses of lousy quality, or another product like Uncle Liu's wide-angle converter. Plus, you can play with them with your playful fingers. And masterpieces flow. And those fools from Zeiss, Canon, and Nikon are struggling, developing optics. And happily, somewhere else...
Alexandr Popov And nobody's cancelled shooting through a 10-liter jar.
and nobody has cancelled shooting through a 10-liter jar
That's for sure. The jar, the monocles, and the Zeiss glasses are all tools. Brushes. With which, knowing their properties, you can achieve the desired "insects in a sun-drenched haze" effect, and this is a kosher effect. Optical. And Photoshop, with its filters, is post-processing. And such images say nothing about the photographer and their intentions, leaving ample room for evaluation of your skill with the editor's sliders. Because "shot" and "colored" are two different things.
That's right, the jar, the monocles, and the Zeiss glasses are all tools. Brushes. With which, knowing their properties, you can achieve the effect you want... Optical. And Photoshop, with its filters, is post-processing. And such images say nothing about the photographer or their intentions, leaving a wide field for assessing your skill with the editor's sliders. Because "shot" and "colored" are two different things.
Malakhoff was absolutely right - "shot" and "colored" are two different things. If you want computer graphics, draw in an editor, create interesting collages, do interesting things in layers, be creative. And running a filter over a photo is simply coloring. It's not computer graphics.
Malakhov was absolutely right - "shot" and "colored" are two different things. If you want computer graphics, draw in an editor, create interesting collages, do interesting things in layers, be creative. But running a filter over a photo is just coloring. It's not computer graphics.
Marina Glebova, it's not just coloring. A different texture, a different image. A synthesis of a real image and one processed using a given algorithm. Any computer processing changes the image. All my images differ from the original jpeg.
Malakhoff was absolutely right - "shot" and "colorized" are two different things. If you want computer graphics, draw in an editor, create interesting collages, do interesting things in layers, be creative.
But running a filter over a photo is simply colorization. It's not computer graphics.
Marina Glebova, every image I've posted on this resource is my interpretation of the original RAW data. Any keystroke on the computer triggers, as you say, "colorization."
It's not just colorization. A different texture, a different image. A synthesis of a real image and one processed using a given algorithm. Any computer processing changes the image. All my images differ from the original jpeg.
Alexander Lisovsky, this is essentially colorization. But shooting through a can or a monocle, no matter how you look at it, doesn't qualify as colorization. For computer graphics, it's not enough for an image to differ from the original, and for photography, this is often too much – many authors can't stop processing, making photos ever more "beautiful."
Now the question is – for what purpose? What is valuable in photography? That we can express our impressions by capturing a moment. That is, the most valuable thing is what we captured with the lens. What is valuable in computer graphics? Creation, creativity. What you've got is something between a photo and a comic book graphic, but essentially "neither ours nor yours."
Alexander Lisovsky, this is essentially colorization. But shooting through a can or a monocle, no matter how you look at it, doesn't qualify as colorization. For computer graphics, it's not enough for an image to differ from the original, and for photography, this is often too much – many photographers can't stop in time during processing, making photos ever more "beautiful."
Now the question is – for what purpose? What is valuable for photography? That we can express our impressions by capturing a moment. That is, the most valuable thing is what we captured with the lens. What is valuable for computer graphics? Creation, creativity. But what you've got is something between a photo and a comic book graphic, essentially "neither ours nor yours."
Marina Glebova, I'm not worried about what's ended up being between "ours" and "yours."
Alexander Lisovsky, this is essentially colorization. But shooting through a can or a monocle, no matter how you look at it, doesn't qualify as colorization. For computer graphics, it's not enough for an image to differ from the original, and for photography, this is often too much – many photographers can't stop in time during processing, making photos ever more "beautiful."
Now the question is – for what purpose? What is valuable for photography? That we can express our impressions by capturing a moment. That is, the most valuable thing is what we captured with the lens. What is valuable for computer graphics? Creation, creativity. What you've created is something between a photo and a comic book graphic, essentially "neither ours nor yours."
Marina Glebova, and by the way, how would you feel about the photo if I took a photo of my coloring picture with a camera, then scanned the image and posted it with the "no Photoshop" mark?
