One of the interesting things about photography is that it has always absorbed new technology. Any resistance to that is antithetical to its nature. We'd still be dragging around glass plates, chemistry and huge cameras if people had said that miniature cameras, plastic film, and minilabs couldn't be used for photography.
As someone who was taught to use the darkroom at age 12 or so, I've always seen post-processing as the part of photography that makes it happen. There's one thousand different prints that can be made from a single negative, some of which bear no relationship to each other. Photoshop just takes this another step further. What I find most useful is the ability to do with color images what had only been possible previously with black and white images.
At 03:39 PM 2/15/2005, Shyrell Melara wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: ADavidhazy <andpph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Just a thought - should images that have no connection > to reality be shown in our photography gallery? > > andy
I personally think not. And please take no offence. I wasn't going to say anything myself. I'm not as technically knowledgeable as most of this group. But being an artist as well as a photographer, I thought this group was about photography, plain and simple - what one does with a camera photographically speaking. Not what is done to the picture after it has been taken. Unless it is akin to the old darkroom techniques.
But since some of what has shown up in the gallery lately, to me, appears to be more art than photography, I'm glad you asked the question. I was beginning to wonder if straight photography was being phased out along with regular film cameras.
Case in point: This week's gallery,
Talbot - real photography - practically perfect
Strevens (And I apologise way ahead of time if I got this wrong) - Judy is PS'd - right? Not that this isn't photography... Was the background an actual photograph to start with?
Mair - beautiful portrait work - straight photography
Mason - What can be done with a camera (without PS artistry - right?)
Andy, can you give us a for instance, cause now I'm all confused. Are PS'd pictures considered photos or art? It would still be a photograph if it was changed from color to black and white in PS. But is it still a photograph when it is changed in PS using strange effects and computerized characters added?
Shyrell Melara
For the Quality You Deserve! Melara Family Photography http://shyrellmelara.tripod.com
-- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Surfaces and Marks: http://www.withoutgrass.com
