| Photoshop is the culprit for fake work of art | |
|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2008 03:21 |   |
 | A Photography Contest was held in Zhuhai, Guangdong China. The first prize winner was said to present an artwork processed by Photoshop. Science and technology have brought great convenience to our daily lives. Meanwhile, we are losing the valued genuine artwork.. Some ill-intentioned people even employed photoshop to produce *** photos to make money. What is photography? I am not qualified to give an authoritative definition, but I am aware that it is not some pictures processed by photoshop. |
| Apr 17, 2008 05:57 | #1 |
| Actually it is. For all time photos have in some way been altered. The image that your camera takes is very very rarely the image you see or produce for others to see. When we used film if the medium was a negative then when you have it printed it is reversed, if when printed by the lab it is adjusted for brightness or density then it is altered. Similar to what we do with photoshop now. A few of the photos on my website have been 'photoshopped', some are obvious and other more subtle. Photography is the art of making a photograph. How you achieve that photograph is somewhat irrelevant. |
| Apr 17, 2008 06:09 | #2 |
| If you take a roll of film and take it to the lab (Kodak, Fujifilm), your pictures will likely undergo some amount of color and contrast correction. Most professional photographs, whether physically in the darkroom or digitally using Photoshop running on Mac, are enhanced. I don't believe that Photoshop processing automatically excludes a picture from photographic art, which is what I think you want to discuss. In fact, Photoshop processing has become an integral part of modern day photography. I believe your question boils down to dishonesty and whether or not an artist lies about how his or her work was created. One could lie about using a camera phone when, in fact, one has used a $5k SLR. This does not make these tools the culprit. |
| Apr 17, 2008 21:59 | #3 |
| Yup, modern technology makes our lives convenient. Today's camera has become more intelligent than ever. It brings both benefits and harms to photography. |
| Apr 19, 2008 08:19 | #4 |
| If a painter, after finishing painting, changes something in it, isn´t it the same? What´s the real difference with photoshop working compared afterwards repainting? After all, when open tv and watch sports, can watch swimming, running, football, golf and snooker. Hey, snooker is a sport! Why can´t photoshop edited photo be art? Carlos |
| Apr 19, 2008 09:04 | #5 |
| I do not have photo shop, but if I have it, I am sure I will use it. I think Carlos, Leo, Muddie, and Davec have a valid and acceptable opinion that I share. |
| Apr 19, 2008 10:03 | #6 |
| In another life long ago, I created audiovisual slide shows with multiple projectors. As a one man shop I took the pictures too. PhotoShop is only a photographic tool and I wish that I had it then. To get an acceptable picture of one university building took me 300 or 400 slides taken at all times of day and from all angles only in blue sky days. With PhotoShop I could have turned the gray skies blue, adjusted the shadows and rendered an acceptable picture after only 2 or 3 shots. On the other hand, that picture is still in wide use today even though it was taken 35 years ago. |
Post a Reply to: Photoshop is the culprit for fake work of art
Copyright © 1998-2024 All rights reserved.