When 'photographers' post processing goes too far (Page 5): Exactly! It usually takes 3 or 4 pages before his name comes up and people start interpreting his work, as though he were...

twindad Loc: SW Michigan, frolicking in the snow.

Delderby wrote:

Just because it's Ansell Adams you don't have to hang on his every word - he was a photographer not the Second Coming - he talked just as much drivel as the rest of us.

Exactly! It usually takes 3 or 4 pages before his name comes up and people start interpreting his work, as though he were the Messiah.

its4pjw Loc: flintshire GB

HowardPepper wrote:

I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but my personal feelings are that if the finished image doesn't look like the real life image, it isn't photography, it's digital artistry. Just my opinion. Everybody has their own.

ME TOO.
However it does reflect how shallow people are becoming. If you are happy to live in your own fantasy it's only you who is being fooled.

Psergel Loc: New Mexico

[quote=Rongnongno]No, this is not about distortion of really, well, it is but that is not the what gets me going here...

It seems that now 'photographers' (I would call them con artists not photographers) seem to want to charge extra for simple things like minor retouching whitening teeth by example. I was aware of it before but now it the envelope is pushed further with 'slimming down' option, in effect altering a picture in such a way that reality has no place left.

I am really irked by this as offering this (slimming) as part of a default package. It is wrong in my opinion.

I'd bet that 17th century painters took some liberties when asked to paint a portrait of an ugly queen.

I just got back fro 1.5 hrs at the gym and that "slimming" option sounds pretty good to me

:-) :D

Singing Swan

Mickey88 wrote:

the thinning part might be new, but teeth whitening ,blemish removal, removing glare from glasses etc were offered at least as far back as the 70's by pro labs, and were a service that was charged for

It was offered earlier than that, different format of course, but I have a studio portrait done of a friend from WWII. The enhancements look to have been done with ink...maybe? Her eyelashes are painted to look way longer, redder lipstick was added.....small things, but enhancements were done way before Photoshop made it easy.

anotherview Loc: California

For the record, this cameraman hangs on the word of nobody. I do, however, take guidance from the masters of photography. They also may inspire.

That said, I observe today numerous photographers who produce second-rate work, and even third-rate work, that garners gushing and overpraise. Interestingly, a large fraction of these photographers seem to come from a background of academic instruction in photography. They have in common they know how to talk up their work in conceptual terms.

Meanwhile, I dismiss as unworthy the shallow views sometimes expressed regarding accomplished photographers.

Delderby wrote:

Just because it's Ansell Adams you don't have to hang on his every word - he was a photographer not the Second Coming - he talked just as much drivel as the rest of us.

TB4 Loc: TX

HowardPepper wrote:

I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but my personal feelings are that if the finished image doesn't look like the real life image, it isn't photography, it's digital artistry. Just my opinion. Everybody has their own.

I agree completely. The challenge of photography for me is to capture the scene, essence, feelings with the camera. There are many fine painters (or digital artists) who can create the same impression but my thrill is capturing it with the tool in my hand at the time.

ZappaMan Loc: Williamsport, MD

Did Van Gogh say there are too many stars when he painted Starry Night?

docjoque Loc: SoCal

HowardPepper wrote:

I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but my personal feelings are that if the finished image doesn't look like the real life image, it isn't photography, it's digital artistry. Just my opinion. Everybody has their own.

Exactly; it's just your opinion and you're entitled to your beliefs. Some people don't consider it photography if it's digitally altered at all. So I guess that includes changing the WB, white and black points, etc? But when you're changing something, it's always going to be open to interpretation as to what is acceptable. To each his own.

djenrette Loc: Philadelphia

This has been going on for a long time. Years ago, while stationed in England, I had a chance to meet a well known portrait painter, especially high society, and I asked him how he went about it. He said he just started painting, imagining the most beautiful woman of that type that he could, and then altering the painting until it was just barely a likeness of his subject. In pricing his paintings, when asked, he would say "a thousand pounds" (and this was in the 1950's) as he watched the inquirer's reaction. If he got a shocked expression, he would say, "of course, that is for a very large painting" and if the potential buyer was not at all shocked, then he said "of course, that is for a very small painting." One of King Henry VIII's wives was selected "on line" by a painting sent from Spain -- when the king met his future queen she wasn't what her "likeness" claimed to be, and she was either divorced or beheaded (You know Henry!), but the painter got away with it. And if you somehow got universal consent for "truth in photography". how would you enforce it? In this day and age there is a famous photographer who gets $100,000 for his wedding photos -- how truthful do you think hie pictures are?
And who minds? Probably just that catty cousin Emily.

docjoque Loc: SoCal

Mickey88 wrote:

the thinning part might be new, but teeth whitening ,blemish removal, removing glare from glasses etc were offered at least as far back as the 70's by pro labs, and were a service that was charged for

Exactly! Been going on for as long as I can remember. And back in the film days it was much more difficult and complicated to get simple things done. Back in the early 80's I had a client that wanted the braces removed from her child's portrait. I could do it, but it was going to cost $$$. Now days, that can be achieved in 20 seconds, but one still needs the program and the expertise to do it. So what is 20 seconds worth? BTW, back when it too me over a week to get it done. lol.

Stage Light Loc: Northeast

Rongnongno wrote:

I also agree here what troubles is the advertising of it, creating a 'do like the Jones' effect and if you cannot afford it you are a dork (pushing the envelope here).

I have no problem with folks asking and the demand being met (and paid). I have a problem with contracts that are made to rip-off the clients and make them feel inadequate. This is especially true when it comes to kids as this trend started with the senior pictures.

I believe you have it backwards. Of course it depends on how it is done.

You have to include retouching in your final price. Now that can be an average charge; it can be a maximum charge etc. for the work normally done. When you itemize you will be charging for the work actually done. If you don't do the work you don 't charge for the work.

Most of the work will not include this, so why should they pay for it; if they want it they should pay for it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Psergel wrote:

I just got back fro 1.5 hrs at the gym and that "slimming" option sounds pretty good to me

:-) :D

I hope that includes travel time. :"D

docjoque Loc: SoCal

oldtigger wrote:

In my opinion if you do more than the basic gamma, dodge, burn, color correction and crop then your photograph become artwork.

If it's not taken with a Polaroid, it's not a photo. ;-) <sarcasm>

docjoque Loc: SoCal

oldtigger wrote:

Don't get me wrong, i've pushed a slider or two in my day, i just don't claim they are photographs.

No matter how startling or impressive to the viewer they might become they are now only artwork.

With all due respect: I find it curious that you can determine what makes a photograph, but if someone uses a slider that's not on your approved list, it then becomes something other than a photograph. Curious.

docjoque Loc: SoCal

JohnSwanda wrote:

Then you must feel Ansel Adams is a visual artist and not a photographer. Black and White is an abstraction to begin with, and then using filters to get a much darker sky than real life, and all darkroom techniques to manipulate what the tones looked like. He very much interpreted the scene. Not a "true" photographer?

Adams would have been considered a Photoshop maestro today. You are most definitely right. Cracks me up the unknowing hypocrisy of so many.