Jump to content

Photoshop VS Photography


Recommended Posts

<p>I post this to ask a question, not to be critical so please be patient. I am fairly new to PNet (about 1 year of active usage) and I've found it increasingly difficult to distinquish Photoshopped works of art from genuine photographs with minimal manipulations. Personally, I don't really enjoy the overly obvious PS works of art, but I completely respect their artistic creativity and effort. I come from a more old school photography mentality and although I have PS on my computer I really only use LR. I digress. <br /> <br /> What I would like to know is; When I click details for an image and it says "Unknown or Yes" for the "Manipulated" field, how can I tell if it was truly manipulated or simply a stunning photograph? This is a real issue for me as I like to get ideas and inspiration from other members but find my self inclined to doubt the nature of the image if it I do not know whether it was manipulated or not.<br>

An additonal question that I have is; Do most members here believe that PS works of art belong in the same presentation space as unmanipulated photographs? Do most photographers view these as strains of the same thing or different mediums? I see both sides of the argument and just want to get some other perspectives. Thanks and please be gentle, I'm not posting this to attack any PS advocates. Thanks.<br>

-David </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<blockquote>

<p><em>"People make way too much out of the digital versus film. The challenges in photography—focus, crop, shutter, aperture, and of course the biggest ones of all, the ones that really matter: what you actually point the camera at, and with what intelligence you use it... are all still there, completely unchanged."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>-Paul Graham in a Photo District News interview at http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/features/pdn-online/e3i2de868eb1bec5e46c290229607a72ef2?pn=1</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

<p>Many in their chemical darkroom days would have very much liked to do composites, much like Jerry Uelsmann. However the time, expense and expertise can be illusive. Modern day digital photography makes compositing easier. Good Photoshop work still needs practice so as not to look like the work of a hack. Skill and patience are still required.<br>

A photo straight out of the camera today is more so a draft then a finished piece. The photographer has much greater artistic freedom then that of the film darkroom. Simply because film technology came first before the digital sensor does not mean it's the greatest and the best. If the digital sensor came before film, the market would never except film as a huge improvement.<br>

I have occasion to come across film users today who seem to have a feeling that they are at war with the digital onslaught. This is unfortunate, but for some change is a painful process.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@ Ellis.. I'm not debating the skill necessary to produce quality digital images in relationship to the skills necessary with film. It's the same concept. But it's hard for me to view extensive PS images on the same level as a relatively unmanipulated digital or film photograph.<br /> <br /> @ Michael.. Again, I'm not against digital, not by a long shot. I love my DSLR. I just feel that extensive PS images aren't the same artistic medium as a relatively unmanipulated digital or film photograph. <br>

@ Marc... Sure, I could email every single photography that had an image I was unsure about. But isn't that the purpose of the "Manipulated" field in the image details section of this site? Old school to me is this; When my Mom gave me a K1000 and took me to an evening community education photography class when I was 10, she, and the instructor stressed the importance of composing a quality shot for each frame. Thinking long and hard about how to compose the image because of the time and money of processing film was the mantra. Sure, I realize that isn't a necessity now and digital processing allows us to take several photos and put them together in an artistic way that wasn't possible before. Just as Michael said. That just isn't how I feel about photography, and as is true with everything in life, it takes all kind. <br>

Thanks for the feedback!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Digital photography is designed to be used with image editing programs...The pictures you view are basically all manipulated. Why try to manufacture rules or limitations that are not enforceable or even detectable. So yes is my answer. The images can just be all lumped together in the same presentation space. Even my small town county fair has given up and just allows digital manipulation in all categories such as portrait, scenic, flowers, b/w etc.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Take a look at <a href="http://www.f45.com/">Rolfe Horn's website</a> , particularly the Technique section where he demonstrates step by step how he realizes a final print from a negative using traditional b&w darkroom techniques.</p>

<p>That should open your mind to the possibilities of what "real" photography is and whether manipulation is even a legitimate consideration in any genre other than photojournalism, legal or scientific documentation.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Both film, through the development and printing processes, and digital are manipulated. Some people over-manipulate, but some went pretty wild in the film era as well. My advice is just get over it. Art students are taught to look thru the artifacts to see the underlying beauty and depiction of the subject, and how the artist presents it to us...nit picky photographers should do likewise IMHO. Like anything else, if you like something and wish to emulate it, go for it...if you don't like it, then skip it...but why waste time trying to figure out if it was manipulated x%></p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>david,</p>

<p>when i'm thinking about an image i'd like to make, usually i divide the work up in to three parts: the tools, the capture, the editing. all three of these stages involve a high degree of manipulating what our eyes consider the real world. a wide angle lens, for example, is a deviation from the normal way we see the world, and black and white, selective dodge and burning, and so on. it doesn't really matter (not in any cosmic sense anyway) if the capture stage -- 1/3 of this equation -- was film or digitial, or editing by hand or by computer, another third. what about long exposures? camera movements? all these old school options are severe manipulations.</p>

