Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by EvilGenius, Feb 21, 2019.
Damn I left that one begging
and incomprehensible. You'd have to know that nobody would be persuaded/fooled.
Got a link to that release?
*edit - found it on their facebook page
i have no idea of this industry ... But I don't think i saw 1 photo stolen from that blog... Didn't read much though... The whole thing was photoshop.
The very first photo that kicked it off was someone else's although heavily photoshopped. She threatened with the heavies and further digging uncovered all the use of stock photos and clipart. Maybe there are others that are out there? But you would think with the spotlight on her work in the last few weeks people would have started seeing their own work and said something.
The photographers are as in much dismay as yourself, just look at OP.
It's all interesting for sure......
If the works had been entered in an art competition, rather than a photographic competition, there would have been no problem. That rather begs the question why someone would enter them in a photographic competition, knowing that all elements of the "photograph" need to be one's own work.
Looking through the linked article, I actually liked quite a few of her artworks - but they aren't photographs.
I have in the past been asked "why dont u enter any photo competitions?" and i have said in response "because i don't just do photography". So much of my work involves photoshop but i guess that doesn't stop others entering anyway.
Well there is a line and it gets kind of blurry at times. If you take a photo straight out of camera that hasn't had any manipulation (including in-camera effects) then from a colour, contrast etc. basis it will be very plain and won't necessarily look like what it did when you took it either. So there is a degree of post-processing involved - and even pre-digital this used to happen. Do you think that Ansel Adams never manipulated his works captured in the negative and how he produced a print? Absolutely did heaps of darkroom work to produce the prints that he did.
I think there are acceptable boundaries for what is still photography, but for me including/excluding significant things that weren't there in the shot is digital art and not photography. Exposure blending (as long as its not two photos at different focal lengths), focus stacking, panoramic stitching are acceptable methods to me. The line for me is sky replacements and artificial reflections and moons etc. those are composites and are more digital art than photography in my opinion. For me if anything, it is about the honesty of how someone is portraying their work more than anything in the end.
Just look up the words 'photography', 'photograph', 'photo' from an etomological, philosophical or historical standpoint and you may or may not find your answer