Has Photoshop changed how you view a picture?

<p>In the "old" days, you looked at someone's film-shot photo and admired it as it was. It was a simple process. You either liked it or not. Today, I find that I'm analyzing photos not in the simple way I did before but I'm effected by how much was it Photoshopped. Was there something cloned in or out? Was HDR used? Did someone's finger get stuck on the saturate slider? Is the picture as presented something that could have been actually seen by the photographer? Or is it a fiction of their imagination presented as truth? Does that really matter if it's aethetically pleasing? Is the value I place on the photo effected by how much photoshopping I detect? Am I second guessing the photographer's work? Is all this Photoshopping reducing or adding to the value I place on a photograph and the pleasure in looking at them? Am I spending too much time looking for how it was manipulated rather than just enjoying the poicture? <br /><br />My question is not about whether Photoshop is good or bad. Nor is it a question either about how much Photoshopping is acceptable. These things been been covered elsewhere. </p>

<p>My question is how do you view a photo in light of the kinds of manipulation that can been done that wasn't really available previously? How does it effect you as a viewer and how do you judge the photo's value aesthetically and otherwise if you know substantial Photoshopping was done to it or not? Are these feelings the same for your photos as they are for others? (Indicate if you're a person who grew up with film or not. I'd be curious to see if the opinions change based on whether you have only been exposed to Photography in the Photoshop era or before as well.)</p>

<p>Since all this kind of manipulation has always been available, I look at a photo as I always have. When I knew I was looking at film, my viewing was never a simple process. I had a gut reaction and then, perhaps, a more analytical reaction, noticing things that caused the gut reaction. I still do that. When I view and viewed film, I used to incorporate technique into my reaction. How the various technical aspects of the photo harmonized with the subject/content. So much "processing" goes into both film and digital work. That processing is part of what I see. I don't just see a picture of a vase and flowers or a picture of a person on the street. I see how that "subject" or "scene" is presented, how it is brought to me. That is every bit as true of film as it is of digital.</p>

<p>If thoughts of Photoshop distract from the matter at hand, I don't think that's Photoshop's fault or the fault of the digital process. And I don't necessarily think it's that different from thoughts about how a film photograph was created. Some viewers go there, some don't. Why would it be a distraction instead of it being simply part of the viewing experience, especially for a fellow photograph who's inquisitive? I never worked in a darkroom, though I've spent time in darkrooms with other photographers. From what I observed and hear, darkroom work was pretty demanding and complex. I imagine most film photographers see even more of that complexity than I do when they look at film photos. </p>

<p>I have been shooting for 30 plus years with a long hiatus while raising the kids .Tight money for film and developing.<br>

When I view a photo. I look at what I like about it . What the photographer is trying to depict why he /she took the shot, what the story is that is being told. Then what I don't care for and think needs corrected. Then I wonder how what I liked was achieved. camera settings lighting angles( POV).If I can detect photoshopping then it was probably not done very well and may need redone. I am still fairly new to photo shop<br>

I see little difference in Photoshopping than picking a point of view that excludes one item but includes another. In my thought photo shop allows a correcting that may not have been possible at the time of shooting ie. time of day, or an item that can not be excluded from a shot because of limited accessibility.<br>

That said I believe that we as photographers should try to get it as right as possible when shooting.Thus having better skills and produce better shots.<br>

These things apply to me as well . Even my favorite shot had to be cropped because as I hit the shutter release a boy stepped into the frame. I had a half person on the edge. I have a few I am happy with more that I consider ok and a lot that are not so good and a few that could be used to teach what not to do. When I critique I usually learn as much or more than the submitter. then I apply the same to my shots. I am continually learning. and pray that I never stop. </p>

 

<p>I completely agree with Fred. Regardless of the medium used, I actually spend more time being distracted about how the scene was lit, or where (or on what) the photographer might have been standing, or what the weather was like ... all of those logistical things that are far more important than recording device or post production tool options. Ham-fisted post work that makes it obvious a telephone pole has been cloned out of the tree line is distracting, yes. But so is sloppy negative/wet-print retouching and manipulation. I'm just as distracted by the use of on-camera gradient ND filters that don't mate to the horizon correctly - and that's got nothing to do with film/digital/darkroom/photoshop.<br /><br />I note content first, distractingly poor execution next, and good solid technical chops dead last, regardless of the process used.</p>

<p>I started in the darkroom at 13. By 15, I was printing from multiple negatives, scratching negatives, lifting the emulsion, reticulating film, and heavily (and often poorly) burning and dodging. I manipulated more, and more obviously, with film. I don't see Photoshop as changing anything except the quality and availability of certain techniques.</p>

<p>I look at photographs for their emotional impact and their aesthetics. I see it as a waste of time to think about how it was made as a factor in my reaction, although it is interesting to me when people have had to endure hardship and danger to do their photographs.</p>

<p>Some of the specifics in the original post need responses:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Was there something cloned in or out? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Multiple negatives, dodge and burn, cropping can all do this without cloning.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Did someone's finger get stuck on the saturate slider?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some people used to slam Velvia for its saturation. I guess Velvia saturation is OK now that Photoshop can be a target of the same people.</p>

<p>Or is it a fiction of their imagination presented as truth?</p>

<p>This matters in journalism, forensics, and scientific work. Otherwise, photographs are photographs and have no need to be "truth." This quote probably pre-dates Photoshop - <em>Every photograph is accurate. None of them is the truth.</em> - Richard Avedon</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is the value I place on the photo effected by how much photoshopping I detect? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's your choice, but I find that putting things into cubby holes stifles them.</p>

<p>Am I spending too much time looking for how it was manipulated rather than just enjoying the poicture? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>From my point of view, yes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, Alan, it hasn't changed the way I look at pictures for the same reasons many have given above already.</p>

<i>Or is it a fiction of their imagination presented as truth?</i><P>

Most of my photos, whether substantially manipulated or not, are "fictions of my imagination," though they might be based on true events. The following photo is a relatively straight scan of a wet-darkroom print (just added my copyright and made a few adjustments so the screen image looks like the print):<P>

<center><img src="http://mikedixonphotography.net/mgtfireworks02.jpg"></center><P>

Photoshop hasn't really changed the way I view photos.

<blockquote>Or is it a fiction of their imagination presented as truth?</blockquote>

<p>I only think about this aspect when sitting on a jury during a criminal trail.</p>

<p>Otherwise it is just about light, composition, etc.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Photoshop? Nope. What changed my way of scrutinizing photographs was seeing some tricks my darkroom teacher did in the community darkroom back around 1970. Among other things he faked a pretty decent fauxteaushoppe of an Apollo orbiter around the moon. It probably wouldn't withstand scrutiny today, but to my then-13 year old eyes, it was pretty convincing.</p>

<p>PS doesn't alter that way I look at a picture anymore than having a darkroom did. I was taught early on to take the picture in my mind long before I picked up the camera. The camera, lens, film, darkroom were all in the toolset to execute the image I had taken in my mind.<br>

Today there are very powerful tools to do the same thing digitally -- but the process is the same. It is very easy to identify and appreciate the photographer who is executing a concept from those that are simply capturing what is in front of the camera and wondering later what to do with it. I still do some of that point and capture, but it is more in line with continuing education about how to better use the tools.<br>

PS, like all the other tools is very much a part of my conceptual process -- before the picture is taken. It rarely enters my mind when I look at something someone else has done. When I look at someone else's work, I try to see it as a glimpse into their mind rather than their camera and tools. <br>

If the image doesn't stir me enough to wonder "What were they thinking when they came up with this?" I usually pass the image by.</p>

<p> </p>

im with jeff 100% on this.

 

the only things that bug me on a print is not if photoshop have been use to enhenced the image or not... witch is for

me a normal thing to do like i use to do it in the darkroom anyway.. but why on earth people dont clone there dust

sensor spot, why can i see white edge around there subject (meaning a too strong sharpen tech have been use) or

why with all the modern tool accesible today there print dont look better and many time underexposed or why i can

see majenta in white snow, or why there black and white have a slight green or majenta cast due to a wrong printer

use for the job...that is what i find not acceptable in this digital print age.

