DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> A Girl and Her Cat
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 52, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/10/2013 09:40:33 AM · #1
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Cory:


As for the Fusion vs a C class - have you ever driven a good Mercedes or a Maserati or Ferrari?


I've driven several of the high end Mercedes extensively for work (we did work on superchargers for Mercedes). They're an excellent drive, but not worth the expense and they are pretentious.

As a semi-related aside, when I worked in the auto industry, my car broke down at work one day and I couldn't get the part until the next day. Since I didn't want to sleep at work, and no one was willing to drive me an hour to my house and then back, my boss just said, "Take one of the Merc's." So I of course took the biggest, blackest, most expensive one, a 2 door coupe. I just pulled in the garage and parked. My then wife later went out into the garage and came back in very excited, "Where did you get that car?" I just said the, "The old one broke down, so I upgraded to a Mercedes...I work hard, I deserve it." She nearly lost her mind thinking that I'd gone off and bought some $80k car. I just suggested we take it for a little spin after dinner. I thought the whole episode was hilarious but I'm not sure if she was any less pissed off when she found out the truth.


Funny thing... I rented mine the new California, and all of a sudden she thought that maybe a $250,000 car sounded like an OK idea. ;)

I agree though (and so does she really), they're a fantastic piece of machinery, but simply not worth that much to me - still, there's a parallel to Gyaban here as well, since most of us admire him and his work, but wouldn't invest that kind of effort or time into an image ourselves.


Thinking back, I should have kept the car and returned the wife...
04/10/2013 08:48:43 AM · #2

04/09/2013 10:59:25 PM · #3
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Cory:


As for the Fusion vs a C class - have you ever driven a good Mercedes or a Maserati or Ferrari?


I've driven several of the high end Mercedes extensively for work (we did work on superchargers for Mercedes). They're an excellent drive, but not worth the expense and they are pretentious.

As a semi-related aside, when I worked in the auto industry, my car broke down at work one day and I couldn't get the part until the next day. Since I didn't want to sleep at work, and no one was willing to drive me an hour to my house and then back, my boss just said, "Take one of the Merc's." So I of course took the biggest, blackest, most expensive one, a 2 door coupe. I just pulled in the garage and parked. My then wife later went out into the garage and came back in very excited, "Where did you get that car?" I just said the, "The old one broke down, so I upgraded to a Mercedes...I work hard, I deserve it." She nearly lost her mind thinking that I'd gone off and bought some $80k car. I just suggested we take it for a little spin after dinner. I thought the whole episode was hilarious but I'm not sure if she was any less pissed off when she found out the truth.


Funny thing... I rented mine the new California, and all of a sudden she thought that maybe a $250,000 car sounded like an OK idea. ;)

I agree though (and so does she really), they're a fantastic piece of machinery, but simply not worth that much to me - still, there's a parallel to Gyaban here as well, since most of us admire him and his work, but wouldn't invest that kind of effort or time into an image ourselves.



Message edited by author 2013-04-09 23:43:47.
04/09/2013 10:54:17 PM · #4
i think some of these are nice - the method to create them in this case hardly matters.

04/09/2013 10:03:58 PM · #5
Originally posted by Cory:


As for the Fusion vs a C class - have you ever driven a good Mercedes or a Maserati or Ferrari?


I've driven several of the high end Mercedes extensively for work (we did work on superchargers for Mercedes). They're an excellent drive, but not worth the expense and they are pretentious.

As a semi-related aside, when I worked in the auto industry, my car broke down at work one day and I couldn't get the part until the next day. Since I didn't want to sleep at work, and no one was willing to drive me an hour to my house and then back, my boss just said, "Take one of the Merc's." So I of course took the biggest, blackest, most expensive one, a 2 door coupe. I just pulled in the garage and parked. My then wife later went out into the garage and came back in very excited, "Where did you get that car?" I just said the, "The old one broke down, so I upgraded to a Mercedes...I work hard, I deserve it." She nearly lost her mind thinking that I'd gone off and bought some $80k car. I just suggested we take it for a little spin after dinner. I thought the whole episode was hilarious but I'm not sure if she was any less pissed off when she found out the truth.
04/09/2013 05:58:19 PM · #6


dang! that must be a California cat. rei doesn't make boots small enough for ours.

(Why are the guys are so long winded, but the women cut to the chase?)
04/09/2013 05:45:50 PM · #7
Originally posted by sfalice:

To instill a little humor back into this thread (which I think was meant to be humorous at the outset)
I submit this item swiped from a REI advertisement, purporting to outfit the well-traveled cat.


Documentary? Or, just plain cute.


