What's with the preoccupation with Photoshop?

<p>I kept on reading threads after threads after threads that discuss, debate the good and the bad, the legal and the illegitimate, the happy and the sad about whether a photoshopped image is a photograph? <br>

It is so simple. Photoshop and digital photography goes hand in hand. Darkroom and film photography goes hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. Now what you do in between and how much you want to play with your image is your kuliana. Oh may be not too many people know what a kuliana is. Well that is a local term (I don't know what language) but it pretty much meant you bottom or business or what ever you want it to be.<br>

I have been making photograph for almost 40 years. I used to do a heck of a lot more manipulations in a darkroom then I ever did with photoshop. No one stopped me and debate my images and told me that it was not a photograph because I burned two images on one piece of photo paper. I used to add images on one another. I used to do double exposures in the darkroom. I used to cut out stencil to block off a certain area. I dodged and I burned. I even have funny little tools to do that. I have seen exhibits where the photographer clearly manipulated the image in the darkroom. We used to applaud those people and called them pioneers.<br>

We must be having too much free time in our hands to pound keys on the computer and wax and wane about the merits of photoshop.<br>

Why can't we just let it go and accept the fact that some photographers have some additional graphic and computer skills that they can manipulate their images to such a degree that it is extraordinary. Why can't we applaud their effort? Why can't we encourage them to do more? Why can't we just accept the fact that they are good? Why do we have to discuss what they do? Why do we even have to separate them as photographers?<br>

Is it because we can jealous? Is it because we don't want them classified as photographers so the not so skilled can keep their place on earth as photographers. Why do we segregate? Why can't we simply embrace changes and welcome the skillful?<br>

Photoshop is a good thing. Without programs like photoshop we will never have digital photography. So stop complaining and start learning.</p>

 

Hanseng, the real reason for this photoshopping angst is, I suspect, that the modern world has left behind some people, and they are bitter as hell about it. Also, these people have no understanding of the concept of the 'global communication' age. The reason it seems like there is so much more crap out there now (apart from increased population and affluence) is that it is SO easy to get it out there to be viewed by literally THOUSANDS of people in a very short time. This makes it seem like we are in an age of over-manipulated crap, but it's more a function of the ease now of getting ones work/crap out there.

<p>.</p>

<p>Very well said, Hansen! Thank you for that. We all needed a slap upside the head!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>how much you want to play with your image is your <strong>kuliana</strong> </em> <strong> </strong> ..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"kuliana" means "responsibility", sort of, right? "bag" or "game" or "decision" or "area of responsibility", as in "... how much you want to play with your image is your own responsibility ..." your own decision, your own personal choice, and not really anyone else's "business", right? In other words, Photoshop-complainers might do well to keep their noses out of OPP (look THAT up! <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aopp">http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aopp</a> ).</p>

<p>Bernie, yes, there's more crap our there, but there's also more good stuff, too, and more control, in-house control. On the one hand, Photoshop et al gives more poeple more control over their own imaging. On the other hand, that means there's less centralized control over imaging (where Kodak et al once did the majority of image processing). Cool! I put it at 80% of any cultural production is crap. Look at music -- it's the 20% of the golden oldies we love, and the rest is filler. Same with books, magazines, painting (for sure!), and so on. Remember any cars from yesteryear? About 20% of them are worth revisiting, the rest have been crushed and recycled!</p>

<p>And so it goes.</p>

<p>Funny, though, I use Picasa waay more than I use Photoshop nowadays. Perhaps it means my photos don't need as much manipulation to please me. Maybe it means I'm just tired or in a hurry. Either way, current printers are incredible, HP with 1,200 dpi in, 4,800 dpi out, Epson with 720 dpi in, 5,760 dpi out, even Brother is in the market with an UNDER $200 17 x 11 6,000 dpi photo printer that's incredible ( <a href="http://www.brother-usa.com/mfc/modeldetail.aspx?PRODUCTID=MFC5890CN&tab=spec">http://www.brother-usa.com/mfc/modeldetail.aspx?PRODUCTID=MFC5890CN&tab=spec</a> ).</p>

<p>Are we lucky to be photographers in this age or what?</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>"Hanseng, the real reason for this photoshopping angst is, I suspect, that the modern world has left behind some people, and they are bitter as hell about it."</p>

<p>I shoot both film and digital, and I have no problem with Photoshop. I dodge and burn in the darkroom, too, so that's a manipulation. But the things that some people do with Photoshop, IMHO, look bad. I think it's a problem when someone looks at an image and the first thing they think about is the Photoshop technique. Editing an image should illuminate the subject, not obscure it.</p>

