mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

Just to wrap up (I know there may be additional posts here), I think this has been a fruitful and lively discussion (no name calling that I noticed). Although the OP was about the public perception of the term "Photoshopped", and NOT about post processing per se, many of the responses were defenses of PP, not the troublesome verb. I, like all others here, certainly know the history and necessity of PP.

My point was that it may be best not to use the term "Photoshopped" since it has a public connotation that is contrary to what we mean and what we do as photographers.

It also is unfair to Adobe and their product to associate them with the notorious fakes that the news brings to the public attention.

To all of you who posted about PP being part of the art, and historically bound to the photographic process, I agree heartily.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Maybe the other side of that stifles creativity?
As long as you know what your standards are, does it matter? It's as honest as it is dishonest - art can be like that.

coolhoosier Loc: Dover, NH, USA

I make images. Photographic images if you insist.

When I'm working, I start by selecting the camera I'll use (in my case, either full frame or APS-C) and the lens or lenses that are best suited to the task (wide, long, normal, macro). Then, by iteration, I determine the aperture and shutter speed I'll use. All of these are image manipulation activities since they directly affect the appearance of the final image.

The output of my camera is (almost) the photoghraphic starting point toward attaining the end image, some of which I know before pressing the shutter button and some of which arise as I examine and work with that output.

In going from this starting point to the end image, I use whatever tools are available to me: Photoshop and Lightroom for sure, but others, too. Among these others are filters (as! how do the "purists" feel about using graduated neutral density filters or circular polarizers? How about studio lights? Or off- (or on-) camera speedlights?). I've been doing this since I started in photography: cropping, straightening, burning, dodging, altering contrast during the developing and printing process, including, occasionally, using the "wrong" developer (film and/or paper).

Sometimes I overdo it and the results are obvious and not realistic or not attractive; sometimes I underdo it and the image lacks something.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Why is it that posts like these always come from snap shooters? Competent photographers create art (photoshop or not) while the rest just push the shutter and think they are photographers.

Don, I think you are looking in the wrong places.

http://500px.com/popular?categories=Landscapes

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Yes, I photoshop every image I post electronically. There's no other way* to render the data captured by my digital camera, or negative scanner in a manner that would be worth posting.

Now, the post processing work I do tends to stay within what I could do in a darkroom. People have commented that PS allows one to do so much more. I still tend towards the purity of the captured image. So, cropping, burning/dodging, brightness/contrast, etc. are all skills used in darkroom processing. I find nothing wrong with relying on those aspects of PS to accomplish the same thing.

Anyone who finds manipulation, such as you pointed out with your posted examples, objectionable should look up Jerry Uelsmann. He does similar, but using numerous enlargers and multiple negatives. No, he does not rely on PS.

So, back to my purist aspect. Many of my posts have garnered comments like that or this is distracting. Why didn't you PS it out? My reply is it was there when I took the photo. I'm not going to do gardening in the woods to make a photograph.

Now, I've done a good bit of retouching. In cases like that, all bets are off. I'll do anything PS allows me to do, and then some.

http://www.malarz.com/services/as/index.html

I'll also have some creative fun.

http://www.malarz.com/services/oob/index.html

However, my first love being just straight photography is kept within the bounds of what I can do in the darkroom. Unlike some who can just manage to capture an image with a digital camera and think "I can photoshop this and make a good image", I pre visualize what I want to capture in the camera first, then process that image in my digital darkroom, PS. In some cases I use film, careful metering and appropriate development of the negative is a prerequisite to PS.

And, I agree with a wise man who once said, "Photographs are not taken, they're made".

--Bob
*- I'm aware that there are other photo processing applications.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

I knew that part but I couldn't remember the details.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I think it was a war photo from Syria

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

As far as public perception of "Photoshopping", I do mostly business portraits, and most of my clients have a positive perception of it and want their portraits "Photoshopped." Many people seem to have some deniability about their appearance, even though they look in the mirror regularly. I have had people notice flaws in their appearance for the first time when viewing their photos large on a computer screen, such as sleepy eyes or crooked smiles, or just older or heavier than they think they look. I just had a guy who felt the photos made his face look too "puffy" and wanted it fixed so it looked "more realistic." What he meant was more in line with what he perceived he looked like. I even have people sometimes who I feel want more work done than would be believable. I don't want people who view their photo to think it looks touched up, I want them to think it is a really good photo of them.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

A recognized literary organization recently accepted Photoshopping as a new acceptable word to describe any computer generated alterations to photographs. By that definition if you shoot RAW and adjust the image you are Photoshopping. I do not agree.

Don Fischer Loc: Antelope, Ore

I think photoshop is a great thing. It allow's less than good photographer's to call themselves artist's!

jthelw Loc: California

I certainly hope not. Since I retired, that's what I do; I'm a photoshopper!

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

The OP was "Has Photoshopping become a derogatory term"
However, this discussion has reverted, as always, to what we, as individuals think is the point at which a PPd photo remains honest or not.
I believe that "Photoshopped" is slowly becoming a derogatory term, which indicates that the public in general would prefer photos to represent truth.

wattsimages

I agree with you, I too remember a time when great photos were achieved long before Photoshop.

However (caution old man rant coming)
Many of these images were post processed in the darkroom. I'm not sure why Photoshop evokes such a visceral reaction, considering photographic masters have been manipulating photos for a long time 100+ years. You could certainly say "now it is easy and anybody can do it" and that would be a misinformed argument. it's true that in this age of the Internet we get to see all of the "bad Photoshop" images along with the good ones. But let's not discount the good ones. The real difference is we now get to see all the poorly done images, and before digital, these images would never make it out of the photographer's basement.

So here is what makes the sad about this topic.
In 1981, 16 years old, I worked two jobs every day after school and on weekends. All so I could afford the darkroom set up I wanted. I could hardly wait for my special order Beseler XL large format enlarger. I spent hours in the darkroom, practicing until the chemicals made my fingers dry and cracked. I would use specific film, paper, and chemicals to get a desired look. Using colored filters on black and white paper to increase or decrease contrast. Dodging and burning, stacking negatives, shooting through transparencies, and indexing the print so it could be exposed multiple times. By the time I got into college, this skill set was considered good. In fact it was considered a big deal if you are really good in the darkroom. You could get a good paying job just doing retouching/printing (This is still true today). Now, some will look down on a person who is really good at post (Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture 1, DXO, whatever). It doesn't matter if they have spent hundreds of hours studying and honing their skills. And that is just sad.

To be clear, pressing a button to apply a filter, is not a skill. I believe these skills became bad when the internet allowed us to see the sh*t that should have never made it out of the basement. These skills only became bad when the internet (TV and some print publications) allowed people to distort reality so they could sell us something. HOPEFULLY fewer people will us it to "sell us something". Then those retouchers with skill will get there due.

http://fstoppers.com/business/photoshop-bad-business-nsfw-45163

Venser

Yes it has, for all the wrong reasons.

Most images I publish are manipulated to the tits. Most people would never know. And worst of all, some of the images that are near SOOC look like the biggest culprits of being faked.

End of the day, I look at the photo in front of me. Don't really care how you got to this point. It's either good or it isn't.

In my experience, most photographers who shun PS or its equivalent are those who don't have skill utilizing the software. I'm sure back in the darkroom it was the same, the problem is simply modernized now.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Only when done as poorly as those two examples... no offense meant, but I can spot them a mile away...

A proper job should be as Fred Astaire, or an Olympic Gold Medalist on the Beam, Michael Phelps... They make it look effortless and easy, subtle even, you have no idea or respect of what it took to get there or are aware of all that work's existance...

Obviously, legal instances not withstanding, thus the axiom holds true more than ever, "don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see".

:)