Is photoshop ruining photography


puma

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 21:41
Well iam appalled at people using Photoshop you will never get me using it just LOL you mite not know but I do use it? But like David only as what he does iam truthful about it its not a crime its fun as for the fella that enter the competition well that was wrong and he got what he deserved should have followed the rules, going back to people on the site we all use some kind of PP and that's fine as long as it don't hurt anyone well that's fine by me.
my web site http://www.swilsonphotography.foliopic.com/
PPG link

SlightlySoiled

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 21:44
I agree with Davidstorm. Although I don't use layers.(can't. don't want to). Keep it slightly pure.

SlightlySoiled

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 21:46
Oh, unless you are Artistic.

Aero

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 21:55
[quote:3496ace15f="DOIK"]
Quote:

But it can correct the misuse of the apostrophe.

It can indeed -- but you have to know where it's needed .

The same goes for the hyphen. The standard Scottish pub sign authorised by the government to warn under-age drinkers to stay away is missing one. The pub I frequent is, I suspect, the only one in the country that's punctuated properly (thanks, in this case, to Serif PhotoPlus rather than Photoshop).

Al
Last Edited by Aero on 12/03/2013 - 21:57

aliengrove

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 22:16
I hope those who think using Photoshop is cheating don't stoop to using polarisers, ND filters, or any of the filters or effects in their cameras....

If the rules of a competition specify how much an image can be manipulated, then that's a diffetent matter.
Flurble

My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook

Smeggypants

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 22:39
"Is photoshop ruining photography" ?


Of course it isn't. It's just a piece of software.

As for image editing, as John says people have been manipulating photos since photography began, so you could have well asked, "Are Darkrooms ruining photography?"

In the world of "news" and "Adverts" images you should be aware not to blindly believe anything you see. Even if there's been no digital manipulation to deceive ( which would be rare ) invariably the scene being portrayed has been staged or not what it claims to be.. The BBC have been caught several times deceiving the public in their propaganda mission. Infamously cropping out Ahmedinejad from a pro-Government Raly and claiming it was an anti-Governmetn rally.

Although the prize for the worst bit of 'photoshopping' has to goto the Evening Standard for cloning in a huge criwd onto what was an alreayd staged event the pulling down of Saddam's statue during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It's truly dreadful. See here for details



Apart from I use Lightroom instead of Photoshop, I am completely with David below in my approach to photography ....

davidstorm wrote:
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

Anyway I don't think Photography is something than can be 'ruined'. After all even if every other photographer in the world is doing it in a way you don't like, they aren't forcing you to go about it in the same way.

As long as I'm not ruining my own photos, that's all that mattes to me
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

judderman62

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 22:49
jeffstclair wrote:
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.......

Agree 100% spot on with this. Additionally if you shoot jpeg the camera does all sorts of wonderful tweaks n adjustments so there is already manipulation of the image indeed possible less realistic images than someone changing things from a RAW shot in their photo software of choice.

End of the day, for me, it's about balance and I largely agree with David too. I will boost saturation and vibrance, I'll play about with light fill, recovery, I'll play around with colour temperature (found the preset white balance settings sometimes were too far one way or another - so decided to use the sliders instead).

I will not drop in another sky (wouldn't know how to anyway) or any elements that weren't there.
- -
Mike

Pentax K5 / Pentax K5 11/ Pentax K200D / Canon Rebel T1 i / Canon 650D / Pentax MX-1 / Fuji XF1 /Fuji X 10 / Canon EOS-M / Canon G10/ Pentax Mz-7 x 2

MrB

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 23:01
The one aspect on which all should agree is the importance of honesty - a photograph should not be claimed to be what it is not.

The literal meaning of photography is drawing or writing with light. In practice it starts with capturing information about the light reflected by a scene. The information is then processed into a form that will either reflect light (e.g. a print) or transmit light (e.g. a monitor signal) in the way that the photographer desires, to create an image of the original scene. The extent to which the representation is or is not realistic is irrelevant to the fundamental meaning of photography, as are the particular tools and techniques used by the photographer in creating the photograph.

Philip

dangie

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 23:12
Elitism......

Some don't like the fact that the less skilled or even novice photographer can, with a little Photoshop knowledge, produce excellent images.
6th Year Apprentice Pensioner

JAK

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 23:29
In that competition they stated 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).

I wonder how they would have considered a fish-eye photo? A fish-eye lens can drastically distort the physical appearance of the landscape, even the non-fisheye, rectilinear Sigma at 8mm does produce some odd effects stretching the edges somewhat. These lenses certainly do physically change the landscape without any PP applied.

John K
John K

Smeggypants

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 23:48
dangie wrote:
Elitism......

Some don't like the fact that the less skilled or even novice photographer can, with a little Photoshop knowledge, produce excellent images.

It's a good point.

Even without photoshop I've seen people who hardly know what an aperture is take superb pics and I've seen people who posses huge amounts of photographic technical skill produce nothing but bland, boring unexciting shots.

And vice versa of course.

And then there's the cookie cutter preset version of photoshop .... Instagram. I've seen some excellent shots taken by what some would call non-photographers simply by pointing a phone camera in the general direction of a subject and applying an Instagram preset.

I've also seen much rubbish produced in the same manner










.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Last Edited by Smeggypants on 12/03/2013 - 23:49

johnriley

Link Posted 12/03/2013 - 23:54
Elitism is probably the wrong word.

Consider the club photographer, an expert in his own field, producing images that for years have been lauded as top notch...then digital comes along. Young photographers with no expert knowledge suddenly outstrip him, producing images he could only ever dream of.

In this scenario, which I guess is something like what is beilng alluded to, it's more fear of not being able to maintain the position of expert, through an inability to cope with very different techniques. The old photographer is swept away....

He resents being on the scrap heap rather than he feels Elitist towards a photographic purity. Probably.
Best regards, John

JAK

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 00:31
I'll re-ask a question that I asked a little while ago but do not think it was answered.
I used to belong a Camera Club, some will have heard of it - The Ilford Photographic Society - that's Ilford the place, not the company of the same name even though it did have its HQ in Ilford, Essex!

We used to have both slide and print competitions regularly and an annual open competition which attracted entries from around the world.

Do I presume clubs no longer hold print and slide competitions and now only have a digital class? If that is the case I can see why some who have not embraced digital would certainly feel like they are on the scrap heap as JR describes.

John K
John K

cabstar

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 01:22
Last time I went to a club all co petitins where printed base, thiswas just a couple of years ago...
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

Smeggypants

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 01:46
johnriley wrote:
Elitism is probably the wrong word.

Consider the club photographer, an expert in his own field, producing images that for years have been lauded as top notch...then digital comes along. Young photographers with no expert knowledge suddenly outstrip him, producing images he could only ever dream of.

In this scenario, which I guess is something like what is beilng alluded to, it's more fear of not being able to maintain the position of expert, through an inability to cope with very different techniques. The old photographer is swept away....

He resents being on the scrap heap rather than he feels Elitist towards a photographic purity. Probably.

Digital hasn't given anyone a better 'eye' though. It's just mostly made the process of taking the pictures and 'developing' them more efficient.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.