Render B/W - for local art prize entry
-
@tomsdesk said:
You must really enjoy pissin' people off to want a bunch of serious photographers to study and consider your fake work...
Hmmm? Not sure I'm aiming for that! I must say that infact I'm actually annoyed that our local art prize isn't open to digital works!
And to be honest I actually DO consider rendering when it utilises all technical aspects of a physical camera to be very much liken to photography!
As the prize allows the entry of digital photographs there is absolutely no way of assessing the originality of the work and I'm sure not one photographer submitting works shot digitally provides the image raw! There is likely to always be post work! So what degree of post work do you feel constitutes an image from being that captured to that produced?
Also what constitutes the capture? A scene of bottles placed purposely upon a shelf? Arranged studio lighting? Artificial fogging? Even a flash! Where does the line get drawn in the sand???
A digital camera in most cases can add a miriad of effects upon shooting! Do these constitute a true photograph!
For me unless they strictly request a negative or slide all is open to interpretation of this artist, and the media chosen! I'd put my bottom dollar that 99% of works we see on magazine covers these days have been digitally enhanced - airbrushed, cloned, colour corrected, level adjusted etc etc, again where is the line drawn?
Again it is not my intention at all to piss anyone off - if anything if the work was to win any award I am not one to lie if asked the question! And then would state my case as to why all forms of digital media aren't permitted for entry even if sub categorised!
-
Thats an interesting point richard, but i think its important to consider that with a render you can produce effects that do not exist in real life and similarly a clarity that often does not exist in real life. Because of this it strikes me as a little unfair to try and compare a photograph and a render on an equal footing.
-
@remus said:
Thats an interesting point richard, but i think its important to consider that with a render you can produce effects that do not exist in real life and similarly a clarity that often does not exist in real life. Because of this it strikes me as a little unfair to try and compare a photograph and a render on an equal footing.
Mate I can agree in part with you there for certain! I guess for me it's a little my own little protest that digital art isn't included in our local art prize!
I consider what we do both on a design level and presentation to be interpretive and certainly a clear form of art! Just look at many of the works by several good artist here and it is unquestionable! Sure we can control all aspects of an image but then so can a painter or sculpture!
It actually gets my back up that digital works are omitted from such a prize and more so when digital photography is supported.
In any work even a painting it is unknown the source of their original projection, a painter may well project a digital image and trace upon a canvas! Video again is a supported form??? And in that lies the digital editing and possible animation of aspects!
So I guess this raises so many questions??? And sure possibly some of ethics, I can take that!
-
Hi Richard,
Great render and I fully support your entry.
Nice as a joke as well...
I appreciate your straightforward Ozzy way of thinking. Photography > Digital photography > digital rendering.
By the way, you should have sent that second image. A better composition and better light imo.
-
@kwistenbiebel said:
I appreciate your straightforward Ozzy way of thinking. Photography > Digital photography > digital rendering.
By the way, you should have sent that second image. A better composition and better light imo.
Sounds like you are getting to know the Aussie way of thinking these days! Straight up, no BS, and don't look for a pat on the back otherwise it's your shout!
Mate I haven't submitted yet - still playing a bit with camera angle and shadow cast!
-
straight up art right here
-
Another vote for the second image!
-
There is a solution, print out the render at 300dpi, get your cheap ass camera and take a photo of it.
Problem solved and it qualifies.
-
@solo said:
There is a solution, print out the render at 300dpi, get your cheap ass camera and take a photo of it.
Problem solved and it qualifies.
Great idea.
-
wondedrful solution and renderings. Best of luck
-
@solo said:
There is a solution, print out the render at 300dpi, get your cheap ass camera and take a photo of it.
Problem solved and it qualifies.
-
And how do you plan to implant fake EXIF data in your renders? They might look for that. I know I would.
-
right click->properties->details.
-
@solo said:
There is a solution, print out the render at 300dpi, get your cheap ass camera and take a photo of it
Or look for a high definition DLP projector and take a picture of the projection. It might end up looking more natural than the original, who knows
-
Can't wait to see how this goes for you Richard
Here's what I'm picturing...
Judge: This is a great photo! Where was it taken?
Richard: Well, at my house, but strictly speaking the subject doesn't exist in reality.
Judge: oooook.
-Brodie
-
or, what camera did you use? um... Intel i7.
-
"I used my imaginary camera
" Followed my lots of trying-not-to-look-like-a-madman. -
Wow! YOu are totally scamming their contest. . . .That's like Posting a 3D MAx model in the SU speed challenge. You renegade you.
-
Hope you don't mind me modifying your image, but as a former photography judge I always look for some focal point or something for my eyes to keep coming back to. If my eyes follow the perspective lines of the building to their vanishing point my eyes will essentially leave the frame of the photograph and be wondering in space. However if there is a visual focal point within the frame of the photograph my eyes will keep coming back to it. Essentially maintaining my attention. and to win a photography contest you must first Grab the judges attention IE with something that there can be no mistake and the eyes will immediately go to that location. As human we instinctively focus on other human beings. IE: if there is a picture of a wheat field alone and one of the exact same wheat field but the second one has a person in it. In the picture with the person our eyes will First see the person. In general our eyes are drawn to the color white also for this reason. "The whites of their eyes". Well your image just called out to me as a perfect example of a great image that would be even better of it had a human element to grab your attention and then allow you to keep your eyes within the frame pf the photograph.
Again I hope you don't mind
Regards
Phil
-
Certainly dont mind phil!
Great points there mate! I was originally (which actually was the first proposal) aiming to gatch a bird (avium kind) in flight of the centre recess, though the test render actually caught me more without it!
The image came to mind once when I wished I had a video camera with me, I was hanging from a cliff in our blue mountains about 100m up when I heard a rocket sound coming down from above. One of those moments climbing when your blood curls fearing a rock was coming at you!! Though actually it was a bird in a full tucked posture diving straight down the cliff line and within metres of us! The speed of the dive was startling!!!
Thanks phil, I might still revist that option!
Advertisement