Photoshopping, YES or NO

Discussion in 'Photography' started by TopPhotoBlog, Feb 27, 2006.

  1. TopPhotoBlog

    TopPhotoBlog Guest

    What do you think about manipulating photos with PhotoShopping.

    Do you like the photos with maniplulation?

    OR

    Do you like more photos with out any change?
     
    TopPhotoBlog, Feb 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. TopPhotoBlog

    bmoag Guest

    Do you like written sentences with or without punctuation?
     
    bmoag, Feb 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. TopPhotoBlog

    Colin D Guest

    Your question is so broad as to be almost meaningless, but here is my
    answer anyway.

    Most images can bebefit from changes in density and color balance to
    improve the appearance to the eye, and IMO fully justified as part of
    presenting the best and/or most pleasing experience for the viewer. A
    photograph is an *interpretation* of the original subject, and improving
    the interpretation is legitimate.

    Inserting or removing parts of the image renders it less representative
    of the original subject, but whether that is bad depends on the intent
    of the image. If used as evidence, it's bad; if the end result is
    intended to be 'art', then it's moot.

    Note that Photoshop - or any other image editing program - is *passive*,
    it does nothing to the image that isn't intended by the person driving
    it. How the image is finally delivered is everything to do with the
    operator and nothing to do with the program. Pointing the finger, or
    blaming PS for a bad image is ridiculous.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Feb 28, 2006
    #3
  4. TopPhotoBlog

    editor Guest

    I use PhotoShop extensively on night photos, etc. to make things
    clearer or brighter. What I don't do is use PhotoShop to distort the
    meaning of the photo, "insert" or "airbrush" things, etc.

    No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
     
    editor, Feb 28, 2006
    #4
  5. TopPhotoBlog

    Gizmo Guest

    A good photographer doesn't use need Photoshopping!!!!!!!
     
    Gizmo, Mar 2, 2006
    #5
  6. TopPhotoBlog

    Scott W Guest

    Really? So do you do darkroom work? Do you ever dodge or burn?

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 2, 2006
    #6
  7. TopPhotoBlog

    Colin D Guest

    That's a pretty bold statement you made there, and it demonstrates that
    you have no idea of what a good photographer, or good photography, is.
    FYI, the image ex-camera almost invariably needs after-work to present
    an optimum result.

    Every professional photog uses after-work on his images, whether
    produced optically, from scanned film images or digital images makes no
    difference. This after-work includes: dodging, burning, tonal
    correction (limited with optical printing), cropping, spotting or
    retouching(for optical prints and scanned negs), unsharp masking (hell
    of a job optically), color correction (also limited with optical
    printing), lens and chromatic aberration correction (digital images
    only), perspective correction (difficult optically, easy in Photoshop),
    and many other processes. Professional film images are almost without
    exception scanned into a digital format, then processed in Photoshop, as
    this provides much more flexibility than optical processes.

    I've probably wasted my time telling you this, given the vehemence of
    your post above, but you just might unlock your mind and learn
    something.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Mar 3, 2006
    #7
  8. TopPhotoBlog

    JL Booth Guest

    Gizmo, et. al.,

    The use of Photoshop or not, is neither a designation of a good
    photographer or a poor one. The use of Photoshop is a _tool choice_ -
    just like the use of different lenses, filters, lighting, film, tripod
    .... or even to use film or digital.

    I agree that the _use of Photoshop_ as an attempt to _improve_ a
    poorly made photo is a waste of time. However, as a user of the
    software since the version number was at 0.90, I have utilized it's
    power - and have even programmed my own plug-ins - to work on images
    that I wish to move into graphic design instead of straight-forward
    photographs.

    Another area that should be recognized - with the increase of digital
    photography: digital images have needs. Many digital photographs are a
    bit 'soft' in their raw (not referring here to RAW file format - but the
    straight-off-the-media condition) form. A minor _sharpening_ brings the
    image back to the initial sharpness _seen in the viewfinder_. This
    _need_ varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.

    RAW Format brings another point to this statement. When bringing a RAW
    file into a _finished-usable_ file (either as TIF or JPEG) the software
    used to _read_ the RAW file allows the image to be _tailor-made_; as you
    want it. Now - whether you do this in Photoshop, RawShooter, Digital
    Photo Pro, Bibble or Bibble Pro, Breeze, Digital Pro IV or other RAW
    enabled software supplied by a manufacturer or 3rd Party supplier, it
    is NOT manipulation of the photographic image. When you work in RAW you
    are actually creating a photographic image. What you did at the moment
    of enabling the shutter firing, was record data for future refinement.
    Utilizing these _refining tools_ is part and partial to making an image
    in the digital age. We no longer need to delve into the chemical-based
    darkroom. We need only to open the RAW software and _develop_ our
    image(s) on the computer screen. I have made 10's of thousands of
    negatives and prints in the _chemical-based darkroom_ and I choose the
    way I can do it now *HANDS DOWN* !

    To make such a broad statement as you have made, you are either _lacking
    knowledge of_ or _having experience with Photoshop_ - or you are
    thinking _through the verbalized biases of others_. A good
    photographer - or a great photographer - uses every tool at his or her
    disposal to produce the best interpretation of the subject they
    pre-visualized. Ansel Adams was, in any discussion of photography, one
    of the leading giants in both preparation and execution of the
    photographic image. He was also a profound pioneering leader in
    photographic experimentation. Ansel used EVERYTHING at his disposal to
    create the images he pre-visualized. What most people fail to realize
    about the photographic work of Ansel Adams - and other great
    photographers - is this ... they did enough of their homework in
    _planning the photo_ that they did not _need to use_ a lot of the
    _tools_ used, or _needed_ , by other people. What made them better was
    not the use or non-use of such tools, but their ability to PLAN A
    PHOTO: or as Ansel explained it, "The Moment of Truth":

    << "Cartier-Bresson calls this "The Decisive Moment." Here we have the
    full flower of intuition, the unconscious and the immediate
    visualization. The camera becomes a part of the total living human
    organism. This is no easy accomplishment, however: it is not accidental
    of casual. It is the product of hard work, continuous perception and
    evaluation, continual success and failure, and always patience and
    dedication.

    Contrast this with the austere approach of a T.H. O'Sullivan - with a
    large wet-plate camera poised for a western panorama, his darkroom tent
    set up near his camera, unruly mules impatiently awaiting the next trek,
    disaster to glass plates threatening at every turn of the trail.
    Beautiful images result - or can result - from any approach, provided
    the photographer _knows_ his objectives and can visualize his results.
    The mechanical differences are far less important than most realize."
    (Ansel Adams, "Camera and Lens - Basic Photo One". p. 19) >>

    Ansel Adams explains the validity of both purist and experimentalist in
    photography - not as _good vs bad_, but as _realizations of
    visualizations_ in his essay on "Purist versus Pictorialist"

    << "Edward Weston once said, "I don't care if you make a print on a
    bathmat - just so long as it is a good print!" The so-called
    pictorialist has been falsely accused of being what he is because his
    uses fuzzy techniques and tries to imitate the qualities of other art
    media. It should be clearly understood that the surface effects are
    secondary to the deep realizations. John Brook employs soft-focus
    techniques - anathema to the so-called purist - and yet his photographs
    have persuasive power and great aesthetic quality. If this is what he
    visualized and expresses with the full power of conviction and
    realization, he stands the equal of all the glossy 8x10 practitioners.
    Indeed, the glossy print can often reveal a dull mind and spirit."
    (Ansel Adams, "Camera and Lens - Basic Photo One". p.19) >>

    Now .. if you want to take photos with a _purist's_ mentality - that is
    fine. The art has room for all versions of HOW TO DO the art. Just be
    careful that you don't paint your comments with too wide a brush loaded
    with the wrong _color_ of paint.

    net500cg
    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NET500.CG
    J. Leslie Booth,/Owner /CiAS/
    | www.net500.com | |
    | Skype: net500cg | +1 765.252.0251 | |
    | Gizmo: ofieldstream | +1 203.404.7522 | |
    | Sip# +1 747.631.2639 |
    /"Know Ripples, Know Change. No Ripples, No Change."// /™
     
    JL Booth, Mar 3, 2006
    #8
  9. TopPhotoBlog

    JL Booth Guest

    Gizmo, et. al.,

    The use of Photoshop or not, is neither a designation of a good
    photographer or a poor one. The use of Photoshop is a _tool choice_ -
    just like the use of different lenses, filters, lighting, film, tripod
    .... or even to use film or digital.

    I agree that the _use of Photoshop_ as an attempt to _improve_ a
    poorly made photo is a waste of time. However, as a user of the
    software since the version number was at 0.90, I have utilized it's
    power - and have even programmed my own plug-ins - to work on images
    that I wish to move into graphic design instead of straight-forward
    photographs.

    Another area that should be recognized - with the increase of digital
    photography: digital images have needs. Many digital photographs are a
    bit 'soft' in their raw (not referring here to RAW file format - but the
    straight-off-the-media condition) form. A minor _sharpening_ brings the
    image back to the initial sharpness _seen in the viewfinder_. This
    _need_ varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.

    RAW Format brings another point to this statement. When bringing a RAW
    file into a _finished-usable_ file (either as TIF or JPEG) the software
    used to _read_ the RAW file allows the image to be _tailor-made_; as you
    want it. Now - whether you do this in Photoshop, RawShooter, Digital
    Photo Pro, Bibble or Bibble Pro, Breeze, Digital Pro IV or other RAW
    enabled software supplied by a manufacturer or 3rd Party supplier, it
    is NOT manipulation of the photographic image. When you work in RAW you
    are actually creating a photographic image. What you did at the moment
    of enabling the shutter firing, was record data for future refinement.
    Utilizing these _refining tools_ is part and partial to making an image
    in the digital age. We no longer need to delve into the chemical-based
    darkroom. We need only to open the RAW software and _develop_ our
    image(s) on the computer screen. I have made 10's of thousands of
    negatives and prints in the _chemical-based darkroom_ and I choose the
    way I can do it now *HANDS DOWN* !

    To make such a broad statement as you have made, you are either _lacking
    knowledge of_ or _having experience with Photoshop_ - or you are
    thinking _through the verbalized biases of others_. A good
    photographer - or a great photographer - uses every tool at his or her
    disposal to produce the best interpretation of the subject they
    pre-visualized. Ansel Adams was, in any discussion of photography, one
    of the leading giants in both preparation and execution of the
    photographic image. He was also a profound pioneering leader in
    photographic experimentation. Ansel used EVERYTHING at his disposal to
    create the images he pre-visualized. What most people fail to realize
    about the photographic work of Ansel Adams - and other great
    photographers - is this ... they did enough of their homework in
    _planning the photo_ that they did not _need to use_ a lot of the
    _tools_ used, or _needed_ , by other people. What made them better was
    not the use or non-use of such tools, but their ability to PLAN A
    PHOTO: or as Ansel explained it, "The Moment of Truth":

    << "Cartier-Bresson calls this "The Decisive Moment." Here we have the
    full flower of intuition, the unconscious and the immediate
    visualization. The camera becomes a part of the total living human
    organism. This is no easy accomplishment, however: it is not accidental
    of casual. It is the product of hard work, continuous perception and
    evaluation, continual success and failure, and always patience and
    dedication.

    Contrast this with the austere approach of a T.H. O'Sullivan - with a
    large wet-plate camera poised for a western panorama, his darkroom tent
    set up near his camera, unruly mules impatiently awaiting the next trek,
    disaster to glass plates threatening at every turn of the trail.
    Beautiful images result - or can result - from any approach, provided
    the photographer _knows_ his objectives and can visualize his results.
    The mechanical differences are far less important than most realize."
    (Ansel Adams, "Camera and Lens - Basic Photo One". p. 19) >>

    Ansel Adams explains the validity of both purist and experimentalist in
    photography - not as _good vs bad_, but as _realizations of
    visualizations_ in his essay on "Purist versus Pictorialist"

