p.1 #2 · Modern Photographers Photoshop to much CHEATERS!
My contribution:
Capture mechanisms are just that - a capture mechanism, be it silver halides, RGB receptor sites in sensor, etc.
It still has to be "interpreted" to an output (visible) format, and that entails conversion or manipulation of a sort, no? Sometimes, we lean on the scales to emphasize what we saw, or...want to see. Because the human eye does perceive things it's own special way.
Straight output from a given scene wouldn't reflect reality as humans perceive it anyway. It's all an approximation.
p.1 #5 · Modern Photographers Photoshop to much CHEATERS!
All photographs are edited through compositional and timing choices even before any processing or development. The photographer edits the world and thus brings a subjectivity to every image.
p.1 #6 · Modern Photographers Photoshop to much CHEATERS!
When will the "purists" realize that they are dealing with an impure set of technologies and always have? Everytime one aims the camera and frames a composition, or chooses a camera and lens, or picks a particular speed or f stop, or chooses Tri-X over Velvia, or sets in-camera image tweaks, or performs a particular PP whether in Photoshop or leaving the print in the developer longer than "normal"... the artist (or technician) has left their mark.
My "Artist's" Statement:
The artist's interpretation only begins with the camera since the image in the viewfinder is never what is seen in the mind's eye. Images have been manipulated virtually since photography was invented in 1826 to meet the artists' aesthetic. As early as 1857, Rejlander created a masterpiece, "Two ways of Life", which was purchased by Queen Victoria and had been made from over 30 negatives blended together. This photo, as big as an easel painting (16 x 31") had earlier shocked the art world by being displayed on par with paintings. In my collection, I have "tin types" from the late 1800's which had been hand colored to add life to faces and gold to jewelry.
With each leap in technology, the other arts were affected as well. For example, a running horse had never been depicted correctly on canvas until 1878 when Muybridge took advantage of the new fast emulsions and an array of 24 cameras to capture the equine movement in a stop motion sequence. Or who can forget Duchamp's 1912 cinema inspired, staccato "Nude Descending Staircase"? The argument continues to rage today about film versus digital capture in photography. Film will never go away just as we see a resurgence of "tin types" and other honored media. But we do have at our finger tips a very powerful series of tools from the digital camera to the computer to the inkjet printer to create our art. Regardless of the means used, to paraphrase Ansel Adams, 'A photograph is not taken, it is made'
p.1 #9 · Modern Photographers Photoshop to much CHEATERS!
Coming from the school of shooting chromes & 'what ya shot, is what ya got' ... it still ALWAYS varied from reality ... based on film choice alone, never mind shutter, aperture or heaven forbid drawing style of the lens in use, even without any ADDITIONAL manipulation beyond the capture.
That was always a tough pill for me to swallow, but it is the truth of the matter ... EVERY picture is a rendering / artist interpretation ... whether in camera or out (I just prefer to do as much as possible in camera) and I was disappointed many years ago when I first learned of Adam's mastery outside the camera ... of course, I've learned a thing or two since then
p.1 #10 · Modern Photographers Photoshop to much CHEATERS!
I hate when people photoshop in a giant image of the moon in their landscape shot like the cover shot on Outdoor Photography magazine last month or so, perfectly exactly in the middle of Delicate Arch even though the rest of the picture is taken with a wide angle lens and so there is no way the moon can be that large in relation.
p.1 #12 · Modern Photographers Photoshop to much CHEATERS!
i agree, i have no problem with photographers using any manipulation method they can think of as long as:
1) it looks attractive. obviously this is subjective - i personally hate super overdone HDR but enjoy subtle HDR. everyone has their own taste or lack thereof.
2) nobody gets maimed or killed in the processing of the picture.
3) they don't claim that their images are totally unaltered. i am super annoyed to see a sign at a gallery claiming all pictures are unaltered/straight out of camera hanging over a physically impossible picture.
p.1 #13 · Modern Photographers Photoshop to much CHEATERS!
Yes, I remember long ago, chasing full moons just above the horizon thinking it was a matter of timing trying to replicate a shot concept ... not realizing it was double exposure and technically impossible to achieve in a single shot. Talk about chasing your tail
A little disclosure would have been nice ... but tricks of the trade are ... just that.
Funny, double exposures in camera intrigued me as a challenge and excellent workmanship when you made a good one, yet I felt like darkroom manipulations were 'cheating' back then ... not sure why, ignorance on my part, I guess
p.1 #15 · Modern Photographers Photoshop to much CHEATERS!
I only object to manipulation when it is done by a photojournalist. There are limits to what manipulations are acceptable by them. I guess I can add forensic photographers in my objection group.
p.1 #16 · Modern Photographers Photoshop to much CHEATERS!
Photoshop or any other editing software are just tools - just like your camera.... and it's ok to use the right tools to get the job done. After all, what matters is how you want the captured image to look for you.... and what you intend to do with it.
I wonder what reality really is for these so called "purists"
p.1 #17 · Modern Photographers Photoshop to much CHEATERS!
Without calling the degree of photoshopping good, or bad, I think it *is* important to recognize the process of image capture/creation for it's own sake.. It's not just the end product and devotion to a vision by the artist, it is the process itself. I think Weston is a good example. Many of his shots you could have painted, maybe even easily, and been none the wiser. The magic is that he took a real thing, and using the constraints of photography, created something totally different. So I can't say I find fault in someone PS'ing the hell out of something, but I'm starting more and more to question the point of doing it. Personally, I'll retouch out some flaws if they are really compositionally distracting, but I never try and retouch out ALL flaws, because I like to remember that these are real things we are shooting.
p.1 #18 · Modern Photographers Photoshop to much CHEATERS!
I have no problem with photoshop, I edit and tweak photos just like anyone else. What I don't like is a completely computer generated picture, almost as if it was pointless using a camera.
)
