Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by addieleman, Jan 19, 2014.
Lovely stuff. Has to be a lot of photoshopping. They almost seem Rockwell equse... Almost like what Poki would do with portraits instead of landscapes. Lol
On a serious note, it's some of the best portraits I've seen
Saw this link on another site yesterday - Excellent photos!!! "Magical" is indeed the appropriate word here
Worthy of publication for sure.
Woof! These photos serve to remind me why I don't even attempt portraits very often. There's just no way I could ever come within spitting distance of these.
+1 to that!
I'm trying really hard to get into portrait tho - nothing I'm willing to share yet!
This is not a criticism of Elena, as I love her finished images. But the images did raise some questions for me personally.
They seem heavily photoshopped. It looks to me like she's masking out her subjects and then working on the backgrounds in separate layers. And it appears that she's adding more than just a Gaussian blur. It appears to me that much of the mist/fog has been painted in. And, as they say, there's nothing wrong with that.
She has not asked anything of us, except to consider the finished product. And her results certainly work. But in admiring (envying?) these, it made me ask myself whether I'm a photographer or a computer illustrator—and where's the line for me?
The landscape photographer John Anderson made this observation: "The thing about digital photography that I think is in some ways troublesome is that it starts to erode the illusion of reality that photographs contain; and if it loses that completely, then its a different medium."
I completely agree. Great illustrations.
I think I understand what John Anderson, and you, are questioning, Bill. But for myself, I don't find this illustration/photography conundrum troubling in the least. I don't see myself as a documentarian when I snap the shutter. I'm not trying to deceive anyone by claiming that what I eventually choose to show them is supposed to represent a two-dimensional facsimile of the "reality" that I saw through the viewfinder. By framing, exposing, choosing a depth of field, timing the shutter click, and yes, by post-processing the images at home in front of my computer, I am interpreting what I saw. At best, I am trying to recreate what I felt when I snapped the shutter. And if I slather on layers of digital manipulation to achieve that, well, who is harmed? Others are fee to enjoy, detest, or shrug at what I came up with. I'm happy if they like it, but feel no loss if they don't. I know that it's a subjective game.
Now, were I a photojournalist, tasked with attempting to objectively document a newsworthy event, that's an entirely different thing. But the rest is all just art. Call it photography, illustration, or whatever you choose. I really don't see much distinction between the two. I believe that all photos are manipulated to some extent, even if it's just in the framing. It's just a matter of degree. Or, as you say: where's the line?
For me, the most troublesome photos make me feel nothing. And these images definitely don't do that.
Actually I wanted to see her photoshop skills and how she worked on each image separately.
I accept what you're saying. I think I enjoyed her images as much as anyone. I tried to make sure that my comments were only about the question that it triggered for me.
Those photos are indeed extraordinary. While they do exhibit some heavy PP, there is no denying her skill, nor her apparent passion.
I would most definitely agree with you. No matter where her journey took her to arrive at these images I would, if I had the ability, take the same journey!
Nicely put Bruce. That is the test, isn't it?
Separate names with a comma.