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..."
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42452-e36799eaff36dca02ffc57ce660e5e20.jpg?1734176992)
