Awesome M8 Shooter

[stevem7]

Just interviewed 18 Year old Leica M9 shooter Megan Baker. Check it out!

Featured Photographer: Megan Baker | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

[KM-25]

Nice way to help out budding artists.

But this:

"Many purists argue that photoshop is the devil and should never be used. What would you say to that?"

LOL, why.....am I not surprised...

[RickLeica]

Sounds like she could have been your daughter. I think you have found a kindred soul.

[AlbertoDeRoma]

Originally Posted by stevem7

Just interviewed 18 Year old Leica M9 shooter Megan Baker. Check it out!

Featured Photographer: Megan Baker | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

Awesome photos. Just the style I like. I want to be like her when I grow up ... no wait ... too late. Crap!

Alberto

[epand56]

Outstanding pictures with awesome colours.
She should be a member of this forum, I love to be ashamed...

[NB23]

Originally Posted by KM-25

Nice way to help out budding artists.

But this:

"Many purists argue that photoshop is the devil and should never be used. What would you say to that?"

LOL, why.....am I not surprised...

I don't see what's incredibly nice about shooting a drab, dull scene, only to enhance it to Death in Photoshop and then call it "art".

IMO, if a scene can't stand being nice as-is, if it can't stand alone as a slide picture, then to me it's not good. If the light is not good then it doesn't deserve being shot, no matter photoshop.
It used to be about the right light, about the photographer knowing the craft, about the photographer waiting for the right moment for hours. A plugin can never substitute that.

You can bring all the color effex, Gazillionado Colorados, Crayolas En Folie, Wildization Cybernization Effex Pro 2.3.4... It's just wrong. It's not about the subject anymore. And photography isn't supposed to be about what's not there in the first place... Unless we're talking CGI. But I doubt Leica is about CGI, or is it???

But don't mind me. I'm just typing out loud. There's stuff for everyone out there.

[jaapv]

Amen to that brother. There is a point where photography changes into graphic design. To me as well these images are in that realm. The only photographs there, the people shots, are fine. But not better than many we see here in the photoforum. It is, however really good to see young people use the classic tools. And who are we to condemn the pretentiousness of youth? We too were going to storm paradise with the imagery of our generation. And hats off to Steve. Stirring up controversy is better than to present run-of-the-mill articles

[AlbertoDeRoma]

Originally Posted by NB23

I don't see what's incredibly nice about shooting a drab, dull scene, only to enhance it to Death in Photoshop and then call it "art".

IMO, if a scene can't stand being nice as-is, if it can't stand alone as a slide picture, then to me it's not good. If the light is not good then it doesn't deserve being shot, no matter photoshop.
It used to be about the right light, about the photographer knowing the craft, about the photographer waiting for the right moment for hours. A plugin can never substitute that.

You can bring all the color effex, Gazillionado Colorados, Crayolas En Folie, Wildization Cybernization Effex Pro 2.3.4... It's just wrong. It's not about the subject anymore. And photography isn't supposed to be about what's not there in the first place... Unless we're talking CGI. But I doubt Leica is about CGI, or is it???

But don't mind me. I'm just typing out loud. There's stuff for everyone out there.

I can appreciate and understand your point of view, but I still like those "photos" a lot. When it comes to post-processing, I really like Ansel Adams analogy of the picture being a musical score and the printing being the performance/interpretation.

It's pretty obvious that there is huge jump from Adams' performance in the darkroom and what we can do today with Photoshop and, say, Silver Efex. Using the musical analogy, heavy PP is closer to Wendy Carlos playing Bach on synthesizers (i.e. "Switched on Bach") which some people really liked and others hated. I like it - once a year - the rest of the time I'll stick to "normal" instruments.

I can, however, look and enjoy this kind of photography quite often. I am not sure it's "not about the subject" anymore but - even if that was the case - with so many people taking and sharing so many photos thanks to digital technology, I prefer to see new, different, experimental photography-based art, than yet another variation on a shot I've seen dozens of time - even if it's perfectly lit, minimally processed and the result of waiting for hours for the right light.

One final note, getting weird results from PP is easy. Getting good results from PP takes hard work. We have too many examples of the former and too few of latter. The pictures that are the subject of this thread demonstrate a careful, deliberate and, ultimately, artistic use of PP.

Alberto

[j. borger]

Yep we have to face the fact that the boundaries between the look of movies, pictures and computergames are closing. I personaly do not like pictures that scream Phoshop or movies that look like a computergame at all, but they represent contemporary taste (or lack of it). I can respect and value the skills but very seldom appreciate the results.

[D&A]

Alberto...all very well put. No doubt we all have our standards and preferences when it comes to what consitiutes an image (taken with a camera) and what consitiutes using postprocessing techniques that go beyond current acceptable norms.

It's an endless argument, no different than what the next M digital camera should be like in terms of added features. Both ourselves, the general public, judges on juried selections in photo entries (contests) etc.....that depending on the situation, we will all play a role whether an image is accepted or not, or even liked or approved for that matter and whether it can be called a photograph or a artistic manipulation of the "art".

For myself personally, it both a combination on what I see of an individual image and often times what the artists says about both their image and hopefully their intent (and openess) on manipulating it (if they had).

Not long ago I was viewing some incredably large wall mural sized photographic images of spectacular landscapes...mostly printed on canvas. At first glace and to most of the uninitiated also viewing, colors and detail seemed to jump off the canvas, in an almost lifelike realism to such large images...but upon additional viewings, and close inspection, I realized there was a lot (and I mean alot) of digital post processing manipulation to these images and the more I viewed, the more I grew tired of them...quickly. Part of this was due to the images displayed being represented simply as "actual" beautifully photographed landscapes....but they were really something more...a lot more!!

In slight constrast (although only viewed as a web images), the images of the young artist Steve posted, are not proported to be anything other then what she represented them as. From that vantage point, I viewed them as such and on their own merits....both as what the initial image might have looked like (early or late day light...often accompanied by darkening skies and a dreary weathered look)....and then envisioned what might and how much might have gone into the post processing. It's presented as it is...honestly, with no intent to hide whats being done.

Whether it's still a photograph or graphic art or something inbetween...is where the debate and personal opinion comes in. I suspect ones' opinion of such work, will also depend if they are allowed the latitude as to what it is labeled "as"...so once the catagory is settled on (for them personally)..it can then be judeged on its own merrits. It may not alter though one's ultimate decision as to whether they like it or not. Think of the example of "Switched on Bach" given above. Some may like it, or maybe not...but for some, if its represented simplay and honestly as a modern day interpretation of previously written clssical music...and played in a most unorthodox way...then for some, it can then be judeged on its own merrits. Other the other hand if its only represented as a classical recording of a Bach musical piece...then some will feel it betrays the genre...and certainly doesn't represent classical music. omay still not if its represented otherwise. Simply put, when something can be honestly catorgorized, I believe more are comfortable judging it on its own merrits and whether they like this moderen and altered interpretation or not.

As for her photographs of the musicians, they were a bit more straightforward and some of them I felt were quite good on their own merrits.

It's good we all have varing opinions on her and others work...for it would be boring if there was just was standard and no one tried stepping beyond the boundry. It may not be to everyones taste (and that often includes mine)..but as they say, variety is the spice of life and it's what makes things both interesting and often pushes things to move in certain directions...sometimes for better or worse.

Dave (D&A)

[ChrisC]

Steve - The girl has talent way beyond her years, and the pictures on show are merely the start for her. Who of us know which direction her photography will take? Talent is scarce, recognition of talent even scarcer; well done for giving this young woman encouragement which feeds her talent. At 18 I was incapable of making an image with even the semblance of maturity.

I hope she stays hungry for more in her photography, she's made a great start.

................ Chris

[KM-25]

The tide is already turning, most people I know who's lives are not photo centric really don't care to see what computer art one has come up with next. They want to see and respond to real art, the convergence of light, moment and brilliance well seen and honestly portrayed in a great photograph, not what is now easy to do, every day computer art. And you either have a great eye and sense for color and light in real life or you don't, this is not something that can or even should be invented on a computer. To think that one's faked out colorama in photoshop is equal to an Ernst Haas or David Alan Harvey is not only wrong, it is insulting.

This is why I have gone nearly 100% back to film, in a perfect world, my photography will never come close to a computer.

Originally Posted by NB23

I don't see what's incredibly nice about shooting a drab, dull scene, only to enhance it to Death in Photoshop and then call it "art".

IMO, if a scene can't stand being nice as-is, if it can't stand alone as a slide picture, then to me it's not good. If the light is not good then it doesn't deserve being shot, no matter photoshop.
It used to be about the right light, about the photographer knowing the craft, about the photographer waiting for the right moment for hours. A plugin can never substitute that.

You can bring all the color effex, Gazillionado Colorados, Crayolas En Folie, Wildization Cybernization Effex Pro 2.3.4... It's just wrong. It's not about the subject anymore. And photography isn't supposed to be about what's not there in the first place... Unless we're talking CGI. But I doubt Leica is about CGI, or is it???

But don't mind me. I'm just typing out loud. There's stuff for everyone out there.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by NB23

.... if a scene can't stand being nice as-is, if it can't stand alone as a slide picture, then to me it's not good. If the light is not good then it doesn't deserve being shot, no matter photoshop.

......... It's not about the subject anymore. And photography isn't supposed to be about what's not there in the first place....
.
But don't mind me....

Well, no; I don't mind you. But I do mind the overly prescriptive notion of good photography being 'scenes' rendered 'slide-like' and 'nice'. That sounds to me what drives the plethora of pictorial photography which clogs the internet, and these forums too. That's not what interests me; photography is far too interesting a medium to be suffocated by the lowest-common-denominator norms of pictorialsm, which begs a question; "what is the subject the photographer is photographing"

If the 'subject' is only the recording of what is before the lens then photography really is for machine-like recording. Thankfully it isn't, and the medium's Artists demonstrate that their 'subject' is often themselves in their photography even though their cameras point outward. If this weren't true I'd walk away from photography right now.

Regarding the subject of the original post; the girl has talent. She's only 18. None of us know what her mature signature images will be like. But [unlike the pictorial prescription] I wouldn't mind betting that she will delve into light that is not 'good' to discover whether or not 'bad light' is part of her artistic signature.

The best photography may well be about what's not in front of the lens.

But don't mind me; I'm being too prosaic for even my own liking.

............... Chris

[caparobertsan]

Yes she is talented, I am 38 but she can become my master! I think art come from inside; Photoshop is ok in my opinion. It is like painting colours are not same as original but artist’s interpretations. Photoshop is modern version of painting. I am sure she can draw as good as her photographs. Come on who spend 10 hours on photoshop for just one image?

[lct]

Photography having better chances to become an art thanks to Photoshop? Funny isn't it.

[mhoersch]

Perhaps "Awsome photoshopper" would be a more appropriate title for this thread?

[jaapv]

One often sees this type of photoshopping. What strikes me is that it is always so apocalyptic. Is this generation really so depressed?

[Logic108]

Do we hear a chorus of grumpy old men in this post? Is Photoshop o.k? Well to some it is if it suits their artistic vision/needs. And so be it. It's neither right or wrong. In the case of the young photographer mentioned here then I think her photoshop ability is a match for her photographic view - the images work for me.
But also lets not forget that in the world of digital photography and printmaking it's impossible to get away from the digital image being processed and therefore altered. When you shoot DNG then that is an interpretation and then the color space you use and sharpening you do and the noise you smooth out and the contrast you add or the highlights you remove etc etc. Adding vignette and color manipulation in Photoshop is just a few additional steps in a workflow that has seen the original image undergo a lot of digital processing.
But of course there is a choice because film is still available. Personally I would prefer to do all the processing myself according to how I see the image in my mind rather than send the image of to a film lab to be processed. In this regard I think the young generation of photographers are more creative in that they know how to use the tools available to get their creative vision realised.

[Nicoleica]

I agree with Logic and others. Although I am not one who uses photoshop or other tools much on my photographs (too many years of making slides!) , I can appreciate the effort and the artistry involved in the images of those who do. Surely, in the end result, is it not the same thing as that which a talented photographic print maker can achieve with negatives, light and chemicals, but using a different medium? Artistry and skill are needed for both.

[markgay]

There is a distinction between photography and Photoshop and will always be.

Take a step back. My uncle in Canada is still a great, working graphic designer. He was almost put out of business by computer art and became a teacher. Yet he bounced back and his business is thriving - because computer art, with the passage of time, created demand for what was lost: Hand lettering, bespoke fonts, hand colouring, imagination.

The same is happening with photography. With the passage of time we are seeing what cannot be achieved with Photoshop.

Take this test: a few years ago many people would not have cried, "Photoshop" when they saw these images. They would have perceived a digital image, maybe even applauded the "resolution". Now, with time, the distinction is becoming clear.

I forget which magazine it was that roughly four years ago awarded its Photograph of the Year to an image of a young girl throwing leaves into the air, the image shot from the tree above her. It was a Photoshop image, in which the leaves (actually one leaf, duplicated) and the girl had been photographed separately. It was not a photograph but a collage.

These past years, a number of international photographic concors have finally implemented tight rules on the extent of manipulation considered acceptable.

Clearly, in the news media, there are already standards, namely deception.
In advertising, images promoting a skin care product were recently withdrawn after it emerged the images had been retouched to a degree which meant the advertiser was making a false claim for its product.
It's in the broader photographic world that we are still drawing a line.

But we can make a distinction: collage (in which the image is formed from elements of multiple images), multiple exposure (in which entire images are combined), but after that we are into the area of colouration, filters, dodging and burning. How do we draw a line?

When I was first introduced to a Quantel graphics machine at the BBC in the late 1980s, my editors advised me to remember: just because computers allow you to do almost anything, doesn't mean you should do it. Television producers have clearly forgotten that advice. For every great TV graphic, there's a lot of rubbish that makes you sea sick just to watch it.

For me, the rule is: does the photograph convey the original image - or does it confuse or distort it, by introducing too many extraneous ideas. Even worse, does it contain gratuitous effects, simply used because they were there - manipulations made just because they were possible.

If an image looks like a dreamscape or if it's romantic or nightmarish, it's going to trigger my internal bullshit detector (excuse phrase - it's the most accurate description) and I'm going to start doubting.

And when that happens, the image fails to have an impact on me. Just as computer art doesn't convince like my uncle's hand-drawn fonts.

Mark