Age of digital photo art.

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by pavel_l., Feb 1, 2018.

  1. I see very unexpected paradox in the age of digital photography that can be sign of splitting of the main stream and could be considered as suicide of the digital photography. The same software (PS) that was originally created to replace the darkroom and as one of the steps of sharing of photographer's work, became the force that is pushing photographer to the pool of "paint artists" (which is, probably, unconscious feeling of every photographer.) The digital pic is becoming just a blueprint for the photoshop product. The second branch of trend could be the film photography.


    Moving On likes this.
  2. Who cares?
    sjmurray, wogears and Gerald Cafferty like this.
  3. "Suicide of the digital photography"
    Wow..dark, dramatic. How is this a problem? Look back to Man Ray and other "art" photographers, its not a new concept and certainly wasn't invented by Adobe.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2018
    Spearhead and tholte like this.
  4. Reminds me of how the Impressionists of the late 1800's messed up the painting world. The rascals should have just painted what their eyes observed and been done with it.
  5. There is no question photography has drifted from camera to computer. People can do what they want. I like film and digital for different reasons.
  6. Tim, Those impressionists, what were they drinking? Absinthe? Did it alter their vision? That guy Ansel Adams just took the negative and printed it...not. Had a lady tell me what I was doing shooting for planned major transformation in post was not "real." Told her, that is not a photographic term of which I am familiar. If I want something that apes reality, I use a copy machine. Like seasoning, post is to the taste of the individual.
    john_sevigny|2 likes this.
  7. Déjà vu all over again. (Yogi Berra)

    As said, read any good history of photography and see the pictorialist discussion. Also, heaven help us, Mortensen (William, not Viggo)
  8. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    Uhooru and wogears like this.
  9. Viggo Mortensen also does photography, with some pictorialism thrown in.
  10. Somehow I don't think a Photo shopped Monet or even a reprint of the original is an improvement.
  11. Art scares people because one of things art does best is break from the comforts of the past and look, instead, imaginatively into the future. Remember the uproar when Dylan went electric! A lot of people can't quite cope with moving forward. I'm all for nostalgia but, like anything, it can also be an unhealthy preoccupation.

    Somewhere I've heard something along the lines of "It's not the tool, it's who uses it and how it's used." That rather simple idea ought to be applied to Photoshop. Photoshop in itself is neither good nor bad. Photoshop is often used poorly, sometimes with the subtlety of a jackhammer. Then, the only thing that ought to be concluded is that someone with bad taste or bad aesthetics used it. On the other hand, Photoshop has given access to post processing (an integral part of the photographic process) to many people who wouldn't otherwise have that access. And it's being used in a fine and creative way by millions, often to the point where we don't even notice its use because it's used so well and sometimes where it's use is very noticeable and pushes boundaries and envelopes, which art is prone to do.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
  12. I wouldn't label my negative impressions (to the extent they crop up from time to time) of post production as "fear". When I see a photo and it looks "perfect" I want to know the baseline.
    Doesn't mean I don't like or appreciate what I'm looking at but my curiosity can get the better of me when I am left wondering "How'd he do that?".
    So all in all it's a small tidbit in the overall composition, that remains unsettled in my appreciation or lack thereof of what I see.
    Reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld where a particular woman looked both beautiful and alternatively hideous depending on how her face was lit.
    Curiosity wants its satisfaction.
  13. Mark, just to be clear, I was thinking about the OP when I used the word "fear" in my comments, Because the OP talked about the suicide of photography, and others who seem put off by Photoshop also talk about the death or demise of photography, there does seem to me an element of fear often involved. Like you, I can often be curious about how a photo has been made and how that affects what I think about what I'm seeing. That seems a much more reasonable place to be than thinking in terms of uses of Photoshop being a photographic suicide.
  14. The part about suicide was something I don't agree with in the original post.
    I thought he pointed out a valid reason for the recent fascination with film, the digital generation seems to have these days.

    So much of the discussion comes down to personal taste.
    The old cliche "That painting looks like a photograph" comes to mind.
    Today's version is "That photo looks like a painting" …...

    For a huge number of people like myself, we had some film, a camera, and books that taught us about filters, extended exposure, panning and such, but after we dropped the film off at the drug store or sent it in a mailer, the process was out of our hands. A simple matter of frame of reference. Simplicity has its appeal.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
  15. I appreciate simplicity at times as well. Simplicity in a photograph can be very appealing as it can be in any process. I don't see what you're describing, though, as simplicity. I just see it as giving over part of the process to someone else. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of folks have not wanted to do their own processing throughout the history of photography. Even plenty of famous, great photographers didn't do their own processing. But it seems more that it was something they were uninterested in doing or didn't think they could do as well as some people who were better at it than a desire for simplicity.
  16. Yeah, and Viggo also hated those awful Lord of the Rings movies. No, he really did.
  17. The thing is is that it is all so subjective.
    A good example that comes to mind is that I have recently been going through a pile of old photos boxed and put away for years.
    Some of the old color stuff was taken with an old Kodak 104 instamatic.
    I scanned a particular image that had grown yellow over time. It was taken on one of the many canoe trips I took as a kid. When I hit the auto color correct tab, the picture popped and triggered the memory in a way the washed out picture hadn't. Like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle snapping into place. I know that my perception of that photo is shaded by memory. A memory that others who assess the photo do not have.
    I think that when a photo works on a broad level, heavily post processed or not, it appeals across a wide spectrum of individual experience, even to some extent, on a subconscious level.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
  18. Funny that, I can't name a single movie he's been in since.....;)
  19. Viggo does a great job of acting in a terrific movie from last year called Captain Fantastic. See it if you can. It mostly went under the radar but is well worth a look.

    [By the way, despite the title, it's not a Superhero movie. It's about a guy bringing up 6 kids in the Northwest U.S. Wilderness, his way.]
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
  20. Bus and kids?

Share This Page