Too far on photoshop?

[RainNotebook]

This is not to get a heated discussion going but just to get your personal opinion. Of course I understand that photoshop (and other similar programs) is just like a working with your pictures in a darkroom.

But is there a way to go too far? What I mean by that is. Lets say I took a picture of a gorgeous field of overgrown green grass. And at a different time and place I took a picture of a old falling apart house. Then I blend these two together and make one photo.

Now here is the question. Is that right? Does that still make you a photographer? When you use more of your photoshop skills then your photography skills, is it still a photograph or a computer generated image? Is it "ethical" to present it as one of your photos on your website? And if so how would you present it? Or maybe I'm way off... maybe this is used all the time and very typical?

To me it just seems wrong... but I want to do it. lol (I know I contradict myself a lot) and I just wanted to know in the photography world is it generally accepted or frowned upon?

 

[Big Mike]

I think the only problem is if you try to deceive people by representing something as real when it's not. Photographic manipulation has been around just about as long as photography itself.

As a digital photographers, digital editing is usually a skill that we benefit greatly from. I don't think it makes you any less of a 'photographer'.

 

[patrickt]

I make a distinction between graphic art and photos. A man took a picture of his daughter and turned her into an elf with pointy ears and an elfin costume. He did a great job and I certainly would consider it a photograph.

I get irriated by people who assume my photographs were "created" in Photoshop. A panorama of an archeological site was on display and a person was explaining that the greenery was added in Photoshop. I stepped up and said that it wasn't. She sneered and said, "I've never seen it that green." I responded, "Of course, not. You've never been here in the rainy season."

 

[LuckyStarPhotography]

I love playing with my photos and creating new art all together. I consider myself a photographic artist as well as a photographer. I see nothing wrong with creating new visions. Isn't that what artists have always done?

 

[tkaat]

I have this same problem when I take a picture I call that a photograph. When I start to manipulate it I feel as though I am taking away the photograph part of the picture and changing it to something else as though I wouldn't be able to call it a photograh without feeling like a hypocrite or phony. It just something about altering a photo that makes you feel as though you are taking away the essence or what makes the photo a photo.

 

[skieur]

The field has become Photography and Imaging and any line that is drawn by pros or serious enthusiasts is based on use.

If you are shooting for a wildlife magazine that emphasizes natural habitat, then taking your camera to the zoo to do your work would not be considered ethical by most. Adding blood or bodies to a violent scene would certainly be a no,no for photojournalists too.

On the other hand cloning out some clutter from the background, selectively brightening or bringing out detail in shadows, warming up the colours a little, even changing a day shot into night is not an issue for most scenics. It is still Photography and Imaging.

skieur

 

[RainNotebook]

Wow... very good points here

tkaat - Thats exactly how I feel. And thats how I tried explaining how I feel.

skiur - I really like the points you brought out. Made me really think.

I think I will post my pictures online but make sure that it is very clear as to being digital art.

 

[ann]

i feel fine with doing anything i would do in the darkroom.

when i go "over the top" with something i called it altered art. works for me.

however, i think an artists concept is critical to the process.

i only get my blood boiling when i look at something that has been changed so much, one can look at it and say, "light doesn't fall like that", but then again that is the wonderful thing about photography ; lots of ways to think and present work.

 

[Big Mike]

This reminds me of a segment on saw on one of the news shows. There is an organization that exposes false use of animals in movies and documentaries. Walt Disney was actually one of the worst offenders. One of Disney's most watched 'true life adventure' movies as about the arctic...it had a scene with a polar bear cub sliding down a snowy slope. Turns out that the whole slope was constructed and the bear was 'pushed' down the slope. There was also a scene about lemmings jumping into the sea...they was actually a spinning machine that forced them off the edge.

There were many other film makers who would intersperse wild shots with zoo shots. They usually don't say anything about it in the film...just add a small credit at the end. David Attenborough (of BBC fame) claimed that he never did this type of thing, but they showed one of his films where he was shooting polar bears, then cut to a scene of a mother & small cub in a den...saying that they were warm, despite the -40 temps outside. Turns out that the den shot was from a zoo.

Even just today, I heard that for the opening ceremonies of the Olympics...they used digital fireworks for the TV broadcast. What the heck?


So, as you can see....there are plenty of things that are presented to people, video/film or photographically...and a lot of it may not be what you think it is. Is this right or wrong? Is it harmless or not? That's up to you to decide.

 

[fabric]

my interest is in documentary.

i use the software for my monochromes in keeping with basic principles of photography.
overall image density (levels). localised image denisty (dodge/burn). optional blur/sharpen.

shoot pictures with soul and a story. that's what matters to me.

 

[ksmattfish]

Does that still make you a photographer?

Nope. Anyone can be a mere photographer. Now you get to call yourself an artist.