are photographs still photographs...

[uphereinmytree]

I have noticed in myself that i pass by the photo illustration type images and concentrate on images that reveal content and mood rather than photoshop skill.

[pablo batt]

yes i agree, photoshop ruins every image that crosses its path, a truely awful computer program, ps is very old fashioned and limiting in its abilities.

photo illustration for kids.

i prefer a good crayon drawing buy a 2 year old .

greg will know all about painting in the style of a 2 year old

[Greg Lockrey]

HA! HA! HA!This is too funny!

[paulr]

I have noticed in myself that i pass by the photo illustration type images and concentrate on images that reveal content and mood rather than photoshop skill.

How about broadening this ...

I value photographs that reveal something of substance, and not just the maker's technical skill (of any kind--analog or digital).

[paulr]

...for me the digital photography is't real art. Every one can make photo wyth AF in his new Digital Camera, then som automatic layers changing done wyth photoshop or other programm and the let's say "picture" is made...

We've been seeing arguments like this since the 1860s.

The whole history of the medium has involved technology making photography easier, cheaper, more accessible, and more democratic. And throughout that history, there have been people claiming that the new innovations aren't photography ... presumably because the old exclusivity served them better.

This happened with the invention of dry plates, film, gelatin silver paper, the brownie, the 35mm camera, kodachrome, polaroid, and now again with digital capture.

If you're going to say someone isn't a photographer because they can't work with film, then I'll say you're not a photographer if you can't work with collodion wet plates or daguerrotype. Both arguments are equally limiting and equally silly.

[Greg Lockrey]

so is that a picture of bird poop on your website???

You must be speaking to me from the other thread. Yes, that's bird poop. How honest is that? An ordinary photographer would have cropped it out (not honest) I chose to leave it in (honest) because it was part of the composition. If you would have ever taken an art class from a reputable university you would know things about the rules of composition. But you haven't and you don't. The "meaning" of the print was my comment at the time (30 years ago) of the prisitine nature photos of the likes of AA.

[Marko]

What's with the sudden surge of semi-literate under-age technophobes?

Is APUG down again?

Come on guys, stop feeding the pigeons, we all park on this street...

[pablo batt]

You must be speaking to me from the other thread. Yes, that's bird poop. How honest is that? An ordinary photographer would have cropped it out (not honest) I chose to leave it in (honest) because it was part of the composition. If you would have ever taken an art class from a reputable university you would know things about the rules of composition. But you haven't and you don't. The "meaning" of the print was my comment at the time (30 years ago) of the prisitine nature photos of the likes of AA.

lol

[rwh]

Hey, art fads come and go and so do fads in photography. Remember in the early 90's when it was all the rage to develop color film in the wrong chemistry and peddle it on Madison Ave. What really surprised me was that Madison Ave. bought it -- for about a year then dumped it as passee. It happens with digital gimmicks and with air brush, etc. But think of the revival of color gum bi-chromate printing from the 80's (1980's that is, since it started in the 1880's). That stuff is amazing and the masters were/are creating fads that are beautiful and few have the patience to follow.

The reason I'm off and running on this was I just saw last night a bunch of photographic works in the photographers studio. The stuff was a combination of paintings as backdrops with drama lit models in front of it. It being published here and in Europe. It was definitely unique and beautiful and awesome and parts looked air brushed, hand renderings, etc. But the images just sat there, and did little more than capture attention and leave you at that. Apart from the fads of techniques I really think a photograph has much more to offer.

ralph

[Ben Syverson]

I haven't read all 32 PAGES of responses, but basically, the original post reads to me like "kids today!"

Every generation has their crazy stylized photos. Go back and look at 1940s fashion and glamour photography -- they're every bit as contrived, styled, airbrushed and artificial as contemporary digital MF fashion photography.