Title: Aching In My Heart
Title: Sky HighIt was a long night last night. A miniature 5 year high school reunion formed at Conor O'Neills. Some people were there that I would never have thought to hang out with post-high school, but turned out to be really cool and fun. I haven't ended a night at Denny's since high school, so that was a perfect cap to the festivities.
Work today, then wanderings around Pearl and the Creek Fest. I took surprisingly few photos; I just wasn't feeling it. I ended up sitting down in front of the Café for close to an hour (and saw Nick Larson, my best friend from 7th grade through 11th grade [minus the time he didn't invite me to his bar mitzvah and instead invited Rob Bombard] who was at Conor's yesterday...by the way, it's funny how I can go almost 4 years without even talking to this guy, but then I run into him twice within 24 hours) and watched the street performers. I apparently have a new credo for life, and it somehow involves watching buskers.
I took both of the above pictures while watching a really sad duo act. Their crowd consisted of me, a few mandolin-toting hippies, and a drunk homeless woman that kept poking me in the shoulder telling me (by yelling in my ear) that I should pay them a lot of money because their show was so spectacular. I felt so bad for them when their too-short show ended that I gave them $2, nearly doubling the total income they had accumulated in their hat. The girl performer smiled really big at me and thanked me very genuinely. The act didn't seem so sad anymore.
I sometimes think that I'm totally bastardizing my photography with the amount of post-processing I do to some of the photos. I'm not a purist by any means, but I can definitely go overboard. I was just going to post the first picture today (Aching In My Heart), but I thought that I needed something else a little cleaner, something more pure. Something that looks like it actually did when the light first entered my camera.
And just because, here is the original photo.
4 comments:
you're not bastardizing anything.
what you do to the photo afterwards is what defines your style..it's your attempt to convey...whatever...
ansel adams original, straight prints LOOK LIKE SHIT. it's his post processing that makes him the icon that he is.
I would say Mike, that you need to recall what one can do with film. The process of making a silver gelatin print is very involved. Dodging, burning, filters.
We also must recall that photography is false as is. Photos have never been a reliable way to record a situation. The second photograph ever taken was a lie. The photographer told everyone it was a picture of a dying sailor...he later admitted it was actually just a self portrait.
We must also recall the famous (although I can't remember his name) Civil War photographer. Someone noticed that in all of his photos there a similar looking body in all of his photos. Line up all his photos and we see that he staged many of those photos...but it was about the vision, and as Scott, stated his style. He staged those photos to represent that carnage of war. He staged (manipulated the image and therefore the viewer) those photos for his vision, the depict war in a horrible light.
My point is, it is about the idea in your head.
As an end note I bring up the work of Jerry Uelsmann. Do a quick google image search of his work. He pioneered photo manipulation...and he was still using film. He did things in a dark room so cleanly that people can't even do as well in photoshop.
People criticized him for his work and how much his work was manipulated. He argued that art was turning into this thing that was all about 1 goal. The final product. Art was no longer about the process one goes through to get to that product. It was simply focused on what someone could have as a final product. Part of his art form is the process.
...Just some things to keep in mind after this ridiculously long comment.
In short... do whatever you want. This is about you doing what you like. It's about having fun. So do that, and only that (whatever that may entail, photo manipulation or not), and great work will come from that.
I totally agree with what the other guys said. Adams, Weston, Strand all altered their original film. It's just easier today than painting a negative and a hundred test prints. I think I told you before but our brains don't actually see what is REALLY out there anyway. Keep up the good work!
Wow. You have really smart friends.
To balance out the commentary, I just want to say that your pictures are frickin sweet, I agree, you are > than the lumberjack slam, you're very kind for giving those people money, I enjoyed how your parenthetical section was longer than the actual paragraph, (and I totally would have unfriended him for not inviting me to his bar mitzvah, for a time, just to show him a lesson [ha! No friendship from me for you! You silly little just barely a man-jew now!]) and finally, I agree with your smart friends because, well, they're right. Your pictures are great, and they are yours, no matter what you do to them. I mean, look at my dad's photos. Some, if not most, of them are extremely manipulated and changed up by photoshop, but they're amazing and wonderful and are wholly his.
You're super.
Post a Comment