Has "Photoshopping" become a derogatory term? (Page 3): My English teacher used to tell as "a word is a word and this word can be perceived differently by the listener. The meaning...

thraso

My English teacher used to tell as "a word is a word and this word can be perceived differently by the listener. The meaning really depends on the intonation, the placement of the word in a sentence, the inflection of the voice..." and some other parameters I cannot remember now. The use of a word can be tricky in a written text and in order to exactly define what we want to say, some times it may be necessary to further clarify the intended meaning. So, to me "photoshopped" can have a positive or a negative connotation depending on that specific issue. Again, to me, the photo with the helicopter and the sark if it is presented as a "funny picture or a joke" photoshopped is ok. If the attempt was to present reality, then the same word would have a very negative connotation, or if the attempt was to present a particular skill then again the very same word would have a different meaning. Now then, is PP "ethical?" It depends on the "eye of the beholder. My two cents and personal opinion.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

mallen1330 wrote:

In another section here, I was referred to as &quo... (show quote)

Photoshoping as a term has negative connotations because it implies altering the reality of an image, usually with the intent to deceive in some way. But that has nothing to do with using Photoshop to enhance an exposure so it looks more like what the photographer actualy saw. It is also a creative tool that a photographer can use to alter a mood or emphasis part of an image, or clean up unimportant distractions that get in the way of the story being told, or it could be a thousand other things. In the end, is a tool, nothing more. Use it, don't use it. Whatever gives you the results that satisfy you is what it's all about.

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

Photoshopping is NOT photography.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Um.. I know this isn't a direct response to the question but,in real Estate as elsewhere, the photo is a sales tool. As such the client should be able to have it post processed to their liking as long as it doesn't border on dishonesty in the presentation of the product. Removing objects doesn't change the character of the main subject. Is pre processing a product, as in putting oil on hamburgers to make them look juicy, as wrong as post processing? And just for the record, before there was Photoshop there were airbrushes.

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

Has "Photoshopping" become a derogatory term?

NO!!!!

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

starlifter wrote:

Photoshopping is NOT photography.

It is a part of the photographic process, just like darkroom work is.

Don Fischer Loc: Antelope, Ore

I agree with the OP. I see a lot of image's anymore that had they not gone so far with PP they would have had really nice photo's in my opinion. I'm seeing more and more over cooked photo's!

krvitali

I go all the way back to 8x10 and 4x5 sheet film. If you don't think we didn't manipulate images back then, you are sorely mistaken. I could drastically improve the dynamic range of a photograph by using the zone system.

With BW having the most control. Color shifts would occur with color. I have under or over exposed by 4 shots and alternatively over or underdeveloped to change the dynamic range. I have selenium toned negatives to pull out highlight detail, and of course you always had dodging and burning of a print as well as other techniques.

Can photoshop be over done, absolutely.

But, don't think some of the old masters like Ansel Adams did not have a bag of tricks up his sleeves. Many of the techniques I used came from a book Ansel Adams wrote in the 30's.

Photoshop is a tool, like many others in photography. It is the photographers choice how to use it. Many scenes have to great a dynamic range to be captured by a digital sensor and this is where photshop can greatly enhance a photo.

The great thing about digital photography is it is highly personal, to the creator. Its up to the creator to choose how and when to employ different tools or techniques.

In know way am I condoning bad photoshop techniques but it is a very powerful tool that can be highly effective.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Don Fischer wrote:

I agree with the OP. I see a lot of image's anymore that had they not gone so far with PP they would have had really nice photo's in my opinion. I'm seeing more and more over cooked photo's!

But you don't know how many great looking photos you see that may have had extensive PP because it was too well done to be obvious.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Yes, guys, Ansel Adams was an artist. Part of the difference we are seeing here is between those who think as artists (and want to create a certain effect) and those of us who think as journalists (and don't want those who view the images in the future to be misled by what they see). Part of the difference we are seeing here is between those who used negative film to produce prints (and potentially made changes whether they planned to or not) and those of us who used positive film to produce slides (and were "stuck" with whatever the camera and automated processing produced).

I have made my background clear here. I don't think this is worth another hundred pages of increasing name-calling, which is where these threads tend to digress to.

richfred

Photographs have been PP'd since the beginning.Learn what Ansel Adams did to produce "Moonrise at Hernandez". He "Photoshopped" it in the darkroom, using his artistic vision and superior craftsmanship, not to distort reality, but rather to enhance reality.
If you have a problem with composites, see the book "PROCESS AND PERCEPTION" by Jerry Uelsmann. All done in the darkroom long before Photoshop was around.He is truly a skilled, visionary artist. No one ever complained about these artists.

krvitali

Just reiterating my post. A negative image or digital image has never matched the dynamic range the eye can see. There are many ways to manipulate an image. My best photographs need the dynamic range compressed and I could not do it without photoshop.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

mallen1330 wrote:

In another section here, I was referred to as &quo... (show quote)

To some extent yes. There was a case not long ago, I don't remember the details, that a professional used Photo Shop to create an image that was flashed all over the world. The problem is the image was not real as presented. He got caught and immediately fired. So yes, when used the wrong way it can be bad.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

jimmya wrote:

To some extent yes. There was a case not long ago, I don't remember the details, that a professional used Photo Shop to create an image that was flashed all over the world. The problem is the image was not real as presented. He got caught and immediately fired. So yes, when used the wrong way it can be bad.

It was a photojournalism photo

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

richfred wrote:

Photographs have been PP'd since the beginning.Learn what Ansel Adams did to produce "Moonrise at Hernandez". He "Photoshopped" it in the darkroom, using his artistic vision and superior craftsmanship, not to distort reality, but rather to enhance reality.

How can you enhance reality without distorting it?
Surely enhancing reality means making it more real than real? or better than real? :-)