This is brilliant, It is true art when you can combine different techniques to produce an image you had in mind. To many times we hand cuff ourselves to stay within the norm and lose our creativity. Purest will argue this style to no end, just like when film died, just like when photo shopwas first used. I say well done Cory.
Cory is the image on your monitor a capture you did. If it is I think you are brilliant and well desirve accalaids. I would love to see an image of the actual setup.
Cutting edge brilliance
It's photoshopped, not a capture.
Dunno where that leaves us. :)
I think after Don's reaction to this one, I'm done with the technique.
Cory is the image on your monitor a capture you did. If it is I think you are brilliant and well desirve accalaids. I would love to see an image of the actual setup.
Cutting edge brilliance
Just to be clear, I have no problem with your process, nor do I have any reason to question your originality (amount of effort is just completely beside the point)...
but the process of putting a physical "filter" in front of a computer monitor seems like a complete subversion of the Advanced Editing Ruleset... by the site's #1 Narc.
Well I totally appreciate what you're saying Don. But to my thought process, the critical point comes with the total manipulation of the image and the fact that I'm focused on the filter, not the monitor. If I were focusing on the monitor, instead of the 'filter', then I would absolutely agree that it was a complete subversion of the ruleset.
*shrug*
In any case, we'll see what the SC has to say about it, and what the hell, walking these edges is how we find out where the cliff starts. I'll walk.
Besides, you can't charge me with being unfair - I've revealed my techniques, and even self-reported to the SC for validation because you were concerned. I'm no hypocrite Don, but your statement might easily be read that way.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with your process, nor do I have any reason to question your originality (amount of effort is just completely beside the point)...
but the process of putting a physical "filter" in front of a computer monitor seems like a complete subversion of the Advanced Editing Ruleset... by the site's #1 Narc.
I'm pretty sure I see more than mylar in this photo. It looks like la llorona to me. But if your mylar is a soul-eating spirit from the other side, I'm sure SC will validate you.
Well of course you do. And I thought that was the point of this indistinct sort of photography? To make the mind play games with the senses.
What you really see is a set of colored blotches that arrange themselves into a face. Would you feel any differently if I had projected the image onto a reflective surface? Cause I don't have any technological deficiencies that would prevent me from creating this same image any one of three or four ways.
I'm pretty sure I see more than mylar in this photo. It looks like la llorona to me. But if your mylar is a soul-eating spirit from the other side, I'm sure SC will validate you.
so, you are taking photos of your monitor and it's getting validated?
Just a thought for you Don. I think it's pretty darn likely that I worked a lot harder on this than you do on almost anything you submit.
Tell me, how long does it take you to set up and shoot an entry? Including editing?
Took me about three hours for this. Photographing my monitor indeed. Not sure why you would feel a need to put it like that - but, when we spoke at length about it last time, you were pretty clear, if I feel like I'm doing something beyond photographing my monitor, and if I'm really modifying the image, adding myself into it, then I'm creating something new and valid. Or so I though I understood you to have said. In the end, I'm focused on the surface of a piece of plastic, taped to a box, an inch or two away from my monitor, with plastic wrap in between, and I experimented and adjusted the relative angles carefully to play with focus/detail, all this with my camera attached to my desk on a magic arm, with a remote, so I can get the shot without the camera moving and destroying the fine grain and scratches on the mylar. I mean, come on man - how many entries of yours did you work that hard for? Really? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me the often many of your shots are honestly just serendipitous shots that managed to capture something that strikes your fancy. Maybe I'm wrong- but do you envision then shoot, or shoot, then fantasize? Perhaps that's why you do not appreciate the effort put into a 'monitor shot' like this one.
Really man... I think I earned it, and I feel a little betrayed by you on this. I even had your advice about it in mind as I was shooting, and tried hard to add extra dimension to it. An example is the deliberate placement of the splotches, the extra plastic wrap, etc. And now, you hit me with this "picture of your monitor" crap. I didn't really expect that from you to be honest.
so, you are taking photos of your monitor and it's getting validated?
No. I'm taking pictures of mylar and it's getting validated.
Saying that I'm photographing my monitor is inflammatory, especially since it is directly after a post where I explained exactly why I am not simply photographing my monitor. And you have, indeed, inflamed me a bit. ;)
I'm photographing my monitor about as much as a landscape photographer is photographing the sun.
You might as well say that I'm photographing a flashlight, because there was one in the box that was illuminating the mylar too.
In fact, I lit this with my monitor and a flashlight too. Does the fact that it's a fully opaque surface really matter that much?
I promise you that if I had simply photographed my monitor, I'd definitely have ended up on the other end of the stack.
I'll prove it sometime soon, by entering a photo of my monitor.
Scary image. Just wondering, is it another monitor picture? Was the last one validated too (the one you called yourself out on)?
Well, to call it a 'monitor picture' seems a little off base.
It was accomplished by photoshopping an image up, then placing a layer of plastic wrap over my monitor, then placing a sheet of frosted mylar(which I have 'treated' with coffee, oils, and sandpaper) on a cut-out in a box, and then focused on and shot the mylar with just a bit of back-lighting to enhance textures.
So yeah. It's a 'monitor picture', or at least, the monitor is what's providing the blotchy patches of colored light.
It's much more similar really to the ribbon from the cutout challenge which was validated ages ago, although I did add in a bit more work to the process this time to get a more creative result and to hopefully satisfy those who question whether or not this is a valid technique. In any case, it's significantly more involved than simply snapping a picture of my monitor.
As for the validation on the one I called myself out on? Still no word. SC is either debating it still, or have simply forgotten? No idea. In the end though, I decided to enter as I thought the technique was amazingly well suited to this challenge, and I don't see much difference between projecting light from a monitor onto this surface, or projecting the light through a lens onto this surface.. (since it's basically the same material I use in my large-format digital machine...).
La Llorona
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
