[Alt-photo] Re: Video:

[Susan Huber]

Ansel...would be in the forefront but only to advance photography...he would never approve of removing "unsightly" areas of a scene as he would use his problem solving area of his brain to figure out to project the image he saw and it would look like his vision. susan
On 2013-03-25, at 2:09 PM, Jan Kapoor wrote:

> I agree that this type of image (I call them ugly pictures of ugly people) is entirely too prevalent. However, it has nothing to do with Photoshop one way or the other. Photoshop is a tool, and a very powerful and creative one in the right hands. People were making this boring kind of image back in the days of film also. So, the quality of an image is entirely to do with the person using the tools: the camera, the film, the digital technology. If Ansel Adams, for example,  were still alive and working today, I am quite sure he would be at the forefront of the digital image-making world. He was always on the leading adge of whatever technology was current.   
> Jan
> 
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:35:23 -0400, Diana Bloomfield <dlhbloomfield at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that Photoshop is sort of like working in the darkroom (sort of), in that if you don't know what you're doing in the old-fashioned darkroom (or have never been in one)-- then you might be equally inept when using Photoshop. Not sure that's true, but just my thought. But I definitely think he makes a good point that so much in the world of digital photography looks the same. I'm not sure if Photoshop is to blame, or just a lack of imagination. I can safely say that if I see one more large color photograph of a teenager standing in the front yard (or in the living room) of an obviously well-to-do home, looking bored and staring blankly at the camera, I think I'll scream. What is that obsession? I keep seeing that over and over. The first time I saw that-- which seems like years ago now-- it was interesting. But I don't get why people keep doing that, and why galleries and museums keep loving it. 
>> 
>> So, for me, maybe it's not the tools so much as just plain imitation. But is that more prevalent today, with digital? And I really do think that digital prints, from digital scans, do have a kind of sameness w/regard to print quality. I can see that. 
>> Diana
>> 
>> On Mar 25, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Vedos Projekti wrote:
>> 
>> > Well, Photoshop is a tool... how can one say the tools are so boring, that's why my images are so bad! ;)
>> > > I think users of the tool may be boring... do you think if Picasso or Rembrandt had had Photoshop, they wouldn't have touched it?
>> > > -Jalo
>> > > > -- If you only look at what is, you might never attain what could be --
>> > > V E D O S
>> > Alternative Photographic Processes
>> > Satakunta University of Applied Sciences
>> > vedos at samk.fi
>> > http://vedos.samk.fi
>> > http://www.samk.fi
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Diana Bloomfield [dlhbloomfield at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: 25 March 2013 15:03
>> > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
>> > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Video: "David Hockney: Photoshop is boring"
>> > > Thanks, Greg. That was really interesting. I think he's right about digital photography all looking the same. He's talking magazines, where everything has been photoshopped to death-- but I do see that in shows, too. I'm not sure what it is, except that everyone is using the same Photoshop apps, and I still think that images made from film (even if then digitally printed) have something that digital scans just don't. > > He obviously knows technology, and he didn't say he didn't use it-- he just said he felt that the photographic results (at least in print media) were all of the same. Nothing much distinguished them. At least, that's how I heard it. I think you almost can't do any photography today without some technological aspect attached to it (eg, making digital negatives, for instance-- scanning film and cleaning up the dust marks). > > > On Mar 25, 2013, at 8:55 AM, Don Bryant wrote:
>> > >> David Hockney paints with the iPad
>> >> >> So I guess software is okay for painting but not photography?
>> >> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Greg Schmitz <coldbay1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>> FYR
>> >>> >>> "David Hockney: Photoshop is boring"
>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAx_aYGmpoM
>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Alt-photo-process-list | lists.altphotolist.org/mailman/listinfo
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Alt-photo-process-list | lists.altphotolist.org/mailman/listinfo
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > Alt-photo-process-list | lists.altphotolist.org/mailman/listinfo
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Alt-photo-process-list | lists.altphotolist.org/mailman/listinfo
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | lists.altphotolist.org/mailman/listinfo
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> Fine art photography of Jan Kapoor at: www.jankapoor.net
> Landscape, still life and natural abstracts realized via pinhole, large format, digital and alternative printing processes. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | lists.altphotolist.org/mailman/listinfo

Susan Huber
www.susanhuber.com