by T. Michael Testi (Blogcritics.org , PhotographyToday, ATAEE)
For those who don't know, The Luminous Landscape is a phenomenal website for those who are into photography, especially landscape photography. As with any quality photography site it has its galleries and essays as well as product reviews and tutorials. It has all the things one would expect in a professional photography website.
You may have read my review of Alain Briot's Mastering Landscape Photography: The Luminous Landscape Essays, a wonderful book that explores what it takes to become a master of landscape photography. On the site you can also read Briot's column called Briot's View. The publisher and primary author is Michael Reichmann. He has forged the site into a multimedia learning center with the The Luminous Landscape Video Journal. He is also the host of the video.
The Luminous Landscape Video Journal: Issue 15 is the latest offering from the Luminous Landscape. Although this is the first issue being offered as a download version, the one I am reviewing is the DVD version I ordered from the site. Let me make one point; my only minor disappointment is that from the time I order a DVD until the time I receive it takes about two to three weeks. I suspect this delay has to do with it coming from Canada. Our friends to the north will find the delivery time much shorter, but to me, it deprives me of my instant gratification. When issue 16 is available, I may be trying the download.
In this video, Michael (I have to use the familiar, since I feel acquainted with him from the videos) and the workshop participants are on location in Bangladesh. They have workshops also. The next one is going to the Amazon in April, which already sold out. They explore the wonderful aspects of being in an exotic location and getting the kind of shots one could only imagine being done by a National Geographic photographer. They journey down the river to the woodland of the Sunderban. They explore the Sadarghat - Dhaka's main ferry terminal. They examine the Bangladesh people - poor in wealth, but rich life and spirit.
What makes this work is that the experience is videotaped and shown as a travel film so you can experience the trip, but then they show the stills that came from the trip. You can see the scenery, then you see the image. It gives you the sense of being there and taking in the pictures. The video journal does not stop there. There is a second section featuring Bill Atkinson on Color Management. This is the first of a two-part video that features discussion on color management and profiling. There is a lot of interesting inspiration you cannot get anywhere else.
Part three continues with Bill Atkinson on matte board cutting and print mounting. Here they demonstrate Atkinson's method of cutting and building double matte techniques for gallery quality prints. The last segment is with Brooks Jensen, the creator and co-publisher of the bi-monthly Lenswork, the magazine on the art of photography. It is truly amazing to see what it takes to put together a high quality magazine on a regular basis.
I have been sold on the video journals since the first one I ordered. These are quality DVDs that will provide you with the confidence you need to explore your world. You can now see through the eyes of a photographer and learn the techniques that will elevate your skills to the next level. You can only buy these DVDs at the Luminous Landscape store. If you are trying to enhance your skills as a photographer, and it really does not matter if you specialize in landscape or not, you will want to order The Luminous Landscapes Video Journal # 15.
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Heroin Chic and the Power of Photo Imagery Manipulation
by T. Michael Testi (Blogcritics.org , PhotographyToday, ATAEE)
In my last column I said that within the realm of digital photography there is a lot of room for cheating. Sometimes it is all right to manipulate photographs and sometimes it is not. In the area of marketing and advertisement, most, if not all companies remodel product photos to make them more saleable. The question is how much is too much and what are the implications to the individual as well as to society?
Obviously, sex sells. We all know that. But when we manipulate to our perception of what other people want, we begin to define what they want through our manipulation. It is kind of like me standing up and saying day in and day out that I like warm beer. At some point I will find someone who will agree with me — then another and another, until I gain enough momentum that you feel you have to agree with me because your perception is that everyone else does.
Think about the phrases and trends that have twisted our culture over the last 40 years. “Blondes have more fun” made our culture feel that other hair colors were inferior. The Heroin chic craze has generated more eating disorders than botulism ever could.
That being said, what is the problem with manipulation for the sake selling of things? I found a good example of the kind of subtle manipulation that can be done to tweak your thinking without you ever realizing it. It is this kind of manipulation that can be the most detrimental. It is a form of subliminal mind shrink.
The Girl Power site shows a picture of a fourteen year old girl standing in a shirt and blue jeans. The site then uses Photoshop manipulation to create a magazine cover of the girl to sell the magazine.
This is the same kind of manipulation that is done in every magazine, every brochure, and every product packaging label around the world. To view the process, open the page, select the magazine cover on the left, and click on the “Unveil the Fraud” button on the page.
A few things struck me. The first was that the girl looked fine to me in the original picture. It wasn’t that she was sixty-five and had been lying in the sun for the last 40 years. She was fourteen. She did not need to be “fixed up.” Second was how many things had been manipulated — her eyes, lips, breasts, waist, nose, jawbone, and shirt color. Finally, and most disturbingly, was the fact that I understood why they would make all these changes. If I had been in their shoes, I would have probably approved the changes myself.
Don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong in using a package such as Photoshop to manipulate photos. I do it all the time. Where I have a problem is when you try to sell something that is fabrication as something that is real. It distorts the collective mentality of society in general and usually not for the good.
This is no different than a major manufacturer of soft drinks buying time in the latest action movie to insert messages like “Buy my product now” every hundredth frame. You see the finished picture and you are not aware of the changes that have been made. On a subliminal level, you find the changes appealing. This changes your tastes.
Suddenly blondes have more fun and you feel the urge to purge
Check out all of the articles,news and reviews posted daily at http://www.photographytoday.net/
In my last column I said that within the realm of digital photography there is a lot of room for cheating. Sometimes it is all right to manipulate photographs and sometimes it is not. In the area of marketing and advertisement, most, if not all companies remodel product photos to make them more saleable. The question is how much is too much and what are the implications to the individual as well as to society?
Obviously, sex sells. We all know that. But when we manipulate to our perception of what other people want, we begin to define what they want through our manipulation. It is kind of like me standing up and saying day in and day out that I like warm beer. At some point I will find someone who will agree with me — then another and another, until I gain enough momentum that you feel you have to agree with me because your perception is that everyone else does.
Think about the phrases and trends that have twisted our culture over the last 40 years. “Blondes have more fun” made our culture feel that other hair colors were inferior. The Heroin chic craze has generated more eating disorders than botulism ever could.
That being said, what is the problem with manipulation for the sake selling of things? I found a good example of the kind of subtle manipulation that can be done to tweak your thinking without you ever realizing it. It is this kind of manipulation that can be the most detrimental. It is a form of subliminal mind shrink.
The Girl Power site shows a picture of a fourteen year old girl standing in a shirt and blue jeans. The site then uses Photoshop manipulation to create a magazine cover of the girl to sell the magazine.
This is the same kind of manipulation that is done in every magazine, every brochure, and every product packaging label around the world. To view the process, open the page, select the magazine cover on the left, and click on the “Unveil the Fraud” button on the page.
A few things struck me. The first was that the girl looked fine to me in the original picture. It wasn’t that she was sixty-five and had been lying in the sun for the last 40 years. She was fourteen. She did not need to be “fixed up.” Second was how many things had been manipulated — her eyes, lips, breasts, waist, nose, jawbone, and shirt color. Finally, and most disturbingly, was the fact that I understood why they would make all these changes. If I had been in their shoes, I would have probably approved the changes myself.
Don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong in using a package such as Photoshop to manipulate photos. I do it all the time. Where I have a problem is when you try to sell something that is fabrication as something that is real. It distorts the collective mentality of society in general and usually not for the good.
This is no different than a major manufacturer of soft drinks buying time in the latest action movie to insert messages like “Buy my product now” every hundredth frame. You see the finished picture and you are not aware of the changes that have been made. On a subliminal level, you find the changes appealing. This changes your tastes.
Suddenly blondes have more fun and you feel the urge to purge
Check out all of the articles,news and reviews posted daily at http://www.photographytoday.net/
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Can you tell the difference?
by T. Michael Testi (Blogcritics.org , PhotographyToday, ATAEE)
In the world of digital photography there is a lot of room for cheating. There was also a lot of room in the world of film photography as well; just look at all the fake flying saucers, sea monsters etc, But in the world of digital there is just so much more opportunity for the average person to fake the images that they are trying to project.
Is this wrong? That depends on the intent of the person and the goal that is set for the deception. For the person that is trying to portray a real world event and trying to sell their image as a real world event, manipulation is dishonest, wrong and possibly immoral.
For the artist who is trying to portray a vision of the world as they see or would like to see it, it would be acceptable. My personal view is that they should have a disclaimer stating that the image has been manipulated would be the best method. This way no one feels offended when they view your image.
I think that it is all right if the photographer is just trying to clean-up and sharpen a photograph with no real attempt of deception. When you try to remove items just so that you don't have to get that better shot or you don't want to come back when the lighting is better or the weather is different, then I think you need to be upfront and honest with your viewers.
Some people feel that they can pick out hoaxes and images manipulated in PhotoShop. Do you think you can?
Try your luck at the “Museum of Hoaxes” Hoax photo test or stop by PhotographyToday.Net and check out the Photography Hot Links section to try your luck.
