Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The "Eye"

Collapse
Loading...
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The "Eye"

    This is a thread over at dpreview. It concerns photography and photographers but I believe has a huge cross-over to photo manipulation. I believe it's worth a read and maybe a comment.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=24055024

  • #2
    Re: The "Eye"

    >>> Many people must be content to be advanced amateurs rather than professionals. "

    That's me when it comes to photography! LOL

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The "Eye"

      just skimmed through that post at dpreview.

      i truly think 100% that some ppl just have a great sense of how something is suppsosed to look, and what looks great opposed to just good.

      i think it def comes naturally.

      but honestly, i think it's more of having good taste also.

      it's hard for me to put in writing how i feel....but years of working with cd's, ad's and even photogs...you just know when some has a great vision, and when they execute a deign or whatever, it's just very tasteful. it always look that 1 step further.

      i don't know if that makes any sense, just rambling i guess.

      but just from experience, i worked with some ppl, over the course of years, all different types of projects.....and some ppl have that touch on 1 great campaign that gets them notoriety, but then there's that 1 quiet kid in the corner who has that touch on all projects they work on. you just know they're special at what they do, and were meant to be doing it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The "Eye"

        I know, it's a lot to read.

        yeah, I get what you are saying KR. Some have it, some don't. Then there are some that force it and it shows (those that won't be honest and admit they don't have it to themselves and will not even seek out advice or input from others), or others who get it from someone else and take credit. Even more, there are some that can't do it, so they copy it (most often unsuccessfully).

        I felt that this was an apt thing for people here to read as the same things apply in image manipulation. There is a reason some people, while they may enjoy photography as a hobby, do accounting or something else to make a living. Hobbies are fun and all should enjoy them, but as Swampy quoted "Many people must be content to be advanced amateurs rather than professionals."

        Regarding good taste: If you have good taste, you have it.
        Last edited by Ant; 07-26-2007, 01:37 PM. Reason: because I wanted to

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The "Eye"

          Originally posted by Ant View Post
          Some have it, some don't. Then there are some that force it and it shows (those that won't be honest and admit they don't have it to themselves and will not even seek out advice or input from others), or others who get it from someone else and take credit. Even more, there are some that can't do it, so they copy it (most often unsuccessfully).
          that's about the best way to summarize this whole industry.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The "Eye"

            Originally posted by Ant
            Regarding good taste: If you have good taste, you have it.
            The only trouble with that statement being that good taste is a totally subjective thing.

            What some consider good others consider crass. Long may it remain so. The world would be a much more boring place were we to all agree on what is tasteful.

            I do however agree that some people produce work that has more of a universal appeal than others. Is this having the eye?

            Last point before I shut up.

            Tastes change. In the 70s I wore clothes that at that time were the height of "taste", now I cringe when I look at those pictures. As I said, taste is subjective.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The "Eye"

              I don't know, I read that whole thread. My impression was some writer at National Geographic wrote this phrase: "prospective photographer may have a true passion for the art and craft, if he lacks that eye no amount of training or desire can compensate" and two pages of mumbo-jumbo spewed forth.
              All art is way too subjective.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The "Eye"

                Gary and smak you are both correct. It's all subjective. Smak, yeah, there is a lot of spewing in general over there and everywhere.

                There is, I think, bad taste that will endure throughout the ages however. There are a plethora of photogs and those with Photoshop that have all the technical info in the world in their brain, but couldn't make a satisfactory image to save there lives.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The "Eye"

                  There are a plethora of photogs and those with Photoshop that have all the technical info in the world in their brain, but couldn't make a satisfactory image to save there lives.
                  Now there I can agree with you without reservation.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The "Eye"

                    From Chuck Gardner's DPreview thread - "...how would an objective unbiased observer be able to tell a photographer had a "natural eye" from the characteristics of their work? ..."

                    I've loved photography since I was a kid, but never had any training or mentoring until I retired and took a community college class. We did some critiques in class, and that's when I realized that I had no vocabulary to describe what I saw or how to describe what appealed to me. I think that might have been the first time that I had realized that it was NOT the subject of the artwork that caused a reaction in me, but the manner in which the subject was painted/photographed/drawn. I already knew that I did not know how to take photos that demanded viewer involvement, but I had thought the problem lay more in not having access to the "right" subjects rather than my lack of ability to CREATE images.

                    The posters at the DPreview thread had trouble with the questions, but I agree mostly with this answer: "The work should evoke an emotional reaction, or feeling in the viewer. This should not be due to the subject or the photograph per-se, but rather, the way in which the subject is treated or portrayed in the image..."

                    It seems contradictory to me, but I believe that I do have an "eye" for appreciating works that are done really well -- I believe that most people have some innate understanding of what looks well composed -- hence the popularity of the Old Masters works which will continue, I believe, no matter how styles and fashions may change. I still don't have a good enough understanding to explain very well what the artist did that makes it special, and I cannot SEE how to make my subject become that image that people respond to with a gasp -- oh! that is SO beautiful! I know that fashions change, but I still believe that there are principles that attract the human eye and are considered pleasing/attractive/beautiful to different generations and different cultures. I am drawn to images created by various cultures, various times, various artists -- there are similarities in design that attract me, even if I lack the artistic eye and vocabulary to describe it.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X