Aaron,
I don't have anything against shopping images. I don't and I don't consider myself a purist because I don't. I was intrigued with the work of Jerry Uelsmann while I was at Columbia in the late 70's and still find his work, art, or Maybe photoart, but not a photograph.
The WPD contest images are a wash with adobe fluff. (It's not just WPD, WPPI, Getty, and even Pulitzer prize submissions are so post up, that they have crossed the line of a real photograph) Fluff trumps true composition today, but fails miserably in hindsight.
No wedding photographer today would place a couples kissing image in a vignetted champaign glass typically seen in most albums in the 80's, but what's happening is almost as photographically cliché: Adding everything form the perfect sunset, to the beach, to a thinner bride.
Again perhaps photoart, but a photograph?
I wonder what would happen to the amount of WPD contest submissions you receive, if you limited the amount of photoshop work on an image to 5% or less?
Maybe we need a new term to replace the abused title of photojournalist, with photoshopperer.
Frank
Frank Konrath Photography
773-467-0566
0 comments:
Post a Comment