<p>however, i understand your frustration when trying to learn from excellent photos. marc gives good advice. perhaps the simplest solution is to contact the photographer and ask "this is cool, how did you do this?" i think with careful study you will quickly recognize how certain styles and looks are accomplished. eventually we all must settle on our own modes of working and decide which manipulations contribute to our idea and which do not.<br>

rj</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you can't tell, what difference does it make? IMHO, art exists on two independent planes, artist and appreciator. The artist uses his medium to express himself. The appreciator finds meaning in the result. Any congruence between the two is coincidental. Think of the paintings created by primates and pachyderms and praised by human critics as masterpieces. Were the artists expressing themselves? Certainly. Did the critics find meaning in the art? Absolutely. Were the artists' expressions correctly interpreted by the critics? Not likely. If you can't tell, what difference does it make?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>David, photographers have been debating this since the beginning. Photoshop hasn't changed a thing, except to educate the masses as to what's been going on behind closed doors. You can define "pure" and "straight" photography however you want. All I can assure you is that the next "purist" or "straight photographer" that comes along will probably define it differently than you.</p>

<p><em>"In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, <strong>it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability</strong> . "</em> -Edward Steichen</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a differnce betwen manipulated and being processed. To me if you are looking at an image while altering it, that is manipulation. But if a technician feeds a 35mm cartridge into a tank along with 100 others and treats all the same (and doesn't even bother to look at the results), that is processing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As far as I'm concerned, all images I see on the net are manipulated to some degree - even if just resized. Usually small quick fixes are done, sharpening, brightness/contrast, cropping maybe, levels...pretty much all photos I take need something even if just simple tweek of the levels.</p>

<p>As long as the image doesnt look like it was over processed (like a really bad HDR image!), I couldnt really care less if any manipulations have been done - I also assume basic tweaks have been performed.</p>

<p>I care more if the ps manipulates are poorly done, or simply over done. Thats when I shake my head.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Charles: but what if you ask the technician to push the entire roll? And don't forget that the technician who's telling that Frontier machine to crank out prints from the roll he just fed in is, by default, using some software to look at the image, and adjust color temperature, contrast, saturation, etc., on a frame-by-frame basis. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>David,<br>

Use your eyes & brain. Those are the best crap filters you can find. If a photo looks like over manipulated crap <em>it likely was crap to begin with </em> and no amount of futzing around afterwards will remove the stench.All good and great photographers have always employed some sort of post shoot manipulation ofthe process starting with how the film was developed. Great photos are made, not taken, even by the straightest of "straight photographers".</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> David, despite most of the above (rather predictable) comments and "answers" to your question, there are those of us who share your concerns. Having basically the same "old school" (perhaps not really a good term) approach as you do, I'll give you my answers for what they may be worth.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When I click details for an image and it says "Unknown or Yes" for the "Manipulated" field, how can I tell if it was truly manipulated or simply a stunning photograph?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In many cases, as you know, it is extremely easy to tell. I find it an interesting exercise when I find an image whose photographic "authenticity" is more questionable to try and determine if and/or how it was manipulated. However, since my particular focus as a beginner to serious photography is on developing fundamentals of camera use, this exercise is secondary to me. I applaud those who can use photoshop to subtly enhance an image, but I'm more interested in learning how the use of the optics alone can produce various visual effects. The bottom line is, however, that in many cases you may not be able to easily tell the difference, rendering the "unmanipulated" or "manipulated/unknown" criteria virtually useless.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do most members here believe that PS works of art belong in the same presentation space as unmanipulated photographs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I for one have no problem with PN making space available for any image that started out as a capture in a camera. What I do object to is all this blather about how "every photograph is manipulated" when we all know exactly what you're talking about. The folks who respond with this rather shallow observation, including some PN moderators, seem to forget or conveniently overlook the fact that PN has devised its own working definition for use on this site -- <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation">http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation</a> -- which is not available as a filter for viewing images, as it would supposedly cause too much logistical hassle to moderate. Therefore, the definition as posted, and the little checkbox available when posting an image, are completely useless to anybody who wishes to separate the "unmanipulated" images from the "manipulated" for their own educational or viewing purposes. Interestingly, some of the most prestigeous awards in photography have no problem including categories for manipulated images as opposed to "standard" photographs. If it's not a problem for them, I fail to see how it can be such a huge problem for PN.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do most photographers view these as strains of the same thing or different mediums?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Most of the more vocal photographers on PN seem to think that they are <strong>the same thing</strong> (and not even "strains" of the same thing). I suspect that most who believe otherwise -- that they are different media entirely or at least on different ends of the photographic spectrum -- have learned to keep their mouths shut on the subject because it has proven, on this site, to be a losing argument from the outset.</p>

<p>Given this site's stated purpose...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> We started in 1993 and strive to be the best peer-to-peer educational system for people who wish to become better photographers...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> ...one would think that PN would be glad to assist beginner/novice photographers in learning in-camera fundamentals by allowing us a method to focus our time and attention on <em>relatively</em> unmanipulated images. However, I've found that there is an unusual amount of resistance to any plea for a workable filter, with arguments ranging from "all photographs are manipulated" (ignoring the fact that the working definition is in place for all to see) to "people would constantly be trying to game the system" (ignoring the fact that this takes place in other ways that seem to be handled just fine).<br>

From the tone of your question, it seems you're all too aware of how strident the PS wizard crowd can be around here. After contributing to multiple threads on this subject, I've found that those who rely extensively on PS (or whatever) in producing their works are a VERY defensive bunch. Why they object so strongly to a filter based on this site's own definition is a mystery to me, unless they simply feel that somehow they are being denigrated by any member being able to filter out their works when viewing the gallery content. Interestingly, such a filter could just as easily be used to filter out "unmanipulated" images for those who wish to feast their eyes and minds on photoshop wizardry. As it is, I continue to scratch my head in puzzlement...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...