The Soul Borrower

A Blog of Photography and my Lifeography

Fake

So I haven’t posted in a couple of days. I attribute it to the fact that I have been slapped in the face by sickness,and kicked in the balls by classwork. A terrible combination if you ask me.

Miraculously, My views have increased. I expected to come back after a week of no posts and have almost 0 views. On the contrary, they have steadily increased to about 75 per day. Amazing. It seems that I actually have somewhat of a viewer base, which makes blogging totally worth it. I doubt I’ll ever build up as big a viewer base as MirrorBoy, but I don’t think I’d want to be that popular ๐Ÿ˜›

Anyway I’ve been thinking…about Photography. I’m not a huge fan of the class I’m taking, simply because I actually have to go out and take pictures for assignments. I don’t think photographs are really good or interesting or cool when I’m forced to take them, or when my grade is riding on it. A lot of the people in my class are into abstract photographs and art and all that stuff that in my mind is just fake.I like to show things as they are from points of view that people aren’t generally used to seeing, but people should generally be able to tell what it is they are looking at without having to read a caption.

Another aspect that I think is important is genuity. I don’t really believe in photoshop. I like to be able to resize and crop, but I don’t think people should put a photo into photoshop to make it look better. I’ve got a couple of examples, but I’m not 100% sure if they ‘ve been photoshopped or not. I just don’t believe that such vivid colours are always there. Maybe I’m wrong, but I just think that you shouldn’t photograph things if you aren’t going to show them in their true light.
10 Minutes later… I realize that I can’t even find the initial photos I wanted to post, but here are a couple that still meet what I am talking about.


This first one, for example is gorgeous, but its been altered. It’s overexposed, and has obviously had a blue , cold effect added to it. I’d be interested to see what the original picture looked like. I really like this picture. It has actually been altered enough to the point where I know it has been and I can tell the difference.

This next one however, is slightly over exposed, but not as much as the first. The eye color is very vivid, as well as the shirt bluish colour. The thing that I don’t really buy is the hair colour though, its too far into a gray scheme in my opinion. The thing that makes me cringe the most: some people really do have such bright, beautiful eyes: Does this kid, or is it just a photoshop effect? We’ll never know.

This last one, however, is a bit different. The background has been turned entirely to gray tones, but the boy seems to be mostly original colours, with the exception of his hands. Out of the three, I like this picture the most.

What do you think?

Advertisements

February 22, 2009 - Posted by | Uncategorized

7 Comments »

  1. It’s a shame. I can’t enjoy a picture if i get the feeling it’s fake or it’s too perfect. For boys, sometimes it’s the imperfections that really make them beautiful. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Anyways, at least Photoshop is good for warping cat pictures to make them insane. ๐Ÿ˜›

    love.

    Comment by mirrorboy | February 22, 2009 | Reply

  2. i hear where u and mboy are coming from, but as something of a photographer and a fairly experienced p/shop user, i think that no side is ‘right’.
    the 3 photos in my view have been processed really well, and i’m sure have much more impact that the originals. they probly haven’t had masses done them either… a bit of hue/sat, toning and selective blurring would get pretty close.
    a good photo sucks u in 2 a point of interest that your eyes just rest on. 4 a portrait that’s normally the eyes, and the first 2 pics have this in spades.
    if u ever want 2 to photography, feel free to mail me.
    torchy!

    Comment by torchy! | February 22, 2009 | Reply

  3. that was meant to be… if u ever want to *talk* photography. soz – blogging from my phone. T!

    Comment by torchy! | February 22, 2009 | Reply

  4. Never used photoshop or anything (probably wouldn’t even know how to lol), but if it means that such beautiful images can be created then I don’t see the harm in it. Of course I really enjoy “original” images too, but the “before and after” images are both works of art in their own right imo.

    Comment by Col | February 22, 2009 | Reply

  5. Photography class is what you make of it, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. For the class, they want you to learn the fundamentals, the technical skills. Proper exposure, lighting, focus, composition, etc.

    WHAT you photograph should still be up to you, and if you have a half-way decent teacher, they should realize and accept that. Subject matter should not be important, as long as you complete the “assignment”. For example the basic stuff “Take a picture with use of shadows”. Should be open to you to interpret what you photograph, as long is its got proper details in the highs lows, etc. Any teacher who says something like “well, thats not really good subject matter for this image” should be slapped upside the head with a full gallon jug of D-76.

    Ok, maybe I’m dating myself here – and I realize I’m not sure what exactly you are doing in class. Do you shoot black and white, process it yourself, print it yourself? (Or color, same thing)? Or have they moved into teaching digital-only, which would be a shame. Gosh, technology has come so far. In my day, Photo I or basic photo meant black-and-white, hand processed and printed, with a manual camera or at least a camera with manual settings available.

    I’ve never really considered the whole Photoshop debate, partly because I rarely shoot anymore, and partly because I’d be clueless about using it. (Just recently figured out how to blur a big spot on an image to remove logos, etc LOL).

    However, the art vs real issue, I can speak to. I worked in HS and College as a photojournalist, and consquently most of my work in classes was based on news/sports/features. I went to an arts school for college. Lots of “artsy-fartsty” types all trying to out-do each other being more unique than the next guy.

    We’d go into class for critique, and amongst all these weird and wacky (and abstract) images, would be my prints of, say, a car accident, or a soccer player (w00t). And everyone in class would get all into their discussion of life, the universe, and everything, as seen through their fabulous image.

    Then they would get to mine, and turn around and say “well, WHAT DOES IT MEAN?”. And I would be like – it doesn’t MEAN anything. The car crashed, the player scored a goal, the house burned down, the politician gave a speech. Its a print that would be destined to be published tomorrow in the newspaper. It doesn’t frigging mean anything, other than its newsworthy. And we’d get into huge debates cuz the sensitive types could not possible comprehend a picture that didn’t speak to the galactic human condition of the mind spirit body and soul as seen through the eyes of a blind child walking through empty fields of sparkling sunlight and experiencing raw and powerful emotions sure to make the viewer weep, ejaculate or ponder great things.

    LOL. Sorry got carried away there.

    But anyway, as far as the editing thing goes, photos are almost always edited, in some way. If you consider, even cropping an image, is editing it. But I can see the whole dilemma of Photoshop – adding, subtracting, creating things or colors or textures that were not there can skew things to a great degree. Is it artistic? Perhaps. Is it truth? Not once you change the blue jeans to black pants. It it common? Absolutely.

    But at least you’re thinking about it. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Comment by Seth | February 22, 2009 | Reply

  6. lol @ seth ๐Ÿ™‚ wow – eloquent isn’t he? and that’s exactly wot i was gonna say, cept i was using my phone (still am) and didnt wanna type that much. no, really ๐Ÿ™‚ hehe

    torchy!

    Comment by torchy! | February 22, 2009 | Reply

  7. Jake

    even acceotpting theidea that the pictures are fake each one represents someone’s idea of art and each boy does look nice as presented.

    I agree though that untouch photos are more natural looking and provide a better objective view of people and things but even they can be manipulated. Lighting and makeup in the past did what photo shop does today.

    I hope you enjoy the class and are doing well in school

    take care and be safe

    bob

    Comment by cvn70 | February 22, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: