Was Picasso a talented painter or did he just have a great
set of paint brushes?
.jpg)
Recently I was inspired by the brilliant colors of fall and
the still water of the lake I live on casting a wonderful reflection. As any
artist who finds inspiration would do, I stopped and captured a few images that
I hoped, when finished with my artistic talents, would convey the spirit and
emotion of the beauty I had seen.
Once I finished my creation, I couldn’t wait to share it
among my small group of friends on Facebook. I usually enjoy feedback regarding
my work if it connects with someone. However, one of my close friends who has a
previously stated dislike of Photoshop, decided to post a comment of “Nice
Photoshop”. I felt his comment implied that because the image had been
processed by my chosen software of Photoshop, the resulting product was not my
artistic creation, but a product of Photoshop.
Now in this person’s defense, he is not an artist or
photographer and does not understand how or why photographers have to process
digital raw files in their computer software programs before they end up being
the final JPG files that most people are accustomed to viewing.
However, his dismissal of my artistic expression in favor of
a particular tool I use to create it, struck a nerve for me. This caused me to
ponder the question in the title. Was Picasso really talented or was it the
brush he used to paint with?
Any sculptor, painter, writer, recording artist or movie
maker, is generally freely given the distinction of an “artist”, however, a
photographer is generally defined by the tools he uses to create with rather
than his creation.
In the example of my Facebook friends post, it was the fact
I created it in Photoshop that seemed to suck away any contribution I made to
the image. So I wonder, would a sculptor be complimented on the chisel he used
instead of his final result. What was responsible for the famous words of Robert
Frost, the typewriter he used or Mr. Frost himself? And why is a painter hailed
for his use of color, oil or acrylic and yet a photographer’s talent is attributed
to a software program or the type of camera he owns.
I have been told so many times, if I had a good camera I
could create that same type of image. My response is go buy yourself the best
camera money can buy and knock yourself out.
Amen my friend! I appreciate your artistry!! Chip
ReplyDeleteWhat so few people realize is that no matter how good your hardware (camera and lens) and regardless of what technical hoops we photographers jump through to get as much of an image perfected "in camera" at the time of exposure, images don't just magically appear as perfect as some might think. It is very rare for me to publish an image or deliver product to a client without at least some minor tweaking or enhancement. Do I think that negates my ability to capture a great photo? Just the opposite. It was the same with film, long before digital. Dodging, burning, toning, contrast adjustment, and negative retouching were all popular means of image enhancement. In this day and age of poorly exposed, blurry, off color cell phone snaps that are so prevalent on social media, many people don't realize what goes into creating a memorable image. Rarely do I look at a raw image file and think "Well, that wouldn't benefit from any post processing at all." And people who think I must be a great photographer because I have a large expensive camera in my hand... well, I want to hand it to them and say "Okay, let's see what YOU can do with it." Keep up the good work! --- Dan, Nikon Bear---
ReplyDelete