Anything you can imagine can be created, the fact you didn't like some random uncurated examples doesn't mean someone can't replicate the painting you like in a way you approve of. Chances are you've seen loads of composites and HDR and liked them without realising that's is what they were, because they were actually well done.Large chunks of what you see in film and TV is not actually filmed for real and I'm not talking space stations and transformers here, but the mundane 'real' world. Watch this video and see how little of reality is real.This is a very amusing mickey take of using green screen for ordinary things.
I can't argue with what you're saying, Jeremy -- except for the idea that somebody can recreate Bierstadt's painting with Photoshopped photographs of actual mountain scenes. I'll believe that when I see it.
Yes, there's an unlimited amount of crap on TV. I'd never argue with that statement.
It's why I stopped watching TV altogether about twenty years ago.
... Gursky is as much a "painter" as he is a "photographer" ...
Of course they can. Whether anyone would want to bother is more to the point.
Indeed. If I am allowed to cite myself: "There is a profound difference between artists using photography as a medium, and photographers striving to create art." Gursky is the former.
How can you tell which is which?
There is a profound difference between artists using photography as a medium, and photographers striving to create art.
Easy... if photographers hate you, you are the former, if they like you, you are the latter.
But EVERYBODY hates me!
Slobodan,What is the profound difference?
Could it be "the photographer limits himself to the photographic medium"?
Russ that are an awful lot of images out there with exactly the same techniques as used in the painting you like is done via Photoshop. If you managed to survive this long and still be unaware of such work, that's a remarkable achievement on your part. Heck I even pointed you towards Hag, who did the same thing in the darkroom decades back and posted a cityscape of mine where perspective had been rejigged in PS. But I guess unless someone recreates that very specific painting you like via PS, you will continue to deny the possibility.There's also this new fangled invention called google which allows to find Photoshop composited landscapes. Whether you like them is another matter.
Yes, there are some interesting shopped pix. But to me they are pretty much bullshit photos. Of course, I'm a doc photog so they rub me the wrong way.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Photomontage_(Forggensee_Panorama)_-2.jpg
I seldom do landscape or studio work. They just don't interest me. Although I had to put a few landscape pix in my latest artists' book De Wallen: Amsterdam's Red Light District to give it some balance. If I was going to shoot landscapes I'd stick with somewhat faithful renditions.http://rangefindercamera3.tumblr.com/image/111558641112
It's people that make bad [or good] photos, not the tools they use. There's probably plenty of good PS work you have no problem with, mainly because it is well done and you are not even aware of it.
Very good, Jeremy. You actually said something sensible.
The fact that there was any kind of post-processing should never be evident.
But also of note - all images shot raw are obviously post processed and if an image is B+W it's been very obviously post processed whether from colour raw file or a B+W negative. Objecting to post processing is like objecting to developing a film, meaningless.
