Photoshop Debate

[TakenAptly]

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

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

I apologize. I'm new to photography and I was out of line talking about something I do not know very much about. Thanks for correcting me.

Still the same, I do think there is a point where editing becomes digital art and less about photography. I think there has to be a line somewhere, I don't know where, but it's there.

 

[flea77]

A lot of people I know divide this into two categories:

The first, photography, is capturing the scene as it was seen. Slight manipulations on a computer to make the scene look more like it did in real life do not alter it, but enhance it.

The second is when you change the scene, and this is not photography, it is graphic arts. It does NOT matter if you did it in the darkroom or on a computer, you changed the scene.

I also get annoyed at all the people saying "if they could do it in the dark room then I can do it in photoshop" when someone says they do not like photoshopped images. The problem is that they may have been ABLE to do it in the darkroom, but the people complaining about photoshopped images probably would not approve of the manipulation whether it is done in photoshop, in a darkroom, on a canvas, or chiseled in stone.

Personally, and only in my little opinion, I dislike images in the second category as a general rule. An overdone HDR to me, or a color image that has been desaturated, is no different than this magazine cover:

Allan

 

[c.cloudwalker]

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

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

I apologize. I'm new to photography and I was out of line talking about something I do not know very much about. Thanks for correcting me.

Still the same, I do think there is a point where editing becomes digital art and less about photography. I think there has to be a line somewhere, I don't know where, but it's there.

Believe me you are far from the only one who thinks HDR is new. There is very little new in photography.

As far as a line, there shouldn't be one if we are talking about art. If we are talking about commercial work, the wants of the client is your line. Very simple and easy.

 

[Buckster]

I don't personally understand the mentality of folks who "hate" and "have a real problem" with what anyone else does with their own photos or their own art. For me, how a person gets to a finished composition is less important than the finished composition itself.

If someone slips a graduated sunset filter in front of the lens during the shoot, or introduces it during the print process in the dark room, or does it digitally in Photoshop, it's all the same to me when I look at the finished product - it either works or it doesn't for that particular composition.

If someone masks and double exposes in front of the camera at the time of the shoot, or later during the making of the print in the darkroom, or takes two separate photos and does it in Photoshop, it's all the same to me when I look at the finished product - it either works for that composition or it doesn't.

If a vignette is placed in front of the camera lens, or in front of the enlarger lens, or done in Photoshop, it's all the same to me - it either works for that composition, or it doesn't.

If a makeup artist covers a model's pimples with Max Factor before the photo is shot, or an artist with a brush paints it out later, or a talented darkroom person uses masks to 'clone' them out, or someone using Photoshop clones or heals them out, it's all the same to me - it either works for that composition, or it doesn't.

If someone has an assistant push wires or branches out of the way while shooting a scene, or an artist with a brush paints them out later, or a talented darkroom person uses masks to 'clone' them out, or someone using Photoshop clones or heals them out, it's all the same to me - it either works for that composition, or it doesn't.

If someone applies sharpening in camera while shooting JPGs, or applies it with an unsharp mask in a darkroom, or uses one of the sharpening methods in Photoshop, it's all the same to me - it either works for that composition, or it doesn't.

When I look at a magazine cover or an album or CD or DVD cover, should I start hating and caring and get all worked up because the name of the magazine or artist and the rest of the writing that's been incorporated as part of the cover art wasn't captured in the camera at the time of the shoot, but was added later by various means? Of course not. That would be silly. But it's just another part of the editing process a photo goes through, and why there's often room left in photos for that copy to be placed later, especially at the top.

And so on, and so on, and so on, and so on...

Editing and enhancing is a fact of life in professional photography, especially in glamor, fashion and product photography. If the intent is print, especially if the intent is print for advertising or promotion of some kind on a grand distribution scale, you can bet somebody somewhere in an art department is going over every square centimeter of it with a fine tooth comb, looking to correct imperfections.

And it has always been that way. Long before Photoshop was even an idea, and even when computers were rooms full of people making calculations with slide rules and adding machines, photos were being enhanced and manipulated at all stages of the craft, from the set up of the shot, all the way through to the final print.

Any photographic media that ever went to print (including Kodachrome), especially for advertising and promotional purposes of magazines, movie stars, fashion, products and so on, was subject to editing and enhancements covering every conceivable 'trick' before the public saw them, and that's just a fact of photographic industry life.

So, all that said, my answer to folks who "hate" Photoshop or Photoshopping or Photoshop users is: "To each his own. C'est la vie..", while I think to myself, "noob..."

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Slight manipulations on a computer to make the scene look more like it did in real life do not alter it, but enhance it.

HDR is not a slight manipulation. However the pure intended goal of it is to make the image match the reality. No camera has/sees the dynamic range that the human eye does. HDR brings the photo back to what the human eyes saw.

Yet it is not a slight manipulation.

 

[molested_cow]

For me, it's all about me trying to express the message I want to convey.
I may see a sight, but there's a message that I want to convey through this sight. Therefore it is the image that I am after, and photography, along with photoshop, dark room and any other method are merely tools that I employ. If the final image does not convey the message that I am trying to tell, then the image is useless to me.

However, I do have things that I don't do. If I am claiming an image to be a photo, I will not add things that didn't exist in the image before. If I don't claim that it is a photo, then it's technically a 2D design piece, well, anything goes as long as I achieve my goal.

 

[Buckster]

If I am claiming an image to be a photo, I will not add things that didn't exist in the image before. If I don't claim that it is a photo, then it's technically a 2D design piece, well, anything goes as long as I achieve my goal.

So, a double (or more) exposure on film in the camera is not a photograph?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

If I am claiming an image to be a photo, I will not add things that didn't exist in the image before. If I don't claim that it is a photo, then it's technically a 2D design piece, well, anything goes as long as I achieve my goal.

So, a double (or more) exposure on film in the camera is not a photograph?

:thumbup:

 

[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.

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.

Because when it gets to this point it is no longer photography, it is more graphic design.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

If I am claiming an image to be a photo, I will not add things that didn't exist in the image before. If I don't claim that it is a photo, then it's technically a 2D design piece, well, anything goes as long as I achieve my goal.

Well, I guess you should let collectors know that Jerry Uelsmann is not a photographer.

Jerry Uelsmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Buckster]

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.

Because when it gets to this point it is no longer photography, it is more graphic design.

To me, photography has always been about graphic design; photoGRAPHIC design.

From the concept, to the set dressing, to the model selection, to the clothing and makeup, to the lighting, to the lens choice, to the DOF and shutter speed, to the filters, to the film choice, to the developing method, to the paper choice - it's ALL about designing a final GRAPHIC image, isn't it?

 

[Plato]

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

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

How did they do it with film? I figure they had to start with multiple transparencies but what next?

 

[CSR Studio]

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

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

I apologize. I'm new to photography and I was out of line talking about something I do not know very much about. Thanks for correcting me.

Still the same, I do think there is a point where editing becomes digital art and less about photography. I think there has to be a line somewhere, I don't know where, but it's there.

I agree but there is a lot of things that used to be done in camera that are now done with software, that is still photography. Where I think the line is is when the image that is taken is lost in everything else because it is not a good image and therefore needs to be fixed. Then it becomes graphic art to me.

 

[CSR Studio]

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.

Because when it gets to this point it is no longer photography, it is more graphic design.

To me, photography has always been about graphic design; photoGRAPHIC design.

From the concept, to the set dressing, to the model selection, to the clothing and makeup, to the lighting, to the lens choice, to the DOF and shutter speed, to the filters, to the film choice, to the developing method, to the paper choice - it's ALL about designing a final GRAPHIC image, isn't it?

Photographic is painting with light. If that is what you are doing then it is photography. However, trying to fix a bad image in photoshop is not photography. I think you are ignoring the light part.

 

[Buckster]

Because when it gets to this point it is no longer photography, it is more graphic design.

To me, photography has always been about graphic design; photoGRAPHIC design.

From the concept, to the set dressing, to the model selection, to the clothing and makeup, to the lighting, to the lens choice, to the DOF and shutter speed, to the filters, to the film choice, to the developing method, to the paper choice - it's ALL about designing a final GRAPHIC image, isn't it?

Photographic is painting with light. If that is what you are doing then it is photography. However, trying to fix a bad image in photoshop is not photography. I think you are ignoring the light part.

I'm just pointing out that photography incorporates and is very much about graphic design; That the two terms are not mutually exclusive to one another.

I think that saying, "trying to fix a bad image in Photoshop is not photography" is the same as saying, "trying to fix a bad image in developing is not photography" or "trying to fix a bad image in the darkroom is not photography" or "trying to fix a bad image in the print process is not photography". In all cases, it is simply a way of working with an image captured with light.

I can't find any legitimate reason to summarily disqualify any particular set of tools or techniques used in working with images captured with light anywhere from concept to final print, but that's just me. Your mileage may vary.