Check out all of the articles,news and reviews posted daily at http://www.photographytoday.net/
In the world of digital photography there is a lot of room for cheating. There was also a lot of room in the world of film photography as well; just look at all the fake flying saucers, sea monsters etc, But in the world of digital there is just so much more opportunity for the average person to fake the images that they are trying to project.
Is this wrong? That depends on the intent of the person and the goal that is set for the deception. For the person that is trying to portray a real world event and trying to sell their image as a real world event, manipulation is dishonest, wrong and possibly immoral.
For the artist who is trying to portray a vision of the world as they see or would like to see it, it would be acceptable. My personal view is that they should have a disclaimer stating that the image has been manipulated would be the best method. This way no one feels offended when they view your image.
I think that it is all right if the photographer is just trying to clean-up and sharpen a photograph with no real attempt of deception. When you try to remove items just so that you don't have to get that better shot or you don't want to come back when the lighting is better or the weather is different, then I think you need to be upfront and honest with your viewers.
Some people feel that they can pick out hoaxes and images manipulated in PhotoShop. Do you think you can?
Try your luck at the “Museum of Hoaxes” Hoax photo test or stop by PhotographyToday.Net and check out the Photography Hot Links section to try your luck.
Check out all of the articles,news and reviews posted daily at http://www.photographytoday.net/
Monday, September 25, 2006
The early history of Photography
by T. Michael Testi (Blogcritics.org , PhotographyToday, ATAEE)
It has been over the course of the last five years that the explosion of digital cameras has all but put the film camera industry out of business. But before you film fanatics start bashing me about all the benefits of film over digital, you have to know that I started with film over 30 years ago so to a point I agree. But as they say, facts is facts and to quote Stephen King "the world has moved on...". The film industry will not return to the golden years again.
Digital will continue to grow and get more and more refined. The state of the art will continue to over take and surpass the film camera. In my opinion, this is both a good thing and a bad thing. It makes everyone a photographer whether you have talent or not. It builds galleries all over the web regardless of your abilities. Bottom line, it dilutes everything. On the other hand, many other talented people, especially those in the inner city as well as those in rural, non-cosmopolitan areas are given much more opportunities than in years past. This is something that we will have to see what happens.
I am sure that when Kodak Brownie camera became available in 1901 many of the die hard Daguerreotype loyalists where complaining about quality and how this is going to ruin the industry. As history shows, Ansel Adams first camera was a Brownie. Now one hundred years later, somewhere out there the next Ansel Adams is wandering around with a Canon Digital Rebel 8 mega pixel camera. And again I quote Stephen King, "the world has moved on"
If you are interested in the early history of photography you should read the fine article by Scott Michaels at PhotographyToday.Net. The technology of photography in the middle 1800's was much more complicated than it is today. In fact I suspect that in the turn to the 20th century, many people looked at new techniques of film like we look at digital as a whole new world.
Check out all of the articles,news and reviews posted daily at www.PhotograpyToday.Net
It has been over the course of the last five years that the explosion of digital cameras has all but put the film camera industry out of business. But before you film fanatics start bashing me about all the benefits of film over digital, you have to know that I started with film over 30 years ago so to a point I agree. But as they say, facts is facts and to quote Stephen King "the world has moved on...". The film industry will not return to the golden years again.
Digital will continue to grow and get more and more refined. The state of the art will continue to over take and surpass the film camera. In my opinion, this is both a good thing and a bad thing. It makes everyone a photographer whether you have talent or not. It builds galleries all over the web regardless of your abilities. Bottom line, it dilutes everything. On the other hand, many other talented people, especially those in the inner city as well as those in rural, non-cosmopolitan areas are given much more opportunities than in years past. This is something that we will have to see what happens.
I am sure that when Kodak Brownie camera became available in 1901 many of the die hard Daguerreotype loyalists where complaining about quality and how this is going to ruin the industry. As history shows, Ansel Adams first camera was a Brownie. Now one hundred years later, somewhere out there the next Ansel Adams is wandering around with a Canon Digital Rebel 8 mega pixel camera. And again I quote Stephen King, "the world has moved on"
If you are interested in the early history of photography you should read the fine article by Scott Michaels at PhotographyToday.Net. The technology of photography in the middle 1800's was much more complicated than it is today. In fact I suspect that in the turn to the 20th century, many people looked at new techniques of film like we look at digital as a whole new world.
Check out all of the articles,news and reviews posted daily at www.PhotograpyToday.Net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)