Davie Hudson
Well-Known Member
I pp'd this one in photoshop(when i still had it) and it really popped the colours... well i thought so anyway
Is it still a photograph ?
- Thread starter Davie Hudson
- Start date
Davie Hudson
Well-Known Member
I should mention it was using PS artistic filter to make it look like a painting
Hamish Gill
Tech Support (and Marketing)
Some may say not ...
IMO, It is the creator who decides whether or not something is a photo or digital art ... If people want to say otherwise then that is their business, but the arbiter is always the creator in my eyes
I quite like it, although i would say that the effect has made it look more digital than less?
IMO, It is the creator who decides whether or not something is a photo or digital art ... If people want to say otherwise then that is their business, but the arbiter is always the creator in my eyes
I quite like it, although i would say that the effect has made it look more digital than less?
Pete Askew
Admin
Yes, why not? If you were to take a Polaroid shot using one of their capsule films and then manipulated it with a pen top we'd probably all be happy. A gum bichromate print that relies as much for it's overall aesthetic on the way you brush on the layers as on the image you print on it would still be considered to be a product of the photographic method so why not something that has been manipulated in this way? It would be a bit like saying that some of the paintings by Gerhard Richter aren't paintings because they look like photographs. That was his intention and yours is to make something painting-like using a photographic technique. Composite images etc raise similar questions but, for me, I see them as just another form of the photographic art.
Flickr: Polaroid SX-70 Manipulation
River street, Towanda, PA . Gum Bichromate | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Gerhard Richter » Art » Paintings » Photo Paintings » Betty » 663-5
Flickr: Polaroid SX-70 Manipulation
River street, Towanda, PA . Gum Bichromate | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Gerhard Richter » Art » Paintings » Photo Paintings » Betty » 663-5
Davie Hudson
Well-Known Member
I see what you mean , i liked playing with this kinda 'toy' stuff in photoshop when i was bored lol ... I ended up getting rid of photoshop because it annoyed me and the only thing i was using it for was to convert my e-book into ePub which it was really good at while holding all the format
Larry Bolch
Well-Known Member
Who cares? Just a matter of meaningless 18th-century semantics. An artist chooses whatever medium or media that is comfortable to make works. Mixed-media and multi-media have been around from the earliest times. Academic twits may argue over the definition of the result—and that is what they get public funds to do—since no one would actually pay them for this.
An artist's only commitment is to create. If you chose to remain within the photographic medium, by all means use the tools provided by the medium to push the edge of the possible, however far your intellect and talent will let you. There is little in life more embarrassing than witnessing an artist apologizing for doing what artists are expected to do. Take all the tools of photography and push them to the limit. When you reach the limit, look to other media to push the limit farther. No need to justify what you do. It is what every artist—from a beginner seeking a hobby to a world famous big name—is expected to do.
Media is meant to be liberating. Art is not sport, where jumping into the water in formal, but very strange sorts of ways, gains you points. The more awkward or grotesque the jump, the more points, if you carry it off. There are no fat old men smoking cigars and drinking old cognac, sitting around "Athletic Clubs" dreaming up rules for artists. You are judged only on your ability to move or provoke the viewer. Media is not meant to restrict the artist to a set of arbitrary rules.
If you are dancing the lead in Swan Lake, you are creating art. If you are playing a concerto by Albinoni, you are creating art. If you are playing a character written by Samual Beckett, you are creating art. If you are photographing your kid in order to capture the spirit at this age, you are creating art. Toe shoes and pigments with brushes are mediums (properly "media" for the plural). What you do with them is art. If a tool from one medium works with another to better express your vision, you would be incredibly ignorant not to use it. If the tool is within your chosen medium and you choose not to use it, even if it would greatly enhance your image, you are criminal not to use it.
Media is not meant to restrict the artist to a set of arbitrary rules.
An artist's only commitment is to create. If you chose to remain within the photographic medium, by all means use the tools provided by the medium to push the edge of the possible, however far your intellect and talent will let you. There is little in life more embarrassing than witnessing an artist apologizing for doing what artists are expected to do. Take all the tools of photography and push them to the limit. When you reach the limit, look to other media to push the limit farther. No need to justify what you do. It is what every artist—from a beginner seeking a hobby to a world famous big name—is expected to do.
Media is meant to be liberating. Art is not sport, where jumping into the water in formal, but very strange sorts of ways, gains you points. The more awkward or grotesque the jump, the more points, if you carry it off. There are no fat old men smoking cigars and drinking old cognac, sitting around "Athletic Clubs" dreaming up rules for artists. You are judged only on your ability to move or provoke the viewer. Media is not meant to restrict the artist to a set of arbitrary rules.
