Alexey Potapov, a statement. Without emotion and without judgment. Many paintings were created in this color scheme in the 1970s. Some of them are occasionally shown now, when the Moscow Union of Artists (MOSKh) celebrates something.
Emotionless and non-judgmental. Many paintings were done in this color scheme in the 70s. Some of them are occasionally shown now, when the Moscow Union of Artists celebrates something.
Alexey Krik, well... Another reason to understand that everything in photography is secondary, and has already been done before. And I liked the fact that you saw socialist realism. A socialist city from the 50s, a monocle on film—that means you've really captured that era. Apparently, you're immune to memories of that time I added a link to my LiveJournal in the description; you might be interested in checking it out.
No. Yours is clearly aesthetically close to SovPhoto. And you like the artists of that particular aesthetic – Rozov, Drankin, Rolov. The glamorous Petrosyan is a bit of an outlier. But you don't mention Osmachkin, even though you said you've been involved in Samara photography for a long time.
In short, you're working within the framework of this "proven," but very narrow, approach. An approach that constantly looked back to painting.
That's why it feels like
everything in photography is secondary, and has already existed before.
The first objection is that the number of themes photographers explore is limited.
Therefore, the differences manifest themselves in form. (Please allow me to spare you examples.)
But the main objection is that there are approaches that 1) are not inherent in painting 2) are simply unknown to the Russian public, which is fixated on narrative and meaning.
Alexey Krik, I hardly saw Osmachkin in Samara-photo. Vladimir Kakovkin was there, but unfortunately, I learned who he was very late. Although I did argue with him about my pictures The second part of your comment requires some thought. I hope to express these thoughts. Thanks for your opinion!
Alexey Potapov, there's nothing to comprehend there. Because nothing concrete is said. For example. One approach to photography: a photo should show the strange redundancy of the world.
Another approach: a photo should be an object based on quantum superposition.
I'll immediately note that your approach is just as valid as the ones I've outlined. You can even paint in Photoshop. As a creator and artist, you have every right to do so. :-) :-) :-)
Alexey Potapov, there's nothing to comprehend there. Because nothing concrete is said. For example. One approach to photography: a photo should show the strange redundancy of the world.
Another approach: a photo should be a kind of object based on quantum superposition.
I'll immediately note that your approach has just as much validity as the ones I've outlined. You can even paint in Photoshop. As a creator and artist, you have every right to do so. :-) :-) :-)
Alexey Krik, now I definitely won't be able to sleep
One approach to photography: a photo should show the strange redundancy of the world. Another approach: a photo should be a kind of object based on quantum superposition.
I'll immediately note that your approach has just as much validity as the ones I've outlined. You can even colorize in Photoshop. As a creator and artist, you have every right to do so. :-) :-) :-)
Alexey Krik, To create and display an image based on quantum superposition, one must live not in everyday life, but above it. The ability to live above existence is determined by one's talent. That is, an artist earns their living by selling their "abnormal" works. The closer you are to everyday life, the more primitive your creations. I'm not talking about "naive art" or "Mitki" (artists), although this too is a departure from normality. Thirty years ago, I bought an album by Wilheim Mikhailovsky. These are works in which the photographic image is used only as a base.
A camera can simply capture the surrounding space, but here, the search for the constituent elements is crucial, so that they come together to form a visual harmony. But that's not enough. The viewer is drawn to the unusualness of the view. This includes the angle and the light. This is precisely what helped Nikolai Rakhmanov become the "singer of Moscow," although I wouldn't call his album "VAZ" anything special.
About photoshop. In the film era, it was fashionable to alter the original, overly simple image. Vibration, solarization, and wet printing appeared. And this was a sign of the photographer's "artistic" quality. Now, all this can be done in Photoshop with two clicks, and most often looks like vulgar kitsch. But it's beautifully called "artistic editing."
What I do is determined by my level. And, of course, taste.
Dear G. Meremyanin, because you "appreciated" me and my photographs in a special way, I am unable to see your comments. Thus, to my regret, I have been deprived of the opportunity for creative growth.
Alexey Potapov, why do you need this creative growth? Your new friends will shower you with the nectar of photographic science, and you'll immediately start producing masterpieces. You'll be as good as they are!
Alexey Potapov, a person's learning abilities develop up to a certain age. It's too late, Lyosha, too late to grow up! The only thing we can rely on here is quantum superposition!
The blurriness from the technology looks like a cute anachronism. And as such, it evokes a nostalgic smile. But nothing more. I want something groundbreaking. Something modern. Something that hasn't been done before, in my humble opinion.
Dear G. Meremyanin, because you "appreciated" me and my photographs so much, I don't see your comments. Thus, to my regret, I have lost the opportunity for creative growth.
Alexey Potapov, Dear Sir, I haven't "appreciated" you enough yet... You're still apparently in a trance from the soul-soothing Scream... which has given you so much of my precious time....
Technological blurriness seems like a cute anachronism. And as such, it evokes a nostalgic smile. But nothing more. I want something groundbreaking. Something modern. Something that hasn't existed before. IMHO
Valeriy Sviderskiy, are monocle shots really blurry? Even in this picture, the antennas on the roof are sharp and the branches are sharp. What you call blurriness is actually spherical aberration. The degree of these aberrations depends on the lens's aperture. And if multi-element lenses successfully correct these aberrations, then you already know the rest As for something groundbreaking, I can say that in the fall of 2016, Tamron released improved versions of the 150-600, 70-200, and 24-70, which are even sharper than previous models.
It's a book. It's paper, but I have nothing to scan it with. This is a catalogue from an exhibition; you probably had one too. It's from the Center for Contemporary Art.
I won't enter into a debate. I'll simply limit myself to a brief explanation. The term "quantum superposition" was borrowed from physicists to attempt to more fully describe the phenomenon of photography. Its essence is as follows. In physics. Suppose we know that at some point in space there is an electron. But we don't know in what capacity it is there. As a particle or as a wave. When we try to find out, we make a measurement, and we find that it is a particle. But the moment the electron is defined as a particle, as a wave, it ceases to exist. As a result, the primary ensemble—quantum superposition—when BOTH the particle and the wave simultaneously existed, is irrevocably destroyed.
Can this happen at the image level? It can. I'll limit myself to the most famous and simple example, omitting the photograph itself. This is a picture of profiles/vase. http://bibl.tikva.ru/base/B1706/img/B1706p29-1.jpg The moment you see the vase, the profiles disappear. And vice versa. There's a saying that retelling a photograph kills it. This thesis applies specifically to such images.
This approach, like the other one, with the "strangeness of the world," is based on documentary quality. No processing. Because in both cases, what's interesting is the world itself, and not some Photoshopped, pathetic representations of this world by people with clearly deviant behavior.
Nikolai Rakhmanov to become "the singer of Moscow"
I belong to that category of viewers who are glad that this classic of photography is thoroughly forgotten and buried during his lifetime. And how he became a "singer" is also well known.
Alexey Potapov, this is where that fear I told you about is starting to bear fruit. That's it, here we go...
Oleg, in my opinion, it's embarrassing to block fellow enthusiasts simply because of different tastes. Saltykov-Shchedrin, with "The Wise Minnow," explored everything over 100 years ago. The world is eternal and unchanging.
Alexey Potapov, You haven't lost anything, don't be upset
Malakhov, What upset? These button manipulations are ridiculous. It's all due to a lack of self-confidence. Essentially, it's a hermit's choice. Like the Old Believers retreating from civilization into the taiga. Such are the analogies.
Alexey Potapov, I belong to that category of viewers who are glad that this classic of photography is thoroughly forgotten and buried while he was still alive. And how he became a "singer" is also well known.
, in my opinion, it's embarrassing to block fellow hobbyists simply because of different tastes.
Alexey Potapov, they're blocking you not because of different tastes, but because those "colleagues" don't care about any tastes at all, not even photography! They have other goals here! Which is exactly what they demonstrated yesterday, under the work of a certain church. I hope I've explained everything clearly to you! I hope you won't have any more questions! But I can console you, they happily welcomed you into their diminished ranks!
Alexey Potapov, they're blocking it not because of different tastes, but because those "colleagues" couldn't care less about tastes, not even photography! They have other goals here! Which is exactly what they revealed yesterday, under the work of a certain church.
Oleg Kaledin, You're talking about "those colleagues," but I'm talking about myself That work with the little church is pure nonsense. And they tried to get that across to the author. And those who admire it are just writing the same garbage.
I'm interested in the world itself, not some Photoshopped, pathetic notions of people about this world
Without getting into a debate, I'll note, for the sake of it, that not all people are pathetic. And there are those who are very, very not pathetic. And FS has nothing to do with that. A non-pathetic person's understanding of the world is a step in understanding the world, because it frees us from the excessive effort of understanding the truth already revealed to someone else (not the pathetic one). Incidentally, we understand the world itself through the conclusions about it of other people who lived before us, alongside us, and who lived in general.
Alas. The photos taken with the monocle are blurry. Thanks for the information about the new Tamron lenses. I'm interested. I'll definitely try to get my hands on one and try it out.
I have a Tamron AF 18-250 F3.5-6.3 DI II. I'd be interested in comparing them.
Sorry. The monocle shots are blurry. Thanks for the information about the new Tamron lenses. I'm interested. I'll definitely try to get my hands on one and try it out.
I have a Tamron AF 18-250 F3.5-6.3 DI II. I'd be interested in comparing.
Valeriy Sviderskiy, I also have a 10-24 and 18-400 for crop lenses.
Without emotion and without judgment.
Many paintings were created in this color scheme in the 1970s.
Some of them are occasionally shown now, when the Moscow Union of Artists (MOSKh) celebrates something.
