|
Forums >
General Industry >
Are You A Faux Tographer???
I have heard it said that a person who digitally manipulates their photos is more a graphic artist than a photographer.... Does it really matter whether a photographer recreates something that isn't really there.... be it in a digital editing program or in a dark room? Is it any less photography? Feb 26 06 08:31 pm Link ravens laughter wrote: Art is art, regardless if we use a pencil, a paintbrush, a camera, a prop, makeup, photoshop, or anything else. Is a person who uses an electric keyboard less of a musician than one who plays on their grandmothers antique piano? What's the difference whether we use an MUA and makeup, or clean up the zits and eye shadow in Photoshop? Feb 26 06 08:43 pm Link I almost never use the computer on my nature work-i don't use filters either. What I shoot with the digi and the film are what you see. The model work I try to shoot the best I can but do touchup on the computer-stray hairs and what not. My CGI art is a whole nuther ballpark. Feb 26 06 09:50 pm Link Click Hamilton wrote: Amen. But something tells me some folks are going to try their damnedest to make it one. Feb 26 06 10:25 pm Link call me an imagemaker then, I dont freakin care. The insecurities of what you are, are in your mind and those that try to make "rules" break down photographer photo=light graph = writing I photograph then I manipulate the record. Looking at your work there are those who would say you're an illustrator. You are manipulating the record as soon as the you start deciding what you are including in the record. Feb 26 06 10:35 pm Link I am a Digital Media Specialist. I happen to use a camera in my work. If people dont want to define me as a photgrapher, thats fine with me. What really matters to me as well as my clients is the work I do. Not the term by which I am defined. Though I must say, I make more money marketing DMS than only PHOTGRAPHER. Same skills sets apply, and then some.... V Feb 26 06 10:36 pm Link |
