Sta.sh
ruining photography.... debate?
i was inspired to write this because of a recent journal i wrote on what is popular here on DA, i was also dared to make it a news article ......so always being up for a challenge i've made it a news article......intrigued?.....if you class yourself as a photographer then you should be.
Here is the very firmly tongue in cheek journal i wrote ....although many a true word spoke in jest.......so they say?
[link]
as said it covers what is popular here on D.A. especially that that is classed as photography... It was also inspired by a collective feeling that is out there relating to what is popular here on our beloved D.A. in the photography category. This collective feeling comes from people i watch and people that watch me.
I think the general 'feeling' is that what is appreciated as photography quite often has probably rather stepped into the realms of photo manipulation. There is no problem with photo manipulation and i know i am in danger of sounding like a photography snob i feel it only becomes a problem when well respected 'p photographers' mislead there many watchers by alluding to have taken a photo as opposed to their image being a photo manipulation.
Obviously this deceit can have a retrograding effect on the aspirations and achievements of an impressionable youth. Much of this debate will also encompass hdr and its over, and poor use to create an image that is more accurately categorised as photo manipulations.
ive also made some observations as to what i see as what is popular here on D.A. and i know ive opened myself up here to lots of stick.....especially among the cat owners (and im guilty in another way posting dog pictures
...but hey lets have some fun with it, if you have any suggestions to the list then lets here them it seems its the way the thread is going.....
so debate..
i was inspired to write this because of a recent journal i wrote on what is popular here on DA, i was also dared to make it a news article ......so always being up for a challenge i've made it a news article......intrigued?.....if you class yourself as a photographer then you should be.
Here is the very firmly tongue in cheek journal i wrote ....although many a true word spoke in jest.......so they say?
[link]
as said it covers what is popular here on D.A. especially that that is classed as photography... It was also inspired by a collective feeling that is out there relating to what is popular here on our beloved D.A. in the photography category. This collective feeling comes from people i watch and people that watch me.
I think the general 'feeling' is that what is appreciated as photography quite often has probably rather stepped into the realms of photo manipulation. There is no problem with photo manipulation and i know i am in danger of sounding like a photography snob i feel it only becomes a problem when well respected 'p photographers' mislead there many watchers by alluding to have taken a photo as opposed to their image being a photo manipulation.
Obviously this deceit can have a retrograding effect on the aspirations and achievements of an impressionable youth. Much of this debate will also encompass hdr and its over, and poor use to create an image that is more accurately categorised as photo manipulations.
ive also made some observations as to what i see as what is popular here on D.A. and i know ive opened myself up here to lots of stick.....especially among the cat owners (and im guilty in another way posting dog pictures
...but hey lets have some fun with it, if you have any suggestions to the list then lets here them it seems its the way the thread is going..... so debate..
But this book is something deeper, it deals with the the "whys" of photography, more than the "hows".
The only book I've read which deals with the same subject is David Ward's "Lanscapes Within", although the Galen Rowell book is far deeper and more interesting.
By the way, I didn't think I had anything left to say to Steven's article after you're really well written comment...but it turns out I did...I think I've written even more than you, if you want to check it out and see if you agree with me
The book you are refering to sounds fascinating and I will definately look into buying a copy. I have been "colourblind" all my life but have never had the usual symptoms and have never had my own "condition" explained to me. I just get confused between some colours and other but only at certain times or in certain situations. It's very strange and seemingly very unusual. It seems like the writings you refer to are suggesting that everyone eyesite for colour is slightly different so I better check it out as this is something I have always felt.
My cat will take over the world
ps, your journal made me laugh,,,,lots
I think you are not leaving many people room to experiment with new facets of photography. I think that many would categorize me as one who takes some "RAW bracket stuff" and I would call it art. I know what you are getting at but that eliminates so much of what photography is. You want to talk pure photography... you dont shoot film, and many purists would argue that you dont qualify as a real photographer either. Just how far back do you want to go as far as judgment goes?
HDR is a method of photography that takes some different talents and perspectives and if you discredit that as actual photography, you are just stifling the progression of what photography can really do. It comes from the same image and it is not "doctoring" an image from multiple images or going beyond the limits of a singular image really... I am a fan of HDR (considering I do them) and I am proud of what I have done with it.
As far as popularity goes...do you think you are really going to change their minds by this statement and do you really think you are the first to say it. I have learned to be humble when it comes to dA crusades because who are you to really define art. I love a lot of your pieces but many purists would say they are shit because you have used photoshop or some other level of post production to enhance them. Are you going to roll over and say "yeah...you got me..."
Remember where you are and what the argument was toward your style of photos about 5-10 years ago (ish), when digital was really making a splash.
I know where you are coming from, but it is not leading to a good place. It can be applied to you too...
You see, I'm not a photographer, but I'm an avid watcher and as a final destination of the artwork of other people let me say just two things:
- The purism can exist only in the extremes.
Whatever you do to a photograph, excluding pressing the button, is a manipulation.
If you adjust the brightness or use a filter to catch the gamma rays, you're not showing reality, you're just adultering the pure reality.
I don't think that even the greatest photographers can be measured to that.
- The apreciation of art, for a non profesional, is based in what you see and not in how the artist do it (we may be curious about that, but at the end we just care about the picture).
Art is perception. Any kind of perception.
Image editing is not the issue here, its the excessive use of editing which pushes the image beyond the realms of what could seriously be considered a photograph.
There is clearly a place for extreme processing or for that matter doing whatever you want to a photo, but there is a point where it can not really profess to be photogrpahy and more.
This news article is supposed to be tongue in cheek but it does raise relevant points, shying away from the issue would be a mistake since it is such an integral part of digital photography today.
Alex