yay for photoshop. i have used it now and discovered it to be the single most greatest creation by man. thank you raburns and ebay for showing me the truth.
no seriously. Hold up. I never bashed photoshop. I did say why take pictures if you're going to photoshop. I didnt mean that your photoshopped pictures arenow worthless, I was more trying to get at photoshopped pictures should be labeled as such. I think the photograph happens when you click the button on thecamera, not when you upload and enhance with PS.
ebay "So while I see your point and myself I tend to avoid digital manipulation as much as possible for a number of reason. You're in no position tomake that arguement as overt or zealously as you have... Because for starters you shoot with a digital camera, that alone makes your arguement completely mootpoint as I'm sure your camera can create a number of non-real effects that and/or provides aid to you in shooting that a fully manual film camerawouldn't... "
As I use a digital camera, I don't use the "number of non-real effects" Unless you count black n white which = black n white film. Therefore yourpoint is a moo point. a cow's opinion.
rafsj "It doesn't matter if you use PS or not. Ps is simply a tool used to achieve a desired effect, much like the way you set up lights in a studio,or the use of alternative processes if you use film. You still have to be able to compose and capture an image that is visually interesting."
Sure. You bring up a great point. PS is a tool to achieve a desired effect. I totally agree with that. But let's bring it back to the sports metaphor,since we are on a sports forum. Football is a game played with certain rules and setups, much like photography has its cameras and lights. Steroids are used toachieve a desired effect, but lie outside of the normally accepted boundaries of the sport/art. PS is used to achieve a desired, but it too, lies outside ofthe normally accepted boundaries of the art. If you were to submit your PSed photographs to a photography monthly or even an art gallery. Good Luck.
raburns "but do you bash film photographers/developers who dodge or burn? who cross-process? who apply other darkroom techniques to their photos? iunderstand that software makes these techniques a lot easier and tempting, but using photoshop can only do so much for one's photos. it can make a goodphotographer's work better, but it can't do too much for a garbage photograph(er). "
No, I don't bash film photographers. I think dark room>photoshop. Lets think about it this way. Photography was invented way back when with a guy acamera and his little hood thing and his darkroom. As time and technology grew, we now have Polaroids and disposable cameras. In today's society, we haveDSLRs. I have found there to be unspoken rules about what the boundaries are in the art of Photography, and PS isn't in there. It's the thing you useoutside of art, and once you PS a photograph you should label it as such. And I agree that "photoshop can only do so much for one's photos. it canmake a good photographer's work better, but it can't do too much for a garbage photograph(er). " But you also point out that photoshop CAN doSOMETHING for the photo (albeit "only do so much" but that is something) It won't turn a ****hole alley into the Met quality, but it does dosomething. And that is exactly what I'm trying to point out.
I said that I'm willing to stick by my decent to rather juvenile photographs, because I want it to be about me, the vision, and the camera. A holy trinityif you will. You guys can use photoshop all you want. Just state it on the cover. "I USE PHOTOSHOP." If you have no qualms with using PS on yourstuff, then you should have no qualms about labeling it that way. Just like when you upload photographs and it states the Make, Model, Shutter Speed, F Number,Focal Length of the photograph, you should also add Photoshopped at the end. If you think there's no stigma behind it, then you should proudly label it assuch.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
