Why are there so many photoshop haters?

[will king]

Robert X,

 

I honestly did not recall seeing your comments on my portfolio, otherwise I would have thanked you for visiting and commenting. Honest mistake.

 

As for people rating or commenting negatively to my photos, yes they have every right to do so. As photo.net's policy states, every photo posted on this site is subject to comments and ratings from viewers, and my photos are no exceptions. As for me and only me, )I don't expect others to adbide by it, although it would be nice), is that I do not rate or comment on photos that are outside of my own tastes or genres. For example, I shoot a lot of landscapes and love viewing landscapes, therefore I rate and comment on landscapes. Yes, I do rate and comment on other genres, however I will NOT rate or comment negatively based soley on genre or style. For example, the Wedding/Social Events genre is not my cup of tea, so to be fair to that genre and the photographers who choose to shoot these types of photos, I do not rate or comment on them. Why should I say "Oh gosh, another wedding photo."

 

You said "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." That comment was out of line. Yes, I'm new to photography. When I post my photos, I want to hear honest feedback. I would rather hear what I could have done better, than "WOW, what a pretty sunset" I am looking for unbiased critiques based on the contents of my photos, not based on whether or not it was photoshopped or if it's "another sunset" All I'm saying is, if you hate photoshopped photos or sunsets, than move on. Why waste your time and mine by commenting on something that you hate?

 

You said "(As if god can only be seen in a sunset !)" Whats up with this comment? How is this relevant to this thread? In y bio I state

"I appreciate and respect all genres of photography, although Lanscapes, Children, and anything that displays the awesome glory of God tend to be my favorites." I never stated that God can only be seen in sunset. I don't know who pee'd in your Wheaties but it wasn't me.

[robert x]

Will - <p>sorry that was a bit more strident than my usual tone I think. This was probably due to having spent a long evening enjoying the UKs new late licensing hours and I will try to temper my comments. My comment on your portfolio said something like you seem to be doing very well for someone who had just started and I offered the advice that next time you were at a beautiful sunset you should have a look away from the setting sun as there is often beautiful light there that is all too rarely photographed.

<p>

I think what got to me though was that the main things I am geting from this thread are hearing you saying "Some people hate photoshop" when I think maybe they don't, maybe they just think that you have used it a bit much, and also your assumption that some low rates you have got are based on people rating a genre they don't like. I just think it's disingenuous. It seems that all of the comments on your photos are really positive - I think you said above that you have deleted all the photos that got the supposed "anti-photoshop" comments, so it is very hard for me to make a judgement as to what I felt these comments were reacting to or their tone.

<p>My earlier posts also tried to make the point that there is nothing inherently wrong with manipulation by quoting great artists who have used the technique [i thought the Bill Brandt/David Hockney "Top Withens" example was particularly good for this thread]. I think the idea was that you should look to the great artists and feel vindicated and stop worrying about your detractors. Yet there was little response to these posts and the theme of "why do some people hate photoshop?" continued on, seeming like a whine.

<p>People have been manipulating photos for a long time. What counts at the end of it is whether the result is attractive. Personally I consider the type of photo you produce to be not my kind of photo and I suppose part of this, with the sunsets, is the heavily oversaturated look you give them. Why would you need to improve on a good sunset photo to the point where it becomes unreal ? I think sunset photos are very difficult because they have been done so many times before that it is extremely difficult to avoid cliche. Now of course something only becomes a cliche because it is worth something in the first place, and there are (as attested to by your portfolio comments and photo library sales of sunsets) still many many people who love looking at them. Indeed there aremany people (as attested by your portfolio comments) who love looking at very saturated photos. What you seem to be saying is this :<p><i>"If you don't like looking at saturated sunset photos then please don't rate or comment on my saturated sunset photos"</i><p>Just take the rates/comments on the chin, and carry on regardless.<p>For Chris Fraser - the point behind the "Gust of Wind" photo is that it is based on <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/paintingtheweather/csv/large/mishima.shtml">this 18th woodcut by HOKUSAI (link to picture)</a>

[will king]

Robert,

 

Hey, thanks for replying back. I agree with your statement "What counts at the end of it is whether the result is attractive." I am not familar with the artists you quoted. I don fully admit that I do tinker with color saturation, however, in my opinion, and again, it's just my opinon, I don't think I over saturate. I have seen over saturated colors to the point that the photo starts to look choppy and pixalated. My general rule of thumb is to stay within the bondaries of being realistic. Sometimes I bend that rule, but I fee I don't cross the line of unrealistic colors.

