Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,331   Posts: 1,537,210   Online: 837
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44
  1. #31
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Photoshop and Dali have about as much in common as photography and Dali.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by rob champagne View Post
    what I find really funny is that people seem to think that photoshop is some really fantistic tool for enhancing creativity. It's not. Infact in the greater scheme of things it equates more to a childs painting by numbers play thing.

    You only have to look at some of the tools available to the motion picture industry to realise that photoshop is a low end mass market and very basic raster editing tool. Nothing more. It has no 3d tools. No ray tracing. Virtually no control over shapes and especially 3d shapes. Infact virtually every tool set it has is very basic and only designed for 2d. Adobe are not great innovators in digital imaging. Their target is low end mass market.

    So don't waste your time worrying about it. Whoever wrote the original statement about dali is quite obviously so ignorant about digital manipulation that I'm amazed this thread ever got of the ground...

    go check out maya as a start point for imaging. Thats what some of the cgi graphics studios use as a starting point for creating characters for their animations...

    Photoshop is what it is....a graphics editing program. To compare Photoshop to CGI programs used for 3D, animations and high end applications in the film industry is like comparing a Minox to an 8x10 view camera. Each has a purpose but they are not in competition with one another. As a photographer /graphic artist, I have used Photoshop for more than 10 years and it is a valuable tool. A tool just like my view camera or light meter. It is tools and the mind that equal creativity.
    And if you think Photoshop equates to a child's painting by numbers play thing, please show us what you have created with this kid's toy.

    Walker

  3. #33
    Nicole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,548
    Images
    8
    Who knows what anyone one would do with any tool that's available to them. Art is art and we choose our mediums that fit the artist's vision best. Just because a whiz-bang tool is available doesn't mean everyone jumps on the bandwagon. I admire those that are not influenced by the mainstream but choose wisely and remain true to their own vision. Art comes in many forms, emotions and influences. IMO - Romance is a big part of art. Without romance there would be no art; without art there would be no romance. We all have our dreams.

  4. #34
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    I doubt if anyone here has ever used GOO. I posted that earlier as I have used the product. It used to be bundled with most Kodak digitall imaging software. It is truly more apt for a Daliesque approach than PS. It was used to put the extra smile on the Mona Lisa in the pictures that you may have seen.

    You can use it to become your own Dali. I have had my family ROFL over some pictures 'alterations' that I made for them, and that is about all I can say about digital. It can be fun when something like this is used.

    PE

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoHistorian View Post
    Photoshop is what it is....a graphics editing program. To compare Photoshop to CGI programs used for 3D, animations and high end applications in the film industry is like comparing a Minox to an 8x10 view camera. Each has a purpose but they are not in competition with one another. As a photographer /graphic artist, I have used Photoshop for more than 10 years and it is a valuable tool. A tool just like my view camera or light meter. It is tools and the mind that equal creativity.
    And if you think Photoshop equates to a child's painting by numbers play thing, please show us what you have created with this kid's toy.

    Walker
    I do photography not painting. The problem is that most little sub cultures such as photographers, really don't see past the end of their nose when it comes to something outside of their comfort zone. It's put about by the other little sub culture called the graphics industry, that adobe products are the dogs bollocks when it comes to anything graphical. They are not. Photoshop is designed purely as a 2d raster image editing tool. That's all. It's not meant to be a paint program. It makes no claims about being a paint program. There are far superior paint programs out there. The point being that the original quote was suggesting dali would have used photoshop if he could and that would have enhanced his creativity. The point I'm making is that dali would have looked past the end of his nose and found far superior products. Clearly you haven't or have no need to.
    And by the way, Maya is only the starting point for some cgi graphics. As a stand alone tool, it is a 3d drawing and rendering program using ray tracing.
    If I wanted to create images from the ground up, I would not think photoshop was the tool of choice. It's for editing and printing photos. That's all. Many people bang their head against the wall trying to use it to do other things in complete ignorant bliss that there are better tools for what they are attempting. Maybe you are one of them. I don't know.
    Last edited by rob champagne; 03-01-2008 at 10:00 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,028
    And another thing.
    A few years ago (approx 2002 ) I went to a small art gallery in York UK. There was a room with a piece of electronic installation art. It had a long description of what it was all about. There was a video camera and when you moved in front of the camera, sounds were generated from a stored archive in a database. Depending on your speed of movement, the sounds may have been light or aggressive. That was about it.
    I stood and thought about this piece of art. I concluded that it was unbelievably naive. Why? Because if I look at any game for any of the game playstations out there, they are all far more sophisticated with massively more intellligent interactive features and with with stunning graphics which are highly creative in their conception.
    Problem is that most people wouldn't consider games on a playstion as interactive art.
    Have a little think about that one. You know, what really went into creating that "game" and how it stacks up against something produced from photoshop...

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,052
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    Photoshop and Dali have about as much in common as photography and Dali.
    THANK YOU!
    Dali wasn't a shadow catcher was he?
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    405
    Imagine what Dali would have been able to accomplish with Photoshop?

    It was bad enough what he came up with using paint and canvas!
    Great 'tache though.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    328
    I dont think Dali would have used ps, as Dali was an artist. Just my opinion of course.

    paulie

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by pauliej View Post
    I dont think Dali would have used ps, as Dali was an artist. Just my opinion of course.
    Unless I'm reading into it the wrong way, it seems you're implying that artists don't use photoshop... or that the users of photoshop are not artists.

    Or am I missing something?

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin