Imagine what Dali would have been able to accomplish with Photoshop
Yes, Photoshop is about the digital, dark side and this isn't about photography at all actually but the following made me split a gut and applies
to so many things these days.
(One shouldn't be cruel, one really shouldn't. People must be allowed to draw their inspiration as they see fit. And yet...)
From the pages of Advanced Photoshop, the magazine for Adobe Photoshop professionals, their section called "peer pressure -- our pick of the best reader submissions sent to us this month":
The winner's quotation: "I would say my style is surreal/fantasy-based with a touch of sci-fi here and there. I absolutely adore the work of M C Escher and Salvador Dali. Who knows what they would have been capable of creating, should they have had Photoshop at their disposal"
Unfortunately, the execrable winning picture does not allow for any irony in the above.
Maybe it's better for we APUG-ers to go our own way and leave off worrying about what goes on in the digital sphere. Isn't that what we here really want--to be left alone by the digerati? As you say, "people must be allowed to draw their inspiration as they see fit...."
There is so much execrable photography in the world--in both genres--that to make note of it all would leave us with no time for our own pursuits. To toss gratuitous rocks at the digital folk strikes me as evidence of fear--not what a confident group of enthusiasts does as it pursues its passion.
Just my two-cents' worth.
Isn't this an analog forum.
We imagine using film & wet processes, there were plenty of Surrealist photographers around when Dali was at his best. Go and look at their work.
Er... I didn't draw attention to this as a pot-shot at the digital world of picture-making. What I was drawing attention to is the astonishing lack of curiosity and imagination. Whatever. It really does not matter.
If Photoshop existed in the time of Dali then Dali wouldn't have existed.
Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
no digital additives and shit
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Nothing would change.
He'd get a wacom tablet and just be able to paint faster... and then he'd give up on color management and trying to print it the way he saw it and go back to paints.
What would be different is that you'd look at his stuff, roll your eyes and think "I know where the filters are in photoshop too, big deal" and that would be that.
Originally Posted by Andrey
I really don't believe I'd be thinking that. Maybe if I had a head injury, but it's not quite probable.
Originally Posted by jimgalli
The only difference between digital painting and oil is that it takes a "ctrl+Z" to undo your last stroke. With oil you have to scrape it off, but in the end it's the same thing.
Well, so what? Maybe they would have created masterpieces with PS, but who gives a hoot? They are all dead now, and were so much longer before photoshop.
Originally Posted by Svend Videbak
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
I seem to recall seeing quite a number of passable Dali pastiches done with DI, but I think the tool of choice for this would Quantel Paintbox rather than Photoshop. I imagine Dali would have been drawn to this way of working if it had been open to him - after all, he proved with his speed-signing technique for blank engraving paper that he appreciated a fast way to make a buck. I forget who it was that created an anagram of his name in Spanish as "Avida dollars" (greedy for dollars).
P.S.: The quote is from André Breton, the "Pope of Surrealism".