| p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated |
I'm sure the guts of the images are pretty close, but the final images are littered with extras that lend themselves more towards the digital art realm than staying in the photography realm.
In the Adventure Girl shot where she is holding the map, there is no rain, no giant rocks in the background, no birds flying off in the distance. The whole background is basically produced digitally. All of those elements make up the total picture that we are viewing. Although the girl, the sand directly around her, the map, and the bones in the ground are from the actual picture, the rest is included digitally. They weren't elements originally seen and that is why I said what I said.
Maybe I just look through the lens as more of a purist when it comes to what leans more towards digital art than a photograph, but to me when you start adding in elements that on their own would have drastically changed the way the picture was taken, the idea that the final image in anyway can relate to the original photograph is just lost on me.
Even though it isn't his, I'll use an example of a piece of work you posted recently.
The pool table shot. It was taken at a pool table in someone's house and it was a cool picture as it stood. The idea behind it was unique and I thought it made a good photo as it was. While the final product is a good use of your photoshop skills, wouldn't it have been just as easy to take that shot in a pool hall or a dive bar with a pool table and not done all of the digital processing of the image?
I don't want to start a great debate over what constitutes what, this is just my opinion of the work presented through the two galleries which have some very heavy signatures of being digitally worked on.