yeah I know wrong forum but this is where most hang out...and I bored and have another
potential flaming session coming up with the next Question and comments...so here it goes
Has photoshop ruined photography as we used to know it? not talking about IQ aspects but asthstetic aspects of a Image,when you shoot with film the parimeters you have are the camera,lens, film itself,the paper..and what can be achieved in the darkroom of which have very limited experiance so cant comment more on that...now with a DSLR and a really good computer you can do many things to an image to the point of changing its true identity
its original intent..bordering on Psuedo photography...sure you capture the basic Image but alter it beyond a realism...of which takes away the Magic of a photograph when you have doubts of its pedigree...
its dslr art. no different than a painting. its an interpretation, one persons view of what is seen. also with PS you can't believe what you are seeing.
Digital Art. One shouldn't dismiss it. The only problem is when extremely modified photographs are pushed as straight up photography, I believe there should be a distinction (I have to admit though, I don't know exactly where the line is).
To say that its ruining the "Art" that is photography is just the wrong mindset when it should be considered its own art form.
Yes, it "ruined photography as we knew it". Just like the jet engine ruined airplanes as we knew them. Just like computers ruined bookkeeping as we knew it. Just like Goretex ruined raincoats as we knew them.
I like being ruined. All those other things are still available, and even have their uses, but they are old technology.
Most anything you can do in PS you can do in the darkroom. Most PS terms come from traditional techniques. PS made it easier and more accessible. Image manipulation was first clearly shown about 10 years after the invention of photography (although it inevitably occurred for years before that), and in fact, double exposures to show 'ghosts' were used quite commonly to try and scam people out of extra money by purportedly showing dead relatives by the 1860s. No one prints in the darkroom without knowing how to and frequently adjusting exposure, contrast, and lightening and darkening specific areas (dodging and burning), and adjusting overall color hues (color darkroom only). Toners, different developers, and different papers (ex; warmtone papers) can have strong effects on the print as well.
Sure you can completely ruin an image in PS by processing too much, but you can also get a real feel for what people might have done in a darkroom w/o the chemicals and mess (not to mention much quicker).
yes it hurts a bit when people like a crappy photo because it was processed with purchased application instead of being the original shot by the photographer...but a good photographer can transcend past that.
dirb9 wrote:
Most anything you can do in PS you can do in the darkroom. Most PS terms come from traditional techniques. PS made it easier and more accessible. Image manipulation was first clearly shown about 10 years after the invention of photography (although it inevitably occurred for years before that), and in fact, double exposures to show 'ghosts' were used quite commonly to try and scam people out of extra money by purportedly showing dead relatives by the 1860s. No one prints in the darkroom without knowing how to and frequently adjusting exposure, contrast, and lightening and darkening specific areas (dodging and burning), and adjusting overall color hues (color darkroom only). Toners, different developers, and different papers (ex; warmtone papers) can have strong effects on the print as well....Show more →
Personally I learned the old way, but just could not take all the chemicals. I did not take a photo from 1979 until 2005. Also to cheap to buy a DSLR until the price came down... you gota love a 300D :-)
I guess a meaning here is missed...what of the original intent of the photograph/er
sure you can take a picture of a green grass and blue sky but the same photo is fake if you change it to blue grass and green sky...or is there a OCD need to justify technology to a point of absurdness?
1.Models PP ok as long its not altering just enhancing theres a difference fine line
2.What you expect to be real Photojournalist picture altered yes it happens how would you know what was real? dangerous slippery slope.
3.keeping it real should be not just a buzz word said by chris rock,but thought about the next time you want to alter reality...
correct me if I am wrong but National Geographic photographers have to sign a contract stating no Images are to be altered via PS ect for publication..now if those Photographers can get the classic results with a DSLR in this fashion why cant everyone?
If anything is added or cloned out then that's definitely enhancing the photo beyond what was originally intended.
On the flipside, lots of the Post Processing is just the photographer trying to get the exposure the scene correctly and bring back details that were lost.
Then there's Black and White with tonal effects. Or how about PP a Portrait that smooths out a persons skin? There's a lot of areas where people can complain.
the things I have seen done in photoshop are almost more amazing than any photographs I've ever seen. I believe it is 3dart.com that has a yearly contest for photoshop and the realism they can create out of nothing is amazing. Its just like painting, just with a computer. It still takes an extreme amount of skill and talent, just different skill and talent.
BenV wrote:
the things I have seen done in photoshop are almost more amazing than any photographs I've ever seen. I believe it is 3dart.com that has a yearly contest for photoshop and the realism they can create out of nothing is amazing. Its just like painting, just with a computer. It still takes an extreme amount of skill and talent, just different skill and talent.
not dissing the talent or skill but the Integrity of Photography losing out little by little
I think Photoshop is like any art. It can distort reality in a way that may not be desirable.
Kinda like writing. Or paintings. You really think all the kings and queens looked that good?
Photoshop is great. It's new. It makes my job easier. And I really like cloning myself out of a mirror, I don't see anything wrong with that. I've also seen how photoshop can be used to change people. really change.
These "Darkroom" things are ruining photography today!
Back in the good old days, we took photos straight from the light of reality onto our emulsion-coated metal plates. But these days, folks are using "film" to make "negatives" that have the colors all backwards. Then, they're messing with the image just howsoever they like in making prints! With all that "dodging" and "burning," photographers can lie about lighting and make imaginary images of whatever they want. Why, they can even cut out parts of one image and paste them into another! Surely you can see how this whole "film" approach is making the Integrity of Photography lose out little by little.
Is my work junk.... it very well my be !!!!
but I did the drawing took the photo and brought them together... how knows
it's called "Portrait of older women"
Photoshop has seen the creation of a lot of bad images. over processed works that will look dreadful over time.
For the most part however it has taken photography as an art form to a new level not achievable with film.
I remeber watching 50 first dates where drew barrymore would only remember the current day. every new day she would wake up only remembering her life up to the time of an accident a year earlier.
Then Adam Sandler tells the doctor he thinks she is remembering things. The doctor tell him that is not the case, it is simply what we all want to believe.
Likewise there are those who think that film was and is a higher art form. It's what some desperately want to believe but is in fact pure fantasy.
If you look at the results of professional competitions from 20 years ago to today. Yes some over worked images still get through but for the most part we are seeing a consistency and level of image making not hitherto known.
