A Strange Course of Photography

 What do we mean when we say we have made an experience? 

How to photograph and photo-retouching of food images to follow the rules of its archetypes. 

The experiences in my life I have always held for me jealously. It was a bit 'my system to make a barrier between me and the other because there is always someone who wants to be your own business and to tell everything they have heard from you, so my experiences were as a result, it became insignificant. So I learned to lie about what I was doing it my mood about all my experience. In fact, it is very hard to describe their own experience and make it clear to your listeners exactly as you saw you because it is something that touches some of our internal emotional strings. Ropes that are unique in all of us. An experience to remember because it is accompanied it our emotions experienced at the very moment in which we have had that experience. And tell our experienced it downgrades to a simple image that others have of you. But you can do an analysis of what and experience to understand how it binds to our ability to live, to love, to communicate and to understand things. You always have to start from knowing what you want to understand, know what they do not teach in school not because it does not exist as knowledge, but it seems that it is not important to know what we should know all, for example on key natural laws of our universe, on his geometry, on his lack of perfect symmetry, the symbology on the archetypes, what makes us sensitive and allows us to understand things, etc. etc... But you can do an analysis of what and experience to understand how it binds to our ability to live, to love, to communicate and to understand things. You always have to start from knowing what you want to understand, know what they do not teach in school not because it does not exist as knowledge, but it seems that it is not important to know what we should know all, for example on key natural laws of our universe, on his geometry, on his lack of perfect symmetry, the symbology on the archetypes, what makes us sensitive and allows us to understand things, etc. etc...

We must always start from the origin of what you want to understand and then try to necessarily start from the archetypes of all things. What is an archetype? Basically, it's the idea of something. It still has a meaning, not yet, but it has the idea of how to that particular thing. All we know of this universe we live in is recorded in our mind in the form of an idea how to be everything and these primordial ideas we have just called archetypes (a definition that is found abundantly on the Internet and on any dictionary). To explain their meaning and to understand why is there all this talk with photography I can give an example. We can use the food. What are the ideas of edible food, qualitatively good and palatable? To put it directly, we see what are the archetypes regarding food photography.

Well, first of all, I must be very saturated. Any other non-vivid colour would correspond to the exact opposite of what constitutes an idea of palatable food. Then it must have a lot of glitter on the surface, because this means that the food was freshly cooked and then, in addition to having the right degree of humidity, especially fresh. And finally the last archetype concerning the palatable food: is very good light to pass through the mid-tones. What does it mean? It means that if the light passes through the mid-tones (light has a spectrum, a range of frequencies, the mids are simply the frequencies that are in the middle), the food is soft, it is still young. But what exactly determines that it is a qualitatively good food to eat? And 'where the light passes through the mids that the colours become even more saturated. As the light cannot make it cross the colours are switched off or become much less saturated. If you want proof, take a slice of butter and look at it through the light of a bulb. Or a hand, a part of your body. The saturated colour of our archetypes is the life, is all that is natural is healthy.

Anyone who faces food photography or photo-retouching of food unless it takes into account these simple archetypes does a poor job. You might even talk of meanings in photography because in this case, we would not have exceeded even the basics that are accessed by the inexperienced.

There is another aspect to consider. A photograph is processed using the RGB colour space that has the quality to contain many more variations for each colour of the CMYK colour space instead is used for printing. In practice, it means that the RGB picture can contain very highly saturated colours even fluorescent colours. Be careful because once you convert photos to print, fluorescent colours disappear and then the food to our eyes, instead of switching on freshness archetypes, we turn on the stale food archetypes.

Infinitely complex or evolved?- Digital photography

I would like at this point to clarify the difference between complex and evolved. In the chapter on I introduced the archetypes but even if I went in that direction I would complicate my story.

I would immediately arrive to discover that photography is geometry, a geometry that embodies archetypal meanings, symbolic, conceptual and especially emotional, but I risk to get into complicated for me as I already wrote it. But what I want to realize with these items, it is a constructive talk, always in that direction, but always constructive and without complications within the theme doing photography.

As an example of complication or evolution can be used in the advent of digital photography. Do you think the fact that the art of photography has gone digital is a complication or an evolution? The same comparison you could also do to the human race when you look at the West compared to African countries.

The photographic art actually always respects the same rules, a photographer artist never based his art on the knowledge of the computer or camera, but his art he uses the moment they look into the camera viewfinder and shoot! This is its art, namely being able to take at the moment, in the position and perfect brightness. So the evolution of photography in the digital is not an evolution in photography, but a complication because all the photographers have had to learn new technologies. If anything, one can speak of an evolution of the cameras. Nor does the fact that today's cameras can take thousands of times instead of one is an evolution because the real artist photographer knows when to shoot and do it once. All other digital shots, they go down the drain.