|
curt
Oct 17, 2003, 4:08 AM
Post #26 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Yes. Fiction is always beter than reality. So, I suppose your favorite TV shows would be cartoons then? Fair enough, I guess the lowest common denominator will prevail. Curt Man, relax there's no need to get snippy
I'm not getting snippy. I am only explaining why I think the original pic is superior to the altered photo in question.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Oct 17, 2003, 5:02 AM
Post #27 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
The Mona Lisa would be less real than a photo of the woman who was painted, but it would still be art.
New expressions of art always are slow to be accepted. There are traditonalists in Art just like in Climbing.
Even the rendition of Gollum that was used is a kind of art. There's a lot of creativity that goes into movies and even cartoons. I have friends working at Pixar, Disney and similar places. The medium doesn't define the creative spirit. If I'm in the right location at the right time, it doesn't mean I'm a great photographer.
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
extremist4life
Oct 17, 2003, 5:06 AM
Post #28 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 38
|
That's an awesome pic, it's on my desktop now! Great job editing that, it looks so real!
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 17, 2003, 5:13 AM
Post #29 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: The Mona Lisa would be less real than a photo of the woman who was painted, but it would still be art. New expressions of art always are slow to be accepted. There are traditonalists in Art just like in Climbing. Even the rendition of Gollum that was used is a kind of art. There's a lot of creativity that goes into movies and even cartoons. I have friends working at Pixar, Disney and similar places. The medium doesn't define the creative spirit. If I'm in the right location at the right time, it doesn't mean I'm a great photographer. Peace karl
In reply to: The Mona Lisa would be less real than a photo of the woman who was painted, but it would still be art.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
soma
Oct 17, 2003, 5:25 AM
Post #31 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2003
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: Yes. Fiction is always beter than reality. So, I suppose your favorite TV shows would be cartoons then? Fair enough, I guess the lowest common denominator will prevail. Curt
I thought truth was always stranger than fiction.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
sancho
Oct 17, 2003, 5:42 AM
Post #32 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 70
|
Homer Simpson next!
Please....
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Oct 17, 2003, 5:43 AM
Post #33 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: For people with graphic design and/or photoshop knowledge, is this as great of a creation as the majority of us seem to think it is? Photographers, artists? Whaddya think? And people who aren't professionals or artists, just People Who Like Cool Pics, why do you like it so much? Discuss :)
Quite honestly I think it shouldn't be on the front page:
1) Its a great piece of photoshopping
2) I hate the term "I'll just photoshop it" so take that for what it's worth.
Is it neat? Yeah. Is it amazing? Not really. It's just another digital image to fall into the depths of nowheredom. The neat thing about computers is they'll opened areas like graphic design, film making and special effects to everyone but in a sense that stuff has also lost some of the splendor that it had in the old days. Now stuff like that photo are almost expected. I might be in the minority but I'm well past the stage of being awed by digital manipulations.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Oct 17, 2003, 5:54 AM
Post #34 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: That's outstanding work and, in my opinion, takes as much skill and artistry as much of the finer photography on the site. Ansel Adams said the hardest and longest work was in the darkroom, not the field Not only is the creature technically excellent, but it took vision to choose the character in the first place. He really does look like a dirtbag climber! I'm totally impressed. I'd love to hear about the whole process. Peace karl
Ansel Adams shot black and white and anyone who knows a thing about B&W knows that the photo can be greatly influenced by the developement and more importantly printing. This fact has been lost on the C-41 and digital age photographers.
With that in mind it should be noted Ansels photos were both an interpertation and a documentation. But his photos were not manipulated beyond the development/printing process.
What we have here is a battle between the purist and the new age photographers/artist. I've always been a purist when it comes to most things and photography is no exception. filters, cropping and in camera multiple exposures are the only things I find acceptable in photography. And those that feel the same way will not like the photograph while those that frequently utter the term "I'll just photoshop it" will more than likely be impressed.
|
|
|
|
|
slablizard
Oct 17, 2003, 6:09 AM
Post #35 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
Hey I love cartoons. Cartoons are part of the world of fantasy. That, is extremely important.
In reply to: In reply to: Yes. Fiction is always beter than reality. So, I suppose your favorite TV shows would be cartoons then? Fair enough, I guess the lowest common denominator will prevail. Curt Man, relax there's no need to get snippy |
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Oct 17, 2003, 7:30 AM
Post #36 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
In reply to: That's outstanding work and, in my opinion, takes as much skill and artistry as much of the finer photography on the site. Ansel Adams said the hardest and longest work was in the darkroom, not the field Not only is the creature technically excellent, but it took vision to choose the character in the first place. He really does look like a dirtbag climber! I'm totally impressed. I'd love to hear about the whole process. Peace karl
In reply to: Ansel Adams shot black and white and anyone who knows a thing about B&W knows that the photo can be greatly influenced by the developement and more importantly printing. This fact has been lost on the C-41 and digital age photographers. With that in mind it should be noted Ansels photos were both an interpertation and a documentation. But his photos were not manipulated beyond the development/printing process. What we have here is a battle between the purist and the new age photographers/artist. I've always been a purist when it comes to most things and photography is no exception. filters, cropping and in camera multiple exposures are the only things I find acceptable in photography. And those that feel the same way will not like the photograph while those that frequently utter the term "I'll just photoshop it" will more than likely be impressed.
I don't get how in-camera multiple exposures, filters and whatnot are so much more acceptable than the usual photoshop procedures. Ansel Adams went further than your acceptable means by dodging and burning specific areas of the paper while printing. Black and white doesn't look any more like reality than other artistic interpretations.
It's all relative. Photography has often been denied "Art" status by art purists. What does it all boil down to..EGO! We want to reserve credibility for what we do and feel threatened by change.
Now this Gollum picture is obviously not being portrayed as evidence of wierd creatures who can climb cracks. It's it's own thing. Take it as a spice of life, not something that is going to take over the world of climbing photography.
We worry that Photoshop is going to make us lose touch with reality but it's all in our intent. Reality has never been what we're looking at. They had edited Lenin out of pictures with Stalin long before photoshop. All around us are spectrums of light and energy that we can't see with our eyes. We are living in the illusion that the testimony of our senses is accurate when an objective study would prove it severely limited. There is no way to be sure that red looks the same to me as it does to you. We can't even imagine what a color that we have never seen could look like.
But, unless I'm going for an artistic effect, I usually digitally edit my photos to look more like what I saw in reality than the camera actually captured.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
scottcody
Oct 17, 2003, 7:51 AM
Post #37 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2003
Posts: 577
|
:shock: wow... I think people are getting a little to worked up... time to go to bed kiddies.
How many times do we see suggestions for color correction, focus adjustments and what not, in the comment section of photos. Personally, I'm getting a little tired of Jörg's sport climbing pics, yeah they are nice, composed well, and bla bla. I would like to see more creative pics and images. And the fact that the photo still has a rating of 9.7 shows that other people are feeling similarly.
So get a grip curt
|
|
|
|
|
chingas
Oct 17, 2003, 8:34 AM
Post #38 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2003
Posts: 101
|
In reply to: In reply to: For people with graphic design and/or photoshop knowledge, is this as great of a creation as the majority of us seem to think it is? Photographers, artists? Whaddya think? And people who aren't professionals or artists, just People Who Like Cool Pics, why do you like it so much? Discuss :) Quite honestly I think it shouldn't be on the front page: 1) Its a great piece of photoshopping 2) I hate the term "I'll just photoshop it" so take that for what it's worth. Is it neat? Yeah. Is it amazing? Not really. It's just another digital image to fall into the depths of nowheredom. The neat thing about computers is they'll opened areas like graphic design, film making and special effects to everyone but in a sense that stuff has also lost some of the splendor that it had in the old days. Now stuff like that photo are almost expected. I might be in the minority but I'm well past the stage of being awed by digital manipulations.
The image was made in fun. People responded to image and had a good laugh. People voted. Enough high votes will get your picture on the front page.
It's a situation like this that let's me know how uptight some people can be. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
joemor
Oct 17, 2003, 9:29 AM
Post #39 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2001
Posts: 609
|
any one know the url for the original gollum image... im interested to see it.....
|
|
|
|
|
capn_morgan
Oct 17, 2003, 12:46 PM
Post #40 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 565
|
Yeah, It would be cool to see both original images. Very nicely done. Photoshop makes this possible, but it still isnt "easy".
oh yeah.......Good Morning Never Never Land!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
johnfromohio
Oct 17, 2003, 12:55 PM
Post #41 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 287
|
my .02
its neat, good work,
couldnt choose it over a real photo thoug
|
|
|
|
|
gunther
Oct 17, 2003, 1:56 PM
Post #42 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 9
|
In reply to: OK, you all know which one I am talking about! http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=18873 I personally think it's fabulous, and I don't think cryder's use of one of my pics as the base image is an influencing factor either ;) Discuss :) |
|
|
|
|
dynoguy
Oct 17, 2003, 2:31 PM
Post #43 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2003
Posts: 730
|
I can't believe everyone is getting so worked up about this. It was just a funny picture is all :P .
|
|
|
|
|
cthcrockclimber
Oct 17, 2003, 2:36 PM
Post #44 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
Personally i think it is a great PS job, but it is on the front page waaaay to much.
|
|
|
|
|
mother_sheep
Oct 17, 2003, 2:43 PM
Post #45 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2002
Posts: 3984
|
I'm wondering it this Gollum pic is going to start a trend. If so, could you please place my head on Lynn Hill's body?
The reaction that I got from my sons, especially the youngest when I showed them the picture, was precious. My 4 year old was convinced it was real. It made him cry though because I told him that he couldn't climb w/gollum because it was fake. I wish I could find a gollum costume so I can dress up and appease the poor kid.
I like this picture for the obvious reasons. It's STRIKING! But I'm also a Lord of the Rings fan and have been ever since I was a kid. My Dad used to always say to me, "Precious. . .you're my precious." Funny how when I was a kid, I always thought Gollum was a dragon.
Anyway, great pic.
|
|
|
|
|
lifeguard4
Oct 17, 2003, 3:04 PM
Post #46 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2003
Posts: 140
|
I think that it is an awsome pic, and having seen the movie makes it that much cooler.
|
|
|
|
|
lifeguard4
Oct 17, 2003, 3:06 PM
Post #47 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2003
Posts: 140
|
I think that it is an awsome pic, and having seen the movie makes it that much cooler.
|
|
|
|
|
cryder
Oct 17, 2003, 3:09 PM
Post #48 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Posts: 391
|
Hi everyone. I am the guilty party to the Gollum pic. The original intent of the Gollum composit was meant to have a concept that I felt would resonate well with the climbing community. I am quite suprised by the reaction to it, and feel it is a healthy one (an old one tho - design as art?).
As climbers, we tend to use a climbing lense as we interpret life. We look at ordinary objects and wonder what they would be like to climb. We relate to people think like we do. We look at mountains that kill, and want to roll the dice. This is quite unique to the climbing community.
In this case, we look at Gollum, who is in an entirely different context then climbing, and re-interpret him into our own paradigm. Its fun, and in some ways we see ourselves as he is. Credit is due to Tolkien for writing gollum so masterfully as to make depravity that understandable.
We live in an age where reality is challenged everyday. What we hold true and sacred is flaunted in our faces. In my industry, advertising, this kind of execution is common, and in some cases a nuiscance. We generally tolerate it though, as long as the idea comes first.
Is it Art? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it a fun idea that was never meant to be taken this seriously? Absolutely.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Oct 17, 2003, 3:32 PM
Post #49 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
I think art is nothing more than human expression and interpretation. I don't think the tools or technique matter one bit, it's all about the idea and how we react to the artist's creation. Perhaps photography traditionalists are into the purity of the process as much as the end result. I don't know. I know that I see a lot of art in museums that mixes photography with other media, such as printing on fabrics, wood, metal, or other materials, or combining images with paint, and yes, digital manipulation.
Yes, this work is whimsical, but a lot of art is whimsical.
|
|
|
|
|
climb_plastic
Oct 17, 2003, 3:38 PM
Post #50 of 95
(10170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2003
Posts: 706
|
It shocked me when I first saw it! It looked real and I had to look at real closely. good job!
|
|
|
|
|
|