"Pure" photography, without any computer influence on the final result, seems to me much less creative. With this approach, the human being is nothing more than an appendage to the machine.
Alexander Lisovsky, I don't have time to answer your questions.)
How would you feel about a photo if I took a photo of my coloring picture with a camera, then scanned it and posted it with the note "no Photoshop"?
Actually, it doesn't matter how I feel about it. What matters is how you feel about it. After all, it's not about the notes. The creativity of photography is what we "captured" with the lens; it's why we pressed the button at that precise moment. And no matter how you polish the photo, what matters most is the composition—what and how the artist wanted to show us. The rest is just cosmetics.
"Pure" photography, without any computer influence on the final result, seems much less creative to me. With this approach, a person is nothing more than an accessory to the equipment.
Well, I wouldn't say so... You're probably not very familiar with the history of photography, or even the work of many interesting contemporary photographers. Pure photography is a very captivating creative endeavor. And very difficult. Much more difficult than computer graphics. You can trust me, I earn my living from computer graphics.
Alexander Lisovsky, I don't have time to answer your questions.) Well, you can't say that... You're probably not very familiar with the history of photography, or even the work of many interesting contemporary photographers. Pure photography is a very captivating creative endeavor. And very difficult. Much more difficult than computer graphics. You can believe me, I earn my living in computer graphics.
Marina Glebova, I don't like orthodoxies in any field. When digital photography emerged, a bunch of film photographers, myself included, dismissed it as something indecent and unrelated to "real" photography. For a while, I used both a film Nikon Fm2 and a Canon 10D, comparing the results. Then I sold the Nikon Fm2, keeping the lenses I attached to the digital Canon. Then I found a replacement for manual lenses.
Alexander Lisovsky, I'm running away, I'm busy. But I think both you and I have managed to make our positions clear. Wishing you continued success in your creative endeavors.
Alexander Lisovsky, I'm running away, I'm busy. But I think that overall, both you and I have managed to make our positions clear. Wishing you creative success. )
Marina Glebova, everyone is free to have their own position.
Alexander Zeonoff, I could be wrong, but the monocle is not an artist's invention, but an ordinary low-quality (and possibly single-element) lens from the early days of photographic technology.
Alexandr Popov, No, you're not mistaken, if we're talking about the history of photographic lenses. And regarding the monocle...as an ideal tool for a photographer working in the style of "optical pictorialism," I recommend reading the article by one of the inventors of the "new" old monocle...)) Georgy Kolosov. Informative. I respect such people. http://fotolubitelnet.mirtesen.ru/blog/43065209810/Monokol-na-maloformatnoy-kamere
The monocle wasn't that photographer's invention... I used it to take all sorts of macros. What style would you define it as?
Malakhov, Regarding the invention, read the response to Alexander Popov; it covers everything and more. Regarding macros and style... it's like this...having brushes and a canvas doesn't make you an artist, any more than having a monocle makes you a photographer.
Alexander Zeonoff, Thanks. It'll be useful for general development. I've tried shooting with such things before, and also tried all sorts of junk. It was a long time ago, when I bought a 500D after the Zenit. Seven years ago. It was a breakthrough, so to speak. Back then, I'd read something, but nothing worked, so I started searching again. These days, I'm not too keen on such delights. Photography is a stimulus and an accompanying action on trips and walks, that is, it pushes you to action - to go, to travel, to see, to shoot. Movement, searching, planning. Photos are trophies, so to speak. Hunters hang trophies on the wall, having pre-processed them. Wall - website. In principle, it's not difficult for me to shoot something different from what I hang here - a person sees what he wants to see. Set the mood, turn on the aiming device, and go off and shoot, even fences and garbage dumps or catch street scenes. But why turn an ordinary task into a cult? I'll never understand.
Alexandr Popov, I'm not advocating for Soviet power, but I strongly recommend reading and trying to understand why Kolosov is interested in this. I've wondered the same thing myself, although I have a slightly different interest in this matter.
Alexandr Popov, Well, yes... I've actually read many of Georgy Kolosov's articles at different times, and here it's all condensed into one. His attitude toward... and views on photography, and pictorialism in particular, are interesting. He has a Special View)) P.S. Strange as it may seem, there are some similarities with the ideas expressed by Merleau-Ponty in his work "Visible and Invisible."
