Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But you need a good "negative" to work with to create a great end product, one can certainly "rescue" some unfortunate images with Photoshop, but that really isn't any different than what people do and did in lightrooms before digital became the norm. When I did a photography class we almost exclusively shot monochrome and developed it ourselves. We were taught some of the many ways of altering an image to get what you want and ways to "salvage" bad pictures.
I won't argue that Photoshop hasn't enabled a much larger portion of the population to edit their photos, nor that some amateurs tend to overexpose their photos, but I just don't see how it's any different than going into a lightroom and doing that work in the more tedious manual way. The camera and shot is only part of the equation, developing has always been the other and Photoshop is simply the new way of developing a photo.
What is it precisely that puritans feel is the "cheating" or fake part of photography with Photoshop?
I don't know what you mean with using Photoshop not being able to replace a "personal experience", I used to develop my film photos to my liking, I do the same with Photoshop, post processing, just as with film, is to me very much part of the process, and not a step I've ever preferred to skip.
I have refrained from associating the term “cheating” with PS, or any form of editing for that matter. After all, a nicely photoshopped picture is likely to have a commercial advantage and when that is the purpose, it is delivering what appeals to the customer. They aren’t necessarily being presented a photograph, but a computerized artwork, which holds an appeal to them.
I can’t speak much for the old fashioned dark room as I have virtually no experience in those, but before the advent of heavy editing using PS and like, sometimes quality of picture was about picking the right film for graininess and saturation. The lighting and sharpness, or the blur, was about picking the right angle, lens and settings. It was about trying to maximize involvement on the field as opposed to the office desk at home. Sure, I’ve heard of “tricks” that were used to transform images, but they continue to be tricks. I can now do similar tricks, even placing a full moon on a photograph where it never was, including reflection, simply sitting at home and without waiting for an opportune time and weather.
Don’t get me wrong. I would (and do) use PS if the sole purpose was to sell my pictures rather than learn and maximize my personal potential in on-field photography. But I won’t associate it with good photography. This is no different than comparing the old-fashioned lenses that require full manual control, and with a few of them in my bag, I just love using them even though they slow me down and aren’t “convenient”. But a part of my experience is to slow down and enjoy. Then I also have some very fast lenses (a recently acquired Minolta 200mm/2.8 HS G, for example), which deliver the quickness with quality, but I would never use it in manual mode (inconvenient manual focus). So they all have their appeal, just as photo editing does. Some do it minimally to correct things beyond their control (CA, tint characteristics of lenses etc), some do it to jazz it up a little and some to transform the photographs (beyond recognition at times).
I have refrained from associating the term “cheating” with PS, or any form of editing for that matter. After all, a nicely photoshopped picture is likely to have a commercial advantage and when that is the purpose, it is delivering what appeals to the customer. They aren’t necessarily being presented a photograph, but a computerized artwork, which holds an appeal to them.
I can’t speak much for the old fashioned dark room as I have virtually no experience in those, but before the advent of heavy editing using PS and like, sometimes quality of picture was about picking the right film for graininess and saturation. The lighting and sharpness, or the blur, was about picking the right angle, lens and settings. It was about trying to maximize involvement on the field as opposed to the office desk at home. Sure, I’ve heard of “tricks” that were used to transform images, but they continue to be tricks. I can now do similar tricks, even placing a full moon on a photograph where it never was, including reflection, simply sitting at home and without waiting for an opportune time and weather.
Don’t get me wrong. I would (and do) use PS if the sole purpose was to sell my pictures rather than learn and maximize my personal potential in on-field photography. But I won’t associate it with good photography. This is no different than comparing the old-fashioned lenses that require full manual control, and with a few of them in my bag, I just love using them even though they slow me down and aren’t “convenient”. But a part of my experience is to slow down and enjoy. Then I also have some very fast lenses (a recently acquired Minolta 200mm/2.8 HS G, for example), which deliver the quickness with quality, but I would never use it in manual mode (inconvenient manual focus). So they all have their appeal, just as photo editing does. Some do it minimally to correct things beyond their control (CA, tint characteristics of lenses etc), some do it to jazz it up a little and some to transform the photographs (beyond recognition at times).
So what you are saying is that people who use Photoshop:
(a) don't maximize their pictures in the field
(b) overprocess their photos
(c) don't slow down and enjoy the photographic process
As a Photoshop user who's spent days in the field chasing a single shot, I find your position laughable to the point that I can't believe that you actually believe this. It's just a tool for heaven's sake. How does it change human behavior?
As pointed out to you previously, you don't have the background to be making the broad sweeping generalizations that you do. You freely admit that you have no darkroom experience, then you go on to say that with Photoshop one can even put a moon into a shot that wasn't there! Heaven forbid! The art of photocomposition, that is combining two or more photos to make one started in the darkroom probably a hundred years ago.
