# Can PhotoShop really fix everything



## kelli_anne (Apr 27, 2010)

As I have read through the threads, I have come to the concussion that people rely on PhotoShop way to much. Statements made, such as " I will just photoshop that"

Now don't get me wrong I think PhotoShop is a great tool, but that is what it is, a tool, not a fix it all. I believe that if people spend more time looking through the view finder and learning their equipment better, the less time they will spend in PhotoShop fixing everything that show have never happened in the first place. I think a lot of people need to go back to film and learn the hard way. Maybe they would respect photography and what it takes to make a GOOD photograph.

Just my thoughts


----------



## Sbuxo (Apr 27, 2010)

Photoshop is an enhancement tool, but everything can be abused.


----------



## LaFoto (Apr 27, 2010)

Simple answer: No, it can't!

You cannot miraculously make a good photo out of one that was bad to begin with.
When you missed the focus, you MISSED the focus. No sharpening method will bring it back.
When you overexposed and have blown, all white parts in your photos, then you HAVE them, and no Photoshop is going to remedy that technical error.

Which is why I also feel those who say "What? You used pp software on your photo? Oh, then it wasn't good to begin with?" ALSO see things from the wrong angle. 

Photoshop is NOT the tool to make bad photos good.

It is a tool to make good photos better. 
So yes, you enter a photo that is already good in itself into Photoshop and can come out with one that's better.

No more. No less.


----------



## Sharpiks (Apr 27, 2010)

I agree here. I don't agree with constant shops of pictures, unless it's noise reduction or maybe color enhancements. 

Photography is hard to grab a good grasp on, and if I just use photo shop I'll never get a real hang of it, which I want to do. Besides, I believe that once a picture is edited it loses more and more meaning.

That and LaFoto has a pretty good point.


----------



## Geaux (Apr 27, 2010)

All photos are edited in some way or another, either digital or film.  There are multiple things you can do in a dark room to edit the photo after its taken.  Digital is just the new 'darkroom'.

But, rant on ... if it makes you feel better.


----------



## kelli_anne (Apr 28, 2010)

Geaux said:


> All photos are edited in some way or another, either digital or film. There are multiple things you can do in a dark room to edit the photo after its taken. Digital is just the new 'darkroom'.
> 
> But, rant on ... if it makes you feel better.


 


I have spent may hours in the dark room, I know that you can edit in a dark room, but you are limited to the amount of editing you can do. What I get tired of seeing is people saying that they will just photoshop it, and everything will be OK.


----------



## Geaux (Apr 28, 2010)

Agreed, use of photoshop to me should be cloning out a pole that is not able to be moved or taken out no matter what angle you shoot at, color adjustments, noise reduction etc.  I'm not a fan of those that change the whole scene by PS'n a new sky or a bridge (saw that in a thread earlier).


----------



## kelli_anne (Apr 28, 2010)

LaFoto said:


> Simple answer: No, it can't!
> 
> You cannot miraculously make a good photo out of one that was bad to begin with.
> When you missed the focus, you MISSED the focus. No sharpening method will bring it back.
> ...


 

I completly agree with you. I just wish that people would learn this. PhotoShop is a great tool, I am with you on that. But people should not being using it for correnting major problems with the photo such as exposure, and focus as you said. And that is what I think a lot of people think they can do.


----------



## Sbuxo (Apr 28, 2010)

I'd like to see the photoshopheads do what they do on an enlarger


----------



## kelli_anne (Apr 28, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> I'd like to see the photoshopheads do what they do on an enlarger


 


hahahahahaha, yes, I still spend about 9 to 15 hours a week in a dark room, and i know that there is a big limit to the amount of editing that can be done. and a lot of people dont get that. I am sure that some of them have never seen an enlarger! lol


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 28, 2010)

kelli_anne said:


> Sbuxo said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see the photoshopheads do what they do on an enlarger
> ...



Actually, the only limit is your imagination. Nothing that is done in digital PP is new. It can't be because the software were created to replicate darkroom work. And unless some code writers are also artistically minded, digital PP will eventually become stale. Especially if film and darkroom disappear. 

The idea of abusing PP is amusing because it is entirely subjective. It is up to the artist to decide and no one else. You don't have to like the results of some PP work but there is no such thing as abuse. Although even that is nothing new. Jerry Uelsmann was thought by some to abuse the darkroom because he used something like 15-20 enlargers to make one print. Others thought he was a magician of the darkroom.

In the film days, there was always a darkroom involved. Today there is always PhotoShop or whatever software you use. No difference.

And there is no difference either as far as fixing everything. OOF is OOF. Bad exposure is bad exposure. Etc, etc. Problems like this cannot be fixed after the fact.


----------



## Felix 222 (Apr 28, 2010)

c-cloudwalker said:
			
		

> Jerry Uelsmann


i googled him. wow... cool stuff!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 28, 2010)

Felix 222 said:


> c-cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Glad you like him. Talking about him in another thread a few months ago, I googled him too just to see what was said and I ended up buying a print


----------



## tsaraleksi (Apr 28, 2010)

Bragging about not doing any post-editing is like wetting your pants... everyone can see it but only you feel the warmth...


----------



## aliciaqw (Apr 28, 2010)

I'm going to Photoshop this thread.


----------



## LaFoto (Apr 28, 2010)

OK, let me ask you this for the sake of this discussion (I don't want to discuss the photo as such in detail, it isn't "art"! I know it. It isn't even good) - is this photo "an abuse of Photoshop"?







I'm asking because - while this photo was very (!) spur of the moment, taken out of the side window of a passing bus, and my intention was to capture the solitude of the countryside we were going through in Turkey, and the fact that not all had the comfort of travelling in a nice bus, but some had to walk - the man originally was walking right underneath that tree. That, however, felt so unbalanced to me for this photo that (for the first time ever in my life, I must admit) I decided to cut him out of where he actually was and put him to where you can now see him. 

And upon looking closer, I did not even clone the part where he once was well enough, it shows  ... Not good! But none of that is the point I want to discuss here.

My question is: Is this abuse in your eyes?


----------



## K8-90 (Apr 28, 2010)

Well, you can call photoshop "abuse", but at the and of the day, this is art. You create the image by composing, adding light, cropping, using filters, macro etc, all of which are tools to create and image, and interpretation, a meaning, that you desire.

Yes, photoshop can be misleading. But most of the time, our aim is not to create replicate what we see identically. So what's the big deal?

It's a choice we make as photographers, as artists.


----------



## Arch (Apr 28, 2010)

The simple answer: Apart from focus and exposure (beyond a certain point), yes Photoshop can fix everything.... but then, when were you last able to fix focus in a darkroom either?


----------



## Bigmojo (Apr 28, 2010)

The thing to remember is Photoshop isnt just for photographers. IMO its WAY too powerful for what photographers should be doing before their work turns into digital art of some kind.

You cant not use it but its VERY easily over done. Fundamentally if your shot is out of focus, its out of focus.


----------



## Alter_Ego (Apr 28, 2010)

Photoshop can fix everything.

Dont hate


----------



## ann (Apr 28, 2010)

there is a big difference from "fixing" because one is a lazy photographer and being creative.

I always encourge my students to do as much right in camera and use editing programs for creative expression.  Big difference in my eyes.


----------



## Gaerek (Apr 28, 2010)

It's interesting to me that no has made a comment on this part of her post.



kelli_anne said:


> I think a lot of people need to go back to film and learn the hard way. Maybe they would respect photography and what it takes to make a GOOD photograph.



Why is it that people seem to think that learning "the hard way," is the best way of learning? Let's follow your logic to it's obvious conclusion. If people need to learn the hard way, then why don't you go and use the wet plate collodion process to take pictures? I mean, you'll certainly learn a lot by creating your own glass plates. It's also a lot harder than working with 35mm film, so maybe it'll help you to respect photography even more.

Whether you shoot film, digital, or glass plates is irrelevant. The "hard way" isn't another way of saying, the "better way." "Hard way" simply means the "hard way," nothing more, nothing less.

As far as photoshop is concerned here, it can't fix everything. It can cover up mistakes, but getting things right in camera is your best way of making the best photograph. Let's not forget also, that just because you shoot film doesn't mean you can't use photoshop.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Apr 28, 2010)

kelli_anne said:


> As I have read through the threads, I have come to the concussion that people rely on PhotoShop way to much. Statements made, such as " I will just photoshop that"
> 
> Now don't get me wrong I think PhotoShop is a great tool, but that is what it is, a tool, not a fix it all. I believe that if people spend more time looking through the view finder and learning their equipment better, the less time they will spend in PhotoShop fixing everything that show have never happened in the first place. I think a lot of people need to go back to film and learn the hard way. Maybe they would respect photography and what it takes to make a GOOD photograph.
> 
> Just my thoughts


 
I couldn't disagree with you more. "Photography" is an art... why you would suggest that you must limit yourself in what you 'should' be alowed to do is beyond me. The end result is what is important, the road you take to get there is irrelevant. 

Is Andy Warhol less of an artist than Michelangelo because he used synthetic paints he baught from store instead of paints he made himself from natural Earth pigments?

Is "Toy Story" less of a movie than "Snow White" because they used computer generated graphics instead of hand drawing the frames?



Gaerek said:


> It's interesting to me that no has made a comment on this part of her post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Agreed... to take it a little further.  If I wanted to take up fishing as a hobby, should I have to cut down a tree, and whittle a rod out of it.  Blacksmith a nail into a hook.  And spin a line out of silk thread?

kelli_anne.... I respect your opinion, but you are way off base.


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Apr 28, 2010)

No offense to the OP, but we get these posts all the time. Photoshop is just one more enhancement tool to use and yes it can be abused or overused. A lot of that depends on taste though as well. 

To answer your question more clearly though, no it cannot fix everything. It can enhance and maybe make a so-so picture more useable, but if something is complete crap or has huge technical issues, photoshop is not going to fix it. It will just look like a doctored piece of crap instead of a plain piece of crap


----------



## Arch (Apr 28, 2010)

ann said:


> there is a big difference from "fixing" because one is a lazy photographer and being creative.
> 
> I always encourge my students to do as much right in camera and use editing programs for creative expression.  Big difference in my eyes.



Spot On.
To me processing the image, be it Photoshop or other, is still part of the process of creating the final image. Photoshop should certainly not be seen as a 'fixing programme'.

There again i have been Art Schooled, and used PS for 14 years, so maybe i would see things differently to a 'photo hobbyist' or indeed to say, a product photographer.

To the OP tho, yes Photoshop can be overdone as many have said which can ruin an image... this is mainly down to lack of knowledge more than anything.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 28, 2010)

It seems to me that there's a new spin on the same 'ol thread. +1 to the OP for creativity.


----------



## LaFoto (Apr 28, 2010)

I think a thread of this kind is due once in 6 weeks to 3 months time. All those of us who have been here for long (like more than 6 years in my case) will just have to make do with them - and suffer them...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 28, 2010)

I <3 arrogance, and pompousness.







LaFoto, more like weekly.


----------



## dom yo (Apr 28, 2010)

this thread is awesome, i wish the photographer at work would read it so i didnt have to spend half my day in photoshop fixing horrible photographs


----------



## Overread (Apr 28, 2010)

In truth everything is fixable in photoshop if you are a good enough artist and photoshopper. You could fix everthing in a shot to be just perfect - however there comes a point where you are no longer correcting/enhancing/touching up a photo and instead working on a work of art on the computer. 

Sure you can correct total underexposure (black) the same way an artist corrects a totaly blank sheet of paper/canvus/stone - however I for one know that if I spent months working on a work of art I'd want to be known as an artist not a photographer


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 28, 2010)

...because a photographer is not an artist? What?


----------



## Early (Apr 28, 2010)

Re-cropping aside, it wouldn't surprise me if PS hurts more originals than it helps.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 28, 2010)

You shouldn't rely on PS to crop your images. You should get it right in camera. :greenpbl:


----------



## Derrel (Apr 28, 2010)

Who has been credited with the phrase, "you can't polish a turd?" I ask because I've honestly never heard or read any solid attribution for that quote, but I think it applies to Photoshop and bad photography. It seems that there are many new practitioners of photography who are anxious to polish their work, blissfully unaware of the phrase.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Apr 28, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> You shouldn't rely on PS to crop your images. You should get it right in camera. :greenpbl:


 

:lmao:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 28, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Who has been credited with the phrase, "you can't polish a turd?" I ask because I've honestly never heard or read any solid attribution for that quote, but I think it applies to Photoshop and bad photography. It seems that there are many new practitioners of photography who are anxious to polish their work, blissfully unaware of the phrase.


 
Yes, but this is in fact "The Beginners Forum", and editing in all it's forms, even when on "bad" images, teaches. It teaches beginers what needs to be achieved in camera, and how that can be accented later, if so desired. It teaches people to be aware of backgrounds. It teaches people that they need to get the exposure correct. It teaches people to pay attention to their focusing. It's excellent training wheels for a beginner. It gives them some reward, no matter how little, to keep going. 

I think the OP posted this in the wrong place. To criticise a bunch of noobs while they are learning. Take the argument to some 'all pro' forum, where you all can stroke your beards and wax poetic.

:er:


----------



## mwcfarms (Apr 28, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> It's interesting to me that no has made a comment on this part of her post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
This point is the best one I have read. :thumbup:


----------



## Overread (Apr 28, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> ...because a photographer is not an artist? What?



let me correct myself - if I'd spent ages rebuilding a shot from the ground up I'd want to be known as a digital artist or something along those lines  rather than a photographic artist because the photo is such a small part of the overall finished work..

It does however bring up the subject of photographic artists (people for whome its not just about getting it right in camera, but who will use the photo only as a part of the finished work and might heavily edit) - again this is where the quality of work often determins if the work is accepted or not - people who do this well are often accepted whilst those who do it poorly have not only their method, but the idea itself snubbed at.


----------



## reznap (Apr 28, 2010)

Why do the threads with *ZERO PICTURES* get the most replies and traffic on TPF?

Let's stop the madness people.


----------



## Overread (Apr 28, 2010)

thread has pic - now is legal thread - lets continue

Because as enthusiasts about photography we can do more than just look at pics, we can also talk about whole aspects (dicussion) of photography.


----------



## Rrr3319 (Apr 28, 2010)

[quote
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




thread has pic - now is legal thread - lets continue][/quote]

:lmao:  wait... did you PHOTOSHOP that lemur in????


----------



## Arch (Apr 28, 2010)

Slightly OT..



Bitter Jeweler said:


> ...because a photographer is not an artist? What?



Actually not always no. It very much depends on the individuals opinion to whether a photographer is an artist, or if the photographer himself considers that what he does is art.

If you ask someone as infulential as Brian Duffy, if he is an artist, he would say that he was nothing more than a craftsman in a working industry. He never considered himself an artist, nor does he now, even if thousands of people in Londons art and fashion world tell him he is.
He is known for saying that 'all artists just talk sh!t'... he is a very blunt and open man... 

So again, like all things to do with art, it is subjective.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 28, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> You shouldn't rely on PS to crop your images. You should get it right in camera. :greenpbl:


 
I did this all in camera; no Photoshop at all.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 28, 2010)

Arch said:


> Slightly OT..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes, that is all well and good, but by Overreads logic, the person using PS to that extent is not an artist, but a Graphic Designer. Further, the guy with the blank canvas is a Painter, the guy that works with marble is a Sculptor.



> If you ask someone as infulential as Brian Duffy, if he is an artist, he would say that he was nothing more than a craftsman in a working industry. He never considered himself an artist, nor does he now, even if thousands of people in Londons art and fashion world tell him he is.
> He is known for saying that 'all artists just talk sh!t'... he is a very blunt and open man...


He'd probably get tons of infractions here for his bluntness. 

Most Universities offer photography the the "School of Fine Arts".
Whether that guy calls himself an artist is pretty moot. People can call themselves, or not, whatever they want. Photography is still conventionally, an art form.



> So again, like all things to do with art, it is subjective.


 
As is the use of photoshop in photography, and for anyone to say one way is better, or proper, or more "pure", is quite frankly, stupid.

Funny that you then just grouped this into the Art category.

I'll also add, for fun, that, if the photographers output is print then he is a Printmaker.


----------



## Overread (Apr 28, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Arch said:
> 
> 
> > Slightly OT..
> ...



Huh? I used the words digital artist not graphic designer 
And lets not sway into are graphic designers artists or not 



> > If you ask someone as infulential as Brian Duffy, if he is an artist, he would say that he was nothing more than a craftsman in a working industry. He never considered himself an artist, nor does he now, even if thousands of people in Londons art and fashion world tell him he is.
> > He is known for saying that 'all artists just talk sh!t'... he is a very blunt and open man...
> 
> 
> ...



Actually I think context is something important in this grouping. We are trying here to decide if a photographer is an artist and if the use of photoshop makes them more or less of a "photographer". However I think we are failling to take into account the context of what this hypothetical photographer/artist/creature is producing and for what final output/outcome/intent.

I would say that someone who does journalist work might view their creations as something very different to an abstract photographer. The process for both is very similar - take a picture - but the context, output and intent are all very different things.

And then of course we have to consider the other side of the arts and that is viewers. Because once something is out to the world it is they who also have to decide just what it is to them - some might say that the journalists work is indeed art, other might say its a good record/capture. 

Similarly the amount of editing used/allowed (by either a key influencial group (eg the guys boss) or the photographers own standards) will differ greatly based on the intended output as well as the "authenticity" of the image that the photographer is hoping to recreate (and that of course opens up a whole new bag of considering just what is and is not authentic within a photo)


----------



## bennielou (Apr 28, 2010)

kelli_anne said:


> As I have read through the threads, I have come to the concussion that people rely on PhotoShop way to much. Statements made, such as " I will just photoshop that"
> 
> Now don't get me wrong I think PhotoShop is a great tool, but that is what it is, a tool, not a fix it all. I believe that if people spend more time looking through the view finder and learning their equipment better, the less time they will spend in PhotoShop fixing everything that show have never happened in the first place. I think a lot of people need to go back to film and learn the hard way. Maybe they would respect photography and what it takes to make a GOOD photograph.
> 
> Just my thoughts


 
As someone who is the hired girl to fix all the f'd up situations, I can tell you that PS can not fix all.  But it can fix a host of problems if you know your way around it.

While I agree that it would be preferable if people knew what they are doing, I spend a whole lot of time (or I used to, now I make them fend for themselves) in fixing horrible wrongdoings on parts of the photographer.

The problem with your arguement, is that some people do the kind of work that incorperates many different lighting situations in a matter of moments.  Those are left to PS for WB or exposure.


----------



## ghache (Apr 28, 2010)

PP is now a major part of the long photography era we are in. its like anything else, there is evolution and some people will need to follow.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 28, 2010)

ghache said:


> PP is now a major part of the long photography era we are in. its like anything else, there is evolution and some people will need to follow.



I trust you mean digital PP.

PP has been around as long as photography.


----------



## Gaerek (Apr 28, 2010)

I just found this blog post by Scott Bourne that I find pretty relevant to what we're talking about here. 

Photography v. Reality  Photofocus

I think he kinda hit the nail on the head here. Here's a snippet that I found particularly pertinent. 



> For me, all that matters now, all that has ever mattered, all that will  ever matter going forward is the picture. What someone thinks of it, how  they interpret it, whether or not they think its real, fake, art or  science  none of that is in my control. I cant control what anyone  else thinks, nor do I want to or would I try. My images are simply  representative of what I personally happen to think of a given moment in  time.


He goes on later to say this, which I had a laugh at, actually:



> When people engage in the Canon v. Nikon, digital v. film, Photoshop v.  no Photoshop, Windows v. Mac wars, I dont feel like theyre  contributing much to the world or to photography. I think the is  photography real or not discussion falls under pretty much the same  category. Instead of debating whether or not photography is real, why  not do something that DOES matter? Why not make a good picture?


Because, after all, isn't that all that matters?


----------



## ghpham (Apr 28, 2010)

LaFoto said:


> OK, let me ask you this for the sake of this discussion (I don't want to discuss the photo as such in detail, it isn't "art"! I know it. It isn't even good) - is this photo "an abuse of Photoshop"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I think it's an abuse if you want to call it that.  I say so because you didn't really capture what you "saw".  I doubt if you enter such a picture into a contest, that it would be allowed.  Now of course, you could set it up in such a manner that the man was actually walking by the road....

As to the OP, I guess, the only comment I have is for the newbies to get as much correct in camera as they can.  I see no joy in spending countless hours in front of a computer when you could use those times to practice photography skills.


----------



## Gaerek (Apr 28, 2010)

ghpham said:


> LaFoto said:
> 
> 
> > OK, let me ask you this for the sake of this discussion (I don't want to discuss the photo as such in detail, it isn't "art"! I know it. It isn't even good) - is this photo "an abuse of Photoshop"?
> ...



Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what was done here. If LaFoto hadn't mentioned that the guy was moved, I would have never noticed. Since it was mentioned, it's easy to spot where he was cloned. In the end, all that matters is the end result, the final image. I would never have made a second glance at the original photograph that LaFoto described, since having the man on the same side as the tree wouldn't have looked very good. This way, it's at least an interesting photo. 

Whether it would be allowed into a competition isn't really the point. Every photo competition has different rules, and even categories. If LaFoto had taken a couple more minutes with the PP, you would likely never be able to tell the man was moved.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 28, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> I just found this blog post by Scott Bourne that I find pretty relevant to what we're talking about here.
> 
> Photography v. Reality  Photofocus
> 
> >SNIP>



I really have trouble with a blogger like Scott Bourne who calls Arnold Newman "one of the first environmental portraitists". No way--Newman began working around 1942 or so...August Sander was an unquestioned master of the environmental portrait, and began working professionally in 1901. The work of August Sander was a big influence on photographers for almost two full decades before Newman began his professional career. Newman came along 40 years after Sander began...Sander was well-known, famous even, back when Newman began his professional career while working for hire shooting 49 cent studio portraits in New York City [literally, 49 cents]. By the time Newman started in the business, Sander had been shooting professionally for roughly 41 years...

I'm just sayin'...Beaumont Newhall wrote The History of Photography many years ago, and Mr. Bourne's understanding of who was first in environmental portraiture is a seriously flawed assertion, off by four decades.

Photography has changed greatly over the years. There have been many essays written about what "is" and "is not" photography, and the debates began in the 1850's,and have continued across the decades. Pictorialism was huge at one time, but it gave way to the deep depth of field and sharp renderings of the so-called f/64 Group aka the Group f/64 people, most famous of which turned out to be Ansel Adams. Over the decades, what is considered photography has changed quite a bit, and now that silver-based emulsion on substrate has been replaced by pixel wells and electrical charges stored in computer files, "photography" has changed in a very fundamental way. There is no longer a fixed, permanent negative or positive with the silver granuales and grains and or dye clusters all arranged in one,discrete order; the "image" now is all a bunch of 1's and 0's, and we can no longer view an image capture as a plate or negative or positive transparency--we need a computer to see the image in any form.

"Pure photography" is a difficult term to pin down. There really is no such thing as pure photography--that's just an impossible definition to work with. But there is a distinction between photography and digital illustration, computer-generated imagery, documentary versus artistic photography, and so on. Those arguing that Photoshop imitates the traditional darkroom are greatly oversimplifying or even distorting the nature of modern image editing software; we can take a digitized image today and make HUGE global changes, as well as small changes,adjustments, and montages in just seconds to minutes. The same degree of control did not and will never exist in silver-based images simply because a computer can perform many more steps than any human worker can perform in a darkroom using any of the old-time darkroom processes like Cibachrome, C-print, dye transfer, silver gelatin, or platinum/palladium,etc. On a silver-based capture, like a negative, there is a definite order and arrangement of the image that the photographer works from; with a digital image file, the order of the pixels can be easily and quickly altered,and the results previewed before a print is developed, washed,dried,and reviewed. Traditional film-based photography and digital capture are really very different beasts, in many ways.

A good example a lot of simple thinkers trot out is Jerry Uelsmann, who is probably the most famous traditional darkroom photo montage artists of the 1960's,1970's,and 1980's. He is one of the masters of the photo montage printed in the wet darkroom,and it took him many,many years to develop his skill level, and he was one of only a handful of photographers of the modern era to become widely famous as a photo manipulator. Today, what Uelsmann took decades to master in the traditional darkoom,working with multiple negatives, a tens of thousands of Photoshop jockeys can accomplish sitting at a desk, sipping a $4 Starbucks latte and working with a mouse and pen and tablet. Today,fantastical, surreal,incredible "darkroom work" can be done by high school kids. So, saying that post-processing has always been a part of photography is rather a simplistic over-exaggeration; to use an analogy, that's like saying, "the Wright brothers were involved in the aerospace industry." Ehh....no, not really.

Photography was concerned with depicting reality very early on...then the photo montage craze took hold and by the 1870's there were loads of crazy,wild allegorical multiple-negative photographs made...by the late 1920's, the mainstream shifted to the sharp,well-defined look Adams made his living shooting...by the early 1970's that style of imagery lost favor and more fanciful,more-manipulated pictures became fashionable...now we are in another period where representational or "straight" images are giving way to more heavily-manipulated, computer-generated images--much like happened in the 1870's and the 1960's-1970's era.

Honestly, while images fashions have swung back and forth like the proverbial pendulum, since the 1840's, we are now entering into an entirely NEW era, where the "picture" no longer begins with a real,tangible, fixed image file, but just a bunch of 1's and 0's that only a computer can render.
The biggest difference between digital imaging and traditional photography is that digital imaging requires a computer, while in traditional photography a computer is *optional*. And because of that, digital imaging allows us almost unlimited possibilities in image reconstruction and adjustment, while darkroom-based imaging has definite limitations. I'm not saying either is better or more noble, but there are some huge differences between traditional photography methods,like shooting on film and making traditional silver gelatin B&W prints, and modern, digital capture that is computer-adjusted and inkjet printed.


----------



## JasonLambert (Apr 28, 2010)

Ok... This discussion is like Steven Spielberg telling Andy Warhol he's not an artist because he used silk screen instead of the silver screen. PS or not we are all after OUR OWN interpretation of a good image. Some tell the guy to move closer to the road and some put him there later. 

Oh... And I would have to say that this is a little conceded... 





:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## ghpham (Apr 28, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> ghpham said:
> 
> 
> > LaFoto said:
> ...


 
That's not the point.  He posted the photo asking if we think by moving the person whether or not that would constitute an abuse.  To me, this type of photograph is supposed to tell a story.  Something along the line of "while on a bus, I saw the man walking alone along the road, and it made me think of solitude and I took the photo".  If you have to go to this degree and force the photo, then it lost it's mystique, and there would be no sense of connection to the scene.

Now, I think it's ok to use Photoshop for such thing as making colors pop, smoothing someone's skin for instance, but I would never recommend it to a newbie as a mean to correction a composition.  I see quite a few C&C where a newbie is advised to clone out, say, a branch sticking out from someone's head.  The problem with such an advise is that it does not convey the proper message to the newbie, and that is think before you click that button on the camera.  It's a fine delicate line we need to walk.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 28, 2010)

JasonLambert said:


> Oh... And I would have to say that this is a little conceded...



Conceited?


----------



## tsaraleksi (Apr 28, 2010)

ghpham said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> > ghpham said:
> ...



That's a really pointless and narrow minded way to look at the situation. Sure, if it was being presented as a journalistic or narrative image (this is what happened on my trip.... ) then it's an abuse because moving the guy is not being honest to the scene. But if the intent was to create an image that the photographer found pleasing, or perhaps evoke a specific mood, then what difference does it make?


----------



## ghpham (Apr 28, 2010)

tsaraleksi said:


> ghpham said:
> 
> 
> > Gaerek said:
> ...


 
Narrow minded??  if the point was not to tell a story, then why bother moving the person?


----------



## tsaraleksi (Apr 28, 2010)

ghpham said:


> tsaraleksi said:
> 
> 
> > ghpham said:
> ...



Because it makes a better image? 

And at the end of the day, a better image is all that matters. You keep repeating that it's abuse, that it's wrong, and unacceptable. But you can't seem to articulate why.


----------



## ghpham (Apr 28, 2010)

tsaraleksi said:


> ghpham said:
> 
> 
> > tsaraleksi said:
> ...


 
I already told you why but you don't seem to want to understand.  The whole point is that he wanted to convey a sense of solitude, to tell a story (photojournalistic?).  The man was not under the tree, so he decide to move the man.  That is not what he actually observed.  Presenting to an audience as such is not being truthful.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Apr 28, 2010)

ghpham said:


> tsaraleksi said:
> 
> 
> > ghpham said:
> ...



If he was taking the picture with intent of claiming that the scene was exactly as photographed, then yes, it is absolutely untruthful. But no where does he make that claim. 

You're making a really broad assumption that photographs are truthful so long as they were not digitally manipulated. Would it have been acceptable if he had gone to the man and asked him to move to a different spot? In that case, the image accurately records the scene, but the photographer has acted to change the scene. 

Were LAphoto documenting the scene as a journalist, both options would be unacceptable, because the rules are built around changing the scene, not around digital manipulation. 

But I find it very difficult to fault someone for the second option in any other circumstance, and if you can't find fault in the second, the first is just another way to handle the same task. 

Without question, learning how to get as much right in camera as possible is a critical aspect of learning to be a photographer. But that fact does not make digital manipulation wrong as a rule.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 28, 2010)

I'd like another helping of tripe, please.


----------



## ghpham (Apr 28, 2010)

tsaraleksi said:


> ghpham said:
> 
> 
> > tsaraleksi said:
> ...


 
I never said LaFoto lied or being untruthful.  He posted the pics asking us if we think that is "abused".  I gave him my opinion.  You have yours.  Let's just move on.


----------



## LaFoto (Apr 29, 2010)

Yes, let's.

And it's "she". 

And this photo actually is only for my collection of holiday pics, so it's never meant to show in a newspaper, nor is it ever going to be exhibited, nor do I mean to pass it off as "pure truth". Other than for my own viewing, for which the original felt a little unbalanced, I did not put him on "fast forward" 

Here's what I started with:






And yes, I only posted this in order to hear people's opinions about the degree of manipulation (whether to their minds it's "abuse of Photoshop" already or not), and I'm happy to find that you did start discussing the matter.


----------



## ghpham (Apr 29, 2010)

LaFoto said:


> Yes, let's.
> 
> *And it's "she".*


 
  oops......


----------



## Gaerek (Apr 29, 2010)

ghpham said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> > ghpham said:
> ...


 
What isn't the point? You said it's an abuse, and I said it doesn't matter. If what I said isn't the point, then neither is what you said. Whether it lost it's mystique or not is something completely subjective. If LaFoto had never said anything about how that photo came to be, you would likely have absolutely no idea that the man was moved. Since she did mention it, then somehow the photo is flawed? Next, are you going to tell me where to draw the line on how much PP is too much? Oh wait, you already did:



> Now, I think it's ok to use Photoshop for such thing as making  colors pop, smoothing someone's skin for instance, but I would never  recommend it to a newbie as a mean to correction a composition.  I see  quite a few C&C where a newbie is advised to clone out, say, a  branch sticking out from someone's head.  The problem with such an  advise is that it does not convey the proper message to the newbie, and  that is think before you click that button on the camera.  It's a fine  delicate line we need to walk.


Tell me, what's the difference now, between making colors pop, and smoothing someone's skin, and moving the man in the photo? When you saturate those colors, aren't you forcing a new interpretation of the image onto the viewer? When you smooth that skin, are you conveying what the scene actually showed? What if LaFoto had been able to ask the man to move and been able to retake the shot like that? Would that have been acceptable even though the end result was the same? And why would that be acceptable, but manipulating the image to gain the exact same result is abuse? Cropping is a technique to correct a composition mistake. Is that abuse (since you implied that correcting composition in post is abuse)? 

This is a case of, "I never manipulate my image past adjusting colors, and smoothing skin (or whatever you do to manipulate an image), so anything beyond that is abuse." Basically, you've set in your own mind what is acceptable to YOU. A photojournalist would likely think that even what you find acceptable is actually unacceptable, and you'd likely argue the opposite point with them. Why? Because that's what you believe to be ok. What is acceptable to me, and LaFoto, and anyone else is a completely different. In the end, all that matters is the image.


----------



## deb (Apr 29, 2010)

Interesting thread.

I think that Photoshop (or other editors) have value, depending on what you are trying to accomplish.  I don't particularly like overprocessed images of people, but I recognize that making a person's skin appear flawless while keeping other aspects of the photo in focus takes skill, and I appreciate the skill and patience of the people who do this type of work.  

I am particularly impressed by the HDR images that many have posted.  Again, it takes skill and talent to get to the desired result....whether everyone else would desire the result is a matter of personal preference.

Yes, a good photographer should be able to compose an image, determine exposure and get a good image right out of the camera, but a better photographer will be able to take that good image and make it better.  

Any transformation of the literal into the vision of the workman is a form of art.  Public opinion will vary, just as some people prefer oil paintings to watercolors, Picasso to Van Gogh, or books to movies some prefer realistic photographs while others prefer the processed images.

For many, manipulating the image is the art...so have a blast.  Isn't that what it's all about?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 29, 2010)

I don't quite understand why it is alright to smooth someone's skin but not to move someone from one side of the image to the other. Either way you are changing the story, you are not being truthful.

LaFoto is not a PJ so she has no need to stick to the truth. Talking about the truth, photography is not very good at telling it anyway. Or at least, at conveying it the way it is in real life.

A great example of that is Eddie Adams' famous Vietnam photo that tortured him to the end of his days and made the life of General Nguy&#7877;n Ng&#7885;c Loan a big pita. Here's how he talked about his photo to Time: "The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. ... What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?'"


----------



## ghpham (Apr 29, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> I don't quite understand why it is alright to smooth someone's skin but not to move someone from one side of the image to the other. Either way you are changing the story, you are not being truthful.
> 
> LaFoto is not a PJ so she has no need to stick to the truth. Talking about the truth, photography is not very good at telling it anyway. Or at least, at conveying it the way it is in real life.
> 
> A great example of that is Eddie Adams' famous Vietnam photo that tortured him to the end of his days and made the life of General Nguy&#7877;n Ng&#7885;c Loan a big pita. Here's how he talked about his photo to Time: "The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. ... What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?'"


 
My opinion only: smoothing someone's skin is also a "lie" if you will, but in this case the client most likely requested and know that the image is being manipulated. In the latter case, noboby knows that it's actually is a lie. Now in regard's to general Loan, most likely, the PJ didn't know the whole story till much later, for otherwise, he might have never published it. Also, I don't think the photo "lied" in a sense, that it demonstrated the atrocity of war. Do you recall the photo of the naked girl running in the middle of the street escaping bombs? how would you feel if you found out that the girl was never there in the first place and the image was manipulated to put her in there?


----------



## Early (Apr 29, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> You shouldn't rely on PS to crop your images. You should get it right in camera. :greenpbl:


Not always!  Sometimes, action shots come to mind, you should allow yourself some leeway.  The point I was making, the gods designed those sensors for optimum exposure, contrast and color.  It just seems a sacrilege how often we constantly go against them.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 29, 2010)

ghpham said:


> smoothing someone's skin is also a "lie" if you will, but in this case the client most likely requested and know that the image is being manipulated.



So, if LaFoto's image had shown up in a magazine with the manipulation asked for by the editor (the client), it would be alright?

A lie is a lie. Sorry, I don't see who/what gives you the right to decide when a lie is Ok and when it is not. I sure don't give myself that right which is why I have no problem with photogs doing as they wish with their images.

PJ work is another story. It is supposed to tell us what is going on in the world telling the story as it actually was. Some images got manipulated and the publications got in trouble for it. Today, they have very strict rules about NO editing.

Some images half lie because photography is far from perfect as a story telling media. But purposeful lies are not seen with a kind eye. See the controversies over the famous Iwo Jima and Robert Capa's Falling Soldier photos.


----------



## white (Apr 29, 2010)

I don't have a problem with post-processing like that in LaFoto's picture as long as the person is upfront about it. I personally do not like to see compositions that were created in post-processing. I like to do it all in-camera if possible. That is fulfilling _for me_. 

Images that don't look manipulated are generally believed to be an accurate representation by most viewers. And that is a powerful tool some photographers use to their advantage. When I looked at LaPhoto's picture, I believed the tree and the man were there. Silly me, right? What if they weren't there and later dropped in? Is the picture a photograph, or is it closer to photomanipulation? Like I said, I have no problem with the post-processing, but call it what it is.


----------



## LaFoto (Apr 29, 2010)

Well, White, you can see what the all untouched photo (as it was shot by me through the bus window in speeding past the scene) looked like. I'm showing it, too. 
The situation I was in did not give me much opportunity to get everything so right in camera that the end result would be one pleasing to the eye, so for reasons of "Can I do it?" more than any other I played with the photo a little, by picking up the man and putting him 12 steps ahead of where he was. 

And I'm only presenting this photo of mine to an "audience" for the sake of this discussion.


----------



## Dao (Apr 29, 2010)

For me, all I care is the end result.   LaFoto, I like the edited version of your photo.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 29, 2010)

Early said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > You shouldn't rely on PS to crop your images. You should get it right in camera. :greenpbl:
> ...


 
And the "gods" gave you the ability to frame your shots correctly in camera.
I don't like how people draw arbitrary lines for what is acceptable to do in post, and what is not.

This whole argument thread, is hogwash.


----------



## white (Apr 29, 2010)

LaFoto said:


> Well, White, you can see what the all untouched  photo (as it was shot by me through the bus window in speeding past the  scene) looked like. I'm showing it, too.
> The situation I was in did not give me much opportunity to get  everything so right in camera that the end result would be one pleasing  to the eye, so for reasons of "Can I do it?" more than any other I  played with the photo a little, by picking up the man and putting him 12  steps ahead of where he was.
> 
> And I'm only presenting this photo of mine to an "audience" for the sake  of this discussion.



