| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2007 11:55:41 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Ktizzle8807:
Okay then.. let me rephrase it.
The only "editing" I do to my pictures is an occasional crop.
But what I am talking about is turning a picture into something that doesn't even look real, but more like a cartoon.
I like to capture the actual nature of the scene. I don't make it look like something fake. |
I agree that rescuing a photo in photoshop is not prefered, and that getting it right in camera is way better. I have rescued photos, and I have taken good photos and put my own twist on them.
I don't care whether it's called photography or crap, as long as I took the PHOTO and that it was created with art in mind (I never take a non-artistic approach to photography). Art is subjective, and what may look like crap to you, may appear as amazing photography/art to someone else.
Have your opinion, I sure have my own, but don't go flaming for the sake of stirring up controversy. |
|
|
|
11/07/2007 11:55:49 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
To say that photoshop is the debil, and that everyone that uses it is not practicing the fine art of photography... |
Muahahaha! I am the DEBIL!!!! |
|
|
|
11/07/2007 11:56:12 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Ktizzle8807:
Okay then.. let me rephrase it.
The only "editing" I do to my pictures is an occasional crop.
But what I am talking about is turning a picture into something that doesn't even look real, but more like a cartoon.
I like to capture the actual nature of the scene. I don't make it look like something fake. |
It's true that many people feel that too much editing to a photograph crosses the line into what we call Digital Art. There are many accomplished photographers here that like to experiment in this realm under the Expert Editing challenge ruleset.
It's quite OK for you to feel that Digital Art is not quite "real" photography; many others here share your view.
We try to make room for everyone. :) |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 12:16:06 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
To say that photoshop is the debil, and that everyone that uses it is not practicing the fine art of photography... |
Muahahaha! I am the DEBIL!!!! |
MAAAAAAAAAAMUUUUUUUUUUHHHH!! He's scarin me!! :-/ |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 12:25:03 AM · #30 |
I understand your point and stand against heavily editing used in photoshop.. but what about the days before photoshop and digital cameras? what about the crazy stuff that can be achieved using multiple enlargers or sandwiching negatives? Go check out some stuff by Jerry Uelsmann. Not a single one of his photos were digital or edited digitally in any way (at least is early stuff, that is). Is this considered photography or not?
Message edited by author 2007-11-08 00:25:45. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 12:52:22 AM · #31 |
I was once given this example and I think it might apply to this discussion.
A very rich man comes to you stating that he loves your picture but the sky just isn't how he remembers being in that place. (He has a specific recollection of an amazing sky from years back.) He states that if you could give him a dynamic sky he would pay you $5000 dollars for your image. The location (building or something I can't remember the full story) has been torn down and you cannot go back and get a more dynamic sky. You have several images with tremendous sky that you could easily use Photoshop to introduce to your image to give the man his amazing sky.
Is it less art to give the consumer what he wanted? Would you stick to your guns and refuse his $5000 because of the principle of the original photo?? I personally would not. Do I want to produce images that appear clearly faked?? Of course not, but giving an image a different appearance is art times two. ART #1 capturing the image. ART #2 Processing the image in a way that gives the image a pop and flair keeping it realistic.
Thats my take.
Message edited by author 2007-11-08 00:53:11. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 01:28:02 AM · #32 |
You don't even need a photograph to create an image in Photoshop. Of course it would take a lot of editing to create it. Now that would be an interesting challenge... create an image without using a photograph.
Mike
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 01:32:13 AM · #33 |
| alot of photoshop effects come straight from the dark rrom, but digitalized... for example dodging burning brightness contrast and more tht i am not familiar with as i do not work with ive never manually develoed film... so to say photoshop isnt photography.. it is, just digitalized |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 01:33:41 AM · #34 |
So, you are suggesting that images by Ansel Adams look fake?
He used many of the techniques in the darkroom that are the same as those used in photoshop. There have been many other threads about the use of Photoshop, but it is important to remember that unless you are use RAW image collection, the camera is doing a bunch of post processing right in the camera to get that fake but "real feel".
Originally posted by Ktizzle8807:
Okay then.. let me rephrase it.
The only "editing" I do to my pictures is an occasional crop.
But what I am talking about is turning a picture into something that doesn't even look real, but more like a cartoon.
I like to capture the actual nature of the scene. I don't make it look like something fake. |
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 01:52:02 AM · #35 |
Katie,
I personally would like to see a little more "meat" to your argument. Could you post an example of something you think was turned into something "not real looking". Your statements so far are rather vague and ambiguous and I'd like to get a better feel for what you are getting at.
J
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 03:29:21 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Ktizzle8807:
But what I am talking about is turning a picture into something that doesn't even look real, but more like a cartoon.
I like to capture the actual nature of the scene. I don't make it look like something fake. |
Here Here! Purists unite!
oops-- too snarky?
Ok, my two cents: I shall happily refer to everything I produce as "Photoshopography" so as not to demean the good name of Photography.
-Art
Photoshopographer at large |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 03:45:27 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Ktizzle8807:
But what I am talking about is turning a picture into something that doesn't even look real, but more like a cartoon.
I like to capture the actual nature of the scene. I don't make it look like something fake. |
Here Here! Purists unite!
oops-- too snarky?
Ok, my two cents: I shall happily refer to everything I produce as "Photoshopography" so as not to demean the good name of Photography.
-Art
Photoshopographer at large |
Wait a minute Art are you telling me that I wasn't actually being chased by godzilla as I ran down the street from the Paramount? Cuz I'm pretty sure I took my meds that morning...
In all seriousness though, I have to say that not applying any editing to an image is just ridiculous. In Every single photography class I have taken, film or digital, failing to edit the photographs in the darkroom or in Photoshop would result in a truly horrific grade. No offense but I imagine you would be hard pressed to find more than a handful (if that) of notable photographers who did absolutely no editing to the images. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 04:14:31 AM · #38 |
well that was great, i just wrote a sweet thing for this, click post, and DPCHALLENGE daily server DOWN:P ok, so ill make this one small and to the point, Wether you use photoshop or a darkroom, use film or digital, every image has been edited, the digital camera processes the image internally, the film camera dose it by use of film, 100. 200. 400... and so on, then you take that into the darkroom and enlarge it,(contrast brightness) when its being processed. and then the time it is in the washbath or whatever its called cant remember, the longer its in the more crisp and colorful photo you will get. so, its not just photoshop. its every aspect from the silverthings on the print paper in the dark room, to the digital camera. also, the printer can effect the photo. low quality, a quick print to see the colors on paper. medium, to get diecent looking copys and quick, and High quality, well the best looking print you will be able to get. all i gotta say is its not photoshop, lets blame this on the tool you use to take the image, the camera:) and if you dont like that, then its time to wake up n smell the plumbs:P
Message edited by author 2007-11-08 04:15:15. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 04:27:22 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Ktizzle8807:
But what I am talking about is turning a picture into something that doesn't even look real, but more like a cartoon.
I like to capture the actual nature of the scene. I don't make it look like something fake. |
Here Here! Purists unite!
oops-- too snarky?
Ok, my two cents: I shall happily refer to everything I produce as "Photoshopography" so as not to demean the good name of Photography.
-Art
Photoshopographer at large |
I love that word: Photoshopographer...
sounds much more impressive than photographer!
hell yeah I'm a photoshopographer!!
just a little annoying to type :-P |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 04:48:53 AM · #40 |
I wonder how many of those who claim that photoshop has nothing to do with photography have actually spent more than 15 minutes in a darkroom processing film onto paper?
Eeeeeverything that is possible in photoshop originally comes from the darkroom and has been possible for decades, just now the difference is that you get an undo button and see what you are doing right away so people maybe go a little overboard from time to time but who cares? |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 04:49:53 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Puckzzz:
hell yeah I'm a photoshopographer!!
just a little annoying to type :-P |
PSographer? Or Pee-Sog maybe would be the cool way to announce it to people you meet. "Hi, Tanja Bolt, Pee-Sog. Nice to meet ya." ...I'll keep working on it. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 04:51:13 AM · #42 |
| Lárus Sigurðarson, Pee-Sog. :) |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 05:42:03 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Puckzzz:
hell yeah I'm a photoshopographer!!
just a little annoying to type :-P |
PSographer? Or Pee-Sog maybe would be the cool way to announce it to people you meet. "Hi, Tanja Bolt, Pee-Sog. Nice to meet ya." ...I'll keep working on it. |
Hmmm not sure - Pee Sog sounds a bit . . well . . damp and unpleasant.
How about PhotoSho'pher ?
Joking apart  L2 (and some others) are right and have added a nice balance to this thread.
People naturally and rightly have a wide variety of tastes and there is nothing wrong with people choosing that they personally like to keep a simple representitive style of photography while others choose from a wider basket of tastes.
It is also true to say though that PS will help to bring out the best in almost any style of photograph (used wisely) it is simply a tool.
Message edited by author 2007-11-08 05:55:36. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 05:52:49 AM · #44 |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 06:11:06 AM · #45 |
Ya know, back in 2005 when I first saw this site, I signed up for a free membership but later asked for it be withdrawn because I was under the impression that it was all photoshop (which i didn't own) and nothing to do with photography. I actually regret doing that and realise the only reason I sent that was because I personally did not understand photoshop, or any of the editing steps. The first pic i saw was 'portrait of a taurus' by Peete, which i fell in love with, then looked through the site and thought that every picture on here was all just photoshop... however, I only thought that because every single picture on there was better than anything i was producing, so of course, it must be photoshop right? Nope, they're just better photographers than I give them credit for. I was just jealous i think that I could not get pictures like them (granted, I had a 4mp powershot) so put my bitterness down to their use of photoshop and got on my high-horse that my stuff was 'untarnished' or 'pure' or maybe just 'crap', but I was denigrating photoshop to hide my own inadequacies as a photographer.
It's sooo easy to get jealous, and then to re-direct that to thinking everything is photoshopped because you can't accept that someone, somewhere, is a better photographer. So you know what I did? I got off my ass, got a new camera when i outgrew my powershot, looked at why I sucked, learned photoshop techniques to help get my message across, paid my $25, and entered a challenge. I didn't do too good, but i'm learning and i'm better than i was then for sure- i don't have some bitterness towards photoshop and people that use it to make amazing images, i learn from them and see if i can use that in my style.
Maybe you should do the same and not piss and moan. Photoshop is the norm. It is the darkroom. Learn to use it and see what it can do for you and then you'll understand that this is not a photoshop contest, it helps but it cannot create an image for you, that's for you to work out. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 06:16:12 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Tez:
. . Maybe you should do the same and not piss and moan. . |
I think the OP was complaining about Photoshop - not Cystitis . .
:- ) |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 06:17:39 AM · #47 |
2 drums and a cymbal fall off a cliff...
Ba dum tsshhhh... |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 07:25:19 AM · #48 |
You are correct.
Photoshop is not photography. Photoshop is a post production tool for photography.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 07:33:11 AM · #49 |
I think most people would agree the Ansel Adams is a photographer and that what he did is photography. Buy or borrow a copy of The Print by Ansel Adams and get an understanding of what is involved in creating a real photographic print. Photoshop is simply a tool and for most of us it is the modern equivalent of the darkroom.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 07:49:09 AM · #50 |
Taking a photograph is much more than pushing the button of the camera.
It involves a lot of steps and a complex work flow, from thinking the photo until it̢۪s printed on paper or in a Screen.
And the final product of this complex process is what people usually call a Photograph, without knowing all the trouble behind the scenes.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 01:12:40 AM EDT.