    << "Edward Weston once said, "I don't care if you make a print on a
    bathmat - just so long as it is a good print!" The so-called
    pictorialist has been falsely accused of being what he is because his
    uses fuzzy techniques and tries to imitate the qualities of other art
    media. It should be clearly understood that the surface effects are
    secondary to the deep realizations. John Brook employs soft-focus
    techniques - anathema to the so-called purist - and yet his photographs
    have persuasive power and great aesthetic quality. If this is what he
    visualized and expresses with the full power of conviction and
    realization, he stands the equal of all the glossy 8x10 practitioners.
    Indeed, the glossy print can often reveal a dull mind and spirit."
    (Ansel Adams, "Camera and Lens - Basic Photo One". p.19) >>

    Now .. if you want to take photos with a _purist's_ mentality - that is
    fine. The art has room for all versions of HOW TO DO the art. Just be
    careful that you don't paint your comments with too wide a brush loaded
    with the wrong _color_ of paint.

    net500cg
    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NET500.CG
    J. Leslie Booth,/Owner /CiAS/
    | www.net500.com | |
    | Skype: net500cg | +1 765.252.0251 | |
    | Gizmo: ofieldstream | +1 203.404.7522 | |
    | Sip# +1 747.631.2639 |
    /"Know Ripples, Know Change. No Ripples, No Change."// /™
     
    JL Booth, Mar 3, 2006
    #9
  10. TopPhotoBlog

    JL Booth Guest

    Gizmo, et. al.,

    The use of Photoshop or not, is neither a designation of a good
    photographer or a poor one. The use of Photoshop is a _tool choice_ -
    just like the use of different lenses, filters, lighting, film, tripod
    .... or even to use film or digital.

    I agree that the _use of Photoshop_ as an attempt to _improve_ a
    poorly made photo is a waste of time. However, as a user of the
    software since the version number was at 0.90, I have utilized it's
    power - and have even programmed my own plug-ins - to work on images
    that I wish to move into graphic design instead of straight-forward
    photographs.

    Another area that should be recognized - with the increase of digital
    photography: digital images have needs. Many digital photographs are a
    bit 'soft' in their raw (not referring here to RAW file format - but the
    straight-off-the-media condition) form. A minor _sharpening_ brings the
    image back to the initial sharpness _seen in the viewfinder_. This
    _need_ varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.

    RAW Format brings another point to this statement. When bringing a RAW
    file into a _finished-usable_ file (either as TIF or JPEG) the software
    used to _read_ the RAW file allows the image to be _tailor-made_; as you
    want it. Now - whether you do this in Photoshop, RawShooter, Digital
    Photo Pro, Bibble or Bibble Pro, Breeze, Digital Pro IV or other RAW
    enabled software supplied by a manufacturer or 3rd Party supplier, it
    is NOT manipulation of the photographic image. When you work in RAW you
    are actually creating a photographic image. What you did at the moment
    of enabling the shutter firing, was record data for future refinement.
    Utilizing these _refining tools_ is part and partial to making an image
    in the digital age. We no longer need to delve into the chemical-based
    darkroom. We need only to open the RAW software and _develop_ our
    image(s) on the computer screen. I have made 10's of thousands of
    negatives and prints in the _chemical-based darkroom_ and I choose the
    way I can do it now *HANDS DOWN* !

    To make such a broad statement as you have made, you are either _lacking
    knowledge of_ or _having experience with Photoshop_ - or you are
    thinking _through the verbalized biases of others_. A good
    photographer - or a great photographer - uses every tool at his or her
    disposal to produce the best interpretation of the subject they
    pre-visualized. Ansel Adams was, in any discussion of photography, one
    of the leading giants in both preparation and execution of the
    photographic image. He was also a profound pioneering leader in
    photographic experimentation. Ansel used EVERYTHING at his disposal to
    create the images he pre-visualized. What most people fail to realize
    about the photographic work of Ansel Adams - and other great
    photographers - is this ... they did enough of their homework in
    _planning the photo_ that they did not _need to use_ a lot of the
    _tools_ used, or _needed_ , by other people. What made them better was
    not the use or non-use of such tools, but their ability to PLAN A
    PHOTO: or as Ansel explained it, "The Moment of Truth":

    << "Cartier-Bresson calls this "The Decisive Moment." Here we have the
    full flower of intuition, the unconscious and the immediate
    visualization. The camera becomes a part of the total living human
    organism. This is no easy accomplishment, however: it is not accidental
    of casual. It is the product of hard work, continuous perception and
    evaluation, continual success and failure, and always patience and
    dedication.

    Contrast this with the austere approach of a T.H. O'Sullivan - with a
    large wet-plate camera poised for a western panorama, his darkroom tent
    set up near his camera, unruly mules impatiently awaiting the next trek,
    disaster to glass plates threatening at every turn of the trail.
    Beautiful images result - or can result - from any approach, provided
    the photographer _knows_ his objectives and can visualize his results.
    The mechanical differences are far less important than most realize."
    (Ansel Adams, "Camera and Lens - Basic Photo One". p. 19) >>

    Ansel Adams explains the validity of both purist and experimentalist in
    photography - not as _good vs bad_, but as _realizations of
    visualizations_ in his essay on "Purist versus Pictorialist"

    << "Edward Weston once said, "I don't care if you make a print on a
    bathmat - just so long as it is a good print!" The so-called
    pictorialist has been falsely accused of being what he is because his
    uses fuzzy techniques and tries to imitate the qualities of other art
    media. It should be clearly understood that the surface effects are
    secondary to the deep realizations. John Brook employs soft-focus
    techniques - anathema to the so-called purist - and yet his photographs
    have persuasive power and great aesthetic quality. If this is what he
    visualized and expresses with the full power of conviction and
    realization, he stands the equal of all the glossy 8x10 practitioners.
    Indeed, the glossy print can often reveal a dull mind and spirit."
    (Ansel Adams, "Camera and Lens - Basic Photo One". p.19) >>

    Now .. if you want to take photos with a _purist's_ mentality - that is
    fine. The art has room for all versions of HOW TO DO the art. Just be
    careful that you don't paint your comments with too wide a brush loaded
    with the wrong _color_ of paint.

    net500cg
    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NET500.CG
    J. Leslie Booth,/Owner /CiAS/
    | www.net500.com | |
    | Skype: net500cg | +1 765.252.0251 | |
    | Gizmo: ofieldstream | +1 203.404.7522 | |
    | Sip# +1 747.631.2639 |
    /"Know Ripples, Know Change. No Ripples, No Change."// /™
     
    JL Booth, Mar 3, 2006
    #10
  11. TopPhotoBlog

    JL Booth Guest

    Gizmo, et. al.,

    The use of Photoshop or not, is neither a designation of a good
    photographer or a poor one. The use of Photoshop is a _tool choice_ -
    just like the use of different lenses, filters, lighting, film, tripod
    .... or even to use film or digital.

    I agree that the _use of Photoshop_ as an attempt to _improve_ a
    poorly made photo is a waste of time. However, as a user of the
    software since the version number was at 0.90, I have utilized it's
    power - and have even programmed my own plug-ins - to work on images
    that I wish to move into graphic design instead of straight-forward
    photographs.

    Another area that should be recognized - with the increase of digital
    photography: digital images have needs. Many digital photographs are a
    bit 'soft' in their raw (not referring here to RAW file format - but the
    straight-off-the-media condition) form. A minor _sharpening_ brings the
    image back to the initial sharpness _seen in the viewfinder_. This
    _need_ varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.

    RAW Format brings another point to this statement. When bringing a RAW
    file into a _finished-usable_ file (either as TIF or JPEG) the software
    used to _read_ the RAW file allows the image to be _tailor-made_; as you
    want it. Now - whether you do this in Photoshop, RawShooter, Digital
    Photo Pro, Bibble or Bibble Pro, Breeze, Digital Pro IV or other RAW
    enabled software supplied by a manufacturer or 3rd Party supplier, it
    is NOT manipulation of the photographic image. When you work in RAW you
    are actually creating a photographic image. What you did at the moment
    of enabling the shutter firing, was record data for future refinement.
    Utilizing these _refining tools_ is part and partial to making an image
    in the digital age. We no longer need to delve into the chemical-based
    darkroom. We need only to open the RAW software and _develop_ our
    image(s) on the computer screen. I have made 10's of thousands of
    negatives and prints in the _chemical-based darkroom_ and I choose the
    way I can do it now *HANDS DOWN* !

    To make such a broad statement as you have made, you are either _lacking
    knowledge of_ or _having experience with Photoshop_ - or you are
    thinking _through the verbalized biases of others_. A good
    photographer - or a great photographer - uses every tool at his or her
    disposal to produce the best interpretation of the subject they
    pre-visualized. Ansel Adams was, in any discussion of photography, one
    of the leading giants in both preparation and execution of the
    photographic image. He was also a profound pioneering leader in
    photographic experimentation. Ansel used EVERYTHING at his disposal to
    create the images he pre-visualized. What most people fail to realize
    about the photographic work of Ansel Adams - and other great
    photographers - is this ... they did enough of their homework in
    _planning the photo_ that they did not _need to use_ a lot of the
    _tools_ used, or _needed_ , by other people. What made them better was
    not the use or non-use of such tools, but their ability to PLAN A
    PHOTO: or as Ansel explained it, "The Moment of Truth":

    << "Cartier-Bresson calls this "The Decisive Moment." Here we have the
    full flower of intuition, the unconscious and the immediate
    visualization. The camera becomes a part of the total living human
    organism. This is no easy accomplishment, however: it is not accidental
    of casual. It is the product of hard work, continuous perception and
    evaluation, continual success and failure, and always patience and
    dedication.

    Contrast this with the austere approach of a T.H. O'Sullivan - with a
    large wet-plate camera poised for a western panorama, his darkroom tent
    set up near his camera, unruly mules impatiently awaiting the next trek,
    disaster to glass plates threatening at every turn of the trail.
    Beautiful images result - or can result - from any approach, provided
    the photographer _knows_ his objectives and can visualize his results.
    The mechanical differences are far less important than most realize."
    (Ansel Adams, "Camera and Lens - Basic Photo One". p. 19) >>

    Ansel Adams explains the validity of both purist and experimentalist in
    photography - not as _good vs bad_, but as _realizations of
    visualizations_ in his essay on "Purist versus Pictorialist"

    << "Edward Weston once said, "I don't care if you make a print on a
    bathmat - just so long as it is a good print!" The so-called
    pictorialist has been falsely accused of being what he is because his
    uses fuzzy techniques and tries to imitate the qualities of other art
    media. It should be clearly understood that the surface effects are
    secondary to the deep realizations. John Brook employs soft-focus
    techniques - anathema to the so-called purist - and yet his photographs
    have persuasive power and great aesthetic quality. If this is what he
    visualized and expresses with the full power of conviction and
    realization, he stands the equal of all the glossy 8x10 practitioners.
    Indeed, the glossy print can often reveal a dull mind and spirit."
    (Ansel Adams, "Camera and Lens - Basic Photo One". p.19) >>

    Now .. if you want to take photos with a _purist's_ mentality - that is
    fine. The art has room for all versions of HOW TO DO the art. Just be
    careful that you don't paint your comments with too wide a brush loaded
    with the wrong _color_ of paint.

    net500cg
    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NET500.CG
    J. Leslie Booth,/Owner /CiAS/
    | www.net500.com | |
    | Skype: net500cg | +1 765.252.0251 | |
    | Gizmo: ofieldstream | +1 203.404.7522 | |
    | Sip# +1 747.631.2639 |
    /"Know Ripples, Know Change. No Ripples, No Change."// /™
     
    JL Booth, Mar 3, 2006
    #11
  12. TopPhotoBlog

    Colin D Guest

    Problem posting? {:)

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Mar 3, 2006
    #12
  13. TopPhotoBlog

    JL Booth Guest

    Colin ... actually, yes. I only clicked SEND on time - but I see the
    'gremlins' were over zealous. I guess the photo gods agreed and allowed
    special emphasis ... ": )))

    les

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NET500.CG
    J. Leslie Booth,/Owner /CiAS/
    | www.net500.com | |
    | Skype: net500cg | +1 765.252.0251 | |
    | Gizmo: ofieldstream | +1 203.404.7522 | |
    | Sip# +1 747.631.2639 |
    /"Know Ripples, Know Change. No Ripples, No Change."// /™
     
    JL Booth, Mar 5, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.