If you are dancing the lead in Swan Lake, you are creating art. If you are playing a concerto by Albinoni, you are creating art. If you are playing a character written by Samual Beckett, you are creating art. If you are photographing your kid in order to capture the spirit at this age, you are creating art. Toe shoes and pigments with brushes are mediums (properly "media" for the plural). What you do with them is art. If a tool from one medium works with another to better express your vision, you would be incredibly ignorant not to use it. If the tool is within your chosen medium and you choose not to use it, even if it would greatly enhance your image, you are criminal not to use it.
Media is not meant to restrict the artist to a set of arbitrary rules.
Hamish Gill
Tech Support (and Marketing)
Well said Larry!
Paul Lange
Moderator
Well, this is pretty well covered and very eloquently but I will throw my 2 pence in as well. We all could be very purist about it but why constrain yourself with a load of self imposed limits? Interesting things happen in the moments of fusion of different methods and medias. If you honestly like the result at the end then what you have created is valid.
Darren Turner
XProPhotographer
I think its a stunning scene, not really a photo as such but a great creation. Would look great on a wall that's for sure. Do you still have the original image non PP as above to share with us so we can see the difference.
Daz
Daz
Davie Hudson
Well-Known Member
yes i do Darren , and i think i've posted it before but will post it here for comparison
Davie Hudson
Well-Known Member
Chris Dodkin
West Coast Correspondent
Both are majestic - and have their own value I think
The more I pi$$ about with PP and filters in PS - the further away from the pure image I'm getting
I still cringe at some of those HDR 'every colour of the rainbow' shots that come straight out of HDR programs - but I'm sure in time those will become fewer as the novelty wears off
The more I pi$$ about with PP and filters in PS - the further away from the pure image I'm getting
I still cringe at some of those HDR 'every colour of the rainbow' shots that come straight out of HDR programs - but I'm sure in time those will become fewer as the novelty wears off
Paul Lange
Moderator
Now that you say HDR Chris Davie's image would be a good candidate. I'm talking about hand blended HDR shot rather than the over baked ones that you seem to be so popular.
Hamish Gill
Tech Support (and Marketing)
I was messing about with nik colour efex yesterday (trial download) it has this thing called detail extractor ... In tiny doses it does something quite effective, but turned up full it's like the worst HDR you have ever seen!
I really don't get the attraction to that look ... The first time I saw it it caught my eye, but after that its just too harsh on the eye! I'm certain that's why people don't like it, it's become a cliche, but so have a lot of things in photography, HDR when it's realt pushed, is just unpleasant viewing! Seeing the effect of "detail extracter" made me realise what it is, it's simply to much to look at, there becomes no resting point for the eye because it's constantly scanning the mass of detail!
I really don't get the attraction to that look ... The first time I saw it it caught my eye, but after that its just too harsh on the eye! I'm certain that's why people don't like it, it's become a cliche, but so have a lot of things in photography, HDR when it's realt pushed, is just unpleasant viewing! Seeing the effect of "detail extracter" made me realise what it is, it's simply to much to look at, there becomes no resting point for the eye because it's constantly scanning the mass of detail!
Davie Hudson
Well-Known Member
I, like so many others was intrigued when i first saw HDR but i've found for me so few people do it right and overcook it greatly.
Paul Lange
Moderator
Hdr used to be taking a few exposures of the same scene but each one was done to expose a particular range ie sky, ground, water. You then stack them as layers in PS and gradually mask out the unwanted incorrectly exposed areas of each layer. This is time consuming but works really well once you get the hang of it. I think this recent wave of over baked HDR came from people writing software that automated this process. It would seem that when you look at the maths involved to write the programming there were variables that the user could control. The over baked effect came from the user over enthusiastically fiddling with the settings.
Davie Hudson
Well-Known Member
I myself use the HDR 'effect' but I would hope I reign it back enough to make it pleasing, that's with my Oly .... However with my iPhone I like to push it as far as I can, right to that edge where it almost tumbles into tackiness lol
Ralph Thornton
Well-Known Member
The photo in this thread is pretty darn good as it is. But again some HDR processing MIGHT make it better. I use HDR a lot in my photos but only lightly. I definitely don't like the over cooked look of many HDR photos. But HDR software can be used to bring out dark areas some and tone down bright ones. I sometimes make an HDR image and layer it with an original, then mask out parts of the HDR parts to use only those areas I want and which add to my composition.
Going back to the original question, I'd say it is definitely some nice art. It started with a photograph and the value of the piece was increased by using some artistic techniques.
Going back to the original question, I'd say it is definitely some nice art. It started with a photograph and the value of the piece was increased by using some artistic techniques.
Last edited:
