Photoshop VS Photography

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Now we've got 'New School' as advocated by many digital photography magazines - forget about lighting, exposure, framing, contrast, colour balance</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can someone give some actual examples of this? I've never heard anyone say it except people saying that other people say it, like here.</p>

[freewolf]

<p>Patrick... my argument is based solely on the PN definitions of the terms "manipulated" and "unmanipulated", so in that sense I agree with you. It has NO bearing on whether more extreme manipulation is or is not photography, and actually has NO bearing on my personal tastes. It simply is a functional thing to me for improving the in-camera aspects of my growth as a photographer, and there may very well be times that I'd like to limit my viewing to more manipulated images for improving other aspects.</p>

<p>Robert... In the sense you describe, photographers of nudes are being actively discriminated against on this site. Where, again, is their hue and cry? You may be right in your assessment where some are concerned, but I believe such fears that may exist are entirely misguided. I for one am not asking for a ban on this site, just a filter.</p>

<p>I'm still waiting to hear from all of you who are going to picket the Smithsonian's Eyes on the World Photo Contest (among others) for their blatant discrimination of your cherished art form. The following is quoted from the Smithsonian Institute website (emphasis added)...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="439">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td rowspan="2"> </td>

<td colspan="3" height="25"><strong >July 1, 2008 - February 17, 2009 (new closing date)</strong></td>

<td rowspan="2"> </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td align="left" valign="top"> </td>

<td> </td>

<td>From thousands of photographs submitted to Smithsonian magazine's 5th Annual Photo Contest from the United States and around the world, the judges selected 50 finalists. Of these, 36 are on view, including the grand prize winner and the winners in the following 5 categories: The Natural World, Travel, People, Americana, and <strong><em>Altered Images (photographs that have been manipulated).</em></strong></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I found it rather educational to peruse the photos in all of these competitions that were considered "Altered Images". Even some of you less vocal PS folks might be up in arms! I'm aghast at the ignorance of those folks at the Smithsonian... shouldn't they know that ALL images are altered? Grab your picket signs, there's going to be a march...</p>

<p>In fact, you should all cancel your subscriptions to Rangefinder (THE Magazine for Professional Photographers) for even publishing such tripe, I suppose.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I've never found contests to be an indicator of anything. They don't even hit the radar of what photography is about, they have their own commercial interests at heart.</p>

[Brad_]

<blockquote>

<p>In fact, you should all cancel your subscriptions to Rangefinder (THE Magazine for Professional Photographers) for even publishing such tripe, I suppose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And sever my only connection to what photography is all about? No way....</p>

[freewolf]

<p>OK, maybe that was a bit extreme...</p>

[tholte]

<p>"HA! I asked a related question and wound up with a 100+ posts thread." With luck, may just do it again. </p>

[dhhensler]

<p>I think Robert finally hit the head on the nail about why all the PS advocates get their cages rattled by a simple logical question about manipulated and relatively unmanipulated photos; "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."<br>

Sounds like they are afraid they won't be viewed as photographers anymore, but is there anything wrong with being digital artists instead of photographers? Not saying that is how I feel, just seems to be the consensus emerging from this thread..</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>the consensus emerging from this thread..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Consensus : An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole</p>

<p>Can you show how there is a consensus on this?</p>

[dhhensler]

<p>I'll take that bait Jeff. I work as a data manager during the week. Let me crunch some numbers and code some qualititative data.. I'll give you a concise summary of this thread next week. Should be interesting to say the least!</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>There's nothing remotely resembling a consensus on this thread. If anything, quite the opposite. You have decided to interpret any support of your opinion as consensus, but that isn't the way the world works. I don't even see a single comment here to justify your statement: <em>Sounds like they are afraid.</em></p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Shooting at f1.4 is manipulation, film or digital, and that's all in camera.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Kevin, thanks for your commentary.</p>

<p>David, you cannot know what has been done or not done to an image marked "Unknown or Yes" in the gallery. It's just a bunch of pixels, take it at face value. If you want to look at images where the manipulation is minimal, you need to look outside of the narrow-minded manipulation-centric photo.net.</p>

<p>One reason manipulation here is so popular is simply because people who spend their time online are more likely to spend a lot of time editing their images digitally. Then there are people who are out there, shooting, clearly a photographer can't do both simultaneously. Anyway, it is relatively easy to fake photos for online presentation because the images contain so few details. It's much more difficult to make a convincing large print which has significant alterations so that the viewer can't see the artifacts of the process. You need to work much more at it.</p>

<p>The majority of the rest of the world do see a distinction between a photograph of an animal with Mount Kilimanjaro in the background, and one where the animal has been pasted into the mountain scenery digitally. And many resent the latter and look down on people who do that. If you're a PJ and are caught doing significant manipulations to your work, magazines and newspapers can easily fire you for that kind of thing, or put you on a black list if you weren't staff. The manipulators diminish the documentary value of photography in the public eye, which is unfortunate.</p>

<p>Back to the original post; my advice is you should simply look elsewhere as photo.net is a hostile environment for discussing this topic. There are a bunch of loud and prominent members with a negative attitude towards relatively unmanipulated works, and they're seemingly supported by the management of the site, who have noticed that manipulated works bring viewers and advertising money to the site. Therefore it's a tabu to actually criticize the approach used by the majority.</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Folks new to photography seem to think that manipulation is some how new.</p>

<p>It was done in the glass plate era.</p>

<p>Even retouching is ancient.<br>

The 1890's thru 1920's photo book show how contrast varies with development.<br>

A 1920's high end Contact printer for 8x10 has a programer tray and many dinky bulbs that one can unscrew. One can darken a vellum *programmer* with a pencil to dodge; or use more bulbs in one area to burn.<br>

One has Kodak Farmers reducer and Kodak intensifers. One has flashpowder; reflectors to add ilumination. All this stuff was used before Ansel as born.<br>

Portrait shooters had a wire headrest for an 1880's shot so one's head didnt move.<br>

Portrait studios had "better clothes" for folks to wear for images in the 1880's.</p>

<p>Folks new to photography seem to have this narrow viewoint that manipulation is some how a new thing; it basically is just new to *YOU*.<br>

It really has nothing to do with digital; or even Photoshop; or even color work. Manipulation is as old as photography.</p>

[lovcom_photo]

<p>If PhotoShop/Post-Processing is bad for photography, then so is processing film and prints in the wet darkroom.</p>

[c._sharon]

<p>The photo contest organized by the Smithsonian was mentioned previously in this thread and the fact that they have an altered images section was pointed out. Here is the definition of altered images by the Smithsonian</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>What does it mean when you say photographs in four of your five categories may not be “enhanced or altered”? </strong> <br /> Contestants cannot construct photographs from pieces of other photographs. Minor adjustments, including spotting, dodging and burning, contrast and slight color adjustments, or the digital equivalents, are acceptable for all five categories. You may, for example, submit a black and white photo as color and vice versa. If our judges see that a photo has obviously been altered by the photographer, they have the right to disqualify it or move it to our Altered Images category.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The above definition is even more lax than PN's. E.g., dodging and burning is not considered manipulated by Smithsonian but is considered so by PN. A colorized B&W image is not considered manipulated.<br>

I saw a panoramic image on Luminous Landscape site today from Antarctica. It is stitched from 13 images and looks great and quite "authentic". According to PN's defition of manipulated images (multiple exposures) it is "manipulated" but according to me it is not. Just goes to show that it a waste of time fretting over "manipulated images". If an image looks obviously altered then treat it as manipulated otherwise just judge it by how it looks.</p>

[tholte]

<p>"Folks new to photography seem to have this narrow viewoint that manipulation is some how a new thing; it basically is just new to *YOU*.<br />It really has nothing to do with digital; or even Photoshop; or even color work. Manipulation is as old as photography." This is it in a nutshell!</p>

[mike dixon]

<blockquote>

<p>Sounds like they are afraid they won't be viewed as photographers anymore, but is there anything wrong with being digital artists instead of photographers? Not saying that is how I feel, just seems to be the consensus emerging from this thread..</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If you want a consensus, look at what gets displayed or published by museums, galleries, magazines, books, etc. as photography, don't just look at responses to one thread on a web forum. While you may find a few contests that put "manipulated" work in a separate category, most venues for photography don't make that distinction. </p>

[jussi_vakkala1]

<blockquote>

<p>If you want a consensus, look at what gets displayed or published by museums, galleries, magazines, books, etc. as photography, don't just look at responses to one thread on a web forum. While you may find a few contests that put "manipulated" work in a separate category, most venues for photography don't make that distinction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Many places I'm selling my nature pictures requests uncropped picture with only curves adjustments submitted. Also most of the photography competitions I'm in know here in Europe requests picture with only curves and cropping adjustments. Further, many of the bigger competitions ask you to send original raw -capture or chrome if your picture will get suggested for prizes.</p>

<p>If I'm looking coffee table books or similar here in Europe, in general I'm seeing much less heavily manipulated pictures, compared to what I see here at photo.net -galleries. For OP I would suggest to learn more about natural and studio light, and then making his decision of how much he will need to enhance his pictures with post processing.</p>

<p>In my opinion graphical art and ability to sort out the light are still a little bit different competences. Even though they can of course coexist in skill set of one person...</p>

[t37traveler]

<p>David - I understand your question totally, and have contemplated the issue often myself and listened to experts discuss it. Unless we are in a situation where the guidelines are very precisely established, I think what we are looking at is very fine line that can be a very individual marker. A lot of "manipulation" went on in darkrooms (my Dad placed a coin on the paper under the enlarger to create a moon on one of his BW images that he was printing - that was in the 1960s). For me that is clearly manipulation, as is extreme addition or subtraction of anything - color, objects, exposure characteristics. Major cropping is a manipulation; extracting a good photo from a small part of the original shot is manipulation. For me, use of a layer constitutes manipulation. I'm something of a purist, but I enjoy the results of alterations and manipulations. I've even dabbled in creating abstracts from original images. Often I can't tell if a photo has been manipulated, and if the photo info doesn't say, well the "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck" rule of thumb applies. Personally, I regard the photo contest rules used by "Nature's Best Magazine" to be excellent standards for differentiating between "photography" and what I call "photo art." I don't think the level of manipulation is particularly important except when you are trying to evaluate skill behind the lens versus skill behind the monitor. Then it becomes difficult to compare your own images to others - how did they do that- did they do that with their camera - can I do that with my camera? Is it any less manipulation to use special effects filters on a camera that to use special effects filters in PhotoShop? No, I don't think so. Asking the photographer about a specific photo is probably the best way to learn, and to learn to discern. And you won't be able to tell all the time because of the vast range of photographer's skill, lens quality and post shoot processing tools. More and more I enjoy the end result and care less about the path taken to get there.... yes, it's still nice to know how much of a good photo is created with the lens - most of us are photographers first and graphic artists or "photo painters" second. Just... enjoy what is for what it is as much as possible.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>There are a bunch of loud and prominent members with a negative attitude towards relatively unmanipulated works, and they're seemingly supported by the management of the site, who have noticed that manipulated works bring viewers and advertising money to the site. Therefore it's a tabu to actually criticize the approach used by the majority.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing like making up a story to sound sensational huh Ilkka? Did you happen to see me in the Zapruder film as well. I'm right there next to the KGB. "<em>manipulated works bring viewers and advertising money to the site</em> " is probably the most absurd conspiracy statement that I've ever heard anyone try and attribute to photo.net, and I've heard a lot of them.</p>

[doug elick]

<p>Somebody said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If PhotoShop/Post-Processing is bad for photography, then so is processing film and prints in the wet darkroom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This idea is commonly interjected into the discussion by the "pro-manipulators" when in fact it was never in question. A photograph can be manipulated in the wet dark room and in Photoshop alike. Most of us get that. There is no argument.</p>

<p>I think it's fair to say most people are expressing the need to quantify <em>authenticity</em> . Who in this or any other thread of it's ilk has expressed that digital photography itself is somehow infereor (to film)? If that sentiment exists, it's from a tiny minority. <em>REGARDLESS OF THE MEDIUM</em> , most people instinctively notice the shift when an image is less the product of what happened between the lens and the film/sensor and more about post production. Yes, someone will invariably blather on that all photography is manipulated by lens choice, aperture, shutter speed, film/sensor type, but those decisions do little more than alter perception, etc.... they do not materially change the final product. I can select lenses and filters, cross process, compensation develop and dodge n' burn until I'm too tired to lift a finger, but the final result will still not contain magic faeries or leprechauns at the end of the rainbow. If the second coming of Jesus Christ wasn't happening when the shutter was fired, without manipulation, it won't be in the final product.</p>

<p>There are clearly many people who are quite talented at producing compelling images using post production techniques using "traditional" process and Photoshop equally. However, their work simply is not photography, it's GRAPHIC ART. Now I can sense somebody is about to interject the tired, "all photography is manipulated" arguement.....go back and re-read the previous paragraph until you reach comprehension. Go now, do it!</p>

<p>I think what's happening here is natural evolution. In the film days, most people could only obtain different levels of saturation, sharpness etc, by selecting film and equipment type. More advanced folks could go further and accomplish more in the darkroom, but this was not the majority. Whole generations grew up instinctively learning what even an average snapshot should look like. Kodak, Fuji, etc. spent ungodly sums of money tweaking their emulsions to provide the greatest skin tone with some films, grain with others and maximum "pop" with another set. People became accustomed to this.</p>

<p>Digital came along and a whole new world was opened up. That film aesthetic was still a core of many folk's expectations, but the ease at which adjustments could be made in the digital realm was a god-send. I wonder now if we haven't reached the point where a new crop of photographers has be brought up in the digital realm and consequently has no real grounding in the old "film" paradigm. Instead of having a few selections at hand, the budding photographer now has infinite possablities available with every image he or she captures. With no grounding in what used to be as a matter of fact accepted as "pleasing tonality" or "natural color", they're awash in a sea of decisions. Now the freedom to create wonderful and stunningly terrible photos has been amplified.</p>

<p>The best analogy I can think of as avaiation. In the beginning, intrepid aviators learned their craft through trial and error. Over time, aircraft and systems gradually increased in complexity. The fundementals of aviation haven't changed in over a century, but in today's world, it would be unthinkable to put a budding pilot behind the controls of a simple 2 seat Cessna, let alone a 777 without extensive training. And isn't that what we've done in a way? The new photographer is essentially let loose on the flight line to chose any machine he or she can afford. Of course I'm not advocating any kind of restrictions for photographers, but I don't think it's unreasonable to express that with the breadth and depth of choices available today, there's a greater chance at producing the photographic equivalent of <em>mid air collisions.</em></p>

<p>All this goes back to the OP and his question. At the end of the day, he should suspect anyone who expresses the idea that all photography is manipulated, just as he should be critical of me when I express the opposite and say there is a line that can be crossed. I suspect what he's looking for is authenticity; I don't know if there ever will be an answer. In an age of digitally altered vocal performances, TV police who can hit a running man with a 9mm at 100 yards while being hit with a baseball bat and photographs of children altered so their skin looks like plastic and their eyes bleached white with Crest Teeth whitener, it is up to the individual to decide it he or she values the most authenticity in life or if faux beauty should be striven for at the cost of all else.</p>

<p>Learn all you can about the basics. Lighting, shadow, tone, perspective, color, emulsions, sensor technology, circle of confusion. In time, you'll learn what is pleasing in a photo (to you) and will be able to spot when others have failed to meet your criteria. Really though, learn this to solidify your own vision. To hell with what the rest of us think.</p>

<p>In the end, the only thing one can do is <em>STRIVE TO FIND YOUR OWN TRUTH</em> .</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p> </p>

[lovcom_photo]

