Re: When does a Phot-O-Graph become a Phraud-O-Graph?

Greg Scholl Wrote:
===================================
> ... I see nothing wrong with Russ's shots,
> but as someone said the pole in Durango
> was not a deal breaker, and I too liked the
> truck at Cumbres.

As noted in the sentence added yesterday to my original post, above, when making a large print (for my artsy-phartsy album of Phraud-O-Graphs), I found that the power pole sticking out of the crew car in Alamosa pulled my eye away from the main focus of the photo - the hostler filling the tender (and his see-gar) - so I deleted it from the print file.  If I were asked for a copy to go in a book on the history of excursions I'd leave the pole in (but would still remove the scratches).  OTOH, I would no longer remove the truck at Cumbres - even for the large "art" print - as I now realize the focus is the overall histöric scene (foamers & all) and not any one part of it.

Glenn Butcher Replied:
===================================
> This is the real railroad today, and what
> brings in the cash to keep operating.

Amen to that, Glenn - and now back to the "Branding" thread ...    

> Everything, and everyone, in {the posted}
> photograph belongs there.

I'll meet your bid with a similar shot:


... and raise it with a pair of Flopp-O-Graphs:



GeorgeGaskill Added:
===================================
> Although I am the last person who should
> be discussing "art," selective recording is
> practiced by all visual artists.  Paintings and
> drawings are not handmade photographs.
> Items that do not conform to the artist's
> view of a finished piece are simply left out

... added, or changed.  - see photo and painting on [ngdiscussion.net].

> I think the same applies to photography.
> If you are making art, you can do anything
> you want with the image.   If you are re-
> cording history, it should be left as is
> or it isn't really history.

It's pretty hard to argue with that, George.  But sometimes a neophyte phoamer trying to take 'artsy' shots for slideshows to share with his college buddies ends up inadvertently recording history ...    

And Randall Hess Wrote:
===================================
> I am a regular at a photography discussion
> forum, and they regularly emit more heat
> than light over this subject.  There are some
> (who spend more time on Photoshop than in
> the field) who defend their right to be artists;
> there are others (most are like me and used
> slide film rather than negative film) who think
> Straight-Out-Of-Camera is the only way to go.

Although I did take a few rolls of 35-mm b&w back in the previous century, 95% or more of my shots were Kodachrome slides - and when you are projecting slides, "What You See is What You Took".   As a result I always TRIED to compose carefully, and only a fairly small percentage of my older shots need retouching other than color and exposure adjustment.  Even today - in spite of image stabilization and "800 ASA" or even higher film-speed equivalent - I usually employ a tripod, compose a photo carefully, and make just one 'critical moment' exposure instead of a burst of three or five shots.  But there are still times when it's easier to use Photoshop after the fact than to run around with a trash bag cleaning up the right-of-way.

> I'm guessing that if we follow their path, this
> thread could set new all-time records here for
> number of posts in the thread and for futility.


I'm not so sure, Randy -

Don't forget the looooonng thread about the Georgianatown Loop-de-Loop back in '04, and the nearly endless and frequently recurring debates about paint schemes, lettering & branding (not to mention green boiler jackets) ...    

- El Abuelo Histœrico, Greengo y Curmudgeoño de los Locomoturas Viejos y Verdes,
aka Der Grossväterlich DünkelOlivGrünDampfKesselMantelLiebHabender



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2015 01:34PM by Russo Loco.