Monday, May 5, 2008


I have long standing love/hate relationship with Photoshop, one that has only deepened as I've taken the photography class this semester.

Consider the following pictures--or rather picture. The first has not been photoshopped at all--it's what came out of the camera. One is pretty much "normally" photoshopped, that is, the color and levels have been tweaked a bit to bring out what is there, but nothing has really been altered--it looks like what I saw and fairly faithfully reproduces a pleasant evening in the park.

The second has been far more drastically altered. It's now a somewhat psychedelic sunset, no longer peaceful, and no longer much like the evening on which I took it. It's fun, but where does it fall on the scale of things? Does it even qualify as a photo any more or is it something else ("digital art," a term I'll figure out one of these days)? Or does that take more drastic changes still? Is it "Art" or just scribbling with crayons (metaphorically speaking)? I had fun making it, but it definitely no longer reflects "what was really there."

Added to that, of course, is the whole printer-computer relationship: When printed, none of these will look quite like what they do on screen, which means I'll probably have to tweak some more.


  1. Hi Jessica, I can't leave this alone...The first photo is a great capture of a time and place, mood and feeling. I can almost feel the slight breeze against my skin. But the second one is beautiful also and I have seen clouds that pink/purple and the sky that intense blue. You have enhanced the photo to have a different feel. I think that's OK. They are both valid.
    If you were Andy Warhol and you made the trees orange and the sky green you would be heralded as a genius.
    I still love your work and look forward to your blog posts.