Yes Paul
Emmas work is truly pure class,I have to admit when she was video diaring her studio build the ambiance and class of their work even in the earlier days sets her apart from any others.
Julian Porter in hampshire - he does run training courses and has allegiance to Click group who promote boudoir through the Fresh banner, r his standard by comparison is quite weak I think http://www.julesporter.com/boudoir/
Thanks once again for your help
Mike-e
Super Photoshop
-
Brian
- Photographer
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:48 pm
- Location: The dark recesses of your twisted reality
Re: Super Photoshop
It brings a whole new meaning to "The camera never lies" ...
TBH the argument has gone on since before I started in photography, the perfecting models for adverts, the edited imagery we see every day to get a story across, a product sold etc .... I think a lot of the "Traditional" toggers know what can and should be done but some of the newer arrivals have not grown up with the limitations (or knowledge there of) of the dark room and think that everything in Photoshop was available to an accomplished "dark-roomer" so they think, in their ignorance, that they are acceptable. On the other side of things .. when a lot of Trad toggers were growing up, advertising was not as prevelant as it is now, we didn't have graphic designers or the web .. we were not bombarded with as much imagery as we are today ... Take a look at the news stand and how many photoshop magazines there are ? ... I have grown up being a traditinal artist and know that there is a prolifferation of "arty" magazines these days ... Computer arts, Digit, Practical Photoshop etc etc etc ... as much as a lot of these produce gallery sections for people to see what is possable, I think that a lot of people pick up the ideas that "look" photogenic and "copy" ....
Having a go at peope who are "arty" or have grown up/worked as graphic design or the web is a little unfair .. we all have our passions and skills in different areas and if its how we see our "product" then its how we work .. maybe some polite "this isn't photography, this is computer art" talks is better than an out and out "NO! You can do this" .. I am sure there are subjects of photography that dont appeal to everyone, Artistic nudes, sport, historical, architecture, etc but we never see people getting heated about too many model photos in contests or too much landscape/sport.
Personally I think Photoshop should change its name to Art Shop .. christ even Pain Shop Pro says its the "The Ultimate Photo-Editing Software" ... we live in such an image led society and as photographers we need to understand what we see and to evaluate it more than most of Joe public. I am not knocking Photo Manipulation as it too has its place .. but this is ART it is not Photography .... But last thing is that if we keep seeing manipulated work in L&CPU folios what kind of message will that send out to people ... ?
TBH the argument has gone on since before I started in photography, the perfecting models for adverts, the edited imagery we see every day to get a story across, a product sold etc .... I think a lot of the "Traditional" toggers know what can and should be done but some of the newer arrivals have not grown up with the limitations (or knowledge there of) of the dark room and think that everything in Photoshop was available to an accomplished "dark-roomer" so they think, in their ignorance, that they are acceptable. On the other side of things .. when a lot of Trad toggers were growing up, advertising was not as prevelant as it is now, we didn't have graphic designers or the web .. we were not bombarded with as much imagery as we are today ... Take a look at the news stand and how many photoshop magazines there are ? ... I have grown up being a traditinal artist and know that there is a prolifferation of "arty" magazines these days ... Computer arts, Digit, Practical Photoshop etc etc etc ... as much as a lot of these produce gallery sections for people to see what is possable, I think that a lot of people pick up the ideas that "look" photogenic and "copy" ....
Having a go at peope who are "arty" or have grown up/worked as graphic design or the web is a little unfair .. we all have our passions and skills in different areas and if its how we see our "product" then its how we work .. maybe some polite "this isn't photography, this is computer art" talks is better than an out and out "NO! You can do this" .. I am sure there are subjects of photography that dont appeal to everyone, Artistic nudes, sport, historical, architecture, etc but we never see people getting heated about too many model photos in contests or too much landscape/sport.
Personally I think Photoshop should change its name to Art Shop .. christ even Pain Shop Pro says its the "The Ultimate Photo-Editing Software" ... we live in such an image led society and as photographers we need to understand what we see and to evaluate it more than most of Joe public. I am not knocking Photo Manipulation as it too has its place .. but this is ART it is not Photography .... But last thing is that if we keep seeing manipulated work in L&CPU folios what kind of message will that send out to people ... ?
Take only pictures, Leave only footprints ........
Возьмите только фотографии, оставить только след .........
Always ask yourself this question: “am I proud of this shot?” if the answer is “yes” then it doesn’t matter what anyone else says.
-=d^_^b=-
Возьмите только фотографии, оставить только след .........
Always ask yourself this question: “am I proud of this shot?” if the answer is “yes” then it doesn’t matter what anyone else says.
-=d^_^b=-