The market for paintings has probably decreased significantly since photography came into its own, but people still sell them.
It is quite tiring and mildly annoying to read people going on ad nauseam about the legitimacy of certain techniques (theirs, usually) over others, inferring that art or photography is somehow linked to technique. And now painting comes into the picture (pardon the pun) with folks lacking even a minor understanding of that field chiming in. What counts is the image, not how it was created. Technique is important inasmuch as its apparentness can add or detract from the image, but there is no such thing as legitimacy of technique. Except maybe for those who can only master one or a few and therefore rely on the crutch of denying the value of any other.
There's a whole bunch of hubris in deciding whether another person's methods of creating their art is legitimate or not.
It is quite tiring and mildly annoying to read people going on ad nauseam about the legitimacy of certain techniques (theirs, usually) over others, inferring that art or photography is somehow linked to technique. ...
Uh, yes of that is necessary. It is a matter of honestly. If you cannot take the photograph you want, then make it but do not call it a photograph.
There are those who consider their work superior because they have not "manipulated" it in any way, especially not through the devil's own tool, Photoshop. It is a sign of insecurity and lack of understanding of art.you obviously have not read the photographic history books listed for you in the past thread
photographs just require light that's it, it doesn't matter if it is honest or dishonest if it is cobbled together with scissor and glue or photoshop
it seems you are making up your own definition of photography, it is not the generally accepted definition since 1826.
you should really spend some time and read the texts suggested to you last week.
the thing is they also manipulate the hell out of their work in other ways but refuse to acknowledge what they do.There are those who consider their work superior because they have not "manipulated" it in any way, especially not through the devil's own tool, Photoshop. It is a sign of insecurity and lack of understanding of art.
Have you ever "manipulated" an image into existence that people would think is real? Is it really easier than going out and making a shot? Another fantasy dreamt up by the ignorant.Those who manipulate their images into existence are simply taking the easier way out. Why go out and shoot when you can just create it on a computer, and people will think it is real? And justify it by calling it art.
It is a slap in the face of those who actually go out and work for a real, great photo, and de-values their work.
it was insinuated in a previous thread that he's not a real photographer.Jerry Uelsmann.
You're welcome.
Those who manipulate their images into existence are simply taking the easier way out. Why go out and shoot when you can just create it on a computer, and people will think it is real? And justify it by calling it art.
It is a slap in the face of those who actually go out and work for a real, great photo, and de-values their work.
Nothing he did was easy. And only a simpleton would think it was reality. And everything quite impossible without manipulation.Jerry Uelsmann.
You're welcome.
I asked similar questions and was ignored. seems the blinders are fitting well.The use of telephoto and wide angle lenses distort perspective. Is that an acceptable "fakeness"?
It is a bit of cheating, and if you are a commercial photographer maybe shooting a house for a customer, it may be ok. On the other hand it is a step in the right direction because you are cataloging clouds from the region rather than pulling some cloud formation out of a library, which may never happen in the region. Next step would be if you were an expert meteorologist, you might make sure other features lined up. Next you need to examine shadows especially if the % if the sky clouded is significant. If you don't likely the image will start looking un-natural. Next you need to examine reflections, specular and diffuse, and make sure those match the clouds that you are adding, and modify all of this from what you actually took with a cloudless sky. You should also consider the contrast, both at a local as well as global level because the clouds will modify this in both local and global ways. After spending a week or two on your image with your PhD in meteorology, optics, cloud science, etc. you might end up with something realistic looking. Or you could just wait 5-10 years and let AI take care of it for you. On the other hand you could just take shots as they occurred and get natural looking images, perhaps lacking features you would prefer but maybe you could use creative approaches to mitigating the lack of these features (like avoiding having too much sky if clouds are the feature you desire).
Or, go inside and make some!This whole discussion is so ridiculous. Go out and take some photos!
I post this thread here not for discussing film scanning techniques. It's all about achieving the best image from film although this is via film scanning, not by wet printing. The scanned images will be for viewing on monitors and also for inkjet printing. I believe the majority of film shooters scan their films.
No one's questioning whether it's art. If it has aesthetic value to the viewer, than it is art. The question is whether it's a photograph or something else.There are those who consider their work superior because they have not "manipulated" it in any way, especially not through the devil's own tool, Photoshop. It is a sign of insecurity and lack of understanding of art.
But we're getting to the point very soon where that will be done simply. With AI and other computer programs, an app will assemble all the elements into a beautiful picture without the programmer leaving his desk. No cameras will even be needed. Then what? Will that be a photograph?Have you ever "manipulated" an image into existence that people would think is real? Is it really easier than going out and making a shot? Another fantasy dreamt up by the ignorant.
It happens already, more or less, although not simply. Lots of Hollywood movies use CG environments that are indistinguishable from or better than reality on the screen, and any screen capture could be matted and hung on the wall next to one of your images that required your time and energy to make. And so what? You're doing a different thing altogether and they both have value.But we're getting to the point very soon where that will be done simply. With AI and other computer programs, an app will assemble all the elements into a beautiful picture without the programmer leaving his desk. No cameras will even be needed. Then what? Will that be a photograph?
Hi AlanNo one's questioning whether it's art. If it has aesthetic value to the viewer, than it is art. The question is whether it's a photograph or something else.
my question is could it have been filmed if no film was involved ?This entire movie was filmed in a warehouse
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?