Photos vs. Created "Art" in photoshop!?!

[sanchezka]

I'm trying to get some feedback on what seems to be a growing trend. But first some background, so you know where I'm coming from.

I started my love of photography in high school and still own my Pentax K1000 manual everything 35mm film camera.

So when it comes to taking pictures, I believe if there is something in the photo that is "off", if the lighting is wrong, or whatever it is, then you need to recompose the photo or change the lighting etc. But in the end, you'll still get a photo of something that was actually there.

Here's where the discussion comes in. I post a photo and someone will say good except for "......." why not Photoshop it out, or that's nice but why not Photoshop "......." into the picture.

I use photo shop to enhance the brightness / contrast and for cropping. The type of "enhancements" everyone else is talking about is basically "creating" a picture of something that never existed. Which is fine, but shouldn’t it be called CG art instead of a photo....

Any thoughts?

 

[Plato]

Fifty years ago, we would airbrush out blemishes from portraits. In my case, my teeth are not arranged properly. If my picture is taken while looking straight at the camera, it appears that I am missing teeth on both sides of my mouth. Both my high school graduation picture (1960) and my college graduation picture (1964) have teeth painted in. I now turn my head slightly when a photo is being taken as today's photographers usually don't use Photoshop to add teeth.

Come to think of it, I have a photo taken by an itinerant photographer in 1949 with me sitting on his dilapidated pony. He used black & white film and manually colored the entire photo!

 

[ann]

anything one can do in a darkroom why not do with editing.

check out jerry usleman, he is using about 8 enlargers and moving the paper from enlarger to enlarger to create the final image.

 

[Derrel]

A very similar situation,but sort of in reverse of today's current situation, occurred in the 1920's, as the pictorialist ideas were replaced by fairly rigid "straight photography" as advocated by the f/64 Group, which had some notable members like Edward Weston, Imogen Cunnigham and Willard Van Dyke,and Ansel Adams. The f/64 group dismissed, often very maliciously and with much malice, any and all photography done in anything but PURELY PHOTOGRAPHIC style--which meant no etching on negatives, no hand pencil work on negatives, and in short, no "artsy" techniques that were reminiscent of drawing or painting or anything like that. They disliked, bitterly, shallow depth of field photographs, soft focus effects, and ethereal images.

William Mortensen was a photographer who Ansel Adams went after for years in a pathetic and disgusting effort to discredit a very talented pictorialist--one of the most underreported and shameful aspects of Adams' entire life.

So....the more things change, the more they stay the same...

 

[themedicine]

I'm more on the "pure photography" way of thinking. The problem comes in a nice little box called competition though. I can't convince enough people that things are the way they are for a reason, and I like them that way. I used to never skinny up my models or take things out of photos. But then, someone else says something to a client and they ask me why I didn't "take care" of it for them. So, now I have started to. Just to compete and stay on top of things. My hobby stuff for me, is straight forward and has little editing beyond color and contrast, but the other stuff, well, lets just say my old ass computer gets a workout.

 

[craig]

The downfall of photography since 1986 has been the use of labels and comparing digital to film art. Photographers have managed to screw themselves by coming up with terms like CG, GWC, MWC, TFP, Amateur, Hobbyist, Professional, Noob, Tog, Point & Shoot, DSLR, Strobist, Snapshot...

Personally; photography is a beautiful art form accessible to anyone. I do not care if you shot it from your 1958 Pentax or from your $120,000 Phase One. I do care that your vision gets realized. And so should you. The process of photography is personal and different for everyone. There is no right or wrong; only great photos. Let's throw labels by the wayside and start concentrating on making great art.

Love & Bas

 

[Village Idiot]

Oh hai! I haven't seen this topic since last week.

 

[KmH]

:thumbup::lmao::thumbup::thumbup::lmao::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::lmao::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::lmao:

 

[KmH]

I'm trying to get some feedback on what seems to be a growing trend. But first some background, so you know where I'm coming from.

I started my love of photography in high school and still own my Pentax K1000 manual everything 35mm film camera.

So when it comes to taking pictures, I believe if there is something in the photo that is "off", if the lighting is wrong, or whatever it is, then you need to recompose the photo or change the lighting etc. But in the end, you'll still get a photo of something that was actually there.

