Demo: color correction/'poor man's grading tool' ...

HI there, well first and foremost. I love CSI just for the pleasure of watching, adjustments Pushed to the limit. I do not think there is anyone out there that can say they thought they are realistic. But thats the fun of it. Special Effects. Its one of my favorite things about the show. Quite a lot of other shows do the same thing. Its like the matrix, unbelievable effects computer generated. we know its not real, but the creativity involved is....I admire the talent that goes into making something that amazing. I LOVE effects.
Underworld, Van Helsing. Outstanding is all I can say. Art can be realistic, fabricated, ridiculous, tasteless, ect...Thats what makes it Art. All in the eye of the beholder, and the people that appreciate what it was the artist is trying to say. Thats why there is something for everyone. Not for nothing.... sometimes the most tasteless pieces will fetch a zillion bucks if being sold.
I think Karstens example is a good one, How to take a Photograph, and add the WOW factor.
From the very first Movie ever made, there was the ability of taking the normal and making it the abstract. People Love to see it..ART. Photographs..The same thing. Everything that could be done to make them amazing and showcase the Talents of the Photographer. From The Darkroom..Now there is photoshop. I have been into Photography since I was 5. Even at that age. I would figure out someway to make my photos POP. This is the reason why Photographers spent so much time in the darkroom. Turning their Photos into a work of Art.
It doesn't have to be realistic. But than again it can be..It depends on what the Artist is trying to portray.
Almost every publication I read on Photography, MOvie production, Creative user. I read a ton of these a week. Very rare is the Photo that has not been enhanced in some way. Its part of the workflow of the Photographer. Camera to photoshop.
As a Post Note.
Does anyone really believe that the Cover Photo of a 90 year old celebrity does not a have a line on their face????
99 and 3/4 of photos in Magazines have been altered. BUt we read them and enjoy them none the less. My Opinion to say the least, Ileen

A Very Fun Link.

"If it's simply the same, why watch it?"

Because the point is the STORY -- not the FX.

Because, the reality of WHAT was recorded is what should be interesting. If it's not, then making it "urgent" and "punchy" or "involving" is pointless. If neither your story or its reality are ENOUGH -- then no amount of manipulation in post will help. It only seems to help In a few years, folks will look at your stuff and say "Oh look! This was done back in mid-2006." Just like when we see jiggle-cam from NYPD.

All this stuff about altering photographs. That's not creating art. That's only making a style. In this year and out next year.

"..All this stuff about altering photographs. That's not creating art. That's only making a style. In this year and out next year.."

Oh. Is Ansel Adams out, then?

(click on image to go to bigger one..)

..Notice how dark the sky is - that's because he used a red filter to knock out the blue. And, of course, he did a bit of "dodging and burning" to produce more "punchy" positive prints from the negatives.

And, er, Edward Weston?

And, er, Dorothea Lange? (..Note the wording: "Destitute peapickers in California; a 32 year old mother of seven children. February 1936. (retouched version)" ..and "This is an unretouched version of the image listed in #1. This version of the image shows a thumb in the immediate foreground on the right side."

Many or most iconic, well-known photographs have had a bit of retouching, dodging and other adjustments done to them ..that's why many have the printer credited, as well as the photographer ..the printer's art is - oops, sorry; maybe that should be "craft", if you prefer, instead of "art" - is in creating a finished article from a "less than perfect" negative.

Maybe I'll stop now, as both of us could go on for hours, I'm sure.

I'll finish by saying that most of what we see about us, created by humans - whether still images, video or film - is not a true copy of the original, but is a (sometimes subtly) manipulated version of the original ..maybe because the lens, or the film, or the camcorder's CCD cannot make a true copy, but has faults and imperfections.

And what we perceive is only one way of seeing or hearing: bees see differently, dogs hear differently ..so what we see with our own eyes before any manipulation is not "the way things truly are" (..for a start, our eyes produce upside down images, which our brains then invert..) but just "the way we are used to seeing things".

Ours isn't the definitive way of how things actually are.

But enough from me, already! I'll leave the last word to you and others..