What's with the preoccupation with Photoshop?

<p>Digital photography is here to stay. That includes photoshop. YOu can moan until the cows come in but that is the way it is..All the pictures in photo.net are digital and have made a trip through an editing program..Basically if a person does not approve of digital photography then do not look here or in National Geographic or any other magazine. Do not watch new films coming out at the movies, do not watch TV or rent movies. Just close your eyes brother because that is photography in 2009. Traditional photography does still exist and it is just as valid as it ever was but it is not mainstream anymore. What I intend to do is take the best picture I can with my digital camera and then open the RAW file in photoshop and tweak it in any way that I please...</p>

<blockquote>Is it possible that a much larger "battle" is being waged here between those who view reality as subjective and all meaning as relativistic and those who view reality as... well, real? And further, aren't the subjectivists just as guilty of boxing everything up into neat little "objective" categories of their own when accusing their questioners of being wrong?</blockquote><p>

 

Kevin, this is an interesting point you brought up, and one which I often find myself musing on. But we differ in our interpretation of the concept of subjectivity and objectivity/realism. I am an absolute objectivist. But it is because of this objectivity that I can discern that what the film, or the sensor + post processing, captures is only a subjective representation of reality. In fact our own understanding of reality is subjective. We see the world totally different to other animals like bees which can see in the ultraviolet range.

<p>Douglas R. Hofstadter would observe at this point that we are discussing things from a number of levels and metalevels, some (or most) of which have little way to really communicate effectively with each other (the old "2-dimensional being trying to comprehend and communicate about a 3-dimensional world" thought experiment). </p>

<p>From the more "meta" metalevels, none of this stuff really matters one bit, not even war and pestilence, animal cruelty, slavery, and the like, and certainly not whether we photoshop our pics. It all happens, we all die, our molecules become a part of the universal pool, that's the way it is -- the rest is just process (possibly an interesting parallell to some of these post's). Objectively, anything and everything outside the continuous universal reallocation of matter and energy is a trifling detail and of no importance, fascinating though it may be. It's hell to think that way all the time (except perhaps for the nihilist), so we've been given options. Objectively, there appear to exist relative levels of subjectivity (youch!), and some of them don't mix well.</p>

<p>For our day to day existence, most of us exist in roughly the same "range" in this perceptual/logical continuum, much as our optical senses generally use the same range of the spectrum. We generally agree that extreme heat hurts, that rocks are solid and hard, etc. In this sense, many of the processes that can be viewed as insignificant from a more "meta" level are quite significant at this one, and rightly so, especially from the standpoint of human survival. With these options we've also been placed in a tough position -- how to communicate with so many damn different levels of perception/cognition/whatever going on. Discussions such as these seem to attract the viewpoints of many different levels, and angles from the same level, so they can get awfully hairy.</p>

<p>So Bernie, while I wholly understand your argument, and really can't rebut it at that level, I'm not convinced that living my life at that end of the spectrum is all there is to it. It still hurts when a rock hits me and feels ecstatic when the muse strikes me, and somehow that still seems important, as does understanding what I can in the process. Thanks for posing the thought and for bearing with me and the others still beating this dead horse.</p>

my head hurts..... :(

 

Yes, if everyone was a nihilist (not that I am owning up to being one.... I'm an existentialist, I'll have you know!) it would be a pretty bleak existence we would be living.

<p>I quit being an existentialist exactly because it made my head hurt! ;)</p>

<p>ive got an honest answer. i USED to hate photoshop, purley and soley based on the fact that i couldnt use it, and the people who could were way better...jealousy, yes. although i still cant understand how some photographers images are so good, due to the EXCELLENT work of their skills and photoshop skills, ive just learned to be inspired, and keep on doing what i do. photography is a hobby for me, not a competition. so photograph and let photograph.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1717776">Patrick Dempsey</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Apr 02, 2009; 06:12 p.m.<br>

Lex, I expect the skydiving kitten meme to be all over newgrounds, rotten.com, 4chan, icanhascheezburger.com and on the main page of p.net by the end of the week or you are out of a job.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my dreams, Patrick. My anonymous efforts have barely made a dent in the memescape. A couple were passed around by others for a week or two but quickly dropped off the radar. I even tried a variation of photo.net's one and only enduring meme, but it went nowhere fast. It's not easy to come up with the next ceiling cat or Xzibit "yo dawg", and Boxxy's are thankfully few and far between. But dadgummit I'm gonna keep pimping my zombie 'shops until I see 'em stolen by a Russian blog scraping site, even if I have to resort to stumbleupon to force just one good meme.</p>

<p>For a hot millisecond back in '94 I had fire-breathing giraffes on my myspace page which found their way into other places, but it was very very very short lived... although every time I run into that photo on my backup disk I still chuckle.</p>

<p>Manipulating photos in Photoshop is simply redrawing history to your own particular requirements/agenda...</p>

<p>I wouldn't worry too much about this, because journalists, artists and historians have been doing much the same thing for donkey's years... They've effectively "Photoshopped" the past, with their pictures and words... You should be used to it by now... :)</p>

<p>Can we trust a photograph to be free of manipulation...? Of course not. Can we trust words to be free of manipulation...? Don't be daft... People are free to simply make stuff up, or conceal the truth as they see fit... And they often do.</p>

<p>I still have not figured out how to tweak hundreds of images taken at an event, well major tweaks like some of the work I see here some times without spending way too many hours tweaking every image. I wonder how long it would have taken Adams to several hundred and the customer expecting them in two weeks? My point is some images lend themselves better to tweaking. </p>

<p>Daniel B, don't you ever tire of name-dropping in an effort to add weight to your back-to-basics crusade? </p>

<p>If Jim and Gene and Dave and MEM and Mike and Tipper care so much about the habits of amateur photographers then I expect they'll be happy to drop on by here and offer their support...Personally, I suspect they don't give a damn about the habits of weekend photo warriors, though they might be slightly put out at your efforts to speak so loudly on their behalf. Hanging out at Perpignan and Charlottesville doesn't give you the right to claim closeness to photographers more accomplished than yourself, so why not settle for allowing your argument to stand or fall on its own merit?</p>

<p>As for the constant references to NatGeo, well that's the last organization I'd look to regarding photo ethics. You are aware that they were one of the first places to spot the potential of photoshop to alter reality? If not, try googling "national geographic pyramids cover". They have also have a long tradition of staging photos.</p>

<p>I haven't popped by here in a long time but I'm pleased to see that the craziness persists. Mike, Jeff, and all the other voices of (near) sanity: don't give up...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't worry too much about this, because journalists, artists and historians have been doing much the same thing for donkey's years... They've effectively "Photoshopped" the past, with their pictures and words... You should be used to it by now... :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but do realize that most of us are at least "trying" to show you the truth as much as we can given the limits of the interface. In this case, the camera, lens, film / sensor, printed or web page and individual perception. <br /> Some of us see the art in life itself and just want to capture that and put it out into the world as purely as humanly possible. That does not make us better than anyone or less artistic than anyone, it just makes us who we are.<br>

I think that it is totally ironic that the act of trying to categorize or classify photography comes under fire here, and yet, we are not allowed to ask this type of question in two *very* relevant other forums, "The Philosophy of Photography" and "Street & Documentary". If we could be more open minded about where this question can be posed, the answers would most likely be more representative of the true diversity of photography as a whole.<br>

I find that truly odd, for it is exclusive to this site.</p>

 

<p>Nicely said, Paul.</p>

<p>Manipulation may just be reality. We get closer to reality when we become aware of that.</p>

<p>As we don't still live in the past, the only access we have to it is through filters, people's stories, photographs, videos, etc. These, to a lesser or greater degree, will always have an axe to grind, even if an unintentional one. If not outright prejudices, there will be built-in biases, even benign ones. There will be cultural leanings, educational barriers, etc.</p>

<p>Even though we live in the present, we experience and communicate that present through a filter, a perspective, unless we are lucky enough to be god.</p>

<p>Reality is contextual and perspectivized.</p>

<p>Photoshop manipulation falls on a continuum of manipulation. It's not about an on-off switch. It's a matter of degree.</p>

<p>Daniel is not getting any closer to the "truth" than the most creative and surreal artist. There is truth everywhere and in every genuine endeavor. Daniel is wanting to as accurately as possible portray in a photograph what his eye sees at the scene. That has nothing to do with truth. It has to do with representation. Novelists, poets, surrealistic photographers have been expressing great truths for millennia without "accurately" representing the scenes they saw.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Daniel is not getting any closer to the "truth" than the most creative and surreal artist. There is truth everywhere and in every genuine endeavor. Daniel is wanting to as accurately as possible portray in a photograph what his eye sees at the scene. That has nothing to do with truth. It has to do with representation. Novelists, poets, surrealistic photographers have been expressing great truths for millenia without "accurately" representing the scenes they saw.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But that is not up to you to decide, only I know the truth in what I see, you were not there, so that in effect, is a cop out to what the goal is. My goal is to share the fact that I see art in life being lived, that has served me very well, I make a living at it....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think that it is totally ironic that the act of trying to categorize or classify photography comes under fire here, and yet, we are not allowed to ask this type of question in two *very* relevant other forums, "The Philosophy of Photography" and "Street & Documentary".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photo.net has moderation. Get used to it. After all, it's only been here for, oh, a dozen years.</p>

<p>People get tired of hearing the same old arguments from the same old "Everything has to be done the way I see it" crusaders. So those arguments are shunted out of forums where they have worn out their welcome and left to forums like Casual Photo Conv or Off Topic. Want something different? Start photoshopsucks.com or leicaisbetterthancanon.com or digitaltakesawizzonfilm.com and have your own forum.</p>

<p>Just like every "photoshop is ruining things" thread this one just goes round and round without going anywhere. Now that we've spiraled down to complaining about photo.net's policy, I'm done with it. Thread closed.</p>