Photoshop Debate

[BmDubb]

I was out at a local public ( Live 1800's Farm ) today taking pictures.. I ran into another Photog there taking shots. We got to talking. And I was telling him how I use photoshop to " touch " up my photos, and put the final touches on them etc. He was saying he " hates when photographers use photo editing software to enhance there images... " and says " It takes the art out of photography.

I told him I personally thought it actually envolved more artistic ability... Because its art when you find the picture.. and shoot the picture... And its also a form of art when you're editing the photo.. Seeing the photo and what would look better and make the photo stand our more, and applying it...

I was just curious as to where some of you would stand on this subject if you were in this conversation. I know probably 50% or more of photographers edit there photos.. Anyways, just an innocent, curious discussion?

 

[Plato]

Well, I used to feel his way until I tried it myself!

 

[robbie_vlad]

I use photoshop to touch up my photos personally. What most people who dont like photoshop don't understand is that almost anything you can do in photoshop can be done in the dark room with film if you have the know-how....

 

[Felix0890]

I agree with your comment on photoshop being artistic too. Why? I believe photography is a way of showing someone a subject from a different point of view. Photoshop allows you to manipulate what reaction and emotions you get from your audience. You can't always just take a picture of your subject and have your targeted result appear. Sure, if you're very artistic you can go capture an emotion in a shot without PP, however, some complex and more artistic projects cannot be achieved without doing this.

In the end, nobody has the right to say that something is not an art. As long as you do that something with passion, anything can be, and is a form of art.

 

[Plato]

I use photoshop to touch up my photos personally. What most people who dont like photoshop don't understand is that almost anything you can do in photoshop can be done in the dark room with film if you have the know-how....

I shot mostly Kodachrome and you can't do anything with Kodachrome in the darkroom. That's probably why it took me a while to try digital PP.

 

[Overread20]

I think its easy for people ot think that any application of photoshop is cheating on the image because photographers "back in the day of flim" didn't have photoshop. What many forget is that photographers back then did have editing methods - the darkroom - where all sorts of tricks and methods were used to optimise the shots they got.

Also many people think that JPEGs are unedited from the camera - when in truth they are edited with processing software inside. Its no difference if the camera or the photographer do those edits, save that the photographer can have far more control and put those changes specifically where they want them to be at the specific amounts, rather than just letting automatic camera codes do it for them

The rules are still the same - you cannot take a horrific shot and improve it to a fantastic shot in photoshop - the data is not there to improve on the original shot. So getting things right in camera is just as important as it was in the past. What can be done is you can enhance certain areas to get round limitations in the camera itself as well as specify certain process on certain areas.
For example you can edit shots so that highlights are not so glaring - or raise the darks a little - sharpen certain areas only rather than the whole shot.

Where does it become cheating? Well that line is hard to draw - though we all have our own ideas of where it lands for us. Myself I will happily heal out dustspots on images and even clone out sticks and other small things that obscure the end resulting image - Things that I would have fixed infield if I had the chance, but often do not.

 

[Jeffro]

I think there is a time for everything. If they added a new techy thing to a camera and it edited the pic in camera that is still an enhancement, would he not use that either.? I really dont like shots that are over photoshopped and you know it could not be done with out PS. but Straight out of the camera and you have PS why not use it.


I think it comes down to people that dont know how to use PS complain about it!

But as a bonus there are still competitions that wont let you use any computer editing.

 

[ann]

anything i can do in the darkroom why not on a digital file.

on the other hand it does drive me crazy for the idea, "i don't have to have good technique, i will just fix it in ......" fill in the blank.

 

[CSR Studio]

anything i can do in the darkroom why not on a digital file.

on the other hand it does drive me crazy for the idea, "i don't have to have good technique, i will just fix it in ......" fill in the blank.

I couldn't agree more. I use photoshop the way I use the darkroom. Density correction, color correction, dodge, burn, crop but that is where it stops. I have a real problem with "photographers" that have to fix their images with software. And unfortunately there are far too many that do that.

 

[dyyylan]

anything i can do in the darkroom why not on a digital file.

on the other hand it does drive me crazy for the idea, "i don't have to have good technique, i will just fix it in ......" fill in the blank.

I couldn't agree more. I use photoshop the way I use the darkroom. Density correction, color correction, dodge, burn, crop but that is where it stops. I have a real problem with "photographers" that have to fix their images with software. And unfortunately there are far too many that do that.

But what's wrong with that? Other than the people that just slap photoshop filters onto their myspace pictures and call them "artsy", digital editing software is just another extension of artistic expression. To me, that's like criticizing a painter for using oil paints instead of acrylics because they dry slower and let you play with it too much.

 

[TakenAptly]

I don't care either way personally.

Though I must say, I hold them as 2 completely different types of photography. There's "pure" photography, and then there's photoshop'd. I'm not going to say which is "better or worse" because it's completely subjective. (when I say this I don't mean pure as in completely unedited. I don't mind mild corrections (you know what I mean) But HDR and more intensified editing techniques is just not pure photography.) It's get's where it isn't even photography, it's just digital art.

I mean comeon.. some photos are so edited that you might as well just be making a picture in photoshop. I don't mind those pictures, they're often very amazing... but it starts to get where it's less about photography and more just digital art. I hope this makes sense.. I'm damn tired lol.

But what's wrong with that? Other than the people that just slap photoshop filters onto their myspace pictures and call them "artsy", digital editing software is just another extension of artistic expression. To me, that's like criticizing a painter for using oil paints instead of acrylics because they dry slower and let you play with it too much.

I agree with that first bit.. But there needs to be a boundary somewhere.. If we're just talking about photography as an art form, then you're right.. that's just an extension of artistic expression and it's perfectly alright. But at what point does it quit being photography and start being digital art where you just started as a photograph initially? Would that be considered the same thing? Is that something different than just "photography"?

With the major changes in photography from film to digital and now we have programs such as photoshop these are questions that are eventually going to need answers.

 

[DennyCrane]

There's an indefinable border you can cross at some point where a photo turns from something nice to something people immediately point at and say "That's been shopped". It's different on every photo, but in my humble opinion, it's like a woman's makeup. The best makeup job is one where you can't tell it's been used.

Artificial lens flairs, faked blurs, added textures... yeah... you went over the line. Compensating saturation, a little tweak of the sharpness, a little more or less contrast. That's no different that what a good photo lab would do with a pro's film. And don't get me started on all the air-brushing used in magazines over the years before digital photography.

Digital post-production is a great tool to make a good shot better. When it's used to make a bad shot presentable, the end result is usually worse than the original.

 

[Chuck]

Well, then, in that case: Tell him he's cheating by not using charcoal and paper to draw the scene.

That would be real art. . .

 

[c.cloudwalker]

PhotoShop (or editing software) is to digital photography what the darkroom, filters, choice of film, and all kinds of other manipulations were to film photography. Debate Over!

I really dont like shots that are over photoshopped and you know it could not be done with out PS.

If I ever take time to scan some of my old stuff, you'll probably c&c that it is over PhotoShopped :lmao: but it is 100% film and a lot of hard work. Frankly, that style of images is what finally got me to buy a DSLR. Once I know how to use PS, I'll spend hours on a photo instead of days. What's wrong with that?

anything i can do in the darkroom why not on a digital file.

on the other hand it does drive me crazy for the idea, "i don't have to have good technique, i will just fix it in ......" fill in the blank.

Although I agree with this as a general principle, one has to admit that sometimes it is possible to get a beautiful image out of something that started as trash. And in that case, what's wrong with that?

At one of my shows, a few photographers complained that my work looked like the stuff in their darkroom trashcan... They didn't have much more to say though when I asked them why they didn't frame it.


The problem we have on forums and one of the reasons we have thread such as this is that there are plenty of members spending way more time nitpicking everything than creating images.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

But HDR and more intensified editing techniques is just not pure photography.)

HDR has been around since the 1930s. It is photography.