# Too Much Photoshop Manipulation - where to draw the line...



## AdriaanSteyn (Feb 7, 2006)

Hi there

I have seen many photographs that have been IMHO over-photoshopped. This ranges from over-saturation to excessive filters and techniques added, making the photograph almost unnatural.

I am somewhat of a traditionalist and feel that what could not have been achieved in a dark room during development should be interpreted as being over-photoshopped. Therefor turning a photograph into a painting.

I am all for the "creative" side of achieving effects for artistic purposes, but does it really reflect on the photographer's ability?

Where is the line drawn.......does the line even exist?

I would like to see what others' opinion is regarding this.

many thanks
Adriaan


----------



## Digital Matt (Feb 7, 2006)

The line doesn't exist for me.  Art is art.  You may not like all art, but over classifying art by what technique was used is too much thinking about it, and not enough feeling.  

The "ability" to use photoshop and use it well is something that must be learned as well as any traditional photographic technique.


----------



## Arch (Feb 7, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> The "ability" to use photoshop and use it well is something that must be learned as well as any traditional photographic technique.



I agree. When i first used ps almost 10 years ago...i had a tendancy to use every fliter and effect possible to create, what i thought was a cool image. Looking back now some of the stuff i did was comical, but it was all the learning curve of using ps. I gradually realised that less is more, and now i prefer using ps to enhance my photographs in the most subtle way possible. However if i feel like doing something more arty and stylised, i will use more ps to get the effect i need (see my vampire thread), but i'm not using ps for the sake of it....i'm using it to produce the effect i want.

True......some images on here are over ps'd in my opinion too, but these people haven't been using it as long as i have and are testing the limits of the software. I am all for experimentation and creativity and will always encourage fellow ps users.


----------



## terri (Feb 7, 2006)

One can "over-manipulate" a Polaroid SX-70 print, too. :razz: One can take a traditional silver gelatin print and decide to hand color it in the traditional manner and only end up making it garish by being overly enthusiastic. 

It's not about _how_ one chooses to manipulate or further enhance their work; it's about learning what works as far as toning, coloring, and finding what is aesthetically pleasing.

The same "errors of enthusiasm" when learning something new will continue to be made, whether it's by a great piece of software like PS, or too heavy a hand after the darkroom with toners or other medium.  

(That said, I do agree a lot of people seem to love to slide up that saturation button to the point where it makes ya cringe.)


----------



## AdriaanSteyn (Feb 7, 2006)

Thanks for viewing your opinions regarding this. I like Archangel's perspective whereby less is (in most cases) more and whereby it certainly is a learning curve we all go through.

It certainly gives me a different perspective to photography

thanks for all the comments


----------



## mysteryscribe (Feb 7, 2006)

In my opinion such as it is.... when you see something in your mind you should strive to make it happen whatever it takes.

But in the words of a favorite person (me)  that don't make it art...


----------



## markc (Feb 7, 2006)

How do you feel about these images?

http://www.robertkleingallery.com/gallery/albums/uelsmann/aad.jpg 
http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/images/uelsmann/jerry.jpg

They were done by Jerry Uelsmann, all in the darkroom.

I consider using the darkroom as a limiting factor (or the negative as the truth) as an artificial construct. Why that and not something else? It's too arbitrary. Why not only contact prints from colloidal plates?

I don't mean this as a diss towards you. I'm just not fond of the viewpoint.


----------



## Fate (Feb 7, 2006)

Well as you all know all i ever do on PS is mess around with the contrast lol  But im working on exploring it!


----------



## panzershreck (Feb 7, 2006)

photography was never a factual basis for truth

it's just like the written word, it doesn't mean it's necessarily real, but it was based off of something real, with words it's an experience, with photography it's light illuminating something

but i don't see people taking every word written as some kind of "truth"


----------



## mentos_007 (Feb 7, 2006)

my ps work is only for cropping, levels and b&w conversion... so mostly everything you can do in a darkroom. Sometimes I play with filters and so on... 
but remember that most of thos things were also available in darkroom... like ...solarisation for instance... so as long as it is still photography (not computer graphics) I like it...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Feb 7, 2006)

Ps is a tool, if you need it use it.  I don't see a problem with that.  Since I don't have the time to learn to use it, most any editor will do what I want.  I do have photo shop but after the last crash I didn't reinstall it.


----------



## Tkraz (Feb 7, 2006)

This came up in conversation earlier on the day actually!

My arguement was that using photoshop is just as much a tool as anything else in photography, its just a little bit frowned upon at the moment because it's new and often can get a bad press from some of the over enthusiasm shown in some of its uses. Also anything that replaces previously lengthy long drawn out processes by people who didnt have such an option beforehand, is bound to be met with some hostility before its accepted.


----------



## hammy (Feb 7, 2006)

I believe PSing is fine as long as they're not trying to pass really artsy as real, and vice versa. I think the person has to decide what they're going for (artsy, real or whatever) and go from there. 
P.S., many crazy things can be done in the darkroom aswell


----------



## bantor (Feb 7, 2006)

I think that depending on what extend you are using PS for, it is almost leaning into another form of art.  To be a great photographer is one form or art just the same way as being a great photomanipulator is another.  Regardless of what people say, it takes some serious artistic skill to work photoshop to its full potential, sure it has all kinds off plugins and filters to help, but to add them all together to make an image is art in my opinion.


----------



## panzershreck (Feb 8, 2006)

Tkraz said:
			
		

> This came up in conversation earlier on the day actually!
> 
> My arguement was that using photoshop is just as much a tool as anything else in photography, its just a little bit frowned upon at the moment because it's new and often can get a bad press from some of the over enthusiasm shown in some of its uses. Also anything that replaces previously lengthy long drawn out processes by people who didnt have such an option beforehand, is bound to be met with some hostility before its accepted.


 
i don't think it gets badmouthed because it's new, i think it gets badmouthed because you can manipulate anything with it with ease, and for some photographers that's seen as a danger to the validity of photographs as a record of truth, even to the point that you can't really consider it a photograph, mostly just a computer graphic

that's why, imo, i just don't look at photos as a record of truth, just as some guy writing about his experiences isn't telling every fine detail, even if it really did happen, what you read isn't exactly what happened

it's a representation


----------



## Tkraz (Feb 8, 2006)

I agree with what your saying, but both points arent entirely exclusive. I think all that yer saying is true, but when a new technology is embedded into the norm, it becomes much more accepted.


----------



## sameerjatana (Feb 8, 2006)

Hi

I think PS helps one to hide the flaws(if u will) in a pic. Although I've not yet started using it, I believe it will make me less particular about the nuances I have to be careful about when clicking a pic. In the back of my mind I will have something to fall back on. Its a good tool for professional work, but for a learner of photography, I strongly feel it should be avoided.


----------



## kalee (Feb 8, 2006)

in my opinion... photoshop isn't a 'hider', it's an enhancer.


----------



## ts_imagery (Feb 9, 2006)

Well, I personally like all visual art; 'computer graphics', photography, or otherwise.  So I personally don't care how the final image was achieved.

But I do agree that there is possibly a point where an image can no longer be called a photograph.  Although I'm not sure the defining test is whether the image could have been made in a darkroom or not.  I mean, I can make all sorts of images in a dark room without even using a negative, by just shining different coloured lights at photographic paper, or combine different photographs together like the examples markc linked, etc.  So I'm not sure that there is very much that can be done in PhotoShop that couldn't be done in a darkroom given enough ingenuity.  

  Nevertheless, if I were to take a photograph in PhotoShop and then use the paintbrush to draw a whole new image on top so that none of the original photograph was showing, I suppose that I wouldnt really have a photograph anymore.  But as I said, I like all visual art, so as long as the end looked good, I would like it.

  To me, the only way an image can be over-photoshoped, is if I take the image from a point where it looked good to a point where it doesnt look as good.  Which certainly can happen, but I dont think it necessarily has anything to do with the amount of photoshoping involed, it has more to do with the quality of the photoshoping.

  But thats just my opinion.


----------



## alexecho (Feb 9, 2006)

A lot of PS work is someone who isn't a good photographer, getting a really average photo and 'touching it up' until they get something that pleases them. That isn't art, that's salvage. That gives PS a bad name.

I think it's a valid tool for someone who knows what they want to create and that involves PS, but it's impossible to prove what someone was intending at the point of pressing the shutter.

My personal opinion is that PS has devalued the importance of getting a good photograph in the first place, but that's probably quite an old fashioned idea in the age of digital anyway, where you can shoot as many versions as you like and get your photo by trial and error anyway.

I guess it just comes down to what you enjoy. For me that is getting a good image direct from the camera, digital or analogue. My instinct is always that I failed if I have to crop or manipulate the shot - unless I shot it with that in mind.


----------



## KevinR (Feb 9, 2006)

Don't you think that the over-PSing isn't the problem? Because when used you create a representation of your work. The problem really is misrepresentation. When that person passes off something that is manipulated but is represented as original. This can be taken to extremes or maybe more subtle. I'm not saying that by taking out a distraction is lying, but..........

And yes, this can be done and is done in the darkroom too. But it does bring up a few moral dilemmas.

Just something to ponder.


----------



## bethany138 (Feb 9, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> How do you feel about these images?
> 
> http://www.robertkleingallery.com/gallery/albums/uelsmann/aad.jpg
> http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/images/uelsmann/jerry.jpg
> ...


 
Very cool images!  I love that kind of stuff...

b


----------



## markc (Feb 9, 2006)

KevinR said:
			
		

> Don't you think that the over-PSing isn't the problem? Because when used you create a representation of your work. The problem really is misrepresentation. When that person passes off something that is manipulated but is represented as original. This can be taken to extremes or maybe more subtle. I'm not saying that by taking out a distraction is lying, but..........
> 
> And yes, this can be done and is done in the darkroom too. But it does bring up a few moral dilemmas.
> 
> Just something to ponder.


One of my points is that this happens even before the light hits the lens. Imagine a picture with a man kneeling, head bowed in prayer. Now a second print from a different angle that shows another man standing begind the first holding a gun to his head. Now a third image, pulled back, that shows a camera operator, director, and sound man off to the side.

Your choice in film can make a simple market scene look flat and dreary or like Disney Land.

With PS you can go to extremes, like having a purple two-headed cow floating in an orange sky, but I think people go too far in thinking that _anything_ photographic is a fair representation of "the truth". It's only one very specific view of the subject.


----------



## KevinR (Feb 9, 2006)

> Your choice in film can make a simple market scene look flat and dreary or like Disney Land.


That's why I shoot B&W.:mrgreen:

Point of view _is_ the vision of the photographer. And for me, that is my art. But that doesn't make it right......though it makes it hopefully interesting.


----------



## bantor (Feb 9, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> One of my points is that this happens even before the light hits the lens. Imagine a picture with a man kneeling, head bowed in prayer. Now a second print from a different angle that shows another man standing begind the first holding a gun to his head. Now a third image, pulled back, that shows a camera operator, director, and sound man off to the side.
> 
> Your choice in film can make a simple market scene look flat and dreary or like Disney Land.
> 
> With PS you can go to extremes, like having a purple two-headed cow floating in an orange sky, but I think people go too far in thinking that _anything_ photographic is a fair representation of "the truth". It's only one very specific view of the subject.


 
I really couldn't agree more with waht markc says.  There is nothing more to add to it.  You really speak the truth here markc.


----------



## mannella (Feb 10, 2006)

The reality of it is the people that don't know how to use photoshop are usually the ones that knock it. Like all technoligy there is a learning curve, if it wasn't for photoshop I don't think I would be into photography as much as I am. I'm a techno junkie and proud of it. As a musician I used effect pedals when they became availible. Before that I had to pull power tubes out of an amp to get the effects that I wanted. I still played as well with either one it just made it easier to get the sound I wanted. Santana sounds the same today as he did years ago but I can tell you that it not by using the same equipment.--lenny


----------



## JTHphoto (Feb 10, 2006)

I have never had the opportunity to work in a darkroom, so PS has made photography so much more enjoyable for me. Post processing adds a whole new level to the photographic process that I had never experienced before. I try very hard not to go overboard in PS, and try to use it to enhance my images to meet my own personal artistic vision (limited as it may be). If you want to say it's not a photograph because I doctored it up in PS, that fine, call it whatever you want, i like it anyway  . 

 That being said, i have a lot of respect for both traditional and contemporary methods. I don't think it matters how you get to the final product as long as it achieves the desired effect on your intended audience (even if you are your only intended audience).


----------



## midnitejam (Feb 10, 2006)

Tkraz said:
			
		

> This came up in conversation earlier on the day actually!
> 
> My arguement was that using photoshop is just as much a tool as anything else in photography, its just a little bit frowned upon at the moment because it's new and often can get a bad press from some of the over enthusiasm shown in some of its uses. Also anything that replaces previously lengthy long drawn out processes by people who didnt have such an option beforehand, is bound to be met with some hostility before its accepted.


I share your viewpoint.  I think the most resentment of PS is from those who haven't taken the time to learn how to use it well and they feel themselves at an unfair advantage--PS definitely has a formidable learning curve and requires more than just a little time and effort to become proficient with it.

My position on the PS subject is that it is absolutely fair.  

Nobody can capture a scene as it actually is.  if the capture is enhanced with levels, curves, brightness, or contrast, etc, it is usually accepted as a valid photograph (it doesn't take a great deal of PS to do these simple things, right?  But if the post processing received more PS wizardry than the simple stuff, you'll hear someone complain regardless of how beautiful the result of PS was.  And sometimes when the capture is transformed into something that is way more pleasant to look at than the actual scene was, the cry of 'no fair' is heard from some who haven't yet developed enough PS skills to accomplish the same result. IMHO


----------



## Torus34 (Feb 11, 2006)

Wow!

Similar discussions occurred when the Impressionists first exhibited their work. It occurred again when the Dadaists erupted on the scene. And again when the non-objectiveists claimed the avant-garde as their own.

Discussion [and Art] are alive and well! Long live both!


----------



## terri (Feb 13, 2006)

Torus34 said:
			
		

> Wow!
> 
> Similar discussions occurred when the Impressionists first exhibited their work. It occurred again when the Dadaists erupted on the scene. And again when the non-objectiveists claimed the avant-garde as their own.
> 
> Discussion [and Art] are alive and well! Long live both!


:thumbsup:


----------



## diGIgirl (Feb 20, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> How do you feel about these images?
> 
> http://www.robertkleingallery.com/gallery/albums/uelsmann/aad.jpg
> http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/images/uelsmann/jerry.jpg
> ...


----------



## slickhare (Feb 20, 2006)

i rarely use photoshop personally. except for SC, multi exposure, and cool things like that. but if a picture is just completely badly done, and is made "good" in photoshop, i think that's over-manipulation. 

so basically making up for a lack of knowledge in photography with a wealth of knowledge in photoshop. not ok. but using it as a tool to enhance already great shots with cool effects, that's ok.


----------



## magicmonkey (Feb 22, 2006)

Personally I think that if you're going to call your work photography that you should only apply images/effects that you could achieve either with the camera or the darkroom etc. but if you're going to call your work photographic art then you can do whatever you like to it. 

I say this not because I think that there is really a difference in the two, more because there is a public perception of the difference between the two. The reason I call the second photographic art and not the first one is that the image you already have is interacted with in a similar way to an artist interacting with a painting. Obviously the two are very closely linked and there is a massive grey area in between the definitions. I just believe that if someone were to do a lot of work in Photoshop and came out with a great picture that was quite far removed from a photo, but still a photo none the less, they would get more respect for their work by calling it photographic art and not photography.

