RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Studio > Contests
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Contests Retouching contests to challenge your skills and learn from others. Prizes for the winners!

May 06 Contest Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #111  
Old 05-14-2006, 09:13 PM
goose443's Avatar
goose443 goose443 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Colwell
How art is made is a big part of it's value. That's why some artists spend hundreds or even thousands of hours producing photorealistic images that always fall a little short of a photo.
So those that spend less time making their art have less valuable works of art? I don't know that I believe that and I don't know that the current fine arts market would back that theory up. There are certain fine artists (Tony Brunelli and Bert Monroy come to mind) who's artwork immediately references the amount of time the spent on it but there are definitely others (Warhol, some Picasso, etc.) where the amount of time (and sometimes effort for that matter) has no direct relationship to the value of the final piece both in the importance of the message or the price tag.

I tend to think that in many cases final product trumps all. If that product reveals a labored process then it is through the final product that we can appreciate the amount of time that went into the work. If the final product successfully "fakes" a labor intensive process then that has its merits also.
Reply With Quote top
  #112  
Old 05-14-2006, 10:42 PM
Doug Colwell Doug Colwell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alberta
Posts: 157
Goose443, I never said there was a direct relationship between time and value, (plenty of people waste plenty of time creating crap, including me), but generally speaking the value of anything (not just art) is based on a big investment of something whether it's time, experience, talent, genius, uniqueness or a combination of these. Photorealistic art is just an example of a discipline that's heavy on the time aspect, and if it's done well it has much more value than a perfect photograph of the same subject.

Last edited by Doug Colwell; 05-14-2006 at 10:52 PM. Reason: whoops wrong name
Reply With Quote top
  #113  
Old 05-14-2006, 11:28 PM
goose443's Avatar
goose443 goose443 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 225
I still don't know that photorealistic art would trump a photograph of the same subject. I think photography is as valid a fine art medium as painting, drawing or any other medium in which you would create photorealistic art. Sure there may be more time involved in making a photorealistic redition but I think a well taken photograph is just as valuable an art form as any other form of art. In fact there are many photographs that are far more valuable (both in message and price tag) than any photorealistic drawing or painting.
Reply With Quote top
  #114  
Old 05-14-2006, 11:50 PM
Doug Colwell Doug Colwell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alberta
Posts: 157
Fair or not, photography is still the poor cousin to fine art. I don't know if that's because it's percieved as more technology/computer dependant - machines doing most of the drawing and painting.
Reply With Quote top
  #115  
Old 05-15-2006, 12:54 AM
chrishoggy's Avatar
chrishoggy chrishoggy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 578
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
if I knew a 10 second filter produced the same result I'd be less impressed by the final product.
Value is also on the persons knowledge and time invested in gaining it. It is not just based on what they do.

Example: A locksmith can get you in to your house in a few seconds with 2 tiny bits of metal. But you would need to smash a window, or brake a lock. Is the locksmith ripping you off for only taking 2 seconds?

Quote:
Fair or not, photography is still the poor cousin to fine art. I don't know if that's because it's percieved as more technology/computer dependant - machines doing most of the drawing and painting.
That is correct if you wanted painting, and got a photo instead. But the two are totally different media/skills, and therefor can't be compared to each other. An artist can't claim to be a good photographer, and a photographer can't claim to be a good artist. But they both are equal in their skill and knowledge.

Questions.
If I had not posted my method where I explain how I have used nothing but four "10 second filters", would you have known exactly what I had done?
Reply With Quote top
  #116  
Old 05-15-2006, 01:13 AM
goose443's Avatar
goose443 goose443 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Colwell
Fair or not, photography is still the poor cousin to fine art. I don't know if that's because it's percieved as more technology/computer dependant - machines doing most of the drawing and painting.
I can't disagree more. In fact I don't think you can draw a distinction between fine art and photography since it is widely considered that photography falls well within the range of fine arts (look at any art history book worth its salt that deals with 20th century art).

Though it doesn't bother me much I'm sure there are many people you could easily enrage with a comment like that... especially on a site so closely tied to professional and art photography. That said, I'm all for personal expression and varied points of view so I'm by all means not saying it's not a worthwhile comment to make... if it's what you believe. I just tend not to accept photograph as a medium apart from fine art.
Reply With Quote top
  #117  
Old 05-15-2006, 01:53 AM
Craig Walters's Avatar
Craig Walters Craig Walters is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 8,786
Blog Entries: 4
hehehe, it would seem that i've indeed 'stirred the pot' here. i feel like grimer wormtongue whispering in the king's ear in order to create derision and mayhem

Quote:
Sorry, Craig didnt mean to pick on you but there were a few dead giveaways
i never took it that way in fact, i was quite impressed that someone spotted it so accurately, but then i've always admired your eye, nancy... it's so much like my own

well, i havent been thrown out yet, so either the powers that be are still debating or i'm within the rules. it is, after all, digital in nature and a pencil sketch lol. i'm sorry, you have to understand, i once won a 'pipe smoking contest' by bringing in a hookah (water pipe). i do tend to stretch the rules at times so, T, dont worry if you feel you need to disqualify my current entry. if your intent in the rules was to ONLY use the computer and software to produce these entries, then by all means simply post a notice of rules violations and i'll change it to something else.

and even though mine is partially based on a real pencil work, i'm still looking for others to post examples of real pencil sketches that others can compare their own entries with.

oh, and one note on the whole 'art, artist, fine arts, photography as art' discussion, remember, 'artist' can mean more than just 'painter'. i know artists in glass, paper, metal, wood, film, music, stone, engineering, writing, sports, etc, etc, etc. art has very little to do with the medium. art has everything to do with communication and the quality of communication. the medium is simply the carrier wave.

craig
Reply With Quote top
  #118  
Old 05-15-2006, 02:12 AM
chrishoggy's Avatar
chrishoggy chrishoggy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 578
Blog Entries: 1
Craig, your take on the rules is a brave one . I'm sticking with what I have, but liked the idea of using real sketching as part of the image. I would say only real sketching would give the true random pencil stokes most of us are trying to achieve.
Please don't take my comments as a dig at your method, it was just my take on how it was to be done

Quote:
oh, and one note on the whole 'art, artist, fine arts, photography as art' discussion, remember, 'artist' can mean more than just 'painter'. i know artists in glass, paper, metal, wood, film, music, stone, engineering, writing, sports, etc, etc, etc. art has very little to do with the medium. art has everything to do with communication and the quality of communication. the medium is simply the carrier wave.
Good points
Reply With Quote top
  #119  
Old 05-15-2006, 12:30 PM
Craig Walters's Avatar
Craig Walters Craig Walters is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 8,786
Blog Entries: 4
chris,

it's ok, i didnt take any of this discussion as a dig. folks have their own considerations on all this and that's fine. vote how you wish, discuss what you wish. i'm fine with it. i knew going in that this might be a controversial action and that some might consider it outside the rules. i'm fine with it, either way. i mean, nobody died, right?

i would point out, regardless of the rules here, that if i thought i could do a better job for a client by scanning in a personal sketch in order to get a better product, i'd do it, no question. that that might not fall within the rules here, why ok, you guys decide with your votes. i have no problem with that.

the funny thing is, i look at my piece and i wouldnt vote for it anyways just based on the quality of the image and not the whole rules thing, so i consider it a moot point re the rules. i really am a lousy sketcher frankly, i'd love to see someone that really can sketch try the method i described or something similar. it opens up a whole new realm of digital manipulation.

craig
Reply With Quote top
  #120  
Old 05-15-2006, 02:56 PM
goose443's Avatar
goose443 goose443 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraellin
chris,
i would point out, regardless of the rules here, that if i thought i could do a better job for a client by scanning in a personal sketch in order to get a better product, i'd do it, no question. that that might not fall within the rules here, why ok, you guys decide with your votes. i have no problem with that.

craig

I agree. Professional retouching has been around looooong before computers. In the end, it's whatever gets the job done.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Studio > Contests


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
July Contest Discussion T Paul Contests 42 08-05-2007 03:14 PM
Apr 06 Contest Discussion T Paul Contests 108 05-03-2006 04:05 AM
Mar 06 Contest Discussion T Paul Contests 63 04-04-2006 02:58 PM
Jan 06 Contest Discussion byRo Contests 62 02-02-2006 06:36 PM
March 05 Contest Entries T Paul Contests 47 06-30-2005 05:44 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved