On the upside, those are some eye-popping photos.

On the downside, you've just given Lady Gaga a crapload of ideas.

I'm pretty sure I just don't get visual art because, really, all I can say about that is "pretty colors." I really don't see anything touching about them, though.

Photographer grieving over her mother's death from brain cancer creates breathtaking photo series in her memory. Bonus Zippy PET Scans!

Molavian: I look at them and think "Hey, somebody just discovered photoshop."

You mean it's not even farking real? In that case I truly don't get the point.

Gig103

Wow, I didn't know you knew this woman's circumstances! What are the odds?

Seriously, are you a douche all the time or just on weekends?

/Breathtaking images. Very cool indeed.

PapermonkeyExpress: /Breathtaking images. Very cool indeed.

Can you explain to me why they're "breathtaking?"

I thought they were pretty cool photos.

I enjoyed the photos, don't care about the backstory.

Wow! His mother's corpse is pretty hot!

Makes me think about investing in a crowbar and a trip to the graveyard.

I was expecting photographer to 'shoop her mom into these photos.



Not that I'm disappointed or anything.

DrPainMD: Spiralmonkey: Molavian: kellynoel: I'm pretty sure I just don't get visual art because, really, all I can say about that is "pretty colors." I really don't see anything touching about them, though.

I look at them and think "Hey, somebody just discovered photoshop."

TFA said they weren't shopped, of course, it's the Fail, where even the date is suspect.

Actually, the article said, "The resulting images looked so hyper-real that it was assumed that they were created in Photoshop."

While they may not have been created from scratch in PS, they were definitely 'shopped.

Seen a few pixels in your time? Seriously, who cares? The pictures are beautiful. The use of Photoshop doesn't detract from the skill and effort that went into those.

Regardless of how they were created, I think they're beautiful. I don't really care anything about trying to analyze them.

Oh yes, I suppose they are nice to look at for some people. And good for those people who do enjoy them. I can't stand images like this. I don't find them pleasurable to look at in the least, and I don't like it that they still call themselves photographs. Digital imagery, fine. Call it digital art, or digital photographic manipulation if you must. But those stopped being photographs well back in the process.

IMO, if your adjustments require digital manipulation (i.e. if it couldn't have been done with a film camera and a darkroom), then you have left the realm of photography and entered the realm of digital manipulation.

I am perfectly willing to consider digital manipulation a new art form, and welcome it whole-heartedly. But let's call it that, and not confuse it with photography.

Her mom was Tim Burton's third-grade Trapper-Keeper doodles?

all things aside, they are cool pictures.

Sad: Her mother passing

Sadder: Using her mother's passing as an excuse to further her lackluster career.

Saddest: Just another Attention Whore

Balchinian: Oh yes, I suppose they are nice to look at for some people. And good for those people who do enjoy them. I can't stand images like this. I don't find them pleasurable to look at in the least, and I don't like it that they still call themselves photographs. Digital imagery, fine. Call it digital art, or digital photographic manipulation if you must. But those stopped being photographs well back in the process.

IMO, if your adjustments require digital manipulation (i.e. if it couldn't have been done with a film camera and a darkroom), then you have left the realm of photography and entered the realm of digital manipulation.

I am perfectly willing to consider digital manipulation a new art form, and welcome it whole-heartedly. But let's call it that, and not confuse it with photography.

Nonsense. The literal meaning of the word "photography" is "light (photo) drawing (graphy)". In what way are these images not "light drawing"? What does it matter what tools are used to achieve this "light drawing"? Taking your logic to the extreme, one could say it stopped being photography as soon as someone used a camera to capture it (after all, it's an artificial tool). The same logic could be applied to a physical darkroom - what is a darkroom but more manipulation? That's ludicrous, of course - you must capture the art to a medium and manipulate its production, or else it doesn't exist at all. Photoshop is just an extension of the darkroom; just because the darkroom was invented first doesn't mean it's "real" and Photoshop is not.

Any tool can be used and any tool can be abused. Just because some abuse Photoshop to the point that their photos become garish and unpleasing doesn't mean Photoshop itself is inherently bad for the medium. It just means someone didn't know how to use their tools effectively, just like many people don't even know how to use their camera effectively. This woman obviously knows how to use all her tools to maximum effect, and the results speak for themselves. This is great, virtuosic photography, in every sense of the word.

DrPainMD: ChubbyTiger: DrPainMD: Spiralmonkey: Molavian: kellynoel: I'm pretty sure I just don't get visual art because, really, all I can say about that is "pretty colors." I really don't see anything touching about them, though.

I look at them and think "Hey, somebody just discovered photoshop."

TFA said they weren't shopped, of course, it's the Fail, where even the date is suspect.

Actually, the article said, "The resulting images looked so hyper-real that it was assumed that they were created in Photoshop."

While they may not have been created from scratch in PS, they were definitely 'shopped.

Seen a few pixels in your time? Seriously, who cares? The pictures are beautiful. The use of Photoshop doesn't detract from the skill and effort that went into those.

I don't care. I was just responding to "TFA said they weren't shopped." No need to get your panties in a wad.

Down boy. You sounded irate, I was responding to that. If you weren't, it's all good.

/also, not wearing panties

ChubbyTiger: Seen a few pixels in your time? Seriously, who cares? The pictures are beautiful. The use of Photoshop doesn't detract from the skill and effort that went into those.

Looks like a lot of levels and saturation adjustments, maybe some dodging and burning ...

Which are fine in the world of photography because you could have done this sort of thing with traditional film in the first place.

// hell, the dodge and burn tools in photoshop are named after the developing techniques.

lordargent: ChubbyTiger: Seen a few pixels in your time? Seriously, who cares? The pictures are beautiful. The use of Photoshop doesn't detract from the skill and effort that went into those.

Looks like a lot of levels and saturation adjustments, maybe some dodging and burning ...

Which are fine in the world of photography because you could have done this sort of thing with traditional film in the first place.

// hell, the dodge and burn tools in photoshop are named after the developing techniques.

Heck, as bad as I was in the darkroom, I was still better at dodging/burning with that little stick (or my hand) than I am with PS.

Gorgeous, gorgeous pictures. The colors are so vivid, they're electrifying. I wish I had the ability to create something like that and then photograph it.

I am not a fan of the style. The photos to me seem enhanced but you still need a good photo to start with because as it turns out no matter how you polish shiat it is still shiat. I am no artist or an art critic but I am more than capable of recognizing that the number of people in this thread that could produce something of that quality and in that number is 0.


Who cares how an image was created what matters is the end result. Is a pencil sketch better than a painting or digital art? No. Fact is the artist started with nothing but an idea and created something that, whether you like the style or not, is beautiful. Maybe not breathtaking but several of those shots certainly fall into the beautiful category.

ozebb: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 640x519]

Shoulda used one of these so she wouldn't leave a trail...
[www.livingcrunchy.com image 300x300]

Better beware of bears.

kellynoel: PapermonkeyExpress: /Breathtaking images. Very cool indeed.

Can you explain to me why they're "breathtaking?"

kellynoel: PapermonkeyExpress: /Breathtaking images. Very cool indeed.

Can you explain to me why they're "breathtaking?"

I liked the fantasy element. The color depth and contrast made the characters very ethereal.

You may disagree. I don't care.

/I'd love to see some of the haters work posted here. Bust out your bootlegged PS and lets see what you can do. No? Didn't think so.

quickdraw: These are lovely and took an incredible amount of time and skill to produce. A huge amount of talent and effort went into creating the costumes and props and the photography work itself is very well done. A sweet tribute to an inspirational mom.

I thought they were beautiful!

I don't know what it is. But as I get older, I've gone from liking surrealism to disliking it. The more the years go by, the more I dislike it.

Photographer is obviously talented though.

Props to ozebb.....

Am I the only one that thinks she picked a bunch of fugly models? Or is that how weird photo models are supposed to look?

Breathtaking! I would/will buy these.

I don't know art but I know when what I see moves me.

I don't give a shiat how breathtaking it is. It's a linkspam post from Daily Fail.

Confusean: Am I the only one that thinks she picked a bunch of fugly models? Or is that how weird photo models are supposed to look?

They're British models.

Hauntingly beautiful.

Craptography

Good photos, but even better makeup and costume design.

Whether or not they were manipulated in PSD isn't really important. Is a painting in watercolor less of an image than one done in acrylics? Photoshop is a tool, one created for manipulating photos--hence the clever name--and it is now a part of the art world.

Now, that doesn't mean you have to like the finished product. If you don't like the images, that's fine. Everyone has their own tastes. To me, the PSD argument is a bit like saying it's better to take a photo with a Nikon than a Canon. It's not the tools, it's the final result.

Personally, I like the images. They seem like a Barry Windsor-Smith drawing brought to life.

Lligeret: I am not a fan of the style. The photos to me seem enhanced but you still need a good photo to start with because as it turns out no matter how you polish shiat it is still shiat. I am no artist or an art critic but I am more than capable of recognizing that the number of people in this thread that could produce something of that quality and in that number is 0.

I could photograph it no problem, if someone else did the costuming.

// can't sew worth a damn

// which is why I tend to stick with landscapes and macro stuff.

Balchinian: Oh yes, I suppose they are nice to look at for some people. And good for those people who do enjoy them. I can't stand images like this. I don't find them pleasurable to look at in the least, and I don't like it that they still call themselves photographs. Digital imagery, fine. Call it digital art, or digital photographic manipulation if you must. But those stopped being photographs well back in the process.

IMO, if your adjustments require digital manipulation (i.e. if it couldn't have been done with a film camera and a darkroom), then you have left the realm of photography and entered the realm of digital manipulation.

I am perfectly willing to consider digital manipulation a new art form, and welcome it whole-heartedly. But let's call it that, and not confuse it with photography.

She didn't shop the photos, she shopped reality!

One picture had the model holding a bunch of Piratebay ships!

Mmmmmm.... flower vah-jay-jay.

DrPainMD: Spiralmonkey: Molavian: kellynoel: I'm pretty sure I just don't get visual art because, really, all I can say about that is "pretty colors." I really don't see anything touching about them, though.

I look at them and think "Hey, somebody just discovered photoshop."

TFA said they weren't shopped, of course, it's the Fail, where even the date is suspect.

Actually, the article said, "The resulting images looked so hyper-real that it was assumed that they were created in Photoshop."

While they may not have been created from scratch in PS, they were definitely 'shopped.

Hey lookit me! I'm a douchebag!

Balchinian: Oh yes, I suppose they are nice to look at for some people. And good for those people who do enjoy them. I can't stand images like this. I don't find them pleasurable to look at in the least, and I don't like it that they still call themselves photographs. Digital imagery, fine. Call it digital art, or digital photographic manipulation if you must. But those stopped being photographs well back in the process.

IMO, if your adjustments require digital manipulation (i.e. if it couldn't have been done with a film camera and a darkroom), then you have left the realm of photography and entered the realm of digital manipulation.

I am perfectly willing to consider digital manipulation a new art form, and welcome it whole-heartedly. But let's call it that, and not confuse it with photography.

All of the stuff she did there could have been done in the darkroom. In fact there is very little "digital" manipulation that could not be achieved in the darkroom, the level of skill/dedication is just lower and access to the tools to do it is easier. Two ways of life by Oscar Gustave Rejlander is a prime example, i think it was 3 or 4 models and about 50 negs used to make this one image that is always referred to as a photograph. https://thethinkingarnold.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/inspiration/ (probably NSFW)

+1 on the beautiful count. Lovely work :)

Molavian: kellynoel: I'm pretty sure I just don't get visual art because, really, all I can say about that is "pretty colors." I really don't see anything touching about them, though.

I look at them and think "Hey, somebody just discovered photoshop."

Yup. Since when did the art of photography give way completely to the image manipulation crap that is photoshop? I'll grant that photoshop can produce some very cool things, but it can't replace a good photographer.

And here we see yet another example of someone trying to do just that.

Lovely. Thanks, subby.

The photographs are okay, kinda boring compositions, but whoever made those props really went above and beyond.

Zoidfarb: I was expecting photographer to 'shoop her mom into these photos.



Not that I'm disappointed or anything.

That's what I was expecting too. I have no idea what these photographs have to do with brain cancer.

Lligeret: but I am more than capable of recognizing that the number of people in this thread that could produce something of that quality and in that number is 0.

*plonk*

lordargent: Lligeret: I am not a fan of the style. The photos to me seem enhanced but you still need a good photo to start with because as it turns out no matter how you polish shiat it is still shiat. I am no artist or an art critic but I am more than capable of recognizing that the number of people in this thread that could produce something of that quality and in that number is 0.

I could photograph it no problem, if someone else did the costuming.

That's like saying, "Sure, I could play that Eddie Van Halen solo, as long as someone else gives me the notes." In other words, completely missing the point of the creative genius behind the work.

If you think all this lady did was take exposure settings and push a button, heh.

aharown: Molavian: kellynoel: I'm pretty sure I just don't get visual art because, really, all I can say about that is "pretty colors." I really don't see anything touching about them, though.

I look at them and think "Hey, somebody just discovered photoshop."

Yup. Since when did the art of photography give way completely to the image manipulation crap that is photoshop? I'll grant that photoshop can produce some very cool things, but it can't replace a good photographer.

And here we see yet another example of someone trying to do just that.

lol. Do people like you realize how such vapid, specious comments say much more about you and your level of intellect than they say about the artist you're commenting on?