Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

This Must Be Photoshopped


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#41 TheRealDrew

TheRealDrew

    Humpback Whale

  • Moderator
  • 2859 posts

Posted 08 March 2008 - 10:46 AM

Interesting link. A couple of months ago I had a discussion about this with Lee Varis, a Hollywood photographer and Photoshop guru. One of the things he pointed out was that in the majority of movie marketing materials like posters etc, the heads of the stars are pasted into the photograph on other models' bodies. This is a much cheaper way for the studios to have marketing materials made. In fact much of his work was creating photographs of models in various environments and then adding the stars' heads later, this way the stars did not need to be present. Hence much cheaper.



Good information and it does make sense. Those are one of the things where it does not seem unreasonable, movies are all an illusion (in a good way) and marketing materials for a movie seems to me an okay use of those type of techniques. Perhaps it is just because I do not expect it to be real to begin with.

Sort of the along the same lines, sometimes on DVDs there is bonus material of deleted scenes or other similar material that has not gone through real post production (such as color correction). I love looking at those things to get a sense of what was "real" and how some post production is used.

#42 photovan

photovan

    Great White

  • Moderator
  • 983 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia

Posted 08 March 2008 - 04:01 PM

It's all about context, right?

Photography has always had a foot in two camps, art and documentation. They are two different genres, both equally valid and important in an historical context.

You just have to make a decision where you and your pictures fit. And yes, it's OK to be a fence sitter, having one foot in each.

I love to see great images that express/interpret (in the darkroom or in post) what was captured in ONE MOMENT - they make me go all goose-bumpy. To me they represent the true pinnacle of an authentic documentary photograph.

Some of the composite work (whether done darkroom or digital) is very interesting, and often beautiful. And it's art, which is OK.

The real challenge is to help the viewer understand what it is they are looking at, so they can make their own judgment about an image.

If you're proud of a composite digital image, assert it. Credit it as such so viewers can be in awe of your artist talents and photoshop skills.

If you're proud of your authentic single moment photograph, assert it. Credit it as such, it might even start to catch on.

While-ever digital artists hide their composition talents, and try to pass them off as camera skills, in the eye of the broader community, photography will continue on the slippery slope toward mediocrity.

Darren Jew  |  Australia  |  darrenjew.com  |  fotofrenzy.com.au

Canon EOS1Dx   |   EOSM   |   Nauticam  |   Inon Z240