3 ms·
Photographers will argue that 90% of a photograph is composition, not the subject. Even though a pixelated adaptation of a photo is different, it's got the sam
by wisty 15y ago
Photographers will argue that 90% of a photograph is composition, not the subject.
Even though a pixelated adaptation of a photo is different, it's got the same composition. For example, that Miles Davis photo perfectly lines up his head and hands to fill the square CD cover. It also uses light and shade to make the subject's features really stand out. So through a the lens a photographer sees through (horrible pun), it's very derivative.
A pixel artist will disagree, of course. They will say that composition isn't as important as getting the pixels just right.
(Actually, bean is interesting because it actually changes the composition).
- greendestiny 15y agoI think the pixel version of this artwork is much more derivative than an 8-bit cover version of the music, yet they sort permission from Mile Davis's estate to use his music. Then they settled out of court. I have no idea why this is the internet's latest crusade. If they'd have given 1000 artists (including photographers) the brief of an album cover of Kind of Blue, I doubt any would have been so similar to Maisel's. Give 1000 pixel artists Kind of Blue and ask then to do a straight pixel version and they'd all be indistinguishable. And despite the supposed outrage for the rights and artistic merit of pixel art, I haven't seen any pixel artists stand up for this straight copy of a photograph. I don't think any of them would consider it a particularly enlightening representation of their art form.