Photoshop - The Dark Side
Photoshop is a program that manipulates digital images to
the Nth degree. You can make a picture into just about anything you want. You
can turn a photograph into something that doesn?t even resemble the original.
Is this a good thing, or an evil force to be reckoned with?
Surfing on flickr, my favorite photo sharing site, I?ve
noticed many images manipulated with this program. Some to the detriment of the
shot by rank amateurs of the program; others skillfully crafted & enhanced
to make an incredible image. My question is, is this still a photograph, or now
just a computer generated image?
I guess part of the beauty of digital photography is that
you can do this. Still, on one hand you have a photo with great composition
that can be made better, on the other you have crap that is manipulated to the
point where it resembles something else. Is this still crap, or all of a sudden
You have the question of enhancement, to rid the shot of
small flaws, or gross manipulation to change the image completely. Is this
the Dark Side of photoshop? How far do you go?
Pictures, art, or just crap?
After seeing some of the beautiful enhancements, I?m tempted
to go over to the ?Dark Side? and learn this program. However, will I then I cease to
be a photographer, and become more of a computer software user or photo
Help me Obi-Wan?.you?re my only hope?
Filed under General, Sep 12, 2005
Tags. More about Flickr
What exactly are tags anyway? In this context, they are
words added to a photograph to help describe it. You know, where it was taken,
what the subject matter is, type of camera, lens, etc. etc. They help people
find pictures of a particular subject or venue
There?s a recent phenomenon that kind of bugs me, a lot, so
I thought I?d rant about it.
The current trend
is to ?tag? your shot with your screen name?thereby attracting people to your
shot because it was taken by you. How fucking pretentious! Gag me! Lets make mediocre shots taken by a popular
person even more popular. THAT alone made me write this, it crossed the line of
what I could take before I had to vent. Give me a fucking break will ya? I
mean, if people want to find a picture by that person, they?ll go to the photo
stream, what do you need to tag it with your name for? I notice it more &
more, even from talented photographers. It?s becoming sort of a sub group of
the clique phenomenon.
I figure, in the end, no matter the hits, comments or faves,
if it?s crap, it?s crap, if it?s good, it?s good.
Filed under General, Sep 11, 2005
You know what?
I?m on this really fantastic photo-sharing site. I mean it?s
awesome. But there are some things that kinda bug me about it. I can?t really
say anything in any forums, because there?s the whole censure thing &
getting kicked out of groups & offending people & upsetting others
& so on & so on. But you know what? Catharsis I think. Isn?t that what
a blog is all about?
So, I have contacts, friends, am in a bunch of groups where
I post my photos where relevant, check out others & I take a whole pile of shots with a
bunch of different cameras & lenses. Last month I took over 800. I only
post the good ones, or at least, the ones I think are worthy of posting.
Before I start my rant, let me say that there are a ton of
extremely talented photographers on the web site. There are some amazing shots, lots of them, lots too that are acknowledged by their peers. I am humbled by their greatness...BUT there are some really shit shots out there. Real crap you know? Garbage. Crapola. Stuff anyone could
take with an instamatic camera. Although there are some great shots with camera phones, fantasitic composition, but there's alot of no talent stuff. Household snaps...mediocre snaps, you know? It's a real melting pot.
That said, some mediocre stuff has become a popularity
contest. How much talent does it take to point an automatic camera at a flower
& press a button? (Yes, I?ve done it!) There are thousands of these shots
on this site. There are a TON of groups dedicated to this type of shot. It appears this type of shot is
immensely popular. Some are worthy, but many are completely banal yet get hits & comments
galore. I guess it's a soft spot for alot of folks. BUT, no matter the subject, why do many
mediocre shots in ANY category get hundreds of hits & dozens of
comments? Why do absolutely brilliant
shots (hundreds of others I?ve seen by other photographers), perfectly
executed, fantastic composition, amazing subject matter, awesome results, get few
hits or comments? Don?t get me wrong; I?ve had my share of successes. But a
virus is diluting merit.
Little knots of individuals that cater to each other?s photo streams regardless
There was a ?contest? a short while ago, where people were
?recognized? (by what critical body? I don?t know?In case you were wondering I
was nominated in two of the dozens & dozens of categories but I withdrew
from the contest because of all the bullshit) for ?excellence? in their field.
Well, it became a heyday. Some folks were actively trolling for votes, others
gratuitously voted for their friends, and in one case I know of, someone was
forcibly removed from the voting process because of their dissenting opinions.
Now THAT?S democracy!
I think that happened in Germany in the 1930s.
But the real thorn here is the clique. It kinda reminds me
of high school. If you?re not in the ?in? group?forget about being
Many talented photographers, are being ignored. Don?t get me wrong, I?m in my own little ?clique? I suppose, with folks who
enjoy my shots & regularly comment or look, & I look and comment on theirs with great regularity but that doesn?t stop me from
ranting about the phenomenon?
Filed under General, Sep 9, 2005
Internet Movie Database
Trickle and Thrum