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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Pictures that will likely incite a riot on DPC :)
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 48, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/17/2014 12:54:08 PM · #1
Not for "photography" purists, this guy has a wickedly surreal imagination, and does beautiful photo manipulation. Well, IMO...
 05/17/2014 01:06:43 PM · #2
I wish I had 1/2 of his skills! Stunning work.
 05/17/2014 01:39:36 PM · #3
Ahhh...Darius. I've been a long time fan of his work. He was one of my contacts way back on JPGMAG and I've been following him ever since. His stuff is amazing.
 05/17/2014 02:05:36 PM · #4
Great work!
 05/17/2014 02:14:34 PM · #5
The question is, are the composites all his own work (ie. Photos) or is he using stock images to make them?
 05/17/2014 02:18:09 PM · #6
the composites are made up his own photos
 05/17/2014 02:21:52 PM · #7
Originally posted by Garry:
The question is, are the composites all his own work (ie. Photos) or is he using stock images to make them?


It would seem they are.
 05/17/2014 02:27:32 PM · #8
Mostly pretty boring. I don't say that to be contrary, nor am I a photography purist. In fact I'm not even a photographer, really (which might be why I'm unimpressed). But I do love visual arts, whether photography or not. When you've looked at almost any one of these pictures for 10 seconds, you're done: there's nothing left to find, nothing left to experience. The technique is impressive, but that's all there is. Excellent spelling doesn't make a great novel.

Message edited by author 2014-05-17 14:30:14.
 05/17/2014 02:40:41 PM · #9
Originally posted by ubique:
Mostly pretty boring. I don't say that to be contrary, nor am I a photography purist. In fact I'm not even a photographer, really (which might be why I'm unimpressed). But I do love visual arts, whether photography or not. When you've looked at almost any one of these pictures for 10 seconds, you're done: there's nothing left to find, nothing left to experience. The technique is impressive, but that's all there is. Excellent spelling doesn't make a great novel.

Out of curiosity, and somewhat peripherally, but not entirely, how do you feel about Salvador Dali, Paul? Serious question...
 05/17/2014 02:51:16 PM · #10
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ubique:
Mostly pretty boring. I don't say that to be contrary, nor am I a photography purist. In fact I'm not even a photographer, really (which might be why I'm unimpressed). But I do love visual arts, whether photography or not. When you've looked at almost any one of these pictures for 10 seconds, you're done: there's nothing left to find, nothing left to experience. The technique is impressive, but that's all there is. Excellent spelling doesn't make a great novel.

Out of curiosity, and somewhat peripherally, but not entirely, how do you feel about Salvador Dali, Paul? Serious question...


Mostly pretty boring. I don't say that to be contrary (etc).
 05/17/2014 03:47:14 PM · #11
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Out of curiosity, and somewhat peripherally, but not entirely, how do you feel about Salvador Dali, Paul? Serious question...


Mostly pretty boring. I don't say that to be contrary (etc).

That's what I expected, and it's consistent. I quite agree with you, especially on the Dali front. I may find a little more richness than you do in the Darius vein, but I do agree that the work's relatively non-dimensional, doesn't carry a lot of depth. For me a lot of it's arresting, and the skill level's very high, but in the end I can't drink too long at that well without feeling a little bloated.

05/17/2014 03:54:00 PM · #12
Watching Dalì's paintings with your own eyes is an experience you can never forget :)
 05/17/2014 10:23:25 PM · #13
Originally posted by ubique:
Mostly pretty boring. I don't say that to be contrary (etc).


It's fascinating to me what people find "boring". For example, for the most part, purely abstract, or greatly "unfinished" images quickly bore me, with no disrespect intended to the many fine DPC photographers who produce this sort of work. As with any genre, there are exceptions to everything. I look at photographs as an opportunity to be told a story, hear someone else's voice. If I wanted to complete, or create a story, I'd produce the photograph myself.
 05/17/2014 11:23:50 PM · #14
My first response to highly manipulated digital art is usually "how did they do that?" Once this happens the deeper meaning is marginalized. The things Darius does with a camera and software are truly amazing but not what I find interesting about photography.

Message edited by author 2014-05-17 23:54:56.
 05/17/2014 11:59:15 PM · #15
Originally posted by insteps:
My first response to highly manipulated digital art is usually "how did they do that?" Once this happens the deeper meaning is marginalized. The things Darius does with a camera and software is truly amazing but not what I find interesting about photography.


Yes. It seems to nullify the immediacy, the element of happening in the twinkling of an eye.
 05/18/2014 12:04:31 AM · #16
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Out of curiosity, and somewhat peripherally, but not entirely, how do you feel about Salvador Dali, Paul? Serious question...


Mostly pretty boring. I don't say that to be contrary (etc).

That's what I expected, and it's consistent. I quite agree with you, especially on the Dali front. I may find a little more richness than you do in the Darius vein, but I do agree that the work's relatively non-dimensional, doesn't carry a lot of depth. For me a lot of it's arresting, and the skill level's very high, but in the end I can't drink too long at that well without feeling a little bloated.


Well, let me be inconsistent, then. I find this guy boring and I find Dali just about as unboring as it is possible to be.
 05/18/2014 12:28:56 AM · #17
this is SPARTA!!!!!!
 05/18/2014 04:52:25 AM · #18
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by ubique:
Mostly pretty boring. I don't say that to be contrary (etc).


It's fascinating to me what people find "boring". For example, for the most part, purely abstract, or greatly "unfinished" images quickly bore me, with no disrespect intended to the many fine DPC photographers who produce this sort of work. As with any genre, there are exceptions to everything. I look at photographs as an opportunity to be told a story, hear someone else's voice. If I wanted to complete, or create a story, I'd produce the photograph myself.


I can see why these Klimczak pictures would appeal to people interested in digital photography, and particularly in digital manipulation & post-production. But I'm not interested in those things. Putting aside the medium then, and just considering the images as works of artistic expression, these pictures have no real substance. For me the proof of that is the fact that the more of them I look at, the less interested I become in seeing any more. So the wow factor is all there is and once that appeal pales there's nothing else to engage with (well, nothing beyond the incongruity of juxtaposition, but that's a conceptual path far too well travelled to be stimulating).

Regarding stories, I much prefer to complete other people's (visual) stories than to create my own. It's far more adventurous and gives me a kind of "Access All Areas" privilege that's not available any other way. That's the greatest thing about art: that it gives you unrestricted access to everywhere imaginable. Which is why a passion for art appreciation is much more rewarding than being an artist. A durable photograph, or any visual work of art, is a bridge where the creator and the beholder ought to meet somewhere between your side and my side. That's what I dislike about fantastic digital art of the Expert Editing kind; it's too one-sided to hold any lasting interest. It's not a bridge at all, but merely a cul-de-sac. All of that is IMO of course. But do note the absence of a H.

Originally posted by posthumous:
Well, let me be inconsistent, then. I find this guy boring and I find Dali just about as unboring as it is possible to be.

It could be that I simply don't have the breadth of art appreciation experience to engage with Dali. I've always fingered him for a phoney, but that's based on just a small sample of his work, which is all I had the attention span for. So my views are formed largely by The Persistence of Memory and his silly moustache, and I'm not sure that's a big enough sample of his output to make a final judgement. But having said that, looking at The Persistence of Memory and a few other Dali works didn't make me all that keen to spend much time with any more. Contrast with Jackson Pollock or Pablo Picasso, where the first hit of each drove me mad with cravings that are still insatiable.

Message edited by author 2014-05-18 04:53:13.
 05/18/2014 06:12:41 AM · #19
Not for "photography" purists, - which it is not.

this guy has a wickedly surreal imagination, - That he does

and does beautiful photo manipulation. - that he also does

Everything else is just additional.
I agree with the original post but will not bother getting involved with the politics that follows.

I need to concentrate on actually taking my camera out of the damn box and using it again regardless of IF it makes it to Photoshop or not. Bring on TPL

05/18/2014 08:36:38 AM · #20
I don't really care for the photography vs not photography discussion, in this case. Christophe could probably create one of these without using a photomontage for it and photograph it as is. :)

What gets to me, and why I really enjoyed them, is that my mind just doesn't work that way. I've tried so incredibly hard to get more creative, and I've made small steps along the way, but I look at these and actually start losing all hope. No matter how hard I try, I can't get my mind to warp in those ways. I only seem to be able to see the incredibly realistic, and I can't seem to be able to dream.

I don't want to create things that are that photoshop intense, I want to stick with more straight up photography -- and yet a good portion of those can be done in a slightly more straight-up way and not lose the essence of what they are.

And while I consistently try to grow and expand. I still am what I was from the beginning, and I can't see that changing.

There is no hope. :(

Message edited by author 2014-05-18 08:38:23.
 05/18/2014 11:56:51 AM · #21
Paul, everything is a key to exciting exploration. It's just not the same key for everyone ;)

Wendy, only a few people are born with a brain that thinks in those ways, but I have seen your work becoming much more "creative" (whatever that means). I have even left comments to that effect. So there IS "hope" :)
 05/18/2014 12:10:20 PM · #22
Originally posted by vawendy:
And while I consistently try to grow and expand. I still am what I was from the beginning, and I can't see that changing.

There is no hope. :(


“The only photographer you should compare yourself to is the one you used to be.” — Unknown
05/18/2014 06:43:41 PM · #23
As one who tends to be more of a purist, I do not think "photograph" when I view the images.

At the same time, I find them enjoyable and interesting as manipulated art pieces.

I see it much like steak and lobster (surf & turf), neither is the other, but both can be most excellent. And they can compliment each other.
 05/20/2014 02:20:50 PM · #24
Originally posted by ubique:

Originally posted by posthumous:
Well, let me be inconsistent, then. I find this guy boring and I find Dali just about as unboring as it is possible to be.

It could be that I simply don't have the breadth of art appreciation experience to engage with Dali. I've always fingered him for a phoney, but that's based on just a small sample of his work, which is all I had the attention span for. So my views are formed largely by The Persistence of Memory and his silly moustache, and I'm not sure that's a big enough sample of his output to make a final judgement. But having said that, looking at The Persistence of Memory and a few other Dali works didn't make me all that keen to spend much time with any more. Contrast with Jackson Pollock or Pablo Picasso, where the first hit of each drove me mad with cravings that are still insatiable.


Perhaps if you had started with this painting:



but go to Florida and see it in person. This reproduction does not capture the empty glow of it, and loses the detail. Here, you have no idea what is in the trashcan. Connect this image to the title, "Suez."

and then this painting, looking out a window, no gimmicks. Compare this to Magritte's windows. Dali was the real thing.



Dali was the King of WTF. In historical perspective, in the perspective of everyone who stole everything from his work, it's hard to see just how mad he was. But he painted so many things in such a wide range, that you will quickly find images that are not co-opted, and you can experience the Dali WTF for yourself.

05/20/2014 04:11:47 PM · #25
Give.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:45:21 AM

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: 04/19/2024 03:45:21 AM EDT.