I have big problems with this one, since it could be much better but I don't really know what is wrong with it. Maybe the very shallow DoF? Or is it the composition? I still like it for its simplicity but something is missing, and so I'd be very glad to read what you think.
So even the definition in Webster heavily trusts the existence of "arrangement into specific proportion or relation", doesn't it? Proportion and relation implies strictly the existance of the many, which have to be put into some interrelation.
And the definition of arts is based on the *conscious* use of skill. It is not based on some kind of "aetherial perception".
The rest of the definitions are rather helps and additional hints, but not really strict definitions. In addition, Webster is not a real reference for such things. Much like wikipedia, you can get a first glimpse of the things but not really go into depth. For that we have libraries of universities and whole series of books there.
If we really are not to say what is arts, then we ought to stop misusing it for labeling works without *conscious" skills, ey? Or else the statement is contradiciting our ways of work. And what we say is the one thing, but what we do is another.
In this sense also, I might misuse the same "question" about what is arts to label the following:
as a poem! And i couls also start scrambling randomly on my guitar and say that this is my song. Great deal, I am an arist!!! Wow!
So, it seems that there are really boundaries that differentiate between the artistic and the accidental result. This fits very well the fact that naturally created shaoes are not considered to be arts, even if some of them are better than all images that we post here. Alone the word "art" says that. Any connection to the "artificial", the non-natural? ;-) And there are also reasons in physics that distinguish between the two. It has to do with the artificial as carrier of neg-entropy or of information, whatever information that might be. Natural processes always tend to diminish the accompagnied information, and thus any unconsious process is not art (artificial) since it isn't connected to generation of info. But this goes too far here, and really endless thoughts can be made about that.
Of course I let live, but that does no way mean that I will also sit there and accept any "opinion". Actually to let live also means interaction and opposition.
On to the complex as opposed to the simple. Indeed both are there. But there are exact words and labels for both of them. The simple per definition excludes composition, since if it had composition it wouldn't be simple. That's all!
Composition: "1 a: the act or process of composing; specifically : arrangement into specific proportion or relation and especially into artistic form b (1): the arrangement of type for printing (2): the production of type or typographic characters (as in photocomposition) arranged for printing"....taken from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary.
Art: "4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art" also taken from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary.
No that we *need* definitions but I know you like them in the literal sense.
But we can see that composition relates more to a specific set of norms, or standards, whereas art is referred to as using skill and *creative imagination*. A big difference. And who is to say what is *art* and what is not *art*. Art is subjective and means different things to different people. I see things that just absolutely move me to tears and other stuff that I would never think to label as art, but that doesn't mean it's not art, it just means that it doesn't fall into *my definition* or what art is. And that means absolutely nothing to anyone else but me.
And who am I to define *art* for/to the rest of the world. Even Merriam Webster's dictionary had several definitions, because there isn't ONE. It's not a one size fits all!
Remember the scales, two sides and balanced, thats the way I see the world...two sides, sometimes so complex that it seems beyond a solution and sometimes just so simple that no solution is necessary. Trying to stay within the confines of simple and complex, is the hard part. Ok maybe a bit philosophical but I think you see my point. You can apply it to politics, religion, and art, or anything.
Live and let live...enjoy the sandwiches, or the process of making them, and when you are partaking of them ask yourself what can you do to make it better, or maybe better yet, just enjoy the sandwich, because there will never be another one just like it.
