What's with the preoccupation with Photoshop?

[bobatkins]

<p>No it's not. Look around, there a several good alternatives. You've been brainwashed by Adobe into thinking that way.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>Few things are more frightening to humans than unbridled freedom... especially in others. </p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>It is simply amazing just the mentioned of photoshop can bring forth so many different thoughts. Now I understand why the pro or con about photoshop always attracts a lot of responses.<br>

Matt, well Matt is from a different world. He seems a bit beyond human to me. I have read his response to so many subjects and managed to keep a level head and response in the most succinct manner. I believe he is a well written computer program designed to keep photo.net sane.<br>

Lynn, Photoshop is not very user unfriendly. As in any computer program it requires some learning curve. I have been dabbling in Photoshop since the version 2 or 3. I kept on upgrading but never took the time to really try and understand it. I never learned until version 10 (CS-3). I am still learning.<br>

Keep those thoughts pouring out ladies and gentlemen. It is refreshing to read something positive once in a while.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>You've figured me out, Hansen. Just don't ask me to open the pod bay doors, because I won't do it. Sincerely, HAL 9000.<br /><br />Er, sorry... best regards, -Matt :-)</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>A good photo, is a good photo, right out of the camera. If the photoshopping is required to make it a good photo, then was it one to begin with?</p>

<p>So many of the highly rated images on photo.net are more Photoshop than they are photographs.</p>

<p>I use Photoshop to tweak my images, but not to "make" my images.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I'd almost rather let your point go, J.H., but you've actually struck on what's (spuriously) at the heart of so many of these threads... the notion that there's nothing in between the "tweaking" you say you do, and outright fabrication of images. There's the problem: is your tweaking on <em>this</em> side or <em>that</em> side, of say, the large darkroom manipulations that Adams did to his famous "Moonrise" shot? Those weren't mere tweaks, but neither did he "make" the image, falsely placing things in the shot, or taking them away, per se. <br /><br />These conversations are meaningless unless you define what you mean by "photoshopping" an image. You, personally, seem to say that it means something beyond the tweaking that you do - even though you do what you do, using the very same software. You can understand how people coming across these discussions become hungry for a more workable definition of what the phrase means... or, leave in disgust over the Swiftian semantics that surround the topic.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>"A good photo, is a good photo, right out of the camera." Ansel Adams would disagree as would I. Adam's most famous print, "Moonrise Over Hernandez" was from an underexposed negative. I forget how many years and how many times Ansel unsucessfully printed this negative, perhaps a decade, before he had the epiphany to selenium tone the negative to increase the negative density. Only then did Ansel get a "Fine Print". Photography is and always has been about manipulation, whether wet plate, dry plate, negative or digital. Manipulation begins with the selection of the film, the film speed, followed by development(film), followed by paper selection and contrast selection(film). Dodging and burning etc. Digital just does it differently.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Tweaking an image is one thing, but PS'ing it so it looks nothing like the origial scene is what I'm talking about.<br>

If you review some the highest rated images on pnet, they are often PS more than photography. HDR is a good example. This is my opinion, and I was trying to convey my opinion of the PS debate to the original poster.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>JH, I agree yet disagree with your thought. My reasoning is the slippery slope of trying to define "tweaking". So I prefer to embrace the whole instead of doing a poor job in my definition. I do agree about Photoshop can be used by some highly skill artist to create an extraordinary image that never started from a camera. I have seen examples and honestly the well done ones are so difficult to distinguish from a genuine photograph that I cannot make the differentiation.<br>

However I believe the difference in opinion with Photoshop centers around the not so skillful artists. The real trick about successful photoshop skill is to tweak the photograph in such a way that the viewer cannot tell it has been tweaked.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>A good photo, is a good photo, right out of the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good thing you're not talking about Avedon, Meatyard, Moriyama, Adams, Weston, and just about every other great photographer.</p>

[tomwatt]

<blockquote>

<p>A good photo, is a good photo, right out of the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you can take a piece of film right out of the back of the camera and voila! there you have it! Excellent, as I had grown very tired of the smell of fixer, and now I can do away with it. For that matter, all those chemicals are annoying and harmful to the environment, glad to know I don't need them anymore.<br>

What a hoot this entire discussion is.<br>

Photoshop is not the only game in town... it's just, well, the only game in town with news coverage, sportcasters, lights and film at 6.<br>

Where does the image take place? It's not in the camera, not on the film (or sensor), not in the software. It's not even in the eye... the image happens in the brain, because humans "see" what they "know".<br>

heh. maybe this discussion should move to a non-English language... that could be entertaining, as most posters would then need the added manipulation/interpolation of a translation. And machine translation usually makes a mess of things!</p>

[bernardwest]

Thomas you inspired me to have an idea. I wrote a post, used yahoo translator to turn it into Russian, then used google translator to turn it back to english. Here it is:<p>

 

<blockquote>I obtain therefore [utomlyano] of these manipulation against the threads of non- manipulation. We seems that we have one each week, or if you go to this week, then every day almost. Why people do worry as photograph it did arrive near? Entire which has a value end product. If end product is buckwheat, then this is buckwheat. Doesn't the matter as this became buckwheat.</blockquote><p>

 

If that doesn't just sum it up perfectly, well, I'm not here.

[freewolf]

<p>You so tazy, Alfalfa...</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>The preoccupation stems as far as I can tell from the pure inundation of PS-ed images here and on other photography forums where a ton of energy is expended into backpatting and discussion of PS techniques and not the photography.... you know... all the steps that came BEFORE the Photoshop part. That and the constant display of heavily PS-ed images on the main page here that angers many users of this site who may appreciate the value of Photoshop as a tool but question the decision of the "elves" to constantly push it down our throats. This may be especially a sensitive issue to people who maybe sought out this website as a refuge away from the digital-centric photography magazines which seem to more and more just be advertisements posing as journalism. </p>

<p>In all fairness, the "elves" are really probably just picking images based on interactive user-based points system of the critiques which is really nothing more than an online poll of what people who use the critique system find appealing. </p>

<p>The nature of this system (and I'm not criticizing it, so please don't snub my comment, mods!) is such that it creates an environment where the top rated images really just reflects the likes of the most avid reviewers. In such an environment, if people who are interested mainly in B&W prints made on 4x5 cameras (as an example) don't see many of their favorite kinds of images getting top ratings they may decide to stop participating... and if they stop participating, then the likelihood of their favorite kinds of images getting that 7/7 vote goes down. On the other hand, if people who like say, photographs of skydiving kittens find that a few images of skydiving kittens have gotten top billing, they might be more prone to participate in the critique system... the result quite obviously being a flood of top-billed photographs of skydiving kittens. That in turn creates a reaction from the people who really can't stand images of skydiving kittens, who write posts asking why the heck are there photos of skydiving kittens all over the place on this site? And that in turn promotes someone to ask the question... what's with this preoccupation with skydiving kittens? </p>

[allancobb]

Here's an example of what I think J. Harrington is trying to convey... someone takes a shot of a landscape scene and there's a utility pole in the way; the perception of attitude is, "I'll take the shot anyway and just clone the utility pole away in Photoshop afterwards." Instead of putting some thought and effort into composing a shot the way it was visualized before "processing." It's the seemingly prevalent attitude of taking mediocre photos with the intent of "fixing" them in Photoshop later instead of taking the time and energy to compose a "good" photograph to begin with. To me, it's a form of photographic lethargy. As I understand it, the legendary street photographers caught their "decisive moments" using pure skill of composition without a thought to changing the intent of what they saw in their viewfinders after the photo was taken. I hope my point makes sense, as I've had more than a couple glasses of cabernet this evening....

[bernardwest]

<blockquote>Here's an example of what I think J. Harrington is trying to convey... someone takes a shot of a landscape scene and there's a utility pole in the way; the perception of attitude is, "I'll take the shot anyway and just clone the utility pole away in Photoshop afterwards." Instead of putting some thought and effort into composing a shot the way it was visualized before "processing." It's the seemingly prevalent attitude of taking mediocre photos with the intent of "fixing" them in Photoshop later instead of taking the time and energy to compose a "good" photograph to begin with. To me, it's a form of photographic lethargy.</blockquote><p>

 

Who cares? What's it to you? Photography is a visual art form. All that matters to the art patron is the final piece of art.

[freewolf]

<p>Bernie, if this were a forum for art patrons you'd possibly have a valid point. As it is a forum for photographers, particularly with the stated ambition of being the best peer-to-peer educational site for photographers, your point loses its steam. Obviously, many of us care about the points raised by Patrick, Allan, myself, <em>et al</em>. To some of us, photography is much more a personal experience and is enhanced by the discipline to which Allan refers. Not all of us think in terms of what "art patrons" are concerned about... on the other hand, I don't know too many "art patrons" who are much interested in skydiving kittens.</p>

<p>Of course there is more to photography than adjusting camera settings, lens selection, finding that perfect vantage point, capturing that perfect light, etc. etc., and image manipulation will to some degree always be a part of producing the final result. But no amount of photoshopping can replace the discipline involved in trying to get the best capture in-camera as a starting point.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4848289">Kevin Freeman</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Apr 02, 2009; 01:43 a.m.

<p>I don't know too many "art patrons" who are much interested in skydiving kittens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not up on our memes or even moderately hip pop culture, are we? You might be surprised at the market for heavily "shopped" novelty images. They're common currency in web communication as avatars and some folks have managed to market them successfully as posters, t-shirts and other items. Like it or not, détournement has become an extremely popular artistic expression and fans - both creators and viewers - have no difficulty at all in appreciating the hybrid use of photography and fabricated art. For my part, stuff like "speed-shopping" riffs on memes and more elaborate détournement stuff has revitalized my flagging interest in sharpening my image editing skills. I can translate that toward improving my more straightforward conventional photography.</p>

<p>Folks who appreciate and sometimes even buy stuff based on this digital fauvism might not meet your standards for "art patron," but apparently few people meet your definition of "photography" either.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Hansen, You and quite a few others have left out one very powerful and influential genre of photography when posing this question.<br>

So when you are done reading responses here, ask this same question on Lightstalkers or better yet, attend Look3 or Perpignan and ask the same question. Then you will have a full set of answers.<br>

<br /> But until you do that, you are not going to have everyone represented so you will not have your question answered. I have weighed in on it, but you will have to take the time to research my recent posting history to find out what I said.<br>

You need to consider *everyone* when asking this question.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>

 

 

<blockquote >Here's an example of what I think J. Harrington is trying to convey... someone takes a shot of a landscape scene and there's a utility pole in the way; the perception of attitude is, "I'll take the shot anyway and just clone the utility pole away in Photoshop afterwards." Instead of putting some thought and effort into composing a shot the way it was visualized before "processing." It's the seemingly prevalent attitude of taking mediocre photos with the intent of "fixing" them in Photoshop later instead of taking the time and energy to compose a "good" photograph to begin with. To me, it's a form of photographic lethargy.</blockquote>

<p >Who cares? What's it to you? Photography is a visual art form. All that matters to the art patron is the final piece of art.</p>

 

 

</p>

</blockquote>

<p >I care, my editors care, my art directors care, my fine art print buyers care, ASMP cares, NPPA cares, APA cares, CPA cares, AP cares, NGS cares, WPI cares, German GEO cares, Sabine Meyer cares, Susan Smith Cares, Bill Allard cares, David Alan Harvey cares, James Nacthwey cares, Chris Johns cares, Eugene Richards cares, Mary Ellen Mark cares, Bill Frakes cares, Walter Ioos cares, Tipper Gore cares, John Fielder cares, Pete Souza cares, Jim Richardson cares, Michael Nichols cares, LOTS of people care but you don't, so that is why you or Hansen should not even bother to ask the question if you are not prepared to truly look for the answers to it.</p>

<p >I know all these people care because I simply know them well enough to have asked them long ago.</p>

<br />

[mike dixon]

<p>All those people or organizations care whether some lazy hobbyist clones a utility pole from the photos that no one but his wife and friends will bother to look at?</p>

[bernardwest]

Well Daniel, I too know Tipper Gore, and I happen to know she definitely doesn't care.

[bernardwest]

I just made that up.

 

I guess you probably knew that.

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Hmm, there are some slightly odd responses here... Personally, I couldn't give a pale sloppy poop what the "masters" do/did, or what Givver More likes... That's their problem... (Muffdiving kittens are cool though...)</p>

<p>Still, given the wonderful technology we have at our disposal these days, I guess "Computer-Realized Art/Photography" is here to stay...</p>

<p>So, I suggest we'd all better get used to the CRAP, 'cause it ain't gonna be going away anytime soon... :)</p>

[bernardwest]

Paul, I just watched an episode of Lost I had recorded, and when I read your post I read it in the voice of Sawyer. I don't know if this is a compliment for you or not, but you write just like he talks. :)