See my last post for one answer. The other answer is that shooting photos is the last resort for a person to be an artist without having the ability to draw or paint. People like me who can't draw better than stick figures. So now because of Photoshop, the average photographer cannot keep up with those who have computer artistic skill unrelated to snapping a picture. Their skills are more related to painters who are creating their pictures with their hands rather than capturing the scene with a camera. The whole excitement of capturing a beautiful scene in a landscape, or compelling content in a street or editorial shot, are less important since they can be created at home at your desk. It forces people who have no interest in computer art and manipulation to forgo photography totally. Making meaningful photos in a camera as an artform is being lost as an art in itself. That's unfortunate.
What you just said, Frank, is very important. It points to the fact that many of us do want to go back to basic photography. So we stick with film. Not because digital is sinful. But because we dismiss the allure of digital because of the ease you can manipulate the original art of getting the picture in a camera. Sure there's Ansel's "performance" of the print. But that's usually much limited than digital art; mainly relating to exposure, not cloning. Also, the fact that much of "fine art" in photography is BW, the final work often doesn;t have the reality look of a color or digital print. So the viewer accepts it as a special art form.d
Certainly seems like an odd outlook to me. I wouldn't want to project that outlook on others, particularly here on Photrio where most of the participants have embraced making photographs the old fashion way. The rise of digital photography certainly hasn't induced them "to forego photography totally."
Making a political statement, if that's what you mean, by hook or crook, is a bad way of presenting truths, high or not. You lose credibility once the wizard behind the curtain is revealed.Art photo by fabricating lies can reach the higher truth, for the photographer, and sometimes for the audience.
Seriously, you dismiss digital because it is too easy to manipulate images?But because we dismiss the allure of digital because of the ease you can manipulate the original art of getting the picture in a camera.
Why are such photographs an issue? Let's say I take a photograph of two cows in a field. For aesthetic reasons, I decide to remove one of the cows. Who cares?
I do not waste my time, energy or resources on those who want to make "photographs of sharks jumping out of water attacking helicopters".
I do not waste my time, energy or resources on those who want to make "photographs of sharks jumping out of water attacking helicopters"
Well, this thread has certainly "jumped the shark" now!The last time I saw a shark jumping out of the water to attack a helicopter was in the 1966 movie Batman. Fortunately, Batman had some Shark Repellent Bat Spray in his utility belt. The movie was shot on film.
Photojournalism and documentary photography and photographs used as evidence should not be manipulated. Any other photos are fair game. An artist certainly should not be restricted from using any specific medium (in this case photography) to express themselves.If you cannot change your position, camera angle or lens to not show only one cow, then by demonstrated facts you would have shown me that your photographs are not worth my time to look at. I would rather interact with people who actually know what they are doing. An exception is made for those who are learning and desire to use their skills and tools correctly in the first place. I do not waste my time, energy or resources on those who want to make "photographs of sharks jumping out of water attacking helicopters". Real life is interesting enough. People with paint brushes are free to invent their own world and that I can appreciate knowing that I am see what is in the artist's mind and not necessarily reality. Two different arts; two different realities. I do not mix them any more than some people would not mix meat and dairy products.
If you cannot change your position, camera angle or lens to not show only one cow, then by demonstrated facts you would have shown me that your photographs are not worth my time to look at. I would rather interact with people who actually know what they are doing. An exception is made for those who are learning and desire to use their skills and tools correctly in the first place. I do not waste my time, energy or resources on those who want to make "photographs of sharks jumping out of water attacking helicopters". Real life is interesting enough. People with paint brushes are free to invent their own world and that I can appreciate knowing that I am see what is in the artist's mind and not necessarily reality. Two different arts; two different realities. I do not mix them any more than some people would not mix meat and dairy products.
I distrust ALL photographs, even the ones I take myself. As my grandmother told me trust half of what you hear and none of what you see..And therein is my concern with the misuse of FauxTow$hop and resultant distrust of digital photograph in general.
SG Scott really isn't hung up on anything. The problem is that people who do analog/ film based photography, you - me - everyone, manipulates the scene just by framing it, by adjusting the shutter/fstop by processing the film a certain way, by burning and dodging and doing common darkroom practices. its all manipulation, maybe not the same as combination printing which has been done since 1839-1840 or the modern equivalent which makes it easier for lay-people to do without the same amount of training. just because common darkroom practices are done and accepted as common doesn't mean its not manipulation. with the camera the lens and shutter and f-stops manipulate the rendering of the image on the film, chemistry manipulates the latent image into a negative, and enlarging or contact printing manipulates the light striking the paper making the paper print. I can't imagine how anyone doesn't agree that those things done in a darkroom or with camera with film AREN'T manipulation... is it because it's not done with a computer their purity makes it NOT manipulation ??Scott why are you so hung up on manipulations? There is a big difference between common darkroom procedures and swapping parts of photographs. Are you trying to justify some types of darkroom procedure or is this just a discussion?
If it's not what our eye-brain "sees", then any manipulation should be indicated in the caption, especially if shown in a scientific journal. We assume that's what something looks like if we were just looking at it when we snapped the shot.
Unless you have physical or mental problems, your brain doesn;t see cows if they weren't in the scene to begin with.No, It works the opposite way. Our eyes are manipulating reality so we can see it, not perfectly as it is, but the best we can.
Remember that at night all cats are gray. Are they really?
What do you mean, Joanne?it isn't a lie or scam or even manipulation unless it brings emotions, don't you think?
He ought to stop using that stuff.I have a friend who occasionally sees emotions as colors.
But my point is...don't be too sure of what other people see, think they see, and interpret what they see. None our views of the world are normal. We are just use to them
I have a friend who occasionally sees emotions as colors.
Unless you have physical or mental problems, your brain doesn;t see cows if they weren't in the scene to begin with.
Making a political statement, if that's what you mean, by hook or crook, is a bad way of presenting truths, high or not. You lose credibility once the wizard behind the curtain is revealed.
I honestly did not think anything political here. It could be my bad English, as I am not native speaker. I was thinking about higher truth in a sense of emotion, beauty, world, moments, and so on.
Can you show us an example of one of yours or post a link to one on the web?Art photo by fabricating lies can reach the higher truth, for the photographer, and sometimes for the audience.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?