Is photoshop ruining photography


jeffstclair

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 16:45
I'm not sure I get this , IMHO there is no such thing as 'real' in photography , because a photograph is a two dimensional interpretation of a three dimensional world .
All of the stuff needed to capture that version of reality are variable ,lens, camera ,sensor, or film, and the chemicals used to process that film. They all alter the image to a greater or lesser degree.
This process can sometimes either by design or accident reveal deep truths about this world that we live in,
and those are the photographs that we should value... jeff... I'll get me coat.......

DOIK

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 17:00
Quote:

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..!!

But it can correct the misuse of the apostrophe.





And a lot cheaper.
John

johnriley

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 17:16
So when I was in the darkroom and added skies that weren'y there, dodged, burned, combined negatives...was it wrong?

If it was, then that can be consistent with the argument that too much Photoshop is wrong.

If it wasn't, then all Photoshop does is the same. It's even based on darkroom work in its terminology. In this case, it makes no difference.
Best regards, John

parigby

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 19:00
johnriley wrote:
So when I was in the darkroom and added skies that weren'y there, dodged, burned, combined negatives...was it wrong?

If it was, then that can be consistent with the argument that too much Photoshop is wrong.

If it wasn't, then all Photoshop does is the same. It's even based on darkroom work in its terminology. In this case, it makes no difference.

For you, no it wasn't wrong (such an emotive word ), but for me it was / is.

I suppose all it goes to show is that it is neither right nor wrong - we each do what we are comfortable with.

walkeja

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 19:05
johnriley wrote:
So when I was in the darkroom and added skies that weren'y there, dodged, burned, combined negatives...was it wrong?

If it was, then that can be consistent with the argument that too much Photoshop is wrong.

If it wasn't, then all Photoshop does is the same. It's even based on darkroom work in its terminology. In this case, it makes no difference.

There is a well known image out there of a young man who has ironed his legs. They are completely flat and hanging off the ironimg board. All done on Photoshop. Is that right? I think not.
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member

jeffstclair

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 19:30
There is a well known image out there of a young man who has ironed his legs. They are completely flat and hanging off the ironimg board. All done on Photoshop. Is that right? I think not.[/quote]


I have not seen this photo, but why do you think that it is not 'right' I am very puzzled ? ...jeff....

JAK

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 19:31
wvbarnes wrote:
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.#

Actually, Serif PhotoPlus is pretty well a clone of Photoshop Elements, sharing many of the same menu options and function key shortcuts. I have PSE 11 and Serif PP X5 and it is quite easy to use the Serif program instead of PSE as they both work practically the same. Certainly in regards to using layers sand filters.

John K
John K

JAK

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 19:40
johnriley wrote:
So when I was in the darkroom and added skies that weren'y there, dodged, burned, combined negatives...was it wrong?

If it was, then that can be consistent with the argument that too much Photoshop is wrong.

If it wasn't, then all Photoshop does is the same. It's even based on darkroom work in its terminology. In this case, it makes no difference.

They're just the things many photographic handbooks taught one to do!

Should one be producing, say, a postcard for sale, would it be better to have the image as is, or would it be better to have the scene cleaned up somewhat, ie without the litter and a decent sky to make the place look inviting. Which image would the publisher go for? If to promote the place then the tidied up version. If for a series of photos to show how badly the councils are at dealing with litter then more likely the one as taken, maybe with even some more Photoshopped (or Serifed) in!

John K
John K

Fletcher8

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 20:02
If you like something surely that is the initial starting point. Photoshop is only as good as its user, just like a camera is only as good as its user. There is skill in both mediums and both should be valued equally.
Fletcher8.

Don

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 20:23
I would love to see a standardized, mandatory, pie chart in the corner of every advertising image that spells out how heavily manipulated the image is.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.

SlightlySoiled

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 20:26
The next thing will be no electric guitars because they aren't proper guitars. I do see the point about keeping it pure.

jeffstclair

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 21:11
Music just ain't the same since they invented the piano .......... I think that photoshop and other similar software has enhanced and improved the possibilities of photography , :...jeff...

punkrockemo

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 21:23
I dont think photoshop is ruining photography. Programs like elements can be bought cheaply in comparison to the price of the averge digital camera and giving more people accesss to darkroom techniques that few of us had acess to before and in that sense its improving photography.

I also think photo editing software is opening up more creative opertunites that go beyond photography and become something of an artform itself.

It can be used dishonestly or badly but then so can any camera.

davidstorm

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 21:26
For me the answer to the question posed is a qualified 'No'. I use Photoshop, but I don't replace skies, I don't add objects that weren't there, I very rarely remove anything (except sensor spots).

I do enhance contrast, levels and saturation, I do a bit of dodging and burning and I do work with layers sometimes. My objective always is to make the final image as close to what I saw at the time as I possibly can; whether I'm successful or not is subjective.

I am in the camp of many others who have posted in this thread in that I believe in honesty and if someone has dropped in a sky or made clouds where there were no clouds, then they should say so, particularly on a website like this one.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

ronniemac

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 21:40
A long deceased acquaintance, Alec MacKinnon of Morar shop, had a Kodak competition entry of a dramatic West Highland sunset disqualified; the judges detected that he had manipulated the colour to create a blazing sky.
Of course, he hadn't, but from Alec's perspective, the judges had paid him a great compliment; his photograph was too good to be true! The story endures more than those of the many competitions he did win.

I personally enjoy authenticity, but we know that digital images are altered in processing from raw file to jpeg, just as film images are affected by choice of film, developing, cropping, and not least in printing. Manipulating press images to tell a false story is one thing, but that is hardly the issue here.

I would, however, enjoy seeing the results of a prize category for the Most Successfully Post-processed Photograph - based on before and after images. Actually, perhaps every competition should comprise raw as well as final processed image!
Last Edited by ronniemac on 12/03/2013 - 21:43
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.