Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Big difference between nail patterns used in building a house, and shifting perspective in photos, tho, Mark!

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Now that is not entirely true, surely you don’t believe that. maybe you need to rethink what you have written.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Of course Chris. It obviously wasn't intended as a one to one analogy. I think the point was clear despite that, and you are just nitpicking. Or did you really not understand the point I was trying to make?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Of course, Mark … was just shooting the breeze with you, my old friend …

LittleBit Loc: St. Louis, MO

I agree wholeheartedly with you. Pictures being messed with making them look Surreal or like they've been painted instead of photographed. If you want a painting, take up painting. And I don't believe you were referring to the elimination of wires, trash, poles, etc. in a photo that interfere with nature in its God given state. But in the distortion given to a photo to make it look like a painting instead of a photograph.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

This type of photograph manipulation I don’t care for either, take the pic and paint it on canvas
Now for power poles and wires and such removing them can make for a better photograph.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

A great many of my images are manipulated to have the look and feeling of an oil, watercolor, or illustration. Some have been amongst my best sellers. I understand not everyone may like my images, but my question is the same as I posed a few pages back. What justification is there for telling another photographer that the shouldn’t make images of this style.

Just to be clear, I have painted. Did so all through high school, college, and a good part of my life when I was without toddlers (four year olds and tubes of paint mix way too well). Many of those skills carry over to the editing/creating work I do on my Wacom tablet.

Truth of the matter is that despite having experience painting, I could not paint with the detail, textures, etc. that I am able to produce through processing and manipulation of a camera image. What is the justification for saying I should go do something else (paint) instead? I understand that different people have differing preferences for what images they enjoy looking at the most. However, for as long as I have been doing this, I have yet to have anyone provide a single VALID REASON for why I should limit my creative approach.

Ten Dead Soldiers


Along the Backroads

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Beautiful!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

First I want to say that your work is really terrific. As for the critical opinions of others, I'm guessing that for the most part those who criticize the creative and artistic aspects of photography do so because they lack the ability to see beyond the obvious right in front of them and have a very limited understanding or appreciation of art. This is obvious from the many comments I read here when the subject of art is brought up.

Some here seem to think that any diversion from what their camera records is somehow heresy and some don't believe that photography, itself, is an art. Interestingly, I find that most of those that espouse that are not very good photographers, satisfying themselves with one derivative and mediocre image after another.

These "purists" seem lack any understanding that all their cameras create jpegs from raw data internally using the very limited internal post processing software already built in. If they were really purists they would shoot in raw and just convert their unedited raw files to jpeg with no in-camera sharpening, contrast, picture style or color tone settings added.

LittleBit Loc: St. Louis, MO

You're absolutely correct! Please accept my apology for having made the comments I made.