Photoshop is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Your tool for producing JPGs is the processor in your camera. If you're happy with that, great! Those of us who don't settle for allowing the camera designer to process our photos for us shoot RAW and use ACR and Photoshop (or the like) to do the work ourselves. Different strokes for different folks. If you're afraid that using PS is going to make you less of a Photographer don't use it, much like you shouldn't use an electric drill if you're afraid of drilling a hole in your hand. It's not about the tool, it's about the results. Photopshop doesn't create good or bad images, people do.
So what you are saying is that people who use Photoshop:
(a) don't maximize their pictures in the field
(b) overprocess their photos
(c) don't slow down and enjoy the photographic process
As a Photoshop user who's spent days in the field chasing a single shot, I find your position laughable to the point that I can't believe that you actually believe this. It's just a tool for heaven's sake. How does it change human behavior?
Let me answer your questions first:
a) They don’t have to. This doesn’t mean nobody does.
b) Yes. In many cases, people just don't know when to stop.
c) No necessarily. But with the convenience at hand, they don’t have to. This doesn’t mean nobody does.
Do you disagree with my fundamental argument that there is a thin line between use and abuse? What exactly is laughable about it? I would like to know.
Quote:
As pointed out to you previously, you don't have the background to be making the broad sweeping generalizations that you do.
Okay. And I’ll gladly add you to the list of such believers.
Quote:
You freely admit that you have no darkroom experience, then you go on to say that with Photoshop one can even put a moon into a shot that wasn't there! Heaven forbid!
I can. Can you? The next question would be... why? Isn't photography more than something you can do sitting on a computer?
Quote:
The art of photocomposition, that is combining two or more photos to make one started in the darkroom probably a hundred years ago.
I assign a distinction to post processing tricks in a darkroom or otherwise, compared with what one can and does achieve on the field. This can include letting the person think to letting the computer do the job for most part. Considering you claim to know PS (and I'm deemed ignorant about it), you should know quite a bit about the possibilities.
This does not imply that something creative doesn’t have its place, but what is important to me is… where does it belong?
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 09-12-2011 at 10:46 AM..
Do you disagree with my fundamental argument that there is a thin line between use and abuse?
Sure I agree, much in the same way that there's a thin line between driving your car past a pedestrian and running them over. Just because the car can run over the pedestrian, that doesn't make it evil. Just because one can use a tool like Photoshop or an old-fashioned darkroom for that matter to put a moon in a scene that wasn't there, that doesn't mean other uses of the tool is cheating. The whole notion that using Photoshop is cheating is as ludicrous as my car example above.
Sure I agree, much in the same way that there's a thin line between driving your car past a pedestrian and running them over. Just because the car can run over the pedestrian, that doesn't make it evil. Just because one can use a tool like Photoshop or an old-fashioned darkroom to put a moon in a scene that wasn't there, that doesn't mean all use of Photoshop is cheating. The whole notion that using Photoshop is cheating is as ludicrous as my car example above.
There is no need to get hung up on “evil” and “cheating”, more so when they aren’t even a part of the argument being presented. If you can’t do without PS, well that is your premise and take on photography. If you want to say… but they did it in darkroom, well that too is your premise, your take on what floats your boat.
It is rather amusing seeing the defense for PS, as if there is something very personal about it. Trust me, you can use and like PS without trying to hide the fact that it is affecting photography and its presentation. But then, you’ve assumed a position that I have no idea or use for PS. Oh, and the trial version for PS CS5 Extended that I used to compare PS CS3 Extended I have, I just wanted to take a peek at “the evil” or “how to cheat”, I guess without having a clue what I was doing or what PS is about.
If you want to continue getting personal, I will gladly take you up via PM instead of here. If you have logical response to use and abuse of PS, I will surely contribute with a logical response in this thread.
A photograph isn't complete until it's ready for viewing. I've spent way, way too many hours in the darkroom using a hundred different "tricks" to make images the best that I could. Nobody ever accused me of "cheating" because I used dodging and burning techniques. It was simply called custom processing -- custom meaning that every image was treated a little differently as opposed to a machine treating all the same.
Film was "pushed" or "pulled" and processed in different developers for different qualities. I probably kept 20 different kinds of paper and at least that many different films in my darkroom fridge for one effect of another.
If you think color balance was invented with Photoshop, think again. And printers have been using sharpening effects forever. The fact is, most tasks that one can do in Photoshop could be done before digital imagining was invented. It just took longer.
But now that digital has made it easier, it's become cheating?
To put it gently, that's a silly notion.
