Rob Naylor
New member
If a child's imagination could shape the world, we may see things in a whole new perspective.
"Kidscape"
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
A Child's Perspective
- Thread starter Rob Naylor
- Start date
Cem_Usakligil
Well-known member
Very nice work Rob. Was the child actually in the picture or did you paste him in?
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
Hi Rob,
It reminded me of the Inception movie. It's an interesting effect, but be careful not to let the gimmicks get the better of you. A gimmick can be copied by anyone, your creative vision is much harder to copy. So be creative, based on a vision.
Cheers,
Bart
Rob Naylor
New member
Thanks Cem, the child was pasted in, this is a composite of two images.
Hi Bart,
I though that by posting this in the "Photography as Art" then the artistic quality of the final image would be the main subject of CC. However, your comments are noted and are well worthy of a response.
Perhaps you consider this image as gimmicky, I considered it to be creative and I would be extremely flattered if anyone copied it or it's concept.
If I do actually have any creative vision, and my only way is to demonstrate it is in an image by way of a trick or gimmick, then I feel it is I who is controlling the gimmick rather than the gimmick controlling me.
However, I in turn, am critical by those who for example over-use the gimmick of 10 stop fliters to make water look like milk or steam, or streak the clouds to complete unreality.
Ironically images created using this "gimmick" are accepted and welcomed in the "Landscape" area of the forum, how bizarre is that?
I do understand your reference to "gimmicks getting the better of me" since the majority of my posts to date are not the normal run of the mill SOOC shots.
I have used a mirror gimmick to create the third (mirrored) image in my introduction post. This was "pre-visualised" before I pressed the shutter, and was the sole reason for pressing the shutter.
Similarly, in the forth image of my intro post, I used the gimmick of multiple overlays to create the "ghosts", again this was pre-planned before the shutter was pressed.
I feel that when a forum moderator makes CC of this nature, this type of work is perhaps not appreciated by the forum (even in the ART section). In recognition of this I will refrain from posting my "non-standard" images ("Art" or otherwise) and post more orthodox images in the general areas.
As you may have gathered by now, I strongly dislike the derogatory way the term "gimmick" has been applied it to my work.
"rant" over
thank you
Rob
Hi Bart,
I though that by posting this in the "Photography as Art" then the artistic quality of the final image would be the main subject of CC. However, your comments are noted and are well worthy of a response.
Perhaps you consider this image as gimmicky, I considered it to be creative and I would be extremely flattered if anyone copied it or it's concept.
If I do actually have any creative vision, and my only way is to demonstrate it is in an image by way of a trick or gimmick, then I feel it is I who is controlling the gimmick rather than the gimmick controlling me.
However, I in turn, am critical by those who for example over-use the gimmick of 10 stop fliters to make water look like milk or steam, or streak the clouds to complete unreality.
Ironically images created using this "gimmick" are accepted and welcomed in the "Landscape" area of the forum, how bizarre is that?
I do understand your reference to "gimmicks getting the better of me" since the majority of my posts to date are not the normal run of the mill SOOC shots.
I have used a mirror gimmick to create the third (mirrored) image in my introduction post. This was "pre-visualised" before I pressed the shutter, and was the sole reason for pressing the shutter.
Similarly, in the forth image of my intro post, I used the gimmick of multiple overlays to create the "ghosts", again this was pre-planned before the shutter was pressed.
I feel that when a forum moderator makes CC of this nature, this type of work is perhaps not appreciated by the forum (even in the ART section). In recognition of this I will refrain from posting my "non-standard" images ("Art" or otherwise) and post more orthodox images in the general areas.
As you may have gathered by now, I strongly dislike the derogatory way the term "gimmick" has been applied it to my work.
"rant" over
thank you
Rob
Maggie Terlecki
Moderator
Thanks Cem, the child was pasted in, this is a composite of two images.
Hi Bart,
I though that by posting this in the "Photography as Art" then the artistic quality of the final image would be the main subject of CC. However, your comments are noted and are well worthy of a response.
Perhaps you consider this image as gimmicky, I considered it to be creative and I would be extremely flattered if anyone copied it or it's concept.
If I do actually have any creative vision, and my only way is to demonstrate it is in an image by way of a trick or gimmick, then I feel it is I who is controlling the gimmick rather than the gimmick controlling me.
