Art or...

[darkman]

a glamour shot? What's your opinion?

Mike

[almo]

a glamour shot? What's your opinion?

Mike

It looks like a glamour shot IMO.


almo

[darkman]

It looks like a glamour shot IMO.


almo

What makes it glamour shot as opposed to an art shot? I could argue that there is more creativity in this shot than many shots some would consider arty.

Again, this brings me back to Irakly's original post in the VF. How are we defining art? Would this shot be considered art? If so, why? IMO, the first shot offeres a lot more creativity.

Mike

[Trevor Ash]

"What makes it glamour shot as opposed to an art shot?"

It's personal opinion. And I woudln't expect that a satisfactory explanation can be given as to why one considers it the way they do.

This is a great photo, no doubts about that. The best answer I could give as to why it doesn't seem "art" is because it looks like a shot out of any popular mens magazine. And I don't generally associate mens magazines with art.

That's a fair and honest answer I think.

[Chunk]

What makes it glamour shot as opposed to an art shot? I could argue that there is more creativity in this shot than many shots some would consider arty.

Again, this brings me back to Irakly's original post in the VF. How are we defining art? Would this shot be considered art? If so, why? IMO, the first shot offeres a lot more creativity.

Mike

The abstract aspects of this second shot art terrific and convey a very strong sense of feminity.

I don't know why folks think it can't be both glamor and art. If you have seen or thought of something that moves you, whether it's an actual object or person, just some interplay of light, grouping of objects or people that somehow convey some theme and then arrange to record an image that may convey that experience to others I think that you have created art no matter what medium you have used.
Art doesn't need to be great themes as some seem to think. I've stood in front of a few Monet haystacks marvelling at the way he controls what we view. Does anyone say "is that art"? I've done the same here with Gerry's street photos, Megan's graveyards and fences, Nat's great food shots, Gary's bridges, OldTimer's garden shots and that great glowing house ... and on and on (sorry to so many that I don't list here). Do we need to stand here and say "is this art'? I don't think so. Are all of these going hang on museum walls a hundred years after they are taken? Of course not, but some may, and some of these may be precursors to something that will.
Instead of worrying about what slot to file our images in, let's find out how they make others feel and maybe what could be done differently to get them to convey the feelings we wish they would.
We are all creating art. Could it be better? Always. Some here are just taking their first steps and are learning what they can control and how those choices affect what the view experiences. Are they creating art? Yeah. Is it great art? In most cases no. The rest of us with our myriad subjects and capabilities are scattered all up and down the scale of artistic ability.
I vote (hey Todd, here's another election you can argue over ) that we stop asking "is this art" and discuss instead how artistic goals can be reached.

[darkman]

"What makes it glamour shot as opposed to an art shot?"

It's personal opinion. And I woudln't expect that a satisfactory explanation can be given as to why one considers it the way they do.

This is a great photo, no doubts about that. The best answer I could give as to why it doesn't seem "art" is because it looks like a shot out of any popular mens magazine. And I don't generally associate mens magazines with art.

That's a fair and honest answer I think.

That is fair an honest and I DO understand your point and I agree to a point. It's also why I posted that picture. However, let me play devils advocate.

When I look through my photography magazines that are more "arty" or "fine art" driven, I could, and will argue a majority of those pictures look like the same pictures that I would expect to see in these magazines. IOW, I'm not convinced there's any more "art" in those pictures than ones in "popular mens magazines." They're (often) different, but IMO not anymore or less arty.

I could also point to painters from different era's and lump them into general catagories of what I would expect to see from painters of that era. Or what about artists who paint fairly realistic boudoir looking paintings? (check out: http://www.steve-hanks.com/Flash/FlashDefault.htm).

Finally, we could get into intention too. Remember JP's toilet seat? I'm sure he rolled over in his grave when that sold!

Hopefully, this subject is what the "art as photography" thread is supposed to be discussing.

Mike

[Irakly Shanidze]

i would agree that in this picture there is some more than in a plain glamour shot. however, the crop by Darkman is a far more artistic take.
facial expression is arresting, lighting goes wel with it, but they clash with a pose, and hands do not play well in the picture. Darkman's crop eliminates this problem and also takes care of wrinkled background, which is really annoying in my opinion.

