I was reading some interesting debates on-line today about the use of Photoshop. There are many photographers out there that are more traditionalist, and feel that what you get direct from your camera is sacred and should not be changed or enhanced in any way. Photoshop is evil to these people, and they believe once Photoshop is used, the photograph ceases to be a photograph. On the other hand, there is the digital artist who uses what comes out of the camera as their canvas or template to create a piece of art. I think in this age of digital photography, more and more photographers are leaning towards defining themselves as artists instead of photographers...but my question is this: After working on a photograph in Photoshop, is it still considered a photograph? Or is it now considered "Art"? Where is the line drawn between the two? Is Photoshop really evil?
Which (below) is considered a photograph today? Which one would you rather have hanging on your wall? Which one would you rather see in a travel magazine?
Posts
3 comments:
Interesting post. I would say a highly photoshopped piece is photgraphic art! As a new amatuer photographer, I lean towards keeping my photos "true". That doesn't mean I won't tweak it a bit, but nothing extreme.
A controversy is resolved over time. I enjoy watching and processing images, although I admit that there are pictures that are untouchable by themselves. But the digital manipulation of images is the future of photography and creative in this field is that artists deserve to be called a high level. Greetings
These two genres can certainly co-exist with each other and have their own space. Digital art gives freedom to explore away from reality, while a 'pure' photograph captures reality...both are important and have their own set of followers...
And photoshop is certainly not evil!!!
Post a Comment