Aha, another east coaster! I took a continuing ed course at NSCAD, and it was the same thing - full frame, printed full size on 8x10. I got heck for heavily cropping and leaving a large border on one print (didn't want to enlarge too far on account of grain, plus I figured it looked cool) but that image was the one that most people oohed and aahed over. Other than the instructor!
I've seen this analogy on this forum before; "It's like asking Mozart what make or model of piano he played." I guess Mozart's 'post-processing' was the way he played the music.
What I meant was that it is not up to the "artist" to define what art is.
Now although you're not going to catch me trying to give some kind of definition on the question "what is art," I now see PP in a very similar way to Jim. What was the difference? Seeing how Manny Librodo works. I have truly admired his images ever since I saw them. I assumed the whole time that the look and the light were 80% photographic skill and maybe 20% post processing, if that. Wrong. My personal opinion of Manny's creative process, based on what I had an opportunity to observe this past weekend, is that his creativity and skill in Photoshop rivals if not exceeds his artistic vision during the shoot. This was a shock. I had always assumed that the magic in his images came from the photo shoot, not the post processing. But seeing his and others images from the workshop and realizing the endless possibilities available in digital post processing in contrast to the handful of parameters under one's control when shooting film, I have gained new appreciation for the creativity and work involved in producing digital images. It's opened up a whole new world to me that I didn't even realize was there. My main goal now is to really learn Photoshop - it's an amazing tool, much more powerful than my camera. I don't discriminate between tools. If a camera alone gives me what I want, then I wouldn't care about any software programs. The fact is, however, that the software gives me opportunities far beyond what I had imagined possible and excites my creativity much the way shooting does.
Well Said Jens!
Hmm, don't buy that completely. The process of developing an image or play or park can transform the creator. The act can be art. Married to an artist, I see this happen.
I agreei in the sense that all the attempts performed by the artist is considered a creative phase or art if you like even if they result in a finished work or not because that is the way most artists work but a work of art to me is only when the experience from those attempts combined with new inspiration result in an image made for viewers because only then the artist is communicating and some kind of communication must be present before I would consider the result to be art.
Well others might see that as therapy instead. ;-)
