For the last year or so I've taken to the streets in my photographic endeavors. I'm primarily interested in what is considered flotsam, objects long ago discarded and otherwise ignored. I have a couple dozen shots so far and have exhibited a few of them, one of which recently won an award. I'm curious how they would be received by the folks here. I call the series, "Street Dada", after the early 20th century Dada art movement that later influenced the Surrealists. This one is a weathered steel panel,no digital alteration. All feedback is appreciated!

After posting the photo here, I see that it lacks the clarity and depth of the original image, at least on my monitor. I'm new to posting photos online and admittedly am a computer caveman. Any suggestions?

MM,

I like the photo. I have a quick tip for posting pics to avoid trouble with the automatic resizing program:

1. Resize your pictures before you post so that the longest dimension is 600 pixels. Anything bigger than 600 pixels is resized and there can be some quality loss.

2. If you don't want to resize everything, make sure you upload them at 100 pix per inch resolution, rather than the standard 72 pix per inch. The re-sizing program does better with the higher resolution.

Cheers,
Will

MM, cool image, I love abstract stuff. A lot of clairity is lost in the JPEG conversion, it does help to bump the saturation up a little before posting. What editing software are you using?

Will I'm not sure how to do that. My son will be home from college soon and maybe he will be able to help me changing the pixels.
It is interesting to note when I’m morphing the image with the Iphoto program the dilemma of whenI’m altering the photo if I’m changing the image to what it really was or what my mind remembers or wants it to be. Personally I’m more interested in what I want it to be,

MM I’d probably have to look at the picture in better light than what it looks like on my computer screen to give you my opinion.

New sheetrock dark room and flash

Cool shot! It reminds me of a solo exhibition I saw at a gallery in Pittsburgh. It's been a while and I can't remember the artist's name but they were huge paintings with heavily layered beeswax, graphite, etc.

Thanks for the feedback and helpful hints, y'all!
Scott, I'm just using the basic HP software that came with the printer. At least for now I'm kind of obstinate in not wanting to do any alteration of the photos. A friend has a state-of-the-art digital set up in her home. She gave me a mind-boggling demo of what could be done with my photos but I still preferred the original images.

I haven't had time recently to do much artwork.
We're in the throes of some fairly major home restoration. As a friend said, "An old house is like a cesspool. The more you stir it, the more it stinks."

Old dog new tricks! I too am perplexed and somewhat conflicted about the types of editing that can be done with even simple computer software. I use the computer more and more in the pre painting portion or my work. I've been using it quite a bit in the post painting phase as well. It's amazing to see how one can manipulate one's own work. I guess I have to get over the "artificial" aspect of the software and be grateful for what it can do. As my good friend and graphic artist told me not long ago...you are the one controlling the mouse...same artist's hands working in a different mmedium.

This is turning into an interesting debate. Every shot in the history of photography is a manipulated image. So I wonder when the idea of editing photos became a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing...it's just a lot easier than it used to be. When I was in college, all of the editing took place in a dark room and you never really knew (especially in the beginning) how things were going to turn out. Now we know instantly. Time marches on and so does technology. I'm trying to move along with it and incorporate it in my artwork. Editing is necessary in any aspect of art. Whether we do it ourselves or ask someone with a new eye to do it for us. Or have a computer help us!

I wasn't trying to infer that it's a bad thing. It's just my choice, at least for now, to not alter my digital photos. Jerry Uelsmann, with his darkroom wizardry, has always been one of my favorite photographers. As with any media, you'll always have the good, the bad and the ugly. Scott, your digital work ranks among the very good I've seen. On the other hand, I saw a large exhibition last year of digital landscape photography, in a major venue, that was touted as nothing less than the second coming of Ansel Adams. It was absolutely horrible stuff, poor composition, very heavy-handed in manipulation and garrish color. There were a fair number of people in the gallery that day. From what I overheard, some of them shared my opinion that no amount of digital gimmickry can rescue bad work.

I've done heavily manipulated Polaroids for 20 years. The most recent ones have raised occasional debate in galleries over whether or not they're
"true" photographs. Here is one of them, titled, "One Word Tonight (Goodbye)" The scan is very muddled and doesn't come close to capturing it but hopefully y'all get the idea.

MM, My comment wasn't directed at you. I have to run now, I'll contribute more to this discussion later.

MM That's such a cool image, I really appreciate your creativity.

It's my perception that photography as an art form is becoming more and more misunderstood. I would like to hear what others on this board feel about that.

I exhibit frequently, photos and claywork.I'm FINALLY glad to see that in many juried exhibitions both media are getting the respect they've deserved for a woefully long time.
A friend and I both happened to be in the same juried show recently. He had a stunning photo in it. I hadn't seen him or his work for a while and at first I didn't recognize it as his. I also thought it was an etching until I saw the hangtag. It was an altered digital photograph!