Question for the board, and I didn’t want to make it a poll: does it matter if a picture is enhanced by Photoshop or any one of the photo applications? Is current technology just another tool in an artist’s palette or is it a crutch for lack of talent? I have an AA in art, ok whoopee doopy, but in my photography class, we were taught that it might take hours just to get that perfect shot of the sunset. Maybe days. Well with PS, you can get that “perfect” picture with just hitting the right tab in the app (ok not quite that easy but you get what I mean) . Is that really any different though then going into a darkroom and exposing your negative a bit longer to make up for bad exposure?
Here is a pic of Sting (yes when he had hair lol 1982). How this was done was with Kodalith film. That film has no gray scale. It is essentially only black and white. Well what I did, was get two negatives of the same picture, and offset them, causing just the outline of the picture to be developed. It must have taken me a couple of days to get that picture right, and now I can do it in a couple of hours, probably better
Here is a picture of some tulips. As you can see it has been photo shopped to the max, but I like the picture anyway.
We have also seen on this board and all over the net, pictures that could never really be. Bush riding a mule with bags of coke on his saddle. Does that make them manufactured works of art or just an aberration of real life? So just a thought and I was wondering what you thought about art vs. talent vs. technology vs. ?? cr****