Every Picture Tells a Story Don't It

[canexplain]

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****

[J~$$$]

If anything it makes me giggle

[hawkingvsreeve]

Kristen to thread.

[miscorrections]

it takes talent to use photoshop well.

it's just about whether you prefer old-school talent or techno-talent. i wouldn't say either is more valid than the other.

[TomAz]

the only thing i would object to is photoshop being used but then it being represented as something else. ("I drew this" when really you used a computer to help a bit). I think that's rare anymore. other than that it's fine.

[luckyface]

If anything it makes me giggle

Nothing beats this cat

[Ill_Eagle]

[codytwo]

In my opinion, if you start to make distinctions about what is and isn't art based at all off of the process behind the creation, then you must disregard a large portion of what has been considered very influential modern art. Andy Warhol towards the end of his career had essentially nothing to do with what his factory was churning out, and yet he signed it (most of the time himself) and took credit for the works, without much criticism from the art world.

The way I see it, the distinction cannot be made between what is and isn't art, but it can be made between what is meaningful, what is important, what is purposeful, and what is not. The wide availability of such incredible artistic tools can be nothing but a boon for the art world. Not only does it guarantee the ability of artistic expression for many people who never would have otherwise never exercised that part of their self, but I think that it provides us with a greater sense of what is and is not worthy of praise. When we see a million derivative, dreck photoshopped self-portraits, I think we can come to recognize and appreciate the greater examples all the more. Thats just my two cents.

[J~$$$]

very interesting.

http://www.wired.com/science/discove...sionist_vision

[Courtney]

Yeah, I see no problem with changing the light levels of a photo in a way equivalent to over/under-exposure of a negative. Or using photoshop for artistic purposes in an art context. The problem occurs when people are using photographs as evidence to document reality, and claiming them as such, when in fact they have been altered. That has been the problem recently with the various photojournalists who have either been fired or resigned over photoshopping scandals (for example here or here).

Photoshop is a very powerful tool, and when it's used to create a fiction that masquerades as reality, especially in the cause of journalism, we have a serious problem on our hands.

[Hannahrain]

"I'm going to enjoy my life with my family," he said Monday. "I'll be glad I'm out of the news business."

Insert standard scandal disclaimer here.

[Tylerdurden31]

this is essentially the same argument between using instruments or electronics for music. music is music any way you slice it. Art is art anyway you slice it.

also:

I read an article somewhere about staged photographs. It kind of takes away from the spontaneity of some photography, but I think it's still art. It's almost as if you're doing an installation piece.

and here's the article

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...592850,00.html

[canexplain]

very interesting.

http://www.wired.com/science/discove...sionist_vision

tnx dude, that was interesting .... i have always said the reason that god makes our vision go as we get older, is because for your significant other, when you say, "You look as beautiful as when i first met you 30 years ago", you just might be telling the truth .. cr****

[canexplain]

Yeah, I see no problem with changing the light levels of a photo in a way equivalent to over/under-exposure of a negative. Or using photoshop for artistic purposes in an art context. The problem occurs when people are using photographs as evidence to document reality, and claiming them as such, when in fact they have been altered. That has been the problem recently with the various photojournalists who have either been fired or resigned over photoshopping scandals (for example here or here).

Photoshop is a very powerful tool, and when it's used to create a fiction that masquerades as reality, especially in the cause of journalism, we have a serious problem on our hands.

or as something as mundane as "Hey this is my picture" and it is on eharmony or yahoo singles or any of those places, then you met and say, "and where is your sister " cr*****

[J~$$$]

OH cr*** thats why I <3 you, for those quotes.

[TomAz]

Yeah, I see no problem with changing the light levels of a photo in a way equivalent to over/under-exposure of a negative. Or using photoshop for artistic purposes in an art context. The problem occurs when people are using photographs as evidence to document reality, and claiming them as such, when in fact they have been altered. That has been the problem recently with the various photojournalists who have either been fired or resigned over photoshopping scandals (for example here or here).

Photoshop is a very powerful tool, and when it's used to create a fiction that masquerades as reality, especially in the cause of journalism, we have a serious problem on our hands.

I agree with you in principle, though those two examples seem to be much ado about nothing. they don't materially change what was being presented in the pictures.


what I want to know though is why that kid had his dick out in english class.

[jackstraw94086]

[Courtney]

I agree with you in principle, though those two examples seem to be much ado about nothing. they don't materially change what was being presented in the pictures.

Yeah, when I was searching for something to link as an example for people who might not have heard about the photojournalism debates that have come up over the past month, I was really surprised at how little coverage the issue was getting. I get most of my news from NPR, and they've covered the issue quite a lot. But it seems like printed news media (with the exception of specialty publications like Editor & Publisher) are really down-playing the stories. For example, in the case of that guy Detrich from The Blade, I remember that it was something like 30 photos that had been altered cumulatively. I don't think the articles I found even mention that fact. The lack of self-regulation in the printed news media is possibly the most troubling thing of all.

(Edit: here is a better article on Allan Detrich. 79 edited photos were found in all, so it was definitely a case of intentional dishonesty, not merely a submission mishap. It's a slippery slope, in my opinion, between photoshopping in a basketball where there is none and photoshopping in a fighter jet or a gun.)

[bug on your lip]

[canexplain]

this was a serious question, but that did make me giggle ..cr***

[J~$$$]

[bug on your lip]

[canexplain]

why is it usually cats and i do like cats, but they can get in some of the dumbest situations ...cr****

hey J~$$$, there are 3 people from the board flying in for DP, i forget what their names are though .... c ya on the top parking lot eh ....

[J~$$$]

Fo chizzle cr*****

[TomAz]

It's a slippery slope, in my opinion, between photoshopping in a basketball where there is none and photoshopping in a fighter jet or a gun.)

so, I guess you won't support me when I nominate caco for the pulitzer prize in photojournalism?

[canexplain]

J~$$$

I had mentioned Daft Punk, this is kinda cool although I feel like a rat sometimes when I use it …. I have a handicap placard for my truck that is good thru July 2008 … I am “all fixed” and I don’t need it anymore, but I still use it when I park usually … what is cool about red rocks, you cant buy handicap tics before hand (except at the venue I think) but if the show doesn’t sell out, we go up to the ticket booth on the way up for parking, and we can trade our tics in …. I think 3 times we have got center, front row, which is where half the HC seats are … the other half, is all the way at the top, but you do get seats and reserved … so I am hoping that DP at the rocks is well packed, but not sold out, then tygerlady and myself might get front row  cr****

[Courtney]

so, I guess you won't support me when I nominate caco for the pulitzer prize in photojournalism?

Hehe. Oh no, I fully endorse that motion. The world needs more caco photoshopping.

[J~$$$]

You are going to hell cr****, but I likes your panache.


I may have to join you on this adventure.....

[Jenniehoo]

[ewiggy]

Kristen to thread.

hey what up. how'd i miss this?

it takes talent to use photoshop well.

it's just about whether you prefer old-school talent or techno-talent. i wouldn't say either is more valid than the other.

word. that's exactly what i would have said.

anyway, i use photoshop for both my fine art and my graphic design. as long as it's used effectively, i think it's valid and shouldn't discount the art in any way. take david lachapelle's work, for example. his work has the appearance of being photoshopped. whether or not it actually is can be up for debate, although to me it doesn't really matter. the end result is where it's at.


photoshopped, or just brilliantly lit and executed? who cares.