Photoshop: Cheating or part of the art?

[motcon]

And everyone knows that it's happening in digital photography too.

not necessarily. the print that i described above was hanging, being promoted as a photograph that was taken as is.

 

[Big Mike]

And everyone knows that it's happening in digital photography too.

not necessarily. the print that i described above was hanging, being promoted as a photograph that was taken as is.

Just to play devil's advocate... :twisted:

was the print labeled as "unaltered photograph"? The fact that it was a print, and not an actual piece of exposed film says that it has been altered in some way.

In some ways, I consider photoshop to be the developer for digital photos. Most serious digital photographers would not consider displaying a digital photo without some sort of adjustment...in the same way that traditional photographers would develop their film and then create their print in the way that they saw best.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Hey! Strait or played with - if you like the image does it matter?
We seem to be moving in to a discussion about honesty here: manipulation is OK so long as you are up front about it.
I can normally spot it if I care to look but I pefer to see no evil ;-)

 

[mentos_007]

You see...
I see photoshop as both: part of the art and cheating. Because if you improve your shots, add contrast, clone, crop or whatever else and say that this is a real photo - that is defiately cheating. That means for me that you cannot take a proper or good shot and you have to "improve" it.

BUT on the other hand, when you use photoshop to add frames, remove red-eyes effect or just play with a little bit of enhancing, and you'll tell us that that was post-processed that's ok... maybe it was intentional to add something or remove... everything depends on what you tell us, and how you say it

 

[Youngun]

If you creating photography as a(n):

a)product: then photoshop is certainly a good tool. It's cheap, efficient, and quick. In this case photography is the means to an end. This does not necassarily mean to sell as a product, but your goal is to simply get the best picture. Photoshop is certainly an extremely powerful and creative outlet, but it's not a photographic one. The trend (I said trend, not all, not everyone) I have noticed has been that more people with highly capable digital cameras have no hint of photographic knowledge compared to those with real cameras.

b)art: then photoshop defeats the purpose. Creating photography as art is as much about the means as the end. It's not about efficiency or speed. Painters pain, musicians compose, photographers photograph. It's photographer, not photoshopper.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Now we are getting into a discussion about Art.
In what way is Photoshop not a photographic tool? I think it's perfectly acceptable as such. Artists are always on the cutting edge and use new technology as it comes to hand - they even help it along. Have you seen the wonderful digital work David Hockney is doing at the moment - I think he has a deal with Hewlett-Packard. And look at Da Vinci. It's what you are trying to do that matters and you use whatever you need to get what is in your head out. But if you don't want to use 'shop no one is forcing you to. Just don't think that if tools like shop are used then the Art produced is somehow inferior. It isn't. I only have a problem when technology is used for it's own sake.

 

[railman44]

To me, this is a very personal question. I've used photoshop and made some average pics into much better pics. I, like many here, have created pics in Photoshop that never existed in real life. That's one of the reasons I'm not that comfortable with Photoshop. I don't know if I would call it cheating or even being creative. The creativity to me is when your camera takes a picture after your innate artistry has told you this scene or event should be very good or even great.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

It's just a question of relative realities. It doesn't exist in our universe but it exists within the virtual universe of the computer. No conflict there.
It's entirely possible to imagine things that can't exist in our Universe. You don't think Harry Potter is a real person do you? But we read the books and watch the films and ask: why a Ford Anglia

 

[green]

i am an avid digital photographer. I shot film for many years, and although I love both of them I have started leaning more to digital... mostly because the digital darkroom is just so much more convenient. When I shoot, I am MOST pleased with the photos I take that need no alteration... but really? who wouldn't be? I'd rather take 30 of the same picture with slightly different lighting and settings to get "the shot" than spend an hour or 2 cloning etc. usually, I will still adjust the tonal qualities and dodge and burn... all stuff that can be done in the standard darkroom.

BUT on the flip side... if by chance I catch a moment that i'll never be able to catch again... and there are some power lines that, if taken out, would turn a good shot into an amazing one... then really? whats the problem? most purists would just chuck the photo... waste of perfectly good potential, all because we need power and telephone!

Hey, if you see the world in technicolour and distorted... then more power to you! I'm sure picasso got flack in his day because his pictures weren't true to life. We should all remember that by the time most artists got famous... they were DEAD! by then who KNOWS what will be out there!

 

[Gandalf]

If you creating photography as a(n):

a)product: then photoshop is certainly a good tool. It's cheap, efficient, and quick. In this case photography is the means to an end. This does not necassarily mean to sell as a product, but your goal is to simply get the best picture. Photoshop is certainly an extremely powerful and creative outlet, but it's not a photographic one. The trend (I said trend, not all, not everyone) I have noticed has been that more people with highly capable digital cameras have no hint of photographic knowledge compared to those with real cameras.

b)art: then photoshop defeats the purpose. Creating photography as art is as much about the means as the end. It's not about efficiency or speed. Painters pain, musicians compose, photographers photograph. It's photographer, not photoshopper.

I mostly agree with this too, especially part b.

To me it's about capturing emotion and the moment; not capturing a scene and adding the emotion later.

 

[Canon Fan]

OK, here we go. I am going to start referring to myself as a Digital Image Producer (or I guess a DIP for short eh? )

Photoshop is a tool just as much as negative pens darkroom compsiting techniques are. I don't list every mod I have done when I post a picture but I have never lied about using PS either.

 

[Corry]

This is just another one of those things that everyone is going to have thier own opinion on. Some like it. Some don't. Some view it as cheating, some view it as a useful tool. That's just the way it is and it's not gonna change. As long as you aren't lying to people, then what the hell does it matter?

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Well put CL :thumbsup:

 

[doxx]

if you call it photography = slight manipulations (spotting, levels,
curves, dodging, burning etc.) just the same like in the darkroom...

if you call it digital imaging = full force

my2c

 

[Digital Matt]

Gotta love art. Everyone is constantly trying to classify it, to define it. Photography, digital imaging, traditional art, painting, drawing, sketching, digital painting, fractal art, 3d art.

Art is art. If you like it, great, if you don't fine. Who cares how it was done?