a few B&W photos

[terence]

pipes from the junkyard on my school campus
http://www.terencepatrick.com/images/n80/021203/pipes.jpg

my shoes
http://www.terencepatrick.com/images/n80/013103/converse.jpg

this old BMW i saw
http://www.terencepatrick.com/images/n80/013103/bmw.jpg

no bikes here...
http://www.terencepatrick.com/images/n80/013103/nobikes.jpg

these were all shot with a Nikon N80 using a Quantaray 28-105mm lens and Kodak Plus-X 125 b/w film.

[AltimaGTR]

I like the chain-link fence photo...is that the tennis court?

[artsfartsyjanet]

wonderful compositions! black and whites are my faves. thanks for sharing.

[achtungbaby]

Wow. You've got a pretty good eye.

[tapestrybabe]

OH man,
i love the sneakers photo the best..
are they Converse sneakers?? oh man, they use to be my favorite brand in high school.. i'd wear different colors... a black converse on my left foot and than a white converse on my right... hahaha...

anyways, actually i think all the photos look really cool...

[kimpossible]

Great angles. How many photo classes have you taken? Don't tell me this is your first one. You've got some serious talent.

[tapestrybabe]

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 18 2003, 09:09 PM
There's no talent in photography. If you can paint that, then you've got talent.
i disagree... i think there is quite a lot of talent that goes into photography.. i'm not a photographer myself.. but it seems like it gets little respect as being known as a fine art form... as opposed to a painter... cuz what... a photographer just points and shoots... and you got a complete instant picture.. naaah... i dont think its that simple...

i just think photography is just a different art form... if one doesnt like how the photo turns out.. they just dont merely re-work it in the dark room... but they may take the same picture again... but using a different lens... shooting it from a different angle, a different time of day, a different distance, using different lighting... and i think it takes skill and especially a good eye... that not everyone is sensitive to...

[karizma]

ahhh terence you already know what i think...my lomo is coming on thursday and i cant wait to start shooting!!!

but just in case you forgot...i love those pics =)...

[ism]

Originally posted by tapestrybabe@Feb 19 2003, 10:14 AM
i disagree... i think there is quite a lot of talent that goes into photography.. i'm not a photographer myself.. but it seems like it gets little respect as being known as a fine art form... as opposed to a painter... cuz what... a photographer just points and shoots... and you got a complete instant picture.. naaah... i dont think its that simple...
Agreed.

Very nice photos.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 18 2003, 06:09 PM
There's no talent in photography. If you can paint that, then you've got talent. Nice photos though.
Although it might be the caffeine mints, photography does seem to not like me very much and at least for me is not a piece of cake....every time my parents told me to photograph something, I could never press the button while my hands were not shaking.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 19 2003, 02:09 AM
There's no talent in photography. If you can paint that, then you've got talent. Nice photos though.
Prove it. I'll give you my camera, you can use my film... I'll give you my pass into the darkroom... and we'll see who's got the better roll.

[ChairmanMah]

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 19 2003, 02:09 AM
There's no talent in photography. If you can paint that, then you've got talent. Nice photos though.
she probly meant to say he had a good eye

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Feb 19 2003, 04:15 PM
Prove it. I'll give you my camera, you can use my film... I'll give you my pass into the darkroom... and we'll see who's got the better roll.
I've only taken one photography class in my lifetime.....and our development methods were not let's say..very up to date, so it'd take me like the whole class period to get one roll of film developed or something like that (actually I don't remember the specifics), is it more talent or is it just plain having the coordination or feel for it? I remember having to stick my hands into this black bag with the roll of film inside it and I had to coil it around some type of spool or reel or something and obviously since I'm a visual person I didn't do too well. Anyways hmmm

[ism]

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 19 2003, 08:02 PM
I can take pictures like that blindfolded.
Post them up.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 20 2003, 12:24 AM
I've only taken one photography class in my lifetime.....and our development methods were not let's say..very up to date, so it'd take me like the whole class period to get one roll of film developed or something like that (actually I don't remember the specifics), is it more talent or is it just plain having the coordination or feel for it? I remember having to stick my hands into this black bag with the roll of film inside it and I had to coil it around some type of spool or reel or something and obviously since I'm a visual person I didn't do too well. Anyways hmmm
Both. But I'm sure if we do the same thing on film, get it processed someplace else by somebody else who will do everything short of TAKE the picture for us, the results will still be different. No talent means you take snapshots of whatever that come out looking just like snapshots. Talent is what separates stuff that takes up space in a photo album to stuff you can sell.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 20 2003, 01:02 AM
I can take pictures like that blindfolded.
Let's do this then. I'm not even kidding. We'll go to the exact same place, exact same time of day. You don't even need to process your own film or print your own pictures. Just take the film into a processing place. If you think there's no talent involved, then you're wrong. The talent isn't in TAKING the picture, it's in SEEING the picture.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Feb 19 2003, 07:55 PM
Let's do this then. I'm not even kidding. We'll go to the exact same place, exact same time of day. You don't even need to process your own film or print your own pictures. Just take the film into a processing place. If you think there's no talent involved, then you're wrong. The talent isn't in TAKING the picture, it's in SEEING the picture.
Sounds like a date to me..... :ph34r: go Taz go Angel :luv:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

