Photoshop: Cheating or part of the art?

Very very true. But stepping away from the broad topic, look at the top of the explorer bar. It says "The Photo Forum". Not photoshop forum. Not digital forum. Not even art forum. This site is for all things photographic. So if you put a photoshopped pic up for critique isn't it kinda missing the point? So you're right, who cares how art is done? A lot of it is preference. But on a photographic website, I think the focus should be photography.

Across the whole spectrum, my only beef with photoshop is that a lot of people display their photographs as a credit to their photography skills, without acknowledging the non-photographic techniques that went into the image.
 
Youngun said:
This site is for all things photographic.

I think digital photography including the use of photoshop is included in all things photographic.

No amount of photoshop can make a bad photo into a good one. I don't see too many people posting digital photos that have "non photographic" techniques being done to them. The majority of photoshop techniques that digital photographers use are based on darkroom techniques.
 
Well, just like this in this discussion, their are people who believe that an electric guitar with distortion is not a guitar.
 
Does Ashley Simpson cheat when she using a tape at a live performance... :lol: :shock: :lol:
 
While I think you could find many people who prefer the texture and sound of classic acoustic guitar over other forms -- maybe even swear by it, I think relatively few would deny that an electric guitar, when used by the right hands, can produce art.

If Bob Dylan can make the jump, so can we.
 
kenshabby said:
Does a guitarist 'cheat' when he uses a distortion pedal?

No, that does not make sense. That's like using different lenses on your camera.

A better analogy is:

Does a singer cheat if he uses an auto-tuner?
 
I see your point, but let me put it this way.

I see all art as a distortion of reality. Whether you are using a special lens, zoom, color filters, black and white, long exposure times, etc -- or photoshop -- it's all a distortion.

Artistic photography (to me, anyway) always changes reality by framing reality out, and revealing something in a way that is unusual - the artist communicates by forcing a perspective on the viewer - which the viewer must confront.

Getting that image at the second you press the button on your camera isn't what's important. It's using whatever tools, at whatever time, to say something unique about the world.

Saying that photoshop is not art, seems like saying that the Beatles Sgt Pepper album is not art because they didn't record it live, all at once.

I guess what I'm saying is that ALL art is like a distortion pedal, whether it be a lens, or photoshop, or a paintbrush, or a pen.
 
kenshabby said:
I see your point, but let me put it this way.

I see all art as a distortion of reality. Whether you are using a special lens, zoom, color filters, black and white, long exposure times, etc -- or photoshop -- it's all a distortion.

Artistic photography (to me, anyway) always changes reality by framing reality out, and revealing something in a way that is unusual - the artist communicates by forcing a perspective on the viewer - which the viewer must confront.

Getting that image at the second you press the button on your camera isn't what's important. It's using whatever tools, at whatever time, to say something unique about the world.

Saying that photoshop is not art, seems like saying that the Beatles Sgt Pepper album is not art because they didn't record it live, all at once.

I guess what I'm saying is that ALL art is like a distortion pedal, whether it be a lens, or photoshop, or a paintbrush, or a pen.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think anyone is saying that using photoshop isn't art. Art can be whatever you want it to be, so that's a moot point.

What I'm saying is that I have much more respect for the photohrapher that captures an amazing image using only his camera than the artist that creates that amazing image with a computer program.
 
I think they are just two different skills.

Live Music vs. Studio Mastery

as long as you know what you are getting, and somebody is not claiming that the picture is unedited - i find them both equally valid.

There is something very special about an unedited perfect shot.

There is also something very special about a good image, contrast adjusted and cropped to make it a perfectly adjusted shot.
 
Due to the fact that I use a film camera, I don't use photoshop at all. I will probably start using it once I get a scanner though.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top