So damn artsy!

.jr

.jr

Active member
Im sure there are a hundred other threads on this... but does everyone else hate when people edit photos so much that they just look like crap? I hate when they take the most pointless photo, but edit it in a different way, so all the other "artsy" friends go and gap about all the colors and uniqueness. Im sorry it just pisses me off to see someone go and take a picture of a dresser, then use filters and other effects to make it look like an older photo.

Not the dresser picture but same thing.. You may like it but I think its way overkill..

1231828490n1197630027_30072757_2901.jpg


I mean it doesnt even look that bad.. till you realize your looking at a picture of two parked cars.
 
welcome to the world of art, every person sees art in their own way. To someone anything could be art. Just use your hate to thrive off of to make your work better.
 
ha very well said, and Ive been around awhile, but I will always feel that you shouldnt have to use much photoshop to make your pictures turn out well.. It just feels too uhm unethical? and I think it makes you look like a bad photographer, shows you couldnt take a well enough photo for it to be interesting in its raw state.
 
Is getting thinner.

I personally prefer to use my photos in an unedited state, most of my photos that I have posted on here (best photography thread or look at my flickr) are unedited.

Those that I have edited are because I wasn't happy with how the original turned out so wanted to get it to where I wanted it to be. For me this takes away from the photography and makes it less of a photo and more of some digital art. Photoshop these days can make any shit/average photo look good. The trick is getting it to look good without using PS.
 
indeed... I mean I love me some photoshop and use topaz adjust from time to time, but the abuse of tools like these is really getting to me. Nothing is more frustrating than when someone looks at a completely photofucked picture and says "Oh my God! That's so cool, it looks like a painting!" It's a photo. It should at least try to look like one.
 
Because photography is not just about subject, but color and light. Photoshopping is a quick cheap way to achieve such an effect, but I respect those who can do this in its raw format. I think that photo you posted has really nice contrast and colors, who cares if its just a picture of parked cars?

I love watching ski movies but I don't give a shit about the tricks in them; I just watch the color, lighting, and technique.
 
There is a need to have photography skill though, you dont need photoshop if you know what you are doing. To me if you have to go in and change around things that you could have changed on your camera, then you have failed to capture that photo.

As far as ski movies, so your saying that you wouldnt mind watching a movie with people doing straight airs on a 5 foot hit, as long as the colors lighting and technique is perfect? I understand those elements can make something mundane much more interesting, but they can only do so much. Your subject is the main point of interest in the photo, so why shouldnt they be the most important factor of the photo?

 
I will look at how the subject is aligned and tied into the composition, but I could care less how many switch ups the skier is doing. Sure, this only goes so far, but I'd rather watch sub par skiing with good filming over mind blowing skiing with sub par filming. Another thing I pay attention to is theme, but since we're talking about skiing films here, this doesn't really apply.
 
that's a poor example of both digital art and photography haha, somebody please tell who the fuck thought that looked good.
 
I think they removed the picture?

and nutella, I agree with the amazing filming/mediocre skiing over bad filming/amazing skiing, but there reaches a point in which the filming cant do enough to make it interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top