It’s a contemporary pet peeve that the artistically inclined like to fret about. If you are a musician and performer, you cannot stand the point that children right now sit before their Macs to play around with GarageBand and they call themselves music artists. Why, if you are that way inclined, you could perhaps have trouble acknowledging that a young man with outrageous hair and a screaming electric guitar close to a stack of Marshall amps is a musician too. Consider photography; if you have a taste for cameras and photography, then the magazine Popular Photography is probably in your monthly subscription list and you often look forward to their Reader’s Photo Competition each year.

 

Actually, it isn’t only the photography lover who is often interested in that contest. Ordinary individuals out there with a camera and a pc are often competent to create stunning and wild masterpieces that you would not really think came out of the brain of a lone typical individual with no devices, education or finances. I remember an entry in that photography competition about fifteen years ago that just blew absolutely everyone away. It absolutely was a large unsupported phantom faucet mysteriously floating in the air against a lovely blue sky, that was pouring torrents of crystal water. People couldn’t stop wondering at the marvels of digital picture adjustment.

 

That was well before Photoshop and green screen became well-known. Now, it seems like nearly all the photos in that photography contest, like any other, have had a small amount of Photoshopping carried out (if not a great deal), and most people are up in arms at how the ancient and august art form that photography is, is being subverted, by any punk with a computer. To see a fantastic touched-up lady in a wedding gown walking up the aisle, the folds of her dress just picture-perfect, her smile perhaps a little too sparkling, the lighting catching behind her veil to create a kind of halo and tiny blossoms tumbling down her train in just a precious way - all this is fantastic to see on a photograph just because setting things up in this way, and having the skill to time your picture completely, with all the right lighting and proper use of green screen background, all in a moment, demands artistry and training of the most extreme nature. But if you can simply take your typical picture, move in the lighting on Maya, redraw the smile to become much more angelic as well as sparkling on Photoshop, modify the angle of the shot and the full background and put in extra shine on another program, it doesn’t really say a lot for your skill with a camera.

 

The only reason a picture like this is impressive enough that it would certainly win a photography contest is that individuals imagine that it calls for photographic skill. The image itself is absolutely nothing that wonderful. The actual talent to capture it all in one frame, is exactly what wins the appreciation. So is it acceptable to cry foul here? Not so quick, the Photoshoppers say. If you operate your very own photography contest exactly how would you put this down in the regulations, what’s to be considered photography, and what is not? For instance, well before any person ever possessed a computer, any picture shot would demand that you made use of a bunch of lights and reflectors to have your picture to sparkle and get noticed. And then your darkroom techniques will make that more desirable. You choose a camera that could focus on the foreground and blur out the background in a fashion that actually never occurs in reality. Or you spent hours having your subjects, “your stars” set up so. That appeared to be the low-tech way, and today we’ve got a high-tech way. Just what causes it to be unfair now?

 

It is not just a photography contest that you’d have trouble determining specific guidelines in. Determining where a line lies, is always difficult. Maybe the most effective way to go about it would be to simply transfer all the high-tech things to its own competition.

Technorati Tags: , , ,