Photoshop and Photography!

[drdan]

Yes but what if the camera did not capture the alpenglow as it really looked to you but you can get it to look like what you really saw by subtle manipulation in PS. That sounds like exactly what Ansel Adams was doing to me.

If I'm taking a picture of Alpenglow it's because I want to share that experience with someone who wasn't there. Despite my best efforts the camera does not have the range of the human eye and may not be able to get all of the "real" look that I experienced. If I can use PS to get closer to what I actually experienced then that is a MORE accurate represention of the moment I was trying to preserve, not less and not fake.

It seems like people sometimes assume that what the camera captured is true "reality" and if it doesn't measure up to what we saw then it's our memories that are faulty. Well, I don't think that's necessarily so. Even people who know the camera can't "see" everything the human eye can, are adamant that only what the camera recorded is real. I want the person viewing the picture to experience what I experienced no matter how I get there.

A good example is trying to get shots of late afternoon sun in aspen groves with a lot of lush greenery underneath. It's been my experience that this is difficult to photograph well primarily because the camera cannot adapt to see everything with all the contrast of light and shadow, white trunks and dark green leaves and undergrowth like the human eye can. I'm quite sure there are people who can use their camera more effectively than I in such conditions but IMO PS can allow a photographer to get a more accurate representaton of what it's like in a grove like that than the camera alone can.

As has been said, some film does not give "true" colors. That's also true of digital sensors. My Sony, for instance, tends to give pictures that are slightly too cool and green under certain conditions. Which would be more fake, correcting those colors closer to how they really look or letting them stand as they came from the camera?

I certainly understand the distaste for pictures that are supposed to be reality but are manipulated to the point that they don't really resemble what you would see in person. There are shots of Hawaii on a certain website that are all oversaturated. They kind of catch the eye at first but are irritating to use as a monitor background, mostly because they just don't feel or look "right" after a short while.

I know use of PS can get into some very gray areas. That doesn't mean that all enhancements are fake however.

 

[Harpper]

This discussion is really in two parts...1) PS being used for photo correction 2) PS being used for photo manipulation.

I can understand how someone might be against number 2 when it comes to photography but PS being used for the first reason is just the same as someone correcting their photos in camera and with tools like filters. Drdan brought up a good point in his last post. Cameras don't always capture what the human eyes see. In order to compensate for that flaw there is a handful of tools photographers can use like filters, extra lighting, using different film, or changing settings in digital cameras.

How is that really different than using PS to do the same corrections? Sure, you get the luxury of doing all in one setting/program but the results are the same. If you are against that then you shouldn't never use any kind of "traditional" hardware photograhpy tools.

This whole trying to go for "real" photographs by only using the camera is kind of a silly concept if you ask me. Drdan already mentioned some of the limitations from camera only shots but I'll give more examples. Try using a really wide angle lense and take pictures of straight lines near the edges of the lenses. Most likely you won't get straight lines but our eyes don't have this problem. So is that picture you took consider real or would correcting it in PS to make it look more like what our eyes see consider more real?

You also limit yourself greatly if you can't use tools like PS to make corrections. Basically the conditions have to be perfect for you to take "real" shots. For example, pictures taken during noon hours aren't the best time for photography but with PS you can make them decent and normal looking depending on your PS skills. It's just like carrying around filters, speedlights, etc to shot in less than ideal situations. PS let's you do the same.

As for using PS to manipulation photos it can be pretty easy to tell if someone has used PS too much. If you can't tell then I think the person has done a pretty good job of getting the picture "real". As good as PS is it still can't do the impossible. I mean if the picture is really crappy PS might make it look decent but it's not going to be a prize winner. Also like someone said early, too much use of PS can actually make the picture look worst.

You should really think of PS as a touch up/correction tool. It's always better to get the best picture you can out of the camera and then fix any remaining problems with PS. It's really up to the user if they want to make their pictures to look more real or unreal. I'm sure some of you will be surprised at how many "real" pictures have been touched up with PS to make them look that way. Basically, PS compensate for the camera's limitations...real or unreal.

 

[markc]

This discussion is really in two parts...1) PS being used for photo correction 2) PS being used for photo manipulation.

Yeah, it seems that people automatically assume Photoshop = flying purple cows.

I think a lot of it comes down to the human need to catagorize. It's something we need to do in order to mentally function, but it often gets in the way of seeing outside the box.

I think a lot of the bands who are being called punk now are really just alt-rock. Some of my favorite music is a mix of metal and rap. Which should it be called? (yeah, I know; some of you would say "junk")

A friend of mine brought up a really good point the other day while several of us were debating some definitions. The dictionary is not some sort of holy books who's definitions are sacrosanct and unchanging. It is a book of words and their meaning at this current time. The dictionary is not meant to limit the growth of our languange, it's meant to represents our current cultural state. That's why they are constantly being updated.