 

I don't think that all my low rates are from photoshop haters or the cliche sunset haters, but some of them are. I know this because, again, I have had people brave enough to comment on it. I really don't mind critical feedback that's going to help me get better, but I don't have the time nor the patience to read comments from anti-photoshop snobs, being critical based solely on digital manipulation and not on the merits of the photo. For example, I appreciate your commemnt. You gave me a suggestion to maybe try a different technique. That's the stuff I want to hear.

[dickhilker]

Mag,

 

When you say, "its not very new to use scanners for taking pictures," you're partially correct. A more apt simile would be the images of turtles, hands and butts made on the new office Xerox back in the fifties and sixties.

 

Usually, such pictures were made of single objects and, because of the technology at the time, lacked much detail. Video cameras also scan objects.

 

However, what is a bit more unusual about my work is the technique of capturing highly detailed (1200 dpi) 8 1/2 X 13 images of arranged objects in such a way that they result in attractive pictures. Another example is attached.

 

I'm only aware of one other photographer working in the same way and marketing the fruits of his labors.

[bdpics]

I don't hate photoshop--but I'm not at all fond of heavily manipulated images that are passed-off as/intended to look "real."

 

These types of images IMHO are dishonest. They are saying, "yes, I was there and saw the full moon, rainbow, and crashing meteor and I was fortunate enough to have captured it on film! ! !" Of course, that's not what REALLY happened, rather it is a composite image.

 

Surreptitiously combining parts of one image with another is akin to stuffing your bra for the prom--while it might seem like a good idea to twist the truth, in the end the manipulation usually comes up short.

 

As for the enormously creative and obviously manipulated images that graphic artists post here, many of them are just plain brilliant and I love looking at them!

[nicholasprice]

...photoshop is just a tool like any other - unfortunately it is reasonably easy to use, and

consequently easy to abuse. ...so many photographers here are so ready to do this,

producing cheesy, over-egged, hyper-saturated images which are so alien to most

people's notion of what photography is that they cause offence.

 

I have no real idea how to use photoshop, and consequently try to avoid it's less subtle

aspects. I can however see when others are not so restrained, and their productions

cannot help but make me either laugh with ridicule, or cry with dispare.

 

Photography is photography, and graphic art is graphic art!

 

The guidelines regarding what constitutes a manipulated image are a good place to start if

you need guidance as to what constitutes a light room crime!

 

Regards, Nick.

[mike_lepp1]

One thing which bothers me is some people's posts seem to imply that if you can edit your photo in PS to something interesting you're a good photographer. To this I disagree.

 

If someone paints over a photo and makes an interesting piece, are they a good photographer? If someone makes a realistic painting are they a good photographer? If someone cuts up photos they took and makes a cool collage are they a good photographer? If I can sculpt great well does that mean I'm a good photographer or painter? If I am a good photographer does that mean I'm a good painter? While in some cases they may be, in general don't think so.

 

For me this doesn't take anything aways from the art they created. Just like you may not like the artists I do. But again, these are divisions, and while divisions aren't always clear, they are there nonetheless.

 

I personally tend to not like most heavily manipulated photos. Unfortunately I tend to be good enough at PS that I see them as silly tricks (maybe a poor choice of words?). I want to see something manipulated to something truelly unique. IOW, true mastery of the medium! The rest just look amateurish and like the person who took the photo is trying to cover up his bad (or lazy) photographic skills.

[will king]

B Diamond, you said: "These types of images IMHO are dishonest" Why do you consider it dishonest? Most people that post digitally manipulated photos don't try to hide the fact that the photo has been manipulated. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure I have seen composites created in a traditional darkroom before. Does this make it more honest than if it were created in a digital darkroom?

 

I've said it before and I'll stick to my philosphy. Photography is a form of art. It is not what the camera see that creates the art, it is what the photographer sees. Once you start putting bondaries and limits on photography, it is ultimately creativity that gets limited.

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't think it's fair to call those who choose not to modify the content of their images "snobs". They go through a bit more effort in the field to capture something they saw with their eyes and thought it was beautiful, worthy of a photograph. If someone feels intrinsically superior, then they are perhaps snobs. If someone is willing to work a lot to obtain good results using a more restricted approach, and they're happy doing it, what could be wrong with that? A lot of people enjoy seeing interesting and beautiful things in the great outdoors. If you instead of caring to work for your images outdoors, choose to "create" them by your computer, of course these images can not be compared with each other, they come from completely different sources. One is a document of a sorts of what the photographer actually saw, and the other is often just half a drawing, half a photograph. Each genre of images should be judged as a member of that genre. A photograph is more accurate than an oil painting, for example, but it's not just to criticise an oil painting for lack of complete geometrical accuracy. Items belonging to different art forms should not be judged against each other (IMO). Photographs should not be judged against digital creations.

[will king]

Ilkka, I didn't mean that people that hold to traditional unmanipulated photography were all "snobs", however, there are a handful of people that feel that there is no place on this site for manipulated photos at all. From reading this thread, I get the impression that a lot of people think photoshop users, have to make digital manipulations to "fix" their images, and if they got it right the first time, one would not have to use photoshop. I will be the first person to admit that I'm VERY new to photography and most of my photos reflect my lack of photography skills, HOWEVER, the majority of my photoshop use is NOT to fix a photo, rather it use used to create certain effects. Yes, I use CS2 to change the exposure at times, and maybe curves and levels, but the majority of the time for me, and probably most of the photoshoppers use it for much more than that. <br>

<br>

 

What I get tired of is when I see a photo that has a subtle PS filter applied to achieve a certain effect, and the photographer is honest about the use of photoshop, and he/she gets disrespected because of that. Case in point with this <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3947370" >photo</a>

<br>

<br>

Here's one of the comments someone made regarding this photo:<br>

<br>

 

<b>Photoshop<br>

nathan cote , December 14, 2005; 02:38 A.M.</b> <br>

<i>im not a big fan of people using photoshop to apply effects that can be fairly easily applied through camera techniques. such as the blurring on this one. the image aesthetically looks great but it looses its grounds on creativity to me by using photoshop.</i>

<br>

<br>

Why should creativity be judged on the use of a tool rather than the end result? Would this photo be consider photography or digital art?

[dickhilker]

I think Ilkka makes a very important point in observing that there are really two distinctly different kinds of photographs: the documentary that purports to accurately present information in an unaltered form and the artistic which conveys the artist's vision. The first allows no room for manipulation to distort what the photojournalist or crime scene investigator captured with a camera, whereas the second is what the artist with a camera chooses to show us on his canvas/print with all the imagination and image control at his command.

 

Why should the standards by which one category must be judged be applied to the other? Since the camera is to the photographer as the brush is to the painter, why should the artist with a camera be constrained by rules more appropriately applied to a photojournalist?

[mike_lepp1]

The crux of the matter of this thread is photographers are overly concerned with others opinions of their work. There are more photo contests than there are contests with any other form of art. I personally find this a strange phenomena.

 

I was once part of a local club and all they were concerned about was the "contest." That's what every meeting was about. If you win a contest you're obviousely better than everyone else. People went as far as to keep entering a photo that did well. Or to try and figure out what the judge likes and enter a photo in that genre. To me this just means you're trying to please the judges. You should be trying to please yourself.

 

Moreover, I think if this is your concern you need to post your images on sites that have people with similar interests. If people on this site don't like a certain types of images it doesn't mean it's bad or wrong.

 

Also, comments may just trying to explain, or teach, the person how to achieve the effect in the camera. Which, IMO, is usually faster and easier than editing it in PS. Yet, another strange phenomena is how many people are spending more time learning PS than their camera. Which, btw, is fine and their prerogative. Nothing is wrong with enjoying creating in PS over taking pictures with the camera.

 

IMO, you should be creating what you like and what your vision is and quit worrying what others think. If you study art history you'll see people have always been creating art that the mainstream never understood or liked.

[geu4king]

Couple of observations. A lot of you seem "upset" if the photo is manupulated to add or remove objects with PS. I would agree if you are doing documentry or journalistic photos. The rest is art. Do you honestly think that great painters would include garbage cans, one way signs in a great landscape? No! ITS ART - By the way, I was doing B&W in the dark room 20 years ago AND you could do the samething as PS... it took longer, more expensive, but YOU COULD DO IT! What is your purpose of taking photos? So you can say..."Look at this... this is just the way I took it with my $3000 camera!" I say it is art, and you should express and convey your thoughts to others by using your skills wisely. PS is a tool just as your camera is, and by usinging both with skill, you can make a great photo! By the way, excuse any spelling problems...forget PS, I need spell check!

[arraga]

<p><i>Do you honestly think that great painters would include garbage cans, one way signs in a great landscape? No! ITS ART </i></p>

 

<p>That's an excellent illustration of the difference between the searchers and the creators point of view.

 

<p>You, as a creator, are bounded by your mind; so you think it's preposterous that anyone would include signs and garbage cans in a landscape.

 

<p>You also have at your disposition a vast array of tools to bend all your pictures to your will and sense of aethetics. So, what we're seeing, as Brian Y pointed above, are not images stolen from the wonderful, scary, awesome world, but images from the creator's imagination.

 

<p>And, it has to be said, most of us belong to the boring, stodgy bourgeoisie. What many of us want are pictures that are 'pretty', calm, and don't challenge our viewpoints in any way. Something that we can hang in our living-rooms, certain than they will atract no more than an 'awwww' from our fellows.

 

<p>So garbage cans are cloned, and signs are put to rest. And another boring picture straight out of a tourism brochure comes to life.

 

<p>Well, surely this is art. But is it good art? I always tought that one of the measures of art was it capability to challenge our mind; to make us aware that thinks may no be as they seem, and that old ways are sometimes being followed, not because they are good, but because they are old.

 

<p>One of the motives good works of art are remembered is for the reactions we felt when we experienced them, being them raw emotion, awe, intelectual challenge, or everything at once.

 

<p>After the zillionth sunset-at-shore-with-foreground-rocks my reaction is simple. Boredom.

 

<p>What did the creators do with the racetrack rock POW a week ago? The immediately 'improved' it by oversaturation. Why? Because that's what they tought was 'pretty'. And by gosh, they would 'correct' this flawed world!

 

<p>Some of us cherish our world just like it is, with warts and all. You must have rainy days to appreciate sunshine. And when every picture is 'enhanced' to death, you <b>lose</b> your eyes and sense of wonder. The day to day world becomes gray and dull, compared with your creations.

 

 

<p><i>- By the way, I was doing B&W in the dark room 20 years ago AND you could do the samething as PS... it took longer, more expensive, but YOU COULD DO IT!</i>

 

<p>Sorry, but this is the same red herring I alluded in my first post. Note the Brandt image linked to above.

 

<p>The tools, the skill set, and the moment where manipulation occurs do not matter.

[bill_thorlin]

Fact or fiction - sometimes I read fact and sometimes fiction but I do like to know ( or be made aware of the difference ).

 

As Mike Lepp said it is another wonderful grey area where absolutely definitive judgements ( or for that matter opinions ) cannot be arrived at.

 

If I have to get down off the fence it would probably be on the same side as Bob for nearly all categories - but I won't be losing any sleep over it.

