Has that pic been Photoshop'ed?

[LaFoto]

Yes, but people are ignorant in that manner. In more than just the field of photography.

There was this big international school-do going on, people from all over Europe here to visit that one school there for meetings and open discussion forums on the European school systems; it all covered a couple of days, also the town got involved in so far as the representatives of their schools from Norway, Poland, Greece, Italy and Spain put up stalls on the market square and presented their countries with brochures, national food, folklore and music.

And since I was acquainted with a teacher from that school, said teacher asked me if I'd be willing to act as interpreter for the Spanish representative. So I went out there on several occasions and interpreted, also on that thing on the market square, which was when we had to go up onto that open air stage to speak to the audience and I interpreted, and then the co-headmaster of that school asked me (with the micros off, thankfully): "How come you speak Spanish so well?" and I said: "I read it in uni, interpreting is my job." Save of doing this gesture with is hand that degrades something, you know, moving one hand down in a semi-circle, his reply was as offending as when someone says "Ah, sure, you got that expensive camera" as if the camera takes photos all by itself, for he said: "Ah. Uni! Oh well, in that case....!" as if studying a foreign language is just so much of an "equipment" that now speaking it well is ... bah. Nothing! With this "equipment", it almost does itself all by itself, as it were.

Pffff.

So saying "Oh well, with a camera like that it is not surprising..." is as offensive.

But, and I believe that this is where this discussion here comes from: i.e. from many people's belief that "doing photoshop" also means that after THAT, oh yeah, well, it is kind of "no wonder" a photo looks good. "With PHOTOSHOP, yeah well, you can make EVERY photo look good. Now it is NORMAL."

:roll:

 

[Eric Piercey]

The only difference between art and advertising is that one exists to connect us with truth and the other exists to separate us from the truth. Both re-present the truth. One is created by an artist, the other by a saleman and the work itself can be both. The work can be created by an artist for a salesman. Often salesmen buy art to use for sales and the artists are then shunned.

With PS we're essentially talking about using smoke and mirrors to create art, but there's nothing new, unusal, or wrong about using illusion to connect us with the truth. It's not even ironic in my opinion. It all boils down to the viewer and the work and whatever connection the work brings to the viewer. That's ALLLL that matters in the end. Everything else be damned.

 

[JohnMF]

..

I think it is also legitimate to have images look very different from reality.
Else there would be no IR photography and other forms of art

That was what i was trying to say. I doesnt have to represent reality as it would appear in nature. it should be done well or not look forced, that's why i used the word natural. not sure it came across that why

 

[Alex_B]

The only difference between art and advertising is that one exists to connect us with truth and the other exists to separate us from the truth.

Art can carry lots of lies with it. Propaganda can be art, advertising can be art. Just because something is art, it does not mean it carries any truth in its message.

 

[RMThompson]

Art can carry lots of lies with it. Propaganda can be art, advertising can be art. Just because something is art, it does not mean it carries any truth in its message.

Art isn't ALWAYS trying to connect us to the truth, in fact, a lot of times it's the opposite. To me art is OBSERVING and speaking through the observation. If I take a picture, lets say of a city scene, It could just be an interesting shot of the city. If I use some method to highlight a hooker on the corner, I could be making a message about the condition of this town. If I use another method to make the sky look very dark, another message is conveyed. These methods can or cannot involved Photoshopping.

Furthemore adveristement doesn't neccesarily try to "seperate us from the truth"... that's sort of a paranoid approach in my opinion. I personally think you're confusing COMMERICIALISM and ADVERTISEMENT. I advertisde for my photography services... am I trying to seperate you from the truth? Not neccesarily, unless I say "Best damn photographer you've ever seen".

 

[Eric Piercey]

But it was so profound when I wrote it! I think what I was getting at is that art doesn't "try to do" anything. If one perceives some work as taking them toward the truth for sake of taking them there -it's therefore art. If one perceives some work as taking them there to sell them something, it's commercial. The work itself is subjective.

a Neil Peart line comes to mind.

...Art as expression or as market campaigns will still capture our imaginations.

