"A Treatise on Landscape Photography’s Dark Side." A online PDN article.
A good cup of coffee and a interesting, thoughtful and somewhat controversial read: http://bit.ly/2BEAA5q
I use photoshop on my images; I really get in there masking, lightening, darkening, bringing out the texture, adjusting the contrast locally, and adjusting the saturation to suite my vision. I have added graduated backgrounds to replace skies, but have not added objects, my compositing skills are not that good. This puts me approximately in the middle of a sliding scale presented in the article.
I am not, nor do I think this article is discussing images for a journalistic endeavor, but rather "landscapes" in a art or fineart sense. What is lacking in this article is the role classical "landscape painters" play in this discussion.
Landscape painters have thru the ages removed items and added subjects to their "landscapes" to improve their painting. As many photographers today, many landscape painters of the past have altered reality. This has not lessoned the importance, beauty or value of said paintings. That being said why the argument with photographers and photoshop?
I personnally don't like the overly "worked" images with people added, star skies added, moons enlarged, and subjects added, but in my mind they are still legitimate landscapes. Comments, thoughts, insights and condemnations are most welcome.
#landscape #photoshop #photography @ellophotography @ellolandscape @elloblog @ellofollowmw