Photoshop VS Photography

[Brad_]

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now there's a huge leap with nothing to substantiate...</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Agree. I love it when an individual takes on the role of spokesman/interpreter for all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Awful, isn't it? All that choice; and the options that are now easily accessible to others. And concerned about how that's bad for photography. No doubt photographers 100+ years ago who learned coating their own glass plates and mixing their own chemistry were similarly concerned with the advent of Kodak roll film, $1 Brownie cameras, and lab processing. Imagine, that new crop of photographers that came about as a result and not being grounded in the old paradigm. Bad...</p>

<p> </p>

[doug elick]

<p>You've completely missed the boat on this one. The old paradigm isn't the equipment! Didn't I just finish explaining that? TWICE?<br /> It's knowing about exposure, composition, light, shadow. Photoshop or slaving over toxic chemicals, it's WHEN to apply the tools in the box that's most important. And again, 100 years ago or now, inserting magic fairies into the image ain't photography, it's GRAPHIC ART.</p>

<p>The OP was very respectful in saying that he respected PS type alterations, but would like a tool to allow him to differentiate. Since PS has become the de facto term for "altered" (telling, ain't it?), it's fair to say Photoshop vs. photography isn't about digital vs. film. It's about straight vs. altered.</p>

<p>Yet again, arguing a point nobody's making.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

[doug elick]

<p>Dual post. Ignore</p>

[Brad_]

<blockquote>

<p>Yet again, arguing a point nobody's making.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like: "<em>It's knowing about exposure, composition, light, shadow.</em>" Has anyone here suggested that photographers today don't know what that's about? Or is it you believe that?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since PS has become the de facto term for "altered" (telling, ain't it?), it's fair to say Photoshop vs. photography isn't about digital vs. film. It's about straight vs. altered.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Straight vs altered? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. No doubt from someone who probably doesn't use ps. Funny you pronouncing "ps" de facto for altered, and not knowing the role of photoshop in photography...</p>

[tholte]

<p>Two more to a hundred!</p>

[mwaks]

<p>No Tim: I think mine is #105<br /> Yes, the OP started looking like a respectful enquirer. Until he posted this:</p>

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Once he found someone who shared his already decided upon biased view, he revealed that he was only waiting for someone to say something he liked. Then proclaim a consensus was made on his view.</p>

[doug elick]

<p>Brad: Don't be to quick to ASSume what I do and don't know. I'm quite familiar with PS, GIMP, etc. Yeah, perhaps I'm a bit biased about folks not knowing composition, lighting, etc.... have you taken any time looking at the photo critique forums or reading pleas for help? Most of the garish PS mistakes are a direct result of not understanding them. And there are plenty of "straight" photos that reek of over dodging, poor composition, etc. as well. Of course bad photography has existed long before PS, it's just easier now. Like I said, the freedom PS offers goes both ways: it's easier to produce a gem and conversely, a giant turd with it. PS is just the digital cousin of "traditional photography" on steroids, nothing else.</p>

<p>To say it one last time: PS IS JUST A TOOL. DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY IS JUST A MEDIUM. IT IS HOW YOU USE THE TOOL THAT DETERMINES IF YOU ARE PRACTICING PHOTOGRAPHY OR GRAPHIC ART!</p>

<p>Many folks automatically equate alterations with PS because they have no experience with the "old ways" like by hand dodging, compositing, reducers, unsharp masking, etc. I bring them up as an example, not as a criticism. Stop being so damned defensive!</p>

<p>But here I am, going around in circles again, burning time on a damned internet photography forum instead of just being out there with camera in hand. If there are folks who want to believe everything is photography, so be it. I'll take a screen print of my X-windows desktop and submit it as a photograph. No complaining from that camp though...I'm following their rules. To me however, photography is about the image taken from our world. There are no authentic pictures of the Yeti because it doesn't exist.</p>

<p>Cling to whatever you want to believe. Even if it's borne of self defense or delusion, it's your truth I suppose.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Don't be to quick to ASSume what I do and don't know.</p>

<p>Interesting. Of all the dozens of <em><strong>photographers</strong></em> I know who <em><strong>use</strong></em> photoshop extensively, no one would make the claim: "<em>Since PS has become the de facto term for "altered" (telling, ain't it?), it's fair to say Photoshop vs. photography isn't about digital vs. film. It's about straight vs. altered."</em></p>

[gordonjb]

<p>You guys could always take a run at 200. Everyone just repeat themselves one more time on this thread, rather than waiting for someone to start the next thread on this same subject in order to do it all again.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Matt, if you ask for push procesing thats a different story. Most rolls I take are transparencies, nowadays take to CVS and they send them out somewhere (traceable through the Kodak trace system) and they come back in about two weeks. Excellent processing, none of the hairs, scratches, blobs that came out of Kodak Fairlawn, on a par with Kodak Rochester or Findlay.

[lovcom_photo]

<p>Tempest in a tea pot; this thread is.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>After reading through <em>another</em> thread about "real" photography versus PS - I guess my question is: if the manipulations were done in the camera would you have the same view of the work as being manipulated. The OP (and others) want to concentrate on what can be done with a camera - at what point do in-camera manipulations become too much?</p>

<p>For example, for one commercial job I had to fly to the site for one day. I wanted to limit the amount of equipment I needed so I took a single flash unit. As part of the shoot I had to make a photograph inside of an electronics room with numerous racks of equipment. I took one "straight" photograph using the overhead fluorescent lights - but that was really two separate exposures. One with the lights off so the LEDs and front panel indicators would show up - and then a second exposure with the overhead lights and an FLD filter for the lights. Is that a manipulated photo? </p>

<p>The second image I took of the room started with the same base exposure of the LEDs and indicators - then, 62 individual flashes + 3 different colored gels later - I had a totally different look to the entire room with pinks, blues, greens, and white light. All done in-camera - but I certainly "manipulated" the way things looked simply by making my own lighting. Is that a manipulated photograph? The shutter was only opened and closed one time - the flash unit did the rest. Is that a manipulated photograph?</p>

<p>How about this...when I do architectural interiors, there are always dark areas that need to be picked up a bit, so I have battery operated flashes that I'll hide - like behind that large potted plant in a lobby...and some of the areas are too shiny so I'll take some Arid Extra Dry deoderant (there's powder inside the can) and tone down the hot spots (stainless steel trim, etc.) so they appear matte in the photograph. In fact, I pretty much manipulate the entire interior in some cases to get the photograph I need - including bringing in my own set dressing pieces. So, is that too much manipulation?</p>

<p>Sticking strictly to in-camera manipulation, where is the line where manipulation begins? If I posted one of my photographs that I've described should it be labled as manipulated? If so, why?</p>

<p> </p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>If you spent more time in front of the monitor than you did behind the camera to get the image... then it's manipulated. Back in the dark room days it COULD take hours and hours to get the perfect exposure and contrast to get what you intended when you took the photograph. That process can be done in a few minutes now, including making dozens and dozens of brightness and contrast adjustments. Cloning out dust probably takes about the same amount of time as spot-toning for a real fast pro, but for the less-than-talented-at-spot-toning crowd it's dramatically faster. Basically, the little bit of cleaning up it requires to make up for less-than-perfect processing at the lab takes a few seconds per photograph and unless it's a model shoot, I def spent longer than that composing and metering etc. Again, I'm not saying that it's not really interesting to see people's manipulations, it just gets tiring seeing dozens of non-photographs on the front page of this website everytime I check in. But I suppose that those of us who feel that way are the minority and the minority doesn't bring in the ad revenue and so there you go.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>I wonder if people are jealous because there images doestn appear on the front page of PN and that make them suspicious of the process..</p>

<p>I would like to see what image in the main PN page that is so extradodinairy that i would like to put a add on it? because all i see i normal images, from normal people who just enjoy photography..but that could be me?</p>

<p>would you consider this images manipulated and for what?</p><div></div>

[patricklavoie]

<p>or this one?</p><div></div>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>If you spent more time in front of the monitor than you did behind the camera to get the image... then it's manipulated.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So, if I'm shooting a sporting event and use shutter speeds like 1/1000 and higher, then I can only spend the same amount of time processing the image...? Can you give me the page and paragraph number in the photography rules manual where all of this is stated? I had no idea there was a time limit on making a successful photograph. </p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>or this one? (last one for now..waiting for comment about the manipulated..: )</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[KenPapai]

<p>No Patrick -- just beautiful B&W images -- I coudn't care less if they were from film or digital, and which software program processed them. if they are nice enough to frame and hang, can anyone possibly care?!<br>

Very nice photographs to add to such a SILLY discussion above. The AGE OLD discussion... is it an Real Image or is it a Photoshop? ("I<em>s that a real poncho or a Sears poncho?</em> " - F.Z.)</p>

<p>Tempest in a Teapot indeed.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Thanks Ken : )</p>

<p>I will just say they that a Mac Pro was use at a certain point, and of course everybody know that a Mac is better than a PC!</p>

<p>Here whe go again, another hot topic! LOL LOL ; ) re LOL</p>

<p>*for all the Mac AND PC folks..i was just kidding in case someone really need that to start another long and stupid thread.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Can you give me the page and paragraph number in the photography rules manual where all of this is stated?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I lost my rule book, maybe someone can give me theirs.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Here's a heavily manipulated photo...</p><div></div>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Here's another heavily manipulated photo...</p><div></div>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>...and this one has a LOT of work done on it...</p><div></div>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>For a week right when this post was started there was an image that was attempting to look like a Matisse painting that included probably half a dozen different photoshoots all meshed together. And every week for the last year there has been at least one of that genre of image. I remember source books from the 80s and quite a few of the artists I have seen making the circuit appear to either be illustators from the 80s who updated to digital or digital artists who are drawing inspiration from 1980's illustrators source books. As I said many times, I don't have a problem with that kind of work, it just bothers me to see it constantly displayed on the front page of a photography website. You wouldn't put paintings on the cover of photography magazines. Or scultures on the cover of a painting magazine. You've got two vastly different mediums here. Of course there is plenty of gray area and lots of room for gray area, but when something is obviously a digital painting, then that's what it obviously is. I do design work myself, but I would never taut it as a photograph.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>And the sign really was that reflective if you stood in just the right place, it caught light being reflected from a cloud in back of my shoulder....the work on that image is in retaining the detail in the weeds and hills...</p>