I guess it doesn't really matter how we as indiviuals use the words we do. Society as a whole determines where our language goes. That's why bad is good and hot is cool.

 

[ksmattfish]

Yeah, it seems that people automatically assume Photoshop = flying purple cows.

And on the flipside, people think film photography and it must be a 100% accurate capture of reality, but this is rarely the case.

 

[ksmattfish]

Here are some quotes I've always liked, and seem somewhat relevant to this discussion...

Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution. -Ansel Adams

When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my minds eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without. -Ansel Adams

Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs. -Ansel Adam

Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships! -Ansel Adams

The use of the term "art medium" is, to say the least, misleading, for it is the artist that creates a work of art not the medium. It is the artist in photography that gives form to content by a distillation of ideas, thought, experience, insight and understanding. -Edward Steichen

In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability. -Edward Steichen


Look and think before opening the shutter. The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera. -Yousuf Karsh

To convey in the print the feeling you experienced when you exposed your film - to walk out of the darkroom and say: "This is it, the equivalent of what I saw and felt!". That's what it's all about. -John Sexton

In photography we talk about illusions. -John Sexton

The contemporary artist...is not bound to a fully conceived, previsioned end. His mind is kept alert to in-process discovery and a working rapport is established between the artist and his creation. While it may be true, as Nathan Lyons stated, 'The eye and the camera see more than the mind knows,' is it not also conceivable that the mind knows more than the eye and the camera can see? -Jerry Uelsmann

You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus. -Mark Twain

These and many more quotes can be found at
http://www.photoquotes.com/
which someone here on thephotoforum.com turned me on to.

 

[markc]

Wow! Good stuff, Matt. I wish I could have met Adams. It sounds like he was a really cool guy.

I've seen quotes from several people who have worked with him that say he would have been into digital photography big-time, because for him it was all about the image at the end, not the process.

I always used to think he would have been a stuffy guy to have come up with something as anal as the zone system, but after learning more about him, I realized that he wasn't try to limit people to the "right" way to make a photograph as he saw it, he was trying to find the most perfect way to go about it with the tools at hand.

 

[ksmattfish]

I have no doubt he'd love digital photography, and he even discussed it in his auto-biography. Of course only briefly as it was still far away into the future then. By the way, Ansel's auto-biography is pretty interesting, I read it last year. It'll really change your perception of him.

 

[markc]

I didn't realize he wrote one. Man, another book to go on the list.

 

[joseph]

I agree with Harpper. No issue with using any technology e.g. PS to represent the "real." I used the "enhance" functions of PS to saturate colors because my D100 exposure and the camera's electronics "undersaturated." I did my best to represent the color as I remember it and actually checked out my perceptions with traveling companions. My issue is with manipulating the photo to have "unreal" colors as an example. Again, no issue, art is the eye of the photographer, but should we think about this art form i.e manipulated photos the same as we would if our objective is to have "real" photos? It's not the tools, its the mission.

For example, on my web page, some time ago, I have posted two abstracts (actually not great photos, to say the least) one is "real" the other is a manipulated image. I do not think of the manipulated one as a photo.

I real appreciate the thoughtful commentary in this thread.

 

[terri]

I real appreciate the thoughtful commentary in this thread.

Agreed. This has been an enjoyable read.

 

[Harpper]

My issue is with manipulating the photo to have "unreal" colors as an example. Again, no issue, art is the eye of the photographer, but should we think about this art form i.e manipulated photos the same as we would if our objective is to have "real" photos? It's not the tools, its the mission.

For example, on my web page, some time ago, I have posted two abstracts (actually not great photos, to say the least) one is "real" the other is a manipulated image. I do not think of the manipulated one as a photo.

Well, that's really the heart of the discussion isn't it? There really isn't a definite answer to this question. It comes down to what markc said about the human need to categorize and define something so there is a clear yes or no answer. The problem is that it depends on your definition of what photography is. Everyone's definition is different and it's ok if you only want to achieve "real" photos but let me tell you reality is boring. Some of the best pictures I've seen here and elsewhere aren't "real".

Photo manipulation doesn't only happen in PS and I didn't really want to go into it unless I had to...I guess I have to. Manipulation also happens in-camera but we are all used to it because it's been around for awhile. Let me use markc's photos as an example. There was a thread in the gallery section that Mark took of a little boy. One had him catching a football and the other was with the boy and a tree in the background. Mark if you can link that thread here I would appreciate it. I'm feeling kind of lazy right now...Anyway, in the first picture Mark cropped the picture very close to the boy, used a shallow DOF to blur out the background, had a nice amount of grain which gave a unique artist touch, and lastly it was in B&W. Now how can you tell me that's real unless you have some really screwed up eyes. Also would you or would you not still call those pictures photography? They obviously have been manipulated but I think most people here would still call that photography. The difference is that those methods have been accept in the photography community while PS is still new.

