Why are there so many photoshop haters?

[philippartridge]

It's clearly an emotive issue in some ways.

Having been involved in Windows/web interface and functionality design and usability for well over a decade, my assessment is that the depth of design, class and grace, and the implementation of functionality in CS2 is top tier. This is a consistent application of great depth, consistency and power; a truly sovereign app.

 

Yes, competing software is available and some of it is very good, but PS has a vast range of powerful plug-ins, sound support, communal knowledge, a huge library of reference materials - I could go on.

 

The use of PS is another issue altogether: every edit you make, the further you drift from your source image, you degrade the image (aka pixel distress) and you lose authenticity. We all have a personal line in the sand re PS 'enhancements', a threshold of pain, WRT to what is acceptable. It's a gradient, but there is a broad dichotomy between the 'anything goes, it's all art' group, and the 'keep it looking plausible like a possible straight photograph' camp. The latter cannot fairly be characterised as "luddites' and 'haters' for merely disagreeing. I am also surprised to read Bob's take on manipulated images on p.net - many appear to originate in the producer's dreams rather than being photograph-like, IMO; that personal line again.

 

I feel final photographic images should appear plausible; the sense that they may have occurred, and could be regarded as faithful, to an observer present at the scene.

Which does not proscribe density range balance, colour balance and naturalistic sharpening. If you overdo anything in PS, you lose the 'photo look' to a commensurate degree. Many of the people I respect believe the best photos require the least manipulation, and I agree. You see a lot of over-cooked landscapes, partly due to market preferences, partly simply bad taste. Very light foregrounds with distant setting suns, romantic, blurry or dramatic images that are closer to Turner or Constable than nature.

 

Another chestnut: 'PS does not let you do anything old-time photographers did in the darkroom.' A half truth at best. Leaving aside its ability to quickly and easily adjust and every pixel for a huge range of manipulations, the scale of ubiquity, access to equipment, set up time, ease of use and skill level and experience required, PS is to a darkroom as a Mack truck is to a Mini. Nearly every digital camera comes with the very capable Elements and many users know how to load it and use it, at least minimally; PWP is very affordable and powerful, and so on. But very few folks ever set up a darkroom at any time in history (only 'photographers'). The techniques may not be new, but the scale, range and ease of use certainly are.

[andrew_carlson]

Not to change the subject - but Corel Painter IX looks interesting on the graphical arts front. I've done some interesting things printing on textured art papers available at the local hobby stores. Its interesting how an inkjet can simulate the depth of paint by running in that texture. Something I've not been successful at reproducing regularly. Sure some images run artistically but each trial is different and some images don't run at all. Something like Painter to artistically 'tweak' an image sounds like fun. But its not photoshop and its also expensive.

 

Oh well.

 

Will, in response to your question - motive behind low ratings. I've found that critques can be harsh but sometimes useful, the point is to learn from others perspectives and maybe emotions. Sometimes we take an image we've produced and we think the world of it and when we uncover it and show the world, well it doesn't get the respect or admiration we thought it deserved. I too am constantly learning about photography and I've been learning that composition can make or break a photograph. I'd love to recommend a book or two on composition and exposure but I have no recommendations. I've read a really good book on exposure but haven't settled on one for composition.

 

Looking at a few of your posted pictures, the amber skies shot I think looks good, great colors, but mostly great composition. I can sort of see the rule of thirds on the bottom and overall the photo is weighted to one side - sometimes good and in that shot it is. Symmetrical balance only works when framing a subject.

 

In contrast the image "Power lines" irks me. I live in Colorado, we have some spectacular scenery and everytime I think WOW I gotta shoot that, its covered or obstructed by power lines. I hate that. I now pay attention to power lines every day, every commute, ever direction. I notice that they almost always cover up what I'd like to shoot. Sometimes I think the people that put up power lines do that intentionally - hey there's scenery over there, lets obstruct it! Woo Hoo! another angry photographer! (just kidding)

 

My point is that while its a good shot, I would rate it lower because of the emotive quality that shot has on me, NOT the photoshop post processing. This is what happens when you send photos in a portfolio for work or publication. The editor or person selecting photos or photographers could be in a rush, could be emotionally impacted and choose or not chose you or your photos. Its a hit/miss situation and I'm sure that people critiquing photos have the same emotional reactions.