<p>Oh, yikes. I was hoping this was gonna be a clever April 1 joke.</p>

<p>Bleah... have fun stormin' the castle, kids.</p>

I think it comes down to the purpose of your photograph. I see many "photographs" that seem to have no other purpose than

"shock value" or an experimenting with an effect by using some Photoshop tool. There is nothing wrong with either, but it

sure would be nice if a person wanted a critique they would give a hint as to the purpose of their image. I see one of the

major benefits of P.net is to allow people to experiment with technique and ask for comments from others on how they feel

about the image and how they think it could be improved. Photography is an ongoing learning process and the critique

process is an important arena for that learning to take place. Photoshop and its many plug-ins, and similar programs, are just

tools for that learning process as is a word processing program is a tool for learning to write better.

<p>For the last half of the 20th century 99% of photographers have outsourced their processing and printing. If they acknowedge processing and printing are important in the creation of photographs then they have to share credit of the creation of their photos with the lab techs that are doing 1/2 to 2/3rds of the work. It's easier on the ego to pretend that nothing significant happens in the dark behind the closed door. Digital photography has popularized DIY processing again. It threatens those who want to pretend photographs are created 100% in the camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think it's a problem when someone looks at an image and the first thing they think about is the Photoshop technique. Editing an image should illuminate the subject, not obscure it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When editing, the first thing I think about is should I hit the delete button.</p>

Some digital cameras connect directly to the printer. Sort of like a modern type of Polaroid with whatever altertions/processing are done within the camera.

<blockquote>

<p>It threatens those who want to pretend photographs are created 100% in the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They are with slide film.</p>

<p>Regardless of the manipulation technique (software - in the camera or on the desktop, dodging/burning in the darkroom, or special filters and lighting techniques used in <em>front</em> of the camera), manipulation that is so obvious that it makes you think about the manipulation itself is the problem. And the more you DO such manipulation yourself - however good you are at it - the more able you are to spot it in others' works. And since this particular group, here, is acutely aware of such stuff and always has been, the threshold of pain and irritation at seening overwrought or just plain ugly manipulation is very low compared to the average audience.<br /><br />As pointed out above, the immediacy and reach of the internet has given us a much larger pool of stuff to wade through (and brings us more gems, too, of course). Never the less: the only people really obsessing about it are the ones who are, themselves, in a period of intense learning or self-examination on the subject, and they are paying more attention to the tools and the process than they are on the results. Or, they are simply annoyed by others' results that reek of process, and can't stop themselves from expressing their disdain for less polished work. It's got nothing to do with Photoshop, and everything to do with taste and accomplishment.</p>

<p>I'm with Matt on this.</p>

<p><em>They are with slide film<br /></em><br />Sure, as long as you don't count the fact that your choice of slide film (and its response to the light source) is made outside of the camera. That your manipulation of the light is done in <em>front</em> of the camera. That your use of graduated or polarizing filters is happening in front of the camera. That your choice of focal length on the lens impacts things on their way into the camera. That what you do to stage a scene in front of the camera can be hugely manipulative, etc. The photographer manipulates the photograph from beginning to end, to varying degrees. Just choosing your slide film is part of that process. I really don't think it matters if - as long as the quality of the results serve the photographer's needs - you de-keystone an image using a tilt-shift lens in front of the camera or software behind the camera, despite the religious importance that some people place on making the distinction.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Sorry, but slide film is post-processed to a fare-thee-well. Permanently, with virtually no photographer controls (except perhaps cross processing), but post-processed nonetheless.</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but slide film is post-processed to a fare-thee-well. Permanently, with virtually no photographer controls.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It is post processed but hopefully to a standard which is the same (or as near as possible) each time.</p>

<p>Film or Digital?</p>

<p>Nikon or Canon?</p>

<p>Photograph or Illustration?</p>

<p>To each (his or her?) own!</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

<p>"When editing, the first thing I think about is should I hit the delete button."</p>

<p>The world would be a better place, Thomas, if there were more people like you.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Also slides can't even be seen unless someone makes (arbitrary and non-standard) decisions on backlighting and magnification (loupe choices and distortions) and reflective surface vagarities (projection choices, color, intensity, viewing size, contrast, room lighting), and so on.</p>

<p>ALL latent images get schmoozed somehow on the way to presentation. Slides are not sacrosanct, though the opportunities to get selectively clever with them are fewer than if there's a digital image on screen in Photoshop, to be sure. But my point is that no latent image is sacrosanct from manipulation by some method one way or another on the way to presentation.</p>

<p>Even so-called "standard" interpretations are arbitrarily chosen manipulations so some extent. Let's just get used to it. <em> Photography will never be anything else but a lie, some fabricated more, some fabricated less, but <strong>all photographs are fabricated artifacts in the end</strong> .</em></p>

