I think I now figured out what bothers me about these pics. I.e. why they don't seem to work for me. It's the fact that the out-of-focus subject is of the same type as the in-focus subject, and the eye registers (but can't resolve) this.
We are all used to seeing this DOF technique used in portraits etc. where there's a distinct center-of-attention foreground subject and a blurry un-attention-catching background 'bukee'. What happens here (for me at least) is that the eye, seeing that there's another, similar, potentially just as attention grabbing branch immediatelly behind, instinctively tries to get it into focus. And when that fails the photo ends up feeling 'unresolved' and even somewhat irritating.
Ideally this technique gives a kind of 3D effect, and on the ones here where the above mentioned issue isn't bothering me so much, I see this working.
I still also continue to feel that the motif, while certainly beautiful, is a bit blunt for an artistic shot. It's perfect for a documentative shot, of course. Once again exhibiting the whole set together works much better because it turns them into a single, bigger, more abstract image.
Interesting experiment but for me, as individual photos, not your best work. I hope this helps.
I think I get what you're saying, TTL. For me though, even in the two pictures with the thin branches, it does not bother me that there is parts of the same in various stages of focus. Maybe because I tend to look at anything as pictures and abstractions.
Mr. Pascal, I'm not sure ttl has a "problem" . . . . did you mean that word?
I think he's speaking from a photographer's point of view, he's more talking shop with Eo.
ttl, slightly off topic, have you ever read Heraclitus' "Fragments", translated by Brooks Haxton? I just started reading it, it's blowing me away. It was written 2,500 years before Einstein. Your turn of mind reminds me of his. Laurie
Eolake, I think that the subject's familiarity and organity also comes into play here. The brain has a preconceived idea about the width/space arrangement of the branches. And when something the brain/eye knows it normally could get into focus fails, it is perceived as distortion.
There's nothing wrong in using distortion in art, but in my experience distorting organic textures and shapes doesn't work very well. (Maybe we are not supposed to mess with Gods creations?)
It is interesting that the issue is not apparent in the gallery --- i.e. when viewing all of the photos together. My theory is that the brain let's go of trying to 'resolve' the individual images since it can't do so for all of them anyway. Also, the geometrical arrangement adds a new, inorganic dimension to the whole, which makes it more abstract.
I'll leave this subject for know. It seems that my feedback is not that well taken. Maybe this blog is not the right place for it.
If you want feedback you might consider submitting your work to something like deviantART. I've heard these communities where people critique each others output works very well.
I haven't looked into Heraclitus yet (so many philosophers, so little time).
Based on a quick casual read, I like the "universality of change" idea of his, but not so much his idea of random chance.
The universality of change idea comes up in New Age literature nowadays, but not so much in science. I did not know that this had been published by any of the Greek philosophers.
The whole chance issue is the interesting intersection of philosophy and physics. I think Einstein is correct. There's no 'dice throwing' happening, but then there's much more to it that Einstein didn't get to.
I need to read more. Thanks for the pointer.
According to Wikipedia, Heraclitus is famous for (allegedly) expressing the notion that no man can cross the same river twice. I like this.
signalroom said... Mr. Pascal, I'm not sure ttl has a "problem" . . . . did you mean that word?
Only partly. :-) He did say that "something bothered him about these pics". Just playing Little Junior Analyst, trying to be helpful. Or funny. Mostly funny.
I was sure he wouldn't feel offended, of course. Just horsing around, TTL! Otherwise, I would've set my "shutter" to the smallest aperture. If you get the picture. :o)
Absolutely no real criticism meant, buddy. Did I get too abstract in my own way, too? Was my humor more brittle than small branches? Please, don't leave. My bark is worse than my bite. I'm just a Forest Gump at heart. There's no root to any problem between us. Just trunkated communication.
ttl said... (Maybe we are not supposed to mess with Gods creations?)
This is why I prefer to just mess with man-made words. Your wisdom seems contagious!
Are we at peace? "If a tree doesn't fall in the woods, nobody should hear a crash."
I feeded back to the captain because he has requested it. But it didn't go well with some of the passengers. So I questioned whether this ship is appropriate for that kind of activity, or whether we should just stick to our regular program of dragging Christians under the keel and randomly shooting our canons at non-antisemitists. Just to be on the safe side. But the captain is insatiable. So what gives?
ttl, I seem to have very little profound thinking mind left to comment intelligently on deep stuff, but I recognize it and love it when I see it in others.
Heraclitus' Fragments is a gem. You can get a copy from Penguin classics.
I believe he calls the Source of all change "Fire". Much of the gospel of John is also influenced by this early Greek thought. (Heraclitus also speaks of the everpresent "Word" and the "oneness of all wisdom being found under the name of God") I don't see the idea of "randomness" in his Fragments. I'd be curious if you'd read it and let me know. Re. Fire, Biblical readers will remember "Our God is a consuming fire;" "If any man build upon this foundation gold, silever, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work will be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Therefore Fire will try every man's work, of what sort it is;"
Heraclitus is more pithy. He says,
"If everything were turned to smoke, the nose would be the seat of judgement.
Thus in the abysmal dark the soul is known by scent."
His sayings on ignorance are priceless, and very funny.
ttl said... "Discovered any great Lebanese porn lately?"
Great, I don't know. But very "extreme hardcore" stuff, yes, I have. I watch our politicians on the evening news. Most daring moral prostitution I've ever heard of. Chutzpahdiks! I would suggest they walk the plank, but I'm afraid in their book it might be slang for yet another style of yucky mass-orgy!
Hey, I'm all for bashing at conservatives and stranding them collectively on an overcrowded desert island, but if Captain Nemolake likes clichés (French for photographs), shiver me timbers, man the cannons, let'im fire at will! After all, old Willie's still a bit wet, and some fire might dry him off. Aargh, I say!
I think I now figured out what bothers me about these pics. I.e. why they don't seem to work for me. It's the fact that the out-of-focus subject is of the same type as the in-focus subject, and the eye registers (but can't resolve) this.
ReplyDeleteWe are all used to seeing this DOF technique used in portraits etc. where there's a distinct center-of-attention foreground subject and a blurry un-attention-catching background 'bukee'. What happens here (for me at least) is that the eye, seeing that there's another, similar, potentially just as attention grabbing branch immediatelly behind, instinctively tries to get it into focus. And when that fails the photo ends up feeling 'unresolved' and even somewhat irritating.
Ideally this technique gives a kind of 3D effect, and on the ones here where the above mentioned issue isn't bothering me so much, I see this working.
I still also continue to feel that the motif, while certainly beautiful, is a bit blunt for an artistic shot. It's perfect for a documentative shot, of course. Once again exhibiting the whole set together works much better because it turns them into a single, bigger, more abstract image.
Interesting experiment but for me, as individual photos, not your best work. I hope this helps.
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And it is bark deep. ;-)
ReplyDeleteWhich perhaps defines your problem, TTL : What's art to you, a straw or a beam?
Or, perhaps more aptly, is it a twig or a log?
Careful now, don't get too close to come into focus! :o)
A relative of mine recently got an olive-tree in his eye. Really.
His eye's fine now, but his vision's still as bad. :-D
I think these are lovely.
ReplyDeleteI think I get what you're saying, TTL.
ReplyDeleteFor me though, even in the two pictures with the thin branches, it does not bother me that there is parts of the same in various stages of focus. Maybe because I tend to look at anything as pictures and abstractions.
Mr. Pascal, I'm not sure ttl has a "problem" . . . . did you mean that word?
ReplyDeleteI think he's speaking from a photographer's point of view, he's more talking shop with Eo.
ttl, slightly off topic, have you ever read Heraclitus' "Fragments", translated by Brooks Haxton? I just started reading it, it's blowing me away. It was written 2,500 years before Einstein. Your turn of mind reminds me of his.
Laurie
Eolake, I think that the subject's familiarity and organity also comes into play here. The brain has a preconceived idea about the width/space arrangement of the branches. And when something the brain/eye knows it normally could get into focus fails, it is perceived as distortion.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong in using distortion in art, but in my experience distorting organic textures and shapes doesn't work very well. (Maybe we are not supposed to mess with Gods creations?)
It is interesting that the issue is not apparent in the gallery --- i.e. when viewing all of the photos together. My theory is that the brain let's go of trying to 'resolve' the individual images since it can't do so for all of them anyway. Also, the geometrical arrangement adds a new, inorganic dimension to the whole, which makes it more abstract.
I'll leave this subject for know. It seems that my feedback is not that well taken. Maybe this blog is not the right place for it.
If you want feedback you might consider submitting your work to something like deviantART. I've heard these communities where people critique each others output works very well.
Keep feeding back, TTL, you're a very valuable contributor.
ReplyDeleteLaurie,
ReplyDeleteWow! You are into deep stuff. :-)
I haven't looked into Heraclitus yet (so many philosophers, so little time).
Based on a quick casual read, I like the "universality of change" idea of his, but not so much his idea of random chance.
The universality of change idea comes up in New Age literature nowadays, but not so much in science. I did not know that this had been published by any of the Greek philosophers.
The whole chance issue is the interesting intersection of philosophy and physics. I think Einstein is correct. There's no 'dice throwing' happening, but then there's much more to it that Einstein didn't get to.
I need to read more. Thanks for the pointer.
According to Wikipedia, Heraclitus is famous for (allegedly) expressing the notion that no man can cross the same river twice. I like this.
signalroom said...
ReplyDeleteMr. Pascal, I'm not sure ttl has a "problem" . . . . did you mean that word?
Only partly. :-)
He did say that "something bothered him about these pics".
Just playing Little Junior Analyst, trying to be helpful. Or funny. Mostly funny.
I was sure he wouldn't feel offended, of course. Just horsing around, TTL! Otherwise, I would've set my "shutter" to the smallest aperture.
If you get the picture. :o)
Absolutely no real criticism meant, buddy. Did I get too abstract in my own way, too? Was my humor more brittle than small branches? Please, don't leave. My bark is worse than my bite. I'm just a Forest Gump at heart. There's no root to any problem between us. Just trunkated communication.
ttl said...
(Maybe we are not supposed to mess with Gods creations?)
This is why I prefer to just mess with man-made words. Your wisdom seems contagious!
Are we at peace? "If a tree doesn't fall in the woods, nobody should hear a crash."
Dear Dr. Gregory Pascal,
ReplyDeleteNo offense taken. Or offered.
I feeded back to the captain because he has requested it. But it didn't go well with some of the passengers. So I questioned whether this ship is appropriate for that kind of activity, or whether we should just stick to our regular program of dragging Christians under the keel and randomly shooting our canons at non-antisemitists. Just to be on the safe side. But the captain is insatiable. So what gives?
Discovered any great Lebanese porn lately?
HA HA HA....
ReplyDeleteCaptain Eolake, motley crew
If this was a ship what would YOUR job be?
ttl, I seem to have very little profound thinking mind left to comment intelligently on deep stuff, but I recognize it and love it when I see it in others.
ReplyDeleteHeraclitus' Fragments is a gem. You can get a copy from Penguin classics.
I believe he calls the Source of all change "Fire". Much of the gospel of John is also influenced by this early Greek thought. (Heraclitus also speaks of the everpresent "Word" and the "oneness of all wisdom being found under the name of God") I don't see the idea of "randomness" in his Fragments. I'd be curious if you'd read it and let me know. Re. Fire, Biblical readers will remember "Our God is a consuming fire;" "If any man build upon this foundation gold, silever, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work will be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Therefore Fire will try every man's work, of what sort it is;"
Heraclitus is more pithy. He says,
"If everything
were turned to smoke,
the nose would
be the seat of judgement.
Thus in the abysmal dark
the soul is known by scent."
His sayings on ignorance are priceless, and very funny.
Laurie
ttl said...
ReplyDelete"Discovered any great Lebanese porn lately?"
Great, I don't know. But very "extreme hardcore" stuff, yes, I have.
I watch our politicians on the evening news.
Most daring moral prostitution I've ever heard of. Chutzpahdiks!
I would suggest they walk the plank, but I'm afraid in their book it might be slang for yet another style of yucky mass-orgy!
Hey, I'm all for bashing at conservatives and stranding them collectively on an overcrowded desert island, but if Captain Nemolake likes clichés (French for photographs), shiver me timbers, man the cannons, let'im fire at will! After all, old Willie's still a bit wet, and some fire might dry him off.
Aargh, I say!