Photoshop VS Photography

[mwaks]

<p>I say if you take a half dozen photographs, throw them together in a way that makes sense and BINGO! You have a photograph.</p>

[dhhensler]

<p>Patrick, Michael... Thank you for echoing my sentiments. I've actually found myself becoming disillusioned with PN lately due to this very issue. I came to this site to join a community of photographers and learn from their mastery, not to witness "digital painting" as Patrick so eloquently labeled it. I want to talk, see, and experience photographs, whether they be digital or film based, not see the result of hours behind a monitor. <br /> <br /> I'm sure this will create a whole slew of responses from the PS crowd. Yet, I've never denied their genius or brilliance. I just feel it is a different medium and should have it's own space that celebrates the beauty and skill of this medium.<br>

I wonder if there is a site similiar to APUG but for Digital...would that be DPUG? Any suggestions?</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> I've actually found myself becoming disillusioned with PN lately due to this very issue. ... </p>

<p>Or, rather than be unhappy about the few photographs you see here that you don't like, because of their composite nature, you could enjoy those that are not. Thousands of them on this site.</p>

<p>>>> I want to talk, see, and experience photographs, whether they be digital or film based, not see the result of hours behind a monitor. </p>

<p>They are certainly here...</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Generally what comes out of a digital camera and lens, no matter what the cost will not live up to it's maximum potential without post processing.</p>

<p>And certainly true with film cameras as well. Except it's done in a darkroom, rather than in image processing software....</p>

[sarah clarehart]

<p>I haven't read through ALL of the comments.. sorry about that.. but I do get the gist of this argument. It's one that has occurred many times before in art vs. craft.<br /> <br /> However, in my very humble opinion, it seems to me that photographers are particularly sensitive to this issue because it boils down to an issue of "truth" vs. "non-truth". I think that argument has credence if you are reviewing journalistic photos only.. maybe. But in the broad spectrum.. photography is an art form and therefore why not tolerate the artistic nuances of each individual photographer? Why not open your mind to be creatively inspired by others? Why not learn new techniques to draw the most out of your own work?<br /> <br /> I get the feeling sometimes (not specifically from this site) that some photographers think that you're "cheating" if you have learned Photoshop to such a degree that other's have not reached yet. Why? I want to learn to use my photographic equipment as best as I can.. but I can do things in PS that others do with lens filters..or multiple exposures.. what's the difference? Where does manipulation begin and end? <br /> <br /> I love the medium of photography, and my objective as a photographer/artist... no, as a human being.. is to create images that will try to express my vision of beauty and reality. MY reality. And I very much enjoy the images of others who do so. However that objective is met.. is rather a moot point.<br>

I very much enjoy being part of this community.. learning from you all and being inspired by you all. Though, I do find the wealth of information here a bit overwhelming to navigate. ;-) Thank you.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> I get the feeling sometimes (not specifically from this site) that some photographers think that you're "cheating" if you have learned Photoshop to such a degree that other's have not reached yet. Why?</p>

<p>I get the same feeling. Don't know why, either...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I saw this post before any one had responded, and I thought, not again!</p>

<p>but yes, again and again and again.</p>

<p>I actually waded through the responses, but what you still don't seem to understand, and you're not alone in this David, is that what people are saying here is a replay of a classic, on-going debate that goes back into painting before photography was even invented.</p>

<p>Techniques you seem to accept such as "cropping" for example, are rejected by many purists as betraying the original image -- this is why they often went to the level of printing the film margins to prove that they hadn't cropped the image. If cropping or color balance, for example, can be modified, then where <em><strong>do</strong> </em> you draw the line?<br>

Your purism is someone else's rejected manipulation, and so it goes. I've built up a file of old photography magazines, and no year in any of them back into the 20s is without someone writing essentially the same complaint as yours about the state of photography in that year: Why can't people just take pictures without all this "art" stuff, my kid could take better pictures than ____(fill in name of famous photographer), etc.</p>

<p>Let me see, you're complaining about having to look at other people's manipulated pictures? Then don't look at them. You're saying you can't tell? Then stop worrying about it.</p>

<p> </p>

[doug elick]

<p>HA! I asked a related question and wound up with a 100+ posts thread.</p>

<p>The arguement that all photography is manipulated is bunk and we all know it. When I select a lens for perspective or a developing process to compress the tonal range, I'm undoubtedly adjusting the image. However, what many folks convieniently overlook is I'm still just interpereting what was there. I'm not adding volcanos to my local park or painting faerie wings on my Financee.</p>

<p>This is Ansel's photo of Grand Teton. It's his interpretation of the scene, if not what was in his heart. It's a photograph: http://adamthinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ansel_adams.jpg </p>

<p>This is the same photo with fanciful additions: http://adamthinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ansel_adams_fix.jpg It is not a photograph, it's the graphic art or to use a more modern phrase, digital art.</p>

<p>As many others have expressed, it seems like P-Net's stated goal to be a teaching site has been diluted.<br>

Doug</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>digital darkroom exist, as tradional darkroom exist. You can use photoshop to simply developed your image as you saw it..you dont have to add bells and whistle with it.</p>

<p>All the example people show is a normal image and a fantasy one..but that is a style of image, not a result of what eveyone that have photoshop would do. Basically, im sure that any image that look *normal* have been processed to look the way they look, and many of them have caught your attention because they have a little je ne sais quoi to them..im 100% that every images here are Photoshoped..and that is normal! A purist photographer friend of mine use all the knowledge he know to get THE landscape shot; watching the sky, caluculating time, using filter to ND grad filter etc...and in the end he bring is shot into Ligthroom, add a bit of contrast, a bit of saturation, a bit of sharpen and print it..would you consider that a bad digital shot?</p>

<p>I dont personnaly like those artificial shot, but its a style that some people like..so why dont just respect it? do whe really need to make such a big case out of it?</p>

<p>wny dont whe open one like;</p>

<p>color vs bw</p>

<p>film vs slide</p>

<p>paint vs photography</p>

<p>dont be afraid of modern tool, accept the fact, open your eyes, and start learning..its never too late.</p>

[mike dixon]

<blockquote>

<p>As many others have expressed, it seems like P-Net's stated goal to be a teaching site has been diluted.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Photo.net's goal isn't simply "to teach people how to operate a camera" or "to teach photography that only utilizes a limited array of chemical darkroom techniques."</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>what many folks convieniently overlook is I'm still just interpereting what was there</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would that matter? Is it in the rule book?</p>

[doug elick]

<p>Mike, at what point did I express using only the wet (chemical process) is photography? Regardless of the medium (paint, stone, glass plates, CMOS), the fundamentals are light, perspective, shadow, etc. How can a neophyte understand what he or she is seeing if these very things are overlooked? If the process that led to what he or she sees is unexplained?</p>

<p>Jeff, if there's no distinction, then I suppose poop smeered into the shape of a happy face on a sheet of Polywarmtone is a photograph, right?</p>

<p>Light is shaped by a lens and projected on a sensing medium. That's photography. Using photoshop (or an airbrush. or paint. or glue) to create what never was, ain't. I'm not denigrating what can be accomplished in the digital medium; I'm only saying that regardless of the process, there is a line where end result is less about revealing what was captured and more about expressing imagination. That's not photography, that's graphic art (digital or not).</p>

 

[mike dixon]

<p>Douglas,<br>

Galleries, museums, books, magazines, and other publications do not follow (and, thoughout the history of photography, have not followed) your definition of photography. Photo.net isn't using your definition, either.</p>

[mwaks]

 

 

<p>So let me get this straight, by Douglas's definition of photography, if a guy in a darkroom with an enlarger dodges a dark window to make it seem convincingly lit up ...............that photograph is no longer a photograph? Why? because the window did not have a light in it.<br>

There must be a hell of allot of photographs that aren't photographs out there.</p>

 

[mwaks]

<blockquote>

<p>"I want to talk, see, and experience photographs, whether they be digital or film based, not see the result of hours behind a monitor. "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it would seem that David would appreciate a photograph taken at 250th of a second and maybe 5 to 15 minutes of preperation. Gee, what a dope that person who spent hours behind a monitor must be..............and take Ansel Adams, he goes out and takes a picture of a mountain, and then spends who knows how much time and wasted paper getting that image just right in his darkroom with his new fangled Zoning System. I suppose he wasted lots of time as well.<br>

The camera was not the end all for Ansel Adams, nor is it for the digital photographer.</p>

[garry edwards]

<p>An interesting discussion. Pointless maybe but still interesting.<br>

I'm 'old school' myself - I trained for years and part of my training was to 'Always get the shot right in camera'. When I didn't the shot had to go out to a professional artist for retouching, which was very expensive - and that's after doing the best possible darkroom job. If I'd messed it up too often I would have been looking for another job.<br>

Now we've got 'New School' as advocated by many digital photography magazines - forget about lighting, exposure, framing, contrast, colour balance - just shoot and use wonderful Photoshop to put it right. Total rubbish of course because a pig's ear will always be a pig's ear even if you try to make it look like a silk purse.<br>

I was talking to a friend last night, a very talented photographer who is expert with his camera AND expert with his computer. He summed it up perfectly when he said that today's photographer needs to be good at both. Camera and lighting skills are no longer enough.<br>

He's right. I've never become even good on PS let alone expert, relying on knowledge skill and care to get the shot right in camera - but it simply isn't enough.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<blockquote>

<p>He summed it up perfectly when he said that today's photographer needs to be good at both. Camera and lighting skills are no longer enough.<br /> He's right. I've never become even good on PS let alone expert, relying on knowledge skill and care to get the shot right in camera - but it simply isn't enough.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Same thing 15 years ago when you need to be a pretty good darkroom technician to bring the shot further...but nobody complain. Why is that different today? I study photography during 3 intensive years, color theory, speed of light, history of photography, how to shoot in studio, at night, fashion, portrait, with a 35mm, a camera obscura, a 6x6, a 6x7, a 4x5, a 8x10..i learn to do mix my chemical, how to print on RC and fiber paper etc.....and at the same time learn how use photoshop 2 because someone see it as the future darkroom; so i decide to learn it even if even at that time people didrtn understand why i would loose my time learning a computer software? after all what would be the use of it!?</p>

<p>15 years later, i still shoot for pleasure, know a lot of technical stuff, work with a lot of power pack, speedotron, bowen, pro photo..a ot of camera, and i have the chance to work for the best fashion photographer around me and outersea..im doing there digital darkoom, and im pretty good at it. Like photographer use to give there neg to a tradional darkroom guy who print for them.</p>

<p>75 years ago the photographer need to finish is long and complex job in a darkroom, 15 years ago i have to do the same to my images, and today i stil have to do it even with all the preparation and experience i have behind the camera. The difference is the more job you put before, the faster you will get out of the darkroom probably, but you still need to go in it. You cant figth the idea, and doing so is ridiculous.</p>

<p>As i said, dont take flying women with silver rose and blue star as a reference of what people do with photoshop to winne about it..take also beautifull images that you see and like everyday, and accept the fact that those images have been thru photoshop, and use professionaly by someone who is a artist and have a vision of what he want is image to be. The problem is since you dont see funky stuff in a images, its hard to understand that this is also a photoshop shot : )</p>

[doug elick]

<p>I apologize for being in error. *Everything* is photography. In fact, I've been wasting time. I'm going to skip the camera completely and just render what I want to see with Lightwave 3D. I suppose if someone complains that I need to capture <em>some</em> of the image with a camera, I'll take a few pixels from an image I took last year and pepper them into the picture. By most folks definition, I'll be right as rain!</p>

<p>Doug</p>

[robert_wilson11]

<blockquote>

<p>If you can't tell, what difference does it make?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>After studying the entire discussion again, I see that my first response was wrong. I should have said:<br>

If you can tell, what difference does it make?<br>

No, that's not right either. Let's see, how about<br>

What difference does it make?</p>

[doug elick]

<p>If a photojournalist submits pictures that have been edited (power lines removed, people erased, etc), but you can't tell, what difference does it make?</p>

<p>Doug</p>

[freewolf]