<p>.</p>

<p>I use Photoshop basically to print or resize. It has good proofing and printing control. Everything else that I'd do with film (selecting an emulsion for it's color, contrast, grain, and speed) is done in Aperture, since I "develop" the RAW data there. Much beyond this and it becomes photo-illustration. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, to each their own. But Photoshoppers shouldn't be afraid to call it what it is...photo-illustration.</p>

<p>My personal opinion is that a photographer's truest test is a slide. The shooter plans and executes, and the chrome is the true result. Nobody else should care about my opinions, though.</p>

<p>Hansen, please understand that some of us are not necessarily complaining (although I admit I have, in moments of exasperation) -- we're simply looking for clarification or understanding as to what photography and its processes and products mean to us. I think Matt has come very close to one good answer to your question. In a sense it applies very well to me, and I suspect to a few others...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...the only people really obsessing about it are the ones who are, themselves, in a period of intense learning or self-examination on the subject, and they are paying more attention to the tools and the process than they are on the results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Matt, I'm not so sure that I'd agree that these are the ONLY people "obsessing". In my case, being new to photography (but not new at all to the arts in general), it is important to me to clarify such issues in determining how I express my own creativity in this medium. Certainly I'm interested in the results -- greater understanding of the various tools can only help me achieve better results (both wielding a camera and poring over a keyboard). Thank you for providing a context for those who've been doing this for so long that they've perhaps forgotten what it's like to be at the "bottom rung" of the learning ladder.<br>

However, I've seen plenty of comments from VERY experienced photographers in related threads that indicate that this question weighs heavy in their minds as well, whose results do not indicate undue obsession with the tools and process. To some, this subject is much more than a semantic game, it carries philosophical and aesthetic import as well. I simply add this as a proposed <em>caveat</em> to your general (yet perceptive) observation. FWIW, yours are among the few contributions that keep me coming back to these threads, as they are usually very well-considered and largely non-judgmental, and for me they do tend to help clarify. (No offense to others of like nature -- Matt's is just one voice that has stood out in my mind).</p>

I suppose all imges are manipulatd by the viewer as well. Is an image wortha long look or does your brain delete it as rapidly as possible? Do you walk up closer or run away? Do you find a better light to view it or do you shut your eyes?

<p>Well, as with written words and audio recordings, pictures can be considered to be a form of documentation or a form of entertainment ("art"), or some combination of the two... It's up to the viewer (including the picture-maker, of course) to decide for themselves which aspects are more appealing/important to them, on a pic-by-pic basis. Given that the interests and expectations of the viewer will vary from one individual to another (depending on all manner of things, including the viewer's mood...) a given picture is highly unlikely to please everyone... Oh well, such is life... :)</p>

<p>Photoshop alterations may be an advantage or disadvantage, depending on the intended purpose of the pic and whoever's looking at it... For example, at work I often make adjustments to photographic documentation in the interests of clarity. Does such a pic faithfully represent what the camera's sensor recorded...? Nope. Is it more useful for its intended purpose (and intended viewer) than the original photo...? Yep.</p>

<p>If pics are being presented as entertainment then anything goes... But is there more to photography than entertainment? For me, yes. Well, I often think of the camera as a handy little time machine, of sorts... And I guess time machines of any form should not be dismissed lightly. So, while I'm perfectly free to Photoshop 16.7 million shades of sh!t out of an image in order to beerily entertain my eyeballs as I see fit, as time rolls by I'm increasingly aware that a more "straight" form of photography may have considerably more value to me and certain others at some point later in life (and/or after it).</p>

Analog photography is constrained by the medium. Working with the paper and film, seeming to overcome its limitations etc., constitutes the craft of photography. It is possible to discern good craft but not to mistake a photograph for something else. Traditional photographs look (enough) alike and references to the darkroom in the same sentence with ‘photoshop’ misses the point that traditional photographs cohere around the medium.

<p>

Digital photographs don't cohere with other digital photographs because digital photography has infinite degrees of freedom. Structure, which is still necessary, must be imposed by the photographer. As a result expertise is ideosyncratic and there is no firm craft basis for comparing digital images. It is a thoroughly postmodern situation, which some people, who I guess crave one photography and for photographs to be easily integrated under the term, resent. Resent is probably the wrong word but whatever. It’s like Walter says to the Dude in the second best movie ever, sure analog photography was worse than Hitler, but at least it was an ethos.

<p>

P.S. #1 is Babe.

<p>The angst is not with Photoshop. It's with using the tools like Photoshop to, uh, photoshop.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It is very user unfriendly, but it is the onlygame in town.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>