# Ethical Question:  Editing photos on a computer...



## Kuristopha (Feb 24, 2005)

besides basic touch ups do you think a photo loses something if the artist enhances it on their computer.  For example a sunset landscape photo made into more vibrant colours.  Maybe i'm just old fashioned, but i think computer editing can be taken too far.  Thoughts?


----------



## danalec99 (Feb 24, 2005)

A similar thread


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 24, 2005)

Does it lose something when a photographer chooses to shoot a sunset landscape with Velvia rather than Provia?  How about with a polarizing filter?  Computers just make it obvious how manipulated photography has always been.  How they do it is new; what they are doing is not.


----------



## railman44 (Feb 24, 2005)

There are "tricks" to film and digital photograpy.  I guess I'm a purist.  I'm not a digital guy.  I've worked with photoshop and I know what can be done.  Objects, colors and sharpness among other things can be inserted.  This to me is not art.  This is taking an average picture and making it something it was never meant to be.  That, to me, is not art.  I understand digital photograpy is here to stay.  The photographer's eye is the brush of the painting not a piece of software that will make a wannabe something he/she was never meant to be.  Sorry for the harsh words.  As time passes, I'm becoming more of a critic of digital photography...


----------



## Kuristopha (Feb 24, 2005)

Maybe i just love the nit and grit of the darkroom.  Sometimes u gotta sit and wait for the right time to get the perfect colours of that sunset, or work it out in the darkroom to up the contrast,  if a simple click of the mouse can do the same thing it just doesn't seem worth as much.  

I guess the question is, is the final copy what matters most, or the energy put in to get that final copy, for me it's the ladder, that's what makes this hobby fun.


----------



## railman44 (Feb 24, 2005)

Kuristopha said:
			
		

> Maybe i just love the nit and grit of the darkroom.  Sometimes u gotta sit and wait for the right time to get the perfect colours of that sunset, or work it out in the darkroom to up the contrast,  if a simple click of the mouse can do the same thing it just doesn't seem worth as much.
> 
> I guess the question is, is the final copy what matters most, or the energy put in to get that final copy, for me it's the ladder, that's what makes this hobby fun.



I think you and I are on the same wave length.  If you're a great photographer you're an artist.  You don't need Adobe to help you...


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 24, 2005)

This topic has been discusses to death, time and time again.

Would you say that using darkroom techniques is not true to the art work?  Most of the things people can do to a photo with a computer...have been done by hand for a long time.  Just because it's easier, does that make it less artistic?

If a carpenter uses a power drill, does that make his finished product less artistic than if he had used a hand drill?

The digital darkroom is just another tool available to photographers...it can not create...only do what it's told.  I still takes an artist to work with the tools.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 24, 2005)

railman44 said:
			
		

> I think you and I are on the same wave length.  If you're a great photographer you're an artist.  You don't need Adobe to help you...


That's like saying you don't need Kodak to help you.  Or you don't need the maker of darkroom chemicals to help you.  Adobe is a tool, nothing more.


----------



## MDowdey (Feb 24, 2005)

honestly, if you have arrived at what YOU deem is a work of art, and you are proud of it, who the hell cares how you got there? 

geesh.



md


----------



## Digital Matt (Feb 24, 2005)

Kuristopha said:
			
		

> Maybe i just love the nit and grit of the darkroom.  Sometimes u gotta sit and wait for the right time to get the perfect colours of that sunset, or work it out in the darkroom to up the contrast,  if a simple click of the mouse can do the same thing it just doesn't seem worth as much.
> 
> I guess the question is, is the final copy what matters most, or the energy put in to get that final copy, for me it's the ladder, that's what makes this hobby fun.



I don't think you are really aware of what photoshop can or can't do.  You can't get the "perfect colors of a sunset" with photoshop alone.  All photography, be it digital or film, is about capturing light, and that act is the first and most important step in any process.

Even if it were really just the click of a mouse, (which it isn't) it still takes an artist, and an artists vision to make that decision of when and where to change contrast, density, and color, and to what degree, to produce that stunning photograph, that work of art.


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 24, 2005)

I think that selection of tools and techniques is extremely important, but it's just a personal choice.  Some folks don't like working in the darkroom; some folks don't like working on a computer.  To say that one method is better than another for a particular individual is probably a truth, but to say that there is only one right way for all photographers is silly.      

If you truely believe that the supposed ease of digital somehow makes it less valid, then I would counter with *film is for pussies!*  You should be hand coating 8"x10" glass plates in the field, developing them in the field, and contact printing them on platinum paper.  That's how a "real" photographer would do it   There's always going to be someone that can out-snob you as far as techniques and equipment goes.

I love black and white film.  I love shooting it, I love all mechanical film cameras, I love developing it myself, and I love the look of a hand printed, gelatin silver print on fiber paper.  That's the way I do it, and I'll be doing it that way for a long time to come.  It would be boring if everyone else did it the same way.


----------



## voodoocat (Feb 24, 2005)

> This topic has been discusses to death, time and time again.


You can say that again   Not much more to add.  ksmattfish and bigmike summed up my feelings pretty well.

My question for the "purists"... Does photoshop change the composition or lighting in a photograph?  The argument against photoshop always involves "making a mediocre shot great" which really means correcting a poorly exposed shot.  That is a weak argument as it is only one dimensional.  You can polish a turd but it still remains a piece of sh*t.


----------



## Rogue Monk (Feb 24, 2005)

voodoocat said:
			
		

> You can polish a turd but it still remains a piece of sh*t.



That's classic! And oh so true!

Another thread 

It all comes down to preference. ksmattfish prefers one methodology. Others prefer another. Could ksmattfish use a different method and get the same results? I bet he could.

Because he IS an artist. 

Its very Machiavellian--which allows for a lot of different expression.

I can put a nail in the wall with a hammer or I can use my shoe. The important thing is "Will picture hang from that nail?"

The most important tool (the one between your ears) is still the same. That's what provides your finished product with value.


----------



## loopy (Feb 25, 2005)

Kuristopha said:
			
		

> besides basic touch ups do you think a photo loses something if the artist enhances it on their computer.  For example a sunset landscape photo made into more vibrant colours.  Maybe i'm just old fashioned, but i think computer editing can be taken too far.  Thoughts?



Besides basic touch ups do you think a photo loses something if the artist enhances it in a darkroom?

A computer is a tool, I don't think it matters. I've spend years perfecting my photoshop techniques, I also know my way around a darkroom fairly well. I use photoshop because thats what I have access too.

It really isn't a click of a mouse either, I'll spend hours on my photographs, just like I would in a darkroom in order to get it just right.


----------



## Kuristopha (Feb 25, 2005)

I understand the arguments u guys are making and i liked Big Mike's analogy: 




			
				Big Mike said:
			
		

> If a carpenter uses a power drill, does that make his finished product less artistic than if he had used a hand drill?



but if a carpenter cut down a tree, cut out a block of wood, then typed a quick design into a computer, which did the cutting for him, i'd see it as less artistic personally.    

I'm 21 and i've had a computer since i can remember, i've worked with photoshop since highschool and it's no sweat for me, but workin in a dark room i can make mistakes, maybe that's why i just have more respect for people who work off a computer, i could see how other people could see it as the opposite too tho, so i guess i could have a bias


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 25, 2005)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> The digital darkroom is just another tool available to photographers...it can not create...only do what it's told.  I still takes an artist to work with the tools.




Well said, Mike.

As photographers, we have always had total control over the images we create.  I imagine when images were first made with a lens and film rather than a brush and canvas, the same debates took place.

But photographers still had control over what elements to include in a compsition, what colors to use, where to place shadow, what the model depicts, size of the print, etc...  all the same components of creating an image with a brush.

It's the difference between a "photographer" and a "camera user."  Anyone who can operate a camera can "take pictures."  A photographer "makes photographs."

One more parting thought...  "Harder isn't always better... sometimes it's just harder."

-Pete Christie


----------



## Lorilye (Feb 25, 2005)

I copied this from my last response to this topic:

I had this same convresation with my husband. I am brand new to photography before my digital camera I had a point and shoot film camera. Nor do I know how to develope film myself. My husband however used to be a photojournalist for the mititary, used a film SLR camera, and can do all his own developing.

He was looking through some of my pictures and we came to a conclusion that photography with film will probably become obsolite over the next few years.

With a film SLR he would have to set up the shot, adjust all his setting manually, then after taking the shot, go into the darkroom and develope the film. After all that he gets to see if the shot even turned ut the way he wanted it too.

With a digital however the same complex shots are just seconds away. I just set the camera settings (apeture priority, shutter priority, ect..), set up for my shot, click, then view. That simple.

As a beginner that is all I know. Digital technology has definatley made it easier for people that can't afford school (to learn how to process film), all the extra equipment that comes with SLR's, and don't have room to set up a darkroom/studio.

I don't think it is a matter of becoming lazy with photography persay. I believe that it just helps sharpen you eye for photography.......


----------



## AIRIC (Feb 25, 2005)

After 25 years of working in a darkroom Im happy to loose it. Dont get me wrong, I still do darkroom work, mostly infrared, once or twice a year but I have no desire to do everything in a darkroom. Photoshop or darkroom you manipulate an image before you print or in the printing. 

Eric


----------



## Kodan_Txips (Feb 25, 2005)

I think that what we have to hold out for is an increased awareness in the "general public" as to what constitutes Artistry,

Perhaps because of TV adverts, perhaps because of certain modern film emulsions, a lot of photos I see nowadays, even in my camera club, rely for their impact on what might be called PUNCH.  (WOW! OW, IF I AM NOT BLIND NOW I SOON WILL BE.)

Just as the amount of mexapixels in a camera indicates how good it is, so does the level of saturation in a photo show how good it is.  A recent example at the club featured a large free standing rock/cliff, surrounded by an angry sea.  The guy who took it claimed he had only tweaked it to reclaim its original colours.

"What?  Even though the sky is a normal sky blue, the cliff really WAS vermilion?  And the sea really WAS cyan, with pure white waves?"  (Either he needs glasses, or I do..)

And that is the problem, and that is why Photoshop is far too often a dangerous tool.  It is possible for people to ruin a photo in even more ways than they could ruin it with their digital camera.

I have Photoshop elements, together with 4 or 5 other similar programs.  I intend to use them very rarely, and then only for remedial work.


----------



## SLOShooter (Feb 25, 2005)

The only thing that these types of threads get done is prove that everyone has a different notion of what art is.  That being said, it sure is fun to argue your point of view!

The camera is not a human eye, it never will be.  A photo is never ever going to be an accurate representation of what you see, nor will it be what someone else would have seen had they been standing there instead of you.  So, what's the difference between an edited photo and one that has not been edited?


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 25, 2005)

Kuristopha said:
			
		

> i guess i could have a bias



     I think it's fine to be more interested in work that is similar to what you enjoy yourself.  Photography is too big to be passionate about every aspect.  I have very little interest in subject matter such as sports and product photography.  I don't pay as much attention to color photographs as to BW photographs, and I'll definately spend a lot more time examining the work (and the photographer) if they are using BW film, and printing it themselves in the darkroom.  On the other hand if someone is working exclusively with digital and color, I don't expect they would be as interested in my work as another photog who uses the same equipment and techniques as they do.  I still look, read, and think about different kinds of photography, but BW film is my prefered flavor, and that's where most of my interest is.

     When they get the dynamic range, purple fringing, etc... figured out, or when DSLR prices drop low enough where I'm willing to put up with that sort of stuff, then I'll probably get a DSLR.  I'm sure it will open up new interests in digital photography and color for me.  I still won't give up my BW film, darkroom, and vintage cameras though.  I just really enjoy using that kind of equipment and materials.  I get the biggest kick out of pulling out my Rolleiflex TLR in a crowd of digital Rebels, D-70s, and 20Ds.


----------



## walter23 (Feb 25, 2005)

railman44 said:
			
		

> There are "tricks" to film and digital photograpy.  I guess I'm a purist.  I'm not a digital guy.  I've worked with photoshop and I know what can be done.  Objects, colors and sharpness among other things can be inserted.  This to me is not art.  This is taking an average picture and making it something it was never meant to be.  That, to me, is not art.  I understand digital photograpy is here to stay.  The photographer's eye is the brush of the painting not a piece of software that will make a wannabe something he/she was never meant to be.  Sorry for the harsh words.  As time passes, I'm becoming more of a critic of digital photography...



Digital manipulation is just another tool.  Skillful use of a tool always stands out, and there will always be hoards of people who can't use the tool skillfully.  About the only thing photoshop can do automatically for you is correct bad exposure (levels or "highlights/shadows" dialogues), and even that requires a bit of care.  Nobody has yet invented a computer program that will take any crappy snapshot and make it into a piece of art that you'd hang in an art gallery.  I do think there is a bit of a trend to use very highly manipulated images, particularly in landscape and portrait photography, but it still is an art that requires a skilled artist to get right.


The insertion of objects is only a sin if it's being used to wilfully deceive people (e.g. in a photojournalist or advertising context).   If you're just showcasing your photos as art, anything goes.  You don't really blindly believe everything you see, do you?


----------



## walter23 (Feb 25, 2005)

Kuristopha said:
			
		

> but if a carpenter cut down a tree, cut out a block of wood, then typed a quick design into a computer, which did the cutting for him, i'd see it as less artistic personally.



If you had two carpenters, and one of them drew up a perfect design, and the other one had not a single idea in his head but could take carpenter#1's design and flawlessly execute it with hand tools, which one would be the artist?

Both skills are necessary for the final product.  More sophisticated tools (e.g. computer-aided design to help carpenter#1 make better designs, and precise power tools to help carpenter#2 exeute them more perfectly) just raise the bar a bit - more elaborate constructions are required to be competitive.  50,000 years ago, a hollow wooden bowl could have been an act of engineering genuis (I'm guessing the dates here, no anthropologist am I).   Now we build things like Canon 20Ds and communications satellites.

Maybe this is what the photoshop luddites fear so much?  Having to get better in response to advancement in the tools.  On the other hand, there is a place for art using different types of tools.  You could become famous making daguerrotypes if you were good enough at it and had the right artist's business sense.   I've seen pinhole holga silver gelatin prints listed for $300 in a local coffee shop.


----------



## GerryDavid (Feb 25, 2005)

AIRIC said:
			
		

> Dont get me wrong, I still do darkroom work, mostly infrared



When you do infrared film in the darkroom, do you use the same sort of chemicals/process as b&w film?  And can you buy infrared film in bulk for a bulk loader like b&w film?


----------



## Artemis (Feb 25, 2005)

I wanna say two things on this point.

1) I dont see myself (I dont speak for others) as an artist...because im not artistic...I respect people who are...but art means very little to me, and I can never truly understand art.

2) I think we are thinking too...2 dimensially....we are thinking of digital and film as the same thing...but its not...digital photography is different to film...I think thats the only way to look at it.
As for tweaking the images...another 2 things have to be taken into concideration.

1) If you feel its cheating...then doing it in the darkroom is cheating because you get the image with the best time you feel it needs...if you dont want to cheat someone else will have to do it for you.
2) Photoshop is a tool (As stated earlier) and is used to get our artistic (except my artistic) ideas onto the image...it just makes me as a photographer more free.

Another point...Andy Rouse suggested that...who really cares how much its edited? as long as it puts dinner on the table...and sometimes I think we must agree....


----------



## Digital Matt (Feb 25, 2005)

Good points Arty, except art rarely puts food on the table 

Here's one of my favorite jokes.  

"What's the difference between a jazz musician and a pizza?  

A pizza can feed a family of four."


----------



## John E. (Feb 25, 2005)

In the end, what I look for is: Did it move me in some way, either in intellect, emotion, visually, or all the above.? If so, how much? As long as nothing was harmed or killed in the process,  I really only care about the end product.

 I am interested in how it was done if the person is willing to share, if not........oh well.


----------



## Artemis (Feb 25, 2005)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Good points Arty, except art rarely puts food on the table
> 
> Here's one of my favorite jokes.
> 
> ...



hehe of course....
I think I was going for (Although I didnt really explain..and a rarely do) that Im not thinking of it as Art...because I am no where near as talented as an Artist...and although id like to be one...im not...people like you Matt, and like ive said countless times, Santino, are Artists...

What I meant was mainly for the photographer...who uses their shots to sell, and make money...like Andy Rouse does <-----Favoiret photographer!


----------



## railman44 (Feb 25, 2005)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> I think that selection of tools and techniques is extremely important, but it's just a personal choice.  Some folks don't like working in the darkroom; some folks don't like working on a computer.  To say that one method is better than another for a particular individual is probably a truth, but to say that there is only one right way for all photographers is silly.
> 
> If you truely believe that the supposed ease of digital somehow makes it less valid, then I would counter with *film is for pussies!*  You should be hand coating 8"x10" glass plates in the field, developing them in the field, and contact printing them on platinum paper.  That's how a "real" photographer would do it   There's always going to be someone that can out-snob you as far as techniques and equipment goes.
> 
> I love black and white film.  I love shooting it, I love all mechanical film cameras, I love developing it myself, and I love the look of a hand printed, gelatin silver print on fiber paper.  That's the way I do it, and I'll be doing it that way for a long time to come.  It would be boring if everyone else did it the same way.



You make some very valid and strong points!


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 25, 2005)

GerryDavid said:
			
		

> When you do infrared film in the darkroom, do you use the same sort of chemicals/process as b&w film?  And can you buy infrared film in bulk for a bulk loader like b&w film?



Yes and yes.


----------



## GerryDavid (Feb 25, 2005)

How much is the infrared film, for how many feet?  I could go to a site or two but I figure  since your doing it you would know the best price on it.


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 25, 2005)

Artemis said:
			
		

> I dont see myself (I dont speak for others) as an artist...because im not artistic...I respect people who are...but art means very little to me, and I can never truly understand art
> 
> ...because I am no where near as talented as an Artist...and although id like to be one...im not...



Don't believe the hype.  The creative urge is part of being human; everyone is doing something.  Some people get recognized and given celebrity status (often after they're dead), but most go unnoticed.  You got to do what you got to do, because you got to do it    If you worry about how other people label you then you'll fail.  

I've posted this photographer's quote somewhere here recently, but it's one of my favorites, and I think it's apt...

     "The word 'art' is very slippery. It really has no importance in relation to one's work. I work for the pleasure, for the pleasure of the work, and everything else is a matter for the critics." -Manuel Alvarez Bravo


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Feb 26, 2005)

This is indeed a subject that has been discussed to death. But even so, a few comments...
In my experience people fall into two groups - Artists and Technicians.
To an Artist the end justifies the means.
To a Technician the means is everything and the end isn't really important.
This is, of course, a very broad generalisation.

I wonder if anyone has stood beneath the ceiling of the Cistine chapel and thought 'it's not very good really - Michaelangelo has enhanced the colours a bit and I think he used the wrong brush for God's beard'. 
I don't think so. So why do it to Photography?

Comparing an Artistic pursuit to carpentry is very misleading. The outcome of the later is generally intended to be practical. The outcome of former is, hopefully, Art which has no practical value whatsoever.

At the end of the day the only thing that matters is the reason why you do what you do. Whatever aspect of Photography you choose to explore it should give you pleasure (if it brings pleasure to others, even better) but you should never look down your nose at others who take a different route to the same goal. We are all brothers with a common interest and we all have something to contribute - and we can all learn from each other.


----------



## AIRIC (Mar 1, 2005)

GerryDavid said:
			
		

> When you do infrared film in the darkroom, do you use the same sort of chemicals/process as b&w film?  And can you buy infrared film in bulk for a bulk loader like b&w film?



I use D-76 chemistry and expose the film at iso 400 and process it as the T-max 400iso speed. I like the grain. I only buy 36 exp. rolls. I have never ever bulk loaded, to easy to ruin the shots with dust and scratches. 


 http://www.airic.ca/html/infrared.html
You can see some of my infrared images at the above link.

Sorry for the delay in posting have not been in this section in awhile.

Eric


----------



## Artemis (Mar 1, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> This is indeed a subject that has been discussed to death. But even so, a few comments...
> In my experience people fall into two groups - Artists and Technicians.
> To an Artist the end justifies the means.
> To a Technician the means is everything and the end isn't really important.
> ...



Against my teenage erges...I find that I must agree with my peer (SP?)
Well said Hertz


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Mar 1, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Comparing an Artistic pursuit to carpentry is very misleading. The outcome of the later is generally intended to be practical. The outcome of former is, hopefully, Art which has no practical value whatsoever.


I disagree with your thinking.

Since we live in the age of production and efficiency, the resources available to us are limited.

Thus, the contradiction appears:

Even the pursuit of an outcome with no practical value whatsoever, must be accomplished by the most efficient means possible. 

Film tries to oppose this principle, and is therefore a dying species.


----------



## terri (Mar 1, 2005)

> Even the pursuit of an outcome with no practical value whatsoever, must be accomplished by the most efficient means possible.


Sorry Doc, but I must respectfully disagree with this statement.


----------