The difference between art and science is that although both require dedication and skill, art allows you to exercise creativity and freedom and you are not bound by as many rules, plus art is more likely to give you an orgasm over science but I've been mighty impressed with science in the past...in this case photograph is an art I think b/c it allows you to take a picture of whateva u damn want....... :lol:

[kitty]

... wow... you are sooo talented :P I was always horrible at photography.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 20 2003, 03:36 PM
Photography is more of a science than art.
What's so science about looking for something that moves you and capturing the moment on film?

[kitty]

Well there's a whole science to the composition of the photograph, involving angles and stuff that I could never quite get my head around....

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 20 2003, 09:40 AM
Well there's a whole science to the composition of the photograph, involving angles and stuff that I could never quite get my head around....
I believe there is science involved in every art, but not the other way around. Arguably art is in the eye of the beholder, just like so many other things. This statement is also the easy-way-out piss-poor end-all-arguments quote :)

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 20 2003, 05:40 PM
Well there's a whole science to the composition of the photograph, involving angles and stuff that I could never quite get my head around....
But all that bullshit isn't necessarily MANDANTORY in photography. What you photograph, what kind of composition you use, the colors involved... everything is up to the discretion of the artist. That's what makes it an art, right?

[deez nuts]

Whatevez, just send all the nude female photographs to yours truly. K....thanks.

[angel nympho]

^- Kay. I call my collection *Fatties on the beach* You'll love it.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 20 2003, 06:24 PM
Artist? Like how singers and actors are calling themselves artist nowadays? The tool of a photographer is the camera - that's science. A photograph is a mechanical rendering, not a human interpretation of a view. How can you make the distinction that a photograph taken by an average Joe to be lesser "art" than a professional photographer. Gotta get back to work. I'll argue with you more later.
Omg, there's a HUGE difference between a SNAPSHOT and a PHOTOGRAPH. It's not about it being taken by the average Joe or whatever. It's about what the person is seeing through the camera. A SNAPSHOT isn't art. In fact, a lot of the photography that I do isn't even art. A lot of the photography that I do has more to do with me having fun than actually trying to create somethign beautiful. I guess it's a hard concept to understand.


*Rolls eyes* Whatever. Like I said before, prove it. Unless you think you're not talented enough.

[AznYam]

i think photography is an artform but it requires less talent than painting.

[angel nympho]

^-- Yeah, I think I agree, too. Cuz I'm not that talented in it, but I can get by. I think it's not cool to say that it requires NO talent though. :( I mean, if you're talentless at it, I'm sure you can still like, take a class and get your assignments in, I just don't think you'd end up turning into, like, Ansel Adams or anything. To say a man like him is making a living off something that requires no talent... bothers me.

[ism]

I think Ansel Adams is overrated.

As for a man making a living off no talent... there's Carrot Top.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by ism@Feb 20 2003, 09:33 PM
I think Ansel Adams is overrated.

As for a man making a living off no talent... there's Carrot Top.
Ansel Adams is my absolute favorite photographer. My absolute favorite artist, at that. Why's he overrated? His pictures... are usually of stuff I've already seen in real life... but I've NEVER seen things look the way he can make them look. Check out this gorgeous shot:
http://www.anseladams.com/newstore/images/fineprints/aarosedrift.jpg
...Given, that one probably wasn't all that hard to do.
Maybe this is a better example:
http://www.anseladams.com/newstore/images/fineprints/aamtwilliamson.jpg

[ism]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Feb 21 2003, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by ism@Feb 20 2003, 09:33 PM
I think Ansel Adams is overrated.

As for a man making a living off no talent... there's Carrot Top.
Ansel Adams is my absolute favorite photographer. My absolute favorite artist, at that. Why's he overrated? His pictures... are usually of stuff I've already seen in real life... but I've NEVER seen things look the way he can make them look. Check out this gorgeous shot:
Beautiful shots, yes. I've seen the Ansel Adams at 100 exhibit at SFMOMA and know how much work he puts into selecting a shot and working on it. Perhaps my perception is based on other people's perception, doubly warped by multiple filters of reality. Extreme commercial success, somewhat a barometer of hype, is what leads me to believe my statement. The Keith Harings are one example, and Adams isn't quite that whored out, but it still bothers me when the same pictures of Yosemite are reproduced tenthousandfold as posters; cheapening an art. Not Adams' fault, but perhaps the consumer and the producer.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 21 2003, 04:48 PM
Don't tell me that the picture Joe took of his true love is not works of beauty, convey emotion, and aesthetic value. Joe captured something beautiful. Joe is an artist.


Please stop rolling your eyes with me, 'cuz that's the beautiful when I take the picture. I am a painter, thus not a "poor man's artist", photographer.
Like I said, it depends on the picture. It has nothing to do with WHO is TAKING the picture... if its an average joe or some rich art student, it doesnt MATTER. What DOES matter is what one SEES through the camera. I've said this like 20 times now, and if you don't understand it this time, I give up. What I meant by the average joe taking a snapshot means... something like.... if some random person just grabbed a camera and took a snapshot of his family in front of the statue of liberty. That's a lot different than this same guy taking a camera, scanning a scene, seeing something there that's beyond aesthetics, and taking a picture. One is just to get a momento of his family (beautiful in its' own right) and the other is an expression of oneself. Totally different things.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 21 2003, 08:31 PM
So, the artistic value of a photograph comes from "what one SEES through the camera?" What if I take a picture of Ansel Adams' "rose" photo, is that art? Why not?
okay, this is my last post on this subject. for realz this time.

i consider art to be something one does that, in a way, mirrors a part of his or her soul. when you take a photograph, sometimes you do it as a way of emotional expression, but sometimes you just do it for the hell of it. when you're using photography as a means of expression and communication of yourself, that's art. i don't care how ugly it is, if it reflects something inside of you, it's art. and that goes for everything, not just photography. but then again, this is purely my definition of art. a lot of people have a lot of different meanings for the word.

photography always is a science, but photography at it's BEST is an art form. it doesn't take talent to take a picture (even a good one), print and process, and do all that crap. a lot of photography involves technical stuff, which can all be learned easily. what DOES take talent, however, is to be able to SEE a picture where somebody else might just see... ya know, a pile of useless crap. so maybe talent isn't the right word to use in this situation...but not everyone is born with an eye for things the way some natural born artistic photographers are. anybody can take a picture and make it look good. it takes talent, though, to know immediately how to make something ordinary look beautiful. it takes talent to really bring a lot of emotion into a picture.

think of it this way: sports
not everybody is born with talent, but undoubtedly some are. right? but anybody, given enough training, enough dedication, and enough hard work... can become good at a sport. but it takes some degree of natural talent to make it really far in the world of sports, no?

oh yeah, and if you take a picture of somebody else's work, that's not your work. that's like making a photocopy of somebody's written words and saying that it's your rendition. it just doesnt work like that.

[artsfartsyjanet]

Be nice people.

[angel nympho]

^-- Appreciated. I denno why this subject is touchy. Probably because I think photography is the first and only thing I've ever been good at and I don't wanna let anybody convince me that it's something that doesn't involve talent. *Shrug* Some people can go out and get the job done and make great photos, but some people can make photo magic without taking a class in their lives.



DAMMIT! I WASNT SUPPOSED TO POST AGAIN!!! *Tapes fingers together to make typing impossible*

[terence]

Thank you all for the wonderful feedback (I even appreciate the critism). This is my first photography course, no other training previously. I'm just barely entering the on-ramp that is the road of photography.

If we're going to do the debate of 'what is art?', then I'd like to add my two-cents. I believe art is anything where a person takes intangible things such as emotions/feelings/thoughts and gives them a tangible form like words/music/paintings/photographs. It is expression at its highest level. Whether another person can understand that expression is completely out of the hands of the artist.

I'm speaking for myself here when I say that I think photography is an artform that requires much talent. The talent of a photographer is on a different plane than the talent of a painter. Different portions of the brain are used, the thought process is completely unrelated. Taking photos isn't just pressing a button and voila! you're done. There is much time spent in the darkroom working the exposures, getting the point of expression to be at its optimal level. It's easy to say it doesn't require talent when you're the one not doing it. And if you can do it, then you'd be foolish to say it doesn't require talent because you'd be saying you yourself don't have talent.

But then again, you are entitled to your opinion. Because as the cliche goes, opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one and they all stink.

Oh yeah...I have a ton more photos on my site in case anyone was interested in checking out what I do.

[artsfartsyjanet]

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 22 2003, 11:06 AM
Wait a minute, Janet. Am I being bad?
perhaps, I misinterpreted the posts.... No one's being bad. Just remember that everyone sees art from a different perspective, but I think y'all know that. I've been on a hiatus... so if I'm not getting something, it must be because I'm missing the point. keke..:dance: