Should photoshop creations be admitted to up front?

[rexbobcat]

Less philosophy, more photography.

You know it doesn't work like that.

 

[nmoody]

I guess it really doesn't matter to me. Depending on the style it may call for a lot of work to be done. Photoshop is a skill just like photography, they go hand in hand in some cases and play off each other.

I personally don't know how to use photoshop yet, lightroom is my PP tool.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Less philosophy, more photography.

You know it doesn't work like that.

Yeah. I know.

Some people like to talk about creating.
Some people like to create.

*shrug*

 

[amolitor]

Complaining that people are talking too much about photography.. on an internet forum about photography?

Now that's weird.

 

[pixmedic]

Complaining that people are talking too much about photography.. on an internet forum about photography?

Now that's weird.

As weird as complaining about someone complaining about people talking too much on an Internet forum?

(this could go on a while)

 

[fjrabon]

As weird as complaining about someone complaining about people talking too much on an Internet forum?

(this could go on a while)

I for one applaud these debates about the level and nature of discussion, but would like to see more visual images as well.

 

[Ilovemycam]

runnah: I think the OP is referring to instances where the elements of a photo are substantially changed, like taking a photo of a building, and a photo of a person looking a tree, and combining them so the person is now standing in the photo looking at the building.

All depends on the OP--if you wanna, do it. If you don't wanna, don't.

For me, personally, I tend to go with the notion that if I *feel* like I'm trying to "pull something over" on people, it might be disingenuous. If I'm just creating art, and I wouldn't feel guilty or embarrassed about it if someone pointed it out, then I'd have no qualms about posting the photo without mentioning the alterations.
If, however, I am changing the photo in order to mislead people into thinking I've captured something I haven't, that's different. FOR ME, examples of this would be: Maybe I shot a photo of my niece playing soccer and it's a great shot except that I missed by a millisecond and the ball isn't in the picture, so I photoshop the ball into the picture. Personally, I'd be upfront about having done it, because otherwise if people starting telling me what great timing it was or something, I'd FEEL like I'd been less than honest.

But those are my own personal rules. Since I haven't (yet) been appointed to TPF Grand Master Ethics Police, I don't get to say what the rules are for anyone else.

Good summation.

All you don't cares? Guess you are giving a green light to news agencies to make up as they go.

I read some members that praise this or that as a "great capture." If images are made up of a number of unrelated photos, how great a capture was it? Maybe great shopped image, but that is it.

 

[rexbobcat]

Good summation.

All you don't cares? Guess you are giving a green light to news agencies to make up as they go.

I read some members that praise this or that as a "great capture." If images are made up of a number of unrelated photos, how great a capture was it? Maybe great shopped image, but that is it.

Great image /=/ Great photograph

Neither is of less or more value than the other.

I mean there are some great photographs, but that's all they are. They ain't no Da Vinci painting amiright?

:rollin mah eyes:

 

[Buckster]

All you don't cares? Guess you are giving a green light to news agencies to make up as they go.

Maybe they're just answering your specific scenario/question: "(For forums, photo blogs, etc.)".

If you want to set up a new poll and ask a new question that's specifically about whether news agencies should be allowed to do it, you might get a completely different set of answers.

 

[amolitor]

News organizations do tend to have this wonderfully hilarious bull about "no photoshop" or similar. And editor worth his pay can lie JUST as well with a crop as with an erasure. The public statements about no photoshopping, no alteration "except for..." are just a smokescreen. What they're really saying is "we don't lie, we PROMISE". In the first place, of course they lie, and in the second place the only thing that really matters is how much they lie.

 

[Buckster]

And editor worth his pay can lie JUST as well with a crop as with an erasure.

That's a good point and one that's brought up from time to time. But even a crop isn't necessary. The "lie" can be accomplished simply by choosing the composition at the time the shot's made. A composition shifted two feet to one side or the other or up or down can turn the visual story 180 degrees.