[will king]

Glenn, I'm feelin ya buddy. Keep on preachin. I couldn't have said it better myself. <br>

<br>

Santiago, I think you have missed Glenn's point. I can't speak for him, but what I think he's trying to say is that photography is art, and art should be from the creative mind of the artist. So photography doesn't have to be a regurgitation of what the camera actually saw. It can be, but doesn't HAVE to be. Not to say that unmanipulated photos isn't art. It's just that the artisit should have the creative freedom to do whatever he/she wishes to do to convey his/her vision. Glenn is NOT saying that artists/photographers should manipulate their photos to make them look like the run of the mill sunset postcards. Some artists may even add a trash can or a street sign that's not there to invoke thought. You seem to look down upon the creator's imagination to change or manipulate. <br>

<br>

There are two ways of looking at art and photography. The analogy that Bill made is excellent. Fact or fiction. I enojoy reading both fact and fiction but it's hard to compare the two. I think photography and photo.net has room for both unmanipulated photos and maniupated photos. So when people view photos on this site, I think they should take that in considertion, and comment/critique accordingly. Now, of course not everybody will agree, but that's just my opinion. I do admit that photographers should always be honest about whether or not they changed anything in the photo so no one is fooled. <br>

<br>

To say that photography should be and only be unmanipulated is small minded. It limits imagination and creativity. The nonsense of the school of thought that if one makes an adjustment, adds, subtracts, anything to or from the photo, it changes the photo from photography to digital art and does not belong on this site is selfish, close minded, and pompous. Then you have the school of thought that says, "well, it's okay if you make a minor adjustment, like you clone out a blemish from someone's face" Well, how is that any different from cloning out a street sign from a landscape shot? <br>

<br>

I do understand some of the view points about some photos being transformed into digital art, such as this <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3909386" >photo</a> but I still do think photo.net has enough room for this type of image. May not suite everyone's tastes but not everything will. (BTW, Laurie, if you read this, I hope you don't mind me using your photo as an example)

[geu4king]

Will... Thanks.

 

Santiago - "You also have at your disposition a vast array of tools to bend all your pictures to your will and sense of aethetics. So, what we're seeing, as Brian Y pointed above, are not images stolen from the wonderful, scary, awesome world, but images from the creator's imagination"

 

ANSWER: Resounding YES!

My friend, there is no wrong or right here. A am going on 60, and have retired (I have MS). I have seen a lot of this world, and I guess, what I am trying to convey in my photo's is what the world looks like in the eyes of a inocent child! Can you remember as a child sites that you were totaly awed by and 30 years later coming back to the same site being disapointed that it just did not have the beauty and wonder that you remembered as a child? So, sometimes I do over saturate color (occasionaly too much) and I do eleminate high tension wires and modern ugly bridge in a mill town to look at the beauty of what it may have been a 100 years ago.

I do not know what is "right or wrong" for photography (just look at my porfolio... I got a long way to go!) but I enjoy what I do AND Santiago... I enjoy what you do also. Its all subjective.

Happy shooting my friends, Glenn.

[shawngibson]

Photoshop sucks. Why? Because it causes you to get all weird and decide to spend thousands of dollars building the Ultimate Photoshop Computer when your camera is a Rebel XT, because you have more fun going in after you've taken the pictures and try to put your silly little stamp on it, hopefully with no one noticing you even own Photoshop.

 

Did I say that out loud?

 

On a serious note, I think Photoshop is to photography what acrylic is to paint, and there will always be those who hate both. Let them, and do what you most enjoy yourself, as it is only you who matters in such pursuits. Anyone who thinks Ansel Adams would hate Photoshop or Rembrandt would hate acrylic, should probably not be calling themself a photographer or a painter, or they should at least recognize they are merely offering up their own passion. People who care enough about their own work and their own methods really have no use for what other people think in the first place, and that's a real sign of strength, often not seen in those who take one side or another.

 

 

 

Shawn

[robert x]

.....I am not so sure Santiago did miss the point. At least, the bit he responded to was the claim that a great painter would not include garbage or traffic signs on a great landscape and he seemed to me to make a pretty good point in return - that the poster could not conceive why an "artist" would include such things.....<p>Here is a particularly suitable example, I believe, for this discussion. Suitable because it is by David Hockney (<a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/hockney/">info on him <u>here</a></u>) who I referred to earlier as having been so upset by Brandt's "collage", because Hockney is a great painter (or at least, very successful), and because it is not a photograph, or a painting, but a collage of hundreds of photographs. It is certainly, in my opinion at least, a great landscape. Note garbage and traffic signs.....enjoy !