<p>I think that <em>most</em> people today do not 'photoshop' their pictures nearly so much as Ansel Adams did in the darkroom, using purely 'analogical' manipulation. (read Ansel Adams, 1983 <em>Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs</em>. Little, Brown and Company)</p>

<p>Much of early 'art' photography was of 'collage' of separately taken pictures into complex synthetic compositions. Civil War pictures had darker skies added, objects and bodies were moved, ....<br /> (read Susan Sontag’s <em>On Photography, </em>for a discussion of 'reality' in photography)</p>

<p>It's the IMAGE, after all, not how you get there.</p>

<p>Forensic photography, on the other hand, is a much more complex topic. How can you guarantee that a picture is unmanipulated (now or then)?</p>

<p>Yes, for me it is a factor when looking at landscape photographs. While alterations have been used since the beginning of photography, it has never been as easy (and I suspect as widespread because of this ease) before the advent of the computer and photo editing programs. My goal in making and in viewing landscape photographs is to experience and relish the natural world. If the image I'm viewing is not the result of real experience and is not a relatively true representation of the natural world, then my primary goals are not going to be as fully realized.</p>

<p>If one doesn't expect a photograph to be a reasonable representation of reality and based on a real experience, then the process of obtaining the photograph won't matter as much, and one can focus on the inherent qualities of the photograph itself: what the photo says to the viewer, the moods or feelings it conveys, or the story it tells. The process of making the photograph is much less important than these inherent qualities to many people.</p>

<p>You mentioned HDR, and IMO HDR can be used to overcome the inherent limitation of cameras to record a wide range of light. Although it can also be used to create something well beyond reality, it can also be used in a way such that its use disappears and cannot be seen by the viewer; it can be used to create a photograph that is closer to what the eyes actually saw. I don't necessarily see the use of HDR as digital manipulation or the creation of something that exists only in the creative mind of the photographer. It's one of the great promises of digital processing for those who want to see depictions of reality in landscape photography.</p>

<p>On the other hand, there are many creative uses of photographic manipulations (or digital artistry) that can be used to create images that spark the imagination, stir the soul, or are simply wonderful to behold. Many aspects of these photographs may reside only in a creative mind, but that is part of what makes them so attractive.</p>

<p>There are many aspects to your seemingly simple question. For me, it comes down to what you want to get from a photograph. Sometimes the process matters, sometimes it does not, and it varies among individuals. What I want from a photograph should not necessarily be expected of others, and what others want from a photograph should not necessarily be expected of me. At the same time, many feel as I do about digital manipulation, while many others are in agreement that the print or the image, regardless of the process, is the primarily important factor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I think that <em>most</em> people today do not 'photoshop' their pictures nearly so much as Ansel Adams did in the darkroom..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably true of Michael Kenna and Rolfe Horn as well. A lot of care goes into crafting those prints to convey their elegantly spare visual haiku. Horn even shows how it's done in a very informative and educational technique section of his website. It inspired me to take more risks with my own prints (and digital editing as well, tho' I'm still not very good at it). It's a pity I was over age 40 before I finally unburdened myself of misguided notions of what was and was not photography.</p>

<p>heres the *before* image.. if you care : )</p>

<p>i dont mind showing it, as you will see that dodge and burn can add some drama to the final one... and this is what im after with my BW images.</p><div></div>

<p>mmmm.. strange thing append?</p>

<p>i have made a previous post with the *after* image and dont see it anymore?....</p>

<p>here you go again then..</p>

<p>____</p>

<p>Since whe are talking about Photoshop + Landscape image...<br /><br />Im in Toronto for a 10 days digital assisting job, and i had 1 day off<br />yesterday.. might as well grab some image of this famous landscape!</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Yes. It certainly has. Tastes vary. I like a photo of what really is, warts and all. Sometimes it’s the warts that make a photograph interesting, meaningful, or artistic. Furthermore, I realize there can be some good Photoshop creations. If I want to see a photograph, I’d like to see a genuine photograph. If I want to see a Photoshop creation, I’d like to see a genuine Photoshop creation. What I don’t want to do is see one of them posing as the other. In my mind, that’s less than straightforward. </p>

<p>One of my favorite photos is Mr. John Dominis’s leopard and baboon confrontation. It’s a neat idea for a picture shot. I also know how he grabbed it, having spoken with him. I see various magazine and book mentions of how that shot was staged and/or created. I have never seen in print the same story that Mr. Dominis told me. But then what does he know? He was just there. Anyone else writing about it is genuine a creative writer. Maybe they use linguistic Photoshop. </p>

<p>Thanks to the fact that the picture was taken before Photoshop days, I know there actually was a baboon a few feet from a leopard. They were not miles apart, in different zoos, Photoshopped into a blank California high desert picture. Today, who knows? </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

Some people just can't accept that Photoshop is just a set of tools.

 

A carpenter can make a house look good or he can make it look bad.

 

Anyone ever ask a carpenter if he uses Photoshop?

 

So why does this question keep coming up?

 

As I said, some people just....

<p>No, doesn't change a thing.<br>

And I think the amount of use of photoshop is frequently overrated. The vast majority of photos out there just get a touch of contrast, colour, maybe a little curve - if at all. Not that much more invasive as could be done during development of film with timing and chemicals.</p>

<p>For me persoanlly I look at prints by pro's who has a more traditional technique, could be film or digital. </p>

<p>In my place, even weddings, commercials and landscapes now have gone towards "manipulation", not just the Lightroom levers. </p>

<p>In regards to curves adj, saturation, fill light, sharpness, I don't mind. As I like to shoot slides over neg film and I like that saturated look. </p>

<p>I don't expect photos to be reasonably realistic representations of reality. I actually find those that are such representations boring and not very creative. I like those photographs in which the photographer views the camera, lens, capture media and computer or darkroom in the same way a painter would view his or her brushes, colors, substrate, etc. It is the mind of the photographer that makes a photograph interesting -- not how closely it represents what was in front of them. I want to see interpretation and creativity.</p>

<p>I like what John Ellingson said in that last post - I'm much more interested in what I think the photographer was trying to convey, and how he/she conveyed it than I am in the tools used. Film? Digital? Darkroom? Photoshop? All of these can contribute if you get a sense of what was going to be shown, and all of them will get in the way if they are overdone. By the way, that includes sticking to the idea that "right out of the camera" is the way to go - in my mind it is also going to get in the way if it's not interesting.</p>

<p>I have figured it out mathematically:</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bad photograph + photoshop = bad photograph.<br>

Mediocre photograph + photoshop ≤ mediocre photograph<br>

Good photograph + photoshop ≤ good photograph.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That said, the darkroom is limited compared to photoshop. Equating the darkroom with photoshop is like saying that hill over there is the same as Mount Everest because they're both piles of earth. Also, it is much harder to accomplish things in the darkroom than in photoshop. Equating photoshop and the darkroom is like saying playing fetch with the dog is the same as pitching a no-hitter because both are instances of throwing a ball.</p>

<p>One can tell when Photoshop is used as if it's so easy. It usually isn't pretty. A good and refined use of Photoshop requires skill, craft, nuance, depth of vision and thought. Pushing around a slider bar and using the sharpening tool like a sledgehammer does not require much. The difference in such usages is obvious in the results. Photoshop is only easy when it's used like a child's toy. It takes a lot more to use it like an artist's palette.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A good and refined use of Photoshop requires skill, craft, nuance, depth of vision and thought.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah I don't get that argument. You need all that stuff in a darkroom too. The difference is in photoshop you execute by pushing around sliders and there's no undo. I've seen thousands of photoshopped images, maybe millions, a little photoshopped or a lot, to good, bad or mediocre effect the process is the same and most would not exist if the photographer had to achieve the same effect in a darkroom.</p>