I am tired of all the photoshop crap!
Walter
Am I the only one who is tired of all the photoshop-altered images in magazines
and on the web?
It seems nowadays people spend more time using computer software to "create"
images than getting
out and taking pictures. For example, Pop Photo had an annual contest of
something some time ago,
the grand prize winner was a picture of a building interior with hundreds
of butterflies "flying" in the air (
I used quotation marks here because these butterflies look so dead you know
they are not "flying").
What kind of crap is this? To me (this is strictly personal opinion, of course),
if photography is not a
Challenging art form, I will not even go out and take pictures.When we go
out and take pictures, We
have to choose the right place, the right moment for the right lighting conditions,
we have to carefully
compose the picture, calculate the exposure, etc. etc. ... it then becomes
all that rewarding when we
get back the slides or prints the way we wanted them to be. Now you can just
be trigger happen, shoot
like mad, then don't worry, you got Photoshop! What a great life saver, especially
for people who know
nothing about how to take pictures.
I have decided only to take slides from now on because I know when I take
slides I do not have a second
chance -- no exposure corrections, no cut-and-paste, not even cropping (I
project my slides). I know other
people will say that is your way, other people can choose their way. That's
fine. I agree that for the average
Joe who doesn't want to wait for several hours to get a good shot, this is
a much easier way to get good
snapshots. But what concerns me is that more and more computer-altered fake
pictures get published, while
this only encourages amateurs to learn computer software, it really discourages
them from learning the true
art form that is in photography.
Walter
Godfrey DiGiorgi
discretion as a tasteful technique.
Compositing wild photos is a current fad, and over used. Don't worry, it
will disappear soon enough.
Godfrey
R. Saylor
what?
Those who really appreciate a fine photograph have always been a tiny
minority. Photoshop hasn't changed that. If your work is good, it
will be appreciated by people with some artistic savvy, but probably
not by Joe Sixpack.
Richard
Tom Stone
No star filters
No fog filters
No grads
No double exposures
Forget dodging and burning
Cropping? Hah!
Tinted prints? Never!
Why use a tripod? We should SEE that natural shake!
Some people take pictures because they want to be a photographer.
For others, a photograph is just the first step in producing an image.
This reminds me of the ham radio groups that think the hobby can only
be truly enjoyed by people who know morse code.
I think more amateurs would get involved with photography, in any of its
forms, if it were not for condescending elitist snobs who bash other's work
because their methods of producing an image differ.
There. I feel better.
"Walter" <Walt...@Deja.com> wrote in message
news:3ac6644c$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
Heavysteam
published, while
this only encourages amateurs to learn computer software, it really discourages
them from learning the true art form that is in photography.>>
I share somewhat in your frustration, Walter. The Pop Photo image you mention
is simply bad art--- but probably no worse than the typical photo in these
magazines. However, these magazines are designed for one thing--- to sell
advertising space and generate sales for the advertisers. With overhyped
consumers pumping so much cash into digital, the magazines must give "hope to
the hopeless" and present poorly composed, poorly crafted and downright banal
images as award winners.
And you don't have to have a computer to make bad images..... photographers
like David Muench are raking it in with oversaturated, cartoonish images that
will surely cause disappointment when the buyers see the real thing (if ever)
and find out that slot canyons and buttes aren't really flourescent orange.
Finally, in defense of photoshop, it is a very necessary tool of my trade and
with it I can greatly enhance photographs in a way that improves their
professional appearance. And, I might add, that includes giving the color a
balanced look with correct color saturation and tonal balance. For many
amateurs, though, Photoshop appears to be used as a toy and the images look
like ..... yes, crap. But it keeps them happy and spending, alerts us not to
take the consumer publications seriously, and to look at images with a clear,
critical eye.
baldo
mentioned was ghastly, and I was astonished that PopPhoto gave it an award.
Photoshop has its place, but it's a tool. Some people like to over-use
their tools, like the guy who builds his kid a treehouse with full
electricity and an elevator.
Life's like that.
-Baldo
"Walter" <Walt...@Deja.com> wrote in message
news:3ac6644c$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
>
George Waller
picture taking should be an organic <analogue> view of the world... the
skill should be with the combination of eye and hand - for this reason I am
not a great fan of AF either. All aspects of our world seem to be converging
into a digital synthetic hell. Whenever a medium succumbs to digitalisation
it becomes synthetic... that audio cd you listen to - may sound good on the
surface but your brain <knows> it is listening to a synthesis of sound - no
analogue converter can give 100% TRUE reproduction of the original analogue
sound because the original sound was broken into pieces (with MANY pieces
left out) in the first place in order to digitally record it... your mind is
smart enough to know the difference between a 100% analogue sound and a
digitised sound that has been converted into analogue - albeit at a
subliminal level.(phew...) So... I think we, as living, breathing <analogue>
creatures should make an effort to protect our <natural> analogue view of
the world - digital/digitised photography? - its cold and synthetic.
Walter wrote in message <3ac6644c$1...@newsa.ev1.net>...
Mark Morgan
...because I'm afraid you're in for one unhappy life of "digital hell" from
now on.
It will only increase.
You can either adjust to new art forms, or be the miserable, grumpy,
condescending person you sound like in your post.
I'm a film user.
But I am now dabbling in digital.
My digital pictures don't look any more like snapshots than my film pictures
do.
I'm quite pleased with them, in fact.
They leave the shots my digital friends are taking--far behind. It's still
a tool.
It's no different than it is with film:
-The quality of the picture will always come back to the skill of the
photographer.
Remember... Color-casts, and exposure values are only a part of a very
large equation in what makes a fine photograph. Beyond those two
aspects...you've still got to start with a great shot, and someone with an
understanding of a great many photographic concepts...not to mention, simply
developing a good "eye.
-mm
"George Waller" <george...@diespamdielineone.net> wrote in message
news:tcd2j64...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
David Kieltyka
> Am I the only one who is tired of all the photoshop-altered
> images in magazines and on the web?
Keep in mind that in the 19th century most artists looked down upon
photography with the same disdain you've reserved for digital imaging.
Taking photos was for people who lacked the talent to paint or draw. This
attitude still exists, BTW! Now there's no question IMO that whenever a new
technology appears people seize on its broadest capabilities and abuse them.
It seems to be part of human nature and was no different when photography
first came on the scene. So we'll have to put up with a lot of hackneyed,
unimaginative rubbish until the next New Thing comes along. Then plain ol'
mediocrity will prevail. :-) In the long run, though, artists will make art
with whatever is available to them.
-Dave-
David Kieltyka
> And you don't have to have a computer to make bad images.....
> photographers like David Muench are raking it in with
> oversaturated, cartoonish images that will surely cause
> disappointment when the buyers see the real thing (if ever)
> and find out that slot canyons and buttes aren't really flourescent
> orange.
I'm glad you said that. <g> I think the Muenches are good photographers but
someone needs to take away their goddamn Velvia! The color in their latest
book is plain hideous. I can't look at the photos without my eyes crossing.
A real shame.
-Dave-
Mark Morgan
Have you ever stood near a 1-hour developer and seen people react to their
crappy snapshots with great big smiles of joy? I have... It happens every
minute of every day!!
The idea that digital is creating more crappy photographers is just not
correct IMO.
Right now, the ratio of crappy film shooting to excellent film shooting is
pretty horrible.
Heck... Just check out Annika's pictures for proof!
I've seen (and taken) plenty of digital pictures that draw the distinction
quite clearly.
Back when the automobile was becoming mainstream, there was an abundance of
crappy, new drivers.
It's the same today with film, and now digital.
The new technology brings in new-comers who lack the skill of the pros.
What's wrong with that??
Should fine art painters look down their noses at the 4 year old child who
finger paints?????
-Or should they rejoice that a 4 year old is finding happiness in the act of
creating?!
I say with all seriousness that it's the second.
-mm
"David Kieltyka" <dav...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Uhwx6.19070$4D.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
Roy L. Jacobs
photos in it are terrible and most people don't seem to notice. (The photos
in Shutterbug are for the most part also ugly, and no one seems to notice
either.) Far better are B&W magazine and Lenswork. At least they are about
real photography. Pop Photo is a driving force in digital photography
because it only exists to sell equipment. That is what pays for ads in the
magazine. If you read Pop Photo critically, they tell you over and over
that you need digital. Why I don't know since film can do it all better
anyway, but that is the message. Pop Photo exists to you get you to replace
or augment your film based equipment with new stuff that does not work as
well as the old stuff. Very strange. Why anyone needs a digital setup if
they cannot take good photos with a film camera is unexplained. If they
can, why they need to "go digital" is also unexplained, except to sell stuff
which no one really needs. This is the way of the world and digital is here
to stay, at least in some form. Time will tell whether all of these digital
darkrooms get shelved, once the novelty has worn off, and people tire of
more ugly, over-manipulated prints, and lost hours getting some computer
junk not to streak a print for the 20th time.
I have two main problems with digital photography. First it reinforces
the concept that photos must be in color. Most color photographs are of no
value. There are only a handful of outdoor photographers who were or are
capable of making a fine art images in color. Even Ansel Adams was not
particularly successful at color. When Elliot Porter was young he made
wonderful black and white photos. He then switched to color and made
mediocre photos, by and large, but they sold well so who cares. Ernst Haas
was one of the few photographers who made fine color images. So also Gallen
Rowell, and the Meunches. That is about it to my knowledge. Digital may
make it easy to recompose one's images, but the truth is if they were no
good when taken, they will be no good after be manipulated. Junk is junk.
It is no accident that almost all of the photos that are generally
recognized as fine art are in black and white. This will not change.
Secondly, digital reinforces the concept that images are designed to be
traded on-line or viewed on line. This is wrong. Images that you are proud
of are designed to be printed and hung on your walls. So if you are
traditional or digital, make some decent prints that you are proud of and
frame them and hang them so your friends and family see what good
photography is about. Good photography is not on some web site with tiny
images.
"Walter" <Walt...@Deja.com> wrote in message
news:3ac6644c$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
>
Graham Stewart
"George Waller" <george...@diespamdielineone.net> wrote in message
news:tcd2j64...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
cameras...
> picture taking should be an organic <analogue> view of the world... the
> skill should be with the combination of eye and hand - for this reason I
am
> not a great fan of AF either. All aspects of our world seem to be
converging
> into a digital synthetic hell. Whenever a medium succumbs to
digitalisation
> it becomes synthetic... that audio cd you listen to - may sound good on
the
> surface but your brain <knows> it is listening to a synthesis of sound -
no
> analogue converter can give 100% TRUE reproduction of the original
analogue
> sound because the original sound was broken into pieces (with MANY pieces
> left out) in the first place in order to digitally record it... your mind
is
> smart enough to know the difference between a 100% analogue sound and a
> digitised sound that has been converted into analogue - albeit at a
> subliminal level.(phew...) So... I think we, as living, breathing
<analogue>
> creatures should make an effort to protect our <natural> analogue view of
> the world - digital/digitised photography? - its cold and synthetic.
Emmm can you explain to me how your mind can tell the difference between an
analogue sound and a digital one.
I study DSP systems and can tell you provided your sample rate and width are
high enough then what comes out will be as close a match as any speaker can
produce. Speakers have an inherent low pass filtration effect that will
smooth the waveform and match the input very closely.
Some of your arguments are perfectly true, and a digital sound will never be
as good as the source. I can say however than no analogue reproduction will
be as good as the source is either which slightly lessens the point.
G
Tony Spadaro
camera is a machine. It makes synthetic pictures. Film, digital, chemical
darkroom, photoshop, inkjet print, egg tempura, icing, whatever. Photography
is a pathetic attempt by those who cannot draw to make a picture. Throw that
crap away and if you can't do it with pencil and paper, you don't belong in
the brotherhood of artists.
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"George Waller" <george...@diespamdielineone.net> wrote in message
news:tcd2j64...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
Tony Spadaro
artform.