And I liked the fact that you saw socialist realism. A socialist city from the 50s, a monocle on film—that means you've really captured that era. Apparently, you're immune to memories of that time
I added a link to my LiveJournal in the description; you might be interested in checking it out.
No. Yours is clearly aesthetically close to SovPhoto. And you like the artists of that particular aesthetic – Rozov, Drankin, Rolov. The glamorous Petrosyan is a bit of an outlier. But you don't mention Osmachkin, even though you said you've been involved in Samara photography for a long time.
In short, you're working within the framework of this "proven," but very narrow, approach. An approach that constantly looked back to painting.
That's why it feels like The first objection is that the number of themes photographers explore is limited.
Therefore, the differences manifest themselves in form. (Please allow me to spare you examples.)
But the main objection is that there are approaches that 1) are not inherent in painting
2) are simply unknown to the Russian public, which is fixated on narrative and meaning.
The second part of your comment requires some thought. I hope to express these thoughts.
Thanks for your opinion!
For example.
One approach to photography: a photo should show the strange redundancy of the world.
Another approach: a photo should be an object based on quantum superposition.
I'll immediately note that your approach is just as valid as the ones I've outlined.
You can even paint in Photoshop. As a creator and artist, you have every right to do so. :-) :-) :-)
A camera can simply capture the surrounding space, but here, the search for the constituent elements is crucial, so that they come together to form a visual harmony. But that's not enough. The viewer is drawn to the unusualness of the view. This includes the angle and the light. This is precisely what helped Nikolai Rakhmanov become the "singer of Moscow," although I wouldn't call his album "VAZ" anything special.
About photoshop. In the film era, it was fashionable to alter the original, overly simple image. Vibration, solarization, and wet printing appeared. And this was a sign of the photographer's "artistic" quality. Now, all this can be done in Photoshop with two clicks, and most often looks like vulgar kitsch. But it's beautifully called "artistic editing."
What I do is determined by my level. And, of course, taste.
[img]https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/52790/1957668.ce4/0_cfaf0_aecef20c_XL.jpg [/img]
Yes, yes, a photo in the studio!
I want something groundbreaking. Something modern. Something that hasn't been done before, in my humble opinion.
What you call blurriness is actually spherical aberration. The degree of these aberrations depends on the lens's aperture. And if multi-element lenses successfully correct these aberrations, then you already know the rest
As for something groundbreaking, I can say that in the fall of 2016, Tamron released improved versions of the 150-600, 70-200, and 24-70, which are even sharper than previous models.
This is a catalogue from an exhibition; you probably had one too. It's from the Center for Contemporary Art.
The term "quantum superposition" was borrowed from physicists to attempt to more fully describe the phenomenon of photography.
Its essence is as follows. In physics.
Suppose we know that at some point in space there is an electron.
But we don't know in what capacity it is there. As a particle or as a wave.
When we try to find out, we make a measurement, and we find that it is a particle. But the moment the electron is defined as a particle, as a wave, it ceases to exist.
As a result, the primary ensemble—quantum superposition—when BOTH the particle and the wave simultaneously existed, is irrevocably destroyed.
Can this happen at the image level?
It can. I'll limit myself to the most famous and simple example, omitting the photograph itself.
This is a picture of profiles/vase.
http://bibl.tikva.ru/base/B1706/img/B1706p29-1.jpg
The moment you see the vase, the profiles disappear. And vice versa.
There's a saying that retelling a photograph kills it.
This thesis applies specifically to such images.
All the others, like
https://ii1.photocentra.ru/images/main67/672634_main.jpg
or
https://i1.photocentra.ru/images/main67/674301_main.jpg
and so on, are fully described by one word: "feces."
This approach, like the other one, with the "strangeness of the world," is based on documentary quality. No processing. Because in both cases, what's interesting is the world itself, and not some Photoshopped, pathetic representations of this world by people with clearly deviant behavior.
is thoroughly forgotten and buried during his lifetime.
And how he became a "singer" is also well known.
Like the Old Believers retreating from civilization into the taiga. Such are the analogies.
There's a meadow, there's a cow, there are clouds, what else do you need for a great photo -)
I hope I've explained everything clearly to you! I hope you won't have any more questions!
But I can console you, they happily welcomed you into their diminished ranks!
That work with the little church is pure nonsense. And they tried to get that across to the author. And those who admire it are just writing the same garbage.
Without getting into a debate, I'll note, for the sake of it, that not all people are pathetic.
And there are those who are very, very not pathetic. And FS has nothing to do with that.
A non-pathetic person's understanding of the world is a step in understanding the world, because it frees us from the excessive effort of understanding the truth already revealed to someone else (not the pathetic one).
Incidentally, we understand the world itself through the conclusions about it of other people who lived before us, alongside us, and who lived in general.
Alas. The photos taken with the monocle are blurry.
Thanks for the information about the new Tamron lenses. I'm interested. I'll definitely try to get my hands on one and try it out.
I have a Tamron AF 18-250 F3.5-6.3 DI II. I'd be interested in comparing them.