Right, I get all that. And I'm not criticizing you personally. I think it's great you posted the image because that is exactly what we're talking about.

What bothers me about this photography vs. photomanipulation issue is there are a lot of people manipulating their photos to the extent you did _and they're not telling anyone_. So people view their work with a natural tendency to believe it is an accurate representation if it doesn't look manipulated. I think people would like to know if their favorite photograph has been heavily manipulated. I sure would. I would view the picture differently, as I did with yours, LaPhoto. I thought the photograph was excellent when I first saw it. Thought the composition was really excellent, and that it must have been challenging to get that shot. I have to admit I don't think as highly of it now. But this is all coming from my personal view of what makes good photography. I think the process is just as important as the end product.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

ghpham said:


> LaFoto said:
> 
> 
> > OK, let me ask you this for the sake of this discussion (I don't want to discuss the photo as such in detail, it isn't "art"! I know it. It isn't even good) - is this photo "an abuse of Photoshop"?
> ...


 

It's art.  You can make it whatever the hell you want.  As long as the clients buy it, who cares?  Have you seen Yervont lately?  He has gone off in a big Draconian tangent.  Is it great?  Absolutely.  Do his clients pay him craploads of money to do what he does.  Um yep.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Early said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...


 
I agree to a point.  In my little mind there is no right or wrong.  It's an emotional thing, an in the moment thing.
But you still have to nail it.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

ghpham said:


> tsaraleksi said:
> 
> 
> > ghpham said:
> ...


 
Ok, I'm going to give the supreme court ruling. LOL. I was wire service for a few years. Anyhoo, in Pj, you do not EVER move subjects. Ever ever ever. You make whatever is happening work. It would be great is we could say "stand over here in front of this waterfall" but you can't do that in PJ. Or at least you are not supposed to.

The whole deal with PJ is not about being pretty. It's about being real. Yeah, there is trash in the background, but it also probably helps tell the story. At the end of the day, you should tell a story without ever uttering a word. You should make people care.  At the end of the day, the real photos are the best.  You can't pose this stuff.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 29, 2010)

LaFoto said:


> And I'm only presenting this photo of mine to an "audience" for the sake of this discussion.



And a very interesting discussion it is.




white said:


> I don't have a problem with post-processing like that in LaFoto's picture as long as the person is upfront about it. I personally do not like to see compositions that were created in post-processing. I like to do it all in-camera if possible. That is fulfilling _for me_.
> 
> Images that don't look manipulated are generally believed to be an accurate representation by most viewers. And that is a powerful tool some photographers use to their advantage. When I looked at LaPhoto's picture, I believed the tree and the man were there. Silly me, right? What if they weren't there and later dropped in? Is the picture a photograph, or is it closer to photomanipulation? Like I said, I have no problem with the post-processing, but call it what it is.



The fact that you say "for me" allows me to partly agree with you. It is only a matter of personal opinion. I personally prefer to get the image I want in camera but it is not always possible. A lot of the images in my head would never have existed if it wasn't for manipulation. The reason I mentioned Uelsmann earlier (whether or not he is for simple thinkers, I'll leave that one to Derrel...) is because I did a lot of work of that type.

Those images just don't exist in reality but why should it keep me from creating them? Does the work of Dali exist in reality? No. Yet, I don't see anyone complaining about it.

On the other hand, I can't agree with putting a disclaimer about the manipulation of the image. Anything outside PJ work (and the only reason I brought PJ work in), is fair game for manipulation. And why the problem with manipulation in PP but not with manipulation before hitting the shutter button?

After all, most commercial photos are 100% manipulations. The scene didn't exist. It was created entirely for the purpose of the image. What is the difference?

Sometimes, the image existed but could not be captured by the camera because of the limitations of the photographic medium. HDR comes to mind here. Should we put a disclaimer saying that the image was manipulated to recreate what the eye can see but the camera cannot?

Just some thoughts and I take responsibility for them. They are nothing more than my opinion...


----------



## SwissJ (Apr 29, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Does the work of Dali exist in reality? No. Yet, I don't see anyone complaining about it.


+1


----------



## vtf (Apr 29, 2010)

It really does fix everything, even when you use the delete button.
My 2 cents worth.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 29, 2010)

vtf said:


> It really does fix everything, even when you use the delete button.



:lmao:

Yes, that delete button will take care of anything. :thumbup:

I believe with can now close this thread.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 29, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> vtf said:
> 
> 
> > It really does fix everything, even when you use the delete button.
> ...


 
You can't request the thread be closed until the OP comes back and responds to the mess she/he/it created.


----------



## ghpham (Apr 29, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> ghpham said:
> 
> 
> > smoothing someone's skin is also a "lie" if you will, but in this case the client most likely requested and know that the image is being manipulated.
> ...


 
If the editor tell his readers the same, then what do I care.  I would not view the photo in the same manner, with the same kind of feeling though because I know it have been manipulated, and I'm sure the readers wouldn't look at it the same way either (see White's post for example).

We will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 29, 2010)

Who thinks the photo of Demi Moore on the cover of W magazine is how she really looks? Demi Moore's Photoshopped W Cover: Was Her Body Replaced With A Model's? (PHOTOS, POLL)

The government of France is reported to be considering enacting legislation that would require French magazines to describe the type of retouching done on photographs published within each issue; young women are allegedly beginning to suffer serious body image problems due to seeing heavily-retouched,already thin models slimmed down to ridiculous, virtually impossible to attain levels.

The culture of retouching has spread so far and wide that it is beginning to affect young people. "Reality" is no longer good enough for many people who like to call themselves the arbiters of taste and style. The Ralph Lauren company,an American firm, has been found guilty of some simply **incredibly faked** fashion photos. Google it. In fact, the name Ralph Lauren is now being associated with Photoshop fakery!

Was Demi Moore Ralph-Laurenized on "W" mag cover, with missing hip-flesh? - Boing Boing

While bitterjewler calling the argument ridiculous or whatever is      fine, there are millions of people who are getting fed up with being bombarded with images purporting to be "real", when in fact the images are highly,heavily faked. People are getting fed up with having daughters becoming anorexic and bulimic because they have "hips",and are not stick-figure shaped.


----------



## Gaerek (Apr 29, 2010)

white said:


> What bothers me about this photography vs. photomanipulation issue is there are a lot of people manipulating their photos to the extent you did *and they're not telling anyone.*


 
I think I'm going to email Max Brooks and tell him that because he didn't tell people that his book "World War Z" is a work of fiction, even though he presented the Zombie War as historical fact that he should put a disclaimer on the cover saying it's a false story. I'll make sure Dan Brown knows also, with regards to all of his books.

While I'm at it, I think I'll let Michael Bay know that Robot Aliens from space have never landed on the Earth, and that he needs to put a disclaimer on his movies saying these events never happened.

Art is art. Whether the photo was manipulated or not is irrelavent in most cases (except PJ, for example) when it comes to photography. If a photo is intriguing, thought provoking, emotion provoking, etc, whether it was manipulated or not, is all that really matters. Who are you to say what is going too far or not? I challenge you to make a good image, shooting RAW (no in-camera editing), and making sure there are no preset manipulations set on your RAW editing program. Good luck!


----------



## Overread (Apr 29, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> I think I'm going to email Max Brooks and tell him that because he didn't tell people that his book "World War Z" is a work of fiction, even though he presented the Zombie War as historical fact that he should put a disclaimer on the cover saying it's a false story. I'll make sure Dan Brown knows also, with regards to all of his books.
> 
> While I'm at it, I think I'll let Michael Bay know that Robot Aliens from space have never landed on the Earth, and that he needs to put a disclaimer on his movies saying these events never happened.



