The Photography Network - PictureSocial

now that we are in the digital age and most of us are using digital cameras after you pull your photo in Photoshop or some other software it is still your art?  Does Photoshop help you fix your errors or if you left it alone with all its faws make the picture have character?  Can we walk up to one of the old great photographers that had to use film, that picture have been seen all over the world and say it could have been better if you touched it up in Photoshop.


what do you think, does Photoshop kills the character of a picture or make it better?



Views: 12

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Even Ansel Adams retouched his photos in the dark room...
Photoshop is still necesary for minor touch up on those shots that are difficult to do a re-shoot.e.g wedding shots, graduation shots etc.
Of course photographers should try to get the shot right on the spot by using their learnt technics and not to depend on photoshop to correct the shot at later stage. Even in film period, photographer touch up during the dark room processing.

Therefore I said Photoshop helps to enhance a picture to a certain extend. e.g sharpness, exposure. but if the photographer intend distort the picture from its original state then we should not call him photographer but a graphic designer instead.
...does Photoshop kills the character of a picture or make it better?
Just like it depends on the photographer holding the camera, it depends on the person doing the post processing.The creative process will always depend on the creator not the tools. The tools just give us our options of what we can do with the work.
I'm a purest at heart, but I also love photoshop. hmmm what to do?
I still use film, as do many of the very best landscape photographers in the world. Photoshop has only changed our working environment in that many of the adjustments that were formerly made in the darkroom are now made on our desktop computer. There are a few things that can be done on the desktop that weren't possible in the darkroom, but only a few. I am able to make many of the same adjustments in the darkroom, through selective masking, that are done in Photoshop. It's interesting to read the replies to this question in that it reveals the relative ignorance of people as to what can be done in the darkroom. It is not a place of limitations but a place of creativity. The methods used there are equally as creative as Photoshop.
I don't think it is an ignorance vs. people thinking it is much easier to do in photoshop rather than the darkroom.
By ignorance I mean that people are unaware that these types of work can be done in the darkroom. That we can modify contrast locally and globally and that color balance can be changed in one area or over the whole print. I didn't mean to say that they don't know how, although that is true. Ignorance isn't necessarily a bad thing. But if you want to do photography and you aren't at least aware of the processes available that is a bad thing. It is much easier to do on a computer, but it is still difficult to get it right. The replies to various questions and situations that I have read do reveal ignorance of the process as well as the history of the art of photography. If an individual is unaware of the process and the history there will often also be a lack of awareness about what it is that constitutes truly good work.

The interesting thing, at least in my experience, is that some collectors of fine art photography ask specifically ask if work is hand printed. I have been asked that question on several occasions.
Do you think in a hundred years you'd want someone coming up to you and telling you your 'art' could be better if you'd... ? To walk up to the old 'masters' and tell them their work sucks (which is what you're telling them) because they didn't have your technology is nothing more than boosting one's ego, IMO. Current technology does not negate the skill required to get an excellent print with old technology-- to prove this to yourself, set up your darkroom and mix the chemicals, expose the film plate, and do better.
Why should properly applied PS kill the character of the picture? If the result is what the shooter saw/wants, then there is no room for argument. Everything is subjective, just as viewing a Picasso or any form of art. Of course, if it's used improperly, though I don't know what 'improper' is, then the character may be 'ruined', or just not what the shooter had in mind at the moment of shoooting. Again, it's all 'subjective' to the shooter and viewer.
I've been giving some thought to your question and it is rather provocative. More than a simple surface glance would indicate. After using Photoshop on a photograph can you say that the photograph is yours? is the question; I think.

My take on it is that it is still yours as long as your individual interpretation is still the one we see. For years shooters have taken their slides or negatives and sent them off for labs to print, the shooters (notice I didn't say photographers) left the interpretation up to the discretion of the printer at the lab. Sometimes, if the shooter felt they had a very special image they would have a custom print made, which was suppose to be even better than the machine print. These were made without instructions from the shooter so, in my opinion, they weren't the work of the shooter but rather a collaboration between the shooter and the lab tech. This point has been a bone of contention for years in PPA print salons. Some photographers (notice the change in terminology) learned to print their own work so in those cases the final outcome was indeed the art of the photographer.

In the digital age more and more shooters are putting their personal interpretation on the images they have printed so in that sense of the word the photographs being published on the internet are probably more the work of the shooter than what was printed previously. In some cases (many cases) the shooter is relying on the random work of "plug-in" filters rather than their personal skill with digital media. So in my opinion it's a mixed bag; some is very much the art of the photographic artist, some is a collaboration between the shooter and a software engineer. It all goes back to how serious the maker is about being a photographic artist and how many "shortcuts" they are willing to take. I personally believe that my DNA should be, as much as is practically possible. be on each photograph that leaves my studio. That is why I still hand print and will as long as the material is available. That applies to my fine art work only. Commercial work is all done via digital means since the sheer volume of it would make it impractical to hand print every thing that goes out. That said, I do personally retouch and adjust all work leaving my studio, commercial or otherwise.

If the final outcome of the image is that of the photographer alone, then yes it is still the art of the photographer.
Thats why u make ur correct exposure when your shooting ur photos! instead of taking it into some software and making it better
Clicking the shutter button is only one part of my creative process. Finding my inspiration, another. Creating my composition, another. Manipulating my raw file to complete what I saw in my heart and mind (not with my eyes.. ) is yet another part of the creative process. My camera, light meter, strobes, reflectors, greycards, Photoshop, my plugins and filters... are all tools to help me achieve my end.

It is not technology that makes a photo great. It is an artist. If it was the technology, everybody would be an artist and every photo a masterpiece. If it was technology, my photos would not suck so bad!

This is a good discussion and I enjoy reading all your comments.
now that we are in the digital age and most of us are using digital cameras after you pull your photo in Photoshop or some other software it is still your art?

-I would say yes, it is not the software that does the work, it is still you, simple as that. To the old great photographers, I would not say such a thing to them but I bet if they are alive today, they would use Photoshop or if they hate photoshop , atleast secretly use it.


Until Midnight!

Latest Activity

Earl Heister replied to TDV's discussion *****TODAY'S DISCUSSION***** in the group The Daily View
"Outstanding Gary.  I really like the light and the runners on the road.   Of course…"
2 minutes ago
Ellen van Booren replied to Steve Zawoyski's discussion Results : Bridge Challenge in the group All Things Architectural
"I mean the other bridge Dan made, Steve. The one taken on the side of the road!!!!"
2 minutes ago
Ann Cason replied to TDV's discussion *****TODAY'S DISCUSSION***** in the group The Daily View
"Thanks, Glenn my nephew said I need to levitate her in Photoshop!  lol"
2 minutes ago
Earl Heister replied to TDV's discussion *****TODAY'S DISCUSSION***** in the group The Daily View
"I like the color best in this one."
4 minutes ago

Free Photography Tips

We offer free daily photography tips for all experience levels. Click Here to Subscribe Now!.

© 2015   Created by   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service