I hate photocomposites and photo manipulation. They dilute the

I totally agree with you this sort of photography is trashy and lame yet if a surrealist artist did a similar painting to this I'd enjoy the piece way more.

>>3135031
I think illusions in photography can be cool, because it points at the nature of the medium itself. I have no problem with conceptual photography, surreal photography, staged photography, etc. This image is none of these things. This image is a digital illustration.

tl;dr, I like photographs of the impossible, but I can't stand impossible photographs.

>>3135019
>>3135036
wow you have autism

"reality of photographs" my ass. if you think anything other than personal observation even comes close to objective reality, you're retarded. if you think objective reality should be some sort of ideal in art, you're pathetic. if you think there is any such thing existing that can serve as an "objective witness", you are autistic.

I can't believe some shithead typed all this out. is this what people go to art school for? just to learn to articulate their shitty ideas in the most pretentious way possible?

>>3135053
uhoh someone has a reading disability

we all know photographs aren't objective dipshit. reread if you don't get it, but then again you probably won't get it so don't bother k?

>>3135053
Does OP actually state anywhere that photographs are objective documents of reality, or did you completely interpret OP incorrectly?

>gets angry at someone else because of own mental handicap

>>3135019
By that logic, Photorealism is an obsolete genre that shouldn't exist.

>>3135129
If you're talking about photorealism in painting, then yes, I agree.

>>3135019
>I hate photocomposites and photo manipulation.
They have their uses. Besides post processing is manipulation

>>3135019
>ascending in a cloud of fedoras
i'm surprised the internet hasn't found this yet

>>3135031
Painting is a way bigger pain in the ass. More labor means more value

>>3135053

Holy shit what a retard.

>>3135065
>>3135067
>People believe in the reality of photographs
>medium as an objective witness
>advantage to speak on the nature of reality
>believability

OP, please be retarded somewhere else.

File: 124-5-the-flooded-grave.jpg (344KB, 679x550px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 679x550px

>>3135019
the myth of objectivity in photography has been debunked for a century almost. if anything, photocollages and composites are more interesting because they undermine traditional notions of empiricism and truth.
also
>who is andreas gursky
>who is jeff wall

>>3135426
And yet, a photograph may be used as evidence in court whereas a drawing or a painting isn't. And yet we have documentarians, historians, crime scene investigators using photography - not painting - as a source of information. We inherently trust photography more. It's not the objectivity that makes photography interesting, it's the 'believability'. That's the point being made here: people typically 'believe' in a truth claim regarding a situation by a photograph more than a painting.

>>3135682
..to continue, it's the believability in photography, in face of its apparent subjectivity that the general public tends to overlook, and the blaring obvious difference between a.) how photography renders a representational image of the world and b.) how we actually see the world as humans, which makes photography an interesting medium for art. When you use obvious compositing and photo manipulation, 'believability' is voided; might as well be a digital illustrator instead.

I'm just picking at the facts here, boys. If you want to close your eyes to the matter, go ahead, but you're going to be ignoring something that inherently separates photography from other media. It's not about 'realism', because 'realism' was accomplished by painters hundreds of years ago. It's not about 'objectivity', because we know photography is not objective. It's about a general inclination to trust, a disposition of naivety toward photography, which positions it to make great statements.

Some of you 'maintain' that, "we know photography isn't reality." Then do something with it, because it sets up for some actually interesting work. But you can't deny the 'believability' of photography. Someone could paint a perfect painting of a historical event, but a slightly out of focus, grainy black and white photograph of the event is decidedly more trustworthy. Hyperrealists make paintings so convincing that people are blown away by how the subject it depicts appears to exist in real life. That can be cool, some people might find that really awesome, and I'm just using it to serve as an example, but the fact is, people still realize it's a painting. Photography, however, is given a special credence that no other medium holds, and yet we can lie so much with it, without ever opening a file in photoshop.

>>3135423
I can't tell if you're mentally incapable of understanding this concept, or if you're just refusing to understand it. Either way, you're completely misinterpreting the OP. Sorry for your loss.

Some quotes on the matter, since anon typically only pay attention to appeals made to authority.

ANSEL ADAMS: “Nobody trusts paintings, but people believe photographs."

JEFF WALL: “What an artist could do with photography wasn’t bounded by the documentary impulse—but that other part was underdeveloped. Painting could be topographical realism or it could be angels—in the same medium. Why couldn’t photography do the same thing?“ (Jeff Wall knew most people thought photography was only useful in a literal, documentarian sort.)

FRANCIS BACON "I have always been very interested in photography. I have looked at far more photographs than I have paintings. Because their reality is stronger than reality itself." (Bacon was probably more intelligent than you are, and look at what he acknowledges about photography and its appearance of reality.)

JOHN UPDIKE: "A photograph presents itself not only as a visual representation, but asevidence,more convincing than a painting because of the unimpeachable mechanical means whereby it was made. We do not trust the artist’s flattering hand; but we do trust film, and shadows, and light."

LUCY LIPPARD: "Despite having been awarded the dubious honor of arthood, all photography is still perceived as having one foot in the real world, a toe in the chilly waters of verisimilitude, no matter how often it is demonstrated that photographs can and do lie."

Duane Michals "People believe in the reality of photographs, but not in the reality of paintings. That gives photographers an enormous advantage. Unfortunately, photographers also believe in the reality of photographs."
All the arguments made so far, are arguments against points I haven't made. All I'm saying is that "straight" photography is probably the most interesting and compelling medium for representing what does not actually exist.

>>3135019
um that's a real photo. The reason his sweater is kinda bunched up is because he is wearing a wire harness to hold him up

>>3135695
>>3135689
the "believability" of photography isnt its strength. its the fallacy that continue to undermine photography as an artform.
good photography isnt the photographs that depend on its inherent believability, its the photographs that use this inherent percieved claim to truth to pinpoint how reality and truth is fragmented and dependent on a subjective viewpoint.

yes, the trust photographs hold is a facet of photography and one of the many signs that interplay in the interpretation of a photograph, but saying photocomposites dilutes the potency of the medium is like saying "stop pointing out that im lying, im just trying to tell you i climbed mount everest in three hours."

>>3135727
>good photography isnt the photographs that depend on its inherent believability, its the photographs that use this inherent percieved claim to truth to pinpoint how reality and truth is fragmented and dependent on a subjective viewpoint.

there u go, u finally get it

But knowing all this shit still won't help you take better, more interesting pictures.

File: 1ufmoq.jpg (118KB, 500x703px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 500x703px

>>3135019

Why is there a thread about things you don't like? It makes your chest tight and your head hot just thinking about things you don't like.

>>3135727
>the "believability" of photography isnt its strength
I’ve got about a century and a half’s worth of artists and academics would would beg to differ.

>>3135727
>good photography isnt
As soon as anyone claims to know what good photography is/isn't I know they are full of shit

Avoiding the shitstorm that was generated, I agree with op, that Instagram level shit is utter crap to my taste. I simply prefer to create effects trough prisms, mirrors, reflections, composition, etc. Something you can recreate in film or digital, both alike. I do agree with what >>3135258
says that post-processing is manipulation to certain degree, but only when you change some things like contrast, saturation, curves and so to generate a "feel" to the photo, or to make it look like what you saw when you shoot it. That orange and teal preset shit, or super unnatural colors or extremely shitty hdr are that fake manipulation he talks. At least I interpret it that way.

File: 26949758121_0cbc8d743c_k.jpg (396KB, 2048x1362px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 2048x1362px

>>3136703
For example, I tried to replicate what I was seeing the more realistically possible in this one

File: 24648683691_7f3b3aaa3e_k.jpg (474KB, 2048x1090px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 2048x1090px

>>3136705
Whereas in this one I was starting and though "Editing every possible aspect of it = good photo, wich makes it lose all purpose in the first place

>>3136707
What was its purpose in the first place

>>3135019
This is kinda the reason I don't watch Peter McKinnon.

He doesn't seem to edit things to the extreme of OP's pic. But he does overdo it with every adjustment he makes. Everything of his that I've seen has had the saturation blasted up the to max and solid purple and orange skies the remind me of the old word art gradients from Word 98.

I actually used to do the same thing. I realised I kept going back and finding my photos disturbingly unrealistic so I spent about a year editing photos and winding the saturation, contrast and clarity back by 5 after I had it the way I liked it on every shot.

I don't mind photoshopping like the OP (though that's not to my taste) but it's when someone tries to pass off 4 stacked Valencia filters as a #nofilter shot.

>>3135019
I use a large format / digital hybrid to shoot macro work which is then blown up about 50 times its initial size without loss of detail. To do this I generally need to composite 300 to 800 shots (to get the resolution I need and to focus stack 20-30 frames deep). The result is highly magnified but photorealistic. I'm wondering how this fits into your philosophy.

>>3136932
If the result picture seems like you would see with your bare eye, then I guess there is no problem
>>3136826
I tried to take a landscape with those two guys in the pier, but obviously fucked it up with the colors