Great examples for a valid point (which I've been advocating for quite
some time).
... with an exception:
Sometimes, while waking up, I am getting all sorts of blur in what I see,
and I am pretty much motionless.
And it is what I see, and not what I think I see, because at that point,
there is not much of thinking happening.
:-)
Cheers,
Igor
John Francis Wed, 24 Oct 2018 13:30:02 -0700 wrote:
A whole lot of photography isn't recording what we actually see.
(or, to be pedantic, what we think we actually see)
Some examples:
o A black-and-white print (except for a few individuals)
o Long exposures of waterfalls (or, for that matter, any of my panned
motorsports shots with a sharp car in front of a blurred background).
o Portraits, etc., using narrow depth of field to isolate the subject
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 03:01:14PM -0400, John wrote:
But is it really "machine art"? Or is it "Art" made by people using machines?
Ultimately the tool you choose doesn't matter as much as your skill using
those tools and how well you you are able to show others what you've "seen"
with your mind's eye.
If you can communicate your vision, then it's the appropriate tool.
On 10/23/2018 10:33, P. J. Alling wrote:
> There's really only so much you can do with code, before you're no
> longer recording a scene, and are actually generating it, which is art
> not photography.?? Personally I prefer my art to be produced by humans
> not by machines mainly because machine art is kinda dull.
>
>
> On 10/23/2018 10:10 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> > https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/22/the-future-of-photography-is-code/
> >
> > Dan Matyola
> > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