I would judge this on a piece by piece basis rather than pigeon holing an artist completely. I also hope that one day the dividing line of public perception with vanish but I very much doubt it will considering that photography is so often used as a portrayal of truth.

Opinionated little so-and-so aren't I!!


----------



## theinvisiblecity (Feb 22, 2006)

I think photoshop's just fine to use as a tool, but I like to view physical prints actually in front of me....I don't like looking at a computer screen, and digital prints still are not quite there.....when the printing process is improved I'll be a happy man....I believe a photo is not complete until it's off the screen and in your hand.....and there's too many folks who's entire photographic carrer has never left the hard drive


----------



## slickhare (Feb 22, 2006)

recently i was looking through the latest Pop Photo issue, and they had a review of the new Aperture program for Mac. at first i just thought "oh it's photoshop for mac users". but then i saw the *$500* price tag 
to me it seems to be a bad sign that software for editing your shots post-capture costs as much as a good P&S digicam.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Feb 22, 2006)

ive heard a lot of talk about art and how one wants their art "labeled"

seriously folks, who cares. When it all comes down to it, you cannot make a truley bad photograph good in PS because the first half of the work is composition, focus and light management which is irreplaceble in PS.

the second half of the work is the darkroom persay, which can be PS, or a real darkroom. some of those "artsy" layered overlay mode pics which look all trippy took those guys literally years to learn in PS. Id say thats as much a skill as photography, put the 2 together and you have a really cool skill set. 

In the commercial "real" world PS is used to give art editors and advertising departments the EXACT look they want for their commercials or ads. ITs as simple as that. The ones making the photos, and processing these prints are making big bucks. Thats why it costs so much money. 

Theres a market for nearly everything, the more skill it takes to create a look, usually the better the niche. Id say the more you can do in the camera the better, but also I love to play around in PS sometimes myself... lol


----------



## magicmonkey (Feb 23, 2006)

Slick, there's a review on Apature and Adobes Lightroom (still in beta testing) to be found here:

Lightroom

and here:

Apature

I haven't read the review for apature as I'm a PC user but it seems both the products are trying to do the same thing more or less with Lightroom coming out miles ahead...

Sorry, bit off topic there :blushing:


----------



## slickhare (Feb 23, 2006)

magicmonkey said:
			
		

> Slick, there's a review on Apature and Adobes Lightroom (still in beta testing) to be found here:
> 
> Lightroom
> 
> ...



oh i wasn't trying to compare it with pc products, i was simply saying that it's somewhat frightening that a program can cost that much.

on the other hand i like the name "Lightroom" :mrgreen:


----------



## markc (Feb 23, 2006)

Of course a really nice darkroom setup isn't cheap either. BTW, you should see the price of some of the pro animation software packages.


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 23, 2006)

For me part of the point of using digital is the ease of manipulation.  If I want "straight photography" (which I think is a make believe animal anyway), I'll shoot film.  I've always been appalled by the excessive, unnatural look of Velvia, but many folks swear by it.  If Velvia is okay, then I say the sky is the limit.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Feb 24, 2006)

Oh my goodness MarC, you are so right. I had a roomate one time that was into that stuff, and he had to get maya, dude, my jaw dropped when I saw the price on that sucker.....


----------



## thebeginning (Feb 25, 2006)

maya is crazy expensive. nice program though 


i think it depends on what you are using photoshop for. If you edit portraits for clients, then overprocessing is a big issue. If you are trying to make abstract art with photoshop, then the 'line' is quite vague (or even nonexistent). I agree with DigitalMatt, the real issue is what you consider art. There are thousands of works of 'modern art' that I find obsurd and an insult to what I consider true art, but others consider them masterpieces. Heavily manipulated images can fit in this category, but in the end it really just rests on each individual's opinions.


----------

