| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2005 09:43:44 AM · #1 |
I read an editorial in a Phototography magazine, which claimed (in context to the digital photography & Photo-editting) as follows:
HERE LIES PHOTOGRAPHY IT NEVER LIED, BORN 1830, DIED 1990.
At DPC, how many of you agree.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 09:46:44 AM · #2 |
Sounds like it was writen by someone who is to old to progress with time. Feel sorry for him. I love it when people say that digital photos cant compare to film. Then I whip out my portfolio and show the the crystal clear 10x13 prints. They never even believe its digital. LOL.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:08:47 AM · #3 |
Many a film photo lied.... it was just a more challenging art form to make a film photo lie.....
;) |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:10:21 AM · #4 |
My major problem with digital is that people whore themselves off to Photoshop. The twin bastard-sons of this whorish relationship are oversaturation (look at some of the skies on this site) and the clone tool (to get rid of pesky power lines, etc).
Photoshop has made for poor photographers and it's made for a general public who is skeptical of any amazing image they see because they know the powers of digital editing.
I could go on with my metaphor but it wouldn't be pretty. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:31:11 AM · #5 |
This is an old story - "digital killed film" etc. Wah. Wah. If digital killed film it's for the same reason that CDs killed tapes - superiority as supported by the masses. Why aren't VCDs popular and DVDs are? Both were post-VCR technologies and one failed almost utterly. People choose what they like best and that's where we go. That's what digital did - if digital kills film, it's because film is inferior to most people for most things most of the time.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:36:49 AM · #6 |
If I understand the point correctly, it's that much of photography is a liar now...that's unfortunate.
Not wah, wah...I can still find and photograph truth and beauty but many won't believe me when I work my ass off to find it because it's so darn easy to create replica-beauty in photoshop. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 11:21:30 AM · #7 |
and didn't video kill the radio star?
...never convicted though. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 11:33:52 AM · #8 |
I don't care if someone calls me a 'photographer' versus a 'digital artist.' It's all art baby
 |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 11:43:26 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
If I understand the point correctly, it's that much of photography is a liar now...that's unfortunate.
Not wah, wah...I can still find and photograph truth and beauty but many won't believe me when I work my ass off to find it because it's so darn easy to create replica-beauty in photoshop. |
Mike, you seem to love selective desaturation. I may be wrong, but I dont think pictures come out of the camera like that.
And your details on this pic hardly illustrate "straight from camera"
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 11:56:59 AM · #10 |
That's funny, considering that it was the most basic of toning and I even said "I hope nobody thinks it looks to processed, because it's not at all...very simple toning."
As for the mammals and aircraft being cloned out, that was a joke!
And selective desaturation? I'm not sure I've ever used that...which photos are you talking about?
Very strange response, Damian...where are you getting your info?
Message edited by author 2005-08-19 11:57:25. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 12:26:14 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
That's funny, considering that it was the most basic of toning and I even said "I hope nobody thinks it looks to processed, because it's not at all...very simple toning."
As for the mammals and aircraft being cloned out, that was a joke!
And selective desaturation? I'm not sure I've ever used that...which photos are you talking about?
Very strange response, Damian...where are you getting your info? |
My apologies, the "Too little to play" background looks completely desaturated. And with the Morning picture, you did seem to use photoshop quite a bit as your steps show, which is not a bad thing, if the camera messed something up, photoshop is there for you to correct it. My intent was not to pick you out. But to let you know that major editing happens everywhere (even back in the film days--Ansel Adams).
If I wanted my camera to assign all my saturation/tones/contrast,It set it on auto,But thats not why I bought a d70. I think im a better judge than the camera of what I saw when I was there. Also, photoshop cannot save a bad image, we all know that. As my studies in photography have progressed, composition has shown that it is the most important aspect of a picture. Atleast for me.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 12:34:33 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Joey Lawrence:
I don't care if someone calls me a 'photographer' versus a 'digital artist.' It's all art baby
|
I completely agree. I'm an artist (or aim to be) using mixed mediums. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 12:37:56 PM · #13 |
Damian, I did use photoshop but only for very simple toning. I love photoshop, it's a great tool. My problem is that with digital, people think they need to use photoshop to make sunset skies that look ridiculously orange and make skin look silky smooth and remove distracting elements in post rather than composing correctly the first time.
When I show people this picture, for example, they ask me if it really looked like that and they aren't impressed until I convince them that the light and shadow brought out the bright colour of the one building instead of some action in photoshop. That's unfortunate.
