On the Great Divide (Photoshop)

[blithelydoubting]

Shay,

Sorry, I can't answer your question since I am only mediocre, at best, but I would like to say that I like your question. It seems designed, with subtleties that some may not be picking up on. Are you philosophically trained?

 

I have noticed that most of the responses to questions like yours are geared toward "finding yourself", "doing your own thing", "express your meaning", etc. - as if photography is not something that can be learned, it must be stumbled upon while on a journey of interpretive dance.

 

This type of stuff is not helpful for those of us still learning. Oh wait... I forgot, "one must never stop learning". Photography knowledge is infinite and mysterious.

 

I know, I'm not going to make friends with this type of post, but i am sick and tired of that type of "advice".

[jgalyon]

Serious question Gilbert: what is the correct answer to Shay's question?

[mcpoljak2003]

"So on this great divide on which I stand, which way do I go? It's up to you."

 

Onward and Upward.

[waltflanagan]

Shay is asking two questions. One is on manipulated vs unmanipulated.

I don't agree with the photo.net definition of manipulated vs unmanipulated. Deciding which is better or what you should do is like asking what flavor of ice cream you should eat. Try them all, decide for yourself. Some days I like vanilla, some days chocolate.

 

The second question is about someone overusing an effect. If you overuse an effect it gets old and boring. That doesn't mean you should never use it.

 

In response to Gilbert, photographic skills such as exposure can be learned. Lighting can be learned. You can learn what the majority think are interesting compositions and try to target that. What can't be learned is taste. Do you like saturated colors? Do you like B&W? Those are artistic tastes and have no right answer.

[scooter0071]

I like to try to get the best possible photo I can strait out of the camera. That doesn't always reflect exactly what I am looking to create, if this is the case I have no problem taking that photo and doing anything I need to get the end results I originally was going for. Sometimes that is a little tweaking, Sometimes Major manipulation. Others may not like that, That doesn?t bother me, I create art (photos) to please me, If others like them, all the better. I agree Photoshop is a tool. Use it as needed for each and every photo as an individual project. Sometimes that may even mean not at all. Sometime you will spend all day on one photo to get the results. The most important thing I can say is create art that pleases you with whatever tool is needed sometime that tool is a tack hammer, sometimes it is a 5 pound sledge. (umm I think I am rambling again)

 

Just my 2 cents...

 

Bill

 

Bill

[jgalyon]

Agreed...Walter. In regard to the whole issue of the use of Photoshop, taste is obviously a big part of the equation...but Shay stated he feels a sense of "dishonesty" in at least some of it's applications. I don't see that as an unreasonable or unusual dilemma.

 

Gilbert wrote: "I have noticed that most of the responses to questions like yours are geared toward "finding yourself", "doing your own thing", "express your meaning", etc. - as if photography is not something that can be learned, it must be stumbled upon while on a journey of interpretive dance. This type of stuff is not helpful for those of us still learning."

 

I hope he returns and answers the question I posed to him...as I'm very curious about his thinking on the subject. I can understand...to a degree, the obvious frustration he expresses...feeling that no one is offering a practical answer to Shay's questions. If this were a question that simply required passing on some technical info...I'm sure it would have been offered. If we consider all the books written about Photoshop, I doubt that there are many dedicated to the question "is using Photoshop dishonest?". I don't think anyone is avoiding offering a practical answer to the question...there simply isn't one.

[waltflanagan]

John, regarding dishonesty, I posted my answer already. If someone asks if you photoshopped the image be honest. Explain the process you used. Did you change the colors? Airbrush out blemishes? Merge 3 exposures together? Just tell them and be honest! Some people have responded to me with "That's cheating!" People who tell me that have never shown me a picture I like so I don't take their opinions too seriously. As Bill mentioned above, I take photos for myself, if others like them that's fine.

[jgalyon]

Walt... I started my last comment by saying,

 

"In regard to the whole issue of the use of Photoshop, taste is obviously a big part of the equation...but Shay stated he feels a sense of "dishonesty" in at least some of it's applications. I don't see that as an unreasonable or unusual dilemma".

 

...i didn't mean it to sound as though you hadn't addressed that issue or that i was in any way challenging anything you said. i was in part...thinking aloud, and at the same time...attempting to be clear to Shay that i thought his questions to be legit...whether anyone could answer them legitimately or not. our view on the honesty part matches up tit for tat. hope this clears up what any confusion i might have caused!

[mr. sullen]

"hopefully we understand each other well enough that you know i'm not trying to run you out of the forum!" The thought never crossed my mind John. And the understanding is there.<br>"...obtaining a variety of different perspectives..." A major part of this is that but just to make it clear I am not trying to dredge up an old argument just for the sake of argument, not saying that's what your saying just want to get that out there.<br>"feel compelled to establish it all "in a day"." It does seem that way dosent it? Lol. I do force myself sometimes a bit too much.

[les]

Shay, the objective is to produce an image that you like (and, hopefully, some other people like it too). Who cares about how "pure" the final result is ?

 

When you want to get from point A to point B, some people buy an air ticket. Some drive. And some insist that a horse-driven cart is the only way to travel. They all arrive at their destination. And, if they have a bit of sense - they do not argue about whose mode of travelling the distance is best.

[blithelydoubting]

John,

 

As I said before, I am only a mediocre photographer. This is why I did not want to answer the question, but if pressed I would say: No, I don't think photoshoping is not dishonest unless you claim it is unmanipulated. I do not see intrinsic value in unmanipulated images other than "street cred". I think passing on experience is just a easy as passing on technical info. Just talk about what you do and why. I would have to say that those would be "correct" answers, while musing on the obscurities of finding ones self through technique would be incorrect.

 

Walt,

 

I have to disagree about "What can't be learned is taste." acquired tastes are not just for the tongue. Surly your tastes for photography have changed and improved from the time you started to now. I know mine have. I have begun to appreciate things about photography that i would not have even cared about before.

 

 

P.S. I probable came off combative in my post before, but I'm actually quite affable. Sorry.

[blithelydoubting]

John,

By the way, I admire your portfolio.

[jgalyon]

Gilbert, I didn't think you came off as combative...at all. :) All i heard was a man expressing himself...minus any concern for being politically correct. Downright refreshing in fact...

 

I'm still not completely certain that I understand what you're saying on the matter. In a nutshell, what I'm hearing from Shay is that he is conflicted as to what type/how much photoshop can be used in PP of his photos...before he crosses the line into what he sees as "dishonesty".

 

And...it sound like you're saying that rather than, as you said, "musing on the obscurities of finding oneself..." , or simply offering, "yes...you should abandon it altogether", or no...you shouldn't" - you're suggesting that we simply share where we stand on the issue and why...that being the best way in which to offer practical/tangible help. Am I hearing you correctly? (i'm a bit dense at time...so please bear with me! ;)

 

p.s. - thanks for the compliment! and...don't underestimate your own talent. i looked through your portfolio and didn't find a one that i didn't like! i see lots of promise and pictures that i see as being much better than "mediocre". i'll offer more than "like" when i can spend a bit more time taking a nice slow look...

[jgalyon]

Shay...thanks for your comment, and rest asssured,it never crossed my mind that you were arguing for arguments sake...! :)

[blithelydoubting]

John,

 

Yes, that's what i'm getting at. That being said, i am not suggesting that people limit their answers, just put the practical bit in too. I personally think it's great to read the ramblings of a seasoned expert. It's just that I printed this thread earlier today, for a bit of lavatory learning, and it was not the straight talk i had hoped for.

 

Thanks and thanks,

[petemillis]

Gilbert, did you put the paper to proper use when you realised that it wasn't what you'd hoped for? ;))

 

Everybody has suggested that the photog is in control of what he does and can either choose to do something or not. For me...from a practical viewpoint..it has gone like this. I used to use just film. I took the pictures and sent film to lab for processing. And that was it. I sometimes developed my own film, but time constaints meant this was very rare. Whether the pictures I got back were any good or not was dependent on how I had taken them, and how the lab had processed them. So I just did as good a job as possible of taking them - right film for whatever the type of light, fight film speed for whatever I was shooting, deciding if I wanted BW or colour, then having to use all that film before I could change my mind on something.

 

So when I moved to digital fairly recently, I still had it in mind to get the best I could from the camera - see the image I want and get that without having to resort to post processing (other than converting to BW if I wanted that, and cropping a bit). I got results I was pleased with. But, since learning a bit more about post processing, I can make a lot of pictures even better. I realised I could shoot under any type of light and make corrections to white balance. I realised I could alter the shadow and highlight points and the histogram curve and make images a bit sharper and deal with hot photosites on the images, and clone out minor details that would otherwise detract from the image I wanted, and add sepia tones, and different filters to black and white images (like doing the same as a yellow or orange or red of green filter would over the lens when shooting with BW film), and correcting a wonky horizon.

 

So I use post processing to obtain what I want to see. I stop at special effects - I'm not a fan of adding blur in post processing, or swirls, or colour effects, or highly saturating images and so on. I enjoy experimenting with the camera - taking the effects I create in there - and using post processing just for the final bit of making what I want. But is someone wants to make what they want entirely in post processing then that's their choice. It's not cheating - you can't be cheating if you're doing what you want to do - you're just approaching it in your way. Cheating would be taking an image from someone else and saying it was yours.

 

Man, I'm waffling too much and have work to do so I'll shut me gob for a while. I guess all I'm trying to explain is how I've come to a stage where I still prefer to do all I can "in camera" and just improve it a bit if necessary in post processing...

[papasan]

Gilbert, here is my view. When i was shooting B&W film i had a darkroom for a few years but it was very difficult to maintain. Eventually i started shooting more and more color slides, and although i worked with Cybachrome for a while i was never fully happy with the printed results, so i had to rely on professional labs but I couldn't help but feel i was giving away control of the finished product to some impersonal company.

 

Fast forward to today, i started taking digital photos 4 years ago, and quickly graduated to shooting almost exclusively in RAW format because i felt that gave me more flexibility and control over the final product which is what always frustrated me shooting slides. But this also meant having to develop digital darkroom skills. Shooting RAW for me means that all the decisions are being made by me not the camera and not an impersonal lab. I retain all the control and i find that Photoshop is much more user friendly than the old analog darkrooms ever were. Now i can do all the adjustments i want to my photos and be as creative as i want just sitting at my computer. For me what matters is the end result: the photo. Sometimes it means no manipulation at all (except basic WB, contrast and sharpness adjustment) and sometimes it means much more manipulation. For me Photoshop is just a tool to help me produce the photo i have in my mind when i take the picture. It has given me the control i never really had when i was shooting film.

[mr. sullen]

I've decided I can not work with color or digital manipulation for a while. Portfolio Stripped.

[KenPapai]

This thread has been approved by me. LOL. finally, ehh?! As if. Just late for the party.

 

Shay wrote, "I find myself ...eliminating my photos that have been photoshoped."

 

I think you do that out of guilt or you feel you were a fraud and are now embarrassed? Like a pretty girl who covers up a bare few flaws with heavy make-up, you are sorry you over manipulated too many of your original photos.

 

Shoot what you like and that result, via Photoshop, the images that Please YOU! Shay, maybe your destiny was to be a graphic artist -- you start with a base photo or two and then evolve them into some interesting graphic art that is no longer a photograph? If so fine, more than enough room in the world for that sort of creativity.

 

Have fun and enjoy -- enjoy your cameras, lens, tripods, computers, software, and photo printers!

[petemillis]

Shay, that's excellent what you've done and I'm looking forward to seeing how things work out and I'd love to hear how this affects the way you feel about your photography as well. I've also been thinking about being quite ruthless with some portfolio stripping but still can't decide what should go. Please keep us updated.

Pete

[rocco1]

Shay, a lot has already been said on your subject, but to clarify a bit: from "seeing" to "final picture" there are hundreds of things that infuence the final outcome. Adding photoshop to the lineup that already includes camera, lens, light, filter, film (like in sensor), ect ect, is just another tool that gets used. But if you feel that spending too much time or effect with photoshop is "wrong" or not right or whatever, then maybe you are on the right track to start looking to do what "great" photographers are doing: to make sure you have the "right" picture even before you are pressing the shutter. Meddeling in photoshop and then not liking it means that you didn't really "see" the picture when you tripped the shutter, or did you?

 

Something else that no-one ever thinks about, is that photography is an art like painting. The debate has been going on for hundreds of years, but it IS AN ART! So, do painters also wonder about the use of a specific brush? Or type of paint? To varnish or not to varnish?

 

I have asked the same question that you did, strange enough that a painter artist laughed, and showed the obvious to me. It sure made me a better photograher.

[Norma Desmond]

I think if you've stripped your portfolio based on arbitrary criteria like whether they are in color or photoshopped, you have simply performed a relatively mindless task. I don't mean to be harsh (I do care about your continued growth and learning and success as a photographer), but there are deeper considerations than those to use to edit your portfolio. You've asked a lot of questions about your work lately and I think it's wonderful that you're thinking about these questions and your body of work as a whole. But I think you've chosen a very simplistic method instead of doing the hard emotional and critical work that editing your portfolio actually demands.

 

People are often afraid they won't be true to their original subject if they do post-processing work. For me, it's not about recreating what was there, it's about what I SAW. What I SEE often does not get captured by the camera lens. What I SEE and what I SAW is what I present in a photograph, a combination of various tools at my disposal, including but not limited to the camera.

[mr. sullen]

Thank you for your thoughts, but you got me wrong. This has been weeks in the thinking, really months and I can guarantee was not arbitrary. I know you care, it's well known to me anyway that you're one of the good ones. So be harsh, I can take it.<br><br> The fact remains I am still trying to find myself as a photographer. John Gaylon gets the impression that I am trying to find this in a day. In a way he's right but I know it will take years, if ever but I have hope for myself. <br><br>I have had my "first" camera, or really when I decide I wanted to express myself and how I saw the world photographically, one year now. And there has not been one day that has gone by that I did not do something that pertains to photography. I've come to the conclusion now that I want to keep photography as pure as I can. I now want to focus on what I call "truth in expression" in the subjects I choose to shoot. If you look at my portfolio now I see that truth there. <br><br>I went through 9,000 photos today on here and started rating the photos that inspire me and which have the quality I want to obtain(pn is lagging behind putting the photos that I rated in my workspace). Same goes for many of my latest critiques. So you can get more of feel of where I want to head with this if you like. Who know's maybe six months down the like I'll freak out and start taking photos of plastic cups. I really appreciate yours and others thoughts. Shay.

[mr. sullen]

Here is part of a critique I did on "The Fly" by Alloxa Model<br><br> "I'm just expressing how I feel and to me without truth in the eyes and face everything else no matter how perfectly executed falls apart. On the other hand I can forgive technical flaws when that truth in expression esists, to a point anyway."

[mr. sullen]

!