Photoshop and Photography!

Last issue of Pop Photography illustrates the issues. There is a PS tutorial in it that shows how to change a day time scene to night scene including stars and light beam from a street lamp. Looks pretty good and as a "real" photo, which in my book it is not. Additionally, in the same issue Pop Photo changed it's name to Popular Photography (AND) imaging. In my mind the PS manipulated creation is an IMAGE a photo is unmanipulated. Semantics? I do not think so, if you call it an image it conveys a distinction with a difference.
 
joseph said:
In my mind the PS manipulated creation is an IMAGE a photo is unmanipulated. Semantics? I do not think so, if you call it an image it conveys a distinction with a difference.

The thing is that what you are calling "unmanipulated" is very much manipulated. If people want to think of chemical manipulation as being different than digital manipulation, that's fine, but photographs have been highly manipulated since the discovery of the processes long ago.

I wonder if 30 years from now people will have the same discussions, except that images worked in Photoshop will be considered the old fashioned, pure images, while the images produced using the latest technology will be considered new-fangled and somehow not as pure.
 
danalec99 said:
ksmattfish wrote:
To create that which moves your soul.

I agree.

But IF I am going to be in the commercial arena, I think I will be forced in moving someone else's soul :); at least for starters!

I don't think so. I'm not sure "soul" and "commercial" work very well together. For the commercial arena you want to move someone else's product. Just don't lose your soul in the bargin. :wink:
 
ksmattfish said:
joseph said:
In my mind the PS manipulated creation is an IMAGE a photo is unmanipulated. Semantics? I do not think so, if you call it an image it conveys a distinction with a difference.

The thing is that what you are calling "unmanipulated" is very much manipulated. If people want to think of chemical manipulation as being different than digital manipulation, that's fine, but photographs have been highly manipulated since the discovery of the processes long ago.

I wonder if 30 years from now people will have the same discussions, except that images worked in Photoshop will be considered the old fashioned, pure images, while the images produced using the latest technology will be considered new-fangled and somehow not as pure.

Thats right; its all in the perception!
 
ksmattfish said:
danalec99 said:
ksmattfish wrote:
To create that which moves your soul.

I agree.

But IF I am going to be in the commercial arena, I think I will be forced in moving someone else's soul :); at least for starters!

I don't think so. I'm not sure "soul" and "commercial" work very well together. For the commercial arena you want to move someone else's product. Just don't lose your soul in the bargin. :wink:

But in a commercial arena, won't we be heavily controlled by the client's whims??
 
I think this subject is entirely relative.

If my darkroom abilities were better than anyone else's in the world, I would want Photo Shop banned. If I didn't know Photo Shop as well as I knew my dark room, I would also want Photo Shop banned. If I were capable of producing better art with Photo Shop than with my dark room, I would favor co-existance.

Now I don't really condone what I've just written above, but I think there are too many people who have similar perspectives as the one mentioned above. And I say shame on them.

I am into beauty. I like snow when it drifts. I like beautiful sunsets and sunrises. I like babies, kittens, puppies, goslings and ducklings. I like Old people and young people and love. I like serene brooks, lakes and water falls. I strive to capture these things with a camera in order that I might freeze a moment in time that will become immortal memories from which to derive pleasure again and even again.

I feel that you owe it to your love of the hobby to perfect the most beautiful photo which you're capable by any means of which you're capable. If it's not worth your very best possible effort, then what is it worth? I also feel that every photo fresh out of the camera can be improved upon.

The Rebel
 
canonrebel said:
Now I don't really condone what I've just written above, but I think there are too many people who have similar perspectives as the one mentioned above. And I say shame on them.

Could you elaborate on this statement, please?
 
danalec99 said:
canonrebel said:
Now I don't really condone what I've just written above, but I think there are too many people who have similar perspectives as the one mentioned above. And I say shame on them.

Could you elaborate on this statement, please?
This was describing someone who doesn't think a digitally manipulated photo should be considered as art because he hasn't perfected it yet.

I can't draw good pictures, but I'll try to draw one for you...

So, here goes.....
This is probably the part of my post that is possibly giving you difficulty. I was trying to be subtle in expressing my pro/con opinion on photo editing when I expressed the following excerpt.....
If my darkroom abilities were better than anyone else's in the world, I would want Photo Shop banned. If I didn't know Photo Shop as well as I knew my dark room, I would also want Photo Shop banned. If I were capable of producing better art with Photo Shop than with my dark room, I would favor co-existance.

This does not apply to me because I have nothing against digitally edited pictures as being photographic art and I think digital manipulation has a place in photographic art (just as much as dark room manipulation has a place in photographic art). I wonder if only those darkroom manipulators who haven't taken the time to tackle the intimidating learning curve of PhotoShop would deny photoshop it's place in the world of art. And if you are one of those darkroom manipulators who is prejudiced against digital editing because you haven't yet learned to do it, then I say "shame on you". One mode of manipulation is just as legal in the world of art as the other. Ultimately, it's only the end result that matters.

I still have my old darkroom (an elaborate darkroom which I haven't used for 20 years). I achieve more production with photoshop in one hour than was possible with my darkroom using an entire Saturday afternoon. And the results from photoshop are just as rightous as any results ever achieved in my darkroom. Plus there's a real advantage to not having to mix chemicals and cleanup the mess afterwoards.

This is my story--and I'm sticking to it.

The Rebel
 
PHEW!! :)

Well, I do not think we do not have the other group here in this forum!
 
i would guess . 99% pf commercial photography is about as
'artistic' as using (and maintaining) a photocopier really well.

its a very slim niche of professional photography that requires
artistic expression. much stuff considered "creativity", IMO is actually,
just the initiate's development of the effective Procedure.


ksmattfish said:
danalec99 said:
ksmattfish wrote:
To create that which moves your soul.

I agree.

But IF I am going to be in the commercial arena, I think I will be forced in moving someone else's soul :); at least for starters!

I don't think so. I'm not sure "soul" and "commercial" work very well together. For the commercial arena you want to move someone else's product. Just don't lose your soul in the bargin. :wink:
 

Most reactions

Back
Top