I've read some comments from traditional studio photographers that claim photoshop manipulation is a cop out or not photography because it is artificial or phony looking. But in reality, you could argue all photography is 'artificial' and 'phony.' A photograph of a person is not a person. It's a visual representation of a person made by the mechanical means of a machine and medium (film stock). Most photographers use or used enlargers. If that's not 'artificial' what is? Besides that, traditionally photographers have manipulated film photographs with dodging, burning, solarizing, etc. And they also have an argument about digital photo manipulation not 'looking real'. Do traditional photographs 'look real'? They are 2-dimensional and made of paper, and lots are b&w. Nothing 'real' about that either. Isn't it really because we have accepted film photography as a convention? convention.
2007-11-29
15:20:45
·
12 answers
·
asked by
holacarinados
4
in
Photography