It just depends on how narrow your definition of photography is. For the sake of argument, let's just say the definition of photography should be only for real photos. When I say real here, I mean exactly what your eyes see. This would mean that the only lense you can use is a 50mm prime because that's the closest range our eyes sees. You can use filters to compensate for the camera's lacking ability to represent real colors but you can't use them to give an artistic unreal look. Yes, you don't need PS to do that. You can do that with filters and if you have digital you can easily do that by playing with the white balance. Actually in the future more digital cameras will probably have more PS like functions built into them but since it's in the camera people probably won't have this outcry about PS. For example, I can easily sharping and soften a picture in-camera and taking B&W pictures is as easy as pressing a button. You also can't use any motion blur because that's not real. Basically you have really limited yourself just to get "true" pictures.

Going back to Mark's pictures, to make them real he would have to not crop his picture in an interesting way, focus the background, make it in color, and make the whole picture as sharp as the eyes sees. That sounds pretty close to a snapshot to me, but then again that could just be me. Of course, I'm exaggerating the definition of real to make a point but still. Manipulations happen in just about every form of art and photography is no exception. Would any say Mark's pictures were not photography? I think I have proved that manipulations can happen with traditional photography tools. There's no need for PS when it comes to manipulation. If everything was normal and real I don't think it would be called art but let's not get into a discussion about what's art. A manipulated photo is just a different form of photography just like real life paintings vs abstract painting. They are still both paintings.

Cameras, filters, other traditional camera tools, and PS are just tools to achieve what you the artist want to display to the world. If you want only "real" pictures then more power to you but some of us don't want completely real pictures but rather a venture into the unreal. Could you seriously call Mark's pictures non-photographic or can you serious say his pictures have not been manipulated? Nature and reality doesn't always have the best colors nor are they always framed right with perfect lighting. If they were then photography would be easy. There have been many times that I have made a picture exactly the way I saw it but I then realized that it was the most boring picture I have ever taken.

Let me use another example that's very close to photography. The movie industry had a somewhat similar reaction when digital was introduced, but I think it's safe to say digital has had a major acceptance. For example, Star Wars and The Lord of The Rings weren't shy about using digital manipulations...but are they any less a movie? The creatures they created were definitely unreal as were some of the backgrounds, and if you really have a good eye colors aren't always correct because of several reasons like the real colors are too dull. I forgot the name of this one movie but it had a slight bluish hue through the entire movie for a unique artistic effect. I thought it worked well with the movie style. How can you tell me that's not considered a movie just because it didn't use real colors?

Did you also know that photographic advertisers sometimes paint fruits and other natural items to make them look better and more "normal" or societies' definition of normal? They also paint them different colors for an artist expression or message. How is that different then doing the same thing in PS? Some of the unreal manipulations you can be mimiced in the real world but it's more cost effective and easier to do in PS. For example, if you really want flying purple cows then just paint some cows purple, launch them with a catapult, and take your picture. If you want your flowers to have a richer color just paint them or use PS. Advertisers have been doing that for years before PS came about.

What's real to you may not look good to someone else. If your objective in photography is to only take "real" photos then that's your definition of photography, but that's definitely not my definition. There's really no absolute answer because it just depends on each person's definition. I see PS manipulated pictures as just another form of photographry such as oil, ceramic, finger, and body painting are just different forms of painting.

 

[joseph]

This discussion helped me define my photographic goal as follows: I try to take "real" and hopefully compelling photos, due to optimized composition, light, and so on, so that when the viewer actually observes the subject of the photo he would say "it looks like Joe's photo" and having seen the photo he would have a special appreciation, understanding, meaning etc. of the subject. Now, I carved out something I can work toward, and let me tell ya I have a ways to go....

 

[Harpper]

This discussion helped me define my photographic goal as follows: I try to take "real" and hopefully compelling photos, due to optimized composition, light, and so on, so that when the viewer actually observes the subject of the photo he would say "it looks like Joe's photo" and having seen the photo he would have a special appreciation, understanding, meaning etc. of the subject. Now, I carved out something I can work toward, and let me tell ya I have a ways to go....

Well, I'm glad this discussion has helped you. When you look any art form it really comes down to you the artist and what you are trying to say or display to the world. There's no need to follow a specific idea of what should or should not be done as long as you the artist are happy with the end result.

Good luck to you joseph. No matter what type of photography you choose to do now or in the future I'll always respect you for it. That also goes for everyone else here. I could care less how you guys got to the end result. My philosophy is to just appreciate the outcome because in the end I believe that's all that matters.

 

[danalec99]

Do the photographers in publications like Time, National Geogaphic use PS as well?

 

[markc]

The Photographers probably don't, as usually they just send the images in, but the editors usually do. Think of the original digital capture as a negative and the editing software as the darkroom. Printing a straight digital capture with no editing is like having an 8x10 negative of Kodak Gold that you make a contact print from with average chemicals and average development time (disregarding the resolution of an 8x10 neg).