 

Its kinda like these forums, its all subjective and its all opinion. I take photos I think are great and I show them to friends and family and they say 'nice' not WOW...I have difficulty with it but it should be a learning tool and build character. IMO.

[constance_cook]

I don't hate it. I have CS2 and I started with version 3.1. To say that those of us who are not fans "can't do it", "can't afford it", "fear change", or are "luddites" is baseless. None of those apply to me and I'm sure to others who choose not call graphic art photography.

 

If you shoot digital, you have to use some program for sharpening, noise, etc., that's just the nature of digital. It requires some work before printing. So you have to utilize PS or a PS-type program.

 

Ilkka has stated how I think about PS quite well. My line in the sand is still with Bob.

 

My objective as a photographer is to "get it right in the camera." I want my photography skills to get as good as possible, not my PS skills.

 

Conni

[arraga]

<p>This is a red herring. What many people object isnﾴt Photoshop, but manipulation. First of all, of the image. Secondly, and most importantly, of the viewer.

 

<p>I believe there are two opposite viewpoints regarding photography, which I'll call the <i>searchers</i> and the <i>creators</i>.

 

<p>The searcher credo is <i>There's a wonderful world out there, and I'm gonna bring images of it in order to share what I've seen with you</i>. It's the next best thing to loaning somebody your eyes.

 

<p>The creator credo is <i>I'm gonna bring you the best images I can think of, whatever the means</i>.

<p>In this case, the external world is just a purveyor of raw materials, and the final image is a processed consumer product.

 

Note that when you look at an image made by an creator, you are limited to what he thought was good. The universe brought to you is the one he's got in his head, and he can bend it to his will. A distracting (for his taste) background object? Clone it out. Dull water? Add reflections.

 

<p>But if what he tought was a distracting wart was what gived the photo an anchor to a time and place? And what if that dull pond was what another viewer needed to complement a sense of bottomless peace?

 

<p>Every image will tend to be the same, conforming to what the creator thinks is the dominant aesthetic of the time, with every detail which can make it different (and 'bad') cloned out. When every sunset is saturated, every grassland is lush and green and every sky is brilliant blue after manipulation, there's not an image you can single out and remember.

 

<p> The searcher is bounded by the world, the creator by his mind. And sadly?, most minds are quite boring and normal.

 

<p>This is not an digital/analog or photoshop/gimp debate. Far from it, remember the pictorialists and the f/64 group? Mortensen would have slept with his copies of photoshop below his pillow as well.

 

<p>The manipulation can be done prior to the shutter pressing (Doisneau - Le Baiser de l'Hotel de Ville), in the camera (double exposure shots of the moon and night landscape), in the darkroom (negatives sandwich), or in Photoshop, or Gimp, or whatever.

 

<p>There is also a confusion between the art of the photographer, and the art of the printer. They are different, quite different. Yet I've seen claims that Bresson was not as good a photographer as someone who printed their own negatives.

 

<p>But everybody, with some time and dedication can be a good printer; so mediocre photographers try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, razzling and dazzling in the darkroom or in photoshop, and the craft of printing becomes synonymous to the art of seeing.

[robert x]

Two sides of an old divide - <p>Henri Cartier Bresson:<p><i>1. If you strart cutting or cropping a good photograph, it means death to the geometrically correct interplay of proportions. Besides, it very rarely happens that a photograph which was feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the darkroom's enlarger; the integrity of vision is no longer there.<br>2. We must neither try to manipulate reality while we are shooting, nor must we manipulate the results in a darkroom.</i><p>Bill Brandt:<p><i>1. I try to make my pictures better by cropping.<br>2. <b>Q:</b></i>At what moment in your work is your creative gift most evident?<br><b> . BB:</b><i>When I pull a proof in the darkroom (a very long operation).<br>3. I believe there are no rules in photography. </i><p>Personally, I find HCB a little too prescriptive about what we are and aren't allowed to do.

[dickhilker]

Andrew, I'm still trying to understand exactly what you mean, but am especially curious about this statement, "I don't like photoshop from the perspective that it allows you to do more than most people should and it becomes a crutch." At what point should we stop trying to do our best with the tools at hand? Who decides for us?

 

Is an electric saw a "crutch" because it allows us to cut faster than a hand saw? Are all tools crutches because they allow us to work better than we can with our bare hands?

 

Photoshop, even the "half-assed" Elements is simply a tool that helps to make the most of an image so we can produce a better print. Perhaps if you used it more, you'd become a better photographer and earn more money so you, too, could afford your own Photoshop CS. I'm an amateur who manages to earn enough money using old-fashioned film cameras and PS Elements to buy CS if I found it a better tool for my simple purposes. I used Adobe's free trial of CS and decided Elements was doing everything I needed to do good work, so happily and successfully continue to go my half-assed way.

 

Perhaps it would be a good idea to re-examine your prejudices and accept the reality that any Photoshop is simply a step in the continuum from a photographer's concept to a finished print. It's neither good nor bad, but simply a tool to be used appropriately.

[steven_clark]

Me I think alot of it has to do with are personal rules for the game of photography. Personally I don't approve of edits to the content of the image. So dust spotting is good, color adjustment is good, power-line removal is bad. But that's just the rules of the game as I play it.

[mike_lepp1]

While it's not black and white, it's pretty much a large gray area, at some point I see a photo as not a photo anymore and becomeing graphic art. Minor edits don't bother me, but at some point the image isn't about the capture anymore and becomes about what was done to it post processing. I'm NOT saying I don't like what it became! It's more of a classification. Like oil vs h2o color paintings. Is the artist a good photographer or a good editor?Neither is better or worse in both cases.

 

BTW, this is one of the reasons I take with a grain of salt many of the images I see on line. It's much easier to edit images for web view than for print. Therefore, I really don't know what I'm looking at.

[mag_miksch]

1. As mentioned above, the problem is, that a lot of people use it to try to make bad images look better instead of spending this "photoshop hours" in improving their photographic skills. IMO best to learn is shooting slides, you see what you have done and if you dont like it, try to make it better next time.<p>

2. IMO people running around and say they make art are just fools; art isnt done as art but as a product of work, so if you shoot 1000 photos on pro- level maybe there are 5 or 1 or 0 among them which are art, the others are "just" solid work.<p>

3. In your case I see pictures in snapshot style, done with very basic photographic skills and I dont understand why you believe they become art by applying some radial blur.

[JeffOwen]

The most popular item in any industry always appears to have the most critisism. As a percentage compared with the competetor it is propably no worse or no better.

[briany]

I tend to agree with Bob on this one regarding images that have obvious PS effects, though I see some gray area between what's graphic art and what's a photograph and belongs here. Some images really are so far away from the original image that I think they become less about a photograph. Also, while I don't mind manipulation, most of the effects, imho, are banal and just applied badly. <br><br>

 

When the manipulation is more subtle, such as tweaking up a sunset, I have mixed feelings. I'm facile with Photoshop, and I've used the RAW converter and Photoshop tools to take a sunset picture with almost no color and make the colors quite stunning. But I then tossed it and viewed it as 10 minutes spent playing around and perhaps enhancing my PS skills. As I was learning Photoshop and refining techniques, I modified like crazy and tried everything, just playing around, practicing, refining masking and manipulation techniques. And I think it served me very well in learning the tools. Now I tend to use them to bring out the scene that unfolded before me, rather than trying to create a new one. For that purpose, I'll spend dozens of hours on a sigle image, if necessary, playing around with it. I'll clone on a few images, but prefer not to and tend not to in general.<br><br>

 

I think Santiago said it very nicely above. I Do Not believe in strict rules, but I tend to be a "searcher" by Sanitago's criteria. I like photos where I feel that the resulting image is true to the scene that I found. I can make a saturated sunset photo almost any day, but I like this one: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1415238&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/1415238&size=lg</a> because it genuinely looked like that, wild colors and all--it was before I was shooting digital and I have the Provia slide to prove it. I haven't seen such dramatic color since.<br><br>

 

Looking at your bio page, I see this: <i>...and anything that displays the awesome glory of God tend to be my favorites.</i> I think that photo I posted fits that criteria. The photos where I made the sunset look intensely colorful in Photoshop doesn't. IMHO, when you manipulate too heavily, it's no longer the "awesome glory of God" and more the "awesome glory of Will." Which is fine too -- it just depends on what you want to show.

[will king]

Dick, I don't think I could have said it any better. It's simply a tool. Do very high end expensive lenses become a crutch for a person who is acustomed to shooting with mediacore lenses? NO. At the end of the day photography basically is producing photos that are appealing and interesting to look at. Who cares what tools were used. I once read where people were using coffee grinds to develop photos. Is that against the rules? Who sets these rules? What bugs me is the people that say "oh, it's within the bondaries of true photography to use photoshop to touch a few things up, but once you start messing with it too much than it's no longer true photography" It's basically saying it's okay if I do it or the way I do it, but if you do it or do it differently than me or do a little more than I do than that's wrong" Seems a bit hypocritical. Several people have mentioned that digital composites are really photography. Well what about back in the old day when there were double exposures, where you have two portraits merged into one photo. Is that not photography? We're doing the same thing expcept it's a lot eaiser.

[will king]

Brian, Okay, I do have to admit that you make a good point with the snippet from my bio. I hate it when people make a good point with own quotes. LOL. Okay, but where's the line? How much is one allowed to saturate/desaturate, maipulate before it crosses that line, and who gets to decide? IMO, it's the author. I don't think I have the right to call someone else's work true photography or not, unless I'm strictly adhering to total film. Even if you upload photos to this site, there's some digital manipulation going on.

[nathan cote]

i am by far not a photoshop hater. i am part of the computer generation. ive been working with computers since i was young. the only thing i do hate is people that use/apply filters in photos and dont claim to. IF you changed the obvious aesthetic feel, emotion, movement and repitition of the picture to be an honest artist you need to claim it. photo manipulation has its place but using photoshop filters to apply effects to photos just because you dont know how to do it with your camera is a cop out. i just believe its unproffessional to take the easy and fake route in an image. i love digital alterations, the alternative malipulations that can be applied to photographs and IF its intentional its an separate art form in itself. In a nut shell. for me i just hold images manipulated int he dark room or manipulated as the image was captured holds more photographic strength, it is more of a challenge and authentic than a simple, single filter applied to make the image powerful. the image should be powerful in itself before any photoshop element is added. digital darkroom = dodge, burn and single color toning. ive done some crazy stuff with painting with light, looks photoshoped but it is all done with painting with light techniques as the image was captured.

[mark pav]

This has less to do with photography and Photoshop than it does with personalities.

 

<br><br>On the one hand you have people who like rules, like to follow rules, and like to

have everyone else follow the same rules. They get upset and confused when other people

don't want to abide by the same rules and regulations as they do. They are usually

conservative and have difficulty accepting new ways of doing things.<br><br>

 

On the other hand are the people for whom rules are seen as restrictions. These are the

"rules are meant to be broken" crowd and they are more likely to reject rules as a matter of

course, because they find them confining. They have a broad acceptance for new things

and occasionally will like something simply <i>because</i> it's new.<br><br>

 

Somewhere in between lies everyone else, though usually people will tend towards one of

the above personalities.<br><br>

 

It doesn't matter whether you're talking about photography, Photoshop, music, political

candidates, or whatever, pretty much everyone will argue their points based on those two

personality traits--"You're too liberal and accepting of new and immoral things!" "You're

too conservative and unwilling to change with the times!" ad infinitum.

[will king]

Nathan, I agree that no one should be trying to deceive people by denying any digital alterations. I, myself have no problems stating that my images have been photoshopped. Matter of fact, I state this in my bio and in the photos I post. Although I'm sure it exist, I have never seen anybody lying about their photos.

 

I hear the arguement that effects made in a real darkroom holds more appeal or respect vs a digital darkroom...because it's more authentic and a lot more difficult. I won't argue the difficult aspect, but who cares if it's mjore difficult. I would rather be able to do something on my PC in 10 mins vs doing the exact samething in a darkroom with messy, smelly, expensive equipment for the same effect. Do people choose to pull the grass out in their lawns vs using a motorized lawn mower because it more challenging? Nonsense. Don't get me wrong. People who do take the time to perfect photography in a darkroom, find it rewarding and more power to them. I find working in photoshop and creating an effect(s) rewarding. Don't give me that arguement "it's harder, therefore it's worth more, or should be respected more"

 

Photography is art. Photography is NOT what is seen by the camera, rather it is what is seen by the photographer. The end result should be the vision of the photographer. By putting bondaries or limits on photography, it is vision and creativity that gets limited.

[will king]

Mark, you're right. It does come down to personal tastes. All I ask is people respect all forms of photography. I'm not asking people to love it, just respect. If one hates digitally altered photos, than pass right by without giving it a second look or rate, comment, critique. I make it a rule not to judge genres of photography I don't care for because it's not fair to the photographer. I'll stay in my neighborhood and you stay in yours. I'm not going to go to Siberia on my free will and the complain about how cold it is and how lousy the food is. Just makes sense to me.

[jtk]

Why is use of cartoon film like Velvia or infared, or optical effects filters (starburst/softar/graded/polarizer), or Holgas considered more "photographic" than, say, digital Jerry Uelsman tributes or digital photo-graphic assemblages?

[dickhilker]

Just to muddy the waters a little more, a recent project of mine has been making pictures of flowers without the use of a camera. I simply scan an arrangement on a flatbed scanner, work it over in PS Elements and produce pictures of flowers that look like photographs except for the amazing detail. Are they photographs or digital art?

[jtk]

Dick, that's gorgeous.

[mag_miksch]

its not very new to use scanners for taking pictures, in older days the digital backs have been scanners

[robert x]

Will - I tried to quote you Bill Brandt and Cartier-Bresson to illustrate that it is not rules that count it is the result of what you produce that counts.

 

If you like your results, why care what anyone else thinks ?

 

But please - if you put your photos up for ratings and someone thinks "Oh look, here's another oversaturated and pretty much dull holiday brochure sunset photo that I could buy in a dollar store in Key West - I'll rate him 3 for aesthetics, cos its in focus, and 3 for originality, cos I'm feeling way generous and I don't want to be accused of being a spite rater" then why the heck should they give you a break and move on without rating you because they think that ? That is the ENTIRE POINT of posting your pictures - to see what others think.

 

I have deleted my comment from your portfolio (from a few days ago) because I thought it was pretty kind, yet when I checked back, I saw that you had thanked everyone else apart from me for their kind visits - maybe my words were not kind enough for you ? Who knows. Take your photos and stop complaining about people who don't think you are a genius. As you say yourself - you are new to photography.

 

 

Sorry to sound so grouchy, but it's late, I'm a little tired (!) and I just can't be so polite any more.

 

(As if god can only be seen in a sunset !)

[will king]

Dick, that's freakin awesome. I vote photography. A scanner is essentially a camera anyways, but who cares what you call it. I would have been absolutely proud of creating something like that.

[nathan cote]

why is painting differant than photography? two differant mediums. why is digital alterations differant than photography? because they have differant mediums, camera vs. computer generated. the camera film or digital is one medium. there is a digital dark room (dodging, burning, saturation). when you start cutting, pasting selecting and and changing opacities of objects your getting closer to collage work mixed with painting. like painting as a differant medium as photography they both have their specific place in the arts. neither are any better than the other. personalities have nothing to due with mediums and the realities of art.

[cjfraser]

I'm with Bob Atkins. Here's a proposal: If you are using Photoshop as a tool to enhance what is already there in the image, that is genuine photography. Such adjustments are just an extension of what photographers have always done in the darkroom, through dodging, burning, and so forth. Technological factors alone -- differences between how a human eye sees an image and how a camera records one -- often make them a necessary step in expressing a photographer's vision.

 

But if you are producing or adding something that's not there in the image to begin with, that's graphic art, not photography. And the problem with much such graphic "art" is that, to use the technical terminology introduced in one of the posts above, it just sucks.

 

For me, the key is whether or not the image looks obviously manipulated. If it doesn't, then I consider whatever the photographer did in PS a skilled, even artful, enhancement of a captured image. If it does, I evaluate the image as graphic art, not as photography. On that level, the "Gust of Wind" image someone linked to above still seems pretty awful to me.

 

For an example of some very interesting such graphic art, see http://andrzejdragan.com.

 

Chris