Fun Stuff > MAKE

Photoshopped VS Not

(1/7) > >>

Runs_With_Scissors:
Stemming from the conversation going on in the photography thread:


--- Quote ---Ally: Is it really a different matter? I'm curious as to what you think. If I show you two photographs, and one is clearly superior but has been modified in photoshop, is it not as good as the film photograph?

Frankly, I'm rather offended that people jump to the conclusion that most photography has been altered or manipulated digitally.

--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---Anyways: That depends entirely in what way the photo was altered. Firstly, I want to establish I am now talking about photography as an art... and I wish to reference to Khar's post in the "what is art?" thread, where he says that a child's drawing can't be perceived as art, as it had no thought behind the lines it drew on the canvas, it didn't know what it was doing - the painting just ended up that way, by chance, and luck with tools. If you imagine photoshop as the child's brush and the darkroom as a "real" artist's, I think you can see where I'm going with this. Any idiot can tweak a photo in a pirated photoshop, but it takes a modicum of skill and knowledge to achieve the same results in a darkroom. Slight edit, to clarify a bit: I'm not saying all photoshopping is easy, by all means - but nearly everything you can do in a lightroom can be achieved a lot easier in photoshop.

And honestly, I think the only reason people assume photos has been tampered with digitally, is that most of it, in fact, is. There aren't a lot of people still shooting with film out there. One of my favourite portrait photographers, Morten Krogvoll, was extremely persistent with sticking to shooting with film professionally, but he had to switch as he just couldn't compete with the freedom photoshop gives you - practically all photos you see every day are tampered with, so people naturally assume they are until proven otherwise.
--- End quote ---

So, thoughts everyone? (quotes are there just to get the ball rolling)

Mnementh:

--- Quote ---practically all photos you see every day are tampered with, so people naturally assume they are until proven otherwise.
--- End quote ---

This is plain wrong.  It makes the assumption that no one ever tampered with photographs before photoshop.  People have been tampering with photos since shortly after the medium was invented.  The reason that people assume that everything is fake now is not because it is anything new, but because the internet allows photos and news of fakery to travel further and quicker.  It also allows people who are skilled at picking up on fakes see more of them.

As for the rest, I find it rather elitist and silly.  By the logic presented there, I suppose an architect could only realize the artististry in his vision if he still had slaves drag massive blocks of stone from quarries hundreds of miles away, instead of using a truck to transport them and a crane to erect them.  Books should still be handwritten and only reproduced by a few learned men in a monastary somewhere.  The darkroom and photoshop don't make the photography art, they are both tools which are means to an end.  They require different skills, but not skills that are better than the other.  To create a perfect altered photo in photoshop takes as much skill as it does in a dark room (the fact that so many people find altered pictures now is a testemant to this). 

All photoshop has done is lowered the barrier for entry, by allowing people who could not afford to build a darkroom access to similar tools. If this is a bad thing, if elitism is what makes photography art, then it's an art I don't particularly want to be associated with.

Emaline:
The thing that pisses me off about photoshop is that whenever I'd take an awesome picture, and just leave it as is, people would always ask "So what software did you use for this? What'd you do to this in photoshop?" Nothing! Since when does a picture have to go through photoshop to be good?

Slick:
The thing with that analogy is that the architect will probably find something new and original to impress you again. It is often the case that great works are duplicated, copied, and mimicked, but the great minds behind them will create more things.
Also, say someone had a really interesting way of accelerating and spinning that one drop of water to your insta-grow template that creates unique, intriuging pyramids, then that'd be cool.
Medium, I think, is by and large irrelevant; each work should be evaluated on it's own merits and be able to stand out as such.

P.S. And wouldn't you just be impressed all to hell by the person to make insta-grow pyramids?

Liz:
Dude that would kill all. I would totally get one for my campus. Maybe right next the library...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page