You Don't Need a Camera to Make Photos

Anouilh

I've been looking at Man Ray's work and the thought that we are very conservative about what constitutes a photo has struck me.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,743589,00.html

All one needs is light sensitive paper.


And nowadays, thanks to photoshop and new technologies, perhaps getting hung up on perfect DOF and time spent staring into infinity will come to be seen as passé?

Photoshop can even produce realistic roses:

http://www.photoshopcamp.com/Photoshop-tutorial-on-how-to-design--a--Rose-or-a-flower-using-only-Gradient-Tools.%3C/Photoshop-tutorial-on-how-to-design--a--Rose-or-a-flower-using-only-Gradient-Tools.%3C/--76.html

jaqian

Interesting as an exercise but where is the fun in that

Dodgykeeper

Have you a link to the realistic rose?

Covey

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

Have you a link to the realistic rose?

+1

kensutz

Can't say I find anything appealing about that.

Anouilh

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

Have you a link to the realistic rose?

There are several on the link in the first post.

Dodgykeeper

In fairness they are not realistic pictures of roses, What is the point of this post, that we all sell our cameras and either expose light sensitive paper or render images using photoshop?

John

I do love the rayographs, I saw a fantastic exhibit of Man Ray's work (along with Marcel Duchamp and Francis Picabia) in the Tate Modern last year and the rayographs looked like great fun. There are a far more intuitive and immediate way of working compared to the likes of photoshop:

‘I have finally freed myself from the sticky medium of paint, and am working directly with light itself’, Man Ray wrote in 1922, announcing his discovery of ‘rayographs’.

Man Ray made rayographs by placing objects directly on, or close to, light-sensitive paper, which was then briefly exposed to light. He was not the first to use this process, but he mastered its effects and was proud enough of the technique to brand it after his own name.

The procedure allowed Man Ray to produce images simply by controlling the direction and intensity of light. It also challenged the traditional value attached to the ‘touch’ of the artist in a way that paralleled Duchamp’s readymades.

Anouilh

John wrote: »

I do love the rayographs, I saw a fantastic exhibit of Man Ray's work (along with Marcel Duchamp and Francis Picabia) in the Tate Modern last year and the rayographs looked like great fun.

It sounds fabulous. Artists have been very influenced by Man Ray. I found a book of his photos, remaindered, recently, in a Dublin bookshop and it would be tempting to re-create some of his effects.

wrote:

They are a far more intuitive and immediate way of working compared to the likes of photoshop:

I have to admit I enjoy the logarithms that create artificial effects in some of the editing programs. Photoshop is not particularly intuitive, I agree, but the very sharp effects it can achieve can be admirable.

http://www.webdesign.org/web/photoshop/drawing-techniques/realistic-rose-peddle.12273.html

I prefer Irfanview, even though it is freeware, which could imply "cheap", but is not so in effect.

John

I've no problem with computer design in any art field but it generally doesn't do much for me compared to a more hands on approach (which is the appeal of the Dadaists that made me go to that exhibition). I guess because I have no interest in using photoshop for such purposes, I'm less likely to appreciate the skill and effort that goes into using it for purposes like this.

Anouilh

Dada always makes me laugh:

http://www.centrepompidou.fr/education/ressources/ENS-dada/ENS-dada.htm

A group from Spain performed a Miroesque version of "Ubu Roi" in the grounds of IMMA two Summers ago. It was also terrifying.

John

Anouilh wrote: »

Dada always makes me laugh

And so it should!

rymus

Jeez.. maybe the next time I'm thinking of going for a stroll in the woods with the camera on a nice spring afternoon I'll think "wait.. I could just sit on the couch and do it in photoshop instead".

Photoshop File != Photograph just like blog with photos != photoblog. That is all.

Anouilh

rymus wrote: »

Jeez.. maybe the next time I'm thinking of going for a stroll in the woods with the camera on a nice spring afternoon I'll think "wait.. I could just sit on the couch and do it in photoshop instead".

Photoshop File != Photograph just like blog with photos != photoblog. That is all.

Today's weather and grey light might make that a sensible option.

democrates

Anouilh wrote: »

I prefer Irfanview, even though it is freeware, which could imply "cheap", but is not so in effect.

+1 the days of "you get what you pay for" are long gone. If you haven't tried GIMP already you could do worse than give it a whirl, it's free software under the venerable GPL license and so good that I don't miss Corel Paint 11.

Also in a similar free vein is the inkscape vector graphics program and I'm getting better results in that than I ever did with Corel Draw 11. You can import photos and mix and match with your bezier curve masterpieces. The ability to have blends on stroke as well as fill and graded transparencies allows the production of awesome graphics. The only quirk I've found is that applying blur to anything totally saps rendering speed, so instead of using that for drop shadows I export to png and do the drop shadow in gimp.

Check out the inkscape and Gimp groups on deviant art to see how far these can go.

rymus

Anouilh wrote: »

Today's weather and grey light might make that a sensible option.

That's an awfully defeatist attitude. Just because the weather is crap doesn't mean the photos will be. Adapt to the situation.

democrates

rymus wrote: »

That's an awfully defeatist attitude. Just because the weather is crap doesn't mean the photos will be. Adapt to the situation.

In fairness the idea of anouilh having a defeatist attitude runs contrary to all the thought provoking posts I've read, more that kind of creative discontent which spurs innovation I'd have thought.

rymus

How much were you paid to post that?