Appears more directed to the graphic arts than photography
rjaywallace wrote:
Appears more directed to the graphic arts than photography
And ne'er the two shall cross paths, right?
jim hill wrote:
And ne'er the two shall cross paths, right?
That's not what I'm saying at all, Jim. I'm a terrible artist, so my personal preference is to use a camera coupled with skill (and luck) to create photos. "Artistically rendered" photos in which images are created using effects (some might say 'affectation') more than old school film era photographic skill surely have their place. I've seen a number posted on this forum that IMO were truly beautiful. That said, I've also seen many very good photos where the liberal application of artistic effects turned them into crap. I was fortunate to have had fine art appreciation training in school (re painting, sculpture, pottery and textiles) and I genuinely enjoy art. But my photos will forever be made more via the camera and less via software. Different brushes for different folks.
Thanks Bill! I'll try search next time before asking stupid questions! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
There are no stupid questions only Stupid answers.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.