Can PhotoShop really fix everything

[bennielou]

OK, let me ask you this for the sake of this discussion (I don't want to discuss the photo as such in detail, it isn't "art"! I know it. It isn't even good) - is this photo "an abuse of Photoshop"?



I'm asking because - while this photo was very (!) spur of the moment, taken out of the side window of a passing bus, and my intention was to capture the solitude of the countryside we were going through in Turkey, and the fact that not all had the comfort of travelling in a nice bus, but some had to walk - the man originally was walking right underneath that tree. That, however, felt so unbalanced to me for this photo that (for the first time ever in my life, I must admit) I decided to cut him out of where he actually was and put him to where you can now see him.

And upon looking closer, I did not even clone the part where he once was well enough, it shows ... Not good! But none of that is the point I want to discuss here.

My question is: Is this abuse in your eyes?

I think it's an abuse if you want to call it that. I say so because you didn't really capture what you "saw". I doubt if you enter such a picture into a contest, that it would be allowed. Now of course, you could set it up in such a manner that the man was actually walking by the road....

As to the OP, I guess, the only comment I have is for the newbies to get as much correct in camera as they can. I see no joy in spending countless hours in front of a computer when you could use those times to practice photography skills.

It's art. You can make it whatever the hell you want. As long as the clients buy it, who cares? Have you seen Yervont lately? He has gone off in a big Draconian tangent. Is it great? Absolutely. Do his clients pay him craploads of money to do what he does. Um yep.

 

[bennielou]

You shouldn't rely on PS to crop your images. You should get it right in camera. :greenpbl:

Not always! Sometimes, action shots come to mind, you should allow yourself some leeway. The point I was making, the gods designed those sensors for optimum exposure, contrast and color. It just seems a sacrilege how often we constantly go against them.

And the "gods" gave you the ability to frame your shots correctly in camera.
I don't like how people draw arbitrary lines for what is acceptable to do in post, and what is not.

This whole argument thread, is hogwash.

I agree to a point. In my little mind there is no right or wrong. It's an emotional thing, an in the moment thing.
But you still have to nail it.

 

[bennielou]

Narrow minded?? if the point was not to tell a story, then why bother moving the person?

Because it makes a better image?

And at the end of the day, a better image is all that matters. You keep repeating that it's abuse, that it's wrong, and unacceptable. But you can't seem to articulate why.

I already told you why but you don't seem to want to understand. The whole point is that he wanted to convey a sense of solitude, to tell a story (photojournalistic?). The man was not under the tree, so he decide to move the man. That is not what he actually observed. Presenting to an audience as such is not being truthful.

Ok, I'm going to give the supreme court ruling. LOL. I was wire service for a few years. Anyhoo, in Pj, you do not EVER move subjects. Ever ever ever. You make whatever is happening work. It would be great is we could say "stand over here in front of this waterfall" but you can't do that in PJ. Or at least you are not supposed to.

The whole deal with PJ is not about being pretty. It's about being real. Yeah, there is trash in the background, but it also probably helps tell the story. At the end of the day, you should tell a story without ever uttering a word. You should make people care. At the end of the day, the real photos are the best. You can't pose this stuff.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

And I'm only presenting this photo of mine to an "audience" for the sake of this discussion.

And a very interesting discussion it is.

I don't have a problem with post-processing like that in LaFoto's picture as long as the person is upfront about it. I personally do not like to see compositions that were created in post-processing. I like to do it all in-camera if possible. That is fulfilling for me.

Images that don't look manipulated are generally believed to be an accurate representation by most viewers. And that is a powerful tool some photographers use to their advantage. When I looked at LaPhoto's picture, I believed the tree and the man were there. Silly me, right? What if they weren't there and later dropped in? Is the picture a photograph, or is it closer to photomanipulation? Like I said, I have no problem with the post-processing, but call it what it is.

The fact that you say "for me" allows me to partly agree with you. It is only a matter of personal opinion. I personally prefer to get the image I want in camera but it is not always possible. A lot of the images in my head would never have existed if it wasn't for manipulation. The reason I mentioned Uelsmann earlier (whether or not he is for simple thinkers, I'll leave that one to Derrel...) is because I did a lot of work of that type.

Those images just don't exist in reality but why should it keep me from creating them? Does the work of Dali exist in reality? No. Yet, I don't see anyone complaining about it.

On the other hand, I can't agree with putting a disclaimer about the manipulation of the image. Anything outside PJ work (and the only reason I brought PJ work in), is fair game for manipulation. And why the problem with manipulation in PP but not with manipulation before hitting the shutter button?

After all, most commercial photos are 100% manipulations. The scene didn't exist. It was created entirely for the purpose of the image. What is the difference?

Sometimes, the image existed but could not be captured by the camera because of the limitations of the photographic medium. HDR comes to mind here. Should we put a disclaimer saying that the image was manipulated to recreate what the eye can see but the camera cannot?

Just some thoughts and I take responsibility for them. They are nothing more than my opinion...

 

[SwissJ]

Does the work of Dali exist in reality? No. Yet, I don't see anyone complaining about it.

+1

 

[vtf]

It really does fix everything, even when you use the delete button.
My 2 cents worth.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

It really does fix everything, even when you use the delete button.

:lmao:

Yes, that delete button will take care of anything. :thumbup:

I believe with can now close this thread.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

It really does fix everything, even when you use the delete button.

:lmao:

Yes, that delete button will take care of anything. :thumbup:

I believe with can now close this thread.

You can't request the thread be closed until the OP comes back and responds to the mess she/he/it created.

 

[ghpham]

smoothing someone's skin is also a "lie" if you will, but in this case the client most likely requested and know that the image is being manipulated.

So, if LaFoto's image had shown up in a magazine with the manipulation asked for by the editor (the client), it would be alright?

A lie is a lie. Sorry, I don't see who/what gives you the right to decide when a lie is Ok and when it is not. I sure don't give myself that right which is why I have no problem with photogs doing as they wish with their images.

PJ work is another story. It is supposed to tell us what is going on in the world telling the story as it actually was. Some images got manipulated and the publications got in trouble for it. Today, they have very strict rules about NO editing.

Some images half lie because photography is far from perfect as a story telling media. But purposeful lies are not seen with a kind eye. See the controversies over the famous Iwo Jima and Robert Capa's Falling Soldier photos.

If the editor tell his readers the same, then what do I care. I would not view the photo in the same manner, with the same kind of feeling though because I know it have been manipulated, and I'm sure the readers wouldn't look at it the same way either (see White's post for example).

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Derrel]

Who thinks the photo of Demi Moore on the cover of W magazine is how she really looks? Demi Moore's Photoshopped W Cover: Was Her Body Replaced With A Model's? (PHOTOS, POLL)

The government of France is reported to be considering enacting legislation that would require French magazines to describe the type of retouching done on photographs published within each issue; young women are allegedly beginning to suffer serious body image problems due to seeing heavily-retouched,already thin models slimmed down to ridiculous, virtually impossible to attain levels.

The culture of retouching has spread so far and wide that it is beginning to affect young people. "Reality" is no longer good enough for many people who like to call themselves the arbiters of taste and style. The Ralph Lauren company,an American firm, has been found guilty of some simply **incredibly faked** fashion photos. Google it. In fact, the name Ralph Lauren is now being associated with Photoshop fakery!

Was Demi Moore Ralph-Laurenized on "W" mag cover, with missing hip-flesh? - Boing Boing

While bitterjewler calling the argument ridiculous or whatever is fine, there are millions of people who are getting fed up with being bombarded with images purporting to be "real", when in fact the images are highly,heavily faked. People are getting fed up with having daughters becoming anorexic and bulimic because they have "hips",and are not stick-figure shaped.

 

[Gaerek]

What bothers me about this photography vs. photomanipulation issue is there are a lot of people manipulating their photos to the extent you did and they're not telling anyone.

I think I'm going to email Max Brooks and tell him that because he didn't tell people that his book "World War Z" is a work of fiction, even though he presented the Zombie War as historical fact that he should put a disclaimer on the cover saying it's a false story. I'll make sure Dan Brown knows also, with regards to all of his books.

While I'm at it, I think I'll let Michael Bay know that Robot Aliens from space have never landed on the Earth, and that he needs to put a disclaimer on his movies saying these events never happened.

Art is art. Whether the photo was manipulated or not is irrelavent in most cases (except PJ, for example) when it comes to photography. If a photo is intriguing, thought provoking, emotion provoking, etc, whether it was manipulated or not, is all that really matters. Who are you to say what is going too far or not? I challenge you to make a good image, shooting RAW (no in-camera editing), and making sure there are no preset manipulations set on your RAW editing program. Good luck!

 

[Overread]

I think I'm going to email Max Brooks and tell him that because he didn't tell people that his book "World War Z" is a work of fiction, even though he presented the Zombie War as historical fact that he should put a disclaimer on the cover saying it's a false story. I'll make sure Dan Brown knows also, with regards to all of his books.

While I'm at it, I think I'll let Michael Bay know that Robot Aliens from space have never landed on the Earth, and that he needs to put a disclaimer on his movies saying these events never happened.

They are already waaaaaaay ahead of you in both the books and the films. Any work of fiction published in those areas nearly always has a disclaimer that the work is fictional - for books its generaly in the first few pages on the legal and copywrite details page whilst for films its either at the very start or (more commonly) in part (often the end of) the rolling credits

 

[Overread]

Art is art. Whether the photo was manipulated or not is irrelavent in most cases (except PJ, for example) when it comes to photography. If a photo is intriguing, thought provoking, emotion provoking, etc, whether it was manipulated or not, is all that really matters.

Remember though photography is far far more than just art - its proof, evidence, records, memories etc....*

People can use image for artistic expression, for display of samples, for products, to advertise and to inform.

As I said earlier its all about context - with no context we tend to fall back to photography just being an art form (often the case as many here are from artistic backgrounds) and then the water gets to muddied. You need to give a context in order to determin how far you can manipulate an image. If someone is trying for the most colour accurate and realistic representation of a subject then even slight adjustments to the white balance would be going too far - whilst for most such minor alterations are often done to best present the image artistically.

* this of course does not mean that the other forms cannot be art as well as being something else first

 

[c.cloudwalker]

You can't request the thread be closed until the OP comes back and responds to the mess she/he/it created.

Well, I didn't mean it literally. Plus I actually believe this type of thread coming back on a regular basis is not such a bad thing. We have new people here all the time and I don't think many of them will do a search on "philosophical" questions but those threads make people think about things. Thinking is good...

As for your post, Derrel, what about parents taking responsibility for their kids? My parents certainly taught me the difference between fantasy and reality. They also taught me to not believe much of what was said in advertisements. In the 60s, we had Twiggy but I don't remember girls going nuts because of her the way they are today. Parents need to get back to the job of being parents.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

If someone is trying for the most colour accurate and realistic representation of a subject then even slight adjustments to the white balance would be going too far

I think a photographer who specializes in photographing paintings would strongly disagree with that.