[darkman]

i would agree that in this picture there is some more than in a plain glamour shot. however, the crop by Darkman is a far more artistic take.
facial expression is arresting, lighting goes wel with it, but they clash with a pose, and hands do not play well in the picture. Darkman's crop eliminates this problem and also takes care of wrinkled background, which is really annoying in my opinion.

Irakly, I did both images seperately. I would like to hear how you would have posed her different. I do agree with the hands part - but overall this was still my favorite image. While I agree maybe a little more seperation between the background and subject would be nice (I'll add more about this) I disagree it's annoying. I often see this type of backdrop used by very respected photographers. to add, one of my beefs with posting images is the size we're allowed to post. IMO, it prefers oversimplified images that often end up looking bland in enlargements.

About this image. First, my studio is small spare bedroom and I have limited equipment. My models are the beg type; I beg them to model for me. Do you know how hard it can be to get non pro models to keep their fingers together? Finally, I wish I had a lot more time to spend at my hobbie. But I have a day job!

I basically dream out what I want. In this case, I wanted B&W. So I used a contrasty lighting scheme. Then, I wanted to sillhouette her back to show off her figure. To further make her figure stand out I lit the backdrop using a scrip to control where the light lands. By controlling the lighting by placement and modifiers I came pretty close to what I dreamed. Again, limited by time and resources. In hindsite there are things I would like to modify. For instance, I might add a scrim to darken some from her waste down. I would also like to change the way the background light falls. Maybe more of an oval or pillar shap leaving darkness at the edge of the frame.

Mike

[Clicker]

I disagree it's annoying. I often see this type of backdrop used by very respected photographers.

Do you know how hard it can be to get non pro models to keep their fingers together?

Then, I wanted to sillhouette her back to show off her figure.
Mike

Wanted to share my thought process as I viewed this photo:
I looked at this photo and first thought " hm, beautiful girl, hope that's not all it takes to be considered Art"
Then I noted that the background was wrinkled. ~ Not that it was annoying per se, but it was noted. ~ Just like when i see someone in clothes that are wrinkled, I think, "wrinkled!" I know its a personal preference that some enjoy, so i don't count it as a flaw.

Just a couple of thoughts to add:
What bothers me about her hands in not whether or not her fingers are together, what bothers me about them is the *placement* of her hands. One right over her crotch area makes me wonder if she is trying to hold her shirt down.
The other just appears out from behind her as if from nowhere, maybe a little more arm and elbow needed there? Not sure if thats what the others noted, but those were my thoughts.

Also, I like her expression and the fade to black on the top, with just enough light on the front of her hair...

[Clicker]

What makes it glamour shot as opposed to an art shot?
Mike

This one I find to be more artsy, why?
Because its turned the female form into more than just viewing the female form IMO.
I can look at this and appreciate the diagonal lines in your composition, the focus on the buttons and the pattern that they make down the image. Very Favorable image of your model. So,as a female in my opinion, Photos that involve nude or semi-nude women are art when I can enjoy them for the composition, the mood and all the other visual elements, as opposed to being made to feel as if I just opened up an issue of Playboy or Maxim.

[darkman]

This one I find to be more artsy, why?
Because its turned the female form into more than just viewing the female form IMO.
I can look at this and appreciate the diagonal lines in your composition, the focus on the buttons and the pattern that they make down the image. Very Favorable image of your model. So,as a female in my opinion, Photos that involve nude or semi-nude women are art when I can enjoy them for the composition, the mood and all the other visual elements, as opposed to being made to feel as if I just opened up an issue of Playboy or Maxim.

Hi Rachel,

Thanks for your comments! They are appreciated.

While I understand while you may consider the second one more arty. I disagree with your comments on the first image.

Why? There is a lot more going on in the first image than the second. I'm sorry you only see a pretty girl and not the "arty" lighting side of the image.

Unfortunately for a lot of us, I see where the "art as photography" is going. A beatiful landscape isn't good enough unless it's turned into some photoshop concoction. Then it becomes art. A beatiful women isn't arty because that's what you see in "mens" magazines. And, this makes it not arty.

Mike

PS: Again, I think people need to extrapolate images to actual printed images. Thus, they'll realize for a 400x600 to be appealling it must be oversimplified. Go to an art museum and you'll see many, if not most, of the painting would appear cluttered at 400x600.

[shesells]

Though I have not done glamour photography or studio photography I did take ' life drawing ' (which is drawing nudes) so I have some ideas on this subject.

First, I want to say that the human body by itself is a work of art. So if one just simply photographs it, it's no more art than if one photographed a van gogh painting in a museum. What has to happen for the photo to be art itself, is that the beauty of the work of art, like a model, is brought out by the artist (photographer) and they are able to show us why they think its so wonderful.

You went about this the right way.. you had an idea (dream) that you strived to bring to the image. You used everything you could to do it. Lighting was your main tool and the lighting on the first image, highlights the right places and cast shadows in the right places. for instance..the light and shadow play on the shirt that shes wearing make it just cling to her body. The soft frontal lighting brings the back of her figure into silhouette which leaves some to the imagination. The light on her chest is just beautiful.

But is it a glamour shot? Well yes and no. The thing I like about it that makes it different than glamour shots or playboy for that fact is that the subject is beautiful but approachable. What makes her approachable? The wrinkled backdrop. In glamour shots, everything is perfect and they give a "look from a distance" feeling. When I was a teenager, my brother told me that he just loved the look of a beautiful girl driving a junky car. I never forgot that. It also doesnt have the obvious look of someone trying to be sexy. She looks wholesome. However, the pussycat look on her face is a little too submissive looking which, teamed up with the posing of the hand does push it a bit toward the glamour look. I do think the one hand is a little too suggestive and the other one is unnatural looking. No one stands with their right hand there.The place where you cut off the legs... perfect in my view. Just think of the famous portraits like the one of Isabella Rossellini for a look of substance in the face. That pushes it past glamour.

The second shot is of course beautiful. But truthfully... been done and been done. It's still beautiful but the first is more unusual.
What else do I think it needs to stand out as a beautiful work of art? one word.. Impact. More unconventional lighting. Yes, I know I said your lighting was good. it is! But it can be more dramatic to really make the shot stand out.

Your composition is creative and beautiful but if you want it to really be art, place her hands in some way to seem natural and not sexy, go past the rules in lighting. Past what looks great and into what looks amazing and different. And lets us know what kind of person she is just by looking at her face. Let her expression show a woman of substance. Where we can see her beauty inside and out.
Kit

[Chunk]

First, I want to say that the human body by itself is a work of art. So if one just simply photographs it, it's no more art than if one photographed a van gogh painting in a museum. What has to happen for the photo to be art itself, is that the beauty of the work of art, like a model, is brought out by the artist (photographer) and they are able to show us why they think its so wonderful.

While the poetic statement that the human form is a work of art is very common, I have to disagree with your literal interpretation here Kit. Do you also think that a mountain range, chimpanzee, a fish, or any other natural thing are also works of art?

[shesells]

While the poetic statement that the human form is a work of art is very common, I have to disagree with your literal interpretation here Kit. Do you also think that a mountain range, chimpanzee, a fish, or any other natural thing are also works of art?

Hey Chunk.. Yes, I do. It has to do with my beleif that God created everything. He was the artist, so that makes the world a work of art. I mean, really. If a person were to create something that looks and works as well as any of gods creations, wouldn't people marvel at it and call it a work of art? If an architect designs a beautiful building, he is called an artist. How much more the human form. This is why we are able to be creative, because we are made in the image of the creator. That means we have his qualities to a very small degree. When you see the universe from say the Hubbel telescope...any thoughts? The universe and everything in it is a work of art, with the human form being his masterpiece. Thats why I beleive that just recording it can never be a work of art in itself. We have to capture it in such a way that people can see and appreciate how magnificent it is. Or change it into our own artwork or something imaginary. I'm not a fanatic, I just beleive in God and beleive in giving him the credit for his work, just like we want.

[darkman]

Hi Kit,

What a wonderful comment you made! You really did look close! I doubt most people realized it was another strobe pointed towards her chest. I aslo don't understand why some don't consider glamour arty? But I did dislike some of the references to PB.

