Upload & Sell: On
Bob YILDIRAN wrote:
Photography or PP artistry? Take a look at Rarindra Prakarsa's work who employs humble means (Rebel XT) and an amateur (!) staff but still fascinating results.
Rarindra's images are not devoid of post processing... in fact, there appears to be a fair amount.
However staring a series of over-processed pictures, no matter who was behind the camera, often leaves me with an impression similar to too much sugar in my tea.
The use of the pejorative (over processing) is a value judgment, and I won't assail it. However I find comments like this one interesting..
The rest though falls completely under the realm of digital art. While it does show a HUGE talent at being able to manipulate things in Photoshop and whatever other programs were used to create the final images, (and those images show the work, detail and absolute limitless things you can do with a computer and some know how) any of the "greatness" that the images could have been is lost when you have no idea what is real and what is processed.
To speak of an image's "greatness" in terms of post processing seems like a pretty artificial benchmark to me. I found a lot of them to be "great," simply because Dave Hill (and Rian) are artists who use a camera as one of several tools to achieve a certain creative vision. They've fully embraced the long understood notion that nothing that we shoot in a camera is real anyway. That vision, and the willingness to push the envelope, is definitely refreshing.
It seems to me that you are privileging artistry that comes out of a camera over the creativity that goes into setting up and integrating multiple images in a novel way. That's OK as a matter of personal taste, but it has nothing to do with an objective "greatness" that is gained or lost in the process of modifying data coming out of a camera.
I guess it's not a surprising bias on this forum, which is populated by members who see themselves as producers of "photography" rather than "digital art." Yet I never found the two categories to be mutually exclusive, or so inflexible that one could not readily encompass the other.
Dave Hill has done something that very few people here, aside from Rian, could do. He's lit and captured multiple images in a planned and deliberate way, and put them together into seamless, effective, and creative combinations. That you chalk up most of the work done to "Photoshop" and "some know how" seems overly dismissive to me. Even the "processing" requires an tremendous understanding of how to render objects and anatomy realistically using traditional and digital painting approaches. Those skills are more than mere "know how;" they are acquired over years, and often a lifetime, of traditional training in illustration techniques.
The work featured on Hill's site, and the work routinely offered by Rian, is a good deal more adventurous than the lion's share of unvarnished "photography" we see around here, even when it is produced by shooters highly skilled in the art. Hence, I have to agree with this comment;
It starts with dynamic photography and ends with dynamic art. Don't let the photography take away from the art and don't let the art take away from the photography.
It inspires me to see people who don't let labels and dogma limit their exploitation of the amazing tools we all have at our disposal.