Chuck_893 wrote:
Yeah, so weve been here recently and this IS flogging the deceased nag, and Im sincerely sorry, but I still wanna talk about it, but I also dont think I should bump any of the earlier threads, e.g.:
Is Post Processing Dishonest?
The Art of Knowing When to Stop
Has "Photoshopping" become a derogatory term? (For one thing I want to add some of my own pictures.)Before yall jump me, yes I know about the SOOC Purist crowd, and I do NOT intend to disrespect you, although I do not agree with you. I also know all about the jpeg v. raw civil war. I myself shot 100% jpeg until just last year, and I am not about to throw away everything I ever did (but I am revising some of it now that I have both Lightroom and full Photoshop, both of which work beautifully with jpegs).
So Ive been a Photoshop freak since before I ever owned a digital camera. My BIL gave me a disc of PS Elements 2.0 back in 2006, the year before I bought my first tiny digital P&S.
I LOVE Photoshop! I LOVE what it can do that I always wanted to do but couldnt (at least not easily). When I was working, retouching had to be done by hand on the negative using graphites and/or dyes, or by sending a print to an airbrush artist. It was all intense, eye-straining work. A print that had been airbrushed then had to be copied and reprinted from a copy negative. No matter how skillfully done it was never as good. A good eye could spot one across the room. But now Photoshop, Lightroom and their cousins are nothing short of miraculous. TRUE, they can be overused and abused, like drugs, and many Hoggers hate spending time on the computer, but I actually love it. I see nothing wrong with enhancements, but my main thrust is always to avoid overdoing---ideally I do not want the viewer to see what has been done.
I think there is general agreement that
news and evidentiary pictures may not be Photoshopped. Reuters Handbook of Journalism spells it out:
The rules are: no additions or deletions, no misleading the viewer by manipulation of the tonal and color balance to disguise elements of an image or to change the context." It IS permitted to adjust exposure, color balance, and tones, but only minimally.
Photographer Narciso Contreras manipulated a photo of a Syrian rebel by cloning out a fellow reporter's camera before sending it to an AP photo desk. Contreras was fired and will never work for the AP again. Thats harsh, but I get it, but on the other hand, for most other pictures, why not?
(I am aware that there are clubs that place severe restrictions on what can and cannot be manipulated in competition prints, but I have no intention of competing.) b Yeah, so weve been here recently and this IS f... (
show quote)
Hey Chuck,
Yep, this subject has been discussed time and time again, but you know, I never seem to get tired of it since there always seems to be some new, possibly minute, comment someone makes that adds to the debate one way or another. :-)
I just had a discussion with two photographers, in person, about the very same topic and they both agreed that PP'ing is absolutely OK and acceptable. Ansel Adam's has a fairly famous photograph that looks fantastic (the one that is usually shone or printed). However, if you see his original out of the camera shot, it is awful!!! I wish I could remember what it is called or provide more information, but it totally escapes me. Film darkrooms were used for PP'd images, enhancing images, combining images etc., so why in the world is everyone so perturbed about using Digital Darkrooms such as Photoshop, LR, Macphun Programs, On1 programs, FX Pro Studio, Affinity, Gimp, Portrait Pro, etc., etc., etc.?
That is basically nonsense as long as photojournalists, and whomever else, do not make adjustments for profit or are forbidden by their industry. Personal use as well as commercial use is fine, just as long as it isn't overdone or they are not trying to 'put one over" on people and be deceptive with malicious intent, just as you had said. My goodness, has anyone really paid any attention to the TV programs and political campaign images or advertisements on TV? I just saw an interview on TV with Hilary Clinton, and it was so blatant the air brushing or whatever TV stations can do with images of people on screen. There was an actual line on the screen where you could see the difference in her facial skin and dress/suit where it was applied and where they had 'cut it off!' Absolutely amazing. There wasn't a blemish or a wrinkle or whatever on her skin or her clothing, not even a piece of lint or minor wrinkle or crease or any sign of aging on her face, and it was not just a cover up by makeup! And we all know that there are never any cover-ups by political candidates or the government or the armed services, right!?!?!
Oh, yes, let's not forget about what all magazines (probably newspapers that still exist, as well) do to their printed images of models, glamour stars, celebrities, and important people. People in real life most often do not look like how they are presented in print and photographs. Heck, even head shots of CEO's and corporate executives are most assuredly doctored up in PP'ing.
I like what you had done with the images you chose to upload. You did a very nice job and definitely improved upon the photos. Well done, Chuck, keep up the good work! :-)
Oh, and let's not forget about photographers like Cliff who does super senior portraits for parents. He is a master of composites using parts from many images and combining them into one that is loved by the senior's parents. And he makes no bones about what he does . . . he tells parents what he plans on doing and what he has done . . . and does it in PP'ing with digital enhancement programs. Russ is another exceptionally fine digital artist with his Unique method(s) of changing RAW images into superb B&W images of homeless men on the streets of various cities. Those are just two UHH member photographers who immediately come to mind.
So, Chuck, I think it is most appropriate and often times necessary to use Digital PP'ing when developing digital images. I think it is here to stay and even improve as time goes on. Once I am dead, I'd love to see future improvements and innovations in the PP'ing software programs and how they change. Cheers, Everyone.
Best Regards,
Tom
P.S. I just finished and saw what kymarto posted. He says it very well, and his knowledge and experience just adds more for the subject of promoting PP'ing images out of camera. He is absolutely correct . . . shoot images in jpeg and the camera does the PP'ing for you automatically, so no photo is actually really displayed as the human eye sees it. I shoot in RAW all the time, and people would be absolutely outraged if they just saw the RAW image, and, photos would be totally unacceptable by 99.9% of the viewers.