sprouty Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 <I>"...I think what she's trying to say is to not be restricted and let the artistic imaginations flow free."</I> <P> How does knowledge limit artistic imagination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I've read that Ansel Adam's negatives are rather unremarkable in the sense that if you were to print them "straight" you wouldn't get out of them what Ansel did. He'd sometimes spend days in the darkroom working on one print from one negative. Was he an artist or a photographer? If he were alive today and had Photoshop instead of his "wet" darkroom, how would he have used it? Some musicians pick apart the score without ever hearing the music. Best wishes . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericwarnke Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Digital photography has taught me one very important thing. Many images look like crap right off the sensor. Visually they are just boring; The digital sensor is dreadfully accurate and it often needs work to take it the rest of the way. Color, levels, highlight, shadows, sharpening, blurring, blending, and more. Many of the things digital camera users do are the similar to the different types of film or filters that would be chosen for various "looks" except we need to do them post not pre. All photography is art more than science, film photography the work is split between film, filter, lens, apature, ... settings and the other is in the developing and printing. All of those steps require some level of artistic input. Just becuase more of the work is done post in digital does not mean it is any less photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_hovland Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Adams said that the negative was the score and the print was the performance. I'd seen some pretty bad prints from his hands, as well as some great ones. Given the subtle range of corrections possible in Photoshop, I would say he would be thrilled. And perhaps, reincarnated, he is :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob fowler Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 <i>"The way I see it, if a picture looks good because of heavy editting, then the author is not a photographer but more of a painter (only digital rather than the traditional brush and paint). Am I too old fashioned?"</i><p>Since you poasted this in the "people Photography" forum, I'll stay in that area...<p>I do a lot of B&W "Hollywood" style portraiture, so I almost always have to retouch the Hell out of images - and I'm certainly not a painter. Retouching, not to be confused with spotting, is NOTHING new. Since the first person took a pencil to a glass plate negative (or perhaps to something much earlier), portrait retouching has been considered a "normal" if not <u>mandatory</u> technique. FWIW - I'm a large format film shooter and prefer to retouch the negative, but lately I do a lot of retouching of scanned film in Photoshop.<p>Regardless of the medium, digital or film, if I were to start delivering "unedited" portraits I'd be out of business in a heartbeat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_hovland Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Heavy retouching has always been common. But fixing it in Photoshop is not a substitute for getting enough information in the capture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn_hooper Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 There is still a difference between a "Photo" and an "electronic image". 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