Is it a photo or Photoshop?

[Ronnoco]

I think that some of the attitudes expressed here, related to postprocessing tend to be rationalizations. Way back when, some photographers shot, took their photos to a pro developer and got the prints or slides. Others did a lot of work in the darkroom burning, dodging and experimenting, in order to improve their photos. The ones who did not do darkroom work, proclaimed themselves as purists, but one wonders whether they had darkrooms or the skill and expertise to modify their prints. Those that did, got really creative in some cases and got really ahead of the wave, in producing super quality prints.

Digital came in and post processing switched from the darkroom to the computer, but some things did not change. Those who were perhaps less computer literate or less comfortable with photo editing software declared themselves camera purists and true photgraphers whereas those using Photoshop instead of a darkroom were using postprocessing as a crutch to make bad photography look good. Those with a critical eye were using postprocessing to bring the recorded image closer to what their eye actually saw at the moment the photo was taken.

As Photo-John has indicated at well, every photo requires post processing. The challenge is to avoid reducing quality, sharpness, colour, impact, or adding noise, artifacts, purple, dark or white fringing, during the course of post-processsing. It is certainly not easy and some photographers are willing to learn and determined to accomplish this goal, whereas others with less confidence perhaps use the rationalization of being a camera purist.

The current trend in the industry tends to be a balance. Filters, lighting and all the usual film techniques are used in digital as well, before the shot is taken and afterwards postprocessing is used to improve detail, colour, sharpness, and exposure.

Some have asked where is the line between a photo and an image. I think the line is related to believability. Green or yellow colours in the sky tend to be overdoing the post-processing. Bleeding colours, particularly reds, is overdoing the saturation. Dead red colours with bright greens is messing with colour balance or the RGB controls. The too common loss of detail in the white and black of BW shots indicates too much fiddling with contrast.

So, where are you in the learning process? Are you comfortable with computer photo-editing? Do you post-process? Do you perhaps rationalize your lack of post-processing? Do you recognize that you do not have the critical eye to problem-solve some of the issues that come up in postprocessing? If you do Photoshop, do you achieve quality results through a careful organized approach or do you create more problems than you solve through postprocessing?

Ronnoco

[Greg McCary]

I bought a book, Creative Photoshop Landscape Techniques by Les Meehan. The book teaches you how to create Rocks, Snow, Tornados, ripples in water, rainbows and turn brightly lite days to moonlite night scenes ect. I know I will never look at pictures of rainbows, or any other picture for that matter, the same way again. I will always ask is it real or photoshop. You just about have to ask. I wonder about some of the rainbows I've seen even on these forums.
But you can alter what a pictures outcome will be just by changing films or scanning the slides or negatives differently. If you are creating a work of art or a pleasent picture I guess anything goes. If you are documenting what something really looks like or are recording history I guess that would be a different matter.
Greg

[Ronnoco]

I bought a book, Creative Photoshop Landscape Techniques by Les Meehan. The book teaches you how to create Rocks, Snow, Tornados, ripples in water, rainbows and turn brightly lite days to moonlite night scenes ect. I know I will never look at pictures of rainbows, or any other picture for that matter, the same way again. I will always ask is it real or photoshop. You just about have to ask. I wonder about some of the rainbows I've seen even on these forums.
But you can alter what a pictures outcome will be just by changing films or scanning the slides or negatives differently. If you are creating a work of art or a pleasent picture I guess anything goes. If you are documenting what something really looks like or are recording history I guess that would be a different matter.
Greg

It may surprise you but it is possible to do a lot of the above in "creative photography" using film techniques without a computer. I did the moonlit night scene years ago on film BC (before computers). One of the most amusing I saw was a photo of a guy waterskiing behind a car going down a flooded road.

Nevertheless my impression is that most photographers use Photoshop to colour correct, bring out detail, improve apparent sharpness, crop, clone out minor distracting elements, adjust colour balance etc. They tend to work with what they have and the only thing they might tend to add would be perhaps blue to the sky.

From a very practical point of view, workflow and time constraints enter into the picture. A pro really does not have the time to waste, extensively photoshopping one image to a level of perfection expected in the industry. It is easier to go back out and shoot what you want.

Ronnoco

[Greg McCary]

Thanks for sharing Ron. I am sure photographers had to work harder in BC, a good term. I know they didn't just snap and develope. A true labor of love I am sure. Good computer skills is a must for todays photographers. This is truly a fun, new found hobby for me. Right now I am in huge learning stage. One day I hope to go digital. I can tell from these forums it will be a whole new ball game, white balance, sensors, raw. ect. ect.
I thought when I first got onto this that PhotoShop was in a way was cheating, but reading and learning about the BC days and scanning my owns slides and negatives I have since learned differently. Photography is an Art form, for me anyways..
Greg

[Medley]

I'm one of those Photoshoppers-turned-photographers that you spoke of. I've been doing Photoshop for about four years now and photography (well, serious photography anyway) for about a year. I'm just beginning to learn how to do things "in-camera" that I've done in Photoshop for years. It turns out that the best way to achieve a fish-eye lens effect is to use a fish-eye lens. Who knew?

Jokes aside, I find that skill in one increases proficiency in the other. For example, knowing how to eliminate noise while maintaining image detail in Photoshop has prompted me to more experimentation with ISO settings and ambient lighting effects. At the same time, creating quality images in photography has shown me what to shoot for in my image editing.

-Joe U.

[livin4lax09]

the most interesting quote I've read on topic of this debate pointed out "is a book any less of a book if it's typed using a computer versus written by hand?" the answer is no. they're both books, one just uses a newer technology to make it easier. and that's exactly what PS does. so is a photo less of a photo because it's been processed in photoshop as opposed to the darkroom? no. does it take more talent to process in the darkroom? now that's a whole different argument...

[Hdr]

Art tomorrow will not look like today. Neither the tools used nor the the results....

[Ronnoco]

I'm one of those Photoshoppers-turned-photographers that you spoke of. I've been doing Photoshop for about four years now and photography (well, serious photography anyway) for about a year. I'm just beginning to learn how to do things "in-camera" that I've done in Photoshop for years. It turns out that the best way to achieve a fish-eye lens effect is to use a fish-eye lens. Who knew?

Jokes aside, I find that skill in one increases proficiency in the other. For example, knowing how to eliminate noise while maintaining image detail in Photoshop has prompted me to more experimentation with ISO settings and ambient lighting effects. At the same time, creating quality images in photography has shown me what to shoot for in my image editing.

-Joe U.

Well, I am the photographer, turned TV camera operator, turned computer graphics type and yes, I do all of the above including production,direction, and script writing, and find that the knowledge is definitely transferable. Attention to detail in Photoshop certainly leads to attention to detail behind the camera and vice versa.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Art tomorrow will not look like today. Neither the tools used nor the the results....

The point is that most have NOT even seen what today's art looks like. I have examples of ultra-sophisticated 3D electronic art and animation from 20 years ago that is in museums and galleries that few people have seen. I would bet that few people here can name the most respected electronic artists in the world or know that one is a former physicist and another is a woman.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

does it take more talent to process in the darkroom? now that's a whole different argument...

No, it doesn't take more talent to process in a darkroom, then on a computer, ...just different talent particularly at the more sophisticated levels.

Ronnoco

[rzozaya1969]

......
From a very practical point of view, workflow and time constraints enter into the picture. A pro really does not have the time to waste, extensively photoshopping one image to a level of perfection expected in the industry. It is easier to go back out and shoot what you want.

Ronnoco

I think this is actually a very good thread. But I just don't think that there is 'one single great approach to achieve the desired results'. I think that sometimes it's faster to photoshop something that try to reshoot what you wanted, specially if it was one in a lifetime shot.

What if you found out that in a session with a model the greatest pose was underexposed? Probably hiring the model again and try her/him to stand the same way with the same expression would be hard, expensive and time consuming.

Or if you need two different elements in a single picture? cut and paste it's easier than taking Johny to Paris and return.

I think that the better any kind of artist knows his/her tools, and the more tools they have, the easier they can come up with new ideas, and artistic constraints will be more of creativity than in how to do things.

Knowing how to use photoshop very well also helps photo taking, I think. As a photographer, if you now the tools available, you can focus more on how you need to frame your subjects to edit them later. For example, using a blue or green screen. If you don't understand how to use it, probably you could just select a blue screen, but forget to tell your model to avoid wearing blue clothes. Or how to use lighting on the models. Maybe the scene or background you want to use has the light coming from a window from the right, but you use a top placed flash when shooting your model. When you join them, the result photo will not look natural.

So, I think that using Photoshop (or any other software) to post-process images and get the result one is looking for is very valid, and also they can use it to expand on the media capabilities.

[Ronnoco]

I think this is actually a very good thread. But I just don't think that there is 'one single great approach to achieve the desired results'. I think that sometimes it's faster to photoshop something that try to reshoot what you wanted, specially if it was one in a lifetime shot.

What if you found out that in a session with a model the greatest pose was underexposed? Probably hiring the model again and try her/him to stand the same way with the same expression would be hard, expensive and time consuming.

Or if you need two different elements in a single picture? cut and paste it's easier than taking Johny to Paris and return.

I think that the better any kind of artist knows his/her tools, and the more tools they have, the easier they can come up with new ideas, and artistic constraints will be more of creativity than in how to do things.

Knowing how to use photoshop very well also helps photo taking, I think. As a photographer, if you now the tools available, you can focus more on how you need to frame your subjects to edit them later. For example, using a blue or green screen. If you don't understand how to use it, probably you could just select a blue screen, but forget to tell your model to avoid wearing blue clothes. Or how to use lighting on the models. Maybe the scene or background you want to use has the light coming from a window from the right, but you use a top placed flash when shooting your model. When you join them, the result photo will not look natural.

So, I think that using Photoshop (or any other software) to post-process images and get the result one is looking for is very valid, and also they can use it to expand on the media capabilities.

Very good points! Generalizations are certainly not universally true in all situations. You certainly need to evaluate your projected use of time in either photoshopping or re-shooting and then decide which is the best approach. I must admit that I don't always chose to reshoot.

Thanks for reminding me and others that there are "qualifications" and exceptions to every general statement.

Ronnoco

[darkman]

:thumbsup:

Very good points! Generalizations are certainly not universally true in all situations. You certainly need to evaluate your projected use of time in either photoshopping or re-shooting and then decide which is the best approach. I must admit that I don't always chose to reshoot.

Thanks for reminding me and others that there are "qualifications" and exceptions to every general statement

Ronnoco

While I agree with the above comments, I still believe its best to get it right in the camera or reshoot - most the time

I think the difference comes between doing lots of photos to one offs. When I'm doing portraits or sports, for example, it's a losing situation to be editing every one. My day would never end, most people don't notice anyway. I also can't charge enough to make it worth my while. I find automation in processing, and the waste basket, is the key here. I do agree that some things are easier in post processing...

Conversely, when I'm shooting for myself, doing a one-off artistic shot, I will spend time editing.

So, where are you in the learning process? Are you comfortable with computer photo-editing? Do you post-process? Do you perhaps rationalize your lack of post-processing? Do you recognize that you do not have the critical eye to problem-solve some of the issues that come up in postprocessing? If you do Photoshop, do you achieve quality results through a careful organized approach or do you create more problems than you solve through postprocessing?

I'm fairly good at PS. I do draw a line on how much work I'm going to put in. Moreover, it takes time and work to do good PS. Look how much work on-line you can find that has obviously been edited. And, this is viewed at a size you can get away with nearly anything.

So, yes I post process often, I'm comfortable with it, I rationalize it in the sense that I'll draw the line in how much time I'll spend. Ultimately, most people don't notices if you overly nitpick an image. A good photo is identifiable w/o lots of processing (generalization). Whereas, a good image may not be.:thumbsup:

I'm not sure what you mean by not have a "critical eye to solve some issues..." I pretty much can figure out and "see" what I need to do.

As far as work flow, I have a very specific flow I follow that works for me!

[shutterman]

Who cares!

If you follow some people's concern about post processing with Photoshop back one level - then is Canon's algortithms in their sensors truer or Nikons? Same with film, is Reala a true reproduction of color or do slides do a better job.

What about color temps of different lenses? Some are warmer, some are cooler, etc. The list goes on.......

Literally everything you do from picking a camera type, lense type, etc will change the scene you are trying to photograph before you even put it in the computer so what does it matter afterwords?

Just find something you like and want to photograph and take it and have fun with it!

Thanks,
Wes

[MarcusK]

Ok....you go out and hear all this talk about photoshop and post processing, and bla bla bla.... people needing to say there needs to be a line drawn....and i can't help but ask...why?

In my own opinions, what is happening, is these "draw the line" are those who are envious of other people's creativity....

Second, a photographer (a good one anyway) will take a good picture whatever the tools they are using....and these tools are not Camera - lens - tripod - film(or card), they extend to anyting that affects the final image.....

The only issue for me is, most photographers or rather alot of them, are getting lazy...so having PS does not mean you take one shot...however it turns out...i'll fix it later... that is my issue....disregarding on-site, on the spot fixing and experimentation, under the pretext that you can fix it later is ridiculous.... but is not wrong.....I disagree with it, and think it is disgusting (with all due respect to any who do that)....but i won't say this is no longer photography.... I have done my share of darkroom processing in B&W and the most fun i had was in manipulating the photos to come up with an interesting or more accurate approach to the theme or concept of my photo...

The issue is nowadays more widespread, simply because photography has grown exponentially in the consumer field...hence, the misconception "anyone can take pictures and fix them"... A lot more people have computers, at least one image editing software.... the point and shoots are getting pretty good, the DSLR's are affordable... so it feels as if anyone can do it... but can anyone direct for example? most people will say NO...

I think also this has become an issue because the Photographer is still looked at as Camera Operator (I am not referring to the camera operators on film sets or TV sets who have quite an important role).... Operators in the sense where they just point and shoot...

there is no line to be drawn...for that means you are putting a limit on creativity....you are limitting the creative freedom of the artist....

If the issue though was "Is there a line to draw in Photojournalism?" then yes...for you are supposed to bring the truth (at least in the image) and not manipulate it JUST to get a story...

Marc

[JBPhoto]

I saw the title of this thread and had to chime in. I worked in sales for Adobe from 1987 to 1997 and had the pleasure on several occasions of working with a photo-realist painter by the name of Bert Monroy. Bert has been using Photoshop since day one (he's in the Photoshop Hall of Fame and is the author of the first ever book on Photoshop) as a medium to create original artwork. Take a look at his latest work entitled Damen, at www.bertmonroy.com. If this doesn't beg the question "is it a photo or is it Photoshop"?, I don't know what will.

This from Bert's website regarding Damen...

Adobe Illustrator was used for generating the majority of the basic shapes as well as all the buildings in the Chicago skyline.
The rest was created in Photoshop.
• The image size is 40 inches by 120 inches.
• The flattened file weighs in at 1.7 Gigabytes.
• It took eleven months (close to 2,000 hours) to create.
• The painting is comprised of close to fifty individual Photoshop files.
• Taking a cumulative total of all the files, the overall image contains over 15,000 layers.
• Over 500 alpha channels were used for various effects.
• Over 250,000 paths make up the multitude of shapes throughout the scene.

[MarcusK]

JB - first off, that was a great link, thanks... as for the image he created, if you look at the close ups, as great as his work is, and mostly in the second close up, you can see it is not a photo...

And as strong an argument as presenting Bert's work may be, it does not quite fit here....at least i dont think so....

The point is, how much can you manipulate an image taken with a camera? what Bert has done, is painting, or illustration or call it whatever, but not photography!

Photography starts in the "mind's eye" of the photographer, then with the camera, then with the darkroom (be it digital or not)... That is what believe!

As for placing more than one image on top of each other to create a final one, think of it as "collage" but not as obvious as the other....

And as i have been reading lately, in rules of contests of sites where you can submit your photos, as long as you are doing it for art, there is no issue.... but when you do it to get the story....to bend the truth, or blatently lie....then this no longer is an issue of photography or art, but one of morals and ethics...

Marc

[JBPhoto]

Marc - By no means am I suggesting that Bert's work attempts to pass as photography. His work is clearly art, and he classifies himself as a realist painter, using Photoshop and light as his medium. I understand that this thread deals with the topic of... how much editing can be done to a photo before it becomes a Photoshop image rather than a photo... so perhaps it's not relevant to the topic. Just thought I'd pass along a cool example of art created with Photoshop.

[MarcusK]

JB i know that which is why i thanked you for it....believe me i meant it.....i been reading up on him all day..... I just wanted to clear things up...

So thanks again for the link...love it!

Marc

[Medley]

This entire thread is a good example of why I prefer the term "digital image". To me, it's just less ambiguous. There are probably a lot of people on this forum who aren't going to like what I'm about to say, but to me if you're using film and darkroom techniques, the result is a photograph. If you're using a dslr, the result is a digital image. The camera is taking light reflected off of the sensor and converting it into an electronic representation of what was reflected. How can that not be considered a digital image?

The trouble here is that "digital image" is a term with a very wide definition. Anything created with Photoshop (or any other imaging software) is also, by definition, a digital image. The only difference is in the source of the image.

This is just my personal view of things. I'm not trying to start any wars here. It's just that after considering the question for some time, this is the most logical place I could find to draw the line.

-Joe U.

[Ronnoco]

Interesting that what I hear in this thread is not the same as elsewhere on this site. John, for example mentioned about one shot a while ago that he would keep the wire in the sunset photo because it was there when the shot was taken. I would have taken it out as a distraction. With reference to another shot I suggested that a washed out white section of the sky in the background be replaced by blue. Jurgen's objection was that the sky may not have been blue on the day the shot was taken. In changing the colour of a jacket in a portrait from black to dark green to match auburn hair and green eyes, the feedback was that it was "fake", although I am not sure how changing the colour made it fake but other postprocessing is OK.

Also even though, it is basic to all portraiture in books, magazines, courses, and the professional industry, many here have objected to de-emphasizing skin blemishes, highlighting hair or eyes, reducing the prominence of wrinkles or bags under the eyes etc. through postprocessing using Photoshop.

I suppose that in Photography like anything else there are always those who for some reason chose not to follow the trends and direction and there are others who view new trends and directions as an opportunity to get into new areas of creativity.

Ronnoco

[mwfanelli]

This entire thread is a good example of why I prefer the term "digital image". To me, it's just less ambiguous. There are probably a lot of people on this forum who aren't going to like what I'm about to say, but to me if you're using film and darkroom techniques, the result is a photograph. If you're using a dslr, the result is a digital image. The camera is taking light reflected off of the sensor and converting it into an electronic representation of what was reflected. How can that not be considered a digital image?

The trouble here is that "digital image" is a term with a very wide definition. Anything created with Photoshop (or any other imaging software) is also, by definition, a digital image. The only difference is in the source of the image.

This is just my personal view of things. I'm not trying to start any wars here. It's just that after considering the question for some time, this is the most logical place I could find to draw the line.

People always hate it when I say this but the "film+darkroom is The Last Word in Photography" is what I call Amish Photography. You are arbitrarily choosing one era of photography and freezing it in time as being "the last of photography" while trying to denigrate whatever comes afterwards with vague labels.

Photography is "writing with light." A digital sensor is, IMHO, more "writing with light" than film photography ever was. There is nothing magical about the media the image is recorded on. There is nothing magical about using toxic chemicals. There is nothing magical about doing things the hard way. Film and darkroom has no more and no less relationship to reality than digital does. Most photography is about the final image, the story it tells, the emotions it creates. How you get there is totally irrelevent.

[Medley]

I understand what you're saying, Michael, and I personally agree with you. The only personal problem I have with this line of thinking is this: by that definition, anything you can create in Photoshop, Illustrator, Paintshop Pro, or any one of hundreds of other applications qualifies as photography. So long as you are creating it with a computer, you are effectively "writing with light." As long as you are willing to accept that a drawing created with my tablet and pen is a "photograph" by your definition, I have no problem accepting your definition.

However, if you do not accept that as fact (and I doubt many people on this particular forum would), then you must necessarily begin to qualify and limit your definition. And as soon as you begin to do that, you start injecting your own personal bias into the definition.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, and I have done no less. But for me personally, my definiton meets two important criteria: It is clearly defined and can be reasonably argued.

You seem to me to be someone who has thought this out, and I respect your position. It is one that I myself have considered many times. I could just never draw a distinction that I couldn't find a reasonable agrument for.

-Joe U.

[mwfanelli]

I understand what you're saying, Michael, and I personally agree with you. The only personal problem I have with this line of thinking is this: by that definition, anything you can create in Photoshop, Illustrator, Paintshop Pro, or any one of hundreds of other applications qualifies as photography. So long as you are creating it with a computer, you are effectively "writing with light." As long as you are willing to accept that a drawing created with my tablet and pen is a "photograph" by your definition, I have no problem accepting your definition.

Is this so bad? Definitions always change as time goes on. Just look at the word "computer" that went from huge machines on raised floors with punched cards to PCs, PDAs. cell phones, the chips in your car, your supermarket, your wrist, etc. The reason that attempts to limt the definition always fail is because definitions in the vernacular are always changing in spite of what we might want.

Embrace the change! It allows one to still use and enjoy film, you could go back to wet plates if you wanted to! Nothing has been lost. Change also opens up a vast array of other options as well, it is all very inclusive this time around.


.

[MarcusK]

Michael, you bring out very nice points...

Joe, in adding to what both you and Michael have said in your last 2 posts, Michael's definition it pretty spot on, but remember you need to add the fact that at least one of the images (if you are compositing) or part of it anyway, needs to be taken with a camera...

The reason i mention that, is that a painter is not the same as "drawer" or sketch artist... they use different techniques and most importantly different tools.... The Brush makes you a painter.... The camera a photographer... therefore, drawing in illustrator or any other software using your tablet ( i love tablets) strictly.... then you become like Bert Monroy www.bertmonroy.com who is a digital artist or painter....

So its "Writing with light in a camera" if you will....then if you add stuff to it, it remains photography, Dali by defining a style was not considered any less of a painter....

Dunno i am making my point clear.... but this is my own input!
Marc