drp
A Question Of "Art"
Photography vs Photoshopography.
There's been a debate for as long as I can remember over whether a photograph is considered a "work of art" strictly on the attributes of it's own creation (composed entirely in camera via settings and available light), or if digital manipulation (Photoshop) is an acceptable tool in enhancing an image to where the artist originally envisioned it, AS the picture was taken.
Consider the shot above. It's pixels were massaged, it's levels and curves adjusted, it's layers duplicated and processed. What you see is the end result. It is this version that I choose to present to you, and how I feel it best represents the scene as I first saw it in my head - snapping a shot in my car at a street light on a rainy afternoon.
This is the original: www.spacecatdesign.com/pstankertruck.JPG
Is the version I posted a cheat, a fake, an embellishment on the truth? If I had posted the original would it catch your eye as much as this? Does my Photoshop wizardry turn it into art, or can it ONLY be considered such if it was a "perfect" shot right out of the camera?
I've seen thousands of shots here by wonderful photographers that leave me in awe - taken with digital cams, 35mms, Holgas, and medium formats. Many are as you see them. Others are altered drastically. In my mind, I really don't care how a shot is produced. It's YOUR vision, and I respect and accept it. If it affects me, if it floors me, if it makes me laugh or cry or just amuses me, then I feel it's served it's purpose.
Of course, the photographic purist would scoff at any form of digital enhancement. The magic is born from the capabilities of the equipment AND the person utilizing it. Anything else is considered sacrilege! And on the other hand, the magician with a laptop and enough gear to run NASA can keystroke a masterpiece of color, light, and shape on their lunch break.
Which one is art to you?
____________________________________
For the month of February (2005), I am posting a link to a different "Flickr friend" each day. It may be a person you already know, or a completely new discovery, but it's someone whose work and vision I feel you might really enjoy.
I call it the "Flickr Daily Photog Pickr," and today's pick is The Mexican : www.flickr.com/photos/raul/
Enjoy!
____
Go here to read more, and see the first pick made: www.flickr.com/photos/drp/4186888/
A Question Of "Art"
Photography vs Photoshopography.
There's been a debate for as long as I can remember over whether a photograph is considered a "work of art" strictly on the attributes of it's own creation (composed entirely in camera via settings and available light), or if digital manipulation (Photoshop) is an acceptable tool in enhancing an image to where the artist originally envisioned it, AS the picture was taken.
Consider the shot above. It's pixels were massaged, it's levels and curves adjusted, it's layers duplicated and processed. What you see is the end result. It is this version that I choose to present to you, and how I feel it best represents the scene as I first saw it in my head - snapping a shot in my car at a street light on a rainy afternoon.
This is the original: www.spacecatdesign.com/pstankertruck.JPG
Is the version I posted a cheat, a fake, an embellishment on the truth? If I had posted the original would it catch your eye as much as this? Does my Photoshop wizardry turn it into art, or can it ONLY be considered such if it was a "perfect" shot right out of the camera?
I've seen thousands of shots here by wonderful photographers that leave me in awe - taken with digital cams, 35mms, Holgas, and medium formats. Many are as you see them. Others are altered drastically. In my mind, I really don't care how a shot is produced. It's YOUR vision, and I respect and accept it. If it affects me, if it floors me, if it makes me laugh or cry or just amuses me, then I feel it's served it's purpose.
Of course, the photographic purist would scoff at any form of digital enhancement. The magic is born from the capabilities of the equipment AND the person utilizing it. Anything else is considered sacrilege! And on the other hand, the magician with a laptop and enough gear to run NASA can keystroke a masterpiece of color, light, and shape on their lunch break.
Which one is art to you?
____________________________________
For the month of February (2005), I am posting a link to a different "Flickr friend" each day. It may be a person you already know, or a completely new discovery, but it's someone whose work and vision I feel you might really enjoy.
I call it the "Flickr Daily Photog Pickr," and today's pick is The Mexican : www.flickr.com/photos/raul/
Enjoy!
____
Go here to read more, and see the first pick made: www.flickr.com/photos/drp/4186888/