Another example is this one..."Were those hills really that bright?" Yes they were, the light was fantastic...but they're skeptical because the same effect can now be reproduced on an overcast day and a little photoshop. I even had one person say "you should really try and get rid of those hay bales near the road to clean it up a bit." I rolled my eyes and told them that I tried to get rid of them but they were too heavy.
I love almost everything about digital...I was just commenting on a few things I hated...
Actually, one more example...how many of you actually believe that the sky was actually this red in this photo I took? The digital medium makes people skeptical.
Message edited by author 2005-08-19 12:40:58. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 12:43:12 PM · #14 |
| I think people, and mainly critics, read way too much into art. For example, one thing Duke Ellington (a jazz artist with over 900 published compositions) said about music, "If it sounds good, it is good." This coming from a man that could visualize and comprehend all of the complexities of music. I feel the same way about all forms of art. If a photo looks good, it is good. I really don't care what steps the artist took to achieve the final product. (Of course, I care enough to learn as I would like to be a good photographer) I respect both digital and film, and there are difficulties in creating a nice print whether the artist used film or digital. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 12:52:52 PM · #15 |
Interesting...I think it's much cooler to look at a photo as a capture of light instead of just something to tickle the eyes.
I wonder if Duke Ellington would have been just as impressed if his band members were composed of keyboardists pressing keys instead of playing horns.
I know, many will disagree with me...and I do appreciate digital art but I personally like to distinguish it from actual light captured on film, print or pixel.
I know, I'm on the wrong website to hold this position...just giving you my point of view.
Message edited by author 2005-08-19 12:53:58. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 01:00:58 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I wonder if Duke Ellington would have been just as impressed if his band members were composed of keyboardists pressing keys instead of playing horns.
|
Thats a very interesting point. My grandfather would take your side of the argument, as he is a musician instrument composition purist. I on the other hand compose music with synths and computers. Again, my stance on art is the same, but I do see your point. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 01:05:23 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by phreakon:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I wonder if Duke Ellington would have been just as impressed if his band members were composed of keyboardists pressing keys instead of playing horns.
|
Thats a very interesting point. My grandfather would take your side of the argument, as he is a musician instrument composition purist. I on the other hand compose music with synths and computers. Again, my stance on art is the same, but I do see your point. |
Actually, it's kind of interesting...I love music regardless. So if I hear something that is good and interesting I'm happy.
But when I heard Cinematic Orchestra and found out that their music was actual acoustic music rather than electronic I was blown away...it made it that much better.
Maybe a better example would be field recordings...if I hear field recordings from a Bulgarian folk music festival, I don't want to have to decide whether I believe they're real or not. I want to listen to it and now that in Koprivshtitsa, this is the sound you would have heard in the hills. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 01:35:45 PM · #18 |
1) The photographs that stand the test of time are those that people like, not those that photographers feel people ought to like (no matter how hard they complain).
2) People photoshop their pictures because people give a positive reaction to the result.
Supply and demand in action.....
Q. But what about 'ART'?!
A. Is art for the people or for the artist? If your answer is the former, then point 1 holds true and can be applied to any medium (not just digital photography); if the latter, then you should stop complaining what other people do and like.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 01:46:54 PM · #19 |
Art isn't exclusively "for the people" or "for the artist"...to have to choose exclusively one or the other would mean that no guidelines should exist for any kind of art (which is what you seem to be proposing).
If art was simply for the people, then the end would be what is important...nevermind the means. Photography becomes just another way to reach this 'end' meant for public consumption. Who cares if you use a camera? Who cares whether the photo is 'real' or a complete fabrication?
If art was simply for the artist then the 'means' would be just as important as the 'end'...so the method would be extremely important and the 'end' could be a black out of focus blob and the art would have fulfilled it's function.
So clearly, you can't slice it that neatly, bpickard. Too simple.
And all of this is assuming that all photography of worth needs to be classified as art...
Message edited by author 2005-08-19 13:48:35. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 02:03:50 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Art isn't exclusively "for the people" or "for the artist"...to have to choose exclusively one or the other would mean that no guidelines should exist for any kind of art (which is what you seem to be proposing).
If art was simply for the people, then the end would be what is important...nevermind the means. Photography becomes just another way to reach this 'end' meant for public consumption. Who cares if you use a camera? Who cares whether the photo is 'real' or a complete fabrication?
If art was simply for the artist then the 'means' would be just as important as the 'end'...so the method would be extremely important and the 'end' could be a black out of focus blob and the art would have fulfilled it's function.
So clearly, you can't slice it that neatly, bpickard. Too simple.
And all of this is assuming that all photography of worth needs to be classified as art... |
OK, but the tacit implication of the purists is that one should 'suffer' for one's art...the process should not be short-cut by convenience. This itself implies that this suffering is 'magically' conveyed to the independent observer.....it isn't in my opinion, and so we are back to the dichotomy of the 'people' and the 'artist'. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 02:06:57 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by bpickard:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Art isn't exclusively "for the people" or "for the artist"...to have to choose exclusively one or the other would mean that no guidelines should exist for any kind of art (which is what you seem to be proposing).
If art was simply for the people, then the end would be what is important...nevermind the means. Photography becomes just another way to reach this 'end' meant for public consumption. Who cares if you use a camera? Who cares whether the photo is 'real' or a complete fabrication?
If art was simply for the artist then the 'means' would be just as important as the 'end'...so the method would be extremely important and the 'end' could be a black out of focus blob and the art would have fulfilled it's function.
So clearly, you can't slice it that neatly, bpickard. Too simple.
And all of this is assuming that all photography of worth needs to be classified as art... |
OK, but the tacit implication of the purists is that one should 'suffer' for one's art...the process should not be short-cut by convenience. This itself implies that this suffering is 'magically' conveyed to the independent observer.....it isn't in my opinion, and so we are back to the dichotomy of the 'people' and the 'artist'. |
No, I don't care about the suffering at all (that sounds harsh!)...my concern is that reality has become sugar-coated. The girl with pimples now has silky smooth skin, the sunet always lights the sky afire and the green grass always glows...we've come to expect the rare and beautiful because we can make it happen in PS.
And as a result, the viewers experience is also diminished because the awe and wonder is gone...it's now expected. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 02:17:40 PM · #22 |
To speak of photography-as-art and at the same time to glorify the "straight" photographer over the photoshopper is to append a definition to the concept "photography-as-art" which excludes manipulation of the image as a viable extension of the art.
That's essentially the issue that gets explored over and over again in these threads; one person, or a group of people, say that it's "not photography" if it isn't "real". It may be "art", they say, but it's "not photography".
These people, of course, are totally welcome to their own personal opinion. I can remember, vividly, when I was younger and people were saying that Andy Warhol might be making "paintings" but they weren't "art". And of course the whole established art world was up in arms to defend their concept of what "art" is when the fauves, the impressionists, the abstract expressionists, etc etc began to make their mark. NOW, of course, you're more likely to hear "art critics" saying a painting that is TOO realistic is "not art"...
None of it matters as far as I'm concerned. Do what you're motivated to do, do it to the best of your ability to do it, and pay no attention to those who don't like it.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 02:23:22 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
To speak of photography-as-art and at the same time to glorify the "straight" photographer over the photoshopper is to append a definition to the concept "photography-as-art" which excludes manipulation of the image as a viable extension of the art.
|
What? No it isn't. I can speak of photography as art and glorify whoever I want without appending the definition of photography as art.
I can easily make the statement, for example, that candid moments speak much more to me and contain more humanity than a posed model in a studio...I haven't changed any definitions...just expressed my opinion. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 02:31:26 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by bear_music:
To speak of photography-as-art and at the same time to glorify the "straight" photographer over the photoshopper is to append a definition to the concept "photography-as-art" which excludes manipulation of the image as a viable extension of the art.
|
What? No it isn't. I can speak of photography as art and glorify whoever I want without appending the definition of photography as art.
I can easily make the statement, for example, that candid moments speak much more to me and contain more humanity than a posed model in a studio...I haven't changed any definitions...just expressed my opinion. |
Point taken; I didn't phrase that very well. What I mean, of course, is to point out the rigidity of thise who come right out and say "if it's photoshopped it isn't 'photography'..." I got a little florid there. It's of course perfectly possible to accept many forms of photography as valid while expressing an opinion that "x form" is the "highest form" of the art.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 02:38:04 PM · #25 |
I agree with you Mike. I get those questions all the time.
But with limitations of digital sensors, one must use photoshop.
Example, exposing for the bright part of pictures. You cant have both, so you must save the darks in post processing, it may take some photoshop work but it gets you to the point of what you actually saw in the scene.
To me, photography is art, whoever said that photos must come out untouched or touched up X amount in pp? Bring out what you saw in the scene and saturate the colors a bit more, no crime there. Look at the Fred Miranda forums, some guys in there do some major steps in photoshop to get the final product. And the final product is what matters.
|
|
