Friday, November 11, 2016
Automatic art again
Now Photoshop can give you a new sky with a click. I can't tell you how mixed my feelings are about all this automation. It's cool to see and use, but then... it's like, imagine a little thing you paste on your jaw, and immediately you are a perfect, wonderful singer! Well, when everybody is wonderful singers, is anybody really a wonderful singer? I don't know. It's deeply confusing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The whole notion of what's real in photography continues to escalate. Prior to the digital age, everyone was aware of air brushing of models for magazine covers. Once Photoshop became a popular digital editing tool, anyone could experience just how easy it is to make someone's face blemish free, whiten teeth, etc.
It's just a matter of time before "manipulation" becomes common place in other areas of photography. For example in photo-journalism, see Steve McCurry's recent manipulation scandal. In landscape photography I've been guilty of removing ugly clouds and telephone poles. At what point is manipulation excessive? Replacing a whole sky? At what point does photography become less art and more a lie?
This might turn a mediocre photo into something acceptable but it is unlikely to create masterpieces. A poor sky usually means the lighting is poor, so changing the sky is not going to fix the rest of the photo. Even is for some reason the lighting is good then it will need to match with the sky.
I expect that professionals already do this but in a much more controlled way. If they photograph say a model in front of a sky that they don't like, they could obtain photographs of sky with matching light and then Photoshop these in.
Just found https://macphun.com/luminar Notice in the building example how the sky isn't reflected in the windows.
Thanks. Yeah, that's a pretty basic mistake.
It is one of those problems that is difficult for a computer to deal with. Obviously it is possible, as we can work it out but it needs enough intelligence to recognise a reflective surface and the correct angle.
Deep thanks and appreciation for continuing to create space for such thinking, all these years.
Concepts about art, for the past 50 years, have changed radically. The word is increasingly meaningless, culturally, except in the nodding sense of "I agree/disagree." Culturally it has marginalized itself, being not taught except to an elite few. "Who cares if it's touched up or not?" Whether it's in advertising, news or journalism for that matter - fewer people question truthfulness or whether an article (or photo) has been vetted/edited for veracity.
It's like the thing's impact is the sole remaining value.
It's obvious but the broad cultural value seems to be irrevocably oriented towards a consumer perception, rather than to an aesthetic or even "educated" opinion. It's "take it at face value" and don't scrutinize. If you do, you'll be speaking only to the choir. Most people will wonder what you're raving about. That's my experience. Less and less do I feel comfortable expressing my values/judgements with others socially. It's not just that they need to be educated to perceive differences, the whole idea of quality seems lost except as defined by consumer values, what can be easily/quickly consumed by a passive individual.
"Automatic art," sadly, does not make me go a big rubbery one.
Post a Comment