Fun Stuff > MAKE

Photoshopped VS Not

<< < (4/7) > >>

Liz:
Too me a good photo isn't one that is particularily clear or well-shot, it's the one that captures the emotion best. Sometimes putting a picture in black and white can help convey the right emotion.

Also, it doesn't matter whether you use film or digital for your pictures. All that matters is that you know what you're doing and you do it well.

Slick:
Your argument is still coming through weakly to me. If you're talking about the differences with the film medium, there actually have to be some. Has this person over/under exposed it to get artifacts on the print? Have they toyed with the lens, have they pre-exposed the film briefly to change the quality, have they done anything in the dark room besides just straight-up developing it as per normal, as per routine, as per the way they were shown how to do it in a step-by-step tutorial? Not to diminish that work, but unless they are doing that work artistically, it's not adding to the 'art'.
Unless you can look at a photo and say "Look, I can tell this photo was taken on film because of this, this, and this, and I think that makes it neat because of something, something, and something else", I still think your argument is invalid.

Choice of medium can make a big difference for some things, but I think photography is not one of those. Medium can make an impact on your statement if you're painting in say, period blood, as my friend once wanted to do. But that's drastic and jarring, whereas unless you exploit the fundamental differences in the processes, both film and digital are just tools to capture images.
That is to say, if you're using two very different styles of brush to paint, you can see it in the painting, but if you're using two different brushes that produce the same result, yet one takes more work, I don't see that either is artistically more valid. That's snooty art elitism to claim it is.

Also, I doubt most of these 'hordes' of black and white amateurs are using photoshop tutorials; my money would be on either they pressed a B&W button somewhere else or played around with it until they found out how, which is how most people I know learned photoshop.
Don't hate so much.

Lines:
If you hate the copy/paste kind of "art", then your view is completely valid. Everybody who is interested in art hates cookie cutter art. But if you hate photoshop because of this, that's not a valid point. People can do amazing things with photoshop, as it's just a tool, but hating it just because people don't know how to be creative unless they are told how to pretend to be creative. It's like watching a Bob Ross video - you can either look at what he does and his techniques and use them in your own way, or you can do exactly what he does and have a paint-by-numbers sort of end product. But Bob Ross shouldn't be hated (he's kind of cool and he makes secret trees and rocks and stuff), but the people who copy him should be.

Not every photoshop is the same.

Lines:
Because you aren't here to hear it: Imagine a big OHHHH.

pilsner:
The real question is to what extent can you screw with your picture on an online dating site before it becomes immoral.  My litmus test:

-- Removing blemishes: OK
-- Replacing your head with the head of Stephen Colbert: NOT OK

P.S. Photoshop has this tool with some innocent name like the "fade" tool or something but I swear it was developed to remove blemishes from headshots by spotty geeks.  It works too well to be anything else.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page