<p>It amazes me how the request for a simple manipulated/unmanipulated filter on this site (again - <em>ad nauseum</em> - using PN's own definition) can arouse such heated arguments. I honestly don't care a bit about whether extensive post-processing can or cannot, should or should not be considered art or photography. All the blowhards and nitpickers on both sides of this argument can carry on about it to the grave. Some of us just want a simple mechanism to view a certain category of photograph. It is not necessarily a value judgment (although to some it is, but that shouldn't matter either). PN can allow all the crap they want into the galleries, manipulated or not -- doesn't matter. It is not the issue at hand.</p>

<p>There is a filter to separate nudes from all other photos. I would assume there is some mechanism in place to determine if a nude is too pornographic in nature for posting on this site -- who determines that, and why? Does this stir as much controversy? Is there more or less of a value judgment going on with nudes as there is with digital alterations? Would photos fit for Hustler magazine grace this site with impunity? Why not? They're photographs, aren't they?</p>

<p>And I repeat from an earlier contribution, some of the most sought after photography awards in the world include a category specifically for digital alterations -- should we boycott them because they dare to make a distinction? Are these awards panels composed of ignorant rubes who don't appreciate that photoshop and lab work are one and the same? Any of you experts out there want to comment on this? I'd just be curious to know how you feel about it.</p>

<p>I have two very simple questions to ask:</p>

<p>1. What is so offensive to the avid photoshop "artist" about the proposal of a filter or functional distinction being made available on PN for those who want it? Or, put another way, why is it assumed that because some poor slob requests such a filter means that your status as an artist or photographer is being questioned or threatened?</p>

<p>2. What could be so freakin' hard about implementing the filter? (Matt Laur has put forth some thoughtful answers to this question in other similar threads, but I'm still not entirely convinced it could possibly be that big a deal.)</p>

<p>I'll have to admit that every time the subject comes up my respect for the "pro-alteration" side of this phony argument is diminished. Some of these folks are just far too thin-skinned and defensive, often for no reason at all, and seem to find offense in even the most innocent or innocuous questions. And (dare I say it?) I submit that <strong>some of you</strong> (not all) would be well served by honing your own in-camera skills, because photoshop is really not helping that much. I'm by no means an expert in producing good photographs, but I'm artist enough (for over 40 years) to be able to distinguish art from visual offal, PSed or not.</p>

<p> </p>

[freewolf]

<blockquote>

<p>I apologize for being in error. *Everything* is photography. In fact, I've been wasting time. I'm going to skip the camera completely and just render what I want to see with Lightwave 3D. I suppose if someone complains that I need to capture <em>some</em> of the image with a camera, I'll take a few pixels from an image I took last year and pepper them into the picture. By most folks definition, I'll be right as rain!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hear, hear Douglas!</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Kevin, i dont think contrast, density, and sharpen is or should be consider photo manipulation. Do you?</p>

<p>A special category of manipulated images such as whe see with flying stuff and a la Dali should be considered manipulation. Do you agree?</p>

<p>And yes i agree that if you removed object or add some it should be considered images manipulation.</p>

<p>Now, do i care if someone have remove a branch from is images..no. Do i care about someone adding a bird in the sky? no. All i care is the impact of the image itself. Do i like anything that win this years at the photoshop user award..nope, those image are way too artificialy made for my taste, but they are in a know categorie. artistic digital images.</p>

<p>Did anyone see a diference between the tradional darkroom vs the digital darkroom? i dont.</p>

[robert_wilson11]

<blockquote>

<p>What is so offensive to the avid photoshop "artist" about the proposal of a filter or functional distinction being made available on PN for those who want it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kevin, whatever it is, I suspect it might be similar to the passions that are aroused by any notice that different folks have different ethnic heritages, religious beliefs of pigmentations of skin. Noticing a difference, to some, is the first dangerous step down the slippery slope of unfair discrimination. So the thinking might proceed: First we distinguish between photographers who use PhotoShop and those who don't and, next thing you know, we're saying those who do really aren't photographers after all! Sorry, all you manipulated images, you'll have to sit at the back of the gallery.</p>

[bernie moore]

Throw down your film cameras. Do likewise with DSLRs. Pick up a Polaroid. Ah, Grendel, these humans are so contrary. I even wonder if that would help. They'd probably go back to arguing the wheel against walking.