Comments/Discussion
I have disabled comments on some of the pages on the site (such as the about page) and created this page for general comments/feedback etc on the site and for any relevant discussion that may interest members of freeradical.
Please leave your comments and ideas etc here!
Remember if you need to contact Mr. Free Radical #1 you can email him at free radicaloz [at] gmail.com
If you have any feedback or problems with the site please contact me at cameron.stephen [at] gmail.com
I notice in the blog that there is a fair bit of tooth gnashing about what is ‘fair’ and not ‘fair’ in terms of manipulation. This sounds a bit to me like the French Academy for what is ‘correct’ French or ‘incorrect’ French. Does anybody in France listen to this …..? You guessed it. French is a language stew littered with adopted words and phrases from Europe and especially the dreaded USA, (home of Adobe and all its good and bad tricks).
My own point of view is that photoshop ‘overworking’ reaches a point akin to ‘panel van art’, or perhaps even worse, painting on black velvet. But if I take my tongue out of my cheek, I think there is one thing that strikes me as the dead fish in the soup and that is the new genre of photo-(re) compositing: that is, major manipulation of the compositional elements. This surely defines what is or isn’t an ‘original’ photograph, when the new is made up of the guts of several or more others to become something removed from the intent of the original? Why can’t this just become a new genre we all get on with and like/dislike depending on how well it connects with our senses and minds?
I don’t think it’s worth worrying about too much, and I love the ease of Lightroom and Photoshop and what they can do to enhance my images, and personally I’ll just try to do what I can with the tools at hand, and what suits my own taste. Taste in the end is the arbiter, and as history shows, it has a habit of moving on.
Cheers
Chris S
Hi Jeff,
I’d ask how the hell you are, but I just read the health report you posted and gather you have been better. I’m sorry sbout the cancer, but I am glad it was found early and hopefully you kicked its butt.
I was hoping you could please put me back on your free radical emailing list. For some reason I have not been receiving emails. Hopefully this is a cyberworld glitch, and not a conscious choice by you to contribute to my living in a bubble…
I wish you a full recovery from your operation, and strength during your chemo. If there is anything I can do to help you in any way, please do not hesitate to ask.
Love to you,
Dina Solomonides badge #183, X-RMIT a million years ago.
Re digital manipulation, just like anything else photographic, the issue is not how it’s done, but “is the result any good!” Just because something is analogue doesn’t mean it is automatically superior. Bottom line is – crap is crap – irrespective of its journey down the birth canal.
I want to write a response to the whole ‘image manipulation’ debate. I think that the recent AIPP awards are a classic example of this. You would be forgiven for thinking that every category was won by the same person. Aside from one winner who I think would have been more appropriate to win an illustration award. What ever happened to personal photographic style being embraced and celebrated? No, it would seem that the Australian professional body deems that to be a top photographer one must a) take a photograph b) put it through Photoshop adding as many filters, masks, gradients, curves as possible until it is worked within an inch of its life. Is it just that nobody is willing to stand up and say “while Photoshop is great, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should”. All I can imagine is that the big boys (and girls) club that is the AIPP prefers if we all stand around and say “well my image is made up of 12 different photos, and has 295 layers”, only to be countered by “well I have applied 15 different filters and it looks like a real oldie worldly picture”. Now don’t get me wrong, I use Photoshop and think that it is a fantastic tool, however it is clear by the latest results that if you don’t use it in enormous quantities, the AIPP simply are not interested. And they are not alone. I am tired of seeing awards and after awards celebrating an average photo that has been overworked. Almost as much as I am seeing vacant people, with vacant expressions in a vacant landscape with some pseudo intellectual premise splattered all over it. It is not deep and meaningful nor does it make a statement about academia, other than our ability to make projections on a crap picture. Yes, I’m not ignorant, nor bitter (I’m sure you aren’t convinced) I just feel that it is time for someone to stand up and say “stop masking crap work with smoke and mirrors, stating that “mine is bigger than yours” and stop celebrating how vacant our art culture in Australia has become. There I said it, I will now retreat underground before you get out your big sticks.