This is Part II of this topic. If you haven’t already had the opportunity to read Part I, I invite you to do so here.
As I was thinking about this issue, the following occurred to me. Have any of these Photoshop ‘gurus’ ever claimed to be fine art photographers extraordinaire? Have they ever published fine art books of their images. For the most part, the answer to this is a resounding NO. In my mind, most don’t really claim to be fine art photographers. They are ‘software people’. The few that are fine art photographers are well worth paying close attention to.
Along the same lines, is Photoshop, the software, about photography? Well, sure, but only to an extent. Adobe never claimed it was only meant for photographers. It isn’t a program for photographers; it is a program for artists, of which photographers are but one subset. It is there for graphic artists, digital artists, layout designers etc.
I am not so sure that we should be complaining about the craziness surrounding the program (and, certainly, it can get pretty nutty), rather, I think it is the job of the photographer not to stop “tricks” from being developed, but to be wise enough to sort through, learn about, and adapt the techniques that are useful for one’s own vision. I am not so sure I need to be concerned that there are folks coming up with a million and one techniques that I, and perhaps even no one else, might ever have a use for.
Besides, who ultimately knows what one’s vision might become and what trick, while useless today, might ultimately become an important vehicle for our own expression? History is filled with discoveries and ideas whose use only became apparent at a later date. I have not been involved with the creative arts long enough to know if a seemingly unimportant or inapplicable aspect of Photoshop has ever ultimately been found to have a useful photographic application, though my guess would be that it probably has.
5 comments:
With each new evolution of technology, from charcoal to paint brushes to air brushes to digital technology, I suspect there have been doomsayers who have said 'this will be the death of artistic expression'...
And I suspect there will always be technical people who have a yen to teach or convey their excitement about a product that will put their viewpoint out - and make money from it.
There is a difference between being an artist (and I don't mean to include any of the pretensions attached to 'artistry' BTW!), and being a technician - and thankfully we have both, or we would all need to be Leonardo da Vinci!
As a learning digital photographer, who also paints and draws, I appreciate that someone, somewhere has developed a programme than enables me to create something visual. And that someone who has an ability to teach, has put together some simplified steps to help me use some of the power of the technology...
And I have to say that in the same way I got reference books, and 'Googled' a lot to find out more about how to paint in acrylic, so I have done the same with photoshop - oh and how to use the camera!
All of this rambling is in some way my way of saying that in the end, it is the artist who makes the decision about which things to use to achieve the end result, the technician who develops the tools, and the teacher to help the artist learn how to use those tools effectively. We're all necessary somehow!
There are an awful lot of people who take classes without having a precise idea of towards which problems they will apply the learned knowledge: most of college graduates. Those who have already precise aims (eg Bill Gates or Steve Jobs) do without the education. Yet, does it mean that college eduation is snake oil ?
Hello. I have enjoyed reading all of your comments as they relate to George DeWolfe's article in Camera Arts. I know George very well. We have been friends for many years. The Center for Photography in Charleston, South Carolina hosts his workshop on Printing. george was not panning photoshop as a tool. He knows that photoshop is a necessary tool to bring your photograph to what you had visualized the photograph to be when you took it. He is complaining about NAPP promoting photoshop over basic photographic technique. If you read his book or taking any of his workshops you will know that he uses photoshop in his post production. He is a photographic purist, nevertheless he would not be opposed to the use of all tools of photoshop to create art. He would only say the ideas or concept comes first and then comes the tools of photoshop or in fact Painter X to create the ideas or concept. thank you for your time.
There is the art, and then there is the process by which the art was made. Every artist will have their own approach to answer the question of how much weight is given to either, as will every critic or person who has an opinion about a work of art. Is the use of Photoshop the art? Are paints the art;is the brush the art, or is the painting the art.
Much has been made over process. Many words can be written about a work of art, and the process that gave it birth, starting with the entire biography of the artist - in minute detail. However, when a great deal of explanation is necessary, is it because the art is lacking in its own justification?
Quote from drussin@earthlink.net
"He is complaining about NAPP promoting photoshop over basic photographic technique."
Maybe the people at NAPP promote Photoshop because that is what they know and that is what they are being paid to do. They are not teaching you how to become a better photographer by using these ‘tricks’, they are showing you how to use Photoshop, a tool. Like any educational tool (at least the ones that are actually effective) NAPP is specialized to teach how to use Photoshop, I fail to see the fault in that. It seems to me, based solely on the article, that Mr. DeWolfe fails to realize this. It seems that he is the person to go to for learning how to become a better photographer, not necessarily become more proficient at using Photoshop and its many tools (that may or may not have anything to do with photography). That’s ok, he specializes and is passionate about photography. However, please do not misinterpret what I am trying to say. I do not mean to be disrespectful to Mr. DeWolfe in any way, its just that I think his view of Photoshop (and those that teach it, like NAPP) is a bit short sighted. It is not just for photographers, and the vast majority of the ‘Tips n Tricks’ books and seminars are not geared directly for photographers, but for graphics designers and other forms of digital art besides photography. Even the ones that are geared directly for photographers are there to teach you how to use a tool. I have been to a few of these seminars and have read MANY books on Photoshop and I have NEVER seen or read anything from these people that promote taking bad pictures and just ‘fix it later’, they teach the exact opposite of that actually. But since they are not there to teach you how to become a better photographer, they don’t teach you how to become one, but they do promote and encourage you to do so!
The analogy that 'Mark' gives in the first article about the tool clerk is dead on.
Post a Comment