We should separate photographers with photoshoppers for 08 LPS.
With the exception of a HDR image's. I would like to see a rule for 08 LPS that that only a single shoot taken can be entered (no morphing images together) and nothing can be added to the photo, but you can take stuff out (ie Powerlines, wrinkles, cars, etc...).
It would be great to see people get out and find the shoot and not make it.
maybe setup a separate contest entitled "Last Photomorpher Standing"
We've chewed that bone quite a bit. The devil is in the details. How would you enforce it? Are curves allowed? How softening? How about fills? How about gradients? If you used a gradient to make a sky bluer, why not a fill? If you can use a fill, why not a clone? If a clone, then you're back to compositing. I don't think it's a non-issue, but it's not a simple one. As a judge, I was not particularly interested in composited shots for the reason that, to me, they lie too far toward the "illustration" end of the continuum between a camera raw file and a Corel illustration. But as a contestant, I didn't mind cutting my photo up into 16 squares and post-processing each one slightly different. For myself, there is a distinction to be made between a "photo" and a "graphic" -- but it's an artistic judgment. If it were my contest, which it isn't, I would say something like "We're looking for great examples of photography. Photoshop is fine, but the less you make it look like a photograph, the less interesting we may find it."
"As the photographic industry was the refuge of every would-be painter, every painter too ill-endowed or too lazy to complete his studies, this universal infatuation bore not only the mark of a blindness, an imbecility, but had also the air of a vengeance. I do not believe, or at least I do not wish to believe, in the absolute success of such a brutish conspiracy, in which, as in all others, one finds both fools and knaves; but I am convinced that the ill-applied developments of photography, like all other purely material developments of progress, have contrib*uted much to the impoverishment of the French artistic genius, which is already so scarce... it is nonetheless obvious that this industry, by invading the territories of art, has become art’s most mor*tal enemy, and that the confusion of their several func*tions prevents any of them from being properly fulfilled. Poetry and progress are like two ambitious men who hate one another with an instinctive hatred, and when they meet upon the same road, one of them has to give place. If photography is allowed to supplement art in some of its functions, it will soon have supplanted or corrupted it altogether, thanks to the stupidity of the multitude which is its natural ally... But if it be allowed to encroach upon the domain of the impalpable and the imaginary, upon anything whose value depends solely upon the addition of something of a man’s soul, then it will be so much the worse for us!"
-Charles Baudelaire, 1859
Replace "Photography" with "photoshop" and "painting" with "photography" and this argument sounds almost contemporary.
I can't use photoshop at all, but ultimately I think what we are about is making images. The idea that a photo captures reality as a simple and straightforward truth has been exploded long ago, hasn't it?
In deciding how a picture should look, in preferring one exposure to another, photographers are always imposing standards on their subjects. Although there is a sense in which the cameradoes indeed capture reality, not just interpret it, photographs are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings and drawings are." -Susan Sontag
Replace "Photography" with "photoshop" and "painting" with "photography" and this argument sounds almost contemporary.
I can't use photoshop at all, but ultimately I think what we are about is making images. The idea that a photo captures reality as a simple and straightforward truth has been exploded long ago, hasn't it?
Yaaaaaawwwn
What's real, what's not...
Leonard: "Sheldon, you know the cashew chicken I get you on Monday nights? From Szechwan Palace? The Szechwan Palace closed down two years ago."
Sheldon: (shocked) "What? Where did my cashew chicken come from?"
Leonard: "The Golden Dragon. Before they (the Szechwan Palace) went out of business, I bought 4,000 containers. I keep them in the trunk of my car."
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">
Leonard: "Sheldon, you know the cashew chicken I get you on Monday nights? From Szechwan Palace? The Szechwan Palace closed down two years ago."
Sheldon: (shocked) "What? Where did my cashew chicken come from?"
Leonard: "The Golden Dragon. Before they (the Szechwan Palace) went out of business, I bought 4,000 containers. I keep them in the trunk of my car."
if you use a digital camera then its not film.....
and if its not film its magic....
and if its magic then somebody dreamed it up....
if someone dreamed it up then that must be Vision.
so i guess it all comes down to are you going to enter a digital photography contest or not....
if not, sit down, shut up and watch.
Hmmm......
you make a few valid points, although slightly flawed.
Most humans with any intellect understand that "digital" is in fact technology, engineering & science...not magic. But even if it were magic, one could argue that magic is in fact...illusion. It's true that some forms of artistic expression are meant to represent an "illusion". It's also true that many other forms of visual interpretation are meant to portray complete, and even ugly reality. I personally don't believe editing software like photoshop is entirely negative for the photographer, no more so than an expensive squirrel hair brush a painter might use to soften someones face in an oil portrait. The point friends, is that many of us tend to go way to far (which by the way isn't very difficult to do), therefore; blurring the lines between the photographic artist....and the graphic artist. If you consider the photojournalist on assignment in Iraq, and the importance of the messages their images tell the world...surely you can see how "over-manipulation" of an image could impact the history books our grandchildren get in school one day. Ultimately, it's up to an art director/publisher somewhere to make decisions with integrity. We all know how competetive this industry is, which means "integrity" isn't always a priority. Especially in the current economy. As for these challenges, we can all have a more relaxed and open mind since it's basically a platform for creative play. It's also a good way to get constructive opinions from our peers....and perhaps become better listeners. Participating silently, or "shutting up seems rather black or white. I look for 18% gray.
Comments
I like the way you think!
ShutterGlass.com
OnlyBegotten.com
Replace "Photography" with "photoshop" and "painting" with "photography" and this argument sounds almost contemporary.
I can't use photoshop at all, but ultimately I think what we are about is making images. The idea that a photo captures reality as a simple and straightforward truth has been exploded long ago, hasn't it?
Yaaaaaawwwn
What's real, what's not...
I love Sheldon!
http://www.anitamatthews.ca
heres how it plays out....
if you use a digital camera then its not film.....
and if its not film its magic....
and if its magic then somebody dreamed it up....
if someone dreamed it up then that must be Vision.
so i guess it all comes down to are you going to enter a digital photography contest or not....
if not, sit down, shut up and watch.
Hmmm......
you make a few valid points, although slightly flawed.
Most humans with any intellect understand that "digital" is in fact technology, engineering & science...not magic. But even if it were magic, one could argue that magic is in fact...illusion. It's true that some forms of artistic expression are meant to represent an "illusion". It's also true that many other forms of visual interpretation are meant to portray complete, and even ugly reality. I personally don't believe editing software like photoshop is entirely negative for the photographer, no more so than an expensive squirrel hair brush a painter might use to soften someones face in an oil portrait. The point friends, is that many of us tend to go way to far (which by the way isn't very difficult to do), therefore; blurring the lines between the photographic artist....and the graphic artist. If you consider the photojournalist on assignment in Iraq, and the importance of the messages their images tell the world...surely you can see how "over-manipulation" of an image could impact the history books our grandchildren get in school one day. Ultimately, it's up to an art director/publisher somewhere to make decisions with integrity. We all know how competetive this industry is, which means "integrity" isn't always a priority. Especially in the current economy. As for these challenges, we can all have a more relaxed and open mind since it's basically a platform for creative play. It's also a good way to get constructive opinions from our peers....and perhaps become better listeners. Participating silently, or "shutting up seems rather black or white. I look for 18% gray.