File :-(, x, )
Edward
www.confucian.deviantart.com
>> Anonymous
This thread is about photography, not photo manipulation.
>> Anonymous
when are you fucking amateurs gonna learn that postprocessing/manipulating has become a big part of photography?

What you think all models have perfect skin/eyes/hair etc? And its not just makeup...
>> Anonymous
This pic isn't very good though, the lines ruin it IMO, I kind of liked the whole dark atmosphere and background but too much editing might have killed it
>> Anonymous
>>46965
postprocessing/manipulating has become a big part of BAD amateur photography and marketing photography. n00bs who use their mom's point and shoot digicam on auto mode taking pictures of their angst and then click 2 or 3 buttons to automatically art-ify their shots in photoshop is NOT talent at all.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>46971
You've clearly never heard of Desktopography.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:03:10 01:11:09Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1900Image Height1200
>> elf_man
There are a lot of good things you can do with photo manipulation, but for most people it's a bad crutch. Like in OP.
>> Anonymous
>>46965
You state a fact: endless post-processing has become a large part of photography.

But is that a good thing? That's the crucial question.

I'll throw out advertising photography from my discussion, firstly because the creative aim rests in the graphic designer who just uses the photographer to get the photograph he needs for his design, and second, because advertising opens up a slew of complicated moral and aesthetic issues I don't want to have to deal with here.

I'll also throw out entirely journalistic (that is, photography done solely with a documentary intent and not with documentary and artistic intent, ala Capa and other Magnum photographers, Natioanl Geographic photographers, and so on) photography.

I think, for artistic photography, the criteria for whether manipulation of a photograph is valid is twofold:

1. Does the manipulation disrupt the photographic character of the photograph? That is, is its primary visual aesthetic accomplished through photography, or has it become mixed media art, and therefore outside the bounds of "photography" per se? (Not that there's anything wrong with mixed media art, but this is /p/, not /ic/.)

2. Provided the first criterion is met, is the editing seamless? Do the edits balance well with the photograph, or are they done in such a way as to be distracting?

The photograph posted fails both criteria. It no longer appears to be a photograph; it looks like a digital painting. The lines drawn over the arm are distracting.

But beyond that, it's just bad.
>> Anonymous
>>46972
Yeah, I guess so. I have heard of it before, I was just mostly centering my hatred towards 99% of deviantart and every phony nonsense high school photography teacher who gets praise for telling students to max out the watercolor and lens flare filters in photoshop.