Some of the films I develop myself and some of them I send for processing to some of the several good companies around that often have special offers. The problem of noise is not as hard to avoid when scanning. The most important thing is to not ride the typical exaggeration wave for more of this and more of that but to remain in reasonable levels. For example it is of course possible to raise contrast to unbelievable levels durcing scanning, but then the image will be "unbelievable" itself too. ;-)
Nowadays almost everybody things in "terms of arts". And the question is, how to translate exactly what the vision was into work of art when we neglect more and more the knowledge that is necessary for this. For example I can think of the greatest music but if I don't know how to play some instrument, that music will remain for ever in my mind. Photography makes it much easier to just click a button and get some image that is declared to "art" later on, and this is exactly the main reason why we should be a bit more careful with this work. Composition *is* actually a very very technical thing even if most of the time we would rather read about the thin air of "mood" or "perception". It is way too important for example to know what is that that makes up for some given "mood" of some landscape, and then to enhance exactly that for projecting such a huge thing of almost unlimited dynamics onto a tiny little frame with so many limitations considering dynamics, sensitivity, and so on. The images that capture "moods" so perfectly are definitely not made having that kind of "romantic-artistic" attitide in mind. It is much more transpiration once the inspiration has taken place, or else we do have some image as result, but it is just another one of the many. The few really great images have so much work invested that the spectator doesn't even notice, exactly like in the case of a great concert where most of the fans talk about "felling" and similar things afterwards. Ask the musicians and listen to what they say about that. ;-)
But that kind of work does come one the way or the other. And it takes patience but it more than pays back. Much like after some weeks, or months, or even years eating sandwiches. They are good but some day one wants to cook something special. And the taste pays back for the work that had to be done for the meal.
Oh you are so right, I do see the blue and also hints of pink/red throughout the glittering. I adjusted the brightness on my monitor, so thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Do you develop your film? Are there issues with noise when you scan them, or is there an alternative to scanning? I am not patient and I think I think more in terms of art versus all the technicals, though I agree one must know enough about the technicals to get the shot...but I think more in terms of how I will compose it, or what is it that I see and what do I want the viewer to see, then I begin to think in terms of what I must do to capture that.
I am grateful for these insightful and interesting comments Nick because I really want to learn more about photography and hopefully move on to the next level. Yes, these discussions are a good thing. All the best to you. :) Linda
I am glad that you also say the same as Linda, Aykaan! Indeed my aperture should be narrower for more DoF. Thank you very much for the comment and the suggestion!
Thanks a lot for the detailed comment and all the hints, Linda!
Yes, it was snow, and I also think that my DoF was again way too narrow. This weakend the impression of the glittering, I guess. Which means for me to use a narrower aperture and the tripod next time.
But it is not B&W - this is easily visible. It doesn't have much color since there was not much of color in the frame anyway, but still there is that blue tint in the dark on the top right and a vague hint towards weak diffuse red at the bottom left. It may look a bit like a B&W though due to the absence of strong colors, but a real B&W-film is something else.
And we can always reject the bad ones, Linda, be it on chip or on film. Digital has the benefit of being able to use the same memory for a new image and thus waste less space. On film of course one can't use the same frame again - once taken the image is there. But this is a small price to pay for me, since film photography really, really, really dictates the necessity of thinking and going deeper into subjects of photography. One has to exercise the mental "seeing" of what the exposure will result to since there is no way to see what the film captured, how it reacted, and so on. It is much like experimenting and only seeing tghe results of the experiment, or experimenting and wanting to also know what brings these results. Strudying the "laws" in a sense instead of only looking at their results. Of course this need a long time and deep dedication, which for me is part of the fun and also part of developing any kind of skills.
I'd wish that such discussions would be a bit more often here, but there are already many people that participate and that's a great thing to happen.
idée est très bonne si tu penses que l'image doit être meilleure... je me permets de dire que peut-être la qualité d'ouverture (1/4.5-5.6) de ton objectif devient moins satisfaisante pour toi... avec un objectif de meilleure qualité il est possible d'obtenir un 'piqué' d'image beaucoup plus grande...
Very nice play with light and shadow Nick, and I do like the simplicity too. I think it's the DOF, your focus is on the top third of the image, and I've taken some of these shots that also were a bit soft and had to return with an increased DOF which might help as well with that small area of overexposure. Is it snow? I like the bits of light glittering and the textures...again a great eye, Nick.
Good choice of black and white for this. I can see where shooting with film really makes you think, and I know you've heard this before, but one of the things I really like about digital is the delete button...wink!! I enjoy this opportunity to think about different problems photography presents and their possible solutions, and of course, this is only my opinion. I'm sure there are others here who will know exactly what to do.
0 
