DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Photoshop is not photography
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 220, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/08/2007 08:12:46 AM · #51
I once worked at professional photo lab. We had rooms of people and extremely expensive equipment who spent massive amounts of time on professional photographs (trust me nobody else could afford this) in order to make them presentable to hang in corporate offices or enter into competitions.

This was all film and all art. Photography from the very origin has been a multi-step process from concept to completion. Pushing the button on the camera has never been the end of the process.

The photographs that we grew up looking at in magazines (like "Life", "National Geographic"...so many others) were not taken directly from the camera to the "1-hour photo" shop and printed directly in a magazine.

Darkroom wizardry has ALWAYS been a major portion of the ART of photography.

[SNARK FILTER - This message is certified to be snark free.]
11/08/2007 08:27:42 AM · #52
Originally posted by Jedusi:

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 . .

:- )


Maybe it was the clap.
11/08/2007 08:29:32 AM · #53
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Jedusi:

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 . .

:- )


Maybe it was the clap.


Yayyyyyyyy!! Oops....

[thumb]610215[/thumb]
11/08/2007 08:33:59 AM · #54
Originally posted by Mike_Adams:

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.


Why do you assume that such an image would, as you put it, appear clearly faked? What if no one could discern that it was anything other than a great shot with a dramatic sky?

Neither image is reality. It's not like the subject is actually in the photograph.

11/08/2007 08:49:07 AM · #55
For those of you into this debate, you may find the article (linked below) by our own Zoomdak (Thomas) to be an interesting read. It's a paper he did on the 'Current State of Photography' for a school project.

Previous thread here ==> Current State of Photography

Article here (click on 'State of Digital Photography') ==> ruminations
11/08/2007 08:49:56 AM · #56
Look how many pages I can generate on the forum...

[SNARK FILTER - DANGER!!! Writer had SNARKY thoughts - this message entry is now being terminated for your own protection.]
11/08/2007 08:57:36 AM · #57
I guess this makes sense to me, because I am at a point right now where I am personally trying to do as little post processing as possible (see 490th place in Free Study! ha!)

There is a line where once crossed, you no longer have a photograph, but a piece of digital art.

Ive been known to process the living hell out of a picture, but personally, now a days im feeling really good when the most out of camera processing I have to do is rotate and crop (with the exception of the occasional auto levels/color/contrast)

But it really is a different strokes for different folks kind of scenario. Some people like to use the image file as a canvas to create a scene that they would prefer, others like to use the image file as the final product. It really is just a matter of what you are in it for, who you are in it for, and what you are into.
11/08/2007 09:02:13 AM · #58
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:

You are correct.

Photoshop is not photography. Photoshop is a post production tool for photography.

I was looking for the right post to key off, and this is it.

Like your camera, a flash, the moving of your subject a little closer to the window so that the light catches them just as you want it.......these are all tools and techniques that make this art form what it is to each one of us in our own way.

Personally, I think PhotoShop is the coolest thing since sliced bread 'cause it enables me to tailor the presented image to EXACTLY what I saw in my mind's eye when I snapped the shutter.

And through experimentation, I can get better and better at getting that perfect image that I want and also learn from what I have to do in PS so that maybe I don't have to do so much the next time. So PhotoShop actually helps me to be a better photographer!

Sometimes it's just for fun, and the fun stuff isn't necessarily as much about what I can do with the camera as how I can manipulate the image. I'm not even very good at it, so that's a learning curve, too.

F'rinstance.....the Halloween Speed challenge. You got 24 hours to put something together, and you know we're not talking a serious thing here......so I had a vision of what I wanted, and I had to make it happen.

My entry: the original: [thumb]610353[/thumb]

I had a specific thing in mind for this jack-o-lantern as I have always seen them as a spooky thing done properly, and this shot was quite obviously taken in broad daylight with a bunch of other ones around it.

So I cropped it and hit the heck out of the shadows and used a filter, and used curves, etc, etc, you get the idea.

But the resultant image is EXACTLY as I saw it in my head! So is this not a photograph because I didn't do it all with a camera? I might not have been able to get the exact lighting, shadows, perspective, and some of the other touches without taking hours and going through histrionics that with a busy schedule and a family, I might not have had the luxury of doing.

And the whole thing was just for fun......I'm not preserving an image and a memory for all time.

My point is......I cannot do half the things that some can; I can do more than others; and to each his own. I have found over the years that people who have no use for a commonly used tool either don't know how to use it and/or have preconceived notions about its usefulness.

You're young, and I'm thinking not terribly experienced, so perhaps you could try this versatile and useful tool and see what it can do *FOR* you before you condemn it, and bear in mind that whatever your end feelings are, just remember that they are YOUR feelings, and opinion, and that doesn't make them gospel. There are many who agree with you, and many who don't. Be open to the POSSIBILITY that this is a useful tool. Then make your decision as to its merits. BUT.....bear in mind that just because it doesn't suit you doesn't make it any less valuable to someone else. Doesn't make it bad, just different.

One last little Teensie thing....this is Emily. Her mother asked me to take a portrait shot of her at Homecoming. You want to guess what her reaction was to my ability to "fix" her nose?

[thumb]610356[/thumb]***[thumb]610357[/thumb]

Not much PhotoShop done here.......but a world of difference to Mom!

Food for thought.......8>)
11/08/2007 09:43:56 AM · #59
Photoshop Lovers 1 - 0 Photoshop Haters
11/08/2007 09:47:39 AM · #60
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:

You are correct.

Photoshop is not photography. Photoshop is a post production tool for photography.

I was looking for the right post to key off, and this is it.

Like your camera, a flash, the moving of your subject a little closer to the window so that the light catches them just as you want it.......these are all tools and techniques that make this art form what it is to each one of us in our own way.

Personally, I think PhotoShop is the coolest thing since sliced bread 'cause it enables me to tailor the presented image to EXACTLY what I saw in my mind's eye when I snapped the shutter.

And through experimentation, I can get better and better at getting that perfect image that I want and also learn from what I have to do in PS so that maybe I don't have to do so much the next time. So PhotoShop actually helps me to be a better photographer!

Sometimes it's just for fun, and the fun stuff isn't necessarily as much about what I can do with the camera as how I can manipulate the image. I'm not even very good at it, so that's a learning curve, too.

F'rinstance.....the Halloween Speed challenge. You got 24 hours to put something together, and you know we're not talking a serious thing here......so I had a vision of what I wanted, and I had to make it happen.

My entry: the original: [thumb]610353[/thumb]

I had a specific thing in mind for this jack-o-lantern as I have always seen them as a spooky thing done properly, and this shot was quite obviously taken in broad daylight with a bunch of other ones around it.

So I cropped it and hit the heck out of the shadows and used a filter, and used curves, etc, etc, you get the idea.

But the resultant image is EXACTLY as I saw it in my head! So is this not a photograph because I didn't do it all with a camera? I might not have been able to get the exact lighting, shadows, perspective, and some of the other touches without taking hours and going through histrionics that with a busy schedule and a family, I might not have had the luxury of doing.

And the whole thing was just for fun......I'm not preserving an image and a memory for all time.

My point is......I cannot do half the things that some can; I can do more than others; and to each his own. I have found over the years that people who have no use for a commonly used tool either don't know how to use it and/or have preconceived notions about its usefulness.

You're young, and I'm thinking not terribly experienced, so perhaps you could try this versatile and useful tool and see what it can do *FOR* you before you condemn it, and bear in mind that whatever your end feelings are, just remember that they are YOUR feelings, and opinion, and that doesn't make them gospel. There are many who agree with you, and many who don't. Be open to the POSSIBILITY that this is a useful tool. Then make your decision as to its merits. BUT.....bear in mind that just because it doesn't suit you doesn't make it any less valuable to someone else. Doesn't make it bad, just different.

One last little Teensie thing....this is Emily. Her mother asked me to take a portrait shot of her at Homecoming. You want to guess what her reaction was to my ability to "fix" her nose?

[thumb]610356[/thumb]***[thumb]610357[/thumb]

Not much PhotoShop done here.......but a world of difference to Mom!

Food for thought.......8>)


Well said!!!

11/08/2007 09:58:48 AM · #61
i didnt read any of the posts
but yes it is
11/08/2007 10:09:58 AM · #62
I love these threads. I'm not much into arguing about the topic but I certainly enjoy reading the excuses. Delusion really is entertaining!

Message edited by author 2007-11-08 10:15:44.
11/08/2007 10:13:36 AM · #63
Me too. I think too many people on this site are quitting smoking at the same time. Everyones on edge :/

off to light up so I can keep the peace

Originally posted by Phil:

I love these threads. I'm not much into argunig about the topic but I certainly enjoy reading the excuses. Delusion really is entertaining!

11/08/2007 10:19:25 AM · #64
My 2cents FWIW

Like everything, photography is evolving. We are just inventing new tools to achieve better and easier results. I bet a lot of the old time photographers, Ansel Adams included, would have loved digital and would have been in there boots and all using it to its full advantage, lets face it we have to evolve and grow, as with everything in our lives.
11/08/2007 10:34:50 AM · #65
Originally posted by loriprophoto:

My 2cents FWIW

Like everything, photography is evolving. We are just inventing new tools to achieve better and easier results. I bet a lot of the old time photographers, Ansel Adams included, would have loved digital and would have been in there boots and all using it to its full advantage, lets face it we have to evolve and grow, as with everything in our lives.

I had a Canon A-1 for many years and was just starting to get seriously into some of the more advanced requets that are required when you want a little more from an image than how it comes from the camera. Since I didn't have the time, money, skills, or inclination to have my own darkroom, a digital camera and PhotoShop were an absolute Godsend.

To me, it's just simple evolution.

BTW, I've been saving this little tidbit for the right momnet.

Can you imagine how many waste toxic chemicals would be in existence if every image on DP Challenge was processed and printed with film, ink, and paper?
11/08/2007 10:44:52 AM · #66
Originally posted by Ktizzle8807:

I don't care how much I get bashed on here, but photoshop is not real photography.

You can be horrible at taking pictures, yet you edit them so much that they don't even look like a real picture.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

I personally don't edit any of my pictures with photoshop or any program of that kind.


WELCOME to 2007, Come on down/in.

Blame the stupid Computers and the Internet.
IF it wasn't for Computers and the Internet evolving to what it is today, you wouldn't be "conversing" in this forum.

The same has been done to music. Some out there still think Vinyl records are better then Digital.

Yes any good thing can be overdone so it doesn't look Natural any more.

The playing field is still Equall, only the tools have evolved.
We all have access to Computers and Graphic software.


In this "modern world", some think that Impressionism Paintings is not real Art.

In the beginning, there were Pundits that hated Computers and said, "Why use them".
11/08/2007 10:45:27 AM · #67
Back when digital first started going mainstream I was working in a camera store, since I was the resident computer geek and gadget junky I became the resident digital guy. We took on small digital jobs, but didn't get into anything big.

The manager of the store was a graduate of Brooks and was very traditional when it came to photography. He was very anti-digital. He said pretty much the same thing "Photoshop is not photography."

But, the more we did , the more he saw that it was very similar to what he had done in a dark room for nearly 40 years.

After about six months he started bringing in his old (some 30 or more years old) slides to get me to do work on them.

Anyway to sum up what I am trying to say here, Photoshop is just a tool available to photographers. People can debate all they want as to when something becomes "digital art." But in the end Photoshop is a tool. So in a way you're right, it isn't photography. Its a tool.
11/08/2007 10:57:51 AM · #68
I agree that PS isn't photography, it is post processing. To me photography is getting the right composition, the right lighting, etc. I don't think you could take a crappy picture and turn it into a great picture even with PS, but then again I am not as good with PS as other people. For example, I have a few pictures that I took years ago, when my oldest was a baby, with a cheap digital camera when they were first getting big. It is really out of focus, but I can't get it to look good at all in PS. So you still need to be able to take a decent picture, which to me is the essence of photography. However, I think that post processing is a great thing, it takes a different kind of talent though. I don't use much PS in my pictures either, but not because I don't like it, but rather because I need to learn more about it to use it effectively.

IMO you can't get a great picture if it was a poor shot, but you can get a great picture without post processing. So photography (taking the actual picture) is the most important, but post processing can be a very useful tool. Some of you advanced PSers may be able to get a good end result out of a crappy picture, but I sure can't.
11/08/2007 11:07:14 AM · #69
Originally posted by travis_cooper:

Some of you advanced PSers may be able to get a good end result out of a crappy picture, but I sure can't.

Me either, dammit!.......8>)
11/08/2007 11:12:53 AM · #70
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by travis_cooper:

Some of you advanced PSers may be able to get a good end result out of a crappy picture, but I sure can't.

Me either, dammit!.......8>)


But think what you could get if it wasn't crappy in the first place...
11/08/2007 11:20:42 AM · #71
Originally posted by Gordon:


But think what you could get if it wasn't crappy in the first place...


Exactly, the better "rough" product you start with the better your "finished" product will be coming out of photoshop (or any other software).



This shot was done on film, I got very very lucky. I did a little work in Photoshop, contrast, burn on the sky some (oddly enough the tips of the branches were already dark and not a result of sloppy burning).



This shot on the other hand took hours in photoshop. Layer after layer. Shadows were very harsh this day and the lighting was funky. I then used five other shots from that day to elminate people around the train and station. It wasn't a bad shot to start with, but the final product was much better.

Edit to add... If I were teaching photography I wouldn't let my students touch photoshop until they had a decent understanding of the basics of photography.

Message edited by author 2007-11-08 11:22:46.
11/08/2007 11:37:59 AM · #72
continuing to beat the deceased equine. . . on a more philosophical note, the very act of taking a picture is a massive manipulation in itself.

you decide where to put the camera, exactly how much to show (or not show) and when to snap the shutter. . .you give the viewer no context and no freedom to see the "world" of the picture outside of your own interpretation.

i just read a fantastic article:

//bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.html

. . .about what makes photography so engaging. . .and so enraging all at once.

in a far less philosophical way i'm more likely to believe that the young lady is pissed that lots of people (DPC voters) PREFER to look at digitally corrected photos instead of unedited works.

it's not so much about the photographers and photoshopographers. . .but about someone's picture being ignored in favor of a digitally corrected one.

and, among people who use photoshop regularly, there still plenty of jealousy over who's digitally corrected images get more face-time than others!

you can't win!

not until you stop comparing yourself to everyone else.

:o)

Message edited by author 2007-11-08 11:38:50.
11/08/2007 11:39:38 AM · #73
Originally posted by nadiaC:


you can't win!

not until you stop comparing yourself to everyone else.

:o)


I just feel like I've watched 'WarGames' again. Same moral. The only way to win is to not play the game.
11/08/2007 11:53:52 AM · #74
Originally posted by nadiaC:

...

in a far less philosophical way i'm more likely to believe that the young lady is pissed that lots of people (DPC voters) PREFER to look at digitally corrected photos instead of unedited works.

it's not so much about the photographers and photoshopographers. . .but about someone's picture being ignored in favor of a digitally corrected one.

and, among people who use photoshop regularly, there still plenty of jealousy over who's digitally corrected images get more face-time than others!

...


Not to pick on you, in particular, but I don't think the OP is necessarily "pissed." In her only other thread here she was looking for a photography related topic for her oral speaking course. It looks to me like she posted a debate-club style postulate and let the arguments run their course. If so, clever way to research the topic. :)

Having done darkroom work back in the day, I tend to fall to the more liberal side of post-processing. None of the rules here, in fact, are as liberal as they are at my camera club where almost anything goes. What I think is, perhaps, a more interesting question is why is this topic such a button-pusher. It never seems to fail to bring emotions over the craft soaring....

11/08/2007 11:55:25 AM · #75
A few years back, when DPC started advanced rules (around the time they started having members & users) I was, surprise surprise, very vocal in my objections reagding the use of advanced editing rules, dismissing DPC as a photoshop challenge instead of photography challenge, thats why if you look at my challenge entries, there is a big gap of a few years where I didnt really visit the site, I went off doing my own little thing with photography and leaving photoshop well alone.
After a few years I started to get interested in the site again and was amazed at some of the work I was seeing, so I got myself a copy of photoshop (ahem) and started to experiment with my images. Now, I look back at some of the stuff I thought was super cool at the time (filter upon filter on a single image) and wince, but eventually I learnt that subtlety is best. After a while I got to the point where I was knocking out shots, photoshopping them and thinking "Wow, is that shot really one of my photos?"..

So to the OP, I think you are in the same position I was in 3/4 years ago, the only advice I can offer is, don't be bitter about people using photoshop, learn to embrace it, photoshop does take practice, you need to learn how to use the tools to get the best from them, but after a while you will start to see how it can be used, not to change the photo from what it originally was, but moreso to achieve the image you saw in your head when you took the shot.

To be honest, Photoshop IS photography these days, times have moved on, you can either sit back and be left behind, or learn to embrace your hobby and all its little quirks.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/29/2025 07:55:29 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/29/2025 07:55:29 AM EDT.