Is Being A Good Photoshopper Becoming More Important Than Being A Good Photographer?
Jan 28, 2015 19:01:54 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Adding or removing things from journalistic photos... (show quote)
A newspaper remove all women from a photo of the Charlie Hebdo march in Paris.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/world/newspaper-in-israel-scrubs-women-from-a-photo-of-paris-unity-rally.html?_r=0
Jan 28, 2015 19:05:45 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Mac, I am in no way defending PS'ers, but there ar... (show quote)
Good point, especially about the surrealists.
Jan 28, 2015 19:08:37 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
No, there is another camp in between. Getting the photo as good as can be in-camera, and then making post processing improvements that don't come close to pushing boundaries.
This is the camp I see myself in, though I'm still working on the good as can be in the camera part.
Jan 28, 2015 19:15:49 #
Photographer Jim wrote:
I'll answer. In the case you describe the maker c... (show quote)
Thanks for your answer Jim. Would I be wrong to think that if the PSer got a release from the cloud photographer then he could use it?
Jan 28, 2015 19:45:20 #
Mac wrote:
Thanks for your answer Jim. Would I be wrong to think that if the PSer got a release from the cloud photographer then he could use it?
Possibly for some sales, in some venues, one might "get away with it", but in most sale or competition arenas, work that isn't 100% the work of the artist would be unacceptable.
When you are juried into most art shows you have to sign that all work is original and produced solely by the artist. For instance, better shows strictly forbid "buy and sell" or kit" products, and you will be asked to pack up and leave if the promotor becomes aware that that is what you are doing. This instance is a bit less obvious, and I suppose a photographic artist could try (release or not). But truthfully, of the many photographers I have met at shows I don't know any that would consider it ethical, even with a release.
For Joe photo enthusiast at home who borrows a sky off of a commercial disc of sky images in order to make an image for his own enjoyment, heck, knock yourself out if you have fun with the process and enjoy the final product. (However, internally I'd be much more impressed if the sky you slip in was also from an image you took).
Jan 28, 2015 21:07:44 #
Frank2013
Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.
Mac wrote:
This is the camp I see myself in, though I'm still working on the good as can be in the camera part.
Mac,
I am wondering if you have ever removed something from a photo instead of adding something. If so how does that fit in?
Jan 28, 2015 21:52:25 #
Frank2013 wrote:
Mac,
I am wondering if you have ever removed something from a photo instead of adding something. If so how does that fit in?
I am wondering if you have ever removed something from a photo instead of adding something. If so how does that fit in?
Frank, I have removed all the heads from my six ex-wives and replaced them with my current wife.
I'm frequently asked why in one shot my wife weighs 500 pounds and in another she's a model?!
That's easily explained using Jenny Craig. So far everybody has bought that w/o question! PhotoShop is great for both taking out and putting in!! :lol: :lol:
SS
Jan 28, 2015 22:07:18 #
Frank2013
Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.
SharpShooter wrote:
Frank, I have removed all the heads from my six ex-wives and replaced them with my current wife.
I'm frequently asked why in one shot my wife weighs 500 pounds and in another she's a model?!
That's easily explained using Jenny Craig. So far everybody has bought that w/o question! PhotoShop is great for both taking out and putting in!! :lol: :lol:
SS
I'm frequently asked why in one shot my wife weighs 500 pounds and in another she's a model?!
That's easily explained using Jenny Craig. So far everybody has bought that w/o question! PhotoShop is great for both taking out and putting in!! :lol: :lol:
SS
That's understandable. Maybe Mac needs a new word "artography" or some variation to be able to come to terms with it all. I have always respected your comment's Mac.
Jan 28, 2015 22:08:37 #
Jan 29, 2015 02:11:47 #
Mac wrote:
I was going through Flipboard this morning and came across an article "How To Add Clouds In Photoshop." And it made me wonder if this is where photography is headed: pick a subject, pick a foreground, pick a background, then blend them all together in Photoshop.
It's a skill that you can use to create art. manipulations like the one you describe are verboten in certain genres where accuracy and truth are critical - advertising, catalog, commercial, product packaging, reportage, real estate, architectural, etc etc etc. But these would be perfectly acceptable for fine art and creative, as well as portraiture (adding different backgrounds are a classic technique).
Jan 29, 2015 04:32:34 #
andrew.haysom
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
TheDman wrote:
How do you get the exposure right on a scene that has 23 stops of brightness?
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jan 29, 2015 05:34:26 #
TheDman wrote:
Sure we do, we still can't capture 23 stops of brightness.
Certainly not with digital, 1:255. How many zones did Ansel Adams work with? Not 23!
Jan 29, 2015 05:37:10 #
Jan 29, 2015 06:04:13 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
No, there is another camp in between. Getting the photo as good as can be in-camera, and then making post processing improvements that don't come close to pushing boundaries.
No one has defined, with clarity, what it means to "get it right in the camera" - ever.
What is defined, with ease, is what happens when a skilled photographer, using all of his/her skills - produces a spectacular, impactful, stunning, and memorable image.
The question to the SOOC purists, is does it really matter, if the end result is a great image?
The second question, which relates to the two images in the link below, is which is better, the SOOC image, or the one that was created, using the SOOC image, to reflect the artist/photographer's vision?
http://www.kevinshick.com/blog/2013/4/revisiting-hernandez-nm
No one would agree that the SOOC image has any value, other than as a basis to create the final product.
Not all images require this - as I stated in my first post on this thread - in fact, certain genres require zero alteration.
But to circle back to the OP's question and point - if an image of a landscape can be improved by adding something that was not in the original photo, then enjoy the image. Nothing wrong with that.
Which of these pairs of images make more sense to you?
[Edit] with a few more minutes spent, I would tone some blue into the water behind the opera house, which would better fit the color as it should be with a blue sky.
Jan 29, 2015 06:19:08 #
show1971 wrote:
Someone still has to be a good photographer to pull off good Photoshop. Photoshop is only a tool, like your camera and lens.
There are some people who have never picked up a camera but can are expert in Photoshop.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.