who says that the mastery of photoshop is to creat a realistic or photorealist picture? where is it written? who made the rule?



There is nothing wrong with striving to be proficient at realism, but what about the people who use the many other aspects of photoshop for different reasons; are they less deserving? less intelligent? less creative? less? Or is it like blue referred to, is it a problem for people to comment or suggest because it's the work is not realistic? And if it's a problem, why is it? Are they so hung up on realism that it sways their every judgement?

I'm not trying to stir up a can of worms here, I just want to know why this thing called photorealism is so highly regarded that it enjoys the towery position of being the true meaning of photoshop.

The point is, when you manipulate something you want it to look like like a photo, or something odd unrealistic, surreal, abstact ect. People notice if the image you created was supposed to be unrealistic on purpose, so dont stress. would it make sense if i got a source image and made a smily face in the middle? Not at all.i think your trying to say is that photoshop has nothing to do with photorealistic abbilities? Then you'd be way off. Photomanipulation has a purpose, right?

In photoshop there are no rules, just taste and a few boundries




By the way? Are you saying that people with less experience, should get the same respect as pros at it, who spent years mastering it?Just think about it a little.....
What are you trying to say exactly

Yes, your a dumb ass.

Rule of thirds... Has rule in the title
Rule of thumb... That does to

I didn't make the rules but the fact so many pros seem to follow them kinda give off a wafting odor-cologne of pro.

Its a rule of thumb that when you put a penis on some guys forehead it serves the purpose if it looks convincing. thats right we are pro's here...


Abstract art is easy, Insert filter here, making water look convincing is hard, making fire look good from scratch is even harder, but nothings as hard as the dick on that guys head

But thats golden or just mean... or ahem Golden mean

zorda did someone say something to you personally to have you start this thread... or are you wondering for your own curiosity?

[quote="rockyjob"]The point is, when you manipulate something you want it to look like like a photo, or something odd unrealistic, surreal, abstact ect. People notice if the image you created was supposed to be unrealistic on purpose, so dont stress. would it make sense if i got a source image and made a smily face in the middle? Not at all.[b]i think your trying to say is that photoshop has nothing to do with photorealistic abbilities?[/b] Then you'd be way off. Photomanipulation has a purpose, right? [/quote]

No I'm not saying that photoshop has nothing to do with photorealistic abilities! That would be effin stooopid! I'm saying that there will be instances of a pic being manipulated where photorealistic attributes won't necessarily come into play. Should it then be considered irrelevant because it's uncharachteristic of realism? Should it even be judged by the same rules used to judge realistic photos?

Maybe I'm reading too much into what people say around here. If a pic is "artsy" for instance is it less worthy or
do you think they are less difficult to do?

I hate having a manipulation labelled artsy. It's like a stain when someone calls it that. It's like when the guy painted the red A on the adultress...its demeaning and becomes even more deameaning when people say that the true meaning of photoshop is to render realistic photos. The true meaning of photoshop to me is using the source in anyway you can to make it appealing to myself and hopefully others

Then no it shouldn't, making something surreal is just as hard as making somthing real

[quote="rockyjob"]In photoshop there are no rules, just taste and a few boundries




By the way? Are you saying that people with less experience, should get the same respect as pros at it, who spent years mastering it?Just think about it a little.....
What are you trying to say exactly [/quote]

what? where did I say or even imply that? cripes give me SOME credit I'm not a frikken simpleton so don't treat me like one.

I just hate rants, with no purpose, that's all.
NEXT!

unless you've had some traumatizing experience with it....

I agree with Zorda.

I don't see a rant but I'm also not grasping what the debate is about either.

Some ppl are naturally drawn to realism...some to surrealsim...and others to abstract images.

And, I'd never be offended if someone wanted to comment that they thought an image was "artistic."

[quote="Eve"]I don't see a rant but I'm also not grasping what the debate is about either.

Some ppl are naturally drawn to realism...some to surrealsim...and others to abstract images.

And, I'd never be offended if someone wanted to comment that they thought an image was[quote="Eve"]I don't see a rant but I'm also not grasping what the debate is about either.




Don't you think that "artsy" is a sarcastic phrase around here? That it carries a sort of stigma? It sometimes seems to me that posts which are "artsy" aren't as worthy [b]nor will it ever [/b]be as worthy as one that is realistic. Maybe I'm reading way to much into what some people go on about, but what I'm really trying to ask is why do people think that photoshop was produced for realistic photos only and that is all that matters.

not if it's accompanied by a vote. I'd surmise they like the artistic value of the image. Many designers are required to use photoshop to produce photorealistic work (see some of Rey's examples).

http://www.khulsey.com/masters_bert_monroy.html
Good grief...look at all that work! Personally, I rather take a photograph.

I agree with Zorda.