In fact photography is just the use of a machine to make pictures, the
photographer should get no credit whatsoever.
You can like or dis-like composits and digitally altered pictures. You can
like or dislike chemically altered pictures. You can like or dislike machine
drawing (aka photography) but the fact is, it is ALL either legit or not.
You can't pick and choose - except for yoour own self and your own work.
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Walter" <Walt...@Deja.com> wrote in message
news:3ac6644c$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
>
Graham Stewart
"Walter" <Walt...@Deja.com> wrote in message
news:3ac6644c$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
>
magazines
> and on the web?
Evidently you are one of the few. Given that every jpeg image you see on the
web will at some point have been altered in software there isn't much you
can do.
> It seems nowadays people spend more time using computer software to
"create"
> images than getting
> out and taking pictures. For example, Pop Photo had an annual contest of
> something some time ago,
> the grand prize winner was a picture of a building interior with hundreds
> of butterflies "flying" in the air (
> I used quotation marks here because these butterflies look so dead you
know
> they are not "flying").
I didn't see that but i can share your disgust
> What kind of crap is this? To me (this is strictly personal opinion, of
course),
> if photography is not a
> Challenging art form, I will not even go out and take pictures.When we go
> out and take pictures, We
> have to choose the right place, the right moment for the right lighting
conditions,
> we have to carefully
> compose the picture, calculate the exposure, etc. etc. ... it then becomes
> all that rewarding when we
> get back the slides or prints the way we wanted them to be. Now you can
just
> be trigger happen, shoot
> like mad, then don't worry, you got Photoshop! What a great life saver,
especially
> for people who know
> nothing about how to take pictures.
Photography is and always will be an artform.
I'm sure you were there screaming when lenses were introduced, becaused they
meant u didn't have to cover a pinhole up when u weren't exposing.
I'm sure you were upset when film started coming in cans, and you no longer
needed a darkroom to load your camera.
It's just one more tool for photographers to use - i honestly believe that
photography is about the end result - not how you got there or what
equipment you used.
> I have decided only to take slides from now on because I know when I take
> slides I do not have a second
> chance -- no exposure corrections, no cut-and-paste, not even cropping (I
> project my slides).
Umm why cant u scan them, modify them and then record them back to film?
It's one thing ranting about the evils of technology but to be ignorant of
that which you are criticising is surely worse.
> I know other
> people will say that is your way, other people can choose their way.
That's
> fine. I agree that for the average
> Joe who doesn't want to wait for several hours to get a good shot, this is
> a much easier way to get good
> snapshots. But what concerns me is that more and more computer-altered
fake
> pictures get published, while
> this only encourages amateurs to learn computer software, it really
discourages
> them from learning the true
> art form that is in photography.
The world will soon wake up to digital imaging and realise that just because
something is manipulated does not make it good.
I suspect (and i'm far too young to know for sure) that the first colour
images were far more about showing off the fact that they were using colour
film, rather than using it as a proper artform. The same has occurred with
digital - people haven't seen a roomfull of butterflies and it's bound to
catch others' attention.
However I think you'll find that fairly few photoshop users have properly
mastered it. It takes a lot of effort to use it effectively and
transparently (in the sense that you cant tell an image has been played
with).
Graham
Joel Rittvo
just wrote, George . . .
I agree... and I almost have the same level of hatred for this new camera
made "art"... picture making should be an organic view of the world... the
skill should be with the combination of eye and hand - for this reason I am
not a great fan of glass and silver and chemicals. All aspects of our world
seem to be converging into an industrial synthetic hell. Whenever a medium
succumbs to the use of machines it becomes synthetic... Leave me to
brushes and oils and to chisels and stone and please keep your magic mirror
in a box to yourself.
Joel Rittvo
"George Waller" <george...@diespamdielineone.net> wrote in message
news:tcd2j64...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> I agree... and I almost have the same level of hatred for digital
cameras...
> picture taking should be an organic <analogue> view of the world... the
> skill should be with the combination of eye and hand - for this reason I
am
> not a great fan of AF either. All aspects of our world seem to be
converging
> into a digital synthetic hell. Whenever a medium succumbs to
digitalisation
> it becomes synthetic... that audio cd you listen to - may sound good on
the
--snip
Graham Stewart
"Roy L. Jacobs" <rlja...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:FLwx6.1532$NU3.1...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
Equally it is possible to create good photographs with a digital camera -
and if you already have a digital one and can make good photos then why buy
a film camera. Digital does not mean over-manipulated, and as you say
yourself photography is about the photographs and not the equipment.
> I have two main problems with digital photography. First it reinforces
> the concept that photos must be in color. Most color photographs are of
no
> value. There are only a handful of outdoor photographers who were or are
> capable of making a fine art images in color. Even Ansel Adams was not
> particularly successful at color. When Elliot Porter was young he made
> wonderful black and white photos. He then switched to color and made
> mediocre photos, by and large, but they sold well so who cares. Ernst
Haas
> was one of the few photographers who made fine color images. So also
Gallen
> Rowell, and the Meunches. That is about it to my knowledge. Digital may
> make it easy to recompose one's images, but the truth is if they were no
> good when taken, they will be no good after be manipulated. Junk is junk.
> It is no accident that almost all of the photos that are generally
> recognized as fine art are in black and white. This will not change.
Digital makes black and white far more accessible. With a film camera you
need to change the film to change to black and white (or change saturation
etc..) yet with digital you can try black and white at the touch of a
button.
> Secondly, digital reinforces the concept that images are designed to
be
> traded on-line or viewed on line. This is wrong. Images that you are
proud
> of are designed to be printed and hung on your walls. So if you are
> traditional or digital, make some decent prints that you are proud of and
> frame them and hang them so your friends and family see what good
> photography is about. Good photography is not on some web site with tiny
> images.
Our lives are increasingly online. Given that I have a lot of friends in far
flung places I do an ever increasing amount of communication online. Anyway
a monitor is probably a more accurate way of viewing something than a print
since you dont have to worry so much about reflected light - just how many
people out there have bothered to colour calibrate their monitors is another
matter tho.
Personally i'd rather look at slides - they are just so much more vibrant
than prints.
g
Bob Hickey
don't. It's just different, to the point that I feel the only thing they
have in common is the camera. Or maybe I just say that 'cause I'm lousy
at color. If PS isn't my schtik, so what, there's a lot of B/W I don't
care for either. Went to a computer show where they were hawking a gang
of printers; all the pictures coming out were technically excellent, and
as souless as the plastic boxes they came out of. Sort of like looking
at the haircut magazines at the haircutters. I look at it like when
Polaroids first came out. Everybody had one: got the same crap in a
minute instead of a week. But the good photographers saw it as a useful
tool which kept it alive. Bob hickey
Graham Stewart
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Y3xx6.221132$__6.39...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> I agree it should be the combination of eye and hand AND charcoal. The
> camera is a machine. It makes synthetic pictures. Film, digital, chemical
> darkroom, photoshop, inkjet print, egg tempura, icing, whatever.
Egg tempura isn't a machine is it.... after learning that the easter bunny
doesn't exist i dont think i could cope!
G
annqlee
You should disregard
some digital photos if you don't like them, you should not get angry. You
should figure out why
you are angry. Just take photographs for yourself and not to please others.
Who cares who
wins what or how much harder you tried to make your photographs work.
It is the experience you have when you take those photographs and the
choices you made.
If you are upset at digital photography as I was with modern art then you
must reevaluate
why you love photography. I could care less what is "hot" in modern art.
You can make statements as you did but you should defend it rigorously.
Citing popular photography
is a bad choice. Saying digital art is easy is premature. Your choice of
slides is personal but immaterial.
Has using slides improve your art besides the basic exposure?
If you don't crop and you don't have a myriad of formats, you will find that
the world is not 24x36.
Is your art more meaningful if I put an extra 60 lbs on your ankles making
it harder for you to work.
Also, give the new generation some credit, they will push the medium of
digital art beyond what you and
I can ever imagine. They can push the field so that art can be created by
something that is not living.
A more interesting point of your claim is that digital art is easier than
conventional photography. In some
aspect that maybe true just as conventional photography is easier than
painting. The mechanics might be easier
the art is still challenging. Now if your work can be easily eclipsed by
digital then you should reevaluate why
you love photography. Is it the image, is it the experience, is it the
communication, the recognition and accolades...?
Best Regards,
Ann
Walter <Walt...@Deja.com> wrote in message
news:3ac6644c$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
>
Tony Spadaro
news:9a678h$bjf$1...@kane.dcs.ed.ac.uk...
>
> Some of your arguments are perfectly true, and a digital sound will never
be
> as good as the source. I can say however than no analogue reproduction
will
> be as good as the source is either which slightly lessens the point.
>
Ahhh, but you must think of it as the latest version of the "tubes sound
better" argument - You know the one about that Warm tube sound as opposed to
the cold sound of transisters. Of course if you happen to be an electric
guitarist you don't call it exactly that - you refer to Warm Tube
Distortion - aka the fuzzbox. Purple Haze! "S'cuse me while I kiss the sky."
You know it wasn't until I got a CD player that I realized that line
wasn't "S'cuse me while I kiss this guy."
I can actually understand the words on old Grateful Dead songs on CDs -
obviously digital is a terrible way to listen to music - right?
BTW I can actually hear the bass in the Trout Quintet too. On lp I was
mostly hearing the first harmonic. It sure is terrible what digital has done
to music.
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
> "George Waller" <george...@diespamdielineone.net> wrote in message
> G
>
>
Tony Spadaro
> I think more amateurs would get involved with photography, in any of its
> forms, if it were not for condescending elitist snobs who bash other's
work
> because their methods of producing an image differ.
Truer words were never spoken.
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Tom Stone" <tom_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9Oux6.965$_P6.1...@news7.onvoy.net...
> Let's see...
>
> No star filters
> No fog filters
> No grads
> No double exposures
> Forget dodging and burning
> Cropping? Hah!
> Tinted prints? Never!
> Why use a tripod? We should SEE that natural shake!
>
> Some people take pictures because they want to be a photographer.
> For others, a photograph is just the first step in producing an image.
>
> This reminds me of the ham radio groups that think the hobby can only
> be truly enjoyed by people who know morse code.
>
Kennedy McEwen
wrote
>
>Am I the only one who is tired of all the photoshop-altered images in magazines
>and on the web?
>It seems nowadays people spend more time using computer software to "create"
>images than getting
>out and taking pictures.
>what concerns me is that more and more computer-altered fake
>pictures get published, while
>this only encourages amateurs to learn computer software, it really discourages
>them from learning the true
>art form that is in photography.
>
wallpaper and prints on their walls.
Digital image manipulation is as different from photography as web
offset printing is from painting. They are different technologies for
different requirements and there is no point worrying about it.
Should you encourage Pop Photo and its ilk to recognise the distinction
and decide which field they wish to follow, you're likely to find there
won't be any mass market true "photography" publications.
--
Kennedy
I was uncooled before uncooled was cool.
Tony Spadaro
has ever used colour. The Sistine Chapel ceiling is in B/W as is Leonardo's
Mona Lisa, and Last Supper. The impressionists never used any colours save
black and paper white - at least not the Real Artists among them.
The Book "Ansel Adams in Colour" is in black and white of course. Those
are the only two colours that matter.
Then again - if you find the ghastly over saturated pictures of the
Meunches to be good perhaps it's best you use only black and white. Adams
once said "If you can't make it good - make it red" Muench listened
carefully and after he found he couldn't make it good... THE rest is tacky
history.
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Roy L. Jacobs" <rlja...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:FLwx6.1532$NU3.1...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
#1 Tiger Fan
induhvidual wrote:
> BTW I can actually hear the bass in the Trout Quintet too. On lp I was
>mostly hearing the first harmonic. It sure is terrible what digital has done
>to music.
It is always good to hear the bass. as a side note to this, the other
day on a rerun of LA Law from 1993 they were in a strip club with a
'cello and 2 violins playing what Brackman claimed was the Trout. I
believe Schubert had a piano and bass in there also. Hmmmm. Now if
those guys can't get it right . . .
#1 Tiger Fan
**************
--
"belive me I am nothing to bragg about so dont waste all your time.®"
"it seems like every boddy trys to be politicly incorect these days®"
- grapetastebasted
"Jefferies sucks!"
- Public Domain
" It is just as pertinent as Fat Albert or other aspects of our
culture.®"
-None
Winner of the "Name the Little Fool" contest!!!®
- OMF
Mark Morgan
Preach!
"Tom Stone" <tom_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9Oux6.965$_P6.1...@news7.onvoy.net...
Mark Morgan
"Joel Rittvo" <jo...@perfect-flight.com> wrote in message
news:cuxx6.2586$SR6.1...@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net...
Heavysteam
forms, if it were not for condescending elitist snobs who bash other's work
because their methods of producing an image differ.>>
..... See, there are people who think that butterfly picture was just yummy!
Heavysteam
audio cd you listen to - may sound good on the surface but your brain <knows>
it is listening to a synthesis of sound - no analogue converter can give 100%
TRUE reproduction of the original analogue sound because the original sound was
broken into pieces (with MANY piece>>
....and here comes the contingent from the Flat Earth Society.
Bruce Murphy
> <<Whenever a medium succumbs to digitalisation it becomes synthetic... that
>
> ....and here comes the contingent from the Flat Earth Society.
But is that the *digital* Flat Earth Society?
B>
Heavysteam
made "art"... picture making should be an organic view of the world... the
skill should be with the combination of eye and hand - for this reason I am not
a great fan of glass and silver and chemicals. >>
You need to spend some time studying the history of photography.
Heavysteam
are generally recognized as fine art are in black and white. This will not
change.>>
You must be working on some other planet where there is no rubbish, signs
nailed on trees, wires or so many other things that can be corrected in
photoshop without altering the true intent of the image. And I take exception
to your "fine art" observation.... Since color has not been in wide use until
after WWII, so many of the images you are probably referencing were made in B&W
because there was no other film medium available. Modern fine artists
working with film have many adherents to color. To me, the choice between
color or B&W depends entirely on subject matter.
Graham Stewart
> "Graham Stewart" <g...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:9a678h$bjf$1...@kane.dcs.ed.ac.uk...
> >
> > Some of your arguments are perfectly true, and a digital sound will
never
> be
> > as good as the source. I can say however than no analogue reproduction
> will
> > be as good as the source is either which slightly lessens the point.
> >
>
>
> Ahhh, but you must think of it as the latest version of the "tubes
sound
> better" argument - You know the one about that Warm tube sound as opposed
to
> the cold sound of transisters. Of course if you happen to be an electric
> guitarist you don't call it exactly that - you refer to Warm Tube
> Distortion - aka the fuzzbox. Purple Haze! "S'cuse me while I kiss the
sky."
> You know it wasn't until I got a CD player that I realized that line
> wasn't "S'cuse me while I kiss this guy."
> I can actually understand the words on old Grateful Dead songs on CDs -
> obviously digital is a terrible way to listen to music - right?
> BTW I can actually hear the bass in the Trout Quintet too. On lp I was
> mostly hearing the first harmonic. It sure is terrible what digital has
done
> to music.
Tubes produce spurious harmonics - actually adding further information to
the audio signal. Whilst many people consider this to be an enchancement it
does mean that the outputted signal is NOT true to the source. Anyway there
is nothing stopping you connecting a cd player to a valve amplifier - i've
seen it done.
G
Tom Stone
"Heavysteam" <heavy...@aol.comzapcrap> wrote in message
news:20010401081608...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
Benjamin Librande
little under thought and I to my eye the results reflect that. But I still wish I had
photoshop. Do you know how long it takes to really get PERFECT prints out of a
darkroom?? It would be incredibly nice to just point click burn, point click dodge,
contrast/balance change......that's not quite right...Undo, try again. But digital
anything still has a long way to go IMO.
As far as I'm concerned, the more people that buy into this stuff the cheaper
(hopefully) the price is for us (kind of flawed logic I know but let me be naive).
There will always be snap shooters but hopefully it just makes the knowledgeable more
valuable.
Edwin
we'd never see if there wasn't a photoshop. Kind of makes one appreciate the
truly good images, doesn't it.
Edwin
"Walter" <Walt...@Deja.com> wrote in message
news:3ac6644c$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
>
Tony Spadaro
people will do- and I suspect some of them are unaware of how much general
mirth they cause with their expensive "improvements".
My favourite was the green magic marker that made CDs sound better! I
think the marker was about 50 dollars - because it wasn't really just a
green highliter - no it was "special".
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Graham Stewart" <g...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9a7esg$ng1$1...@kane.dcs.ed.ac.uk...
Tony Spadaro
trio. In another hundred years it will be a penny whistle tune. Meanwhile I
just got a great new recording of Beethoven's Third Symphony for Brass
Octet.
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"#1 Tiger Fan" <number1...@my-deja.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:o5gdctktematacbo6...@4ax.com...
Graham Stewart
There are van gogh pictures that I wouldn't hang on my wall. A quick stroll
round any gallery and I can pick dozens that i'd hate to own (except for the
ebay value :).
However that doesn't defeat the point that it's still art and the quality is
open to interpretation.
Graham
"Tom Stone" <tom_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FjHx6.993$_P6.1...@news7.onvoy.net...
Abusaleh Jabir
>
> All aspects of our world seem to be converging
> into a digital synthetic hell.
I will refrain from comments on digital photography or digitizing an
analog photo. (I don't have a digital camera by the way, not that it
implies anything.) However, I don't think digital technology is all that
bad. Clue: Think about this newsgroup and us sharing our views so
easily. And think about the amount of work poured into this fascinating
area of science for over a century (possibly starting from Boole).
Abusaleh
Abusaleh Jabir
>
> "George Waller" <george...@diespamdielineone.net> wrote in message
> news:tcd2j64...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> cameras...
> ...
> > subliminal level.(phew...) So... I think we, as living, breathing
> <analogue>
> > creatures should make an effort to protect our <natural> analogue view of
> > the world - digital/digitised photography? - its cold and synthetic.
>
> Emmm can you explain to me how your mind can tell the difference between an
> analogue sound and a digital one.
>
> I study DSP systems and can tell you provided your sample rate and width are
> high enough then what comes out will be as close a match as any speaker can
> produce. Speakers have an inherent low pass filtration effect that will
> smooth the waveform and match the input very closely.
>
> as good as the source. I can say however than no analogue reproduction will
> be as good as the source is either which slightly lessens the point.
Well, whether or not an A/D converted sound is error free (quantization
error) the last thing I would blame is the conversion process (i.e.,
digitization) for inferior quality sound even if my hearing was upto
20KHz which it *certainly* is not.
There are so many things involoved in making digitial audio from the
analog source. Some analog tapes were made a long time ago and the LP
records were made when the tapes were in their quality conditions. When
the tape is digitized some 20 years later it would be gross injustice to
blame it on the digitization process. During the so called "Digital
Remastering" not only the noise level is reduced, most recording
companies add artificial highs and lows and spatial definition to make
the sound more enjoyable. However, two different sound engineers could
be at work here--one who made the original record, and one who is making
the remastered version. Its very likely that their work would be
different and their recording would sound different. Whether the latter
is inferior is a personal matter to the listeners. I don't know how many
people would say that the digital recording was inferior/different if
they had not listen to the original record (assuming good hi-fi
equipment is at disposal).
Abusaleh
PS. Speaking of smoothing out the quantization error, the CD players,
pre- and power-amp stages all have good quality high capacitance low
leakage capacitors. Its not only the speaker doing the smoothing out.
Thomas
Andrew
make photography "digital" :).
Andrew
digital medium in that "crappy" photographers are getting more practice because
they can more cheaply snap photographs to their heart's content without worrying
about the cost. They can then see (immediately) which ones are bad, and which
ones are good, and most intelligent people will simply repeat the process they
used in the "good" photographs, as well as hopefully refine and improve that
process to create even better photographs.
I've seen the (good) advice "burn more film" given many times in this newsgroup
- digital provides an effective medium for this to happen.
Kennedy McEwen
Spadaro <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote
>You know how inflation goes. The Trout has been downgraqded to a string
>trio. In another hundred years it will be a penny whistle tune. Meanwhile I
>just got a great new recording of Beethoven's Third Symphony for Brass
>Octet.
Hehehe - reminds me of one a CD I bought soon after they first started
to appear. Vivaldi's Four Seasons, by the Japanese Koto Orchestra. At
the time I thought this was an orchestra from Koto...
Ting tong titty tong tong tong ting! ;-)
Meryl Arbing
illustration! The skills involved in producing an exceptional photograph
are different from the skills to fabricate an image using digital
photoediting tools.
"Where do we draw the line?" (to coin a phrase) Could you enter a
photocontest using a computer created image made up entirely of elements
from stock photos that you did not take? Is it art? Perhaps, but does it
qualify for entry in a contest of photographic skill? I doubt it!
Even if the elements in the computer created montage were actually taken by
the person making the submission and who then assembled them at his leisure
in the comfort of his home, is that fair to enter along side the work of a
photographer who spent several hours waiting for the exact moment when the
light is correct; or when the action was at its height and who had to know
his equipment so that the shot was not only artistically correct but
technically correct as well?
"Graham Stewart" <g...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9a7qh5$qnd$1...@kane.dcs.ed.ac.uk...
Meryl Arbing
submissions to slides only which would eliminate most of the fabricated
entries. The other approach is to allow prints or slides but examine the
description of each entry and, if the word "Photoshop" appears, to either
eliminate the entry entirely or confine it in a separate "digital" category.
"Walter" <Walt...@Deja.com> wrote in message
news:3ac6644c$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
>
> Am I the only one who is tired of all the photoshop-altered images in
magazines
> and on the web?
> It seems nowadays people spend more time using computer software to
"create"
> images than getting
Andy
<mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I think that those running contests of photographic skill should restrict
>submissions to slides only which would eliminate most of the fabricated
>entries. The other approach is to allow prints or slides but examine the
>description of each entry and, if the word "Photoshop" appears, to either
>eliminate the entry entirely or confine it in a separate "digital" category.
Well that's ridiculous. You might as well restrict the entries to be
polaroids only thus limiting all of the creative effort to be at the
time of pressing the button.
...in my opinion photography doesn't stop there. It starts there and
ends in the darkroom (or photoshop)...
Andy.
Tony Spadaro
time spent is to be the criterial than sculpting in marble is the highest
form of art and photography is at the bottom - You press the button
machinery does the rest.
Art is art. Bad art is bad - be it photography or painting or cumputer
manipulation.
You, of course may have a very narrow definiton of what is art - but
remember there are plenty of people out there who will out narrow you right
into the ramainder bin of people who make "string art" with their eight year
olds. Many art collectors consider photography to be a craft - at best. To
them photography is hiring a little man to take pictures of the real art for
insurance purposes.
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:NB2y6.176526$Z2.21...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Tony Spadaro
paper or a slide - So it goes into your contest, wins and no one is the
wiser. Meanwhile you have eliminated half the "straight" photographers
because their slides may be less than perfect - nothing like a few dsut
spots to attract the eye and destroy the picture. Your contest would only
create secret computer manipulators.
Take a look at the pictures on the Dark Alley website - Every one of them
is computer "manipulated". At very least I eliminated dust spots from each
and every picture on that site. How many of them look like digital
manipulations? If you were handed a print on Fuji Crystal Archive paper or
Ilfochrome, or Ilford Multicontrast would you be able to tell which ones
were made straight from a negative or slide and which went through a
computer? I don't think so. Another couple generations any you won't be able
to tell an inkjet print from a photo paper print either.
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:PH2y6.176528$Z2.21...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Meryl Arbing
concerned with? It certainly IS the skill that the person with the camera
applies BEFORE the shutter is clicked!
There is a BIG difference between fixing the tonal aspects in an image or
cropping it and altering the content by moving things around or adding
elements that did not exist in the real shot.
As I asked before, where do we draw the line? Isn't it just as "creative" to
fabricate an image from elements of stock photos or from stealing other
people's photos? The person with the computer and a copy of Photoshop
doesn't even have to own a camera!! Should a tweaked and constructed image
be allowed to stand beside the work of a photographer who has only the
camera and his skill in using it?
If you think it should, then I also expect that you would think that it is
OK to take a taxi to the finish of the Boston Marathon and then pretend you
ran it!
"Andy" <an...@sparkling.demon.co.-NO-SPAM-.uk> wrote in message
news:7ikhct4578u8iove6...@4ax.com...
Meryl Arbing
One could imagine the hours required to set up a million dominos just to
knock them down. Interesting to see but I doubt if the television people
would want to film the set up process rather than the knocking down.
As I said above. The task of creating a "digital composite" does not require
that the elements of the composite are the work of the person making it. In
fact they could just as easily be taken from stock collections or simply
stolen from the work of other people. Not exactly the same as a sculptor who
produces his art from the raw material of stone. Light is much more
ephemeral than stone and, as such, the time required to capture it is much
shorter than the time neaded to fashion marble.news:mw6y6.119$Ho5.1...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Meryl Arbing
throw up our hands and say anything goes! A person who wins a photocontest
by deceptive modifications has cheated!
Removing dust spots from a shot does not fall into what I would classify as
a deceptive modification to a shot. You are merely returning it to the
condition when you took it. The dust spots are an addition to the image that
you don't want and didn't plan. Of course, you can remove them! However, if
you take a nature shot and think that it would make a better picture if you
made it look as though you caught the outline of a hawk against the full
moon by copying that image from another shot; that would be unacceptable!
Things like that , where the submitter makes it appear that they have
actually taken what would have been a remarkable shot, when, in fact, they
did not, is deceptive and unfair when placed in competition with more honest
photographers.
However, that should not be a problem digital illustrations are placed in
competition against one another then that is fine. Everybody is starting
from the same position and every shot is known to be a digital manipulation.
In that situation, the contest is not one of skill with a camera but skill
with a computer and editing software. So, digital manipulations could be
allowed entry into contests but it must be in their own category!news:mw6y6.120$Ho5.1...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Tony Spadaro
are bad photographers. You were the one implying that time is the standard -
if you take the time to read your own post.
Art is art. There is good art, and there is bad art. If you do it with a
brush, or a camera, or a mallet or a computer, it's still art.
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:CNmy6.180223$Z2.21...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Tony Spadaro
are bad photographers. You were the one implying that time is the standard -
if you take the time to read your own post.
Art is art. There is good art, and there is bad art. If you do it with a
brush, or a camera, or a mallet or a computer, it's still art.
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:CNmy6.180223$Z2.21...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Tony Spadaro
cloth behind the camera, while a boy and a donkey pose in front - the
caption is "Any jackass can take a picture".
There is no special skill to clicking a shutter. There is certainly no
skill to picking up prints at the mall. One could - and many have - argued
that photography is not an art at all. In fact the skill needed to create a
composit in a computer is much greater than that needed to click the
shutter - in fact it is about equal with that needed to successfully print a
composite chemically.
A person with photoshop doesn't have to own a camera - but then again
neither does a painter, or a sculptor. To many, the photographer has been
getting the free ride for 170 years.
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:IGmy6.179798$Z2.21...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Paul Ferrara
different category than straight photography.
Paul
Meryl Arbing <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:IGmy6.179798$Z2.21...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Paul Ferrara
different category than straight photography.
Paul
Meryl Arbing <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:IGmy6.179798$Z2.21...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
James Wenzel
contrast range of the negatives and then spend hours burning and
dodging the prints to achieve just the result I want. Have I crossed
the line yet? The result images are clearly the result of a
manipulation of the original exposure. Should we have separate
categories for this sort of print as opposed to one that is un
(re)touched.
What about a double exposure? What about a composite exposure ala
astrophotography? What about using filters? Does my dydimium filter
enhance shot of the Grand Canyon count as a photography or a
manipulation?
Of course cheating is a major no no. I'm just not sure what amounts to
a deceptive modification. Your definition might (and I emphasize the
might) bounce Ansel Adams (an exaggeration, but it illustrates my
quandary).
jim
Dag
>
>Some people take pictures because they want to be a photographer.
>For others, a photograph is just the first step in producing an image.
>
And that's great. Hell I enjoy several forms of art where I base my work
on one or more photographs. But I don't consider image manipulation on a
computer photography, just as I don't consider painting on print
photography. Nor do I consider the my final product a photograph. Art,
perhaps, but certainly not photography, and I certainly don't think any
such work belongs in a photography magazine, which was the discussion.
Dag
Tony Spadaro
have run into exactly that argument - only "straight" prints should be
allowed in contests, or no manipulation other than dodging and burning, etc
etc etc. What it usually comes down to is "whatever I do should be allowed
and whatever I Don't do should not."
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"James Wenzel" <wen...@panam.edu> wrote in message
news:0c3kctc2595o5a2du...@4ax.com...
Al Denelsbeck
Meryl Arbing wrote in message ...
>People can win any sort of a contest by cheating. That does not mean that
we
>throw up our hands and say anything goes! A person who wins a photocontest
>by deceptive modifications has cheated!
<snip>
>However, that should not be a problem digital illustrations are placed in
>competition against one another then that is fine. Everybody is starting
>from the same position and every shot is known to be a digital
manipulation.
>In that situation, the contest is not one of skill with a camera but skill
>with a computer and editing software. So, digital manipulations could be
>allowed entry into contests but it must be in their own category!
Which brings us full circle back to the original rant that started this
whole thread.
