PHOTOSHOP to what degree? (Page 2): When our consciousness reaches that point, I think we merge with the great unknown. :lol: :lol:...

wolfiebear Loc: 10,200 elev. in the Rockies

When our consciousness reaches that point, I think we merge with the great unknown. :lol: :lol:

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

wolfiebear wrote:

When our consciousness reaches that point, I think we merge with the great unknown. :lol: :lol:

EDIT:
Ooops, sorry, I had inadvertently posted a spoiler line about a recent film .... took it out again in case people haven't seen it.

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

wolfiebear wrote:

I remember back in about 2001, some photographers who were displaying prints promised that the was NO PHOTOSHOP enhancement done to their work.

But today, it seems it is considered more than okay to manipulate your images.

Am I understanding that correctly? Can anybody share any more light on that issue for me?
Thanks,
Inga

PP is pretty standard now. I think it's fine as long as it's not overdone. It's like adding too much salt or spice to whatever you're cooking. You want to do some processing but tastefully. This is all subjective of course. The same goes for HDR processing. I've seen a lot of stuff out there that's way overdone. It doesn't look real but that could also the effect one is trying to create. Post Processing is all in the eye of the beholder.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

wolfiebear wrote:

I remember back in about 2001, some photographers who were displaying prints promised that the was NO PHOTOSHOP enhancement done to their work.

But today, it seems it is considered more than okay to manipulate your images.

Am I understanding that correctly? Can anybody share any more light on that issue for me?
Thanks,
Inga

Image enhancing with software is really nothing more than a modern equivalent to what was done in the labs back in the film days. I work in such a lab in the 1990's. Most prints by professionals had some form of editing or enhancement done to them, under direction of the photographer - tonal adjustment, burning, dodging, cross-processing, section blurring, and so forth. Practically every photo to be illustrated in magazines, on posters, brochures, etc. had some manipulation applied to it to some extent.

Whatever photographer took pride in no Photoshop manipulation back in 2001 either did not have much previous experience with film lab tradition ...or simply hadn't yet figured out how to use Photoshop! Keep in mind, 15 years ago there were still many people (including photographers) who didn't know their way around on the computer and felt intimidated by complicated software programs.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

wolfiebear wrote:

I remember back in about 2001, some photographers who were displaying prints promised that the was NO PHOTOSHOP enhancement done to their work.

But today, it seems it is considered more than okay to manipulate your images.

Am I understanding that correctly? Can anybody share any more light on that issue for me?
Thanks,
Inga

Inga - my favorite way to address this is to take a look at what was done before digital, when I started doing photography, and long before me. Post processing was standard. In the link below, you can see the contact print which is analogous to SOOC unaltered jpeg, and the result achieved through considerable manipulation in the darkroom. There is nothing wrong with post processing, and you do it to give your images impact and meaning.

http://www.kevinshick.com/blog/2013/4/revisiting-hernandez-nm

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

wolfiebear wrote:

I remember back in about 2001, some photographers who were displaying prints promised that the was NO PHOTOSHOP enhancement done to their work.

But today, it seems it is considered more than okay to manipulate your images.

Am I understanding that correctly? Can anybody share any more light on that issue for me?
Thanks,
Inga

This is what you cal a "timely article."

http://petapixel.com/2015/03/10/why-complaining-about-photos-being-photoshopped-makes-no-sense-to-me/

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

St3v3M wrote:

Once you know everything, then what?

Reminds me of Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull :-D :-D

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

I remember classes back in the dark ages dealing with retouching negatives (large format) prior to printing, then making further modifications in the dark room. Remember, Ansel spent years messing with "moon rise" before the got the version he "visualized" that evening driving back to Santa Fe. All previous versions of "photo-shoping". I don't see an issue.

j-p Loc: CT

Sometimes you absolutely need photoshop (I use elements) to make a scene look like it did through the eyes.

Picdude Loc: Ohio

Every time I hear someone talk about photos not processed and straight out of the camera, I remember High School Senior Pictures. I have yet to talk to anyone who has gone to a professional photographer to have multiple settings photographed from 1978 on (that I can personally attest to) that hasn't been handed a set of "proofs" to go through to choose the settings they wanted to pay for. None of the "proofs" were exceptionally good photos. Processing of images has been accepted and practiced since the onset of the process of photography.

Whether or not they have been OVER processed is quite another argument.....

pwmcmahan Loc: Whitney, Texas

The question of what is over-processing and what is not comes down to what is the purpose for the photograph. Photos that are in the commercial realm (i.e. journalistic, documentary, product, wedding, etc.) where the photographer is producing them to spec will usually demand less processing.

In the fine-art photography realm, where the camera and processing software are merely tools for executing the photographer's vision, then there are no limits for processing.

Bob Boner

Gene51 has it right. Nobody ever complains that the camera itself is doing too much post processing, and that is done by the internal software written by someone who never saw the scene. Post processing is the only way we have of conveying the mood/emotions we had when viewing the scene.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

No one will ever receive a medal for not processing their images.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

wolfiebear wrote:

AH-hahahah!
I think I'd like to play on both sides of the tracks.

I remember the first time I saw internet back in 1994. . . what is this going to be any good for, I thought to myself, LOL.
Now I sleep with at least one laptop in bed with me. . .and sometimes two.

I remember seeing the Internet used at university back around 1991-93 sometime. Not impressive: early dial-up MODEM. It took 10 minutes for the darn servers to handshake. And the system would crash after viewing your first page. Even PC / Apple computers as stand-alones were a joke back then. Little software and so the microcomputers were like over sized fancy pocket calculators. Say a HP 65. The word processors and spread sheets were primitive. I did not buy my first PC until 1994, an i80486-66MHz Windows 3.11 / DOS 6.21 420 MB HDD Gateway 2000. Back then I think Gateway was still operating out of a barn.

wolfiebear Loc: 10,200 elev. in the Rockies

pwmcmahan wrote:

. . .
In the fine-art photography realm, where the camera and processing software are merely tools for executing the photographer's vision, then there are no limits for processing.

Thanks. That is what I wanted to know.
I appreciate all the thoughtful replies.