<p>Douglas,<br />What you are missing is this:</p>

<p>Film is NOT photography.</p>

<p>Digital is NOT photography.</p>

<p>Film DOES photogprahy. Digital DOES photography.</p>

<p>And if I take some liquid emulsion and while in a darkroom coat it on my girlfriend's arse, then expose her arse to a projected image of a negative (of my face, for example), then her arse is a photograph, and that is DOING photography. I could also layer her arse with several medium format sensors and do the same thing.</p>

<p>There is photography. Then there are mediums. The are not the same thing. Digital photography is no more digital graphics then film that captures light. Film is not more photography...this idea is absurd, to be sure.</p>

<p>Therefore you nor anyone cannot define photography as film or digital. Photography is about capturing light, and it is that simple, and must never be tied to particular medium like film or sensors.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p><i>I think it's fair to say most people are expressing the need to quantify <em>authenticity</em> .</i><br>

<br /> "Most"? I haven't seen that on this thread. This is more of that "consensus" nonsense.<br>

<br /> The problem with the argument is that authenticity has nothing to do with tools. Since a photograph is significantly different than the thing it shows, authenticity comes from some sort of testimonial. This has always been the case in court, for example, where a photograph on its own, regardless of medium(s) used, has required someone to say that it shows what happened.</p>

<p>Interestingly enough, this is the most "inauthentic" photo I have ever taken. It was shot on film, printed in a darkroom, and scanned. It's been in most of my shows and it's always been assumed that it shows something it doesn't. Nothing about it is real, other than the fact that there is a woman and a wall, nothing in it is even consistent.<br><p><center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/colorport/images/semanasanta2.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="476" /><br>

<em>Semana Santa, Copyright 2001 Jeff Spirer</em></p></center>

<p>The reason there is an issue with photojournalism is that there is an assumption that what happened is what it looks like happened. However, similar to this shot, there have been many distortions based on how a photographer put the shot together, since longer before digital manipulation.</p>

<p> </p>

[doug elick]

<p>Dan:</p>

<p>Go back and reread my post. Your lack of comprehension is stunning. In the very first paragraph, I said," A photograph can be manipulated in the wet dark room and in Photoshop alike. Most of us get that. There is no argument." Then I went on and expressed how film vs. digital is not part of the argument. In fact, your post has no relevance to anything I said in that last post except to bolster it.</p>

<p>Jeff:</p>

<p>"Express" can have a deeper meaning than, "what is said verbatim"; you understand that, right? Yes, I think most people are looking for authenticity, whether they've directly expressed it or not. We'll, most people other than a certain group of vocal folks including yourself. By the ideas you have expressed, I can render a scene completely with software and call it photography. Speak as loudly as you like, most folks would still disagree with you. Don't believe it? Prove me wrong.</p>

<p>Again, it is you who is interjecting the digital vs. darkroom concept, not I. One might get the idea that you keep bringing up the same stale replies to arguments nobody is making because you are more interested in enhancing your self worth through arguing scemantics than engaging in introspective dialog.</p>

<p>You also failed the comprehension test when you said, "Authenticity has nothing to do with tools", given half my post was devoted to that idea. It's <em>how you use them</em> that counts.</p>

<p>So both you Dan and Jeff have pointed out in your own way that there is photography independent of the medium. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said when using words like, "regardless of the medium". My how you are quick to argue, if not defend something nobody is attacking.</p>

<p>I point out that regardless of medium, there is a line, if not clearly defined where a work of art ceases to be a product of photography (the act) and becomes the child of <em>graphic art </em> and you argue that digital and film are the same. You're tilting at the wrong windmill!</p>

<p>Go back and reread. Do it now! Please! Slowly and surely until the words actually sink in!</p>

<p>Doug</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>You also failed the comprehension test when you said, "Authenticity has nothing to do with tools", given half my post was devoted to that idea. It's <em>how you use them</em> that counts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The title of the post is "Photoshop vs Photography." It's obvious that some people here consider the tools to be more important than anything else in determining "authenticity."</p>