I know where my interests are, and where I struggle. I do like creative lighting. It is where my interest right now lies. Years ago I went through a phase of shooting organic and inorganic shapes making abstracts. Some people really liked them. But I got bored with it. It just isn't intellectually challanging enough for me. I aslo take a lot of serendipitous/spur of the moment shots that , based on commets, people here would really like. But I see them as fun instead of arty. Whereas, a shot like this makes me think the whole thing through. It's more of a challenge. I hope you could understand that? Or am I not making sense? Yet, I am getting to the point where I would like to work in a bigger studio with a model that knows what looks good and can make it look natural.

I am kind of adverse to hiring a model. I too often see a beatiful prof. model that knows how to make herself_look_good posed nude/or not with a great facial expression lit from a north facing window. For "novelty" they'll put her in a giant vase or next to a plant etc. Everybody then gives the photographer alcolades (see photo.net, photosig, etc). I worry I'll fall into that trap. Where others see inner beauty, or just beauty, I see a beatiful model/actress. Now where's the creative photography? I'd rather be working on different lighting schemes. (as an aside, I'm sure anyone who's been doing glamour type shots sees this as easy lighting too, but it's new to me ;) ).

I've been considering doing some still lifes. While I enjoy working with people, It would be nice not to have to deal with getting the lighting how I want AND trying to get the model to pose and look like I want. While meeting her time constraint. Most, people, with few exceptions, don't pose well and make it look natural. This is why portrait photogs, including me, have a bag of simple "always work" poses.

The one comment I take exception to is the "Past what looks great and into what looks amazing and different." To whose eyes are you talking about? So far, including my posts, everything I've seen posted here is just a variation of a theme. The key is knowing where to look for that kind of "art." What I read into this comment is if it's considered "mainstream," for lack of a better word, then it's not art.

Thanks for looking and putting so much thought into your post The one thing I would like is if people don't like something, in this case the hands, that they also throw out there idea. It may get used, or it may get you brainstorming to another idea. Which I couldn't disagree with more.

Mike

[shesells]

Mike, I want to reply to your reply There's just so much more I have to say now..

Whereas, a shot like this makes me think the whole thing through. It's more of a challenge. I hope you could understand that? Or am I not making sense?

You are making perfect sense. And while I do understand I would never profess to be able to do it.It must be extremely hard but challenging to bring all those things together at the same time. At the end of the shoot, I would be like ready to pass out! lol

Yet, I am getting to the point where I would like to work in a bigger studio with a model that knows what looks good and can make it look natural.

If you don't beleive anything else I say, please beleive this. You alluded in this paragraph and the next that basically it should be up to the model to know how to make herself look natural and which facial expressions to use. If you want to really do well at this, you have to know that it's up to you, the photographer, to direct them to get what you want from them. I've heard that great portrait photographers have an ongoing conversation with the model, making them feel comfortable, then getting them to respond to things you say. Leaving it up to the model is not going to get you what you want, the look you want. Your relationship with them will bring them to life like no lighting or props will do. Also Mike, I don't feel you have to " hire " a model. If you want to practice, you're good enough that you could offer your services and the negatives for free to women and they would be standing in line to get them. When you practiced enough, start charging.

The one comment I take exception to is the "Past what looks great and into what looks amazing and different." To whose eyes are you talking about? So far, including my posts, everything I've seen posted here is just a variation of a theme. The key is knowing where to look for that kind of "art." What I read into this comment is if it's considered "mainstream," for lack of a better word, then it's not art.

You know what? You are right about this. What I should have said is that will make it "great art". Like pushing yourself to the max. Mainstream is art, you are right. It's just not "great art". It's where we are till we get past it.

I think your idea about doing still lifes is excellent. That way you can learn all about light and shadow without the added pressure. When you have that down, go back to models. Then you can concentrate on bringing out their specialness without worrying about the light.
Kit

[darkman]

Hi Kit,

After (just) reading an interview with Jock Sturges, I think I'm more in tune to what you're saying. While he admires fashion photographers mechanical aptitude and technical prowesss, and goes as far to say there "skills vastly eclipse mine," he says it's not fine art because it, or they, don't bring the viewer into the picture.

Dropping the hands in my photo, this is the look I wanted out of her. I suppose in some ways I want to highlight the lighting onto the model and not the model.

