>> |
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.
|