Better quality work than the subject of our discussion. And I don't know that I would ever perceive this as real - it's immediately too outrageous to be real.
04/09/2013 05:44:02 PM · #8
Originally posted by Spork99:


What lead you to believe this was "reality"? I read or saw nothing to indicate such and it is quite apparent that there was at least some degree of photoshop used. There's no artist's statement and all the text, aside from the titles seem to be from whatever reporter put up the story. If you feel deceived, you should blame them and take the images as they are.

I know why one car is less praise worthy than the other, but your analogy is flawed. I'd rather drive the Fusion because Mercedes are overpriced and driving one seems pretentious. Both images are the result of the artist's vision, Gyaban's in response to a challenge and these reflect the artists characterization of his daughter's relationship with her cat. Both are exaggerated, both are part true and part untrue. Preferring one over the other based on your own aesthetic is one thing, but you can't expect a photograph to deliver "reality", especially when it's not presented as such.


Presentation man... That's what led me to at first feel as though I was looking at a girl and her cat interacting together. Then I realized I was not looking at what I thought I was, and since what I WAS looking at wasn't as special to me, I then subsequently felt disappointment as a result.

As for the Fusion vs a C class - have you ever driven a good Mercedes or a Maserati or Ferrari? It's not that they're really all that much different from the Ford - it's just that they're a little more thought out, a little bit better fitting, a touch more comfortable. The difference does exist - it's not something everyone would notice (most owners of these cars probably don't really appreciate why they're so damned good, as they are indeed, as you say, pretentious) Yet, to a real car lover, someone who knows the craft, the fit form and function are something similar to Gyaban's work, created and refined to near perfection. Whereas this work was so much more like the Ford - rough around the edges, not really sold for what it really is, put together well enough, but only well enough. The effect the entire experience had upon me left me feeling disappointed rather than elated, what more can I say than that? I walked away feeling like I had been cheated out of something that would have really been magical if only it were real as I had first supposed it to be. I've never mistaken Gyaban's expert editing for reality, and if anyone ever does do so, then we can rightly guess that they surely must be on some amazing sort of hallucinogenic drugs - the work is too good, too clean, to fantastic and amazing, too surreal. This was not. Again, I can only tell you how it made me feel, and why I suspect it did so.
04/09/2013 05:35:21 PM · #9
To instill a little humor back into this thread (which I think was meant to be humorous at the outset)
I submit this item swiped from a REI advertisement, purporting to outfit the well-traveled cat.


Documentary? Or, just plain cute.
04/09/2013 05:28:57 PM · #10
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Spork99:

For those of you who say that these being composites "ruined" it for you, why?

I assume that all of you edit your photos in the computer. Do you make them more mundane?

Does the idea that the sunset wasn't really that color also "ruin" it for you? or the thought that there were powerlines running through that otherwise pristine landscape also "ruin" the photo for you?

Do Gyaban's composites hold up for you only because they are so fantastical? If he made a realistic composite, would that also be "ruined"?

What happened to simply accepting an artist's execution of his vision for what it is and not requiring it to be a documented reality?


Presentation man.

I don't mind driving a Ford Fusion - but if the client promises me a Mercedes C class rental car, and I show up and find out I've been assigned to the Ford Fusion I would be very disappointed. I love Ford Fusions, they're fine cars, but if I was promised something more, then failing to meet those expectations deals a psychological blow. It's no different with photography.

The point here is this: The images were presented as captures he set up and shot - if that was true they would be just mind-blowingly great. As it is, they are good, but since I was sold on something more I was left just a little disappointed.

Ruined? Probably too strong of a word really, but I can say for sure that the presentation over-promised and under-delivered.


I didn't see anything in the article that claimed they were anything of the sort.

In any event, only a few of them (like the juggling one and the carrot eating one) seem to be really composites. Why do you equate the composite with being less praise-worthy, (a Ford Fusion vs. a Mercedes)? As an image, why does the process of creation matter to the viewer of the end result? I take it that you're much more impressed with the work of someone like Jerry Uelsmann who works with negatives and chemicals in the darkroom than someone Gyaban who does everything in the computer.

And no, I'm not necessarily singling you out Cory. It's a fairly common attitude that I find incomprehensible.


I'm impressed with both - but Gyaban makes it very clear that he is creating a fantasy. This was presented as reality, and was fantasy - really, it doesn't stand up to muster for fantasy, and it isn't real, so why should it be called great?

As for why it is less praise-worth, it's exactly the same reasons a Ford Fusion isn't as praise worthy as a Mercedes - simply effort, style, and quality of results. Nothing more.


What lead you to believe this was "reality"? I read or saw nothing to indicate such and it is quite apparent that there was at least some degree of photoshop used. There's no artist's statement and all the text, aside from the titles seem to be from whatever reporter put up the story. If you feel deceived, you should blame them and take the images as they are.

I know why one car is less praise worthy than the other, but your analogy is flawed. I'd rather drive the Fusion because Mercedes are overpriced and driving one seems pretentious. Both images are the result of the artist's vision, Gyaban's in response to a challenge and these reflect the artists characterization of his daughter's relationship with her cat. Both are exaggerated, both are part true and part untrue. Preferring one over the other based on your own aesthetic is one thing, but you can't expect a photograph to deliver "reality", especially when it's not presented as such.

Message edited by author 2013-04-09 17:32:26.
04/09/2013 05:12:37 PM · #11
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Spork99:

For those of you who say that these being composites "ruined" it for you, why?

I assume that all of you edit your photos in the computer. Do you make them more mundane?

Does the idea that the sunset wasn't really that color also "ruin" it for you? or the thought that there were powerlines running through that otherwise pristine landscape also "ruin" the photo for you?

Do Gyaban's composites hold up for you only because they are so fantastical? If he made a realistic composite, would that also be "ruined"?

What happened to simply accepting an artist's execution of his vision for what it is and not requiring it to be a documented reality?


Presentation man.

I don't mind driving a Ford Fusion - but if the client promises me a Mercedes C class rental car, and I show up and find out I've been assigned to the Ford Fusion I would be very disappointed. I love Ford Fusions, they're fine cars, but if I was promised something more, then failing to meet those expectations deals a psychological blow. It's no different with photography.

The point here is this: The images were presented as captures he set up and shot - if that was true they would be just mind-blowingly great. As it is, they are good, but since I was sold on something more I was left just a little disappointed.

Ruined? Probably too strong of a word really, but I can say for sure that the presentation over-promised and under-delivered.


I didn't see anything in the article that claimed they were anything of the sort.

In any event, only a few of them (like the juggling one and the carrot eating one) seem to be really composites. Why do you equate the composite with being less praise-worthy, (a Ford Fusion vs. a Mercedes)? As an image, why does the process of creation matter to the viewer of the end result? I take it that you're much more impressed with the work of someone like Jerry Uelsmann who works with negatives and chemicals in the darkroom than someone Gyaban who does everything in the computer.

And no, I'm not necessarily singling you out Cory. It's a fairly common attitude that I find incomprehensible.


I'm impressed with both - but Gyaban makes it very clear that he is creating a fantasy. This was presented as reality, and was fantasy - really, it doesn't stand up to muster for fantasy, and it isn't real, so why should it be called great?

As for why it is less praise-worth, it's exactly the same reasons a Ford Fusion isn't as praise worthy as a Mercedes - simply effort, style, and quality of results. Nothing more.
04/09/2013 05:12:07 PM · #12
Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by tnun:

It is not a question about photography, nor the photographs, but about the presentation: "His series of photos, entitled "Little Girl and Tomcat," captured moments between the two and their interactions with both objects and themselves."

Or perhaps "captured moments" is an elastic term.

I say we have a challenge. Captured Carrots, say.


You're confusing what a yahoo news article is saying about a photographer with what the photographer is saying himself. The photographer is Russian. He doesn't seem to have his own website, but does have facebook, photo.net, and pinterest pages, none of which seem to have much text on them at all, except for the titles of the images.

edit....photo.net, not google. Doh!


good point. but I don't think I was confusing anything, merely reporting on the possibly misleading presentation by whomwhatever. I do think this sentence set us all up consciously or unconsciously to believe the photos were documentary.
04/09/2013 04:04:01 PM · #13
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The series doesn't appeal to me because I feel like my emotions are being manipulated in an untruthful way. Contrived composition = contrived emotions. It doesn't feel real to me. Gyaban and Jerry Uelsmann pictures are presented as fantastical but the subject of these pics are the relationship and interactions between kat and kid. The former's purpose is to stretch the truth, the latter to depict the truth. Not all paintings or photographs are created equal just because they exist. I guess it depends on the viewers' degree to which he or she is willing to suspend reality for a given subject.


All photos are a skewed depiction of the "truth". No photo is completely true. Just by framing a scene, the photographer, at the moment a photograph is created, selects what to include and what to hide from the viewer. The deception only increases from there. In this case, I see no claim of truthfulness on the part of the artist, any expectation of truth comes from the viewer. .

An early example of "untruthful" photographs, which many argued for years were evidence that fairies exist. The Cottingley Fairies
04/09/2013 03:47:40 PM · #14
Originally posted by SaraR:

Originally posted by Spork99:


OK, so you require a "truth" to a photograph, why? Manipulating photos and artists expressing themselves that way is almost as old as photography itself. Every photograph is to some degree, a lie and also a truth.

If the photo were of a different subject, say a sunset on a beach, and the image was of the most beautiful sunset you had ever seen, would you be similarly let down to know that the original capture had powerlines, the colors were much less intense, there was trash on the beach and sunburned tourists wearing shorts with loafers and black socks?

How about a painting? Do you expect a painting to hold the same "truth" of what is shown? Why or why not? Shouldn't an artist using a camera be as freed from depicting reality as a painter?


I require a truth in some images I look at; not in others. If I want to view a 'pretty picture' I am not bothered about the truth behind it; if I want to view fine art, I am probably not bothered about the truth behind it. If I view a landscape, I am more bothered, and with wildlife photography, the integrity of the shot as captured is very important to me. In the girl and the cat series, I was initially entranced by the special connection that seemed to exist, but as it became clear that wasn't what was actually being photographed, i lost interest. I don't really see why that is such a problem to you.


It's not a "problem" to me. I'm just curious about the different ways people think about art. I appreciate your replies and those replies have generated more questions for me, which you have graciously answered. I'm definitely not trying to "call you out", put you on the spot or tell you you're wrong. I apologize if I've made you feel that way, that was not my intent.

Message edited by author 2013-04-09 15:48:50.
04/09/2013 03:28:55 PM · #15
Originally posted by tnun:

It is not a question about photography, nor the photographs, but about the presentation: "His series of photos, entitled "Little Girl and Tomcat," captured moments between the two and their interactions with both objects and themselves."

Or perhaps "captured moments" is an elastic term.

I say we have a challenge. Captured Carrots, say.


You're confusing what a yahoo news article is saying about a photographer with what the photographer is saying himself. The photographer is Russian. He doesn't seem to have his own website, but does have facebook, photo.net, and pinterest pages, none of which seem to have much text on them at all, except for the titles of the images.

edit....photo.net, not google. Doh!

Message edited by author 2013-04-09 15:31:18.
04/09/2013 03:22:01 PM · #16
Originally posted by Spork99:


OK, so you require a "truth" to a photograph, why? Manipulating photos and artists expressing themselves that way is almost as old as photography itself. Every photograph is to some degree, a lie and also a truth.

If the photo were of a different subject, say a sunset on a beach, and the image was of the most beautiful sunset you had ever seen, would you be similarly let down to know that the original capture had powerlines, the colors were much less intense, there was trash on the beach and sunburned tourists wearing shorts with loafers and black socks?

How about a painting? Do you expect a painting to hold the same "truth" of what is shown? Why or why not? Shouldn't an artist using a camera be as freed from depicting reality as a painter?


I require a truth in some images I look at; not in others. If I want to view a 'pretty picture' I am not bothered about the truth behind it; if I want to view fine art, I am probably not bothered about the truth behind it. If I view a landscape, I am more bothered, and with wildlife photography, the integrity of the shot as captured is very important to me. In the girl and the cat series, I was initially entranced by the special connection that seemed to exist, but as it became clear that wasn't what was actually being photographed, i lost interest. I don't really see why that is such a problem to you.

04/09/2013 03:20:34 PM · #17
The series doesn't appeal to me because I feel like my emotions are being manipulated in an untruthful way. Contrived composition = contrived emotions. It doesn't feel real to me. Gyaban and Jerry Uelsmann pictures are presented as fantastical but the subject of these pics are the relationship and interactions between kat and kid. The former's purpose is to stretch the truth, the latter to depict the truth. Not all paintings or photographs are created equal just because they exist. I guess it depends on the viewers' degree to which he or she is willing to suspend reality for a given subject.
04/09/2013 03:20:28 PM · #18
In Sara and Cory's defense, I agree that the weakest images in the series are also the ones that are most blatantly manipulated (juggling? c'mon!), but all of photography is an attempt to get the viewer to see and feel the photographer's vision. We take pictures of "wild" animals at the zoo, and frame our shots so that only the parts that complement our vision are inside the frame. We enhance the colors of sky and sea, or convert to black and white. And we ask people to pose for us. Isn't having someone pose a form of manipulation?

So where does truth end and manipulation begin. Even bvy, the most truth seeking of all of us, makes artistic choices about which direction to point the camera. At least most of the time, anyway.
04/09/2013 03:13:06 PM · #19
It is not a question about photography, nor the photographs, but about the presentation: "His series of photos, entitled "Little Girl and Tomcat," captured moments between the two and their interactions with both objects and themselves."

Or perhaps "captured moments" is an elastic term.

