Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Photography is finally escaping any dependence on what is in front of a lens, but it comes at the price of its special claim on a viewer's attention as "evidence" rooted in reality.
I do not have a problem with photo editing. What I have a problem with is that a lot of people now instead of using good technique will take a crappy picture and say "oh, I will photoshop it to how i want it to look." I kind of feel that photoshop has made a lot of photographers lazy. I would guess that most people on this forum have had some kind of experience with film. I am 23 and I have used film quite a bit. And I would say that a lot of people have used their experiences with film in their digital photographs as well. What I think the author is touching on is that in generations to come, the care of taking a well exposed, color balanced, picture may become something of the past because photoshop is there to fix it. I realize that photoshop cannot fix everything, but to a lot of people view photoshop as the cure all to bad photography. I do not think that photoshopped pictures are any less art but a lot of times art is not classified by the final outcome as it is the process the artist took to get to the final outcome.
I do not have a problem with photo editing. What I have a problem with is that a lot of people now instead of using good technique will take a crappy picture and say "oh, I will photoshop it to how i want it to look." I kind of feel that photoshop has made a lot of photographers lazy. I would guess that most people on this forum have had some kind of experience with film. I am 23 and I have used film quite a bit. And I would say that a lot of people have used their experiences with film in their digital photographs as well. What I think the author is touching on is that in generations to come, the care of taking a well exposed, color balanced, picture may become something of the past because photoshop is there to fix it. I realize that photoshop cannot fix everything, but to a lot of people view photoshop as the cure all to bad photography. I do not think that photoshopped pictures are any less art but a lot of times art is not classified by the final outcome as it is the process the artist took to get to the final outcome.
I have seen this view before and it is totally ridiculous and laughable.
Postprocessing is a necessary part of the process of taking a photo, it is NOT just for correcting shooting problems. It can bring out detail, correct colour deficiencies in the digital process and highlight a centre of interest. However postprocessing comes at a cost. Some approaches are better than others and the order of processes is important to the amount of picture noise or photo degradation that is the byproduct.
A lot of beginner Photoshopping results in a lower quality image because it is done in a "sloppy, disorganized" fashion because of lack of knowledge and inexperience. Photoshopping is definitely NOT the fix-all for poor photography. It can make photos worse, if badly done.
On the other side of the coin however, excellent quality Photoshopping skills absolutely REQUIRE and DEMAND excellent photographic skills. After all, how can you start to improve or correct a photographic image in Photoshop without recognizing what the problems are? To correct picture noise, you need to recognize that it exists in the image. To recognize whether an edit is sufficiently subtle or over-the-top requires a photographic eye too.
The concept that any so-called "lazy" photographer would willing spend 10 minutes less time taking a photo in order to spend 30 minutes more time trying to correct it to a minimum satisfactory level of quality on the computer is absolutely SILLY.
skieur
So my question to the two of you is this, Are you trying to say that every image that has been photoshopped is being misconstrued as artiscically relevant?
No that is not what I am trying to say. I realize that communicating in writing is what it could be so I will blame that on the confusion of what I have written.
I know that P.P. is a necessary part of photography and I do some P.P. What I was touching on is the casual photographer that does not take an interest in learning how to properly use the camera and the elements around them. I have friends who I would consider quality graphic designers and they like photography but only casually. They would much rather spend 30 min in P.S. instead of spending 5 min setting up a shot properly. They will set a camera to auto everything and let their other skills do the rest. Now, their photoshopping skills are an art but I think that because they change a photograph SO much that they have crossed a line, in my mind. That line separates photography and digital imaging. I am not saying what they do is not an art, I am just not sure what they do is photography in its purest form.
..
Photography is and has always been "representational". It's relationship to reality is and has always been tenuous at best...