Is photoshop still photography?

[archism]

How photography remains photography if photoshop or any kind of workshop is used afterwards on the picture?

The point is easy, why not create pictures with photoshop instead of taking them?

How does the photographer still think that it is the picture he took if he corrects it on the computer?

I have no real opinion on this issue.

On the one hand, the work on photoshop truly is a sensitive work which requires photograph skills and that
the eyes of the photographer is still talking. Moreover, when pictures were printed before digital occured there were
already many possibilities to play with the picture thanks to different effects.

On the other hand, I still believe in the decisive moment, the idea of the pure photo taken at the right second, the right place
under the right circumstances and a zest of chance.


Anyway I'm sure you all have interesting points to make. And I must say that being on TE makes me happy to share a passion
and I really enjoy receiving comments, workshops....

Long life to photography on TE.

Thanks,

Arthur

[THY]

This is an interesting topic.
When I taking photoshop lesson, my friends who ommence to learn techniques of photo taking comment on me.
However, I still think that photoshop is a good assistant in remedial to photos of minor defects.
Photo taking techniques is essntial. Photoshop is a good means in rescue of undesire defects.
Hope you can share my views.

THY

[Keitht]

Even with film there was often manipulation at the printing stage. Probably the purest form of photography is producing transparencies as there generally show the image exactly as it was taken in camera.
From a personal point of view I see no problem with applying colour correction etc to return the image to what was seen / remembered at the time of taking. When things are removed from, or added to, an image I think it changes from being a photograph in the pure sense to an artwork.

[jinju]

To me this post makes no sense.

1. Digital photography is designed to be worked on later. Some basic things have to be done. Even perfectly focused image has to be sharpened in photoshop afterwards. I hear the 5D is really sharp but with the 20D a bit of sharpening is a must.

2. Photos have to be resized to be put on the web.

3. Everything in photoshop is taken right out of the darkroom. Burning, dodging, cropping, cloning even, adjustment of colors, levels, these are all old photographic techniques done in darkrooms for decades.

The point tyat makes no sense to me is this. Well actually several

------------------------------------------------------------------
why not create pictures with photoshop instead of taking them?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably because creating photos in photoshop is impossible. Wheres your logic?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does the photographer still think that it is the picture he took if he corrects it on the computer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably because it IS a photo that was taken. Replace the word computer with darkroom. See your lack of logic?

--------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, I still believe in the decisive moment, the idea of the pure photo taken at the right second, the right place
under the right circumstances and a zest of chance.
-------------------------------------------
And photoshop affects this how exactly?

[Marinaio]

Photography is a form of of art, i.e. a subjective way to see the word and to transfer this subjectivity to other persons. Photoshop, therefore, is only an instrument to perform this emotions trasnsferring.
The film is limited in manipulation, and the slide is more limited, but with the digital photography these limitations are dropped, therefore you can modifiy the simple "reality" to something different. Not many months ago a link has been posted here, where a simple photo of a truck in a barren land was trasformed in the advertising of a well know drink, adding lights of the truck, Father Christmas, smow and so on. This is photograpy? I do not know, but if you use a similar technique to transfer your sensations instead of to make adevrtising, you are trying a form of art.

Claudio

[francbois]

On the whole I agree with (and am quite relieved thanks to) Rafal's jointing of the question. But let's not deny any sense to his concern, let alone to his mind. It's plain that he meant mainly all the really artificial aspect, or to put it otherwise (I'm afraid of Rafal's bold retaliations :) the adding of artifacts, as opposed to the erasing of those, or other mendings of the same kind, which do not alter the original thing.
In the meanwhilst discussion on the "flawed pics" topic has been launched, by Daniel W., a photofiltered "collision" of two seagulls, which he took from Gérard (Gelor). When PhotoShop is used to create an artwork of the like I don't see why it should land on TE. Anyway most of them don't actually see the sunlight for long here. Because there's no sunlight on these. Now I shut up, I'm not the one to force my lack of experience on you all, so, do U agree? And please don't let that topic where it is, there's some logic to PP the PP matter. Cheers :) F'

[francbois]

On the whole I agree with (and am quite relieved thanks to) Rafal's jointing of the question. But let's not deny any sense to Arthur's concern, let alone to his mind. It's plain that he meant mainly all the really artificial aspect, or to put it otherwise (I'm afraid of Rafal's bold retaliations :) the adding of artifacts, as opposed to the erasing of those, or other mendings of the same kind, which do not alter the original thing.
In the meanwhilst discussion on the "flawed pics" topic has been launched, by Daniel W., a photofiltered "collision" of two seagulls, which he took from Gérard (Gelor). When PhotoShop is used to create an artwork of the like I don't see why it should land on TE. Anyway most of them don't actually see the sunlight for long here. Because there's no sunlight on these. Now I shut up, I'm not the one to force my lack of experience on you all, so, do U agree? And please don't let that topic where it is, there's some logic to PP the PP matter. Cheers :) F'

[oochappan]

On the level of adding the line is impossible to draw ...
F.i.
HDR a technique of adding differant exposed shots of the same scene
Adding grains
Adding black or white or a color or toning

where is the line like that example of compilation of several shots in one for publicity or compiling several shots to pano.

Matter of personal choice to go in certain degree away from the reality or realisme or total artificial approach.

Matter of likings, you could like realisme or being somewhere in between with a fine tuned shot that still relates to reality but has that tiny personal tuning or liking the total artificial that could be so much more sensational.

You don't have to choose, you choose along your preference but each photo will have their level of art touch.

up to you to go for realisme, fine tuning or sensational postprocessing or the combination as long you find it art with your personal sensivity.

[oochappan]

one addition

we are on TE: learning about the world

when this element of 'learning about the world' falls away totally in a photo and is replaced in the note and it is a fine piece of art ... the question rises then: how far can TE tend to TL on the level of photo-content ? Lucky the margin is set very large at TE ....

[Keitht]

"we are on TE: learning about the world

when this element of 'learning about the world' falls away totally in a photo and is replaced in the note and it is a fine piece of art ... the question rises then: how far can TE tend to TL on the level of photo-content ? Lucky the margin is set very large at TE ...."

The Terms of Service of TE expressly forbid excessive post processing so a 'fine piece of art' would break that rule.

[francbois]

Since the ToS are clear on the subject, and even clear-cut to speak clear and concise, it is not our role to be the watchdogs of whether the boundaries of TE have been crossed. I personnally try to comment a picture I'm sure is bound to be cut-off as fast and furious as I can...lol
Both approaches, relevance to the "worldliness", as opposed to PP whims, and to the art of photography, and not of collage, are symmetrical. But there are tools in PhotoShop that can, I think, be absolutely considered as "fine pieces of art", to reuse the expression in the same context as that in which I quote it. These are cloning, mixing elements from different photos (sorry I only know the French nomenclature :)...and all the arty bizkit, to sum up.
Those should be indulged in with extreme caution in critical attempts to save a very good picture, surgical wise, etc. But not compulsorily at all. It's also a matter of respect for your own work. Improvement is taking one's errors upon oneself... isn't it?
Did I say anything going forward...? (:D!!!

[oochappan]

I rather try to be practical, the margin is very large ...

Do you think that changing colors of a shot is heavy PP, then even a turn to sepia would already not fit anymore ...

An <a target="_blank" href="http://www.trekearth.com/workshops/445177/photo70977.htm">example</a>, playing around with colors ... compare with original.

It is all a matter of personal choice, no ?

[kinginexile]

I think you are coming down a bit hard on him, Rafal, this is a very interesting topic, and even crucial to the future of photography, since analog processing will just about disappear (even analog B&W will-are?- be scanned and digitally re-processed/edited). Just the demographics of it signal a change in the medium: How many of us would have woken up to making photography more than a seasonal, and tightly budgeted, pastime (while on vacation), let alone discover it, without the DSLR revolution? If we avoid discussing it in right or wrong, all or nothing terms, it is obvious who and how we use the medium, incl the new "darkroom" softwares, is a relevant topic.

I can think of a member who does, an understatement, excellent job on his pictures (to start, they are not that bad, that matters still!), thru PS, to the point that their "beauty", even "PS-exarcebated emotion" (working on the eyes, for ex.) over-rides/kills the instant and for me emotion at the moment he/she took them. It works fabulously for some topics, fashion for ex., and less with others, where people are bound to be impressed, unknowingly for many, with the expressiveness from his PS skills, rather than his ability to catch Life, or raw instant/emotion in a subject.

But my opinion is that sooner or later, if we come out of the internet woodwork, everyone will be appraised for everything he/she is doing, which means also re-appraised on the down side for aspects of his or her works maybe. One can over-work a pix by design and make it outstandingly successful, but if it is part of one's technical make-up to do a 50% cam/50% PS as a basis, it will also be how people define or know about your art, at least if they care, which at least, the profession will.

I am sure for such photographer, there is eventually no pretense to present the subject as he saw it, but rather as he wishes it and actually, DESIGNS it. For him or her, the importance of PS in his photography will introduce the danger of using formulas, stiffened, predictable stylisation, which are not an indication of an artistic, individual personalty at work, but maybe a good, skilful designer.

H

PS: If this memebr recognizes him/herself, I want to say that his pre-PS photography is one we can take many lessons from. Not putting down anyone, but I call a cat a cat. Design or emotion, one has to choose sometimes.

[MayaG]

That is a very interesting point, Arthur.

I have had a pleasure to meet the director (chairman) of Photographic Society in my country (Serbia), a great photographer himself. I posed the very same question: "Where exactly is the limit until we can go with any editing work, and it could be called 'photography'?"

He smiled and said: "There are no limits".

[francbois]

So, according to him it's seems the art of visual representation has reached a U-turn: when photography appeared there had to be a long, and rather sad compromise: many photographers were compelled by dull-minded fanatics to paint up their faithfully heretic pictures, so that it could be considered neither photo nor painting... but it contented some as a buffer, a pathetic safeguard of a threatened art.
Are we to err for even longer experimenting with matrix pictures before the yearning for true expression takes us back to... a compromise?
That's my point: all PP must be an overall scheme, changes must keep <i>a balance</i>. But, OK, I'm not experienced in PP experimenting. Cheers all! F'

[archism]

Ok Rafal,
You have your opinion, I respect that.
But not being able of expressing your opinion other than in ridiculously tough way is pretty weak! It will not make your argument stronger!

If my point makes no sense, fair enough. But you seem interested enough to write one the longest post on this issue.
Moreover, I am not trying to have fun with a ridiculous question.
I can see from your very nice pictures that you like photography, then read Cartier-Bresson and you will understand the point about photoshop.

By the way, if i am asking what about creating pictures with photoshop, this is called a rhetorical effect. You can take things other than in the 1st degree, I know like you that we cannot create pictures with photoshop, thanks for your concern though! I was just trying to insist on to what extent work on pictures lead.

Anyway, thanks for your comments.
I will try to get back soon on this issue.

I must say meanwhile that I most understand how photoshop does not affect that much photography.

Thanks
Regards

Arthur

[pasternak]

Yes, Maya (or Marija?:), there are no limits to the art of photography, as to any art, the chairman of your photographic society is absolutely right. An art that limits itself in whatever way is deemed to die very soon. But the thing is, photography is a special kind of art, in that it probably deals with reality more than any other art does, by definition. And if photography is to continue dealing with reality (otherwise it will not be photography anymore, it will become something else, call it photoshop-graphy if you like:), the photographer must look very carefully, when digging into the digital processing, if the reality doesn't suffer. This is the whole point IMHO. Especially on TE, where the mission is to learn about the world through photography (in contrast to TL, where the mission is precisely the opposite). So I guess the motto of the day is: PROTECT REALITY!!!

;))

[MayaG]

Marija or Maya, no limits about that as well ;))

What he meant is - OFFICIALLY, there are no limits anymore. Whether a photographer chooses to present his work realistically or in any other way is up to him alone. Now, about what TE appreciates is another story - I myself don't see why I shouldn't learn about the world from a photo that is a bit more PPed as usual? Unless, of course, somebody tries to do a montage ;) In general, my own taste (up to now) is to admire a photograph that conveys a special mood (and moment) without too much editing later and still with good result (what is 'good' though is relative, but there are certain standards). However, if a personal touch is added in PS, I like it as well...because I like to learn about people - and that includes all of you, photographers.

[ALSOM]

Arthur,

A photo is not only shapes, colors, or any features you can easily create and design with any PP tools. A photo is more than that: it's a placeholder for: a place you enjyed, specific moments of your life, people you share time with and of course ..... a piece of yourself. I can hardly think that can create the same thing with any PP tools.

PP tools are ... tools not cameras ... They are tools to beautify & improve your photos if necessary to reflect the reality(*). Like any tool, if it is properly used, you can do marvels to deliver what you want (you can find many examples on TE), and in the contrary you completely destroy a photo (you can find many examples on TE).

In addition to this, when you have to show you photo on the Web, I think there are minimum processing to consider. There is nothing wrong not to do it though.

(*) Reality & photo is a long debate: i am not sure i'm capturing the reality when pressing the shutter speed & i'm not even sure that what i'm seeing is reality ... and for sure different from my neighbourh ;o).

Just enjoy photography with or w/o PP !
Alain -

[Homerhomer]

Arthur, I think the whole debate of photography versus photoshop is simply because the availabilty of post processing software and relative ease of use (filters etc) as oppose to real darkroom processing.
This is what many have done before:
take the picture
take the film out
go to the store and develop it
get the prints
look at them
the end.

In digital age this would be an equivalent of:
take the picture
take the memory card out
stick it in the printer
get the print
look at them
the end.

Now many of us would take it to the next step, load image on the computer and play with them, be it levels, colours, sharpening, bw conversion, filter and whatever else you can think of.

This would be an equivalent of a person developing their own negatives and spending hours in the darkroom just to get the exact result they want, and not just a flimsy print from the local drug store.

Is there a difference? Not for me. Two things however have changed, the tools and the percentage of poeple who take greater care in achieving the result they want. Don;t know what it would be, but let's say only 20% of photography hobbysts would develop their own prints, while now 80% put it through some digital processing.

Peter

[Homerhomer]

PP tools are ... tools not cameras ... They are tools to beautify & improve your photos if necessary to reflect the reality(*).
================================================== =======
why Alain, why reflection of reality????????????????????????????
In many cases yes, but in others it maybe a reflection of.... well of just about anything, not looking very far for examples many of your photos , IMO, have very little do to with reality.;-)
Peter

[Homerhomer]

Photography is a form of of art, i.e. a subjective way to see the word and to transfer this subjectivity to other persons. Photoshop, therefore, is only an instrument to perform this emotions trasnsferring.
=============================
Hear Hear, fully agree.
Peter

[Homerhomer]

That's my point: all PP must be an overall scheme, changes must keep a balance.
================================================== =================
Why????
Why anything "must" in an art form?
Peter

[kinginexile]

Totally agree with your premises, Peter, and yet, we assume that the change is about people bringing their film to a shop now processing them at home. But I actually think that it may very well bring a new esthetic in photography, where people skilled in Pshop (designers as much as photographers, for ex.) may lessen the appreciation of skills in simple photography of others (already that thread about HCB's bike in the photography forum shows some people think it's technically sub-par, even if philistines, they are part of a new "digitalized" public for photography being heard where before they'd never join even a photo-club) who don't tweak that much around their pix with Pshop.

Put simply, should photographers acquire very good Pshop skills that allow substantial "beautifying" of the image. And at which point is the new image fidel to the moment it was taken, or fitting a new standard of exacting and process-pushing against which it will be appraised.

[ALSOM]

Peter

you did not see my comments following the (*) ;o):
============
(*) Reality & photo is a long debate: i am not sure i'm capturing the reality when pressing the shutter speed & i'm not even sure that what i'm seeing is reality ... and for sure different from my neighbourh ;o) ...
============

I think the majority of photog wish to capture the reality, well something close to it or what we think we think is reality ... and in other cases it's reflection of what you would derive from reality and .... yourself :o) !

[THY]

Dear Jinju,

I agree with you.
Your feedback to each point is vivid and supported.
"these are all old photographic techniques done in darkrooms for decades." and now we did it in computer in lieu, why not?
Photoshould be used to reflected what you have seen in the spot. If it has not been abused but for rectification of defects, why not?

THY

[adam_k]

For me this subject looks like that:

- in case of documental photography usage of PS is limited (general adjustments concerning the whole image: sharpening, saturation, contrast, change to b&w etc.)

- in case of other forms of photography there are no limits - it's up to author's creativity

[stevesieren]

Did Ansel Adams ever MANIPULATE anything?

I you don't have an eye for compostition photoshop can not make up for it!

[jinju]

yes he did. Adams was known for his aggressive postprocessing.

"You don't take a photograph, you make it."
- Ansel Adams

Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.
- Ansel Adams

[kinginexile]

the negative is the score, the print is the performance"

Ansel Adams
Photographer AND pianist.

[jinju]

Ansel Adams was probably the worst name to bring up if you are arguing against postprocessing. Sheesh.

[drm]

Before we can answer whether Photoshop (or The Gimp) is photography, we should ask ourselves what we mean by 'photography'. If we're concerned about the faithfulness of the photographic image to the 'real' image, then we're in trouble already. A photograph is a very subjective image, with a unique point of view, altered light and altered colour. It is, in addition, a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, produced by an imperfect machine. Anything but faithful. At the same time, it is like a verbal text, intended for some purposes, interpreted in many possible ways. No image-manipulation software can change that. It will be still be a text. The photographer will see it in ways which are almost certainly different from other viewers' perceptions of it. Playing with levels, curves, saturation, sharpness, etc. won't change a thing, really, in the relationship between photographer, photograph and viewer. In my view.