I say we have a challenge. Captured Carrots, say.
04/09/2013 02:20:02 PM · #20
Originally posted by SaraR:

Originally posted by Spork99:

....In any event, why do you equate the composite with being less praise-worthy? As an image, why does the process of creation matter to the viewer of the end result? ....It's a fairly common attitude that I find incomprehensible.


I can only speak for myself, but in this case, part of the initial charm was that I was witnessing a very special and remarkable relationship between a child and her cat; it was the combination of this with the quality of the photography that drove my initial reaction. Take away the 'truth' of what I am seeing and I am just left with a clever picture to admire, not a photograph that draws me in, makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Not being very articulate here, I'm afraid!


OK, so you require a "truth" to a photograph, why? Manipulating photos and artists expressing themselves that way is almost as old as photography itself. Every photograph is to some degree, a lie and also a truth.

If the photo were of a different subject, say a sunset on a beach, and the image was of the most beautiful sunset you had ever seen, would you be similarly let down to know that the original capture had powerlines, the colors were much less intense, there was trash on the beach and sunburned tourists wearing shorts with loafers and black socks?

How about a painting? Do you expect a painting to hold the same "truth" of what is shown? Why or why not? Shouldn't an artist using a camera be as freed from depicting reality as a painter?

04/09/2013 02:09:49 PM · #21
Originally posted by Spork99:

....In any event, why do you equate the composite with being less praise-worthy? As an image, why does the process of creation matter to the viewer of the end result? ....It's a fairly common attitude that I find incomprehensible.


I can only speak for myself, but in this case, part of the initial charm was that I was witnessing a very special and remarkable relationship between a child and her cat; it was the combination of this with the quality of the photography that drove my initial reaction. Take away the 'truth' of what I am seeing and I am just left with a clever picture to admire, not a photograph that draws me in, makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Not being very articulate here, I'm afraid!
04/09/2013 01:38:49 PM · #22
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Spork99:

For those of you who say that these being composites "ruined" it for you, why?

I assume that all of you edit your photos in the computer. Do you make them more mundane?

Does the idea that the sunset wasn't really that color also "ruin" it for you? or the thought that there were powerlines running through that otherwise pristine landscape also "ruin" the photo for you?

Do Gyaban's composites hold up for you only because they are so fantastical? If he made a realistic composite, would that also be "ruined"?

What happened to simply accepting an artist's execution of his vision for what it is and not requiring it to be a documented reality?


Presentation man.

I don't mind driving a Ford Fusion - but if the client promises me a Mercedes C class rental car, and I show up and find out I've been assigned to the Ford Fusion I would be very disappointed. I love Ford Fusions, they're fine cars, but if I was promised something more, then failing to meet those expectations deals a psychological blow. It's no different with photography.

The point here is this: The images were presented as captures he set up and shot - if that was true they would be just mind-blowingly great. As it is, they are good, but since I was sold on something more I was left just a little disappointed.

Ruined? Probably too strong of a word really, but I can say for sure that the presentation over-promised and under-delivered.


I didn't see anything in the article that claimed they were anything of the sort.

In any event, only a few of them (like the juggling one and the carrot eating one) seem to be really composites. Why do you equate the composite with being less praise-worthy, (a Ford Fusion vs. a Mercedes)? As an image, why does the process of creation matter to the viewer of the end result? I take it that you're much more impressed with the work of someone like Jerry Uelsmann who works with negatives and chemicals in the darkroom than someone Gyaban who does everything in the computer.

And no, I'm not necessarily singling you out Cory. It's a fairly common attitude that I find incomprehensible.

Message edited by author 2013-04-09 14:10:03.
04/09/2013 01:31:22 PM · #23
Originally posted by Neil:

But why was he drawing a cat rather than the girl!


Because that's how cats see the world, of course.

Ruined because it was a composite....jeez. What's wrong with just enjoying something because it's sweet and funny? Does it really have to be a masterpiece of both art and cat wrangling before it's acceptable?

edit...punctuation

Message edited by author 2013-04-09 13:38:52.
04/09/2013 12:44:32 PM · #24
Originally posted by Neil:

...But why was he drawing a cat rather than the girl!

Striped cat... girl has on striped shirt.
04/09/2013 12:33:39 PM · #25
The last picture "How to Make a Masterpiece" was really bogus...how can that cat take a masterpiece picture of the girl with her foot on the tripod? ;)

Good series. I do have to say the first role reversal in "Paint it Funny" almost made me choke on the carrot I was eating from laughing. But why was he drawing a cat rather than the girl!

Thanks for posting Deb.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 05:18:54 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 05:18:54 PM EDT.