Interesting question....I don't know anything about this particular photographer, nor have I seen his book, so I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion on his work. I will say this about digital manipulation in general, it seems many of the highest rated photos in the "top rated" section of this site are very heavily worked, if not actually created, in photoshop and/or mystical lighting or such, and are nothing close to reality.
The fact that they consistantly receive high ratings would indicate a widespread acceptance of this form of processing (at least on this site). While most of these do honestly list themselves as "manipulated or unknown", are they really deserving of top ratings compared to outstanding "un-retouched" shots? Is it photo.net or art.net, or are they really one and the same? Does use of filters, or darkroom work in the realm of Ansel Adams, fall into the same "manipulated" realm? I don't believe so... IMHO they often are only used to convey the image as actually viewed, and to overcome natural obstacles such as glare or haze.
That aside,I guess I draw the line at attempts to pass off manipulation as reality. Although many of these manipulated shots are indeed beautiful, I'd much rather see fantastic photography that shows images as actually seen by the person who took the photo and showcasing their true photographic talent, as opposed to a showcase of someone's creative photoshop skills, as excellent as they may be. Just my 2 cents worth...
Anyone concerned about Steve Bloom?
in Nature
Posted
Interesting question....I don't know anything about this particular photographer, nor have I seen his book, so I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion on his work. I will say this about digital manipulation in general, it seems many of the highest rated photos in the "top rated" section of this site are very heavily worked, if not actually created, in photoshop and/or mystical lighting or such, and are nothing close to reality.
The fact that they consistantly receive high ratings would indicate a widespread acceptance of this form of processing (at least on this site). While most of these do honestly list themselves as "manipulated or unknown", are they really deserving of top ratings compared to outstanding "un-retouched" shots? Is it photo.net or art.net, or are they really one and the same? Does use of filters, or darkroom work in the realm of Ansel Adams, fall into the same "manipulated" realm? I don't believe so... IMHO they often are only used to convey the image as actually viewed, and to overcome natural obstacles such as glare or haze.
That aside,I guess I draw the line at attempts to pass off manipulation as reality. Although many of these manipulated shots are indeed beautiful, I'd much rather see fantastic photography that shows images as actually seen by the person who took the photo and showcasing their true photographic talent, as opposed to a showcase of someone's creative photoshop skills, as excellent as they may be. Just my 2 cents worth...