Here's where the discussion comes in. I post a photo and someone will say good except for "......." why not Photoshop it out, or that's nice but why not Photoshop "......." into the picture.

I use photo shop to enhance the brightness / contrast and for cropping. The type of "enhancements" everyone else is talking about is basically "creating" a picture of something that never existed. Which is fine, but shouldn’t it be called CG art instead of a photo....

Any thoughts?

Who cares.....as long as the checks keep coming in. :thumbup:

Painters start with a blank canvas and do anything they want.

Photographers have to take what is in front of their camera and go from there. We use different apertures to alter DOF, we use supplimental light, we use props, ghasp!, we put makeup on models, choose the cloths. Come on!

 

[SrBiscuit]

im also a member of "camp who cares"

 

[Mendoza]

For me, when the content of a photograph is significantly altered--such as adding elements or applying an effect--it becomes a "photomanipulation" (or whatever you want to call it.) The criteria for evaluating a photomanipulation are different than those for a photograph, which is why it's usually important to distinguish between the two. (Naturally there's a gray area.)

 

[sanchezka]

I understand that I'd get many "who cares" or "what's the big deal" and I suspect every one of those comments is from someone that EXTENSIVELY manipulates photos and that’s fine, to each his own.

The reason I brought this up in the first place was because of the following. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-gallery/189310-before-after-post-example.html (P.S. Knawx - I appologize if I some how offend you for using your work as an example, it just happend to be a post I remembered)

This is just one example and I understand Knawx was showing what was possible. I appreciate the time and effort put into something like this but when someone tries to pass the second one off as an actual photo and not something completely fabricated....that's when I have issues. (I understand that this is not the case with Knawx in this example).

It seem like instead of waiting for the perfect light (sunrise / sunset etc), it is easier (I prefer lazier) to just take picture at your convenience and Photoshop the picture into something you could of actually taken if you had shown up at sunrise. I think you get my point, but I've beaten this horse enough.:er:

I appreciate everyone's comments, I was trying to see if I'm way off base here because for some reason I feel very strongly about this.

 

[KmH]

I understand that I'd get many "who cares" or "what's the big deal" and I suspect every one of those comments is from someone that EXTENSIVELY manipulates photos and that’s fine, to each his own.

Your comment and capitalization are both uncalled for, and your "that's fine, to each his own" is disingenous.

 

[themedicine]

I thought he was being quite saccharine with the whole thing....

 

[epp_b]

You have only 16 posts here, so you're pretty new at TPF. Based on your photo posts, I assume that you're relatively new to photography as well. That's not an insult, just an observation.

First of all, your claim sounds very ... "rockwellian" (if you know what I'm saying, do yourself favour and stay away from that site, if you don't know what I'm saying, just ignore this paragraph ).

I went through this stage early on, too. The stage where you believe that photography must a pure, unadulterated craft of right place, right time, right know-how. While those three factors will always play a large part, you will eventually come to realize processing plays an equally-significant role in creating the end result

And there you have it: the "end result". That's is the only thing that matters. How you get there is up to you and there is no right or wrong way to do it. Look at it this way: a photo is simply a template or starting point on which to base your work.

A very similar situation,but sort of in reverse of today's current situation, occurred in the 1920's, as the pictorialist ideas were replaced by fairly rigid "straight photography" as advocated by the f/64 Group, which had some notable members like Edward Weston, Imogen Cunnigham and Willard Van Dyke,and Ansel Adams. The f/64 group dismissed, often very maliciously and with much malice, any and all photography done in anything but PURELY PHOTOGRAPHIC style--which meant no etching on negatives, no hand pencil work on negatives, and in short, no "artsy" techniques that were reminiscent of drawing or painting or anything like that. They disliked, bitterly, shallow depth of field photographs, soft focus effects, and ethereal images.

William Mortensen was a photographer who Ansel Adams went after for years in a pathetic and disgusting effort to discredit a very talented pictorialist--one of the most underreported and shameful aspects of Adams' entire life.

So....the more things change, the more they stay the same...

Fascinating! Thanks for that.