The tendency to over-Photoshop?

[Garbz]

Is this right? Is it wrong? Is it good? Is it bad? I'm curious of thoughts.

No one here can answer that. They can just answer if they like it or not. Some of the images are good, some are not so good in my opinion. The only person you may ask if it is right or wrong was the photographer. It is his image, his vision. Disregarding what people think of Photoshopping, no one can deny that it is the photographer's art, and not the viewers.

Also... was it even possible to do this with film prior to Photoshop? If so, did it take extraordinary means to do so? Or was it common?

There is not an image on that page that could not have been done using various films and dark room techniques.

 

[Mike_E]

The line I think is just where it becomes obvious that the photo has been 'shopped.

If the photo has no credibility then it will be dismissed out of hand as eye candy. The trick is to make the photo mean something to it's viewer.

For instance, on one hand you have a portrait which has been so over done that it makes the subject look like a mannequin. On the other, the subjects face has had the blemishes and blackheads removed, teeth and eyes whitened, flyaway hair removed and so forth.

Show the average person off the street the first and they'll say OK, sure, next... because the person in the portrait doesn't look like a credible rendition of a real person.

Show them the second and they will look and look again and maybe even a third time because now they can connect with the subject- and are probably looking for flaws if for no other reason than self defense. But they are still looking because of the connection no matter what it might be.

The hardest part of post production imo is in knowing when to quit.

 

[manaheim]

This is a great discussion.

No huge surprises, I guess, but still... good stuff.

For me, personally it always boils down to that feeling like in doing X I'm somehow "cheating". Photography should be about working with the camera and getting the right image off the camera, and making that image a true representation of what I saw at the time... or so I thought.

For a while I thought that and then one day I realized that 10 years or so ago, people would have probably called digital cheating... 20 years or so ago, people might have called autofocus cheating... 30 years or so ago, people might have called autoexposure cheating... etc.

...and that's just speaking to the pure technical side of things.

In the end, I guess none of it is "cheating", per se... it's just what is acceptable to you and your viewers.

However, perhaps there is importance in being able to at least identify it. Most of us here can look at those images in that link and go "Wow, he/she did a lot of photoshop on that one and it makes it a stunning image, but without that work, this picture is actually kinda dull."

Knowing what happened, how it was done, and how without that work the image would appeal or not appeal to us is a very deep level of technical analytic, that I tend to believe means that we can look at our own pictures, and know what we COULD do to gussy them up, and then individual choose to (or not to) do that as our personal photography morals deem appropriate.

Man I need to get more sleep. I'm not sure that made any sense.

 

[Early]

I have to agree with manaheim. I’ve seen a lot of photos on here, that to my eye, would have been a real pleasure to view except for all the extra pp done on them, especially sharpness and contrast boosts. Hopefully, it’s a fad and will soon play itself out.

 

[goodoneian]

For me, personally it always boils down to that feeling like in doing X I'm somehow "cheating". Photography should be about working with the camera and getting the right image off the camera, and making that image a true representation of what I saw at the time... or so I thought.

i didn't read the entire thread but skimmed it, but i've always felt the same way. which is why i try to do as little processing as possible unless it's fixing something i goofed up by accident (cloning out light stands etc.) or fixing my friends skin since they're self conscious of their pimples

 

[Susan1114]

Thank you so much for this thread. I am a "get it right the 1st time" shooter myself. I have a lot of technical things to learn so I don't want to lean to the PS method of photography in place of doing it right. (I"m not saying that everyone does that here. ) I only own iPhoto so I'm very limited in fixing my photos. I was playing with the idea of getting Photoshop (mostly to keep up with the Jones'). But I think I'll just keep plugging along with the intention of learning this art more naturally.

I'm very fascinated with the PS photos and I am able to tell when I see them. I'm not so impressed with the photography as I am with the technical aspect of them. I'm thinking to myself "What program is this and how did they apply this effect?" rather than "What were those settings and how did they work that light?". So it's a different talent on both ends for sure. Just two very different talents.

Still trying to find my way

 

[bevin]

First off, let's get one thing straight: "Photoshop" is a proper noun. It is not a verb. Don't use it as one.

photoshop definition | Dictionary.com

Gutted for you.....

 

[lvcrtrs]

For the amateur, do what you feel makes you happy. For the pro, do what makes your clients happy.

I love this quote. It's really says how it should be. You do need to learn how to take a picture and input from helpful people here is great. But if you are not selling your work, then a big part is - do you like what you are producing. If you worry so much about what other people say that it squashes your desire - well that's just not a good thing. Learn as much as you want to and go enjoy yourself.

 

[DRoberts]

Processed or not, the final outcome will be judged by the individual viewer. What one may think is over-processed, might make a photo perfect for another.
As far as "cheating". There is no cheating in making a good photo better. You will not find a photo on a magazine cover that has not been processed. The diference is that the photographers are taking excellent quality photos and making them beter, rather than taking a crap photo and trying to make something out of it.
As long as the effort is taken to produce a good shot out of the camera to start with then there is no cheating with what you do afterwards.

 

[ksmattfish]

What about the tendency to under process? Daily I see many digital and film photos that need basic contrast adjustment among other things (wb, sharpening, color correction, etc...). I'm not one that puts much stock in rules for art, but most photographs do look better with blacks that are actually black, and whites that are actually white.

 

[ksmattfish]

Processed or not, the final outcome will be judged by the individual viewer.

You will not find a photo on a magazine cover that has not been processed.

You will not find a photograph anywhere that has not been processed. All photographic methods from Daguerreotype to digital require processing for the image to be seen by human eyes (I have heard of an X-ray method that can be used to create BW images from film without processing, but it's weird and no one uses it). Without processing they remain opaque emulsions, blank paper, and raw data.

"In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability." -Edward Steichen

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships!" -Ansel Adams

 

[xposurepro]

I started out in the late 80's and I dont recall anyone ever complaining about how somebody cheated in the darkroom stage like people do now. You never heard of people believing it all needed to come right out of the camera either. Photography was a 2 step process divided between camera and darkroom .. you used your creativity with the camera but that was only half of it .. you then continued to use creative thinking and technique in the darkroom.

I just try to ignore people who insist that photoshop is cheating .. those people obviously never worked in the pre-digital era on a professional level. We had tons of great gadgets, DIY inventions and creative techniques we used back then ... I would guess that is where 99% of the features in Photoshop originated from.
Personally I'm huge into playing with layers ... is that cheating? No because I did the exact same thing 20 years ago .. the only difference was it was more time consuming and I refered to it as "sandwiching film" instead of "working with layers"
Back then you could find all kinds of tools in my darkroom .. carboard, wire, nail polish, various sheets of glass, gel filters, pantyhose and fabrics, a microscope, exacto knives, loupes and lightboxes, brushes, sandpaper, sos pads, an assortment of common and uncommon chemicals, the list goes on .. Adobe just tool all that stuff and put it on a toolbar for me. I dont call that cheating. I call it progress in efficency.

 

[bwlergh]

This is a matter of personal opinion and all of it depends on your skill and experience either in the darkroom or with photoshop.

Sure, inexperienced photoshop users will tend to overwork their images, but don't we all do it sometimes? I know I've done it enough times. Then two days later, I flick through the images and go "oh goodness gracious..." It's called working too closely to the subject.

On a totally different point. Why is photoshop so looked down upon anyway? I read an article the other day in a magazine, how photoshop work is looked down upon in comparison to work with film. Sometimes you can spend as many hours playing with photoshop as you would in the dark room. People who judge do not see the amount of work that goes into well processed images.

 

[Joves]

While I agree there are many who will over shop their photos. It really comes down to if they like it it is fine. I dont like the over processed photos but, some of those on the site did reming me of Velvia. Which I liked for certain subjects. Using Velvia for everything was plain stupid as, is the tendandcy of some to over process now.

 

[xposurepro]

On a totally different point. Why is photoshop so looked down upon anyway? I read an article the other day in a magazine, how photoshop work is looked down upon in comparison to work with film. Sometimes you can spend as many hours playing with photoshop as you would in the dark room. People who judge do not see the amount of work that goes into well processed images.

Good question. There are so many factors I don't think it could ever be narrowed down to one specific event that has caused this reaction. It could extend all the way back to the digital revelation and be a snowball effect from the extreme hatred of the invention of digital cameras in the first place. It could also stem from the same attitude that was encouraged by photographers who had tens of thousands of dollars invested in their home darkrooms that would soon be replaced by a single program that was easily available for under $1000 .. not to mention all the years of experience they had invested in what has become totally obsolete in the mainstream. Basically a snowball effect that came from professionals fear of change and huge egos .. these opinions filtered down to newbie photographers as fact .. then those newbies become pros and continued to pass it on to another generation of newbies ... It could have to do with the over-abundance of photoshop users who have no dedication to the art and a pirated copy of photoshop. Combine that with the massive sharing capabilities we have through sites like flickr and you have an enormous amount of crap. In the pre-digital era the primary way photos got an audience was because the photographer obviously excelled in some way. Bad photography was not viewed on a massive global scale like it is today. I'm guessing this one has probably had a much larger impact on the photographic industry than we think.
Then you have to look at the educational factors. How many of you long-time photoshop users walk into a book store and flip through all the photoshop bibles and photoshop master books and think .. this is stupid !!! Those books are junk. They encourage the use of all the cheesy click once filters that result in very un-professional effects. Magazines push cheesy techniques that give un-professional results. Everyone popularizes plugins that degrade the quality of an image .. and they do it in a way that teaches newcomers .. This will make your photos better !!! .. I hate noise reduction filters. It has gotten to the point that photographers use them when they don't even have any noise in the photo .. it's crazy. You don't fix a bad photo by exchanging one flaw for another. If it doesn't hold sentimental value and it's a bad photo ... it's a bad photo .. get rid of it. After 20+ years in photography, if I kept every single photo I took .. OMG it would be rediculous. You keep the best and junk the rest. People don't argree with this anymore .. and the result is .. a lot of bad photos that were attempted to be fixed with photoshop .. which adds to anti-photoshop thinking.
Ok enough ranting :mrgreen: ... no wait one more thing. If anyone is going to compain about a downfall in photography it shouldn't be the magazine industry. They started it when they started catertering professional magazines to the general public. I remember seeing an increase in film you could buy at walmart being pushed by pro magazines back in the day and thought .. What ???? Then more and more they moved from professional education and techqinues to here's how to take a good picture of your dog. We went from intensive zone system calculations to fetch fido. The general consumer far out numbers the serious photographer and that's where the money is. Greed has overcome dedication and the sense of pride in the artform. :thumbdown: