photograph or photoshop

it might be just me, but it seems that more and more, top rated

photoraphs are more photoshop then photograph. i am trying to master

this medium and i understand the necessity for digital enhancement,

as in the enlagerment process, we burn and dodge, over-underexpose,

but more average photographs are being altered into something that

could never be captured by a camera. Sure there are great

photographs taken by master photographers in the top photos, but

just as many are less then average photos and PS'ed into "WOWS"

and "BRAVOS"...is there a way to keep the "top photos" gallery

photos and not illustration? sorry for venting, but am i the only

one?

No, you're not the only one. However it's very, very tough (even if anyone wanted to) to come up with a set of guidelines that differentiate between "an acceptable amount of PhotoShop" and "an unacceptable amount of photoshop" and even if you had such guidelines how would you enforce them?

<p>

Look at the work of <a href="http://www.uelsmann.net/indexframe.html">Jerry Uelsmann</a>. He didn't (doesn't?) use Photoshop. It's all done in the darkroom. I don't really appreciate his work all that much, but would you reject it as "not photography", and if not then what does it matter if you do it the hard way or the easy (PS) way?

<p>

So while I agree that it would be great if we had more "straight" photographs and less "digital illustrations", accomplishing that goal would be very difficult and cause much wailing and gnashing or teeth (not to mention hate mail, endless forum threads and threats of legal action).

Douglas, yours' is a valid question!<br>However, as Bob points out, to find an answer/solution to ameliorate this situation is going to be very, very hard indeed. Although there are a number of exceptions, the overall quality of critiques at PN is questionable (i.e. those that you quoted above). People want a quick fix, instant gratification from most images. You use Velvia yourself and I wonder how many people (who have managed to "discover" your portfolio), stop and think if you might have cranked up the saturation of your images in Photoshop... I know for a fact that you don't and I will admit that I very much enjoy your folders.<br>Uelsmann joins PN and uploads image above... Some will use those expletives you quoted above, some will say:"This is too close to a 50/50 shot and that pointy thinghy in the foreground is a distraction to me, you should have cloned it out!"<br>Just an illustration that you cannot win at this place. I love photo.net, but it can be an infuriating place at the same time. Sarcasm comes cheap and I have <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1561972"> used it </a> (critiquing HCB) on two <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1522517"> separate ocassions, </a> (intimidating a new member) recently... Hope it will help lightening your mood a little.<div></div>

Douglas, you also might like to read this 2002 <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003WoT"> thread. </a><br>And off topic, I think it is a shame that threads like <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Gcf"> this </a> die prematurely...

I wouldn't say photoshop on the whole makes everything easier either. Some things yes, and other things are harder. To do the work just as well as Uelsmann did you'd spend quite a bit of time in front of a monitor as opposed to at an enlarger. Either way that's a lot of creative juices flowing and a lot of time.

Wouldn't it be suitable to have a different category of top photograph for those without any digital manipulation in photoshop, and another for those that are? Some of the work I have seen have become more digital art than "light wrting". I am not saying I don't like it. However, they are different, and maybe should be judged differently.

Another <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004h7z"> thread </a> worth reading, Douglas.

After the shot, people who use traditional camera techniques

have a lot time invested. It's not like PS where if you make a

mistake you can Ctrl-Z it. It's pretty much start all over again in

the darkroom. The technical expertise it takes to do it is not

really appreciated by people who haven't tried it. I've done

dodging and burning in PS. I like it, it's a breeze. But the

darkroom means patience and stamina. And I hate it. So why

do I do it still? -- I have a greater enjoyment of my work when I

know I did it the traditional way.<P>

 

What kills me is stuff like, I recently had a critique on another

site, where I was told, "this is OK but it can be done better in

photoshop." And someone else said: "You should have taken

an underexposed copy of this shot and then masked it with this

one in photoshop. The highlights are washed out, soft and kind

of glowing." -- Kodak HIE film. Yeh, there's no special handling,

patience or uniqueness for that stuff. Screw halation. Do it in

photoshop. And It's a total lack of respect. But I just let it go...<P>

 

I like PS stuff. But when someone critiques my FILM shots

based upon how it can be done in PS.... that's when I'm

perturbed. It's completely unhelpful since I use film.<P>

 

To spell it out. When the two are separated the film shots can be

identified and appreciated for their technical value and merits.

We can get feedback that actually pertains to what we are doing.

Not what we should do with it in PS. It has nothing to do with

discrimination. The fact that you think it is... is well... kind of

weird. Sorry. But it is....<P>

 

By the way, I don't really <B>need</B> or want a separate area.

It would be too confusing. (Unless someone talks me into it).

Think of Photoshop as just another tool in your kitbag. Bear in mind though, that Photonet is a digital medium (since it is on the internet, and can only be accessed via a pc). If you care about how your photos are presented, then you might want to try and understand that fact.

 

You can be as 'creative' or straightforward/documentary as you like with photoshop, but it is anything but easy to learn. Sure you can quickly apply wonky filters to an image and upload it, we see that in here all the time. That takes about as much effort as shoving some crazy cokin filter in front of your lens. Anyone with photoshop experience will instantly recognize what is going on, and can evaluate it on its own merits. Generally it looks stupid and trashy. Of course, there is also plenty of evidence that you don't need photoshop at all to achieve this level.

 

Good, thoughtful and original work is damned difficult, no matter what your tools/process are. Photoshop/digital manipulation isn't going away, just because those who don't use it deem it to be 'cheating'.

thanks guys, i was as i said just venting. the more i learn about photography, the more i appreciate the purists, posting unmanipulated images, leaving only technical specs of the films exposure. i paint and sculpt, but no art medium is as difficult for acually capturing the image i invision in my mind ( when i take a photograph). i continue to learn here. thanks for the direct and indirect help you provide.

About people who give point scores in the photo critique section, the best I can say

about them is that they are mostly fellow amateurs like you, who are easily "wowed"

by flash over substance. A good photograph, drawing. painting, sculpture, building,

happns when "as Henri Cartier-Bresson puts in the NPR interview, "when the head, the

heart, and the hand and are all in a line."<P>My advice is look at the work of

photographers you admire; people who have accomplished a body of work.

<P>Maybe what you are really asking is:<B> Is it possible for <U>Photo.net

admin.</U> to set up a mechanism to filter out work that has been heavily processed

in a digital darkroom</B>?

Sure. We could add a check box that says "this image has been heavily manipulated and thus is a digital illustration, not a photograph". Not sure what good that would do except to spawn endless threads on people seen as "abusing the system".

 

We could have a panel of judges who looked at every image and decided which side of the fence it fell on.

 

Of course you'd have to consider if any of this is worth the effort.

 

In fact we do have a check box now for images which the photographer defines as "unmanipulated". Again it's a voluntary, user honor, system. It's possible this could be used as a filter, so you could request the "top 20 unmanipulated images". Not sure how hard that would be to do. I don't do the programming, Brian does.

I understand all of that too, and I was not trying to upset anyone. I have worked with both traditional techniques and digital techniques, and as you have all said they are nothing but tools in a tool box. I will be using a lot pf photoshop here in the future, as I don't really have a lot of room for a full darkroom in order to do prints. Its not that I was knocking the digital darkroom. I have to do some of it myself too. I don't have the capacity to make my own prints in a darkroom as of yet. So I have to scan negs myself. I see both points.

The question is not PhotoShop or not PhotoShop

but where is the limit where Photography become GraphicDesign?

Look at <A href='http://www.fotoart-design.de/froco.html'>Franz Lutz</A>

a classical photographer who created works

in the darkroom using chemical processes.

To do things like that in photoshop is not easy and takes a lot of time.

I think ( as mentioned above) the most alternation

we do in photoshop can also be done without any software.<br>

Using some tricks you can change a very poor photo into a pieco of "art?" causing WoWs.

But the result is decisive what should be considerd as kitsch andwhat as artwork.

I agree to the opinion that in a forum like photonet there should be

a special section for heavy photoshop manitulated works. We should not mix

classic photos with photo-graphic. Evrybody who posts works should

make the separation.

 

<br>

Funny you should mention the filter idea, Bob. I was thinking of the same thing recently. It could be implemented as a third drop-down menu on the High-rated Photos pages: All, Manipulated, Not Manipulated.

 

Anyhow, the other thought I've had recently about Photoshop is that I can see where it has led to some sloppy (by traditional measures) photographic technique among heavy users. In other words, they don't worry about what's behind their main subject or even necessarily the lighting or color of that subject. Because they know all those elements can be or will be adjusted before the final result anyway. I can tell this from some photos where the photog posted the "original" photo(s) under the modified one. In some cases they are just collecting "pieces" that will be combined in different ways to generate new images, and even those pieces can be changed significantly along the way: a cute kid here, an interesting sky there... One key that not everyone masters is recognizing which photos can't be salvaged by manipulation.

 

Now, in terms of learning to be a skilled photographer in the traditional sense, I think it's bad news to stop worrying about composition and other fundamentals. I'm personally still trying to learn those "traditional" fundamentals. On the other hand, I can see an argument that Photoshop is opening the door to a fundamentally different kind of photography, where the original content of each photo doesn't matter so much as the way you modify and combine the different elements in the end. At some point it gets pretty far away from "traditional photography," and I'm glad Photonet implemented a way to flag manipulated works, but I suppose it's no less valid a creative outlet and art form.

I implemented the "Not Manipulated" checkbox with the intention of using it to create a "Not Manipulated" Top Photos once it had been around for a while. However, not very many people check it. Even people who were previously making quite a lot out of the manipulation issue.

It's been manipulated well if you like it, and badly if you don't.

 

There is also the issue of manipulating well for a less than

noble purpose.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/photo.htm

you "don't get" this thread? ....you can't see a difference between waiting out a storm, taking a photo of a lightning strike on a hillside and posting the image on photonet or taking a picture of a hill in the daytime, desaturating it, light rendering it and pasting a "canned" lightning bolt from bryce or PS in to make it look like you were there in the sorm and not clicking the manipulated box?

i have seen images in the top photos that used all default images from bryce!! 6's and 7's in the ratings!! i have seen people use file photos from nasa, make a montage without creditiing the original photorapher.

what about the art of photoraphy? everyone one of my images are photos..scanned slides or digital, i crop, i adjust levels, but everyone of them could be reproduced by "pure" photography.

i am not against manipulation, i enjoy the the creative ave. it allows. i came to this community to learn more about the art of photography, not graphic art......

The real crux of the matter is integrity. People on this sight want

to recognized as good/great PHOTOGRAPHERS not graphic

artists. Thus the hesitancy to reveal that anything was

manipulated, thus the scores of unanswerable questions about

how in the world did you get that shot? Where were you when

you took that shot? You must have risked your life to get that

shot! ...and generally no response from the photographer. It's a

big secret that either the animals were hired or captive, or that

the image was created in the computer rather than shot on film.

 

I recently saw some commendable shots of horses on the run

with dust kicking up at sunset. All kinds of WOWs! and BRAVOS!

Questions about how and where. Yet not a word from the

photographer about the woman in Oregon who has a ranch that

caters to photographers for photographing horses. The shots

can be set up as you direct...your vantage point can be anywhere

you choose as long as you paid the fee. Yes you can get great

shots there, and yes they are "real" photographs, but why the

unwillingness to disclose the nature of how the shots were

obtained. ...We all want to be seen as out there doing it, ...it

somehow makes us feel less successful when we disclose

such information. Again it's all about integrity.

 

I looked at some spectacular graphic work on this sight and was

able to dissect the photographs. (I did this via the critique forum)

so after a string of WOW! BRAVO! 7/7!..."How were you able to

capture such a beautiful shot?" type of comments, I correctly

dissected the image, and the graphic designer said that I was

correct and that it was a composite of 4 heavily photoshopped

images. The images were promptly deleted the following

day...certainly don't want the less knowledgeable people who are

on this sight trying to learn photography to learn that it was not a

magic moment in time ... to learn that it was magic created by

countless hours at the computer heavily manipulating very

average images in photoshop. The graphics were absolutely

stunning...but they had long since ceased to be photographs.

Again ...integrity rears its ugly head.

Few would argue that digital excesses are overly popular on the

top pages. If you used Curators or elves to select a broad range

of images from the daily uploads, all types of images would be

more likely to get their fair share of visibility. It's simply a matter

of getting enough elves to volunteer who understand this issue,

among others. I have no doubt they're out there.

 

. . . and thank you, J. for your excellent post.