However, I in turn, am critical by those who for example over-use the gimmick of 10 stop fliters to make water look like milk or steam, or streak the clouds to complete unreality.
Ironically images created using this "gimmick" are accepted and welcomed in the "Landscape" area of the forum, how bizarre is that?
I do understand your reference to "gimmicks getting the better of me" since the majority of my posts to date are not the normal run of the mill SOOC shots.
I have used a mirror gimmick to create the third (mirrored) image in my introduction post. This was "pre-visualised" before I pressed the shutter, and was the sole reason for pressing the shutter.
Similarly, in the forth image of my intro post, I used the gimmick of multiple overlays to create the "ghosts", again this was pre-planned before the shutter was pressed.
I feel that when a forum moderator makes CC of this nature, this type of work is perhaps not appreciated by the forum (even in the ART section). In recognition of this I will refrain from posting my "non-standard" images ("Art" or otherwise) and post more orthodox images in the general areas.
As you may have gathered by now, I strongly dislike the derogatory way the term "gimmick" has been applied it to my work.
"rant" over
thank you
Rob
Oh, please don't take offence, Bart is very kind and I'm sure he didn't mean to offend you. Please also, do not refrain from posting your creative vision. I enjoy them. I have not really commented yet, as I sometimes need a bit of time to comment fully the way I want to, especially if something is non-standard as these are.
I also play around with some of my images (some composites, some textures etc.,) and enjoy doing it and don't usually post them here as there is so little of it, but perhaps if you continued, I might get brave and post some too.
sincerely,
Maggie
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
Hi Rob,
I also consider it to be creative, as long as it more than a cheap effect. It is more. If this is something that is used too much though, it becomes a gimmick, a cheap thrill. This isn't, yet.
If the long exposure shot, which requires a bit more skill than just using the filter, is done with an effect that enhances the composition (which always comes first, together with the choice of subject), then I'm all for it. I'm for example generally not so trilled by simple waterfall shots with blurry water as a standard trick. I would probably make a blended combination with a short exposure of waterdroplets (if close enough), and accentuate the speed of the water by using the blur. Again, a vision is needed for something that transcends a gimmick.
Hence my well intended advice, which anyone should feel free to ignore because it's free advice. We've had other posters before, who called a special post-processing trick their signature. When a trick is needed for a signature, the signature is that of a trick, not of a creative individual. That's the warning for all who want to hear.
The fact that I am also allowed to do some moderation if necessary, doesn't mean that I set the rules on OPF, far from it. I just wanted to express my interpretation of what I've seen posted, without a lot of help of an accompanying explanation of creative intent on your part. I had to guess a bit, as did others, based on the one line of text, which helped some but it was not clear if this was part of a series or just an experiment. The difference is that I expressed my personal thoughts by reacting.
That would be silly, but that's ultimately your choice. As far as I'm concerned, anything goes, but I do reserve the option of liking it or not, and for giving free unsolicited advice.
I think you are overreacting to my choice of words.
Cheers,
Bart
Rob Naylor
New member
I thought it was a pretty harsh first response from you to a newcomer posting "Art" in the "Art" section, but all understood, No offence taken, no grudges held.
Onwards and upwards...
cheers,
Rob
Maris Rusis
Member
There are plenty of reasons for looking at "Kidscape". But I am not sure any of them match the reasons for specifically looking at a photograph as opposed to a painting or a drawing.
Photo-graphy in so far as it transliterates into Light-writing implies that there is a one to one correspondence between spots in the photograph and spots in some piece of real-world illuminated subject matter. This correspondence, or system transfer function, is predictable if you know the technical details of each step between the subject and the final picture. Hence there is cautious confidence in supposing a photograph maps a bit of visible reality.
Not so with "Kidscape" It is very much a case of "never existed", "didn't happen", "never looked like that"; a fantasy depicting an unusual and entertaining scene but a scene that cannot be photographed.
Photo-graphy in so far as it transliterates into Light-writing implies that there is a one to one correspondence between spots in the photograph and spots in some piece of real-world illuminated subject matter. This correspondence, or system transfer function, is predictable if you know the technical details of each step between the subject and the final picture. Hence there is cautious confidence in supposing a photograph maps a bit of visible reality.
Not so with "Kidscape" It is very much a case of "never existed", "didn't happen", "never looked like that"; a fantasy depicting an unusual and entertaining scene but a scene that cannot be photographed.