| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/14/2007 11:23:15 AM · #1 |
Maybe some of you will not be pleased by reading this message, but it seems to be important (at least to me and I am sure to other people who want to know more) to mention why some parts of digital photography may have become a misused artifact.
I have been looking at some winner pictures more recently, and I just thought to myself, are those pictures can be referred as digital photography? I admit that Digital photography leave some room for creativity, but it looks to me as if the creativity is more and more misled by 'ultra' post-processing via powerful program packages. But at the end, it does remain much from the original picture. In other words, from a 'crappy' picture (maybe not in terms of framing), 'astonished' results (which I will describe as 'artificial') can be obtained just by intense post-processing.
From my point of view, I'd rather have small defects in my pictures (because they are genuine) than erasing all defects to make the pictures more perfect (cannot be perfect anyway) but less natural. This is the style I tend to follow, but of course not everyone will agree, which is fine with me.
Thanks for sharing you views with everyone.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 11:30:59 AM · #2 |
| Different photographers are trying to accomplish different things with their images. It is not easy to compare the results of Sally Mann with the results of Jerry Uelsmann or the results of Maggie Taylor with those of Henri Cartier-Bresson. There is room in photography, as an art and as a form of communication, for everyone. |
|
|
|
06/14/2007 11:32:46 AM · #3 |
....
Message edited by author 2007-06-14 14:10:24.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 11:46:44 AM · #4 |
Though I agree the trend on this site is leaning toward "over processing", I do not agree it is anything to do with "Digital Photography". The creative aspect can be skewed by the use of a powerful editing program but that is with everything that has been touched by technology. Though some like the "imperfections" which result from mechanical anomolies and traditional film photography, I tend to enjoy the ease of removing those distractions to exhibit a truer representation of my subject. If these anomolies were a desired result of photography, I'd assume they would have included those features into the camera's original design.. For me, digital editing is used to eliminate the effect of mechanical imperfections. If used excessively, it may either diminish the artform of enhance it. That decision really depends on what you, as the viewer, consider to be appealing.
Good subject BTW. |
|
|
|
06/14/2007 11:51:02 AM · #5 |
I agree with Ivo, so go reread that post.
I also agree with fotomann, so before going further, I recommend reading some of the other threads on this subject. It's been hashed, rehashed, and rerehashed repeatedly over the years here at DPC.
That said, the range of opinions on this subject is large, from people who think nothing should be done to a photo to people who want to basically create something that's never been seen by the human eye.
That's why we have four rule sets here at DPC. The "middle two" in terms of editing are most frequently used, but minimal and expert also come up from time to time.
Pick the rules you like and enter those challenges. My preference is somewhere between basic and advanced, but I also enjoy exploring the other rules when available.
The biggest thing to absorb, and your original post acknowledges this, is that there's no single answer - it's up to each of us to decide where we want to go. And on DPC, you express that opinion by voting.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 12:17:45 PM · #6 |
Vermeer's work is not art: he is using a camera obscura - I don't think that should be allowed - it isn't really art.
Okay - so Vermeer's work might be great art. But Monet's work is hard to make out - it isn't really art.
Okay - so Monet's work might be great art. But Matisse's reduction of work to single colours and simple shapes doesn't reflect what I can see - it isn't really art.
Okay - so Matisse's work might be great art. But But Rothko takes it too far when he abstracts things to a single colour or shape. It just isn't art.
Okay - so Rothko's work might be great art...
etc.
Photography, like art, is and has been constantly evolving. Being on the cutting edge of things is sometimes exciting and sometimes confusing. But it cannot and should not be made to stand still and be pickled in formaldehyde (like Damien Hirst's shark - now is that really art?).
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 12:38:35 PM · #7 |
....
Message edited by author 2007-06-14 14:10:52.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 12:47:29 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
An interesting discussion from the master of bitching about digital art |
Are you trying to be helpful or do you wish to suppress discussion because it has all been said before? Obviously the people who are participating in this thread have more to say - after all, the existence of old threads is not much fun unless you get a chance to participate in the discussion.
I say let people discuss well-discussed topics if they want and as much as they want: when no-one has anything more to say, the topic will die away naturally.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 12:49:39 PM · #9 |
...
Message edited by author 2007-06-14 14:12:22.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 12:53:28 PM · #10 |
I guess it is much like participating in any discussion whether it be at work, a party or anywhere. If a group wishes to chat abount something and all you have to offer is a stance as a "self proclaimed moderator", consider approaching the owners of this site and buy it. It would fulfill your ambition to own this thread and determine when and where others should speak about issues that interest them. |
|
|
|
06/14/2007 12:56:31 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
An interesting discussion from the master of bitching about digital art |
Are you trying to be helpful or do you wish to suppress discussion because it has all been said before? Obviously the people who are participating in this thread have more to say - after all, the existence of old threads is not much fun unless you get a chance to participate in the discussion.
