Is photoshop ruining photography


japers45

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 06:01
A definite "no" from me- digital democratised the process but Photoshop (or variants) has taken it away from some who have no desire or ability to learn it.

I think sometimes there is an attempt to take the moral high ground when we talk of "honesty" on the one hand and "digital manipulation" on the other. They are not opposites.

It isn't a coincidence that you get a CD with your camera- it's Pentax saying "you need this to get the best from our product" how far I take it is up to me.

So where do you draw the line?

You don't.

johnriley

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 08:47
By and large clubs have competitions with print and projected sections.

Prints are almost all from digital files, although there are still quite a few darkroom workers out there, young and old.

Projected images are virtually 100% digital, but some clubs allow slides as well. Mixing slides and digital in the same competition section is not a happy experience for the slides though. They don't look as bright or as sharp because the digital projectors outshine them.

Quote:
Digital hasn't given anyone a better 'eye' though

No, but it has brought lots of people in who don't like technology but do have a natural "eye" for an image. They see it, the camera makes it for them.
Best regards, John

andrewk

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 09:18
Smeggypants wrote:
Digital hasn't given anyone a better 'eye' though.

It's not an arguement about Photoshop per se, but digital has allowed the largely talent-free to take huge volumes of photos at little or no cost, compared with film. I've taken more photos since I bought a K200D than I have in the whole of my life previously.

Along with many others, I am hoping that a photographic version of the infinite monkey theorem will let me fluke a classic any time now.

Andrew
Flickr photostream
Last Edited by andrewk on 13/03/2013 - 09:20

Dodge69

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 09:22
Not sure how many posters actually read the article.

Whats being defined here, and indeed in the competitions rules, is that photography should reflect the scene at hand and that PP'ing to enhance the scene is fine. PP'ing to create the scene you wish you had captured is not.

I think we all felt a healthy dose of schadenfreude when Byrne was exposed, though I did feel a little sorry for him as there are a number of images in the comp which annoyed me even more than his, with regard to blatant PP'ing.

I'm pretty sure if you put Byrne's and the shot they posthumously awarded the top prize, side by side in a shop and let 'joe public' decide with their wallets, Byrne would be sitting pretty. In that respect he would be right to have 'created something beautiful'. But photography's invention was to record a reality, to capture memories, and in this regard he is way off the mark.

Perhaps the debate here is actually whether Landscape photography as a genre has lost its way somewhat and what can be done if anything?

Perhaps even attempting to define over manipulation of an image is becoming pointless, particularly as technology progress.

Or perhaps the debate should be how subjectively pointless is competition photography when the judges, even the judges of a comp with a £10k top prize, can't even make the PP distinction?

Subjectivity aside, winning that competition in particular is a utter crap shoot akin to winning the lottery, (you cannot convince me all the entries are reviewed properly), in that respect I feel a little sorry for the 2 bloggers and all the other 'haters' who were so competitively 'righteously offended' by Byrne's misguided entry.
Pentax pour des images riches en détails!

johnriley

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 09:32
There were and probably are painting competitions as well. Humans are competitive by nature, so will want to compete with whatever skill set they have. Judging is the tricky thing.

Ansel Adams called his negatives the score and his prints the performance and he worked on them very extensively to ensure that performance was superb. Does all this mean that now such prints would be regarded as too good to be true?
Best regards, John

andrewk

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 09:50
johnriley wrote:
Ansel Adams called his negatives the score and his prints the performance and he worked on them very extensively to ensure that performance was superb.

I suspect that I can guess the answer to this, but did Ansel Adams use darkroom skills to create prints from bits of more than one negative?

Andrew
Flickr photostream

johnriley

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 10:02
Quote:
I suspect that I can guess the answer to this, but did Ansel Adams use darkroom skills to create prints from bits of more than one negative?

It was really an open question and there is no real answer, except that as far as I know he did not combine negatives. Plenty of other photographers did, including I suspect many of those club members who now complain about Photoshop.

It was common practice for club photographers to go out shooting interesting skies and to have a collection of sky negatives. These could then be inserted into other images as required.
Best regards, John

takuman

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 10:24
Someone really poked a stick in the wasps nest with this post didn't they. It all started with cavemen drawing on rocks with pointed sticks
I think it is all progress and evolution folks, like it or not.
Just passing thru

mille19

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 11:01
It's a yes from me

simonkit

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 11:03
Dodge69 wrote:
Not sure how many posters actually read the article.

is that photography should reflect the scene at hand and that PP'ing to enhance the scene is fine. PP'ing to create the scene you wish you had captured is not.

Perhaps the debate here is actually whether Landscape photography as a genre has lost its way somewhat and what can be done if anything?


Adding/removing elements from a scene to create something that didn't exist is where it no longer becomes photography for me, I think it should be categorized as "digital art" and not photography...I certainly don't think landscape photography has lost it's way though, its about capturing our natural environment which never ceases to pose challenges. In fact it's more of a challenge than ever to try and produce a shot that hasn't already been done several times...perhaps it's the effort needed to achieve this that is leading some to focus more on sitting at a PC than searching the countryside for opportunities and then making the effort to capture it in the most pleasing light...it can be bl**dy hard work and involve lots of fruitless outings which some are perhaps not prepared for.

Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk

Find me on Google+ link
Last Edited by simonkit on 13/03/2013 - 11:04

walkeja

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 11:15
simonkit wrote:


Adding/removing elements from a scene to create something that didn't exist is where it no longer becomes photography for me, I think it should be categorized as "digital art" and not photography...I certainly don't think landscape photography has lost it's way though, its about capturing our natural environment which never ceases to pose challenges. In fact it's more of a challenge than ever to try and produce a shot that hasn't already been done several times...perhaps it's the effort needed to achieve this that is leading some to focus more on sitting at a PC than searching the countryside for opportunities and then making the effort to capture it in the most pleasing light...it can be bl**dy hard work and involve lots of fruitless outings which some are perhaps not prepared for.

Simon

Well said.
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

redbusa99

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 11:32
yes the guy should have followed the rules but this topic about photoshop use is like flogging a dead horse,the same as the HDR one, at the end of the day if you like what you see does it really matter how it got there whether a factual representation or created. not a bit.
odd lens or 2

Flickr

ilovesaabs

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 16:06
Another perspective - isn't using a wideangle or telephoto lens 'cheating'? arguments saying that using photoshop changes the view is the same as changing the focal length to expand or limit the view...isn't it? Don't want the fat bird or the red cagoule in view - just zoooom in...problem gone.

Unless you're Steve Austin, the Bionic Woman or Superman a true field of view would be 43mm on a 35mm Pentax...
AKA Welshwizard/PWynneJ
Assorted Pentax/Nikon/Mamiya stuff

beakynet

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 16:07
No, advertisers are ruining the integrity of photographers!

Digital darkroom remains as essential to photography today as the Fuji lab does to 35mm film.

My counter question would be: when does use of photoshop turn a photograph into a painting?
Bodies: K5IIs, K7, MZ5n, LX, MV
Lenses: DA*16-50, DA18-55WR, DA18-135, DAL35, M50 F2, A50 f1.4, FA50 f1.4, DA*50-135, DA55-300, Tamron 70-300, DFA 100 WR Macro, M135 f3.5, Sigma 120-400 APO DG HSM, Tokina 500 f8.0
Flash: Metz 58, Metz 48
Accessories: BG4, Pentax right angle finder, Pentax mirror adaptor lens, O-ME53 Viewfinder Loupe
Auto 110 System: Auto 110, Winder, 18mm, 24mm, 50mm, 70mm, 20-40mm, AF100P, 1.7x telecon

Don

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 18:00
what about breast implants and plastic surgery?
isn't that like photoshopping real life???
is an unmanipulated image of a fake person still a fake?
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Last Edited by Don on 13/03/2013 - 18:02
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.