Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

Details

Closed to new replies
January 14, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 19

What do you think of Photomanipulation?

:iconjeff-h:
Jeff-H Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
What are your opinions regarding photomanipulation? I'm not talking about using different textures and brushes and renders to slowly make a photograph look significantly better, I'm talking about straight up taking five different pictures, putting them together one on top of another, and doing nothing more than changing some hues/saturations/variations/vibrances/exposures.

I hate to point out people in specific but *wazzy88 is a good example of what I'm talking about. Not a single element in the entire piece is uniquely created. It's one person's work inside another person's work while on top of a third person's work. And then a piece of texture on top (which is still a fourth person's work).

Some photomanipulations are truly creative and phenomenal; despite using nothing unique, they give the piece a completely new meaning and effect filled with emotion. Those I do respect. However, the vast majority of photomanipulations are not so creative. A lot of them are things that many people think "I thought of that before, but I didn't do it because it's not worth doing."

Unfortunately, the thing about such photomanipulation is that many people are simply too blind. They see a piece and they comment, saying that "this is incredible" or "you did a very good job, this must have been tough." But they don't check the stocks, they don't see the elements that created the piece, and they don't see how uncreative it is once they sift through it.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but it's simply my own opinion. Most (not all) photomanipulations are, in my opinion, completely and utterly useless, and the artists making them deserve no credit whatsoever in creating it.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconghostinthepines:
GhostInThePines Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I find a lot of photomanipulations to be rather tacky... Some people responding have brought up collages as the traditional equivalent, but in my opinion, the only true uses for such a collage are for collecting personal memories (like in scrapbooking) or as a visual version of a brainstorming map. Other versions of collage get away from a form that serves the purpose of the comparison. (The overall picture has nothing to do with the elements of the collage - you can no longer recognize what individual pieces brought to the work as you can with photomanipulation.)

So if the type of photomanipulation being referred to by the OP is the "artisitc" equivalent of collages used for brainstorming/keeping personal memories, then how can it really be called art? All it does is give publishing/advertising companies a cheaper alternative to hiring real artists and paying them good money for their work. Bad photomanipulation puts actual 2D commercial artists out of business.
Reply
:iconvineris:
Vineris Jan 14, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
It's just a digital collage. Collage and assemblage art are valid art forms. Surely if a traditional artist is making some sort of collage out of objects you don't expect them to hand-make the paper and the pop cans and the antique photographs they're gluing together.

It's sort of like saying that a music composer doesn't play any of the notes you hear, so they must not contribute to the piece of music in any way. Planning is also a creative activity. You might even say that it is THE most creative activity.

Now, a collage is a lot less complex than a piece of music, but there is no complexity requirement in art. Very simple things can be art too. You don't have to like them or be impressed by them but you don't get to draw a line and say "this wasn't difficult so it's not art". (Well, you do, but that definition is then only valid for you, and everyone else is free to think you're nuts.)
Reply
:iconnarutokunobessed:
narutokunobessed Jan 14, 2013  Student General Artist
I went to moma and there is a gallery for photomanipualtions before and after photoshop. Basically photomanipuatlions before photoshop is collaging.

In the end, it not always about the work created, its how the work is currently executed.
Reply
:iconblackrosekane89:
Blackrosekane89 Jan 14, 2013  Professional General Artist
I want to

"But the difference between digital art and photomanipulation, and sorry if I've offended anyone, is that a terrible digital art piece will look terrible to almost everyone (it wouldn't look great, at the very least), but a terrible photomanipulation can still look absolutely fantastic"

Not true. People can be generally bad with photo editing/manipulations and it will look awful. [link]
Reply
:iconcharlottexxi:
CharlotteXXI Jan 14, 2013  Student Digital Artist
It's pretty much the same with everything else. Take digital art for example. We get both the crappy cartoon/anime drawings and the really awesome ones.
Reply
:iconjeff-h:
Jeff-H Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
But the difference between digital art and photomanipulation, and sorry if I've offended anyone, is that a terrible digital art piece will look terrible to almost everyone (it wouldn't look great, at the very least), but a terrible photomanipulation can still look absolutely fantastic, especially if the original works were absolutely fantastic. I have much less respect for photomanipulists because it doesn't take effort to make something look good if it's already comprised of good looking things.
Reply
:iconglori305:
As you pointed out there is a range of skills in the photomanipulation gallery....just as there are everywhere on DA.

But part of being an artist, is going thru the beggining stages. Some people will never get beyond the begging stages, and some will go on to create orginal work with more creativity.

There was a thread in here a while ago about creativity being learned or inborn, and the overwhelming majority of people said learned. Part of the process is doing the less creative and inventive to get to the more creative and inventive. I feel the same way about beggining photomanipulations as I do about the begging drawings of anime charachters with crappy anatomy.....they will get better....or they won't. But they are enjoying themselves and hurting no one, so why get upset about it?
Reply
:iconjeff-h:
Jeff-H Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I'm gonna copy and paste my message since it responds perfectly to your post as well.

But the difference between digital art and photomanipulation, and sorry if I've offended anyone, is that a terrible digital art piece will look terrible to almost everyone (it wouldn't look great, at the very least), but a terrible photomanipulation can still look absolutely fantastic, especially if the original works were absolutely fantastic. I have much less respect for photomanipulists because it doesn't take effort to make something look good if it's already comprised of good looking things.
Reply
:iconglori305:
Not so.

A terrible photo manip. looks terrible to me. Things with different perpectives, lighting etc. Really stands out and looks bad.

If they have the lighting right, all the perspective angles are the same, that is a skill, and does not deserve to be denegrated.

In short, I disagree with your whole assesment. While there is beginer quality digital art out there, I think it looks just as unskilled as beggining quality drawings/paintings.

And you are sounding jealous....why does it bother you so much?
Reply
:iconjeff-h:
Jeff-H Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It's not jealousy as I have my own methods of obtaining publicity. I do enjoy discussing boundaries of art and what people consider art or not and whatnot. While it does not bother me much, it's a fun topic to discuss.

Of course, to any artist who actually understands these aspects, any bad job from any medium would look terrible. However, to untrained eyes, or mostly, people who don't understand anything about art, a bad photomanipulation would look far more amazing than a bad drawing.
Reply
Add a Comment: