Processed Pics from Durham Township, Pennsylvania

July 14, 2005 10:09 PM

A (Picturesque) Walk Through Durham Township
posted by Gyan (26 comments total)

Wow, I don't really know what for photography, but were these run through some kind of filter or something? Don't the colors seem unusually rich? I wish my photos looked like that, anyway.
posted by BigPicnic at 10:14 PM on July 14, 2005

That crayon factory window....Beautiful.
Nice site design too,thank you for the post.
posted by hortense at 10:35 PM on July 14, 2005

In the spring of 2004, I got a little more serious about my hobby and began using a Nikon D100. I now shoot only in RAW format and post-process with Photoshop CS.

They've been color enhanced. A neat effect, but I think it's better to make photography as chromo-accurate as possible. Just me though, and I'm sure she has quite a following.
posted by Citizen Premier at 10:37 PM on July 14, 2005

Eh, scratch that. I have trouble seeing any photography as an artform. Sorry.
posted by Citizen Premier at 10:38 PM on July 14, 2005

They're certainly quite aesthetically pleasing, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know that I'd purchase & hang them on the wall, but I really loved going through the site. This one was one of my favorites.
posted by jonson at 10:46 PM on July 14, 2005

I have trouble seeing any photography as an artform

So your snapshots must be glorious.
posted by 517 at 10:57 PM on July 14, 2005

Can someone point me to a good primer on color enhancing? I would like to try that out.
posted by dhruva at 11:08 PM on July 14, 2005

The fact remains that if you don't have someone who knows what they're doing behind the post-processing, the color won't come out nearly as well as it has here. These shots have been very carefully managed so that the colors are married and harmonized. The compositions are all well done and these pictures seem to serve their purpose well.
posted by invitapriore at 11:12 PM on July 14, 2005

dhruva: do you use photoshop? Try experimenting with Hue/Saturation and Color Balance. It's not high-tech, but it's a place to start messing around.
posted by slimslowslider at 11:13 PM on July 14, 2005

Citizen Premier : "A neat effect, but I think it's better to make photography as chromo-accurate as possible."

Why? If I may, the sentiment seems to be that beautiful photography is beautiful because it reflects the 'real beauty' out there. In admiring stunning photographs, we are admiring the intrinsic beauty of the subject. Post processing, then, seems to be an underhanded act that results in a false representation. But consider this, a photograph can never really represent the subject truely. Inevitably, the equipment and ultimately the medium, forces some interpretation, by their technical limitations. The sentiment also relegates the photographer to some sort of mechanical actor simply clicking as nature unmistakeably deigns to provide a spectacle. Rather, the photographer is a creator. Out of the multitude of phenomena out there, most mundane due to overexposure, and some beautiful but hidden due to chance and obscurity, the photographer employs the tools to present a visual selection that derives its aesthetic value from the quality of the elements of the final work itself, rather than an appeal to the 'platonic' source. Color manipulation as a process of visual enhancement is a valid device. The only concern ought to be about representing the processes employed, truthfully.
posted by Gyan at 11:14 PM on July 14, 2005

I rested my case, but nice explanation, Gyan.

Personally, when I take pictures, I'm mostly worried about the detail of the shot. I like to take macros, but I don't think of it as art, and I took back what I said because I don't feel in a position to critique the artfullness of something I don't really see as art.
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:31 PM on July 14, 2005

I think that Walter Benjamin would disagree with Citizen Premier.
As for accuracy it sounds like what your looking for is reality (I assume this partly because of your difficulty in seeing photography as art). However Jean Baudrillard points out that "reduplicating" of the real through simulation produces the "hyperreal." And since (as far as he is concerned at least) we are in a complete state of "hyperrealism" already there would be no point in seeking reality through photography, which for it part helps to create the "hyperreal". Reality "reduplicated" (photography) is "volatilized", and nether the reproduction nor the reproduced are of greater importance. Baudrillard claims this becomes an allegory for death, which makes the whole thing sound pretty arty to me.
posted by iwouldificould at 12:06 AM on July 15, 2005

I don't agree that it's wrong to seek reality through photography. We can see pictures of animals, events or scenes we might never see otherwise. However I simply think that the scenery deserves more credit than the photographer. Photography can be pretty, but never prettier than seeing the real deal for which it represents.
Painting, on the other hand, draws an image directly from an artists imagination. Although some artists, such as Salvador Dali, might develop some of their beauty through a painting error, there is still more talent and credit due to him than to a photographer.

In short, I think photography is artsy, and subject to philisophic study, sure, but not an art of its own, due to the lack of artistic control.
posted by Citizen Premier at 1:12 AM on July 15, 2005

And, I don't think I agree with German Jewish Marxist literary critic and philosopher Walter Benjamin.
posted by Citizen Premier at 1:13 AM on July 15, 2005

Painting, on the other hand, draws an image directly from an artists imagination.

Unless of course the artist is painting a real world landscape or object, or had someone pose, or did extensive studies to get the shading on that tree branch just right. Because if it's something the artist has seen before or is realistically rendered — well, where's the art in that?

In short, I think photography is artsy, and subject to philisophic study, sure, but not an art of its own, due to the lack of artistic control.

I've re-written about a dozen responses to this, but I think I'll just let it be, so as not to get myself called out on MeTa.
posted by rafter at 1:27 AM on July 15, 2005

I disagree, Rafter. The scene the painter painted had to go through his brain and hand first. The scene a camera man captures just goes through his camera.
posted by Citizen Premier at 1:38 AM on July 15, 2005

Thanks Gyan. Beautifully artistic photographs. Erudite analysis.
posted by peacay at 2:15 AM on July 15, 2005

Nice pshopping on basically decent pictures. See also: Andrzej Dragan (sample).

I don't agree that it's wrong to seek reality through photography.

Any good photography requires manipulation of some kind; most of it occurs before the shot is taken.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:19 AM on July 15, 2005

excellent post, gyan.
posted by moonbird at 4:53 AM on July 15, 2005

Absolutely stunning photographs. Ms. Connally is a master of light, composition and color. Thank you Gyan.
posted by caddis at 5:44 AM on July 15, 2005

The scene the painter painted had to go through his brain and hand first. The scene a camera man captures just goes through his camera.

If that's how you take photos, then that probably explains why you don't consider your photography to be art. But for many others, the setup of a photo can be just as involved, if not more so, than a painting. A painter can change what he doesn't like; a photographer has to deal with what's there. That's what makes a good photo art.

Fantastic post, gyan. Good find.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 5:52 AM on July 15, 2005

I love pastoral photography. Very nice.
posted by Savannah at 7:24 AM on July 15, 2005

Citizen Premier, you may not agree with Benjamin but few would argue that his essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", does not a least make a very sound argument for why photography should be considered a type of art. As for control, your concern with chromo-accuracy and the efforts you make to achieve this are just the beginnings of the types of control the photographer takes over the image. The color manipulation in the photos on this post is another artists approach. As for manipulation of photos this occurred well before photoshop. One need only look at the negative of an Ansel Adams photo know the incredible amount of chemical and physical manipulation they went through in the darkroom. The "zone system" being what judged the finished product. I think Gyan also covers very well, some other ways photographers control their medium in camera. I mean simply choosing a type of film is one way to control your medium. Or in the case of digital, iso, white balance exposure and perhaps most importantly weather or not to shoot in raw.
Great post Gyan.
posted by iwouldificould at 9:24 AM on July 15, 2005

Beautiful. Thanks, Gyan.
posted by 27 at 11:52 AM on July 15, 2005

I have to agree that she has a great technical grasp on color and composition, she's really talented. The photos just seem not challenging enough, every photo seems to be something I've seen before in a nostalgic Thomas Kincade way. I'm not saying you have the Queen being eaten out by the Pope to make good art, but everything just has a "blah" feeling to them. Really beautifully and pleasing, there's a gift there, hopefully she goes for a different, less pastoral subject matter.
posted by geoff. at 1:19 PM on July 15, 2005

I should mention, I follow Infrangible closely. The clarity of the photos, the composition and the spontaneous New England college-life charm are really amazing. It rarely falls into cliche and he has a real good sense of how to setup a shot.
posted by geoff. at 1:21 PM on July 15, 2005