the plugin site

[smokysun]

found last night i wanted to play more. so i spent hours finding and loading old plugins. my favorites are

http://www.virtualpainter5.com/

http://www.flamingpear.com/

http://www.redfieldplugins.com/

the latter two have freebies and all have demos.

that said, hundreds of free ones exist. the site to explore (resources) is

www.thepluginsite.com

enjoy. sometimes it's fun to fly off with a photo into the stratosphere.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

ps. lots of stuff i've done at: http://www.pbase.com/wwp/art_projects

 

[smokysun]

playing around with photos i've re-discovered something obvious. with photos the viewer immediately taken into the scene - you are there. their accessability and participation effect gives them great appeal. the photo itself is only secondarily an object to be appreciated. with a painting, drawing, etc. the material piece is itself the point. and only a few people priviledged to enter into the presence of the subject. of course, the more realistic the work is the easier it is. generally, paintings appeal to fewer people than photographs.

wayne
www.pbase.com

 

[smokysun]

spent the morning working in my favorite style, which i call 'faux silkscreen'. interesting how you can take generic wildlife pics and bring out individual personalities. i wonder if photos don't generally have a generic quality in the subjects?

www.pbase.com/wwp/faux

wayne

 

[DougDolde]

yuck

 

[smokysun]

thanks. proves my point. the lamest of photos unlikely to arouse such a strong reponse. to do art work narrows your audience considerably. one man's meat is another man's poison.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[smokysun]

so in my theory photos depend 90% on subject matter and 10% on technique. paintings the opposite, the physical object that matters.

to use an example from photography: henri cartier-bresson. i'm willing to bet all his most famous photos are of exotic subject matter: spain and mexico in the 30's, asia through the 40's, and france in the 50's. his photos of france, for example, in the sixties very bland. and i think that he realized it and turned to drawing for the last thirty years of his life. (and i think his portraits don't match those of bill brandt - my favorite photographer.)

i'm not saying that 10% technique not important. take a look at

http://www.amazon.com/Quick-Secrets...3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269047293&sr=8-3-spell

he uses his own photos to demonstrate, and boy are they bland compared to the masters he discusses. also note he almost always talks about their subject matter and rarely their point of view.

as joe macnally said: 'if you want to take more interesting pictures, put something more interesting in front of the camera.'

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp