Photo Critic

[Chickenhawk]

I came across this photographer's site and wondered what other members here thought of the images:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2231437

 

[Alex_B]

hm, theses are manipulated so extremely, that I would almost not call them photos anymore.

not saying, this might not be art, but here the post-processing created an image, which would not be there without the post-processing.

let us call it electronic art based on photographs

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Well, for the most part those three look incredibly artificial. like what alex said, w/o the editing those images wouldn't have been all that exciting.

 

[Chickenhawk]

hm, theses are manipulated so extremely, that I would almost not call them photos anymore.

not saying, this might not be art, but here the post-processing created an image, which would not be there without the post-processing.

let us call it electronic art based on photographs

I totally agree with you. They are almost like paintings rather than photographs

 

[abraxas]

I just looked at the first three. The first I liked very much. The second looked a bit strange, and the third was out there too far for my tastes. If the photographer achieved what he wanted to express, he did a wonderful job.

 

[LaFoto]

I moved this to the Off Topics, although it is not really off topic, it is about someone else's photos, but it is not about your own photos, chickenhawk, which is why I would rather not have the discussion go on in the galleries, see? Nothing against it as such, though ... though I myself have not clicked on the link and can therefore not say anything about that person's photo manipulations.

 

[bla]

How do you tell that the photos were manipulated? I mean, some of these are obvious, but others seem less so.

 

[LaFoto]

Erm... don't. Well, I don't - I never went to look. I took what I said from the other members' comments...

But they are not the OT's photos, either, that has been stated, so even though the discussion is about photos as such, it is best placed here in the Off Topics. Whoever wants to find it will find it, I am sure.

 

[Michaelaw]

I like the second image very much and couldn't give a hoot how it was done. The end result is...It moves me! I worked in an apple orchard as a lad with sheep running everywhere, this image took me back to that moment in time for a fleeting moment. Whether the image was soaked in dish soap for a week to get it to depart that feeling to me or whatever, at the end of the day it made me feel something...

 

[markc]

I don't think these are any more manipulated than a fashion magazine cover, and that's still considered photography. This is just done in a way that we aren't used to. I personally like several of them. There are several that are too far for my taste, but still interesting.

 

[clarinetJWD]

I don't think these are any more manipulated than a fashion magazine cover, and that's still considered photography. This is just done in a way that we aren't used to. I personally like several of them. There are several that are too far for my taste, but still interesting.

Bingo. In yesterday's 'photography' it encompassed the whole process: film, composition, processing. When digital is introduced, why should this change? Sensor, composition, processing. For an image to be great, a photographer needs to not only master the art of composition and exposure, but also digital processing. This is photography, this is not photo-manipulation, there are some fantastic shots there.

 

[clarinetJWD]

Sorry...I have more to say. I truly despise the notion that if an image is manipulated 'too far' it's no longer photography. I find that an immature position that does nothing but limit the potential of the field.