Here you see two versions of the picture I posted a couple days ago that several folks said they liked. My sister Liz wondered what the original looked like (as I admitted the posted version was the result of some editing on my part using PhotoShop software), so I thought I'd see if I could get these lined up for a proper comparison. Below is the original picture; on the right is the retouched version, after undergoing some lighting and color enhancement and also processing it through a couple arty filters. I can't remember exactly which ones, but I suspect the crosshatch function and possiblyan ink outline. The idea was to create a more illustrative effect, and I think that's what I got. I think the actual photo is pretty good, but the edited version seems punchier and crisper to me. There was no cropping involved, so the composition was not affected by the editing. Apparently there's an ongoing debate about the new technology available with digital photography and the software that's been developed for processing pictures-- some think it's a perversion of the art that it is now so easy to create effects that used to take years of experience and hours of work in a darkroom to achieve. I see the point, but also realize that I don't have the experience or skill to do this the old-fashioned way, and yet take great pleasure in producing something like what you see above on the right, even if it did only take me about half an hour of trial and error clicking icons on a computer menu. If anyone would like to chime in on that debate here, I'd be glad to hear your opinions.
3 comments:
Dr John,
Working, as I do, in the art field (competitions and such) we have a constant battle between artists/art admirerers/collectors about digital art. It basically boils down to a question of if it is a photo that is manipulated with a few filters or is there actually an intent of the artist to fully manipulate a photo(for instance if you had made an overlay of a checkered floor on the wood walkway - you would have manipulated the photo into something completely outside the "normal" for some that would be the artistic value). I don't even know where I fall into the argument because I can see the points from both side (we had one person enter our computer generated category that took a photo of a bear -from a zoo- and cloned it into a photo of a forest. It looked just like a normal photo - but if it was manipulated wouldn't that mean it should be accepted as art?)
You will always have people who are rigid in their perception of what art should be -when really art should never have any boundries (modernism, pop art, impressionism....)Maybe photo manipulation should be considered more under a photography art umbrella than a traditional art application.
Lil' Sis
ps I actually like the photo better than the manipulated photo-it is softer (mellow) and more lonely looking- showing better the subject of a deserted hotel (I can almost feel a lonely breeze blowing through the photo)- just saying
PS I think you need to learn the cloneing technique - you could erase the orange sign in front of the hotel and elimanate the small distraction
Lil' Sis
Lil Sis,
Actually the debate is not really about art so much as veracity. Some still seem to view photography as, if you will, the artful representation of reality-- with the emphasis on the reality. Of course, photography has always been capable of manipulating things based on all kinds of factors or techniques. Frankly, for me it's more about the art, as I don't pretend to be a documentarian in any but the most general sense (maybe more so in relation to the family pictures-- I do hope they convey an accurate image that will spark memories well into the future, but I know that even in those cases it's an imperfect record). Take this specific picture: to me, the edited photo is closer to what I "saw" because, despite the lonely atmosphere you pick up on, it was a very bright sunny day that I just didn't capture in the original shot.
Dr. John
p.s.- I know how to use the cloning tool-- but, to me, that is a step beyond the lighting and color effects. Not that I wouldn't use it, but I guess I too have some residual hold on that veracity I was talking about ;-)
Post a Comment