I thought this NY Times article was interesting since I've been struggling with how I feel about using Photoshop in photography for more than simple edits to an image, but more so to create an image. I'd love to know your opinions about this.
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/photoshop-and-photography-when-is-it-real/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My opinion is to make the best use of the technology available. The technology won't make you a good photographer, it's what you do with the tools. Who's to judge what a good photograph is ? Who's to judge what good art is ? Really, no one is judge but yourself. You gotta respect those who push the limit, people who explore the tools, so they won some contest. The traditional folks need to stop bitchin' about photoshop and pursue their own ideas, get out there and make good art. Photography is a serious art, the progression of the medium should recognize these new ideas, but Photoshopping is jeopardizing the integrity of the artist. With all these new technologies, an artists integrity is a hot topic. The act itself ought to be the reward, the reward of being able to freely express. If I'm "judge" I meet halfway with an open mind.
ReplyDeleteAlso, teacher told me this quote "Tradition is the handing on of the fire, not the worship of ashes"
This article was interesting considering the fact I cannot place my sentiments regarding Photoshop in any specific positive or negative category. I think it is a really good albeit delayed reaction for the company to create a separate photoshop category. I think that it becomes a slippery slope though when people start judging what is "worth while" photography and what is not, considering the fact that photography is often questioned as an art form in general. I have heard comments that photography isn't really art, so for people within the photography community to start throwing accusations that photoshop is not a serious component of art photography bothers me. I do think that we should make distinctions between a photo based in photoshop technique versus a photo taken with film and tweaked in a darkroom. This might sound silly but it's sort of like the movie Avatar (though I haven't seen it) versus the film The White Ribbon. Both movies gain recognition for different reasons, Avatar because of its apparently groundbreaking technology and The White Ribbon for its subtext and stylistic components. I don't think it's really a matter of tradition OR technology, just a need for acceptance of many different techniques. I personally though would never really compare a photoshopped picture to a film picture, I think the talent lies in two completely different spheres.
ReplyDelete