I am well aware that there has been a variety of photographers in the past that have used multiple exposures and darkroom techniques to splice images. However, that is still clearly within the definition of photography as you are using light sensitive mediums to record an image.
Taking photos combining them and adding elements with digital painting techniques is not the same thing. Would you consider a 3D rendering a photo just because the texture maps used were from photographs?
Again, it is really a subjective debate.
Eric Clay
fadedbeauty.com
--- In artshow_photo@yahoogroups.com, J Bryan Kramer <codeburner@...> wrote:
>
> Heh, splicing photographs together was very popular...back in the 1840s and
> 50s. Rejlander was well known for it:
>
> <http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/rejlande.htm>
>
> 32 images in that one back in 1857.And there are older examples.
>
> Uelsmann never used photoshop either as a more modern example:
>
> <http://pdngallery.com/legends/uelsmann/>
>
> All done in the darkroom, click on gallery to see some amazing shots. Like a
> lot of people today you don't have a sense of the history or your art.
>
> BK
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 22:05, silenceintonoise
> <silenceintonoise@...>wrote:
>
> > Dodging and burning is one thing... splicing twenty photos and digitally
> > painting them together is another.
> >
> > I would think a definite safe area would be that if it can be done in
> > Lightroom it is probably not too excessive.
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
http://artshowphoto.com/support.htm
PLEASE READ....PLEASE TRIM POSTS!!! Keep quoted material short.
Repeat or create accurate subject lines.
If you want to advertise services related to art shows or photography, either in a forum post or on the resource web site, please contact the forum owner for permission.
Resource web site at
http://ArtShowPhoto.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment