Forum Thassos | Forum Grecia

de **pozeDECAT** » Vin Ian 16, 2015 7:38 pm

Mi-au placut si astea: http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/ ... t-know/11/ si http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/ ... st-know/6/

de **florin04** » Vin Ian 16, 2015 8:21 pm

pozeDECAT scrie:Exemplu: http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/ ... andscapes/

Ce se aseamana formatiunea stancoasa din exemplu tau cu una numita "Tripia Petra" din insula greceasca Skiathos

Initial am crezut ca este vorba chiar de ea ... "prelucrata" in Photoshop.

de **Ade** » Sâm Ian 17, 2015 8:59 am

Interesant!
http://aun66-7.diply.com/auntyacid/video-smartphone-photography-tips-tricks/87995

de **demential** » Mar Mar 31, 2015 10:17 am

vai de mine ... ce fotografii ... voi stiati de acest site ? http://thalassa.blog.de/

de **florin04** » Mar Mar 31, 2015 12:06 pm

Pozele sunt superbe :clap:

!
Fara indoiala este vorba de un fotograf profesionist (modul de incadrare, lumina, elementele compozitiei, culorile, etc.).
Eu unul imi doresc sa ajung vreodata la acest nivel...

de **florin04** » Vin Apr 17, 2015 11:42 pm

La rugamintea lui @Demential,va invit sa dezbatem conceptul "Frumusetea se afla in ochiul privitorului" si implicatiile lui in artele vizuale.
Ca un contra-argument, va prezint mai jos punctul de vedere al fotografului Michael Freeman, cu care sunt de acord:

[Sursa: Michael Freeman - The photographer's mind]

"Nevertheless, mention beauty, and the phrase that springs to almost everyone’s mind is “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” This has achieved the status of cliché to the point where few of us even think about how obviously wrong it is. It would be meaningless if only one person—one “beholder”—found a piece of art beautiful, while everyone else dismissed it. Beauty needs a consensus, or at least the possibility.

Whenever we think that we’re shooting something beautiful, or aiming for beauty, there’s an inevitable sense in the back of the mind that other people should also like the result. If they do not, then for an image it means that the taste of the photographer is not meshing with the taste of the audience. That happens often, and it may be to do with failure (the photographer is just not skillful enough) or it may be to do with matching the photography to the wrong audience.

Whether or not it plays a rôle in your photography, we ought to know the basic facts about beauty and looking good. Plato considered it to be about proportion, harmony, and unity, while Aristotle believed it concerned order, symmetry, and definiteness. These are all ideas to which most people would still give a nod. But it was the 18th-century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, who set the path for the study of beauty and art. In particular, beauty is a value, and it is always a positive value.

Beauty in nature, which includes our famous sunsets, as well as rolling and healthy landscapes, blue seascapes, white beaches, and more, is a category that most people agree on—at least within any one culture. Signposted beauty spots and scenic viewpoints are premised on this. Plato’s ideals of proportion, harmony, and unity (that is, it all seems to fit together) are basic components for a beautiful landscape, you’ll recognize that these are qualities of the image as much as of the subject. That is because landscape is an idea that we have about terrain— it’s how we experience the geography of a place."

de **dflc03** » Sâm Apr 18, 2015 8:57 am

florin04 scrie:La rugamintea lui @Demential,va invit sa dezbatem conceptul "Frumusetea se afla in ochiul privitorului" si implicatiile lui in artele vizuale.
Ca un contra-argument, va prezint mai jos punctul de vedere al fotografului Michael Freeman, cu care sunt de acord:

[Sursa: Michael Freeman - The photographer's mind]

"Nevertheless, mention beauty, and the phrase that springs to almost everyone’s mind is “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” This has achieved the status of cliché to the point where few of us even think about how obviously wrong it is. It would be meaningless if only one person—one “beholder”—found a piece of art beautiful, while everyone else dismissed it. Beauty needs a consensus, or at least the possibility.

Whenever we think that we’re shooting something beautiful, or aiming for beauty, there’s an inevitable sense in the back of the mind that other people should also like the result. If they do not, then for an image it means that the taste of the photographer is not meshing with the taste of the audience. That happens often, and it may be to do with failure (the photographer is just not skillful enough) or it may be to do with matching the photography to the wrong audience.

Whether or not it plays a rôle in your photography, we ought to know the basic facts about beauty and looking good. Plato considered it to be about proportion, harmony, and unity, while Aristotle believed it concerned order, symmetry, and definiteness. These are all ideas to which most people would still give a nod. But it was the 18th-century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, who set the path for the study of beauty and art. In particular, beauty is a value, and it is always a positive value.

Beauty in nature, which includes our famous sunsets, as well as rolling and healthy landscapes, blue seascapes, white beaches, and more, is a category that most people agree on—at least within any one culture. Signposted beauty spots and scenic viewpoints are premised on this. Plato’s ideals of proportion, harmony, and unity (that is, it all seems to fit together) are basic components for a beautiful landscape, you’ll recognize that these are qualities of the image as much as of the subject. That is because landscape is an idea that we have about terrain— it’s how we experience the geography of a place."

Foto pe intelesul tuturor... Scurt si la obiect - "Nu e frumos ce e frumos, e frumos ce imi place mie" (suna oricum mai romaneste decat "Frumusetea se afla in ochiul privitorului").

Realitatea e ca Platon, Aristotel si Kant nu au nici o treaba cu apasatul butonului declansator in cazul a 99% din posesorii de camere foto. Respect pe ceilalti 1%, dar ma declar depasit de abordarea asta filozofica.

de **florin04** » Sâm Apr 18, 2015 1:40 pm

Ai dreptate, M. Freeman are o abordare mai filozofica a procesului de fotografiere iar cartile lui sunt cam greu de digerat.
Faptul ca are in spate un mare bagaj cultural, nu-l impiedica sa obtina niste fotografii de coperta NG (http://www.michaelfreemanphoto.com).

Revenind la conceptul de frumusete, cred ca exista un consens in a stabili ca o fotografie este mai frumoasa decat alta (si aici dau ca exemplu unele rezultate ale concursului nostru saptamanal). In majoritatea cadrelor cu peisaje, rasarit/apus de soare sau in cele cu plaje, afirmatia "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" nu prea se aplica...

de **HHR** » Sâm Apr 18, 2015 2:19 pm

Io creca se aplica plenar, avand in vedere ca rareori sunt fotografii fara cel putin un vot. In fine, poate sunt prea hegelian in ceea ce zic ... Ca exista standarde, consens sau majoritati ... nu exclude, de plano, faptul ca frumosul e frumos, pentru privitorul individual, doar dupa ce este filtrat prin propriul simt estetic. Simtul estetic poate fi mai mult sau mai putin educat, poate fi influentat de standardele existente la un moment dat ... dar asta e alta discutie.

de **florin04** » Sâm Apr 18, 2015 11:47 pm

Riscam sa ne pierdem in discutii si sa uitam ca fotografia este unul dintre instrumentele prin care poate fi redata frumusetea lumii.
Iata mai jos un exemplu, o poza de pe net cu parcul Yosemite. Crezi ca aici se mai aplica zicala aia? Si exemplele pot continua...
Schimband registrul, atunci cand te uiti la o pictura cubista sau suprarealista iti poti pune problema de ce mie nu-mi place si altora le place sau invers.
Dar in fata unui asemenea peisaj, de o frumusete bruta, nu poti decat sa apreciezi poza si fotograful care a realizat-o.

de **HHR** » Dum Apr 19, 2015 8:13 am

florin04 scrie:Riscam sa ne pierdem in discutii si sa uitam ca fotografia este unul dintre instrumentele prin care poate fi redata frumusetea lumii.
Iata mai jos un exemplu, o poza de pe net cu parcul Yosemite. Crezi ca aici se mai aplica zicala aia? Si exemplele pot continua...
Schimband registrul, atunci cand te uiti la o pictura cubista sau suprarealista iti poti pune problema de ce mie nu-mi place si altora le place sau invers.

Io creca am fost explicit:

Ca exista standarde, consens sau majoritati ... nu exclude, de plano, faptul ca frumosul e frumos, pentru privitorul individual, doar dupa ce este filtrat prin propriul simt estetic. Simtul estetic poate fi mai mult sau mai putin educat, poate fi influentat de standardele existente la un moment dat .

In afara de asta, nu cred ca te poti substitui tuturor potentialilor privitori pentru a emite judecati estetice general valabile. Nu vad nimic deranjant in a accepta ca ochiul privitorului este suveram in apreciere si fiecare priveste cu ochii din dotare.
Conchizand, zicala aceea se aplica in toate cazurile

de **florin04** » Dum Apr 19, 2015 10:00 am

Ok, nu ma deranjeaza ca avem opinii diferite.
Daca nu mai intra nimeni in discutie, declar subiectul inchis.
:wave:

de **HHR** » Dum Apr 19, 2015 10:31 am

Tocmai asta incercam sa subliniez, prin raportare la tema si nu numai, este firesc ca opiniile sa fie impartite in functie de perceptia fiecaruia ... sau, ca sa folosesc o alta zicala draga mie, "agree to disagree" .

de **demential** » Vin Mai 08, 2015 8:33 pm

Intrebare pentru profesionisti :
Datele problemei : NOAPTE, intuneric BEZNA. Luna - EXTREM DE LUMINOASA. Am umblat la setari de ma dureau degetele ... nu am reusit sa scot nimic senzational.
Unde am gresit ?