Leaves, On and Off

I saw this while driving in the country in NW Ohio, and had to stop and shoot it. Late, late afternoon.

Posted by Ruth Rittichier on Sat, 12/01/07 19:29
[ Back to Index | Home | Previous Image | Next Image ]


Comments by Jan Bjorklund on Sat, 12/01/07 19:54

Striking autumnal color in the foliage of the tree with the angled lighting working to enhance the yellow hue of the leaves. These trees look like they should be the perfect candidates for a seasonal display covering from Spring to Winter.


Comments by Linda Frey on Sat, 12/01/07 22:21

The light is quite surreal. Great that you caught both leaves on the trees, and freshly fallen, making a solid blanket on the ground.


Comments by Christie on Sat, 12/01/07 22:24

Beautiful tree color Ruth!


Comments by Steve Owen on Sat, 12/01/07 23:47

Beautiful--well worth the effort to stop. Wonderful light and the leaves on the ground add a great deal.


Comments by G.B. SHETTLER on Sat, 12/01/07 23:55

LUcky You, Ruth. Good eye, good photo !


Comments by DebbiK on Sun, 12/02/07 08:49

the simple color palette, the glow of the leaves on the tree and the ground, the golden rule of composition-all these elements make this a very strong photograph-print it and hang it!


Comments by Rick Longworth on Sun, 12/02/07 09:33

Nice. From the air the leaves under the trees looks like spreading watercolor.


Comments by Joseph Liftik on Sun, 12/02/07 09:44

ditto above, a tiny bit too much sky imo i'd crop out a bit


Comments by Pietro Cecchi on Sun, 12/02/07 19:18

a great photo, of value...
superbly taken and perfectly arranged...
I think is one of the best of this mostly gone autumn...


Comments by Josiah Friberg on Sun, 12/02/07 20:01

I like the colors and the composition. The yellow is amazing on the tree and on the ground. However, on my monitor it looks a tab bit oversaturated. My only suggestion would be to desaturate the yellow a little and crop a bit of sky out.


Comments by Maria Koutala on Mon, 12/03/07 15:52

beautiful photo, nice warm autumn colours.


Comments by Julie M. Dant on Tue, 12/04/07 14:30

Agree with all the positive above, Ruth. You finally found your lone tree (well lone TWO trees)there in Ohio!! Good for you. How far did you have to go away from home to find this?
It is really a beautiful photo. Is this Raintree County? ;0)


Comments by BruceMackh on Tue, 12/04/07 14:54

I apologize for doing this on this offering...because it applies more aptly to just about
everything else posted...

The contribution of "digital" to photography, whether this IS digital or not (and most color
is these days), is the surreal mix of fact and fantasy in relation to color--pushing visuality
as it relates to color so far past bizarre it's hard to fathom. It can only be akin to an
impressionistic interpretation. But, what of real color? And, given the problems and
questions...what is real color? Is color so pushed that it becomes the subject and meaning
rather than the subject matter?

This, I'll say... If it were a total digital manipulation, the sky would be more of an unholy
blue! Thank goodness it isn't!

Closer.


Comments by Maria Salvador on Tue, 12/04/07 18:01

Ditto to Linda and Christie's comments. Very nice.


Comments by Ruth Rittichier on Tue, 12/04/07 18:11

Bruce, interesting point. It all started with Velvia film. Kodachrome was more realistic. From Velvia, and the media world, the viewing public has come to expect very saturated color as being natural. Since the time of color in photographic film, I think color has often become the subject.

But then consider Matisse, who said to "seek the strongest color effect possible. The content is of no importance."

Think of someone wearing a bright red coat, or paddling a red kayak. Do you see the person or the red sweater or kayak? Same goes for bright whites.


Comments by BruceMackh on Tue, 12/04/07 21:20

Ruth,

Thank you for your response to my comments. Good response, too. But...

Ah, the ol' photographs should look more painterly argument!

I’m NO expert on painting! Matisse, however, was heavily influenced by impressionism and
post-impressionism. One can't overlook his association with John Peter Russell and J.M.W.
Turner. Matisse tried a lot of things, including pointillism. In the end, however, it was
"color" by which Matisse is best remembered. Also remember, that for much of his life,
photography was a black and white issue. Lastly, and perhaps most important to
consider...that besides Cezanne--the father of modernism--Matisse...is remembered as
one of the most influential modernists.

Things to consider... What was the initial intentionalistic reasoning behind your decision to
take this picture? Why did you use Velvia? In what genre do you concentrate your efforts?
Is “color” the “subject?” Especially in light of your Matisse association, why did you then
photoshop this into an impressionistic representation?

I think there certainly is valid reasoning behind pushing color as an aesthetic choice in
order to influence both content and meaning (some very annoying people use these words
interchangeably).

