This should spell the death of Photoshop

Status
Not open for further replies.

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I seriously don't think that manipulating classic photos and making virtual cartoons out of them shows any respect to the photographer or the subjects. I wonder how many here would appreciate someone taking their portrait shots etc and doing something similar (in the name of art). The use of Photoshop has gone out of control. I'm looking at this from a photography perspective, where so many photographers consider that the photograph is not complete without massive Photoshop intervention.

I understand and appreciate the use of Photoshop when used in a similar manner as did film/paper/darkroom photographers of yesteryear (using analogue Photoshop techniques), but when Photoshop is used to effectively create images that contains subject matter that didn't exist in the original scene, it's no longer photography in my view. If the person in question had say colourised the images, then that is a somewhat different thing, but changing the entire scene and adding crap to the subjects is simply woeful.

Some people might as well just create images using a computer and call themselves photographers.
 

gryphon1911

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
3,759
Location
Central Ohio, USA
Real Name
Andrew
Not that I am comparing the lady in the article to Andy Warhol, but do you feel the same way with what he did with the Niagra promo portrait to create the "Marilyn Diptych'?

I know I sound like a broken record, but I see nothing wrong with a person creating art so long as they are not appropriating copyright works without permission. I may not like the end result, from an art perspective...but I don't seem to get the same visceral reaction as you do from this article. This seems purely a subjective thing.
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,006
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I like the photoshop work! Saying that, why is it the photographer's archive was placed on Flickr with a Creative Commons No derivatives' license? If he has any direct kin, I'd seriously get that changed or removed. Sad to see someone's body of work just get dumped on the internet with no proper representation from the photographer's estate or closest kin.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
Andy Warhol's stuff never really resonated with me, but the Marilyn piece was just a repetitive image of her face. I can't see any comparison with what has been done to these photos. There have been examples of several Russian photographers that create otherworldly scenes and photograph those, with obviously some post-processing, but they are their own original works, not someone else's photos which are then butchered and called art.

What effort, skill (other than Photoshop) and originality did it take to make the images in the link? Effort? Zero, someone else took the photos, Skill? So she knows how to use Photoshop. Originality? People have been doing this as parody for years. I actually appreciate this: http://www.photoshoptroll.com/, more here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/hulia/21-hilarious-photoshop-trolls-9r70, because it's complete parody and humour, and basically the same as what the person in the link is doing, but they aren't trying to call it 'creative' or 'art'.

And something doesn't become art simply because it doesn't breach copyright.
 

Just Jim

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
940
I absolutely disagree. This sort of thing has been done since the beginning. More so back in the pictorial days with the likes of Henry Peach Robinson, or Oscar Rejlander that would take dozens of negatives and layer and mask them out to create amazing work compared to the ridiculous over empshasis on "pure" photography that would come in the early 20th century. Some of the those negs they just borrowed or whatever. And that was in 1857. Oscar's two ways of life is a stunning piece, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oscar-gustave-rejlander_two_ways_of_life.jpg . Probably one of my favorites of the old way.

Possibly NSFW!? There are some lady tops here. so umm yeah.
 

D7k1

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
2,122
Art is always on the bleeding edge. Art is a very personal thing and I think a society suffers if it does not have the perspective of artists either in the center or on the fringe of society. Some art I like, other art I don't give the time of day, but I always like the thoughts that are elicited or provoked by art.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
1,208
Real Name
Emily
To repeat what I said on the "is street photography documentary?" thread: not all art is good art.

This is not good art.

I don't like what this person has done to the images, although I'm grateful that it exposed me to the original images, which I hadn't previously seen. However, I can't say that she violated any rules except those of aesthetics by doing it. After all, she hasn't damaged the original images -- it's not like she spray-painted a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Since the original images are now public domain, she has a right to create the modified images. Fortunately, we also have a right to think (and say that we think) that they're tacky. We also have a right to ignore her and with luck, her creations will soon sink into oblivion.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I absolutely disagree. This sort of thing has been done since the beginning. More so back in the pictorial days with the likes of Henry Peach Robinson, or Oscar Rejlander that would take dozens of negatives and layer and mask them out to create amazing work compared to the ridiculous over empshasis on "pure" photography that would come in the early 20th century. Some of the those negs they just borrowed or whatever. And that was in 1857. Oscar's two ways of life is a stunning piece, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oscar-gustave-rejlander_two_ways_of_life.jpg . Probably one of my favorites of the old way.

Possibly NSFW!? There are some lady tops here. so umm yeah.
Again, I personally don't think that the Rejlander piece is in the same category, in any shape or form. Yes, it's a montage, the likes of which have been done for years, but that montage is put together to tell a story.

This allegorical tableau vivant, or mise-en-scène was created by Oscar Rejlander in 1857. It depicts a philosopher, or a sage, or perhaps a father leading two young men towards manhood. One (to the left) looks towards vice; gambling, wine and prostitution, and the other, with perhaps less enthusiasm,1 looks towards virtue; religion, industry and family. Penitence, in the center, looks toward the right, rejecting vice. The image was the first publicly exhibited photograph of a nude, the first major art photograph and the first photo-montage.
Call me old fashioned and with a myopic view, but cutting out a man playing a violin, from an old photograph, and placing him on a tree branch and covering him with ants is simply crap. Clearly some will think it to be high art, the equal of anything, for example, these photographers have created: http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/07/17/famous-photographers-the-55-best-photographers-of-all-time/, but I beg to differ.
 

LPST

U.S. Navy Vet.
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
45
Location
California
Real Name
Will
IMHO, changing or adding anything to a photograph to that extent, regardless of what program is used crosses the line, I consider it graphic art at that point, not photography, but it is art none the less. once a photograph is manipulated to change the subject matter that was originally in the photo it is no longer a photograph but an artistically designed "picture" so... although these "pictures" are a form of ones art, it is not photography. as do all artists, we want to convey a feeling or thought through our work and although im not to thrilled about the art in question the artist is conveying a feeling that he/she wants, in turn making it "art". As far as Photoshop goes it's like anything else, it's all a matter of what you do with it. again, just my two cents!
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
^^^ Which is my point. I believe that the use of Photoshop has reached the point where it's basically abused by many and it saddens me that many of those who abuse it are photographers.
 

kwalsh

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
832
Location
Baltimore, MD
^^^ Which is my point. I believe that the use of Photoshop has reached the point where it's basically abused by many and it saddens me that many of those who abuse it are photographers.
Erm... I think the retouched photos are ugly but this seems like histrionics to me. The reuse of media in later art works - be they visual, textual or musical - is not only extensive but centuries old. Sometimes it is done by those with talent, sometimes not.

I don't like Schoenberg's music but I don't think he abused the orchestra or the polytonal genre. I don't like duckface selfies either, but I don't think the people who do them are abusing their phones.

I guess if we wanted to think up "abusing" Photoshop we might consider the multiple cases in which photojournalists have editing the content of photos. But then again before photoshop photojournalists were already creating false impressions through cropping or just motor drives (or just good timing) to get unflatering grimaces on faces.

This seems pretty darn harmless. I can't imagine getting worked up about something so trivial. Especially something that getting worked up about does no good.

There are things we have total control over, there are things we have partial control over and there are things we have no control over. Worrying or getting agitated about the last one isn't a pathway to being happy or well balanced.
 

robbie36

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
1,579
Location
Bangkok
Real Name
rob collins
IMHO, changing or adding anything to a photograph to that extent, regardless of what program is used crosses the line, I consider it graphic art at that point, not photography, but it is art none the less. once a photograph is manipulated to change the subject matter that was originally in the photo it is no longer a photograph but an artistically designed "picture" so... although these "pictures" are a form of ones art, it is not photography. as do all artists, we want to convey a feeling or thought through our work and although im not to thrilled about the art in question the artist is conveying a feeling that he/she wants, in turn making it "art". As far as Photoshop goes it's like anything else, it's all a matter of what you do with it. again, just my two cents!
I agree with this.

I think that Oz is right in saying that when something is largely created in Photoshop, it no longer is photography but a form of digital art. Still I like a lot of this sort of 'art'. I was looking at this guys Flickr photostream yesterday and I like what this guy is doing a lot. Maybe it does not conform to the taste of others but that is very subjective. There is not a lot of difference to me between painting in photoshop and painting with paint.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rawjrphotography/

The problem with Jane Long's pictures is that I dont think they are very artistic or 'good art'. There is something rather tacky about them and not in a good way. It is sort of like taking a photo of your baby and putting its face into a picture of the Mona Lisa. Still even bad art is art and I am not militant enough to say it shouldnt be done just cos I dont like it.
 

LPST

U.S. Navy Vet.
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
45
Location
California
Real Name
Will
this guys Flickr photostream yesterday and I like what this guy is doing a lot. Maybe it does not conform to the taste of others but that is very subjective. There is not a lot of difference to me between painting in photoshop and painting with paint.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rawjrphotography/
Thanks for sharing this, his art is quite well done, his photography and graphic art are both interesting.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
There are things we have total control over, there are things we have partial control over and there are things we have no control over. Worrying or getting agitated about the last one isn't a pathway to being happy or well balanced.
I'm not worrying over it or getting agitated, I'm raising awareness and a discussion point about Photoshop and how it seems to increasingly get abused by photographers. It does sadden me that photographers need to resort to such crass attempts in order to garner attention. If this photographer had used their own photos and produced the cartoon effects, I would not have reacted at all, but debasing the works of others for whatever reason is wrong in so many ways. In my view, the old photographs have been debased. I ask again, how would you like it if someone did the same to your photographs, forgetting any issues of copyright?
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I agree with this.

I think that Oz is right in saying that when something is largely created in Photoshop, it no longer is photography but a form of digital art. Still I like a lot of this sort of 'art'. I was looking at this guys Flickr photostream yesterday and I like what this guy is doing a lot. Maybe it does not conform to the taste of others but that is very subjective. There is not a lot of difference to me between painting in photoshop and painting with paint.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rawjrphotography/

The problem with Jane Long's pictures is that I dont think they are very artistic or 'good art'. There is something rather tacky about them and not in a good way. It is sort of like taking a photo of your baby and putting its face into a picture of the Mona Lisa. Still even bad art is art and I am not militant enough to say it shouldnt be done just cos I dont like it.
Again what Rob Woodcox does is similar to the Russian examples I mentioned. I have no issue with this sort of work, as it's their own photographs that they are manipulating and they results tend to express something (they are certainly not cartoonish caricatures of other people's work).
 

50orsohours

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
2,420
Location
Portland Oregon
Your flickr link is cool stuff, I think it is very different from the OP link which to me has butchered up the original work, although I wouldn't work myself up over it. Not my cop of tea - kind of like taking a ferrari and repaint it in light pink.

I agree with this.

I think that Oz is right in saying that when something is largely created in Photoshop, it no longer is photography but a form of digital art. Still I like a lot of this sort of 'art'. I was looking at this guys Flickr photostream yesterday and I like what this guy is doing a lot. Maybe it does not conform to the taste of others but that is very subjective. There is not a lot of difference to me between painting in photoshop and painting with paint.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rawjrphotography/

The problem with Jane Long's pictures is that I dont think they are very artistic or 'good art'. There is something rather tacky about them and not in a good way. It is sort of like taking a photo of your baby and putting its face into a picture of the Mona Lisa. Still even bad art is art and I am not militant enough to say it shouldnt be done just cos I dont like it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom