Has photoshop killed photography or made it

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 gethin_allen 23 Dec 2014
As the title suggests really. I've just been looking through the lemmings "best photo of the year" thread and among the photos there are a lot of what I can only call artistic images rather than photos as they bear no resemblance to anything that anyone could see with the naked eye if they were standing next to the camera.

My idea of photography is to capture the moment as it was so that the viewer can experience what it was like for the photographer or the subject. Not saying that there is no merit in producing images that have been heavily processed through photoshop with merged exposures and HDR but it's not like painting something.

And saying this, I do like really abstract stuff that isn't trying to represent a scene and in my opinion be something it's not.

Anyone agree
 Fraser 23 Dec 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

You are Robert Durran and I claim my £5!

http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=596910&v=1#x7874446
 ChrisJD 23 Dec 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

Not again - Yawns!

This has been done to death.
1
 Mal Grey 23 Dec 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

Quite surprised you say this, as I thought almost all the photos were relatively untouched. Generally I tend to prefer "realism", and sometimes "doctoring" just looks fake.

However, I actually thought the strongest image was Brian's wonderful Wave, which is an obviously artistic representation that really gets over the power of nature. Note I used the word IMAGE deliberately here. Its still a photo, but has perhaps moved into a different category. His other shots are very good, and much more conventional.

From my own point of view, I prefer to take more natural looking images, and don't really "photoshop" them much (or know how to!).

I like to view both.



OP gethin_allen 23 Dec 2014
In reply to ChrisJD:

> Not again - Yawns!

> This has been done to death.

I did search for "photoshop" on the forums and didn't see anything.
OP gethin_allen 23 Dec 2014
In reply to Fraser:

Nope, afraid not. keep hunting for your £5.
 ChrisJD 23 Dec 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

Search for Robert Durran, lol
 SteveD 23 Dec 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:
Photographs have always been 'doctored' in the days of B&W photography it was common practice to dodge and burn in for emphasis or correction, or to choose a film that was deliberately hard or soft for effect.

I can now do things in minutes that used to take hours or days in the darkroom.

For Slides Ektachrome had a completely different look and feel to Kodachrome, you chose your stock accordingly.

Look at any Ansel Adams landscape for examples of photographs that are striking but not necessarily a true reproduction of the scene.

SteveD
 The Pylon King 23 Dec 2014
In reply to SteveD:

yeah and filters.
 Ramblin dave 23 Dec 2014
In reply to Mal Grey:

> Quite surprised you say this, as I thought almost all the photos were relatively untouched. Generally I tend to prefer "realism", and sometimes "doctoring" just looks fake.

> I like to view both.

Yeah, that's about where I stand. I don't think "honesty" is that important unless you're using a photo as evidence of something, but I do normally like photos that resonate - ones where you can almost feel the snow under your feet and the wind on your face or whatever - and quite a few photos I see on here seem to have been post-processed until they lose that sort of realism and become something that's more striking and dramatic but ultimately plastic and (to me) unengaging.

Obviously there's lots of post-processing that doesn't end up with that sort of bad-cgi effect, though, and I'm not dogmatic about it even if it does...
 Lord_ash2000 23 Dec 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

> ...they bear no resemblance to anything that anyone could see with the naked eye if they were standing next to the camera.

So I assume you wright off all black and white photographs as they look nothing like that you'd see with eye?
OP gethin_allen 23 Dec 2014
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> So I assume you wright off all black and white photographs as they look nothing like that you'd see with eye?

You put it like that and it makes me think what it is that makes these things so unnatural, I guess it's more the relativity between parts of the photo, ie. In a B+W photo all parts of the photo are equally exposed and depicted is what you would be able to see if you were viewing in B+W, whereas in effects like HDR where areas are exposed differently of in shopped photos there are parts of the photo that just wouldn't be depicted in any way without the digital jiggery pokery
 Solaris 23 Dec 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

Having debated this one in the past, and having had some interesting off-line discussions with Robert Durran (who is not an obtuse ignoramus, as some people seem to think), I'm not going to get into this one now.

However (!), to take just one example, if the person who posted this image on the other thread wanted to print and frame it for their own pleasure, I reckon taking the fences out of it would improve it. https://www.flickr.com/photos/120461213@N05/14186120930/

 Fraser 23 Dec 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

> In a B+W photo all parts of the photo are equally exposed and depicted is what you would be able to see if you were viewing in B+W, whereas in effects like HDR where areas are exposed differently of in shopped photos there are parts of the photo that just wouldn't be depicted in any way without the digital jiggery pokery.

Two points:

1) you do realise you can 'HDR' in B&W too don't you?
2) this was all discussed on the thread I linked to further up this one. To summarise: the human eye is more dynamic at perceiving different levels of brightness, instantly. A still photo just doesn't have that same dynamic range.

 Charlie Noakes 23 Dec 2014
In reply to Solaris:

Ah yes that'd be mine. I agree it would be a better picture without them there. I had a go at trying to clone out some of the fencing to tidy it up but quickly gave up. I couldn't help feeling like it would be cheating (and my photoshop skills were lacking!)
 Tom Valentine 23 Dec 2014
In reply to SteveD:

Not everyone doctored their photos. That's a big assumption on your part.

If you mean "Everyone who was successful and famous" doctored their photos, then I wouldn't be able to deny it, even if I hoped it wasn't true.
 Russell Lovett 23 Dec 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:
Take a look at the votes given for shots that have been shall we say slightly enhanced, people defonatly seem to like them more. Not adverse to a bit of enhancement myself, but do try to keep it to a minimum and get every thing as perfect as possible in camara first.
 Solaris 23 Dec 2014
In reply to Charlie Noakes:

> I couldn't help feeling like it would be cheating (and my photoshop skills were lacking!)

I know *exactly* what you mean!!
 tehmarks 24 Dec 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

To me, photography is all about communicating something; a photograph which doesn't say anything is boring. If using a technique which creates results that the eye wouldn't see helps tell the story, and it's not obscene and gratuitous, then I don't see the problem.

As an extreme example, motion blur is not a natural phenomenon but is very commonly used to suggest movement - the lack of it in a photo with a fast-moving object would often be confusing. Similarly with long exposures suggesting the passing of time - not something that can be communicated if we limited ourselves to 'realistic' techniques.

I don't understand the fascination with limiting the options available to you because they're not realistic - to me it seems a bit like limiting yourself to writing a novel using only words with eight letters or less.
In reply to gethin_allen:
> My idea of photography is to capture the moment as it was so that the viewer can experience what it was like for the photographer or the subject.

You are the Pope, and I claim my $5.00

Michelangelo: It works, mate!

Pope: Works?

Michelangelo: Yeah! It looks great! The fat one balances the two skinny ones.

Pope: There was only one Redeemer!

Michelangelo: Ah, I know that, we all know that, what about a bit of artistic license?

Pope: Well one Messiah is what I want!

Michelangelo: I'll tell you what you want, mate! You want a bloody photographer! That's you want. Not a bloody creative artist to crease you up...

Pope: I'll tell you what I want! I want a last supper with one Christ, twelve disciples, no kangaroos, no trampoline acts, by Thursday lunch, or you don't get paid!

Michelangelo: Bloody fascist!

Pope: Look! I'm the bloody pope, I am! May not know much about art, but I know what I like!
Post edited at 01:48
In reply to gethin_allen:
The thing with HDR is that it does replicate what your brain 'Photoshops' the scene you are viewing. when we look at scenes with bright highlights and dark shadows, our eyes wander throughout the scene and our brain constructs an image which includes shadow and highlight detail that cameras, up util recently, would never have been able to capture. So HDR does more properly replicate what you see.

 tehmarks 26 Dec 2014
In reply to blackmountainbiker:

Of course, bad HDR just results in a drab, lifeless image with no contrast.
 SteveD 26 Dec 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:
> Not everyone doctored their photos. That's a big assumption on your part.

> If you mean "Everyone who was successful and famous" doctored their photos, then I wouldn't be able to deny it, even if I hoped it wasn't true.


So nobody made a choice on their film or paper stock then?
 planetmarshall 26 Dec 2014
 Tom Valentine 26 Dec 2014
In reply to SteveD:

I think that's a bit extreme as an example.

Do you really consider choosing, say, Kodachrome 25 over Kodachrome 64 the same type of doctoring as dodging and burning?
 SteveD 26 Dec 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

No, but how about Kodachrome over Ektachrome, completely different colour response, or choosing a paper to change the gamma curve to add drama to a landscape, or choosing the paper finish, playing with the exposure to saturate colours, even the choice of lens affects the image you record.

There are dozens of choices that you can make that change the final image, hundreds of combinations.
 Fraser 26 Dec 2014
In reply to planetmarshall:

To me, that's a really decent bit of editing, not to mention a great shot. Nice and subtly done, so much so that'd you'd not know it without being told. Good job.
 Tom Valentine 26 Dec 2014
In reply to SteveD:

You could buy a roll of film without realising precisely what effect your choice would make on the finished image ( as most casual photographers did). You couldn't dodge and burn a print without realising that you were making a significant difference to the image as shown on the negative. There is a massive difference and I suspect you know it.
In reply to tehmarks:
Then we tweak!

 tehmarks 26 Dec 2014
In reply to blackmountainbiker:

...but so many people seem happy with their bland, lifeless HDR images - which is why I suspect HDR gets such bad press!
 planetmarshall 27 Dec 2014
In reply to blackmountainbiker:

> So HDR does more properly replicate what you see.

Well, not exactly. The purpose of HDR was (is) to extend the range of luminances that could be captured by a digital image, up to and beyond what film could capture.

You then have the problem of how you scale those luminances into the range that can be displayed by your device of choice, be it screen or print. There are various ways of doing this - an operation usually referred to as 'tone mapping'. The slightly surreal 'HDR Look' popularised by photoshop is achieved by squeezing *all* the luminances into a displayable range. This is not what the human visual system does - your eyes can't cope with extremely dark shadows and bright sunlight in the same image any more than a camera can. You can adapt to the range of luminances in view, but extremely bright highlights will still 'burn out'.

There's nothing wrong with HDR per se, it's an extremely useful technology ( and is widely used in visual effects and architecture to reproduce accurate lighting ), it's down to the artist how they decide to present that image to the viewer.

 Al Evans 27 Dec 2014
In reply to SteveD:

> Look at any Ansel Adams landscape for examples of photographs that are striking but not necessarily a true reproduction of the scene.

> SteveD

That's rubbish, Ansel Adams invented a whole new way of exposure and development, 'the zone system' just so that photographs could represent true life, or as true life as B/W was able to. He still did it without taking the real art out of pure photography unlike Photoshop which seeks to turn a photograph into a semi abstract work of art.
1
 SteveD 27 Dec 2014
In reply to Al Evans:

I know, I studied and used the zone system myself for many years, and was inspired by Adams photography, but it still required you to envisage how you wanted the scene to look in the final image and manipulate the stock and exposure to achieve that.

His final images were dramatic and inspiring, not sure they were 'true life'.

When I was really into photography (many years ago now) Colour was considered the medium of the 'snapshotter' real photographers used black and white, mainly because of the control you had over the final image. I spent years learning processes to manipulate images in the darkroom.

Just not sure why everyone gets their knickers in a twist nowdays, to remove all decision making and manipulation is to turn the photographer into a passive observer and Adams was not a passive observer he made you see what he wanted you to see.

Do some folk overdo the manipulation? of course they do, but only in my opinion, another person might see a work of art.
 Tom Valentine 27 Dec 2014
In reply to SteveD:

I always thought that, as an example, Cartier Bresson was pretty much a "passive observer" so I don't think the term is necessarily derogatory. My understanding is that he saw a camera as a tool to capture a moment rather than to create an aesthetically pleasing image. I suppose the best climbing pics are a combination of both.



 SteveD 27 Dec 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Cartier Bresson, certainly had the ability to find the right moment to press the shutter but many of his images had were heavily staged.
 Michael Ryan 27 Dec 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

The debate about photography is similar to the debate about bolts by climbers.

You light the blue touch paper and stand back.

I will say this, all the best photographers use both Lightroom and Photoshop, and you look at their images and you wouldn't know that.

 Jimbo C 27 Dec 2014
In reply to tehmarks:

> Of course, bad HDR just results in a drab, lifeless image with no contrast.

Yes, i think that is the key. Good use of 'HDR' can bring out the shadows and highlights which the standard jpg conversion might lose. Bad HDR images are over saturated with grey mid tones and look nothing like the original scene.

I retouch my images a lot but with the aim of highlighting the reason i took the image, rather than forcing it to look like something else. In other words photoshop can make or ruin an image, depending on how it's used.
 Tom Valentine 27 Dec 2014
In reply to SteveD:

If that is the case, then he manipulated the circumstance rather than the image. Still a bit disappointing, though.
 zimpara 16 Jan 2015
In reply to gethin_allen:

Photoshop is like heroin to me.
Use a little and then it just gets out of hand.

I now only use the briefest controls in lightroom.
If it needs Photoshop it gets deleted.

I'm much happier this way. Normally the only photos worth showing anybody, are the ones that looked good raw to start with, without needing first aid to patch them up.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...