In the end, this is a photograph, would you agree?

------WebKitFormBoundaryZ8vuWWyf+Sfx9eJ7


Comments by Ruth Rittichier on Tue, 12/04/07 22:41

Bruce, this particular version is a photograph. The other version became artwork as soon as I applied brushes to it to make my impression of the scene. The media doesn't matter; it's the end result that matters.


Comments by richard cramb on Wed, 12/05/07 04:31

Nice post ruth.
Q.Bruce do photographers when printing from negative never manipulate
colour using chemicals or Manipulate with filters?
the answer is yes they do so why pick on digital manipulation.
and when can we see some of your work ?


Comments by BruceMackh on Wed, 12/05/07 11:51

Uh oh... Ruth states: "This particular version is a photograph. The other version became
artwork as soon as I applied brushes to it to make my impression of the scene. The media
doesn't matter; it's the end result that matters."

Personally, I'm of duchampian leanings when it comes to what is classified as art. But, an
excellent book on the topic is: The Art Question, by Nigel Warburton.+


Comments by BruceMackh on Wed, 12/05/07 11:54

Richard,

All photography is a manipulation. It is an imperfect truth. But, I bristle with the notion that
photos should be more painterly, or for that matter...that paintings should be more
photographic. Painting is painting, photography is photography. Not that the two can't
borrow from one another, or that media can't be mixed...it is extremely valid if it does. But,
when defining and interpreting art intentionalistically, one needs to give consideration to the
issues.
------WebKitFormBoundaryl6+ww80kxsy70T4I


Comments by Ruth Rittichier on Wed, 12/05/07 12:16

Bruce, Why? What difference does it make? It's the end result that matters.


Comments by AG Laycock on Wed, 12/05/07 12:20

A good discussion. I tend towards Bruce's ideology that there is no reason to try and blur the the border between photography and painting. It's old news and had it's time during the Pictorialist movement when photography was held in low esteem in the art world.

Colour has been used for many reasons in the past and continues today. In some cases the photos are colour studies and in others they are there to push forward reality, regardless if it's appealing or not. William Eggleston, one of the 'fathers' of modern colour photography, had most of his work printed using the dye transfer method and requested certain colours to be strengthened to enhance the mood of the photo - or something like that.

I also agree with Bruce that digital manipulation has increased the predominance of oversaturated colours, at least in popular photography. This desire by the masses has always been there but until now it was difficult to achieve unless you had the money and/or advanced skills.

Ruth I'm confused by your statement that your image only became artwork when you applied 'brush strokes' to it. Do you not consider photography to be art?


Comments by Ruth Rittichier on Wed, 12/05/07 12:41

AG, bad choice of words. Technically it can't be called a painting, because no physical paint was applied. But it was painted virtually, so I'll correct that to the word, "painting."


Comments by BruceMackh on Wed, 12/05/07 12:53

Ruth,

This is not, perhaps, the best example...because of the original methodology before
mechanical reproduction. Nevertheless, explain then Mr. Thomas Kinkade who has as his
first step in reproduction...mechanical application of pigment to canvas before an
assistant's hand ever touches it...BEFORE...he signs stacks of these things.

Or, take for instance Warhol, who put lighter fluid on magazine prints, stuck it to another
surface (paper or canvas) in order to make a transfer and said, "I made a drawing."

Mechanical production...any production really...does not necessarily render anything not
art, art, or preclude it from consideration in one of any number of specific disciplines.

And, even in a post-modern world, the end result still relies upon intention. Can you
honestly say you "randomly" get to the end result without some intention? Happy
accidents do exist, but can't be depended upon for everything.


Comments by AG Laycock on Wed, 12/05/07 13:15

“The other version became artwork as soon as I applied brushes to it to make my impression of the scene.”

Ruth, I was referring to this statment. To me it implies that photography is only art if you do something to it to alter it from the original. Is that correct?


Comments by Ruth Rittichier on Wed, 12/05/07 13:17

I'd never say I got there with no intention. I often take pictures with the intention of painting them, having a good idea of how I want the painting to look.

I don't know why Kinkade does that. He's a master marketer, and I'm sure that has something to do with it.

Please refer to my response on the painted version, about mechanical reproductions.


Comments by AG Laycock on Wed, 12/05/07 13:51

Ruth, can straight photography be art in your opinion?


Comments by richard cramb on Wed, 12/05/07 14:32

art human skill:produced by art and not by nature.
art painting,sculpture,etc. I think photography and digital manipulation fall into both categorys.
Chambers dictionary definition.


Comments by richard cramb on Wed, 12/05/07 14:37

photography the art of taking pictures by means of a camera.
AG the answer to can straight photography be art , is yes.


Comments by AG Laycock on Wed, 12/05/07 14:42

Thanks Richard, but I was asking Ruth. I was not sure about a statement she made earlier in the thread. Everyone has a different defintion of art.


Comments by Tony Scheuhammer on Wed, 12/05/07 15:13

while Ruth is thinking about her answer ... :)) ... I will say that I think photography can be art, but that "enhanced" photographs have a better chance of being viewed as art than the "non-enhanced" variety. "Enhanced" can mean anything from applying wet darkroom techniques to manipulate the image (such as Ansel Adams did), to digitally modifying the image to be, in the eyes of the artist, more expressive. Non-enhanced photos can be art too, but usually they come across as just snapshots; or too formulaic. But not always.

As for the notion that it's a bad idea to mix photography and other forms of art, that's just bs. Lot's of artists do this, and they do great work. Nobody has to do it if they don't want to.

So if photographers who attmept to achieve a painterly look to their photos are somehow hurting the art of photography, can't it also be said that photorealist painters are hurting the art of painting? What a pile of nonsense.


Comments by Ruth Rittichier on Wed, 12/05/07 15:36

Tony, you said it better than I could.


Comments by AG Laycock on Wed, 12/05/07 15:51

Tony I don’t think there is any problem with combining photography with other art forms. Multimedia art, which combines all sorts of disciplines, has been around a long time and has provided some great and important works of art. However, this is not the same thing. This was using a photo as a base for a process to produce something that is meant to look exactly like an oil painting. In Ruth’s words it’s indistinguishable from a real painting.

Kudos to Ruth for being able to imitate a painting without getting her hands dirty. I'd never put anything like this on my walls but I know millions of people would and that's what's important.


Comments by Ruth Rittichier on Wed, 12/05/07 16:07

Andy, I didn't say MINE was indistinquishable from a real painting, but there are a lot of artists who can do that.


Comments by BruceMackh on Wed, 12/05/07 16:15

Photography IS art, to be sure...so long as it was either made to be art, has significant form,
has received recognition, has family resemblance—work like it exists, and if it offers the
interpretive embrace.

Read “The Art Question,” by Nigel Warburton.

Now, whether it’s good or not…is a matter of taste.


Comments by Ruth Rittichier on Wed, 12/05/07 16:19

Do you like the impressionists' paintings? They weren't recognized, and were said to not be art because they were only an impression and not a real reproduction of what was seen.


Comments by AG Laycock on Wed, 12/05/07 16:26

Ruth, when you bring up the Impressionists struggles to be recognized are you referring to the question of 'what is art?' or are you using them as an example of what I have been arguing in your case?

If it's the former I totally agree, and you can add Cubism and most other new forms of art to the list.

It's not the same thing as making fake brush strokes though.


Comments by Michael Hibbitts on Wed, 12/05/07 16:42

Actually - Ruth, this is a very nicely conceived piece of digital photography in and of itself. Your further exploration using the Wacom is, in my opinion, less successful and that may be entirely based on my built-in prejudice and predilection for authentic traditional painting.
If I were to attempt a traditional painting from this visual (which I would not do w/o permission) I might use a complementary color contrast color selection to render shadows purple/lavender in contrast to those vivid yellow leaves varying the hue intensity. This original has so much more luminosity and aerial perspective when compared to the digital "faux-painting" rendering/redo. 8-)


Comments by Ruth Rittichier on Wed, 12/05/07 16:49

Michael, go ahead, and have at it. I like your idea of the purples.


Comments by BruceMackh on Wed, 12/05/07 16:59

I love the impressionist movement! I think it is as valid as anything. I think there can be
digital painting, digital photography, digital drawing...heck, at the University I'm at they
can make sculpture rise out of goo simply by creating something on a computer and
hitting a button on a keyboard. Digital IS here to stay.

A very good friend of mine asked me the other day... "Do you think Atget would have used
a digital camera had the technology been around in his day?" I felt the answer would have
been, YES! Aget studied Paris over 35 years. I would have to imagine that his work would
have greatly been aided by the immediacy of digital.

But, returning to what's real... It's all real, but how would you classify it...that's the
question.

Next, Duchamp was of the opinion that, "It's art because I said so!" Tipping over a urinal
and signing “R. Mutt“ upon it hardly took effort, but did take thought via conceptualism.
There was the artist’s hand. And, remember, Duchamp was shut out.

Pollack! Painting? Of course! He recently sold for 140 million bucks!!!

Abstract expressionism, however, was only championed by Greenberg for a long time until
it caught fire.


Comments by JP Zorn on Wed, 12/05/07 17:19

while we're at it i would be interested in seeing the original file of this image. just would like to know what it looked like when you uploaded it to your computer.