Is photoshop ruining photography


Snootchies

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 13:54
Playing Devils Advocate for a moment, I would expect this to be covered in the T's and C's of the competition. I assume it didn't rule out this type of technique. If so, should the photographer have been treated in this way?
Bob

My website (Hadfield Photography)

Pentax Gallery Artist page:link

Flickr Photostream: link

JAK

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 14:13
I think this is the official page showing the terms and conditions: link

Quote:
Digital adjustments, including High Dynamic Range (HDR) imaging techniques and the joining together of multiple frames, are allowed in all categories. However, for images entered in Classic view, Living the view and Urban view, the integrity of the subject must be maintained and the making of physical changes to the landscape is not permitted (removing fences, moving trees, stripping in sky from another image etc). The organisers reserve the right to disqualify any image that they feel lacks authenticity due to over-manipulation.


John K

gartmore

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 14:20
Enough said in that score
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -

Snootchies

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 14:27
gartmore wrote:
Enough said in that score

Absolutely.
Bob

My website (Hadfield Photography)

Pentax Gallery Artist page:link

Flickr Photostream: link

AndrewA

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 14:30
For me it is about honesty, I tend to keep PP to a minimum, but when I do have a "play" in PSE I always say so.

To me it is important to distinguish between when I have taken a great photograph and when I have created an image.
Andrew

"I'm here because the whiskey is free" - Tyla

PPG link
Flickr link

Snootchies

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 14:39
AndrewA wrote:
For me it is about honesty, I tend to keep PP to a minimum, but when I do have a "play" in PSE I always say so.

I can't argue with that. I have no qualms in doing processing, but I'm always honest about it
Bob

My website (Hadfield Photography)

Pentax Gallery Artist page:link

Flickr Photostream: link
Last Edited by Snootchies on 12/03/2013 - 14:39

CMW

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 14:50
In theory and mainly in practice, I'm a purist in photography. I'm against misrepresentation, as would any right-thinking person be. And while it's not necessarily misrepresentation, importing a more 'pleasing' sky into a picture goes against my personal grain. But where are lines drawn? There is just one photo in my gallery on this site that has been 'Photoshopped' in an extreme sense (ie more than levels, sharpening etc). It is the photo of the interior of St John's Wood tube station. When I got the image off the camera and on to screen, I noticed that the large London Transport roundel showed up in parts a yellowy orange -- where the bulb was closest to the red Perspex front. I didn't like the effect, so filled the roundel with red of the same shade as the unaffected part. Was I 'wrong' to do that? It doesn't feel wrong, and I think it improves the image, but I'm aware that it is not a million miles away from changing a sky or eliminating (as someone wrote earlier in this thread) an unwanted castle, though I must say I'm usually in favour of having castles.

So, I think it is not and easy matter at all and by no means black and white: more yellowy-orange and red....
Regards, Christopher

ChristopherWheelerPhotography

Blythman

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 14:59
The castle I referred to was the ruins of Dunstanburgh Castle.

If you look on this blog http://www.alexnail.com/blog/news-updates/lpoty-2012/

you will see the photo which inspired the shot, as I mentioned earlier. In that shot I think it has Dunstanburgh in the back right of the frame. Its disappeared in David Byrne's picture. Although it is a slightly tighter crop, I still think it should be there
Alan


PPG
Flickr

andrewk

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 14:59
Snootchies wrote:
I can't argue with that. I have no qualms in doing processing, but I'm always honest about it

Yes, but there is "doing processing" and then there's "doing processing". What do you make of the image "Memories" on this web page?

The author describes it as an "image" made from 4 separate exposures. It was produced from photographs taken by the author, but arguably is not a photograph itself.

Thoughts?

Andrew
Flickr photostream
Last Edited by andrewk on 12/03/2013 - 15:21

col55555ine

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 15:09
And to think photography was to record what the film sees, well i think that was the point, way back .... like most digital "items" can be false in respect of your can add a virus to an image, mp's etc , but in the end if you take photo's that your happy with first time,
there's not much you should wish to alter or maybe digital was formed this way to get more money out of us, how much film did you take/use to get the right shot.
When we went to Florida for 21 days in 1990 i used 36 x 36 film rolls with only 10 photo's that where none usable(left us with 1286 photo's)...... maybe when it was
just film, most people couldnt be bothered with developing there own film so just got on with it...
k-5 IIs, Pentax 60-250, 17-70, 100macro WR, 50mm F2,
AF50 F1.4, Siggy 10-20, Siggy 100-300 F4, ..Pentax Af 160 ring flash

wvbarnes

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 15:15
Possibly.

I can not afford Photoshop so get a bit annoyed when asked if I've 'Photoshopped' my pictures to fake people in them etc. I assume the expression is like getting the 'hoover' out to clean the floor.

I use Serif PhotoPlus and usually crop, correct contrast and somtimes pull shadows if I mess up. Mostly I try to get it right at time which is easier given I have an amazing Pentax DSLR, preview screen, histograms etc that I never had in the film era.

I personally wouldn't fake a sky but have great admiration for some fine landscapes I see on here and elsewhere and some patiently captured wildlife that is often stunning. I do see a lot of over saturated landscape prints on sale at fairs and tourist galleries though. Not to my taste as they look like badly printed postcards.I guess they are fashionable and sell though.

Patty

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 15:44
Dont forget lads, If you cannot afford the latest Photoshop, to get an older version (CS2) free from Adobe directly or other sources such as
http://www.techspot.com/downloads/3689-adobe-photoshop-cs2.html .

You too can then enter the big competitions and compete with the best in the world at "photography".

Patty

dangie

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 16:06
Patty wrote:
...You too can then enter the big competitions and compete with the best in the world at "photography".

Patty

Unfortunately even Photoshop can't make a Silk Purse out of a Sow's Ear..!! Or at least with my Sow's Ear's it can't..!!

6th Year Apprentice Pensioner

wvbarnes

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 16:22
[quote:3496ace15f="Patty"]Dont forget lads, If you cannot afford the latest Photoshop, to get an older version (CS2) free from Adobe directly or other sources.

It says here http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html

'Adobe has disabled the activation server for CS2 products, including Acrobat 7, because of a technical issue. These products were released more than seven years ago, do not run on many modern operating systems, and are no longer supported.

Adobe strongly advises against running unsupported and outdated software. The serial numbers below should only be used by customers who legitimately purchased CS2 or Acrobat 7 and need to maintain their current use of these products.'

Snootchies

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 16:43
andrewk wrote:
Snootchies wrote:
I can't argue with that. I have no qualms in doing processing, but I'm always honest about it

Yes, but there is "doing processing" and then there's "doing processing". What do you make of the image "Memories" on this web page?

The author describes it as an "image" made from 4 separate exposures. It was produced from photographs taken by the author, but arguably is not a photograph itself.

Thoughts?

Andrew

My take on that is that it is a piece of art first and foremost. Does it matter how it was produced?
Bob

My website (Hadfield Photography)

Pentax Gallery Artist page:link

Flickr Photostream: link
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.