db

thanks guys.

“The next great photographers–if there are to be any–will have to find a way to reclaim photography’s special link to reality. And they’ll have to do it in a brand-new way.” Peter Plagens (Newsweek c. 2007)

pho⋅tog⋅ra⋅phy  [fuh-tog-ruh-fee]
–noun
1. the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays.

so how many real photographers are out there?

who loves gamma rays? I do!

Also, I come from a formal art BFA background, with a specialty in painting. My first commercial work was illustration. I could do everything on paper, or in the computer with a WACOM tablet. Nothing about the technology or software does much to lessen what it took to create any illustration for any client. Some clients might see “software” or “computer” or “one person” and think “lower cost”, but there is no one-to-one relationship. Creativity takes time.

Even in photography, it takes more than an index finger to be a photographer. Great images take time, and critical thinking. Technology will not make someone a successful photographer. Technology does not generate ideas without input from the user of that technology.

This was his longest short and as such, experimental. Like in every industry it takes much longer to complete an experimental work. Why do you think that a similar work would take another year to complete ? What makes you think he will not push the envelope and produce a flashier clip within a shorter time frame .

I have been reading most of the comments. What I gleaned from most of the posts is resentment and a bit of jealousy, some of the dismissive comments are hilarious, and the fact that people think they can assess the financial value of a Hig Res CG clip upon looking at it is just funny to me.

I was under the impression that we were here to celebrate an alternative way of representing the reality within the framework of art .

When is any creative professionals time not “pure profit”? Time spent on any project should be compensated. Every professional has expenses, so there is never “pure profit”.

I’ve been hearing about this guy, but never stopped to look. The shots are amazing on screen. Speechless quality from the amount of work.

Was this a span of one day or a week or year? Will this type of image making ever end up, being a table top art book?

As for the cost effectiveness to do this “shoot”. The artist’s time is now pure profit. The overhead has shrink to a box and screen (few more boxes).

I completely agree. As Rob posted earlier, quoting Seth Godin:

1. Technicians who invented it, run it
2. Technicians with taste, leverage it
3. Artists take over from the technicians
4. MBAs take over from the artists
5. Bureaucrats drive the medium to banality

CGI is now mature and the artists are taking over from the technicians. So long, CG that imitates bad photography-as-if-taken-with-point-and-shoot.

The work of Mr. Roman is not as easy as adding lens flare or star effect on photoshop. If the tools need corresponding credit, then so do all the engineers and physicists who worked on the lens and camera bodies for Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad, et al.

Depending on your clients, commercial art buyers aren’t really interested in “fine art”, but instead with in-your-face cliches to sell a product. $8,000 is nothing when a MF digital body starts at $10,000. I think CGI is here to complement the creation of an *image*, not replace *photography* – and such mentality is misplaced and dangerous. Photographers should consider themselves as content creator/ image makers, and not someone who is technically proficient with a camera. Please consider CGI as another tool in the arsenal instead of a competitor, because ultimately, creatives and innovators will persevere in this ocean of flickr and Strobist technicians.

There are however areas where some of us photographers need to take a bit care and that is product photography. Some companies are already looking hard into using CGI models of their products even in catalogues instead of photographing the item on a lightboard the “good ol fashioned way”. In fact, IKEA have a whole department dedicated to producing the in-catalogue representations of items using 3d software and allthough the process isn’t always cost effective yet, it’s getting there fast.

As for trying to diminish the artistical merit by claiming that its just a bunch of code doing the work, its just nonsense. A digital camera in the end is also just a bunch of code that is your TOOL to create the image. So is photoshop and any other software you may use in digital photography. And for film photography, you could argue that unless you do your own emulsions, its the film manifacturer’s work. So the entire argument is kind of moot, its about using the tools, not making the tools.

Is the photographers role changing? Absolutely yes. But as they say the only thing that is constant is change. So we all need to evolve and see how our expertise can be used in the future.

This is the first entry I’ve commented on (or even read the comments of) in some months.

And then there’s the title “The Beginning of the End?”… ugh. I suppose it drives up those all-important visitation numbers though.

Y

Agreed. Back then in the early days (not too early though), some action movies have REAL stunts, with real bloods and real injuries.

Today, there are still injuries in stunts, but a lot of things that we see in the movies are fake. Heck, stories in books are fake even before movies come along. What matters is how the author of the art execute things so well that it is outstanding.

Plus, most of the time I go to the movies is to forget the “real” world. I know it is fake, but I can tolerate it as long as it walks on the line of fake and being real (too fake would not be acceptable for most the people).

In the end, its how well is the artist express their vision in their arts.

Well said

I’m starting to visit this site less and less because it mimics the 7 o’clock as being ‘hopelessly alarming sometimes’

“After the break — is the milk that you’re feeding your kids giving them cancer?”