32 replies to this topic

[daydreamer]

Thanks all for your responses. Potto, you make a very good point. Copying was not something that had occurred to me. And almost every artist I've ever known has copied the masters at one time or another. I imagine the photo I'm thinking of was just that. Thank you.

[StewartWhite]

In the final analysis, an image must stand on its own. It speaks to you or it doesn't.

[Kurt]

I was reading an extract from a journal written about 100 years ago. I don't have it to hand so cannot quote the exact source, but there was evidently an argument raging about manipulation! The comment that struck me went something like this. "The camera (and processes) are merely tools to bring the photographers vision to life". I concur.

[joanykins]

Well, after reading all the posts, in my option a photograph boils down to one thing. The end result. Photograpy in camera is an art . Digital editing (not manipulation) is an art . Neither has advantages or disadvantages. If, after checking my photos from my digital camera I have some 'dodgy ones', then instead of throwing them away I may be able to retrieve them digitally .

Obviously, if one was to enter into a competition, then honesty counts and one should explain what steps they took to achieve a desired effect.

So come on everyone out there! Film or Digital enthusiasts, whether manipulation or editing has been used using PS or any other software, the end results is what we are all interested in. An image that is pleasing to the eye and one which has given one satisfaction to create can't be all that wrong .

[bailbr]

The 1st thing I learned about photoshop is that no amount of PS can fix a truly bad image. PS for me is a way to fix blemishes and make adjustments to levels,
curves, colour, saturation,and sharpening . I typically do this when my camera's
sensor is fooled by tricky lighting situations or my photo just needs a bit more punch. As a rule for me less is better with PS. I believe in preparation and observation behind the lens and prefer to use necessary filters in the field to compensate for dicey lighting situations. I also believe that had Ansel Adams had
PS at his disposal he would have used it to it's boundaries to suit his tastes.
That being said I'm happy to look at everyone's work manipulated or not. I remain
ever greatful to imagination and individuality and grow increasingly tired of the moaning and groaning of the so called purists. Thanks BB bailbr

[caipirinha]

What is an image? It's something that happens in our brains as the result of a very complex process. And it is entirely subjective. Since day one photography has been a way to manipulate light through several processes, which in the end represent the photographers’ subjective interpretation of the image that happened in his or her brain. PS is just one more tool added to the process.

If one wanted to draw a line between "pure" images and "manipulated" images where would the line be? Changing camera position? Changing lenses? Using a lens in the first place, as opposed to a pinhole? What about using a different film, developer, developing time, agitation, lens filters, enlarger filters, etc, etc...

If you want to differentiate between images created with different processes, I'll go along with that but it has nothing to do with what is a legit image or not. It's like different kinds of cars race in different classes but they are still all legitimately racing.

Bob

The 1st thing I learned about photoshop is that no amount of PS can fix a truly bad image. PS for me is a way to fix blemishes and make adjustments to levels,
curves, colour, saturation,and sharpening . I typically do this when my camera's
sensor is fooled by tricky lighting situations or my photo just needs a bit more punch. As a rule for me  less is better with PS. I believe in preparation and observation behind the lens and prefer to use necessary filters in the field to compensate for dicey lighting situations. I also believe that had Ansel Adams had
PS at his disposal he would have used it to it's boundaries to suit his tastes.
That being said I'm happy to look at everyone's work manipulated or not. I remain
ever greatful to imagination and individuality and grow increasingly tired of the moaning and groaning of the so called purists. Thanks BB bailbr

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

PS certainly isn't going away and it's a photography tool that is indispensable to the photographers who don't want to rely on shops to interpret a photo through processing...much like developing film. Just keep putting up good shots, as you have been, and try to ignore the moaning and groaning. Some of it's gone too far, for sure.

[Schors]

Firstly, I have no objection to people using image manipulation/ps as long as it is clearly and honestly communicated with the photo.

Secondly, I personally don't like to see different images combined to create a completely made-up image - or rather I don't think of this as photography, but a more graphic design/art. I just get so much more pleasure from looking at a photo thatt I know actually existed, exactly as it was, through the eyes of the person holding the camera at that moment in time.

I do suspect that knowing image manipulation is easier (or at least less messy) these days with the intro of PS does make people a little lazier when it comes to composing their image, setting light etc, but I do also take on board the fact that the dark room has allowed this for years - it's just more time-consuming and fiddly so it's basically a lot easier to get it right first time! There are those of course who wouldn't even dream of cropping an image, like Henri Cartier-Bresson, and it's probably no coincidence that he is my favourite photographer. I guess I'm an old-fashioned girl, I like to picture myself in the exact spot that he stood and see the scene through his eyes. I'm really talking about composition more here than dodging and burning and improving lighting etc.

Having said all that I have started to crop images recently and witnessed the improvements that can be made, so at the end of the day I'm just a hypocrite!

Each to his own, just be honest about it or you're fooling yourself more than anyone else.

Ange

[pacificphoto]

Geez, I can't believe we're still having these arguments after all these years. Okay, at the risk of being redundant: me think photoshop good. Me think ignorance and hiding from new things bad. Ug.

For the record, I would like to confess, nay, joyfully confess that nearly every one of the thousands of pictures I've created digitally, including 99.99% of the posts on the blog, are manipulated to the utmost of my ability to come out with the very best piece of art I possibly can. Some are photorealistic. Some, like "Summer Trip," are very obviously pure digital art.

