Do You Photoshop?

**JAS_Photo** · 03-27-2009, 01:25 AM

To me photography is as much about what you leave out as what you put in. Photoshop can be regarded as the modern development method. When you take a photograph with film, dodging or burning in areas to make the photo look better are common and no one says well, I had to dodge that corner and burn in the face a little. True, photos can be highly manipulated in photoshop but they could be with film as well.

Still, the photographer can manipulate a photo before it ever goes to photoshop with the use of exclusion, angles and lighting.

The famous photo here by W. Eugene Smith uses lighting to convey his message in a very poignant way.
Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath, Minamata, 1972 Because the photographer wanted to evoke feelings of shock, outrage and sympathy does that make it a lie? I don't think so but he did have a specific message to convey and his use of lighting brings his message home in a very effective way.

Here is a photo I took of my neighbourhood this winter. Do I live in the midst of a busy city or on an acreage surrounded by beautiful trees? The only manipulation this photo underwent was achieved in camera by what I chose to photograph and what I chose to leave out.

**BlueX** · 03-27-2009, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by AcadieLibre

... I just think maybe it is time to differentiate between a photograph and computer generated art from a photographic image.

I'm sorry to say, AL, but any pic taken with a digital camera was generated by a computer. Your dslr has processors in it that, among other things, process the image for sharpening, noise reduction, color rendering, wb, etc... And if you shoot it raw, a computer also puts out the final image. Newer camera are getting more and more sophisticated, either by automatically stitching a panorama or by extending its dynamic range. Where would the line be drawn?

I think I understand your point of view. Capturing images with a camera is and art that requires skill. But wouldn't a good photographer who takes extra time and care to make their picture better by setting up lights, dressing and prepping this subjects to look their best, removing unwanted distractions, carefully composing, choosing the best light, etc..., want to go the extra step to make a better photograph? (And what about dust on the sensor?)

I look at digital photography as "leveling the playing field" for me. I can now make good images with the modest kit I own. I cannot afford to shoot and develop hundreds of pictures to see my results. I cannot afford fast glass and shoot in low light with fast shutter speeds. I cannot buy a long lens and fill the frame with wild life. I do not have to opportunity to shoot everything during the golden hours. And I sure as hell make tons of mistakes while learning. I know it might be the wrong way to think about this, but pp is a tool I use to compensate for the "inadequacies" I have with other aspects of photography. This might be where the problem lies, but in the end, all I am after is a good image. One that says to the viewer what I hope to convey through it.

This is a good discussion. I know there are many other views and opinions out there.

**Ben H** · 03-27-2009, 09:58 AM

It's all using tools to create art. Whether that tool is an artificial light source, the camera, digital processing in camera, or digital processing of the file afterwards (or whatever) doesn't matter to me.

If a photo makes a "these tools are on my OK to use list, and these tools I don't wish to use" distinction is up to them.

Question: Let's say you shot an image you loved, no pp, and let's say a magazine wanted to licence it for use in print - but they say - there's a little bit too much noise in the image for us to use.

Would you say - "Fine, I'll improve that with PP" and deliver a denoised version, would you say "Oh well, it's not good enough for you then, no sale" or would you say "Well, I refuse to touch the digital file personally, so you'll have to license the image but process it yourself."

**AcadieLibre** · 03-27-2009, 02:02 PM

I am not saying it is wrong, but if an editor says my photo is too noisy what was I doing sending it in anyway, so for me it is not an issue, just love all the responses. What I take with my camera should fall within the limits of that camera, it is how you become a good photographer. I know I have some nice glass and couple of decent bodies but I worked hard to get it, when I was shooting with my Z10 kodak P&S I worked with in that cameras limitations, I could have PS'd photos to get what the camera would not normally give me. I found the limitations of it and pushed them and two prints I have in one gallery are from that camera and have sold several all without computer added manipulation.

The well you used a computer aided camera, then loaded to a computer does not equate with taking that image and PS'ing to the point it is not longer a photograph. It is just the replacement for the chemical reactions of film. Would be like equating film photography and being nothing but chemistry, that is oversimplification of what photography is. Of it is done with chemicals or with a computer the same simple rules in what a photograph is should apply. I am not saying you can't do any, I view my work as a photographer and that is to stay as true to what the camera took as much as possible.

The simplest way to make my point, if you are a photographer you could be given a Polaroid Camera where is just spit out the photo at you. Your photographs should be as good although within the limitations of that camera as you are with 7 grand body and lens. Are your photos good or do they need that expensive equipment and computer programs to get a good photo? That is the difference between a photographer and a computer manipulated image maker.

**kat** · 03-27-2009, 02:29 PM

I don't think there is a concrete answer to this. It's all about how you feel.

I agree with both sides and then I think it comes down to what you want to present.

I use photoshop to get my selective color shots. To get dreaded pimples off my teenaged nephew/neice. And as of lately stretch marks from a pregnant woman (although I thought they should stay). I personally can't do much more. I can't add anything..I dont' know how. And I really don't want to know how.

I love to get a great shot. Maybe a bit of dodging/burning/B&W to help it out but besides that..I want it left alone. I feel great when that is all I need to do to it. But now if I gave the camera to my husband, he'd take a photo and go to town with it. He loves being creative past that point. He also reconizes that past a certain point the photo isn't a photo anymore but a created image in photoshop. Maybe the problem lies on "Where is that point?"

I think I'm just talking in circles now. LOL..either way. I agree with both sides..

**BlueX** · 03-27-2009, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by kat

... Maybe the problem lies on "Where is that point?"

This is exactly the question here. It is because of this that I don't think there is a clear cut, "end all" answer.

We can all look at a picture that has been over ps'ed and say it is no longer a photograph, but how far back from that extreme does the line lie? Is simple wb and color correction ok? How about touch-ups? Removing of telephone poles? I see it as manipulation whether it is in the camera, adding filters, adding flash or in the computer.

It is true that a great photographer is able to use the limitation of his or her camera to the fullest, no matter what camera they have in their hands. But if this is so true, why are there differentiations between "pro" and "amateur" cameras? Why are all the pros shooting with mutli-thousand dollar kits? Because a great photographer makes the most of the tools (and techniques) at hand. (And pp is a tool.)

I hope I don't come off as pro-photochop. I try very hard to "get it right in the camera" first because "crap-in-crap-out." And by no means am I a great photographer.

This debate is thrilling...

**AcadieLibre** · 03-27-2009, 04:39 PM

Just felt like the forum was losing some edge, and one of those discussions that no one really gets offended, it is all just subjective. Outside of that I am just right, lmao.

**Marko** · 03-27-2009, 05:25 PM

This is an interesting discussion as always.

I feel bad for the 'kids'. People that are just starting to get into digital photography now. They have to deal with all the baggage of the past...or ignore all that baggage. A.L you and I share very similar views on this....but we are old timers on this issue....and our point of view is being less and less shared.

http://www.masters-of-photography.co..._minamata.html

There was always manipulation EVEN, YES EVEN Smith's image that Raiven attached, THAT very image has been bleached. Yup bleached! AFTER it was printed to make the whites whiter, Smith and many photographers of his time bleached images and manipulated them in other ways with different chemicals.

You can imagine the dismay of purist photographers of that time.

So there was always manipulation. It's just that now it's manipulation through machine, manipulation that we could never do without the 'machine'.

But the machine ain't goin' nowhere.....which means that the rules are changing and opinions are changing, and young people are so happy about what they can do and old-skoolers skoff at them brazenly.

So at the end of the day individual photographers will decide how much manipulation is too much....and as the years pass, like sands through the hourglass.....so will the days of our lives

**AcadieLibre** · 03-27-2009, 07:10 PM

I think it is a very important topic, why I bring it up. We just need to be careful not lose focus on what are the fundamentals of photography and that is taking a good photo right out of the camera. I understood when I finally went digital I was no longer the purest I once was either. PS'ing is going to happen, I just think it is at forums like this that you can give the new photographers some perspective, that not getting perfect shots and living with it is not a bad way to do photography. I strive to get home and pull the photos off the camera and have to nothing at all, I am like everyone else I am not always successful. I just try much harder the next time. Most bands I shoot I will get one shot at them and thats it, so when I take those photos I better know what I am doing behind my camera because PS can not fix everything and once the chance passes you might not get second chance, so learn to take a good photo then if you decide you like the PS side of it great, just learn to take a photograph first.