robertshults Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Adam Sacks, over at adamthinks.com, offers a little advice to some master photographers on the value of Photoshop. Varying levels of funny, but worth a look:</p><p>http://adamthinks.com/?tag=alfred-eisenstaedt</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobcossar Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>LOL.....very good.....now what's that Photo...thingy again?</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwcombs Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Manipulating Marilyn Monroe to Calista Flockhart proportions! That's blasphemous!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phyrpowr Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Actually , I kinda like his take on Brassai, and the Adams/Mordor is a hoot</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnw436 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p><br />"it's called a curves adjustment layer, and you're welcome"</p> <p>HAHAHAHAHAHAH!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_lantz Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>That was fun, thanks for posting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maijaathena Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>I love someone with a good sense of humor! I'm with Jack, I think my favorite is the Adams/Mordor photo. Great... just great! ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>This is good. Worth a gander. The Adams/Mordor shot is good, but there's something about the Diane Arbus shot with the bunny that appeals too. I thought the idea on Marilyn was good but taken just a little too far.<br /> <em>Popular Photography</em> a couple of years ago in the April issue did a make over of Lange's Destitute Pea Picker (aka Migrant Madonna) photo in their "how to improve" section and presented it straight to great consternation.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertshults Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 <p>My fiancee is now using the photo of "Mordor National Park" as her desktop wallpaper.</p> <p>I think one of the blog's commenters got it right when they said, "I laughed so hard I Gaussian Blurred myself."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 <p>I don't feel this is worth a new thread, so I'll stick it in here despite its dubious relation, since this is obviously a playful crowd.<br> Here is a new video on Obama's Elf - (<a href=" )<br> Will you forgive me?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertshults Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 <p>Yep. That's funny.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernie moore Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Bookmark the Adamthinks site for the next thread that bemoans digital manipulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokeh_loca Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 <p>It's entertaining to think of the myriad of ways in which the arguments against PS fall apart under scrutiny. Are cameras really supposed to stick to fidelity above all else? Are we to treat them like handheld xerox machines? Sure would make photography-as-art hard to justify. But coming from true masters of the art, it's probably just a dislike of computer "magic" for someone who's used to getting their hands wet in the creative process. Conversely, those masters can't seriously suggest that their great works came out of the camera with such care that a 1 hour photo shop could develop them with the same power and finess. So how could a digital picture come out of a digital camera without any need for proper "development." Afterall, digital is nothing but an approximation of analog. Years of marketing have convinced an unknowing public that digital enhances the analog to the state of unquestionable perfection. But actually, digital trades convenience and longevity for quality. And convenience is yet another way that the argument against digital PP falls apart. Since a master would surely admit that development needs to be done by an artist and not a robotic printing machine or cheap labor, he would also have to admit that digital puts the power to self process in the hands of more artists. Sure, said artistry would be more "correct" to that old coot if hands were dirty at the end of the process. But regardless, the digital transformation has given everyone the power to oversee the process from capture to printed output.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now