Too Much Photoshop Manipulation - where to draw the line...

[Tkraz]

I agree with what your saying, but both points arent entirely exclusive. I think all that yer saying is true, but when a new technology is embedded into the norm, it becomes much more accepted.

 

[sameerjatana]

Hi

I think PS helps one to hide the flaws(if u will) in a pic. Although I've not yet started using it, I believe it will make me less particular about the nuances I have to be careful about when clicking a pic. In the back of my mind I will have something to fall back on. Its a good tool for professional work, but for a learner of photography, I strongly feel it should be avoided.

 

[kalee]

in my opinion... photoshop isn't a 'hider', it's an enhancer.

 

[ts_imagery]

Well, I personally like all visual art; 'computer graphics', photography, or otherwise. So I personally don't care how the final image was achieved.

But I do agree that there is possibly a point where an image can no longer be called a photograph. Although I'm not sure the defining test is whether the image could have been made in a darkroom or not. I mean, I can make all sorts of images in a dark room without even using a negative, by just shining different coloured lights at photographic paper, or combine different photographs together like the examples markc linked, etc. So I'm not sure that there is very much that can be done in PhotoShop that couldn't be done in a darkroom given enough ingenuity.

Nevertheless, if I were to take a photograph in PhotoShop and then use the paintbrush to draw a whole new image on top so that none of the original photograph was showing, I suppose that I wouldn’t really have a photograph anymore. But as I said, I like all visual art, so as long as the end looked good, I would like it.

To me, the only way an image can be over-photoshoped, is if I take the image from a point where it looked good to a point where it doesn’t look as good. Which certainly can happen, but I don’t think it necessarily has anything to do with the amount of photoshoping involed, it has more to do with the quality of the photoshoping.

But that’s just my opinion.

 

[alexecho]

A lot of PS work is someone who isn't a good photographer, getting a really average photo and 'touching it up' until they get something that pleases them. That isn't art, that's salvage. That gives PS a bad name.

I think it's a valid tool for someone who knows what they want to create and that involves PS, but it's impossible to prove what someone was intending at the point of pressing the shutter.

My personal opinion is that PS has devalued the importance of getting a good photograph in the first place, but that's probably quite an old fashioned idea in the age of digital anyway, where you can shoot as many versions as you like and get your photo by trial and error anyway.

I guess it just comes down to what you enjoy. For me that is getting a good image direct from the camera, digital or analogue. My instinct is always that I failed if I have to crop or manipulate the shot - unless I shot it with that in mind.

 

[KevinR]

Don't you think that the over-PSing isn't the problem? Because when used you create a representation of your work. The problem really is misrepresentation. When that person passes off something that is manipulated but is represented as original. This can be taken to extremes or maybe more subtle. I'm not saying that by taking out a distraction is lying, but..........

And yes, this can be done and is done in the darkroom too. But it does bring up a few moral dilemmas.

Just something to ponder.

 

[bethany138]

How do you feel about these images?

http://www.robertkleingallery.com/gallery/albums/uelsmann/aad.jpg
http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/images/uelsmann/jerry.jpg

They were done by Jerry Uelsmann, all in the darkroom.

I consider using the darkroom as a limiting factor (or the negative as the truth) as an artificial construct. Why that and not something else? It's too arbitrary. Why not only contact prints from colloidal plates?

I don't mean this as a diss towards you. I'm just not fond of the viewpoint.

Very cool images! I love that kind of stuff...

b

 

[markc]

Don't you think that the over-PSing isn't the problem? Because when used you create a representation of your work. The problem really is misrepresentation. When that person passes off something that is manipulated but is represented as original. This can be taken to extremes or maybe more subtle. I'm not saying that by taking out a distraction is lying, but..........

And yes, this can be done and is done in the darkroom too. But it does bring up a few moral dilemmas.

Just something to ponder.

One of my points is that this happens even before the light hits the lens. Imagine a picture with a man kneeling, head bowed in prayer. Now a second print from a different angle that shows another man standing begind the first holding a gun to his head. Now a third image, pulled back, that shows a camera operator, director, and sound man off to the side.

Your choice in film can make a simple market scene look flat and dreary or like Disney Land.

With PS you can go to extremes, like having a purple two-headed cow floating in an orange sky, but I think people go too far in thinking that anything photographic is a fair representation of "the truth". It's only one very specific view of the subject.

 

[KevinR]

Your choice in film can make a simple market scene look flat and dreary or like Disney Land.

That's why I shoot B&W.:mrgreen:

Point of view is the vision of the photographer. And for me, that is my art. But that doesn't make it right......though it makes it hopefully interesting.

 

[bantor]

One of my points is that this happens even before the light hits the lens. Imagine a picture with a man kneeling, head bowed in prayer. Now a second print from a different angle that shows another man standing begind the first holding a gun to his head. Now a third image, pulled back, that shows a camera operator, director, and sound man off to the side.

Your choice in film can make a simple market scene look flat and dreary or like Disney Land.

With PS you can go to extremes, like having a purple two-headed cow floating in an orange sky, but I think people go too far in thinking that anything photographic is a fair representation of "the truth". It's only one very specific view of the subject.

I really couldn't agree more with waht markc says. There is nothing more to add to it. You really speak the truth here markc.

 

[mannella]

The reality of it is the people that don't know how to use photoshop are usually the ones that knock it. Like all technoligy there is a learning curve, if it wasn't for photoshop I don't think I would be into photography as much as I am. I'm a techno junkie and proud of it. As a musician I used effect pedals when they became availible. Before that I had to pull power tubes out of an amp to get the effects that I wanted. I still played as well with either one it just made it easier to get the sound I wanted. Santana sounds the same today as he did years ago but I can tell you that it not by using the same equipment.--lenny

 

[JTHphoto]

I have never had the opportunity to work in a darkroom, so PS has made photography so much more enjoyable for me. Post processing adds a whole new level to the photographic process that I had never experienced before. I try very hard not to go overboard in PS, and try to use it to enhance my images to meet my own personal artistic vision (limited as it may be). If you want to say it's not a photograph because I doctored it up in PS, that fine, call it whatever you want, i like it anyway .

That being said, i have a lot of respect for both traditional and contemporary methods. I don't think it matters how you get to the final product as long as it achieves the desired effect on your intended audience (even if you are your only intended audience).

 

[midnitejam]

This came up in conversation earlier on the day actually!

My arguement was that using photoshop is just as much a tool as anything else in photography, its just a little bit frowned upon at the moment because it's new and often can get a bad press from some of the over enthusiasm shown in some of its uses. Also anything that replaces previously lengthy long drawn out processes by people who didnt have such an option beforehand, is bound to be met with some hostility before its accepted.

I share your viewpoint. I think the most resentment of PS is from those who haven't taken the time to learn how to use it well and they feel themselves at an unfair advantage--PS definitely has a formidable learning curve and requires more than just a little time and effort to become proficient with it.

My position on the PS subject is that it is absolutely fair.

Nobody can capture a scene as it actually is. if the capture is enhanced with levels, curves, brightness, or contrast, etc, it is usually accepted as a valid photograph (it doesn't take a great deal of PS to do these simple things, right? But if the post processing received more PS wizardry than the simple stuff, you'll hear someone complain regardless of how beautiful the result of PS was. And sometimes when the capture is transformed into something that is way more pleasant to look at than the actual scene was, the cry of 'no fair' is heard from some who haven't yet developed enough PS skills to accomplish the same result. IMHO

 

[Torus34]

Wow!

Similar discussions occurred when the Impressionists first exhibited their work. It occurred again when the Dadaists erupted on the scene. And again when the non-objectiveists claimed the avant-garde as their own.

Discussion [and Art] are alive and well! Long live both!

 

[terri]

Wow!

Similar discussions occurred when the Impressionists first exhibited their work. It occurred again when the Dadaists erupted on the scene. And again when the non-objectiveists claimed the avant-garde as their own.

Discussion [and Art] are alive and well! Long live both!

:thumbsup: