Photoshop VS Photography

[patricklavoie]

<p>Steve i can easily spot the work on those images!</p>

<p>1_the green dinosaur have been add for sure! comon..a green dinosaur..so obvious!</p>

<p>2_An enveloppe on a desk!..common dude?!</p>

<p>3_a 3 leg sign! really..</p>

<p>I have seen too much fake images in one day!</p>

[doug elick]

<p>1) The railroad signal lights are enhanced.<br /> 2) The lighting looks strange. The gray desk isn't right. Small table with pencil holder looks added.<br /> 3) Looks like judicious burning in, to borrow an <em>old school</em> term.</p>

<p>For a good laugh, I give you: http://www.photoshopdisasters.com/</p>

<p><Runs for the Asylum exit></p>

<p>Doug</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>Steve i can easily spot the work on those images!<br>

1_the green dinosaur have been add for sure! comon..a green dinosaur..so obvious!<br>

2_An enveloppe on a desk!..common dude?!<br>

3_a 3 leg sign! really..<br>

I have seen too much fake images in one day!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wow! Busted...! I thought I made it harder than that...</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>1) The railroad signal lights are faked too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I coordinated that with the railroad. I had them turn the lights on specially just for me when the train approached the crossing....</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />2) The lighting looks strange</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmmm...yes...I moved the sun back and forth until I got it just like I wanted it...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />3) Looks like judicious burning in, to borrow an <em>old school</em> term.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually....no....</p>

<p> But the hardest part was getting all of those animals part way through the walls of the room; and to hold still as the exposure was about 1/2 second...</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Here's a photograph that was done in 1989. I made a contrast mask for the image because it was going to be printed on Ilfochrome. I then took retouching dyes, and with very small brushes colored the mask. I guess, if you figure my fingers are "digits," then the image was, in fact, digitally enhanced...</p><div></div>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>deleted -- double post...</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Another "digitally enhanced" image from 1990...the film was Kodak EPD, shot with a Plaubel Makina 670...the masking film was Ilford FP4 developed for 4 minutes in ID-11 diluted 1:3 ...for all of those who are interested in minutia... </p><div></div>

[marbing]

Holy Cow! It has been over 3 years since I spent any time on these forums and I am dismayed that you guys are still arguing over the same things. The same 'apologies' and obfuscations are being used (in some cases by the same people) as they were back in 2006. What the whole matter hinges upon is the definition of the essential term 'manipulation'. Many people fight even the suggestion that the word be defined at all...preferring something very vague and 'catch all' that allows them to maintain some kind of 'artistic advantage' over other people.

 

Those who want the vague definition of the word claim that the mere act of capturing an image (let alone going through any 'processing') consitutes 'manipulation' and , after that, any and all changes are fair game. To them, adjusting the tonal aspects of the shot are IDENTICAL to adding content that was not part of the original capture or removing content that was part of the original capture. "If you can adjust the contrast of a shot then I can add a flock of birds in the sky. It is ALL THE SAME!"

 

I think the concept of image content is the real key here. I think that the so-called 'old school' photographers would consider changing the 'content' of an image to be...'manipulation'. You haven't altered an image if you make it possible to see detail in shadows. That detail was always there...it wasn't added after the fact. However, moving a (digital) mountain to improve your composition and fabricate a 'better' picture is 'manipulative'.

 

Consider two approaches to capturing an image. One person gets up before dawn and drives to a remote location. Walks two hours into the bush with 95Lbs of equipment just to catch a particular event in a particular place at the time when it is actually happening. On the other hand, there is the person who rolls out of bed...whenever...staggers to the computer and builds an image from pieces of stock imagery and other people's work...all from the comfort of his house. He doesn't even need a camera for gosh sakes! Are these two people both 'photographers'? At the end of the day, both will have remarkable images to post. People will remark on the beauty and magic of each....but one is a capture of a REAL moment...a REAL event...in a REAL place while the other is an image of something that never happened. You could not travel to that spot because it doesn't exist. You could not witness that event because it never happened.

 

I have never liked or appreciated the sort of 'composite' images produced in either a chemical OR a digital darkroom. So, don't think that I am anti-digital. I AM anti-dishonesty however. I think that when a person presents a fabricated image that never existed as if it IS a photograph of something real, then they are being dishonest.

 

I have no illusions that what I write here will change anybody's mind. Those who are going to fake images with PS are going to continue to justify what they do to themselves and to everybody else. What they don't realize is that by their actions (and attitudes) they devalue the art of photography.

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>I think that the so-called 'old school' photographers would consider changing the 'content' of an image to be...'manipulation'. You haven't altered an image if you make it possible to see detail in shadows. That detail was always there...it wasn't added after the fact. However, moving a (digital) mountain to improve your composition and fabricate a 'better' picture is 'manipulative'.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Uh..huh..okay..care to comment on "Fading Away," by HP Robinson? How about Rejlander's "Two Ways of Life"? Any thoughts on Camille Silvy replacing skies in his photos. I'm also interested in your perceptions of works from Raoul Hausman, Hanna Hoch, Kurt Shwitters, and John Heartfield.</p>

<p>Any insights to the work done by Duane Michaels and Jerry Uelsmann? </p>

<p>Or, is this just another "purity of photography" rant where we read about "magic"; and how it was up hill both ways to and from the photo site; and that carrying a 250 lb back pack filled with glass plates and sensitizing chemicals makes a photo more "real"?</p>

[freewolf]

<p>Meryl...</p>

<p>THANK YOU for actually getting to one of the primary facets of this issue. I used the word "authenticity" a while back (see somewhere in the mess above), and heard more than one or two belly-laughs and tut-tuts in response, as if it were some quaint but indefensible concept. I can only imagine what we're going to hear now that the word "honesty" has been introduced to the discussion...</p>

<p>Your comparison of the two photographers reminds me so much of the argument regarding remote hunting via the internet. Why would anybody in his right mind put on all that camo and rutting deer scent, toting guns and ammo into the cold rainy woods, and climb up into that durn tree stand to shoot a deer when all he really has to do is clomp over to the den in his drawers and fuzzy slippers, pop open his beer, scratch his armpit, and type a few commands on his 'puter to bag that 10-pointer? I suppose if simply killing an animal is the only important factor here, that slob in his living room is the better hunter of the two... and he doesn't even have to know how to actually hunt. Just gotta have good keyboarding skills.</p>

<p>I'll refrain from elaborating any more of my usual verbose response for now, as you have summed up what I consider to be a major (although unspoken) issue underlying this discussion.</p>

<p>Aside: I suppose I should just give up on getting any unobfuscated answers to several of the questions I posed about 40-50 posts ago. Ask a vague question and you seem to get lots and lots of spirited answers... Ask a couple of direct and specific questions, and nobody seems to hear...</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Uh..huh..okay..care to comment on "Fading Away," by HP Robinson? How about Rejlander's "Two Ways of Life"? Any thoughts on Camille Silvy replacing skies in his photos. I'm also interested in your perceptions of works from Raoul Hausman, Hanna Hoch, Kurt Shwitters, and John Heartfield.<br>

Any insights to the work done by Duane Michaels and Jerry Uelsmann?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good points... Avedon too, he did some pretty drastic work even using scissors. Nobody said he wasn't doing photography, that his photos weren't "authentic" or "honest."</p>

[lovcom_photo]

<p>All this talk about Real photography; Fake photography.</p>

<p>This old biker once told me that only Harley Davidson bikes are true motorcycles. The Japanese bikes are not motorcycles.</p>

<p>IBM compatible PC's are the real deal. Those stupid Macs are not real PCs. ;-)</p>

<p>This thread really is stupid, to be sure. And who is coming up with these topics?!?</p>

[mark_loader]

<p>David, I thought your queries were innocent enough...I like to see non-photoshopped images too,but raising the issue seems to have opened a real can of worms. Agreeing to disagree doesn't appear to be an option.</p>

[tholte]

<p>"This thread really is stupid, to be sure. And who is coming up with these topics?!?" I don't think these threads are stupid , newbies or old timers keep bringing up this topic at least once a month. It's an important subject not easily answered to everyones satisfaction because there is no right answer. Defining "manipulation" in regards to a photo is like defining "pornography", the individual knows it when he or she sees it. " Any insights to the work done by Duane Michaels and Jerry Uelsmann?" I am of the school that appreciates any kind of photo that is transcendent and tells a story and don't care how the photographer got there. I saw a show of Duane Michaels here in Milwaukee about fifteen years ago that influenced me as much as a show I saw about ten years ago in Madison, Wisconsin of Sebastiao Salgado's "Workers of the World". Both photographers, even though they are at opposite ends of the manipulation scale, continue to impress me with their genius and remind me to never let anything get in the way of my imagination. </p>

[john_kahmann3]

<p>Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?</p>

[graham_thompson1]

<p>Home made wine is quite an interesting subject.<br>

I think I'll start a thread on that.<br>

Goodbye.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Home made wine!? are you kidding..it taste like cheap corner store over heat one..nothing beat real wine!</p>

<p>let start a thread on this, the good thing is i also know a thing or 2 when talking about food and wine ; )</p>

[graham_thompson1]

<p>Patrick. Off topic forum. I have started a post pointing out the many merits of French wine.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>cool, have a link : )</p>

<p> </p>

[mwaks]

<p>I guess it's safe to say this main topic just died.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why is a carrot more orange then an orange? (a question raised by Ted Nugent)</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Hi David,<br /> The best thing you can do to continue to be inspired is to seek out all kinds of work to look at and then through living life it self. If you want to view a specific type of work, then find it and forget about what you don't want to see. I rarely look at the images on this site anymore due to the reasons you cite in your original post, it truly is an unfortunate mess here.</p>

<p>Look for other venues in photography that are not Photo.net, because things won't change here, the model is in place and it will only get worse over time. This is no slam on Photo.net, but the name of the site really ought to be something more fitting of it's visual content.</p>

<p>By the way, what I see in life is what I put in the viewfinder and what you see in my photos. So maybe favorite people who's work you like that abide by this ethic to make it more enjoyable for you. That is what I have done and it works well.<br>

I truly believe the path to photographic brilliance is to better our selves through the truthful quoting of life's visual diversity in grand fashion.....but that's just me..:-)</p>

<p>Good luck either way!</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Some people find it important to say what photo.net is or isn't, but it won't change anything, since they aren't in a position to make those decisions.<br>

<br /> If you are interested in photography, in its advancement, in new tools, in new ideas, in creativity, photo.net is a great place. In the spirit of the history of photography, which has always accepted new ideas and tools (except when Ansel Adams went after Mortensen), photo.net is a great champion for the concept of photography.<br>

<br /> If, on the other hand, you see tools and mediums as more important than photographs, feel free to follow the advice directly above and seek out other venues. It will serve you well, and you won't have to worry about anything new, challenging, or the least bit disruptive.</p>

<p>Some people see photography as a recording medium ("what I see in life is what I put in the viewfinder and what you see in my photos") and some see it as an opportunity to create art and communicate ideas beyond what simply shows in the viewfinder. Make your choice. And, as the man said, there are other venues if you have that limited view of photography.</p>

[lovcom_photo]

<p>Daniel Bayer, what you see through your view finder is NOT what you see in your pictures, nor your prints, as you suggest. Nearly ALL photography is a big fat lie. True for film and true for digital. Photography is not about visual truth. It is about rendition, about one's opinions transposed onto a composition.</p>

<p> All this talk about REAL....a word used too many times in this thread. In photography, not much is real, and that is okay. Ansel Adam's work is not real in the sense that his pictures do not look much like the actual scenes. This often is true for portraiture, and nearly all genres. This is not a slam against photography. This is actually a good thing.</p>

<p>The pictures that come out of your work are renditions, and not the real deal. This is true for film. This is true for digital. This is true for all of us, and so I don't single you out.</p>

<p>Now although a photography is a rendition of reality, it can project a truth. This is not a paradox.</p>

<p>I really do think you need to get off your snobbish high horse, and see things for what they are: Film and Digital have a place here at Photo.net, and all sites that provide forums for the discussion of pictures, and all things photography. PN is a great site, and if you can't admit that, then perhaps it's time for some more medication ;-)</p>

[mwaks]

<p>I find Daniel's view rather odd considering that "Current POW Recipient" icon next to his name. Is he not part of the mess called Photo.net?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I rarely look at the images on this site anymore due to the reasons you cite in your original post, it truly is an unfortunate mess here."</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[wade_keenon1]

<p> Is it even possible at this point to remember that the OP had a question about how to determine if a photo was "manipulated", because he would like to know -- god forbid -- what he could learn from the photo? That is, whether the photo displayed something he could capure in camera, or was whether it was something that would require new or improved processing skills to achieve? Gosh, I wonder what photo.net itself would say about such a seemingly innocent, yet stupidly controversial, inquiry? Oh yeah, I guess this is it:</p>

<p> "Your photos in our database here at photo.net are intended to help other readers learn how to become better photographers. It is helpful for them to know whether the photo is more or less as it came out of the camera ("unmanipulated") or whether the photo has been significantly altered ("manipulated"). In other words, to produce a image like yours, do they need to work on their camera technique or their Photoshop technique?"</p>

<p>After a number of examples, the definition concludes:</p>

<p> "For those readers old enough to remember film, "unmanipulated" is a slide processed through standard chemistry; "manipulated" would be a black and white print that had been heavily dodged and burned."</p>

<p>C'mon, is there really anybody who doesn't understand "manipuluated" v. "unmanipulated"? Is there really anyone who doesn't understand why someone might want to know which category a particular photo falls into? If so, do you really just want to have an agrument about why your vision is better than someone's else's? </p>

<p>Now, to be fair to all the bloviaters out there, the OP did pose an additional question: "Do most members here believe that PS works of art belong in the same presentation space as unmanipulated photographs?" Gee, apparently a bunch of folks say "yes," and a bunch of others say "no." For my part, I recommend reading the recent Johnston on Photography article "Cooking Vegetables."</p>