Interestingly, my "normal" portraits - which I get paid for (I've also done events with enough success that I still get calls from people who see my work, but that's too much work when added to my day job. I also shoot sports for the local university) - people tell me how good they are because I can get them to look natural. They say they can't seem to get this from most studios. It's probably partially me, and partially the comfortable home environment. In these cases I usually start out with a standard portrait lighting scheme and, if time permits, throw in a creative lighting scheme at the end. Again, the problem I'm having is I don't view this as artistic for reasons I stated above.

About pro models, most portrait photographers that I know would agree with me. Sturges did some fashion photography and pretty much agreed saying "these models make it awfully easy for me." However, from his point of view, it's hard to make them look "real." But you always "have a fine result." He adds, "for me as a photographic artist, it really wasn't a gratifying process." I'm sure the fashion photographers would disagree! He call it a mistake that that fp's shoot for perfection and that perfection is unbelievable.

I'm still having problems with your view of art. I'll use your "garden" image for my point (I do like this image, so please don't take this wrong). You may not see images like that on a regular basis. OTH, companies make plug-ins that simplify the process to make an image like that (whether you used one or not). Enough of it is done that it validates the company marketing this product. It's only not mainstream that it hasn't made it into too many mainstream publications (tv/movies/or mags and books). Anti-art and shock photography usually loses my interest after the initial impact. Whereas, I can wonder around an (original done by) Ansel A for quite some time. This is why I didn't like someones comment on Penny's pics about boosting saturation, constrast, etc. It does simplify for the web. IMO, after the initial impact there's not much look at.

To bring this further by analogy, is one type of music better than another? As someone whose played instruments most my life, I don't think there is. I hear very talanted people and some not as much so. Whether it be pop, heavy metal, jazz, etc. But I like to listen to how melodies interact, how the flow of the song goes. While most people I know prefer great lyrics. They'll view a great lyrisist as very artistic. Much more so than a great musician. Whereas, I listen for how the vocals interact with the rest of the melodies.

Well, I am slowly moving towards your direction in understanding how many define fine art photography from other forms. Maybe I should keep viewing myself as a craftsman and not an artist?

Here is a shot that's completely a grab, even though it's in a studio environment. Would this be more arty? Even though it's relatively easy lighting scheme, it still uses principles that many have a hard time with.

Mike

PS: I did a paid job yesterday for an aspiring actor. Today I have a model coming over to just let me play. Maybe I'll try something new ;)

[mtbbrian]

I like your second image now and when you first posted it.
I think it is very artistic. I like it's subtleness and it's strong line.

The first image is somewhere in between art and glamour. The lighting gives it an artsy quality, but the pose and clothing give it a galmour feel to it.


Just my two cents.

Brian

[shesells]

Mike, first let me say that this new photo of mother and child is just beautiful. More striking than any of the other images we are discussing, even though those are nice too. This one just blows me away!

The first part of your reply is very interesting and I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat. You have the experience, so you would know more I'm sure. All I know is what I see and I can tell when the photog has brought out a special feeling to a model. Either way is good I'm sure. Im not familiar with Jock Sturges, but I'll research him. (especially since he's a jock :P )
Now to answer this part:

I'm still having problems with your view of art. I'll use your "garden" image for my point (I do like this image, so please don't take this wrong). You may not see images like that on a regular basis. OTH, companies make plug-ins that simplify the process to make an image like that (whether you used one or not). Enough of it is done that it validates the company marketing this product. It's only not mainstream that it hasn't made it into too many mainstream publications (tv/movies/or mags and books).

I don't take offence at all, but I think you are guessing at this because you haven't done this type of work. Someone who has knows that no filter or action could do all that a graphic artist does. It's very complicated and using advance ps techniques. A lot of hand work and decision making along the way. A plug in also can't make composites of many pieces fit together, this is all done in a painstaking way. Also the fact that the original photos are mine and the art work is mine, makes it strictly my piece. It's the old purist argument. They only like pure photography, like you mentioned Ansel Adams. But problem is, he burned and dodged images in the darkroom. He set up lighting and played with exposure settings to get his results. Post processing is no different than darkroom manipulation. It's just hard to get that point across. When a photog uses artificial light...that instantly puts him in the same category of one who does post processing of an image...think about it! All artists put their spin on things, thats what the masters did and thats what photogs do. There is graphic art and there is photograpic art and a mixture of the two or more. Basically multimedia art. BTW I just gave a brief description of what I did to that piece in answer to one of the critiques. Check it out.. but it is by no means complete. I actually worked about 10 hours on it. but loved doing it lol.

