Photographers are really no longer just photographers. They are image makers. Photoshop is viewed as an extension of the photographer's toolbox, and that is really something. To be able to capture an image, open it in Photoshop, and then make the image into anything the photographer wants it to be is absolutely amazing.
There are some that might argue that this is what makes digital photographers less legitimate than film photographers. I cry foul on that. An image can be captured any number of ways, and the way an image is captured determines the way it is processed. A film photographer might develop in their darkroom in a certain way. Likewise, a digital photographer will process in the way he/she sees fit for his/her image. The difference is the digital photographer has more creative freedom during the processing. There are even some photographers that use their photographs to make art, and there is next to no evidence that it was originally a photograph. That's cool!
In conclusion I want to say that I feel it is dangerous to put art in a box. People should feel free to create without having to explain why their art is legitimate. We don't have to like every kind of art nor do we have to look at art we don't like. We do have to allow creative freedom.
This original is much less impressive than after it has been processed in photoshop don't you think?
11 comments:
Hey Marjorie!
I'm so glad to have found your blog through the A-Z challenge. Writing is my passion, but I love photography. I'm a trigger-happy person when it comes to taking pictures and i wish i had the time work on this skill more. I know it takes time to develop an eye for beautiful images and creative angles. one of these days when time and money permits it, I'll take up a class on photography.thanks for sharing this post!
nutschell
www.thewritingnut.com
Hey Marjorie ~~ I'm popping in from the A~Z Challenge .
I admire image-makers , especially painters . Painting is a unique gift amongst the art forms . Lots of people can learn to sing or dance , but not everybody can learn to paint/draw.
~MICHELLE~
http://writer-in-transit.co.za/category/other/rambles-rants-and-raves/
I do not use photoshop, or any other editing software. I'm not against those who use it because the important thing is creativity. I do not use it because I like it and because I am an inept and lacking in patience to learn. As my photos are mostly studio and I have the ability to manage all the variables,I can not find ne sary , repeat untilthe picture is to my liking . What matters is the final result, and each one has to find his way and his personal style. It is certain that any work of art must be imperfect in some parts to enhance perfection. Retouched photos where everything is perfect no longer poetic. Any work of art must have its contrasts is, music, literature, ...
I kinda disagree, MARJORIE.
I think a law oughta be passed stating: "All art MUST be good".
That way we could get rid of the crappy art and retain only the good art.
~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'
If a photo catches my eye, whether it has been photoshopped or not, to me it's art.
These are beautiful! I have awarded you the Versatile Blogger Award, you will find the details on my blog. http://sivmaria.blogspot.com Congrats!
I think that all artists have the previous generation saying "our art was genuine and honest, and you're just cheating!" Your example was perfect, touched-up, but not as though you put a wolf's head image into the clouds! (though that would have been pretty cool).
The second one is prettier, but the first one has more depth.
Nutschell- Thanks for your visit. I hope to see you here again soon. Photography is definitely worth learning. I was just someone who liked to take pictures a year ago. Now I FEEL like a photographer.
Mish- Good to see you. Painting is hard. I can draw and I can compose images, but painting is not my thing at all.
Leovi- Every image is unique. What some people think is perfect is not to others.
Stephen- You know art is subjective.
Niki- The problem (sometimes) with things that catch a person's eye is that sometimes artists catch your eye on purpose instead of relying on honing their craft. What I mean to say is they use shock value or other tools to fool people into looking at their work instead of being technically good. But that is just the way I see it.
Siv-Thanks A bunch! I will go and check it out, but I don't know if I will have time to pass it on. I have a huge project coming up, but I will try. :-)
Will- Great point. Though I think the wolf's head thing might be a tad kitsch. haha!
Angela- I see it differently. In the first one it's really hard to see the depth because of the haze. By reducing the haze you are able to see the detail of the mountains further back. Then the lens flare is able to lead your eye all the way through the mountain range.
With the advent of digital cameras, I think photography has become so much more accessible and economical. And Photoshop has given anyone with a computer the ability to play around and experiment with little investment and a learn by doing opportunity. Photography is art because it comes from a beholder's eye and can be judged as such.
Lee
Tossing It Out
Twitter hashtag: #atozchallenge
Love photography...love ANY and ALL shots of all sorts...I feel that the Photoshop opens the ability for those that see things a bit differently should be able to experiment as they choose..I envy those that have the "photographic eye"...Nice posting...
See you at J....
http://timeforabucketlist.blogspot.com/
http://imagesinthought.blogspot.com/
http://the-old-story-tree.blogspot.com/
http://bagladythoughts.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment