Who needs Photoshop ?

We're in a sorry state of affairs when people feel the need to actually publish this as amazing; that we're amazed by the fact that someone has created an innovative image without Photoshop.

She's great at set building... I agree.. they're pretty amazing... but not as amazing as the way people ignore all that and just bang on about her not using Photoshop.

(sigh)

Photoshop has only been around since 1990 and already we have a generation of image makers who just have trouble conceiving of anything like this being done any other way.

You're not a real photographer until you've built a room set :)
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
We're in a sorry state of affairs when people feel the need to actually publish this as amazing; that we're amazed by the fact that someone has created an innovative image without Photoshop.

She's great at set building... I agree.. they're pretty amazing... but not as amazing as the way people ignore all that and just bang on about her not using Photoshop.

(sigh)

Photoshop has only been around since 1990 and already we have a generation of image makers who just have trouble conceiving of anything like this being done any other way.

You're not a real photographer until you've built a room set :)
Click to expand...
No need to feel threatened by it...the title is just to grab attention, i'm sure people can see it for what it is and not a substitute for photoshop.

In reply to the op: what she's done is fantastic, very very imaginative.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You're not a real photographer until you've built a room set :)
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol: tell that to those that landed on the moon and took photos to record it :naughty: oh.......wait, or did they :D
 
Pookeyhead said:
We're in a sorry state of affairs when people feel the need to actually publish this as amazing; that we're amazed by the fact that someone has created an innovative image without Photoshop.

She's great at set building... I agree.. they're pretty amazing... but not as amazing as the way people ignore all that and just bang on about her not using Photoshop.

(sigh)

Photoshop has only been around since 1990 and already we have a generation of image makers who just have trouble conceiving of anything like this being done any other way.

You're not a real photographer until you've built a room set :)
Click to expand...


Oh dear :rolleyes:...... See Phil's reply....
 
I'm not threatened by it. I think what she's done is fabulous, and in my mind, far more accomplished as a result. My reply wasn't in response to you posting it either... it was aimed at the fact that the article exists as it does.

Why was it "
"Artist Turns Her Small Studio Room Into Surreal Dreamscapes Without Using Photoshop".....

and not just....
"Artist Turns Her Small Studio Room Into Surreal Dreamscapes"

Why even mention her lack of Photoshop?


MWHCVT said:
:lol: :lol: :lol: tell that to those that landed on the moon and took photos to record it :naughty: oh.......wait, or did they :D
Click to expand...


Is it time for the tin foil hats? :)

 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I'm not threatened by it. I think what she's done is fabulous, and in my mind, far more accomplished as a result. My reply wasn't in response to you posting it either... it was aimed at the fact that the article exists as it does.

Why was it "
"Artist Turns Her Small Studio Room Into Surreal Dreamscapes Without Using Photoshop".....

and not just....
"Artist Turns Her Small Studio Room Into Surreal Dreamscapes"

Why even mention her lack of Photoshop?





Is it time for the tin foil hats? :)
Click to expand...
Why are you even bothered by it?! It's journalism & editorial. Their job is to make people read their stuff, nobody cares what the title says.
 
Phil Young said:
Why are you even bothered by it?! It's journalism & editorial. Their job is to make people read their stuff, nobody cares what the title says.
Click to expand...

You've just answered your own question.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm not threatened by it. I think what she's done is fabulous, and in my mind, far more accomplished as a result. My reply wasn't in response to you posting it either... it was aimed at the fact that the article exists as it does.

Why was it "
"Artist Turns Her Small Studio Room Into Surreal Dreamscapes Without Using Photoshop".....

and not just....
"Artist Turns Her Small Studio Room Into Surreal Dreamscapes"

Why even mention her lack of Photoshop?





Is it time for the tin foil hats? :)
Click to expand...
You need a bigger font ...........:rolleyes:
 
Copied and pasted from the website :)

Why type when some hack as already done it for you?
 
I pretty much agree with David - why mention something she didn't use, its tantamount to saying that its the only way to do something

you wouldn't say Michel Roux junior cooks amazing food without using microwave .
 
Thank God someone around here gets my point.
 
big soft moose said:
I pretty much agree with David - why mention something she didn't use, its tantamount to saying that its the only way to do something

you wouldn't say Michel Roux junior cooks amazing food without using microwave .
Click to expand...

Poor example!

Microwaves are not tools for improving food!
 
photoshop is not a tool for improving art either, its a way of doing what this girl has done more quickly - just as you can make scrambled eggs in two minutes in a microwave, or do it properly in ten times as long.

you wouldn't say 'master baker makes pie without using jus rol pastry' or ' wood carver makes master pieces without using CNC'
 
not seeing the big deal TBH, I think they're great, photographs, but why people are surprised you can create photos like that without using PS is beyond me :rolleyes:
 
Hell on earth said:
Do you really need a camera? (cut and paste)
Same thing in that thread yet no such fuss :runaway:............ hmm... :D
Click to expand...

Not the same thing at all. Not only is it genuinely photo-realistic, but was produced on a clumsy iPad with his finger. That is astonishing. Producing an astonishing photograph without photoshop isn't astonishing. People have been doing it for nearly two centuries.
 
Pookeyhead said:
.............Producing an astonishing photograph without photoshop isn't astonishing. People have been doing it for nearly two centuries.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I bet if photoshop was around 2 centuries ago, they'd have used it........ 2 days of tinting/dodging/differential exposure/frames/double, treble exposures, working in the dark, spending £1000s on film and chemicals...... or Photoshop?? Hmmm, difficult decision. Let me think about it for 1 second...Yes Photoshop.

Photoshop is a means to an end, not an end, in and of itself. Show the pics to 1000 people, and 995 people would guess it was a manipiulated image, and they's be correct. But manipulated or not, it wasn't photoshopped as most people, including me, would have guessed, so perhaps the headline had some validity.

Whatever, I can't for the life of me think why it has become contentious. :-)

Doug
 
Make%20A%20Mountain%20Out%20Of%20A%20Male%20Hill.jpg
 
Oh well... you're all consistently missing my point... with the exception of Pete, who seems to be the only one who gets it.

(shrug)
 
If you don't want to spend time getting bothered by it... why reply to me in order to ask why I'm bothered about it? LOL I'd have just said nothing. :bang:

I see how this will end...... probably in a thread lock... so I'm outta here.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Oh well... you're all consistently missing my point... with the exception of Pete, who seems to be the only one who gets it.

(shrug)
Click to expand...


Not everyone David... Sadly, I'm of the vintage that pre-dates photoshop and frankly I think I preferred the set-building to the actual photography most of the time...
 
You also got to play with nail guns. If you've never played with a nail gun, you've no idea what you're missing: Much hilarity (and occasional flash wounds) to be had.

As I said though... opinion/personality clash fuelled thread lock imminent.... I'll un-subscribe to this thread.
 
dougdarter said:
Yes, but I bet if photoshop was around 2 centuries ago, they'd have used it........ 2 days of tinting/dodging/differential exposure/frames/double, treble exposures, working in the dark, spending £1000s on film and chemicals...... or Photoshop?? Hmmm, difficult decision. Let me think about it for 1 second...Yes Photoshop.

Photoshop is a means to an end, not an end, in and of itself. Show the pics to 1000 people, and 995 people would guess it was a manipiulated image, and they's be correct. But manipulated or not, it wasn't photoshopped as most people, including me, would have guessed, so perhaps the headline had some validity.

Whatever, I can't for the life of me think why it has become contentious. :)

Doug
Click to expand...

That's all got nothing to do with the (very valid) point David is making though.
 
It was a reaction to the comment 'Producing an astonishing photograph without photoshop isn't astonishing. People have been doing it for nearly two centuries', it wasn't intended to be arguementative, merely trying to point out that if photoshop or similar is available, why not use it?
 
I've just made a Victoria Sponge cake....it took me 8 hours because I used nothing more than a chopstick to mix it but you'd never guess :)

The work she has done is amazing, hats off to her.
 
Jayst84 said:
Probably because Crewdson has a small army of staff and about 7 billion quid to spend on each photo. :D
Click to expand...

Yes I did get that impression from the program :lol:
 
Thanks for posting the link. I like these - and the thought that obviously went into them - a great deal.
 
Set building takes time, space and imagination great if you've got it and she obviously has :thumbs:

Photoshop is for the rest of us that don't :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top