Hey all,

Am quite new but I just thought it would be really interesting to know what creative things people have done digitally with photographs and to throw up the question that is the digital revolution a good thing, and add to the creative possibilities of photography or does it take away from the skill and expertise of what photography was, say 30 years ago.

What do you all think?

It's definitely a good thing. No software in the world can make up for a really good photographer, in my opinion.
I guess it takes the human mind to take "that" picture that you look at it and just say "wow..."

Sure, you can take red eyes out of photos with a couple of clicks, change the lighting, and all that stuff using software, but what good is a photo like that if know that in reality it wasn't like that?

Bet you never thought there was so much philosophy in photography did you?

My two cents!

It really depends on the amount of digital manipulation. For example, reducing the red-eye effect and adjusting the lighting is OK, but improving photos is an illusion. No one likes to see a popular actress live, because that's not what they saw on the picture. That's why you need a good photographer.

However, if you get to manipulating photos, it's a different thing. This is usually done for pleasure or money, and it changes the photo not in order to improve the looks of a person (or something else), but to create something new out of something that already exists. And that is art.

Absolutely digital alteration is creative its totally creative it could be considered art in some ways, but that all depends on how much you alter and change, there is a totally massive world out there within the digital alteration realm its used every where, and for almost everything movie use it for cost factors people at home use it for fun and experience. I think it’s a great idea and totally creative, having said that though there is no substitute for a professional photo you have to have an eye for that and that in its own is creative, so it’s really a catch 22 you can’t have one without the other really.

this comes up often in the world of sports photography. can you really capture the energy of the moment if you are modifying the picture?

i say, yes. you can enhance the quality and meaning of the picture. software helps you to fine-tune the picture to make it excellent, because nobody can take the "perfect photograph".

digital mastering of your pictures can also help you to realize what your skills are lacking, or what you should do to perfect your style. these are all great benefits of digital alteration. and while it's not the original photograph, the benefits of having a modified one outweigh the detriments.

Changing photos is fine, but the main point is--what are you changing photos for? If you're changing because you want to make the person you photographed look better and lie to possible viewers about that person's looks, then that's not a good reason and photo alterations become bad. On the other hand, if you were changing it for an artistic reason, then it's fine.

It's just like any other technology, we can either use it correctly or abuse it.


Definitely true! A good photographer captures any image far better than a poor digital manipulator. In reality, even if the person is ugly, if the photographer can take a good picture and bring out that person's personality, then the realism of it will appeal to people. On the other hand, digital enhancements that destroy the "ugliness" will cause everyone to look the same--not exactly an artistic thing.

This post has been edited by Arbitrary: Jun 22 2006, 03:08 AM

If you know the technique from the past, you will easier understand the technology from digital era. Principles are the same. For example, shooting pictures, all the stuff that was applied before, with analog technology still remains, you cant change physics, but you can andvance your equipment to handle better with laws of physic.