Browse Responses
‹ Newer | Up | Older ›

Response to Complexity (Response #35)

Uploaded 355 Days Ago by JD_GRUBB - 12 comments

Photo © JD_GRUBB (Joshua Grubb)
Unauthorized reproduction not permitted.

User Comments

Beamer said 355 days ago:

The human body is certainly complex, but not sure this really speaks that??

Image seems flat and not that strong. If subtly adds to the message of complexity, OK....

mtmartini said 355 days ago:

Very complex indeed.

Lemmingstone said 355 days ago:

Good idea. Skin is amazingly complex.

mooch said 355 days ago:

Great idea but I'm not so sure about the execution. I think the composition and post processing could have improved this shot.

ChriZ said 355 days ago:

Nice approach, but I don't like the lighting being so flat, by playing with the levels in photoshop you could have already improved this image a lot!

mysight said 355 days ago:

One of my favorite organs,
and no two exactly the same either.

JD_GRUBB said 354 days ago:

I think Photoshop is a bit over-rated, and that such "photography" should be considered a different class altogether from "pure" photography (i.e. unaltered)

ChriZ said 354 days ago:

This doesn't seem to make any sense...
You mean it wouldn't be pure photography after using photoshop anymore? Well you can say that, but, pure photography will only be the process of image creation by the action on light on surfaces.
So if that's your interpretation photography would not have anything to do with composition, technique, and post production.

JD_GRUBB said 353 days ago:

what does photoshop have to do with real light on surfaces (as opposed to digitally altered lighting)? Photoshop does make a photo beautiful, but it's not the same as "unaltered" photography. I've been part of photo competitions that do not allow edited works. Composition is the use of space, shape, etc. in the picture, technique is naturally shutter speed, aperture, flash, etc. Post Production is photoshop surely, but again, I believe it's a different class of photography.

ChriZ said 353 days ago:

but an image has to be "developed", so in film you have chemicals, paper, and then you use light to project it. Now photoshop is doing the same thing!
A image has to be developed.
Isn't King around here anymore? I think he could formulate it and illustrate it a lot better...

JD_GRUBB said 352 days ago:

naturally there's a developmental process, an art really, to developing film, but does that apply to digital photography in the same manner?

ChriZ said 349 days ago:

Yes!
It's up to you if you leave the process automated or do it on your own, manually.

You could comment on this photo if you were logged in.