For anyone who hasn't bothered to find out what they're talking about,
the image in question, from Popular Photography's January 2001 issue, is
very clearly marked as Computer Enhanced, and some of the details behind its
creation are listed in the credits. Moreover, Pop Photo has a specific
category for manipulated photos in their contest. But examination of the
entry for anything longer than a second will determine this to be obvious,
anyway. The unreal posterization of the colors, the solarized treatment of
the skylight, and the reflections of the butterflies are just a tiny bit of
a giveaway.
For whatever it's worth, Pop Photo is among the many publications and
judging organizations that has chosen to define photography as dealing with
a 'real' record of an image, at least as a starting point. As opposed to a
work of art stemming entirely from, for instance, applying paint to canvas.
Since photography has had the opportunity to be manipulated pretty much
right from the start, the definition obviously has to be pretty general to
cover all the bases.
For my money, with what I know about Photoshop, the image shows a
tremendous amount of effort involved, and some interesting effects with
reflections and lighting. And yes, composition and exposure as well. Anyone
who says that a strong image can be created simply in Photoshop, la de da,
has never actually attempted it. Even basic cleanups like removing telephone
poles from a blank sky needs to be done with care, since telltale artifacts
are frequently left behind, and can be spotted by people familiar with both
photography and digital 'trickery'. Which pretty much accounts for most
serious contest judges.
And there's one other angle that nobody seems to have addressed yet: If
you think computer-manipulated images are taking all the awards in photo
contests anymore, well then, you know what you have to do, don't you?
- Al.
--
Remove 'onspam' from address for direct reply.
Online photo gallery at www.ipass.net/~denelsbeck.
Don Marcotte
to work some of his magic in the darkroom. Why is what he did all that
different from digital manipulation? The science of photography has
advanced! If I use a graduated neutral density filter to darken part
of an image as I take a shot, what is the real difference if I create
them effect digitally after the fact? I've just read a fine book
written by Galen Rowell. In it he says that he has an idea of what he
wants to achieve in a shot then tries to get it. He is an artist to
me. Do I care if the lovely pictures he displayed in the book were
done entirely by camera alone, or with some dark room artistry, or
digital enhancement? I for one don't care. I just appreciate the
beauty of his images.
By your definition, Star Wars would be considered cheating. I don't
think so!
Don
Meryl Arbing
exposed for highlights and developed for shadows. It was a way of using his
knowledge of the technology to make sure that his photographs accurately
reproduced what he saw with his eyes.
Did he move mountains around? Did he "improve" his shots by putting a
strategically placed full moon rising in the distance? In short, did he
"take" the picture or did he "fake" the picture?
There is a major difference between adjusting the tonal aspects of a shot
and inserting elements that never existed in the original shot. One is
correcting the exposure and the other is simple fakery.
It is quite a difference between the photographer who goes to Africa and
spends days in a blind waiting for the perfect lion shot and the lamer who
takes a quick digital snap of some mangy zoo lion and then pastes in a
background of the African Savannah that he stole from Corel Draw stock
images.
I believe that Galen Rowell does have an idea about what he wants to achieve
in a shot but I doubt that, if he can't get the effect he wants, he is
prepared to fake it!
Do you really believe that photography has anything to do with a "What they
don't know won't hurt them" attitude? This is like watering the booze or
using cheap materials to build a house... Who's going to know? If you
appreciate the beauty of an image, don't you want to know if you could go to
that same spot with your own camera and take the same shot? If it's a fake,
then you couldn't.
Knowing how hard it is to take a really great shot, I would like to
appreciate the skill and knowledge of that photographer. He would have to
make the decisions about that shot in a few seconds...the jerk with a copy
of photoshop can spend days tweaking and rearranging...inserting and
deleting elements...over and over again...even with pieces of pictures that
he never took...What is there to admire in that? You don't even need a
camera...is it photography?
"Don Marcotte" <dma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2pboctc5uis7hso6v...@4ax.com...
mbk
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> It is quite a difference between the photographer who goes to Africa and
> spends days in a blind waiting for the perfect lion shot and the lamer who
> takes a quick digital snap of some mangy zoo lion and then pastes in a
> background of the African Savannah that he stole from Corel Draw stock
> images.
And that difference is very obvious in the images. Stop being scared
that some lamer with a computer can beat your perfect shot with vile
technology. It takes great images and great skill to make a great
composite. 99% of what I see done with photoshop is crap, but then again
99% of what I see done with a camera is crap, too.
As for me, I'll celebrate excellent images however they're created, even
if they're rendered in Maya or some other 3d program.
I'm sure there are contests that restrict entries to images that have
not been digitally altered, stick to those contests if it makes you
happy.
Michael
Graham Stewart
> For one thing, photographers like Ansel Adams weren't being deceptive if
he
> exposed for highlights and developed for shadows. It was a way of using
his
> knowledge of the technology to make sure that his photographs accurately
> reproduced what he saw with his eyes.
> Did he move mountains around? Did he "improve" his shots by putting a
> strategically placed full moon rising in the distance? In short, did he
> "take" the picture or did he "fake" the picture?
In a regular black and white darkroom I can quite capably insert a full moon
into a photo - I doubt it would look very good, but not even the vile and
monstrous powers of photoshop will let you change the fact that if the light
will be completely wrong if you are looking into a full moon.
I have added a bird into a sky once and the result was (as i recall) quite
reasonable. Roughly I just exposed the sky, dodging slighlty round the area
i wished to put the bird (the sky was not far off white anyway). Then i just
exposed the bird onto the same sheet using a mask around it. Simple stuff.
I certainly would not consider myself a skilled darkroom technician but I do
feel that my photoshop skill would let me create that same compsoite far
better than anyone in a darkroom could.
You seem to employ a set of double standards. It seems ok to adjust the tone
and colours so that photographs "accurately reproduced what he saw with his
eyes". Yet if i visualise a bald eagle soaring over edinburgh i'd be
cheating to create it artificially.
I'd also like to use your analogy about "using cheap materials to build a
house" against you. Wtf is wrong with using cheap materials - if they do the
job then surely it's best to use the cheapest you can find? Similarly rather
than wasting film, bracketing to the eyeballs and experimenting with
filters - i'll shoot nice crisp slides and add what i want to them in
photoshop. Saves me money again.
G