They are already waaaaaaay ahead of you in both the books and the films. Any work of fiction published in those areas nearly always has a disclaimer that the work is fictional - for books its generaly in the first few pages on the legal and copywrite details page whilst for films its either at the very start or (more commonly) in part (often the end of) the rolling credits


----------



## Overread (Apr 29, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Art is art. Whether the photo was manipulated or not is irrelavent in most cases (except PJ, for example) when it comes to photography. If a photo is intriguing, thought provoking, emotion provoking, etc, whether it was manipulated or not, is all that really matters.



Remember though photography is far far more than just art - its proof, evidence, records, memories etc....*

People can use image for artistic expression, for display of samples, for products, to advertise and to inform. 

As I said earlier its all about context - with no context we tend to fall back to photography just being an art form (often the case as many here are from artistic backgrounds) and then the water gets to muddied. You need to give a context in order to determin how far you can manipulate an image. If someone is trying for the most colour accurate and realistic representation of a subject then even slight adjustments to the white balance would be going too far - whilst for most such minor alterations are often done to best present the image artistically.

* this of course does not mean that the other forms cannot be art as well as being something else first


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 29, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> You can't request the thread be closed until the OP comes back and responds to the mess she/he/it created.



Well, I didn't mean it literally. Plus I actually believe this type of thread coming back on a regular basis is not such a bad thing. We have new people here all the time and I don't think many of them will do a search on "philosophical" questions but those threads make people think about things. Thinking is good... 

As for your post, Derrel, what about parents taking responsibility for their kids? My parents certainly taught me the difference between fantasy and reality. They also taught me to not believe much of what was said in advertisements. In the 60s, we had Twiggy but I don't remember girls going nuts because of her the way they are today. Parents need to get back to the job of being parents.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 29, 2010)

Overread said:


> If someone is trying for the most colour accurate and realistic representation of a subject then even slight adjustments to the white balance would be going too far



I think a photographer who specializes in photographing paintings would strongly disagree with that.


----------



## Overread (Apr 29, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > If someone is trying for the most colour accurate and realistic representation of a subject then even slight adjustments to the white balance would be going too far
> ...



What even if they have custom white balance enabled first and are shooting in controled lighting? I would have thought with such shooting conditions one would not need to adjust the white balance for best archival record - now if they want a nice pic for a book or the newspapers then maybe a little shift would be inorder (I'm interested only because getting some "real world colour" shots of moths is a project I hope to start sometime soon)


----------



## Gaerek (Apr 29, 2010)

Overread said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'm going to email Max Brooks and tell him that because he didn't tell people that his book "World War Z" is a work of fiction, even though he presented the Zombie War as historical fact that he should put a disclaimer on the cover saying it's a false story. I'll make sure Dan Brown knows also, with regards to all of his books.
> ...


 
You are correct about that, however, when they are put into these mediums, they are usually put in locations where people will likely not see them. How many people actually watch the credits of a movie? Some do, but wouldn't you say it's misleading to wait until the end of the credit roll to put the disclaimer? More people are likely to see the "claimer" at the beginning of the movie that says something like, "This movie is based on actual events." That's even more misleading, I think, than not having anything there at all. Maybe I'll embed my disclaimer on my photo in the meta-data. Would that be appropriate? That's essentially what the movie studios are doing. 

When it comes to Dan Brown, I thought there was no disclaimer, but there actually is. However, (and I have a copy right in front of me) World War Z has no disclaimer anywhere stating that it isn't true. It's written as if the author interviewed several people about their experiences with the Zombie War. Some might say that the content gives the context needed to understand that this isn't true, but then again, that puts us back in a sticky situation.

Here's a few things to think about. Should there be a disclaimer on photos of waterfalls taken with a long exposure saying that the water really doesn't look like that? I mean, that isn't how water really looks. What about star trails? When I take a picture of a kid on a jumping on a trampoline, and I make sure to compose so the trampoline isn't in the frame, should I disclaim that children really can't fly? I can keep going on and on here. People say that Photoshop is bad, and they try to make arbitrary rules with how it should be used (typically based on personal preference) yet they're ok if the manipulation can be done "in camera" or "in a darkroom." How come we're ok with that kind of manipulation, even though it doesn't show reality how it really is, but we're not ok with photoshop doing exactly the same thing? Photo Journalism is one thing, but for the rest of us artists (whether you like the title or not) does it really matter? Nope. All that matters is the image.

I'll give you the point about movies and books. Context and disclaimers can tell us what's real or not in most cases. But where do you draw the line in photography? And who gets to make those decisions? And what happens if you don't stay on the 'right' side of that line?


----------



## Overread (Apr 29, 2010)

Publication date might also be important - the legal reasoning for the requirement might not be present uptill a fixed date - further international differences in legal publications might also lead to differences in this aspect. 

As for the rest of your questions again its coming back to contextual events and situations. Do you have to list that the child is not flying - maybe yes maybe no - the context of your presentation of that work should (in theory) define the need for such an explination.
Also there are whole areas of photography outside of art and photojournalism (and we must remember that journalists can also be artists - if again within certain contextual rules.)


----------



## Gaerek (Apr 29, 2010)

Overread said:


> Publication date might also be important - the legal reasoning for the requirement might not be present uptill a fixed date - further international differences in legal publications might also lead to differences in this aspect.
> 
> As for the rest of your questions again its coming back to contextual events and situations. Do you have to list that the child is not flying - maybe yes maybe no - the context of your presentation of that work should (in theory) define the need for such an explination.
> Also there are whole areas of photography outside of art and photojournalism (and we must remember that journalists can also be artists - if again within certain contextual rules.)


 
I agree with what you are saying here. I suppose this is why this is such a convoluted situation. Taken in context of the many different facets of photography, there are just as many ways of determining how much manipulation is too much. I suppose I will leave this part of the discussion with, manipulate as much as you're comfortable with manipulating, but don't get on others for manipulating simply because it's something that you think isn't right.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 29, 2010)

When you shoot paintings (especially for publication of high quality books) you have to get the colors 100% right. With film (sorry, that is all I ever shot for this kind of work), every film is slightly biased towards one color or another. Take Kodachrome and Ektachrome  for example. One is warm, the other is cold, neither is 100% real. So there is no way around doing some manipulation.

As I think you know I am pretty new to digital but I understand that digi bodies have the same "problem." Nikon has a slightly different color cast than Canon so that means that the colors need to be adjusted in PP.

With moths, if the colors are critical, I don't see why it would be any different. If the moth's colors are not quite right straight out of the camera, you will need to adjust them until they are spot on.

Hope I'm explaining this right.

Btw, the disclaimer in books of fiction is actually a protection for the author and publisher against people saying "That's me. You can't use me in your novel" and then they sue. At least, that's the way it was explained to me.


----------



## Overread (Apr 29, 2010)

ahh true point with regard to the colour shots cloud - my canon 400D certainly favours reds a little more than it should. However that is when I am using auto white balance and the camera is doing the thinking on the lighting for me. When you set custom white balance (as I understand it) the whitebalance should be ideal for the lighting inwhich you are shooting in provided that you don't have conflicting sources of major light into the scene (eg mixing flash with regular indoor lights). 
Its important to me because on the first count our eyes are subjective so what I see as red one other person might see as a slightly different shade of red - further when it comes to editing the results I won't have the moth with me nor would it be in the same light as it would photographed in - so again problems for getting the correct colour.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 29, 2010)

Color critical work is not easy that's why they are people who specialize in shooting paintings. I shot my own because I could do a good enough job for what my use was. If someone ever wants to publish me in a high quality book, I will not be the photog.

I agree that our eyes see things differently (or so it seems) but that does not matter one bit. You look at the moth and you match the color on your photo. If I look at this moth and see it slightly differently than you do, I will still see it as a match on your photo though because you made it match. Do you know what I'm saying?

Not having the moth with you is a problem. For all practical purposes, you should have the moth pinned next to your printer. Who said photography was easy


----------



## Overread (Apr 29, 2010)

Ahh yes I see your point about eyes - but yes pinned next to the printer would ideal - though I have a feeling the moth might have some objections to such a plan


----------



## vtf (Apr 29, 2010)

:gah:


----------



## Overread (Apr 29, 2010)

vtf said:


> :gah:



Ahh I see you share the pains of accurate moth colour presentation! :lmao:

:mrgreen:


----------



## JasonLambert (Apr 29, 2010)

I love this thread... Reminds me of talking to my uncle who's a die hard left wing Democrat and I'm a Libertarian. We go round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and... Well you get the point.

Is there a right answer to this? No... It's a personal choice. It's like TV... You don't trust everything that you see do you? You should be able to trust the News (print or film) but other than that *viewer beware*.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 29, 2010)

And I do agree with the moth. I wouldn't like getting pinned next to your printer if you were doing a portrait of me 

But in theory, that is what you would need to do.


----------



## burnws6 (Apr 29, 2010)

Almost everything.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 29, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> As for your post, Derrel, what about parents taking responsibility for their kids? My parents certainly taught me the difference between fantasy and reality. They also taught me to not believe much of what was said in advertisements. In the 60s, we had Twiggy but I don't remember girls going nuts because of her the way they are today. Parents need to get back to the job of being parents.



Well, I'd love to address that point CW...Sorry dude....Twiggy was ONE famous thin model...the media culture today is vastly differnt from that of the 1960's, and this is a far,far,far bigger problem than parental failings. The media culture today is vastly more pervasive than when you were a boy,or when I was a boy. You're only a few years older than I am; when I was a boy, we got FOUR television channels, which were on the air from 6:00 AM to 1:00 AM. Surely you recall the days when the TV went off the air every night..when it was literally **impossible** to record a TV show. Now there is a huge world-wide media blitz. Today,many homes have 400 channels,and TV is on 24-7. On the web. On mobile phones. DVD. VCR. TV shows can be bought on DVD, rented, etc. In the 1960's once, rerun, Gone! Poof, into the ether,and never seen again! It's not that way today.

When you were a kid, anorexia was not an issue, it really wasn't. It was a rare disease, very,very uncommon. When you were a kid, there was no Nikelodeon, no Cartoon Network, and the Disney Corporation was not targeting kids through McDonalds toys. There was no Happy Meal. There was no cable TV. There was no nudity or semi-nudity on TV. No sex on TV. Married couples slept in separate beds, with "one foot on the floor at all times". There was one black man on American weekly TV, and one black woman on American TV (who was not a doorman or maid). There was no rap music, and people thought The Beatles were long-hairs. That was Twiggy's era.

Sorry, but "Twiggy existed in the 1960's" is one isolated case,and does not make a strong argument. The fact is that today, Photoshop fakery is all around us, and the role of media in cultures world-wide is a huge factor, whereas in he 1960's it was NOT much of a factor. A good case in point is the struggles totalitarian governments have with this little thing called...the internet. China had no problem squashing printing presses that operated outside the government's purvey in the 60's. What we have today however is not your America (or the China) of the 1960's. We can't put the genie back in the bottle, but at least people are beginning to realize that hundreds of thousands of advertising impressions have the power to override parental and scholastic teaching efforts. Some people are concerned because what people "see" is what they "want". When I was a kid, we watched June Cleaver totter around in high heels, a black skirt, and a pearl necklace, while Wally and Beav got in trouble for breaking a window with a baseball; today's kids might get in trouble when one of them tries a PCP-laced joint some A-hole off the street sells them...or killed by a crackhead or meth head.

An old expression was "a photograph doesn't lie." Courts used to accept photos more or less at face value. Today, both Canon and Nikon have "kits" that create digital photos that are verified to be...unretouched, for legal acceptance into court proceedings! The Canon kit costs $714.
Canon | DVK-E2 Data Verification Kit | 9314A001 | B&H Photo Video

Reuters has been found guilty of publishing numerous faked news photos,mostly of middle east war coverage between Israeli and Palestinian armed conflict. It's easy to fake a photo now. Very,very easy. Although Twiggy was thin, she was isolated. Ralph Lauren has 'shopped models so that their heads are larger than their pelvic areas,and the images are plastered all over the side of city buses. Buses in the 1960's didn't have advertising on them the way they do today. The issues surrounding fakery in media go far outside the parental realm, and are society-wide. Which is the main reason I am interested in this entire debate and issue. I find it fascinating to hear the different points of view!!! I am of course, interested in sociology and cultural issues, but the difference between fantasy and reality in the 1960's was clear--but today, MUCH of what is portrayed as "reality" is actually fantasy,and today, Photoshop and CGI is so,so good that many parents cannot tell the difference between the two, and kids today are easily manipulated by faked images, both still,and moving.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 29, 2010)

I don't totally disagree with you Derrel but I will stick to the fact that parents need to get back to being parents. I would love to keep talking about this but I would hate to see this thread closed for getting political. Sorry.


----------



## reznap (Apr 29, 2010)

Blah blah blah blah blah..........

blah blah blah..

Oh yeah, blah blah blah...

blah


----------



## Overread (Apr 29, 2010)

I fail to see why some are insulting this threads content - and by extension the op and others in the thread. It's certainly an interesting apsect of photography to debate and something that many of us come to consider at some time or another. 
Sure some might already have their views and opinions - that is fine either bring them to the debate in a meaningfull and polite manner or keep them to ones self - but I don't see any gain in simply insulting.


----------



## reznap (Apr 29, 2010)

Blah blah blah

I hope this stays on page 1 for a year...

BUMP


----------



## LaFoto (Apr 30, 2010)

So how about these:
Trick of the eye: Photographer turns everyday images into mind-boggling works of art | Mail Online

Has this photo artist *ABUSED* Photoshop???


----------



## jonndepp (Apr 30, 2010)

Yeah thats true, I see many people do that. Some people are very lazy to even workout they just photoshop to make their pictures look less fat.


----------



## randpropz (May 1, 2010)

kelli_anne said:


> As I have read through the threads, I have come to the concussion that people rely on PhotoShop way to much. Statements made, such as " I will just photoshop that"
> 
> Now don't get me wrong I think PhotoShop is a great tool, but that is what it is, a tool, not a fix it all. I believe that if people spend more time looking through the view finder and learning their equipment better, the less time they will spend in PhotoShop fixing everything that show have never happened in the first place. I think a lot of people need to go back to film and learn the hard way. Maybe they would respect photography and what it takes to make a GOOD photograph.
> 
> Just my thoughts



Yes, i think photoshop cannot make your photo from zero to hero.


 Good photograph is needed and adding more taste with photoshop.

Have a nice day.
:mrgreen:


----------



## Overread (May 1, 2010)

LaFoto said:


> So how about these:
> Trick of the eye: Photographer turns everyday images into mind-boggling works of art | Mail Online
> 
> Has this photo artist *ABUSED* Photoshop???



In most of them probably, but I am betting that he didn't need one inch of photoshop for this one 
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/27/article-1209399-062FE89F000005DC-577_634x468.jpg
:lmao:

Seriously though for an abstract artist who is not trying to show or display "reality" its very good work and certainly stands up as an easy example of where good photoshopping can create fantastic images. Were he a journalist or trying to convey a sense/idea of the real world through his photography then yes I would say it is an abuse because the photo would only be real in an abstract manner - ie it would need a lot of words and explination to draw "real" meaning out of rather than being real upon its own


----------