If you get a kick out of placing restrictions on yourself and your gear, that's perfectly fine. Tie one hand behind your back, wear an eye patch or two, use an old $5 lens, shoot through Saran Wrap. But don't suggest that those of us who prefer to use all the tools and skills available in making the best image possible are somehow cheating.
There is no need to get hung up on “evil” and “cheating”, more so when they aren’t even a part of the argument being presented.
Funny, I thought that was that title of the thread.
I summarized and responded to the points you made in great detail, so I don't understand your comment about getting personal or getting hung up on anything. In fact, looking at this last post of yours it seems to me that you're the one getting personal now, so discussion over as far as I'm concerned.
I assign a distinction to post processing tricks in a darkroom or otherwise, compared with what one can and does achieve on the field.
Do you assign a distinction between tricks used in the field with a camera or otherwise, compared with what is normally achieved using processing tools?
Your use of inflammatory word connotations is repeatedly showing bias.
Quote:
This can include letting the person think to letting the computer do the job for most part. Considering you claim to know PS (and I'm deemed ignorant about it), you should know quite a bit about the possibilities.
This can include letting the person think that only the camera can do the job for the most part. Are you claiming therefore knowing more about being a camera operator than a photographer is some kind of advantage?
Quote:
This does not imply that something creative doesn’t have its place, but what is important to me is… where does it belong?
Where do you then believe it "belongs"? Seems to me that short changing either the ability to manipulate the camera or to appropriately manipulate the resulting image is invalid.
Funny, I thought that was that title of the thread.
But you responded to my post which made no mention of "evil" or "cheating". It did, of "use" and "abuse".
Quote:
I summarized and responded to the points you made in great detail, so I don't understand your comment about getting personal or getting hung up on anything. In fact, looking at this last post of yours it seems to me that you're the one getting personal now, so discussion over as far as I'm concerned.
I think our posts are here to speak for themselves. Let us leave this at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson
Do you assign a distinction between tricks used in the field with a camera or otherwise, compared with what is normally achieved using processing tools?
Yes. Couple of years ago, I was playing with my newly acquired Photoshop CS3 Extended and learned to add water droplets where they didn't exist, or add mist to a photo, including adjustment to lighting. Sure, they made for cool looking art, but they didn't make for a "photograph" where I put myself in a position, considered all aspects of nature, to compose and take the shot.
Quote:
Your use of inflammatory word connotations is repeatedly showing bias.
Such as? Never mind the fact that we got into debate after I saw the beginning to this post of yours. THAT is inflammatory.
Quote:
This can include letting the person think that only the camera can do the job for the most part. Are you claiming therefore knowing more about being a camera operator than a photographer is some kind of advantage?
I might be able to answer that, if you can explain the difference between a camera operator and a photographer.
Quote:
Where do you then believe it "belongs"? Seems to me that short changing either the ability to manipulate the camera or to appropriately manipulate the resulting image is invalid.
I'd addressed that point earlier. Have you never come across oversaturated, overworked photoshopped pictures?
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 09-12-2011 at 11:47 AM..
Yes. Couple of years ago, I was playing with my newly acquired Photoshop CS3 Extended and learned to add water droplets where they didn't exist, or add mist to a photo, including adjustment to lighting. Sure, they made for cool looking art, but they didn't make for a "photograph" where I put myself in a position, considered all aspects of nature, to compose and take the shot.
You've missed the irony in the twist of words that I used, and have reverted back to the idea that anything done with the camera is valid versus not so for anything done after the shutter is clicked.
As to biased and inflammatory wording:
Quote:
Such as? Never mind the fact that we got into debate after I saw the beginning to this post of yours. THAT is inflammatory.
Lets hope so! It was clearly intended to be. You are trying to claim here to be otherwise.
You probably are unaware of the history. See David Eves' blog for a better view. Check out more than just the front page articles too, and you'll find that nonsense has been going on for years. It is nothing short of absolutely hilarious! You'll enjoy reading it.
I might be able to answer that, if you can explain the difference between a camera operator and a photographer.
However you choose to define it! Operators operate equipment. Photographers make photographs. Lots of people don't like to fiddle with cameras any more than necessary, but do want a few snapshots. Are they photographers? Maybe, maybe not. Is someone who shoots snaps with a camera but never makes any attempt at getting the best photograph, using all of the tools available, a photographer? Maybe, maybe not.
Quote:
I'd addressed that point earlier. Have you never come across oversaturated, overworked photoshopped pictures?
I see those probably far less often than I see images that were totally blown, by poor camera configuration before the shutter was pressed. Does that make cameras an evil tool designed to "cheat" people when it comes to memorable images? Or is it just an abuse rather than a use... :-)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
