This is wonderful! It's fun to see how an artist can "re-envision" and create something new. There are so many tools in Photoshop I'm unfamiliar with, so thanks for showing a few of them and how to use them. BTW I love the goose? image behind you .
Whenever I encounter someone questioning the ethics of intentionally manipulating an image for effect, I ask: "If we were painters, would anyone would question the colors, composition, techniques, etc. that we would use to create an image? Or would it only be judged by the experience of the person viewing it, and NOT by the method used to create it or its fidelity to the original scene?" I think it's a matter of intent, and some confuse the purpose of photography as used by journalists, scientists, archivists, etc. to record the reality of a scene or object at a moment in time as accurately as possible, with those for which photography is simply a medium for their artistic expression.
Great video. Thank you for sharing. Art there are no rules. Rules control people and stop the advancement of life. Freedom to create is freedom of life. Thank you. 😊
Personally, I liked your video, keep em coming!. Just a few things to consider, can you please next time please show the whole screen so we can see the menu's and maybe place your video of yourself on the bottom left, this way it doesn't block the develop panel? But seriously though, as a positive comment thank you for posting this video.
There is a quote that I love…”don’t shoot how it looks, shoot how it feels”. There are technological limitations to doing that. I’m not a fan of AI in photography, but Photoshop and the like help me achieve my goal of “how it feels”.
Any unusual pixel effect will be considered AI. That's the general suspicion AI has created. And it's fair enough. How can anybody distinguish between photographic 'art' and some artificial treatment? Who is going to sign the art, you or the provider of your AI feature?
@@lightandmagicphoto Interesting and scaring. There's quite a difference between a tool that serves your creativity passively, like a brush, and a 'tool' that replaces your creativity - your intellectually shaped product.
Of course you are allowed to do anything you want to to your own photo. Let's take that photo that you edited in the video. I add some surfers, replace the sky, and gen a couple of shorebirds around the picnic tables. If that is a painting, no one would be upset. It is an imagined work. But would that be a great photo? Doesn't "photo" mean that you used light hitting a sensor (or film) to capture a scene that you saw in front of you? Did you see those shorebirds? Did you see the Adobe-supplied sky that you pasted in? No--they weren't there. So what are you photographing?
You're right! The line between photography and digital art is blurring. When skies are replaced and elements are added can it still be called photography? So curious to see how this evolves.
Your even handed discussion of this topic in the video was excellent. I too am curious where this all goes. Maybe the word "photo" will morph into meaning any digital image, however it was created. The same way we now use "video" to mean any moving digital imagery; I believe it used to mean frames recorded on magnetic tape.
or better yet, do the same shot for 1 minute with a ND filter and get the same effect that looks 1000% better and you wont have the atrocious blur lines. Using PS is lazy photography.
Great
This is wonderful! It's fun to see how an artist can "re-envision" and create something new. There are so many tools in Photoshop I'm unfamiliar with, so thanks for showing a few of them and how to use them. BTW I love the goose? image behind you .
Thank you for watching! It's a pelican watching a sunrise :)
Whenever I encounter someone questioning the ethics of intentionally manipulating an image for effect, I ask: "If we were painters, would anyone would question the colors, composition, techniques, etc. that we would use to create an image? Or would it only be judged by the experience of the person viewing it, and NOT by the method used to create it or its fidelity to the original scene?" I think it's a matter of intent, and some confuse the purpose of photography as used by journalists, scientists, archivists, etc. to record the reality of a scene or object at a moment in time as accurately as possible, with those for which photography is simply a medium for their artistic expression.
Really well said. People don't ask painters what brush they used. I'm curious to watch how photography and tech continue to merge.
Great video. Thank you for sharing. Art there are no rules. Rules control people and stop the advancement of life. Freedom to create is freedom of life. Thank you. 😊
So well said. I love that!
Personally, I liked your video, keep em coming!. Just a few things to consider, can you please next time please show the whole screen so we can see the menu's and maybe place your video of yourself on the bottom left, this way it doesn't block the develop panel? But seriously though, as a positive comment thank you for posting this video.
That's great feedback, thank you! I'll make some changes on the next one. Thanks again!
There is a quote that I love…”don’t shoot how it looks, shoot how it feels”. There are technological limitations to doing that. I’m not a fan of AI in photography, but Photoshop and the like help me achieve my goal of “how it feels”.
I hadn't head that quote. I love that!
Any unusual pixel effect will be considered AI. That's the general suspicion AI has created. And it's fair enough. How can anybody distinguish between photographic 'art' and some artificial treatment? Who is going to sign the art, you or the provider of your AI feature?
Yeah, all fair questions. Or is it like asking the painter who made the brush? I don’t know. Interesting times indeed!
@@lightandmagicphoto Interesting and scaring. There's quite a difference between a tool that serves your creativity passively, like a brush, and a 'tool' that replaces your creativity - your intellectually shaped product.
Why is the logo on your hat reversed?
I live my life backwards 😆
I shoot with the iPhone’s front camera. Maybe not ideal :)
Of course you are allowed to do anything you want to to your own photo. Let's take that photo that you edited in the video. I add some surfers, replace the sky, and gen a couple of shorebirds around the picnic tables. If that is a painting, no one would be upset. It is an imagined work. But would that be a great photo? Doesn't "photo" mean that you used light hitting a sensor (or film) to capture a scene that you saw in front of you? Did you see those shorebirds? Did you see the Adobe-supplied sky that you pasted in? No--they weren't there. So what are you photographing?
You're right! The line between photography and digital art is blurring. When skies are replaced and elements are added can it still be called photography? So curious to see how this evolves.
Your even handed discussion of this topic in the video was excellent. I too am curious where this all goes. Maybe the word "photo" will morph into meaning any digital image, however it was created. The same way we now use "video" to mean any moving digital imagery; I believe it used to mean frames recorded on magnetic tape.
or better yet, do the same shot for 1 minute with a ND filter and get the same effect that looks 1000% better and you wont have the atrocious blur lines. Using PS is lazy photography.
The line between digital art and photography is definitely worth a conversation. I tend to agree with you!