I say let people discuss well-discussed topics if they want and as much as they want: when no-one has anything more to say, the topic will die away naturally. |
Viewed from a different perspective, one might argue that what fotomann_forever is advocating is that people take the time to peruse previous thread made in this regard and strive to glean information from the submissions made.
I am certainly not one that wants to surpress any form of bona fide discussions on pertinent issues, but I do tire of repetitious and unnecessary diatribe... and endless questions that have been answered from every conceivable viewpoint.
Someone has something new to add or discuss... FINE, but please let us all take the time to familiarize with previous submissions... can't be bothered to undertake the necessary research... be prepared for some rather terse responses to your query.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/14/2007 12:59:53 PM · #12 |
| I think the point is not about doing your research but rather not putting a gag order on someone because it is of not interest to you. Look at it this way, IT ALL HAS BEEN SAID AND DONE ALREADY! Knowing that, we really do not need a forum as a "Google" search would eliminate the need to interact when all the information is ouit there anyhow. |
|
|
|
06/14/2007 01:00:15 PM · #13 |
....
Message edited by author 2007-06-14 14:11:56.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 01:02:46 PM · #14 |
....
Message edited by author 2007-06-14 14:11:40.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 01:08:24 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Ivo:
I think the point is not about doing your research but rather not putting a gag order on someone because it is of not interest to you. Look at it this way, IT ALL HAS BEEN SAID AND DONE ALREADY! Knowing that, we really do not need a forum as a "Google" search would eliminate the need to interact when all the information is ouit there anyhow. |
Your assumptions are incorrect. If it were of no interest to me, I have a many other threads to choose from. If you look at the threads I listed I was active in them too as a debater. |
I think your view of moderating is more interest to you than your view of contributing to a discussion. You recieved the same reaction from Matthew as well. Looks like we are either dumb or you must learn to communicat more amicably. |
|
|
|
06/14/2007 01:11:23 PM · #16 |
....
Message edited by author 2007-06-14 14:11:24.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 01:14:14 PM · #17 |
Message edited by author 2007-06-14 18:23:05. |
|
|
|
06/14/2007 01:18:24 PM · #18 |
I think the next time you wish to be a self procalimed "Agenda Setter" on someone else's thread, you may wish to be polite and ask the others if they wish for you to assume that role.
Regarding you, dont be so trite. Pick your battles carefully and the reasons why you may wish to engage. It makes one looks impulsive and without substance.
Now,I'd love to hear your view on the subject in this thread and NOT your ability to be dismissive and/or curt.
Shall we move on? |
|
|
|
06/14/2007 01:26:16 PM · #19 |
In a nutshell My views on the subject are posted all over this site. But, in a nutshell, I think "To each his own." I also think that this site has four distinct rules sets that allow progressive levels of creativity and if one is not in like with a certain rule set he/she should choose the ones he does like.
Further, I think that bitching about the state of "art" on this site is futile. DPC is a pop art site, by its very nature. The only exception where images are expected to be "fine art" are in the nudes gallery. I also don't believe in fine art, but that's another debate.
Yup, that pretty much sums up what one could have read in the other threads.
Oh and BTW, permission is not needed in a former debate to be an agenda setter, just info.
Message edited by author 2007-06-14 14:25:36.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 01:34:05 PM · #20 |
*
Message edited by author 2007-06-14 17:29:14.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 01:38:24 PM · #21 |
....
Message edited by author 2007-06-14 14:11:04.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 01:48:06 PM · #22 |
*
Message edited by author 2007-06-14 17:28:45.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 01:54:54 PM · #23 |
| We have a lot more useless threads than this one. Next person to think they know how to moderate the forums and post dead horse icons is really going to make me upset. Nobody wants that. |
|
|
|
06/14/2007 02:16:39 PM · #24 |
I'm going to say this and am frankly a bit pissed at the moment.
IF anyone thinks this is a dead horse discussion, that is their opinion on the subject. It is just as valid as saying I like digital art or I hate digital art. It basically says, I don't care either way, let each follow his own path.
My earlier attempts were NOT to moderate the thread or to stifle anyone's opinion. I was just voicing mine. Now excuse me, I do have more important things to do with my life than complain about the actions of others.
Message edited by author 2007-06-14 14:54:01.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2007 02:52:03 PM · #25 |
| If you don't care either way, DON'T POST. Period. Dead horses are not required. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 06:53:19 PM EDT.
