An image I took in April when Kate and I went to see her parents.
It was morning, but I made the image more blue in Photoshop, to enhance the effect. Cropped from an original image - must get a decent zoom lens soon...
As usual, comment/views welcome.
Ivan
4 comments:
Ivan,
When I opened this page, the first thing I saw was your image and it gave me a little kick in my stomach, and a quiet uhm.
So, that sort of sums up my feelings on this photo. As I looked further I enjoyed the gradation of blue, the tops of the trees and the smoothness. One would not believe it was shot in the UK...
But I want to raise one point. When I read that you had enhanced the blueness in photoshop the photo lost some appeal. Suddenly it seemed a little artificial. In recent months I have become somewhat of a purist when it comes to shooting an image; that is I do as little as possible in photoshop. This might be an outcome of so many people asking me at the Farmers Market whether I enhance my photos in photoshop.
However, if one were shooting film, one could have applied a filter and got a similar result. How would people react to that?
Photoshop, albeit a great and indispensable tool, has warped people's view of the images they see and created a sense of disbelief when an image such as this is created.
I have shot a Sable Island horse against an incredibly blue sky. It is a wonderful image, but it is a poor seller; I sense that people do not believe that the image was not enhanced in photoshop.
Anyway, we have had this discussion before.
After I went through these thoughts I came back to the photo. I still like it a lot and now my likeness is well justified.
Damian
D
Thanks for the comments. You're right: photoshop has made people wary, because they know how easy it is to change things. However, they don't realise that a lot of changes could be made before digital, by the use of filters, the film used, and the way it was developed - black and white is an obvious altering with reality!
Without enhancing the blue, this picture had less impact, so a striking image has been made out of one that had the potential, but was not. So, artistically, to me, it's justified, and I enjoy it for how it looks not whether it's real or not. If real were the thing, no one would enjoy paintings or fictional novels, so how come photographers have to be record or fact-based?
Ivan
Ivan,
'...so how come photographers have to be record or fact-based?' That is a good point. Many people probably think that a painting is a true reflection of a moment passed. But painters use their innate expression to create their painting. The inspiration for the painting might have come from a moment passed, but the final painting may be close to or very far from that moment.
Because a camera accurately records real moments, I suppose people expect photographs to show these moments. Further, this is how many people use a camera; to capture real moments. But it is baffling. A photographer is an artist that uses a camera and light rather than a brush and paint to express themselves. The photographs that people buy are a window into the mind of that photographer.
Damian
Beautifully put - I completely agree. Sure, the camera is seen - wrongly - as a device for recording what IS, but I see it as a device for capturing what I see, which may be different from what someone else sees. Also, no one questions whether a microphone, to record someone singing or an instrument playing, has had it's state altered in the final recording. It likely has - vibrato, mixing, richness of tone etc; all are changed, but this is seen as OK too. Strange, isn't it? I think photography is relatively new, especially in it's current digital format, compared to "real" art and music, so maybe, in time, it'll be seen as a medium with as wide a canvas (sorry) as painting or creating music.
Ivan
Post a Comment