Sorry been very busy slinging the code as of late so I have not had time to write much of anything. However, I just want to draw the your attention (all four of you) to a few things.
1) A Softer World is a kind of weird mash up of photography and poetry website. Not really sure what to call it, but you should check it out.
2) While checking it out the other day I stumbled across this, this, and of course this. It is a three part series on the year in photos and is nothing short of amazing. Some of the photos are VERY graphic, but all are work safe (at least IMHO). The Obama picture in the rain is amazing. I had seen it before but forgot how much I loved it. Also, I am 99% sure none of this photos are digitally altered. See below for what I thought was going to be a quick thought that turned into something more.
Quick tangent on Photos. Safeguy and I have a bit of a disagreement on the topic of digital modification of photos. While, I don't think there is anything wrong with it, I am more a fan of trying to get the exact look and feel of what I want while actually taking the photo. I will of course create my own custom color balances and do really weird stuff like block off my pop flash with my finger to achieve different lighting effects. He tends to do more the digital altering stuff. I don't really know which is the right side of this debate to come down on, but for some reason I love the doing it on the fly as oppose to touching it up later idea. Of course I also take crappy photos, so there is that.
Oh and of course there is no real reason why anyone must choose a side of this debate, for everything must not have answer. Or at least that's what I keep trying to tell myself.
p.s. Photo site back up.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
3 comments:
Hooray for the photo site being back up!
Also, I side with you re: digital alteration. On Flickr or my blog, I'll post a bad photo before I post a digitally corrected one. Unless I'm posting the photo *because* I altered it, in which case I'll explicitly say so.
I feel that way partially because of my journalism background, where digitally altering photos *CAN* be a slippery slope into being a misleading manipulation on the publication's part. (Of course I'm looking at a 'worst case scenario' situation here, where someone gets 'shopped into a shot or something. Not where a publication's photo dept. deletes a lens flare). Keeping the photos as they were in-camera keeps intact the integrity of the photographer and the publication.
Also, as a photographer (hear my pretention!), digitally altering my photos after the fact totally defeats the purpose of me trying so hard (I just typed "trying to shart" HAHAHA) to learn my camera. What's the point of having a great camera if I'm just gonna change everything in post.
But with all that saidddddd, this theory only applies to photos that are being presented to the world in a "look what I photographed" or in a "this is how it happened, the proof is the photo" kind of situation. Pasting my head onto supermodel bodies? Pasting your head onto supermodel bodies? Totally different ballgame.
I don’t have the background in journalism but in a simple love of all things beautiful. Artists have been modifying and perfecting their photos since Joseph Nicephore Niepce in 1826. If I could devote the time and money to fancy equipment and a black room, I would happily be a photography purist. Photoshop is a means of bringing that spirit of artistic vision to me. I enjoy using Photoshop to enhance my photography as an exploration into another artistic avenue. (I would also blame my need for control which Photoshop panders to.) But with all this being said, the photographer’s vision and skill are always paramount.
But the photo out there of Obama, Elvis, and me? 100% real thing.
I needed way too many words to get my point across, so I had to make a whole separate post about it at safeguy.net. Sorry it took me so long.
Post a Comment