So a heavily photoshopped piece is no more or less relevant as art just for being heavily photoshopped. This is not to say heavy use of PS doesn't alter how the work is perceived and often it does so for the worse. Puritan photographers (or their opposites alike) might be offended or completely dismissive of a work as a "photo" but still appreciate it as a work of art.

You're right though that was a rather excessive statement re commercial work attempting to separate us from the truth. It rather attempts to unite us with our desires, and barring their existence create some new ones.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Matt, you know you love it when they ask you that !!!!

just look at your avatar.....lol

 

[celery]

Let's face it, the better technology becomes the easier it gets for people to take their own photographs.

It's pretty difficult to have a blurry picture these days if you buy a halfway decent camera. Same goes for setting the aperture and shutter speed; the new cameras do such complex calculations that anyone can set their camera on "p" and fire away.

Which in turns diminishes the value of our work . . . UNLESS . . . we (as artists) push ourselves creatively.

Photography is no longer about getting the right settings to get an in focus, non-over/underexposed shot.

It has become about seeing things that other people can't. Anyone can go out and take a picture of a sunset and have a great picture, but there are so many things a photographer could do that would make a much more interesting or powerful image.

The difference between us and them, is that we notice more things when it comes to light, shadow, composition, depth of field and even location (angle). That's where we have to go to make our work valid the further along technology comes.

 

[Efergoh]

You cannot really make a "blooper" become a "keeper" by putting it through Photoshop.

Actually, I think you can.

Case in point. This photo was shot using strobes, but the strobes didn't fire. So it was both underexposed, and the color temp was way off.

But through the magic of photoshop, I was able to pull it from the ashes and create this:

I'm sure if this were film, and with a goodly amount of hard work, I could have pulled off a similar result, but to be perfectly honest, if it were film, I would not have bothered to make the effort, and just tossed it aside as a loss.

 

[The_Traveler]

Just for future reference - a flash used with an camera is typically not a strobe. A strobe (strobsocope) produces a series of short, intense bursts of light. A typical flash for use with a camera produces one flash of light and then stops.

 

[Aquarium Dreams]

But, and I believe that this is where this discussion here comes from: i.e. from many people's belief that "doing photoshop" also means that after THAT, oh yeah, well, it is kind of "no wonder" a photo looks good. "With PHOTOSHOP, yeah well, you can make EVERY photo look good. Now it is NORMAL."

:roll:

I wonder how many people with that attitude actually know how to use photoshop? Or of those who imply that with a good camera, "of course" you can take good pictures, how many are familiar with a variety of cameras to be able to make intelligent comparisons between them? LaFoto's story brings to mind a multitude of other examples. Those people don't sound like they're speaking from experience, so much as they sound like they are speaking from their ego. Instead of admitting that someone else is better than them at something, due to some effort or skill on the other person's part, they can tell themselves, "I could do just as well as that person, if I only had that program/equipment/experience." And since those things are relatively easy to acquire, it's just as if they're telling themselves, "I could do just as well as that person if I wanted to... I just don't want to right now."

 

[Aquarium Dreams]

When people ask if an image is photoshopped, respond with, "What do you mean?" Their response will tell you how much or little they know about it, and you can answer accordingly.

 

[neea]

I wonder how many people with that attitude actually know how to use photoshop? Or of those who imply that with a good camera, "of course" you can take good pictures,

Confession: I used to sort of believe this a few years ago. I met my brothers friend who was a photographer and had a VERY VERY VERY expensive camera. I thought to myself 'one day... one day I too will buy a camera that costs the same as a small luxury vehicle'.

Now the more I learn the more I realize I might still know nothing (well, very little anyways) about the camera I currently do have.

As for the uninformed people who think photoshop works miracles, plop them at your computer and say 'ok. crop this and make it black and white'.

It was just a few years ago I thought photoshop was junk because I couldn't perform these simple tasks (I often like to blame everything else but myself ).

And the same applies to PS as it does to photography in general. The more you learn the more you realize there's still a lot more to learn.

I've never been asked 'Has it been photoshopped' because the only people that see the results of my playing around are a few selected people who've also seen the original.
If I ever was asked I think I'd go with the approach of finding out just how much they know about photoshop in the first place.