I can't free-draw or paint, but thank Adobe for giving me the tools to produce a paint-like or drawing-like image, so that my artistic spirit is no longer fettered by my limitations.

Don't fence me in, don't put up restrictions on my art. The Catholic Church did that to the world, and it was called The Dark Ages.

Also for the record, if you, whoever you are, ever think that one of my images on the blog is a 'fraud,' 'cheat,' or 'lie,' in any way whatsoever, for crimeny's sake, man, come out and say so!

My goodness, rant over.

--Chris

[jena]

Huh?? mm' well, you know if it works, use it. If it works well and you can use it well, use it well, and if you can't use it, won't use it, don't use it, then, don't close the door, cos it might be useful one day!!! But.......please, whoever ( and I have not had time to read all the posts, so it is nothing personal at all!!!)don't let the fact you don't like playing with it, mean that others fantastic work is counted as of less merit, just because they have played around a bit longer, maybe made a bit more mess in the process, pressed a few more buttons, and just had a bit more fun!!!

[Schors]

Hi folks,

I think you'll find that most people are actually just voicing their own preference/opinion rather than saying what's right for everyone (in my case anyway!) - the world would be a very boring place if we all liked the same things, and the great thing about forums like this is that people are allowed to voice them, without being shouted down.

If people didn't say what they truly thought and challenge others opinions occasionally this would be a very bland site, so here's to open and honest debate and acceptance of others opinions, whatever they may be. I love the variety of work submitted on this site and enjoy admiring and commenting on work from one end of the spectrum to the other as far as manipulation/editing is concerned - to be honest, it very rarely crosses my mind when I'm 'rating' a picture, my main aim is to learm something myself and hopefully provide a bit of encouragement to others along the way.

I am however not going to be embarassed by stating my own personal preference in how I work as a (very) amateur photographer, and what gives me a personal sense of achievement, even if that makes me old fashioned in some eyes - and I'm equally sure that these preferences will adapt and change, perhaps radically over the coming months/years as I eventually become more familiar with the huge range of tools at my disposal.

P.S I think the 'cheat/fraud' thing stemmed from a mention of plagiarising other peoples' work rather than PS use. That's how I interpreted it anyway..

[Macfern]

Well that one got poeple talking!!!

Before I started using this site I never used photoshop at all, but now I've learned from other users how to improve my images using ps. I now use it to correct colour and focus etc and I've also started experimenting with selective colour, but I still don't like the sort of images that seem to have been 'created' using ps.

I work with dis-affected young people and have recently organised a photography project for 10 young people aged 11&12. We have a professional photographer working with the young people and when they stated experimenting with ps they really got into taking and manipulating thier pictures. These are young people who would have never got into photography before - so surely that must be a good thing!

[Brian Clapper]

I can't resist beating this dead horse.

The notion that photography accurately reflects reality has to be one of the most fallacious ideas ever to infect this art form. It can reflect reality, but, then, so can a painting. But even if it were possible to print a photo directly from the camera and not manipulate it at all (and I contend that is not possible), the photographer makes many decisions at the camera that manipulate objective reality, including:

• choosing where to point the camera (and where not to point it)
• selecting a focal length, since different focal lengths do different things to perspective
• choosing a film type or a white balance setting
• choosing an exposure (did you ever deliberately underexpose a scene for dramatic effect?)
• using a filter
• using a flash (because, after all, that subject wasn't illuminated that way until your flash fired, right?)
• etc.

In the simplest case, just making a print requires some level of image manipulation. You choose a particular kind of paper, color balance settings, exposure settings (whether in Photoshop or your enlarger), etc. That's why I contend that it is functionally impossible to get a "pure" image "straight from the camera." As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing.

I come from a darkroom background; I spent many happy hours souping B&W prints in my youth. Sometimes, I was going after special effects, but most typically, I was just trying to get the printed photograph to reflect the scene as I saw it when I photographed it.

I do the exact same thing in Photoshop (or other image manipulation tools). When I shoot a scene, I have an idea of how I want the photograph to look--how I want to convey to others what I saw when I snapped the shutter. If I cannot control the lighting conditions completely (which is often the case), I compensate by:

• bracketing
• using a flash
• using filters
• and, yes post-processing in Photoshop

The more I can do in the camera, the less work I have on the back-end, and that's a bonus. It definitely pays to understand my gear. But I refuse to forego the use of a powerful post-processing tool (whether it be Photoshop or an enlarger) simply because it violates someone's notion of purism.

As someone on this thread mentioned, Ansel Adams used every tool at his disposal, from his choice of camera and film to his well-documented, tightly-controlled darkroom processes. But the tools that mattered the most were the ones that guided his work: his vision and his eye for art.

Everything else is just handwaving and sophistry. In my opinion, of course.

-Brian

[rufusthered]

"There are limit to manipulating : color correction, ok, even for non manipulated images, this resembles a technique that cna be achieved in normal photography, but combining pictures, manipulating, or changing the reality, is a totally different thing..." [last post].

Yeah, if convincingly done it's called artistry and skill.


"There are limit to manipulating : color correction, ok, even for non manipulated images, this resembles a technique that cna be achieved in normal photography, but combining pictures, manipulating, or changing the reality, is a totally different thing..." [de Rocca post].

Yeah, if convincingly done it's called artistry and skill.