Anti-art and shock photography usually loses my interest after the initial impact. Whereas, I can wonder around an (original done by) Ansel A for quite some time. This is why I didn't like someones comment on Penny's pics about boosting saturation, constrast, etc. It does simplify for the web. IMO, after the initial impact there's not much look at.
To bring this further by analogy, is one type of music better than another? As someone whose played instruments most my life, I don't think there is. I hear very talanted people and some not as much so. Whether it be pop, heavy metal, jazz, etc. But I like to listen to how melodies interact, how the flow of the song goes. While most people I know prefer great lyrics. They'll view a great lyrisist as very artistic. Much more so than a great musician. Whereas, I listen for how the vocals interact with the rest of the melodies.

To me, these two paragraphs contradict each other. In the first you are saying that you like the untouched photography of ansel adams (though it really isnt untouched) and don't like manipulated art. In the second paragraph you are saying that you appreciate all kinds of music, including lyrics and instruments etc. The whole point is there is a whole range of what people like or don't . As for manipulated photos. Let's take my ' midnight ' as an example. I made artificial light in the scene. How is that different than setting up artificial light on a model? It's exactly the same, enhancing something that is already beautiful through artificial means. It's individualized and personal. There is no one way to do things. Nor does only one thing make it art. Like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is art.

Well, I am slowly moving towards your direction in understanding how many define fine art photography from other forms. Maybe I should keep viewing myself as a craftsman and not an artist?
Here is a shot that's completely a grab, even though it's in a studio environment. Would this be more arty? Even though it's relatively easy lighting scheme, it still uses principles that many have a hard time with.
Mike
PS: I did a paid job yesterday for an aspiring actor. Today I have a model coming over to just let me play. Maybe I'll try something new ;)

I think that piece is fantastic, natural and you caught a piece of love on film. I'm glad you're getting paid for your work, you deserve it. If I had to say in one sentence my whole point woud be this: Art cannot just be a documentation of a subject. Because, why should the artist take credit for something that was already there and made by somone else (or God). But, let the artist see that subject in a whole other way (much like kids see things we dont see) and if he is able to show us his special vision, then that makes it art. Was that one sentence? heh
Now get over to my thread and appreciate my pic! lol It may not be good art, but it is art. lol
Kit

[darkman]

Hi Kit,

I AM truelly enjoying our discussion. It's been both a learning and enlightening experience for me!

I don't take offence at all, but I think you are guessing at this because you haven't done this type of work. Someone who has knows that no filter or action could do all that a graphic artist does. It's very complicated and using advance ps techniques. A lot of hand work and decision making along the way. A plug in also can't make composites of many pieces fit together, this is all done in a painstaking way. Also the fact that the original photos are mine and the art work is mine, makes it strictly my piece. It's the old purist argument. They only like pure photography, like you mentioned Ansel Adams. But problem is, he burned and dodged images in the darkroom. He set up lighting and played with exposure settings to get his results. Post processing is no different than darkroom manipulation. It's just hard to get that point across. When a photog uses artificial light...that instantly puts him in the same category of one who does post processing of an image...think about it! All artists put their spin on things, thats what the masters did and thats what photogs do. There is graphic art and there is photograpic art and a mixture of the two or more. Basically multimedia art. BTW I just gave a brief description of what I did to that piece in answer to one of the critiques. Check it out.. but it is by no means complete. I actually worked about 10 hours on it. but loved doing it lol.
To me, these two paragraphs contradict each other. In the first you are saying that you like the untouched photography of ansel adams (though it really isnt untouched) and don't like manipulated art. In the second paragraph you are saying that you appreciate all kinds of music, including lyrics and instruments etc. The whole point is there is a whole range of what people like or don't . As for manipulated photos. Let's take my ' midnight ' as an example. I made artificial light in the scene. How is that different than setting up artificial light on a model? It's exactly the same, enhancing something that is already beautiful through artificial means. It's individualized and personal. There is no one way to do things. Nor does only one thing make it art. Like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is art.
Kit

First, I HOPE you took a long time on your "garden" image. I've seen many a great PS creation that looks great for a web shot but doesn't cut the mustard on even a medium size print. This is one of my other web viewing gripes! You often can't tell if the persons technical skills match their vision. If a painter has poor skills, then even the best vision can't be translated to the canvas. Consider Picasso was one of the best draftsmen around. Though it's hard to guess that from his work.

