Regarding the topic below, the process that is used to create such photos is HDR processing. HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. In a nutshell, this photo is obtained through digitally combining the same photo but with different exposure. The different exposures are either obtained from the camera, by setting it to take 3 pictures at once, 1 stop under exposed, normal exposure, 1 stop over exposed. Or it can also be modified, by tweaking the exposure of the same picture on photoshop.
It combines the pictures, thus as a result as shown by the pictures, there are very little shadows, making everything bright, it also gives the allusion of being a painting.
And yes, it is banned in competitions as it removes the realism of the photo.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Pics stiched with an interesting technique...
The pics below have been koped from here . The distinctive (and maybe slightly unreal) colour is due to a particular photoshop technique (banned in most competitions though).. can anyone figure out what it is?
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
What is Photography?*
To put it straight, photography is just a form of art creation. When camera was first invented, human saw the potential of cameras – the ability to replicate a real** scene in life on paper. The medium to do so was a device called “camera” and film.
Later in life, digital photography was introduced. There were of course advocates and protestors. To the protestors, digital photography introduces the element of unreality, through means of easy photo manipulation, which could destroy the principle that photography stands for.
Personally, I do not agree entirely with the “protestors”. As mentioned above, photography to me is a form of art creation. It does not matter whether the art piece is “real” or “unreal”, it is the picture that matters.
I think that the root cause for the argument over photography stems from the confusion in the definition of photography. Does it stands for “just a form of art creation using a device and picture manipulation is allowed”, or does it stands for “a specific form of creation that must replicate reality and must be unedited”. For me, I would prefer the first. For the protestors, perhaps the second is better.
To take on the first definition, one can naturally equate the purpose of camera as a brush or paint – they are all tools in which artists use to create. It does not matter if the result (picture / painting) replicates the world or deviates from the reality, it is an art creation.
On the contrary, the second definition is more “strict” in the sense that it requires the product (photographs) to have close proximity towards the “reality”. The extreme form of interpretation to the definition is this: one must always use a 50mm prime lens (to replicate the 46 degrees angle that our eyes see) and a perfect type of film / sensor that will always show all the colours correctly – as how we see the colours in the world. I assume that even choosing film photography would not meet the second requirement because photographic film cannot replicate the whole range of colours (electromagnetic waves) exactly as the way that our eyes interpret. In this sense, we have actually not achieved “photography” in history.
To many supporters of the second definition, I think that the above extreme example does not apply to them. To them, photography may simply be reproducing the “reality” (reality in general sense).
To conclude, the debate over “what is photography” will continue until consensus over the definition of photography has been reached. However, one should recognise that debate over film or digital is futile because both contribute to photography in different ways. The debate within digital photography – whether Canon or Nikon, or others, is of course also futile. Practical usage and needs under different circumstances will form the criterion for photography – both in terms of the technique and the equipment.
Zeyang
*This post is just my personal expression
**The term "real" and its other forms are not intended to be overly examined / defined philosophically.
Later in life, digital photography was introduced. There were of course advocates and protestors. To the protestors, digital photography introduces the element of unreality, through means of easy photo manipulation, which could destroy the principle that photography stands for.
Personally, I do not agree entirely with the “protestors”. As mentioned above, photography to me is a form of art creation. It does not matter whether the art piece is “real” or “unreal”, it is the picture that matters.
I think that the root cause for the argument over photography stems from the confusion in the definition of photography. Does it stands for “just a form of art creation using a device and picture manipulation is allowed”, or does it stands for “a specific form of creation that must replicate reality and must be unedited”. For me, I would prefer the first. For the protestors, perhaps the second is better.
To take on the first definition, one can naturally equate the purpose of camera as a brush or paint – they are all tools in which artists use to create. It does not matter if the result (picture / painting) replicates the world or deviates from the reality, it is an art creation.
On the contrary, the second definition is more “strict” in the sense that it requires the product (photographs) to have close proximity towards the “reality”. The extreme form of interpretation to the definition is this: one must always use a 50mm prime lens (to replicate the 46 degrees angle that our eyes see) and a perfect type of film / sensor that will always show all the colours correctly – as how we see the colours in the world. I assume that even choosing film photography would not meet the second requirement because photographic film cannot replicate the whole range of colours (electromagnetic waves) exactly as the way that our eyes interpret. In this sense, we have actually not achieved “photography” in history.
To many supporters of the second definition, I think that the above extreme example does not apply to them. To them, photography may simply be reproducing the “reality” (reality in general sense).
To conclude, the debate over “what is photography” will continue until consensus over the definition of photography has been reached. However, one should recognise that debate over film or digital is futile because both contribute to photography in different ways. The debate within digital photography – whether Canon or Nikon, or others, is of course also futile. Practical usage and needs under different circumstances will form the criterion for photography – both in terms of the technique and the equipment.
Zeyang
*This post is just my personal expression
**The term "real" and its other forms are not intended to be overly examined / defined philosophically.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
a week with jacob (an op by miss koh :) )
Manifesto
It has to be music.
It has to scream out from the shelves
and never allow dust to settle.
It has to shake loose from the page,
stop conversations at the bar,
leave trails of itself hanging in the air
like ribbons of spot-lit cigarette smoke.
It must be capable of writing itself on walls,
able to paint city skylines
in glorious Technicolour
or a million shades of gray.
It has to take root in the cracks between paving stones
and spread its fingers out against the canvas of the sky.
It has to keep rhythm - an everyday rhythm.
It has to mark time.
It has to make news rhyme with actual fact
and truth rhyme with beauty.
It has to speak,
has to put words in people’s mouths,
make new shapes for tongues to hold,
open tired eyes to new ways of seeing.
It must birth its own language
with lips capable of kissing scars,
and it must stand
-stand as testament to the fact
that words can draw blood
and make that blood sing.
Jacob Sam-La Rose
Friday, April 4, 2008
4th Ngee Ann Photographic Exhibition
Free admission!
29 Mar - 13 Apr 2008
11am - 7pm Daily
29 Mar - 13 Apr 2008 11am - 7pm.
Venue:
Ngee ann Exhibition Hall
Ngee Ann Cultural Centre
97 Tank Road Teochew Building
Singapore 238006
Getting There:
Exit from Dhoby Ghaut MRT station and walk towards Singapore Shopping Centre and Haw Par Centre. Teochew Building is along Clemenceau Ave across the street beside Sacred Heart Cathedral.
Buses available:
32, 54, 64, 123, 139, 143, 195
Nearest MRT:
Dhoby Ghaut
Reply as comment if you're interested! Maybe can go along in pairs or a group..
Free admission!
29 Mar - 13 Apr 2008
11am - 7pm Daily
29 Mar - 13 Apr 2008 11am - 7pm.
Venue:
Ngee ann Exhibition Hall
Ngee Ann Cultural Centre
97 Tank Road Teochew Building
Singapore 238006
Getting There:
Exit from Dhoby Ghaut MRT station and walk towards Singapore Shopping Centre and Haw Par Centre. Teochew Building is along Clemenceau Ave across the street beside Sacred Heart Cathedral.
Buses available:
32, 54, 64, 123, 139, 143, 195
Nearest MRT:
Dhoby Ghaut
Reply as comment if you're interested! Maybe can go along in pairs or a group..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)