As a personal preference, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that a PhotoShop altered photo can't be artful. I don't like everything that some of the most respected criticis in the art world consider masterworks. But I don't deny that those works may well be great art. Just not my cup of tea. There's a big difference between personal preference and the aesthetic validity of another's work. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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.
-- 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.
