Paul, I understand what you are saying, but my preference and expectations are for realistic photos and unrealistic paintings. Of course, anything can be called art, but my expectations for what it is good or extraordinary depends on the medium. A photo that I would call extraordinary may not be once I learn it is photoshopped.
(I remember the presentations at Grandfather Mountain three years ago. A couple of nature photographers had presented some great photos captured after much hunting in early morning light in the Smokeys. The photoshop guy came on with his presentation and took a blah sky and changed it with a dramatic one in a simple click of the mouse. The nature guys were flabergasted! What they achieved with great effort, he was able to fabricate from much easier to obtain components. This will always be my concern in judging photoshopped images. Not are they pretty, but are they real.) Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:18 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then by your definition, since unrealistic photos are invalid, photo > realistic paintings are invalid? In truth any expression of art is valid. > Rules only weaken the mix. Before Shakespeare's day, critics believed that a > two hour drama couldn't depict more than two hours of action. Shakespeare > realized that strict adherence to real time wasn't necessary in the telling > of a story. And an art form matured. The best rule is no rules. > Paul > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Brian, >> >> It's a hard call. >> I like the photoshopped picture. It is more pleasing than the original. >> But it troubles me knowing it is 'photoshopped'. >> >> I expect paintings to be paintings and photos to be photos. >> I expect paintings to be a truly imaginary concoction, >> perhaps based on real life but without strict rules on veracity. >> I expect photos to be mostly a capture of a real scene, >> perhaps manipulated a little bit, but with a lot of faithfulness to >> the original scene. >> With enough manipulation, photos stop being photos and become another art >> form. >> Perhaps photo montage would be the right name for them. >> >> Your question stirs the pot on the whole issue. >> I expect paintings(etc) to be beautiful or moving in composition, >> colors, ideas overall. >> I expect photos to be beautiful for the capture of a real scene, real >> light, real detail. >> It becomes a matter of expectations. >> In the painting(etc) art world, we suspend expectations of perfect >> representation >> and enjoy the other aspects of the work. >> In the photo world, I expect the picture is highly representational of >> what you can see. >> (Of course artists blur these lines in 1,000 different ways, with >> painted canvases that >> look like photos and photos that look like paintings.) >> >> But for me, I like to look at photos and think that they show something real >> and >> marvel at how the photographer was able to get the shot. >> >> (Next time, take the chain saw!) ;-) >> >> Regards, Bob S. >> >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hi all >> > >> > This may have been discussed previously but I thought it might be worth >> > canvassing PDMLers' views, in the light of Ann's comments on my recent >> > "Stumped - Take 2" PESO. >> > >> > I think most people would regard the recent "Iran Missile" fiasco as >> > being in the "way too much" category and a few journalists have got >> > themselves into strife in recent years by 'sexing up' news images. >> > Although photography has always been a weapon of propaganda, well before >> > the digital age, these are distorting history and can't be justified. >> > >> > At the other extreme, removing the odd dust spot or maybe a distracting >> > leaf or branch would probably be regarded as being OK by most people. >> > >> > But what about the middle ground - when do we step over the line? >> > >> > I'll offer my two PESO's as examples (these aren't wonderful images but >> > they serve to illustrate the point): >> > >> > http://www.blognow.com.au/PESO/95749/Stumped.html >> > http://www.blognow.com.au/PESO/95818/Stumped_-_Take_2.html >> > >> > Even the first one had some photoshopping - I removed some intrusive >> > branches on the left. It never occurred to me to mention this in the >> > original post. Should I have mentioned it? >> > >> > The second one was more drastic and involved removal of a stump on the >> > left. This was suggested by Paul, and others seemed to agree that it >> > was acceptable (and an improvement). Ann, however, thought I'd gone too >> > far. In retrospect, I think Ann is probably right in this case. I have >> > changed what is there and, as I intend using the image in a 'River >> > Environs' project, I probably should use the original for that project. >> > >> > As a pure image, however, taken out of the "River Environs' context, the >> > second image 'works better', in my opinion. >> > >> > So what do you think - not specifically about these images but as a >> > general view. Even the great photographers of the past weren't shy when >> > it came to 'improving' images - a dodge and burn here; a replacement sky >> > there.... I sometimes wonder what some of the great photographers of >> > the past would have thought about Photoshop, had they been alive to use >> > it. In many >> > cases, I'm sure they would have regarded it as another useful tool to >> > help in >> > their craft. >> > >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > Brian >> > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > Brian Walters >> > Western Sydney Australia >> > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ >> > >> > -- >> > >> > >> > -- >> > http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class >> > >> > >> > -- >> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> > [email protected] >> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> > follow >> the directions. >> > >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow >> the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