Alexander Zeonoff, Well, I don't know. There's nothing special about it—what he writes about photo pairs, for example, is completely clear and obvious to me. This followed even from the fact that when you arrange photos in an album spread, you select precisely these combinations. And I love albums in general, as stories, not single photos. But such luxury is nowhere to be found, and where it is, no one wants to look at it. But the fact that Kolosov clearly formulated this as an artistic decision—yes, that was undoubtedly important, because it went from being implicit to becoming explicit for many. And he has a good language.
Alexandr Popov, now I'm interested in something else, about the invisible in photography.
The brick building on the left (light (white)) needs to be cut off, and then the picture needs to be re-evaluated, and perhaps a final cropping can be done.
Oh, what a delightful, insane, walpurginal squabble! What kind of people are these? You spit in their faces, and they get offended, they start fighting! But it's been known for a long time: if someone offends you, fill your mouth with shit and spit in their face! I'm new here, I didn't expect this. What's the point of arguing? You can't argue the truth anyway, because of two people arguing, one is a fool and the other a scoundrel. And if you argue with a fool, then there are already two fools. Instead of squabbling, it would be better to go take pictures, or even edit the pictures on your computer, then there would be more reason for new arguments
I wouldn't call this still life stylized. The coloring is very interesting, but it's quite realistic. The bag is perfectly integrated, just like Annushka's, and it really brings it to life. I really liked the staging.
Nik Ram, You're a bit late in declaring your position. A good spoon with dinner. It's like in church during a wedding - if anyone is against it, say it now or shut up forever. Because you can provoke further artistic disorder. Now all the performers will gather and ask you - who personally did you mean by a fool and a scoundrel. And now you're one of them... And besides, if you find this nice conversation a fight, then you obviously haven't seen real, TRU epic fights between the big-endians and the big-endians. How they hurl connotations at each other like lightning. To paraphrase Pushkin, Oh, how many wondrous discoveries the spirit of enlightenment has in store for you...
Alexandr Popov, today I received the "Best Messages of the Week" newsletter. - As soon as he received it, he got his spoon for dinner, that is, he wrote his post. I prefer other words of Pushkin: "Accept praise and slander with indifference..." and so on. I've encountered some trolls (whom Pushkin advised against challenging, lest you become like them) on other sites. It's a shame there are troll-feeders who respond to their hungry squeals. And if "all the performers gather and ask you - who exactly did you mean by fool and scoundrel" - then we'll see who's in charge
Nik Ram, As you know. I unsubscribed from the newsletter a long time ago, so I'm not up to date. It's just that things have calmed down here for a week now, and people are finally talking calmly about the photo, so there's no point in throwing stones into the water. That's the way it is. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
Alexandr Popov, I'm new here, and haven't explored all the resource's intricacies yet. We'll see.
Photography is better in color, and color photography is better in a painterly way. And painting doesn't care about Pantone.
Later, it turned out that many photographers are moving away from the "correct" colors to "their own." Take Anzor Bukharsky, for example.
I just don't see his messages, so I, like another evil and unlucky troll, responded to your call. Who did you study with? Osmachkin or Musorin? I can't figure it out based on the filter you selected.
We had a training course in "Household Photographer," led by Alexander Vasilyevich Fedorenko. We had FKD and Salut cameras and all that junk you're describing. There, they taught us how to shoot sharply, with proper exposure, and how to print according to GOST standards.
I see you were taught this too. It's probably important for a photographer. But modern photography equipment can do all this just as well as you can. Focus, expose correctly, and print. So what's left for you, as a photographer? Add a few effects? I follow a lot of young people on Instagram and Facebook, and I see that they don't bother with any editing, yet they produce beautiful photographs. And you, excuse me, only have well-focused pictures.
Can this be said about this image?
Oh, so you were told your photos suck? But no one's forcing you not to take photos that suck. Take as many as you want. So no one is molding you to fit anyone else's mold.
"Painting-like" is like painting-likea fake painting.
In painting, it is the painting itself that is valued, not the imitation.
Imitation will never be on the same level as painting.
In other words, you have done something to your photo: it has neither become a painting nor a photograph.
I might as well suggest you don't post your photographs where I might see them.
I don't understand what you mean by that phrase.
And feel free to discuss filters.
But:
1) Anyone can express their opinion in a public forum;
2) Don't tell others: "there's something beautiful for you in the other thread," etc.;
3) Yes, I think you have absolutely no understanding of art,
either painting or photography, which is probably why you always try to shut down conversations on these topics.
I'm saying that an imitation is always a fake.
Actually, I have no doubt that 99% of the site's users have happily tried all these filters. They played with them. But they didn't show them.
By the way, I'm not against photo art. But real photo art is something completely different.
If so, we wouldn't be seeing this conversation in the shared feed.
In short, Alexander, if you find such conversations pointless, it only means you don't understand it. Is it worth showing everyone? If you don't understand, don't disturb others. It's always because of you that conversations devolve into arguments.
And if I suddenly want to say something, I'll join your conversation. After all, it's visible in the general feed, so it's a general conversation.
In fact, in this work, it makes sense to talk about connotation as imparting a certain authorial attitude (creating secondary meaning) to a real photograph.
The method of stylization when processing as a painting is the creation of connotations through aesthetic manipulation during processing of the original. The author thereby positions the frame as "art," creating a corresponding signifier through appropriate processing. I don't see anything wrong with this; it has a right to exist. It's just that, as Marina Glebova correctly noted, everyone has probably gone through this stage, because it's interesting. A photographer dreams of becoming an artist, albeit the easy way. The history of photography knows of a similar obsession—the "pictorialism" movement—though manipulations were performed both during the shooting stage and during processing (I'm referring to film photography).
As for this shot, I'll say it's not bad, in my opinion, as the subject matter is well-chosen for this unobtrusive stylization.
The monocle doesn't imitate, it creates its own style.
That's all for now....I have to go.
Alexander Zeonoff, The monocle is not the invention of that photographer who... A monocle is the simplest lens, consisting of a single converging lens (Zababurin, Portrait Photographic Optics. 1934). Due to its physical properties (aberrations, coma, astigmatism, and all sorts of other effects), a monocle creates a rather specific image, rather than imitating something arbitrarily invented. How to use it is another matter. I used it to shoot macros; what style would you define it as?
If you want computer graphics, draw in an editor, create interesting collages, do interesting things in layers, be creative.
And running a filter over a photo is simply coloring. It's not computer graphics.
But shooting through a can or a monocle, no matter how you look at it, doesn't qualify as colorization.
For computer graphics, it's not enough for an image to differ from the original, and for photography, this is often too much – many authors can't stop processing, making photos ever more "beautiful."
Now the question is – for what purpose?
What is valuable in photography? That we can express our impressions by capturing a moment. That is, the most valuable thing is what we captured with the lens.
What is valuable in computer graphics? Creation, creativity. What you've got is something between a photo and a comic book graphic, but essentially "neither ours nor yours."
Actually, it doesn't matter how I feel about it. What matters is how you feel about it.
After all, it's not about the notes.
The creativity of photography is what we "captured" with the lens; it's why we pressed the button at that precise moment. And no matter how you polish the photo, what matters most is the composition—what and how the artist wanted to show us. The rest is just cosmetics.
Well, I wouldn't say so... You're probably not very familiar with the history of photography, or even the work of many interesting contemporary photographers. Pure photography is a very captivating creative endeavor. And very difficult. Much more difficult than computer graphics. You can trust me, I earn my living from computer graphics.
But I think both you and I have managed to make our positions clear.
Wishing you continued success in your creative endeavors.
If I need technical advice, I'll definitely contact you.
http://fotolubitelnet.mirtesen.ru/blog/43065209810/Monokol-na-maloformatnoy-kamere
Regarding the invention, read the response to Alexander Popov; it covers everything and more. Regarding macros and style... it's like this...having brushes and a canvas doesn't make you an artist, any more than having a monocle makes you a photographer.
P.S.
Strange as it may seem, there are some similarities with the ideas expressed by Merleau-Ponty in his work "Visible and Invisible."
I'm new here, I didn't expect this. What's the point of arguing? You can't argue the truth anyway, because of two people arguing, one is a fool and the other a scoundrel. And if you argue with a fool, then there are already two fools. Instead of squabbling, it would be better to go take pictures, or even edit the pictures on your computer, then there would be more reason for new arguments