I also pointed out an "original done" photo for a reason. The curator for ansels negatives lives just down the road from me and there are plenty of galleries nearby. There's such a huge difference between reprints and the work he did.

Now, my point wasn't that plug-ins are bad. It's that they just simplify the process and they'll only be made if a market is available. I often use a plug-ins. I still use them in a layer with masks and with other custom work done to meet my vision of what I want.

My point is more along the lines of pop music vs jazz (or any other). Or, orchestrated/produces vs. improvised, etc. Even if the style of music they play isn't my favorite, I can still tell a hacker (I don't like this word, it's overkill, but I'll go with it for sake of argument), from an amazing talent. And, I'll appreciate it whether or not I'm a fan of that gendre of music.

As an example, after seeing spider man 2, I got out an old oingo boingo CD (circa 85). Danny elfman's talent is pretty undeniable. Even a very good jazz musician friend of mine was impressed when I lent him the CD. I doubt he went out to buy the cd! My point is even though I don't listed too "pop" or mainstream music, I still appreciate the artists tallent and don't think it's any more or less than any other type of music.

I think that piece is fantastic, natural and you caught a piece of love on film. I'm glad you're getting paid for your work, you deserve it. If I had to say in one sentence my whole point woud be this: Art cannot just be a documentation of a subject. Because, why should the artist take credit for something that was already there and made by somone else (or God). But, let the artist see that subject in a whole other way (much like kids see things we dont see) and if he is able to show us his special vision, then that makes it art. Was that one sentence? heh
Now get over to my thread and appreciate my pic! lol It may not be good art, but it is art. lol
Kit

Much can still be said for knowing what to do when the situation arises. Luck is what happens when you're prepared for the situation.

I'm still struggling to articulate what I see in your "garden" image. It's definately a kind of piece I would want to own

Mike

[shesells]

Hey Mike.. finally got back to ya...I'm enjoying it too and always learning. I get your point about the plug ins. Beleive me I have them all but only use them on occasion. I've been using ps for about 10 years so I'm over using them for a quick thrill. lol

Oingo Boingo! You're making sense. I so agree. Talent is talent, whether its our fav kind of music or not. Also, some of the music we might like we secretly know is really junk but its fun anyway. So there are different degrees of any of the arts. The important thing is that somone is making an artistic endeavor. Really, I do beleive that art is alive in everyone. It's the struggling to express yourself, whether its music, writing, painting, photography or even things like welding or landscaping. It's in everything that man can do. I think its also the desire to make others happy, to inspire them. I don't think any of us can claim that our talent is special to us. We all have something to give in different ways. We should look at masters like Leonardo da Vinci or Ansel Adams, but we shouldn't try to give what they gave. It was inside them. We have to find out what's inside us and get it out so to speak.. lol When we look at others works, it helps us to
narrow down our likes and dislikes.

You are an artist... no one can think of that scene of mother and child and not be. Even if she was already posed that way, you had to see it for what it was and recognize that it is beautiful. Everyone feels, but those who strive to be artists feel more intensly. Everyone is capable i think but that strong desire to create comes from inside and some people don't open their hearts to even know its there inside them. It's sad. Everyone in this forum takes and gives, we are all like in a special club. The club of people who know there is special beauty that screams to be shown. We want to show it because we are the ones who are aware of it.

Some day soon I hope to fix up my spare room as a studio so I too can struggle with portraits and models (mine will have to be friends). When I do, the one thing I'm gonna ask myself about my model is " What do I want to say about them?" Then, like you, I'll go about trying to say it so that others can hear.
I love that little saying of yours about luck happening when you are prepared for the situation. Isn't that why we call our finds Photo ops? We are opportunists, like theives are. But that's what keeps us thrilled with living and we are so lucky to know that there is something we are looking for and trying to get.

I'll end by saying ...Quit trying to get my Garden image!

here's proof! ---->

Hi Kit,
I'm still struggling to get your "garden" image. I would want to own it.
Mike

tysk tysk Mike...

Kit :P