What is your views on photographers using editing for final works?

Question

I feel using photoshop to certain extents is kind of cheating. I think doing great works of the craft of photography require emphasis on the actual camera not editing software. I agree photoshops can come out amazing but there is a higher respect within using the one sole utensil, the camera.

Answer 1

I have read this before, and mostly it was from film photographers. Understand, I shoot totally in RAW. It is what the camera sees without enhancements, sharpening, white balance, levels applied. It is sort of what you used to get from your photo-negatives.

Nobody said we should only look at photonegatives because when they were printed out, the photographer messed with them. No, it was all part of the image experience. Exposure time, temperature, even Unsharp Mask were techniques to change photography's impact on the viewer.

I seldom do "realistic" work anymore. I can do it and have the shots to prove it, but why? If we are talking artistic nudes of models, Playboy and Penthouse have the bucks to do it right. I cannot pay models that well. Instead I touch up a bit here, and warp a bit there. Why? Because I infuse something of myself into each image. It is my right as an artist.

Forensics is one thing, art another. Cheating? I am not sure I understand the term as it is being used.

Answer 2

I agree with you up to a point. I started my training when photoshop was brand new so I received training in traditional techniques at a very high level. On the other hand, I worked in photo restoration for a couple of years using photoshop so I know it well. Photoshop has its place. Some amazing composites and montages can be done, as well as restoring damaged photos at a quality level unmatched by hand techniques. The problem, in my opinion, comes from people who try to use Photoshop to salvage poor pictures which never should have been used in the first place. If you know your equipment and techniques you shouldn't need photoshop for anything more than dust-spotting. Sadly for the industry, this happens often. The other thing I see is that people have gotten used to seeing that bad quality and are losing their "eye for qualty" . Look at an Ansel Adams photo or even a poster up close and you will see a level of quality that is nearly forgotten today. I have worked in the industry 22 years now at every level, so that's where I formed my opinion from. I'm not trying to knock anyone else's work, I just see too much junk in magazines and portfolios.

Answer 3

How would you feel if someone said they relied on correct print exposure time, filters, and dodging/burning in the dark room for their prints to be correct? Tools that almost all the photographers in here would agree are necessary with printing film. To me, its the same statement. Maybe Im just dont have the years of experience, but rarely is their a picture that can be done as just as straight print in the dark room. Personally, I am far more of an abstract artist than a photographer. My photographs (and the process for taking the photographs) are just the beginning for me, while for many photographers the process of taking the picture is the beginning middle and near end. I rely heavily on photoshop, but not because I dont know how to take a picture, but because the click of the camera is not the end of the process for me. While many people do tweak some stuff, for most people its just tieing up loose ends, so to speak. I like to play with colors and different effects. I do understand what you mean by knowing or not knowing how to take a picture, though. And agree that if someone is professionally working as a photographer, they should know how to take a picture.

Answer 4

I agree and disagree. You are definitetly right that it is respectable for one to produce an amazing image with a camera and nothing more. I mean that is what being a professional is about. Absolutely anyone can make a photo, but to be able to make a piece of art using only a camera is a talent.

However, even though everyone can take a photo, not everyone can take away a huge zit, or wrinkles, or stray hairs in a photo. If you can do that without using photoshop then you are to be highly respected.

I use very minimal photoshop, but I do try to make my hardest to make my clients look as if their photos were for a magazine spread. If I were doing landscape or photojournalistic work I absolutely would not touch photoshop except to resize or run levels.

Answer 5

Photographers before the computer age also edits their final work so in this sense, those using photoshop is no much different. However, news photo edited with photoshop seems to be kind of cheat to me.

Answer 6

I view photoshop work like plastic surgery. Its great and imperative for restoration work. Its also okay for "enhancing" or "graphic artist" work. I've seen a great photo being even made greated by a talented graphic artist (Rain, great teamwork you have with your hubby).

And I see your point Labatt. I've met a lot of rich kids with expensive equipment who regard photoshop as an excuse to take dull photos. I guess, they didnt get training like middle aged photographers who grew up on film and were trained to take the perfect photo on the first try.

That's why for me, when I need someone to cover my personal events (i.e.my parties - since I want to be in the pictures), I always employ a photographer who has an extensive background in film photography (and I can just lend him/her my Nikon D200).

Photoshop does not replace photography lessons.

Answer 7

I disagree. My husband is the photographer in our business. I'm the graphic artist. (just so you understand the perspective I'm coming from) The only individuals I have ever had criticize our use of Photoshop were other photographers who did not have the personnel or personal ability to use this tool properly.
It's a tool nothing more. Back in the pre digital days folks did all sorts of things in the dark room to improve thier images. It's just taking it to the next level. I have happy customers which leads to increased business.

Answer 8

The original untouched image is great if it is what you consider to be perfect or acceptable. The PhotoSop enhanced image is more a work of art than a raw photograph. It is your choice and your conscience.

I would prefer to get it right in the camera but if not possible I like having PS to help me.

Plus I may be in a creative mood, where I want to do collages or montages... I definitely need PS for that.

Answer 9

during the days of film photography, photographers had been using chemicals to dodge, burn, crop, montaging, exposing the film to create great photos. and these actions are just being translated into digital form which is the photoshopyou are talking about.

besides, photography is a result, not a process. what viewers really care is how the photo turn out, not how the photo is created. but of cause, different type of photography have a different level of photo manipulation allowed. for example, u can over-process a photo for the news paper article which might change the integrity of it.

cheers.
;)

Answer 10

One basic problem is that when the image is processed in anyway past its RAW form it has gone through computer editing and is no longer the "pure" image captured by the camera. In the past a photog could shoot a variety of films to help get the look that he/she was after. In the past the photog could use dodging and burning techniques or even different chemicals to get the look he wanted. Digital photographers are doing the same things, just in digital post processing.