Some think it's a sin...

[tkareb]

I've come across the odd photographer who thinks that any manipulation or alteration, including contrast or color enhancement is against the principles of good photography. Personally I couldn't get along without my graphics editing software. It would be wonderful if we all were able to always be at the right place at the right time but for most of us that's just not possible. I like Landscape Photography and I have yet to be in the circumstance where light, contrast, haze, position of the sun, etc. all combined to give the perfect result. Of course I'm no Ansell Adams.

 

[Neil S.]

I've come across the odd photographer who thinks that any manipulation or alteration, including contrast or color enhancement is against the principles of good photography. Personally I couldn't get along without my graphics editing software. It would be wonderful if we all were able to always be at the right place at the right time but for most of us that's just not possible. I like Landscape Photography and I have yet to be in the circumstance where light, contrast, haze, position of the sun, etc. all combined to give the perfect result. Of course I'm no Ansell Adams.

I dont even understand how this is possible when shooting digital.

The camera already "manipulates" the shot itself automatically, before it is even opened for editing.

Also the presets that you use "manipulate" the image, for example picture styles.

This mentality could only apply to film photography in my opinion.

 

[IlSan]

This is always an interesting topic - heard both sides of the story, and well - agree with Neil here - the camera manipulates the image.

An unmanipulated digital image (from a digital camera) is hence not possible, unless I am really missing out on somehting here.
So...if the image is already manipulated, then there is only really a differentiation (in my opinion) between heavy edit or light edit (could add medium edit, but yeah)...

Knowing how to manipulate an image so that it still looks good (ideally better than the "original") is an art in itself - and I do know of quite a few photographers that are too lazy to learn this, and then spin around accusing those that do know how to do it of being "fake" photographers.

IMHO - photoshopping (or whatever one is using) is nowadays a part of the modern photographer.

 

[RobWyse]

This mentality could only apply to film photography in my opinion.

Nope, just the process of developing the film and exposing and developing the print will be manipulation of some sort, and that's if you decide not to use any of the large range of editing techniques available in the darkroom.

 

[IlSan]

One could almost say, that there is no unaltered image....

 

[tkareb]

This is always an interesting topic - heard both sides of the story, and well - agree with Neil here - the camera manipulates the image.

An unmanipulated digital image (from a digital camera) is hence not possible, unless I am really missing out on somehting here.
So...if the image is already manipulated, then there is only really a differentiation (in my opinion) between heavy edit or light edit (could add medium edit, but yeah)...

Knowing how to manipulate an image so that it still looks good (ideally better than the "original") is an art in itself - and I do know of quite a few photographers that are too lazy to learn this, and then spin around accusing those that do know how to do it of being "fake" photographers.

IMHO - photoshopping (or whatever one is using) is nowadays a part of the modern photographer.

'Fake Photographer' - that's what I meant to say that some of my 'friends' have called me because I edit most of my photos, film AND digital. For example - the only filter I use with digital is a polarizer and I always edit in PS or JASK. It's rather insulting to be called a fake, eh?:lmao:

 

[Neil S.]

This is always an interesting topic - heard both sides of the story, and well - agree with Neil here - the camera manipulates the image.

An unmanipulated digital image (from a digital camera) is hence not possible, unless I am really missing out on somehting here.
So...if the image is already manipulated, then there is only really a differentiation (in my opinion) between heavy edit or light edit (could add medium edit, but yeah)...

Knowing how to manipulate an image so that it still looks good (ideally better than the "original") is an art in itself - and I do know of quite a few photographers that are too lazy to learn this, and then spin around accusing those that do know how to do it of being "fake" photographers.

IMHO - photoshopping (or whatever one is using) is nowadays a part of the modern photographer.

'Fake Photographer' - that's what I meant to say that some of my 'friends' have called me because I edit most of my photos, film AND digital. For example - the only filter I use with digital is a polarizer and I always edit in PS or JASK. It's rather insulting to be called a fake, eh?:lmao:

You got some pretty hardcore friends lol.

 

[12sndsgood]

i kinda feel like that in some respects. it kind of goes both ways. i can see a pure photographers point that it takes talent and dedication to be at a place at the right time. to set the picture exactly how you want it and shoot it and get that great picture. versus someone who just walks up takes a shot. goes back to the computer, takes the sky from another picture and pastes it on. removes whatever he doesn't like and just changes it to how he likes. from a strictly photography standpoint that is kinda making the picture fake, because that wasnt what was there. your changing the image to suit your needs. so it really comes down to wether your a photographer or an artist. im young as far as picking up the hobby and enjoy editing my pics to get the best results. and looking at pics it has been a little dissapointing when you see a beautiful picture and wonder how they managed to capture that picture, then you find out that half of it was from some other picture that has been cut and pasted with 3 other pictures to make that image. my goal is to learn to take the best photos i can and do as little editing as possible. so im somewhere in the middle i think.

 

[ghache]

If your friends are telling you that photoshop makes you a fake photographer. Drop the friends. Photoshop is the only and only friend you have. :lmao:

However, there is some few rare cases where i uploaded some pictures on my computer and there was basicly nothing i had to do to the pictures. they just looked fine they way they did BUT my friend photoshop was talking to me any way. After removing some blemishes, few raw settings, it was looking even better. Good post-processing technique can make a well taken pictures turn into a really good picture...

 

[pbelarge]

Before electronics, and software there was........................................................................the dark room.....a very sinister place where the public had no idea that photographers were using chemicals and genious to manipulate the shots from their cameras.


So don't let them tell you what you are doing is fake. It is a form of the art that has taken a different direction. If it does bother one, that person does not have to do anything to their images.

Also, film has chemicals on it. Each different type of film does something a little different to the image, just look at all the different types of film over the years.

Go out, shoot, and have some fun. Do not worry about others, life is too short.

 

[Overread]

We have to remember that many people who shot film (especailly colour film) were never in a darkroom (sure you can process it yourself, but you had to be super rich and very good to process colour film at home). So it stands to reason that many resulted with the view that film could come from the camera "pure" ie without any editing. They were unaware that when sent for processing the colour film would go through a limited range of editing phases to result in the final negative and prints they would get.

That is part one - part two (and this applied to even those that worked at home with black and white film processing) stem the "Photoshop is cheating" mostly from the viewpoint that they don't understand what is going on with digital editing. They get some feeling that what they learnt in the film era (ie getting it right in camera) is somehow no longer valid and that the decades of skill and time they spent is now somehow devalued next to the mystical wizardry of photoshop.

In the end many can be converted to accepting the use and understanding the point and place of photoshop through a very simple introduction to editing - and that is honestly what many prints and shots go through - only a selective small amount of processing which is needed to go from the camera negative to the finished product - and that its not all replacing skies and chop changing things around.

 

[akeigher]

Just remember, a lot of the magic of an Ansel Adams print comes from how he processed it. He may not have had Photoshop or HDR - but he manipulated his negatives in development and in printing.

I think photographers who cant see that this is just a natural progression are just cranky, lol.

 

[ghache]

Just remember, a lot of the magic of an Ansel Adams print comes from how he processed it. He may not have had Photoshop or HDR - but he manipulated his negatives in development and in printing.

I think photographers who cant see that this is just a natural progression are just cranky, lol.

Mostly old photographers who doesnt know **** about computers.

:mrgreen:

Even my seniors pictures from high school where re-touched. That was in 2002

 

[ottor]

Agreed !! ............. If someone thinks that the fantastic photographs of Ansel Adams came straight out of his camera, they just haven't studied the artist .... His darkroom manipulations made his photographs what they are !

I would like to think if he were alive today, he'd be on these boards arguing the pros/cons of Canon vs Nikon, and which Photoshop plugins are the best .... :mrgreen:

r

 

[Overread]

I would like to think if he were alive today, he'd be on these boards arguing the pros/cons of Canon vs Nikon, and which Photoshop plugins are the best .... :mrgreen:

r

Pfft don't be silly - AA would be a Hassy shooter far above the likes of us lowly mortal canon/nikon shooters
:lmao: