Do you think photographers go over board with Photoshop these days?

In landscape photography, to me, less is more. If you did work to the photograph and i cant tell that you did any work to the photograph, you did a good job (IMHO).

Photography is both a science and an art (among other things). I've seen some very fine PS work done to photographs with an artist's hand.

In the film days, they called themselves "straight photographers" that didn't manipulate a print. But, as HP pointed out, they really did when they first framed the shot. One of the group is Ansel Adams, who did a lot of dodging and burning. He even had multiple lights in the enlarger to control different areas of the print.

In the digital realm, you can pick a CMOS or CCD type sensor. I remember online arguments on whether you can tell the difference between an image made with a Nikon compared to a Canon. At one time Nikon used mostly CCD's and Canon used CMOS chips. As soon as you press the shutter button, image manipulation occurs. And not just in the chip, but in the camera's processor as well. The colors are applied to each photosite, a "gamma" is applied and a lot more is being done to YOUR picture.

Even if you shoot RAW, these are standard things done to the image.

As you see, there is image manipulation BEFORE you get to Ps. Whether you think it is too much, is purely a matter of taste.

Matthew

MLKstudios wrote: Photography is both a science and an art (among other things). I've seen some very fine PS work done to photographs with an artist's hand.

In the film days, they called themselves "straight photographers" that didn't manipulate a print. But, as HP pointed out, they really did when they first framed the shot. One of the group is Ansel Adams, who did a lot of dodging and burning. He even had multiple lights in the enlarger to control different areas of the print.

In the digital realm, you can pick a CMOS or CCD type sensor. I remember online arguments on whether you can tell the difference between an image made with a Nikon compared to a Canon. At one time Nikon used mostly CCD's. As soon as you press the shutter button, image manipulation occurs. And not just in the chip, but in the camera's processor as well. The colors are applied to each photosite, a "gamma" is applied and a lot more is being done to YOUR picture.

Even if you shoot RAW, there are standard things done to the image.

As you see, there is image manipulation BEFORE you get to Ps. Whether you think it is too much, is purely a matter of taste.

Matthew

Agreed...theres no such as "natural" photography. You're either using chemicals, mechanical devices, or software.

Is this "too much"?

lockerz.com/s/111989483

Most "photographers" in this digital age of photography have little or no knowledge of the history of photography. I agree that Photoshop as a tool has been abused by those who wanted to make their poorly exposed captures look better (good luck), but it also has enhanced the avenues for creativity. In the early days of photography, it was evolving to become accepted as an art form. The evolution of capture and printing from the Daguerreotype to film had changed very little until the digital age. In that timeline there were Gumbichromate prints. Demachy as an example of an early photographer who went beyond the norm to create something different from anyone else. Talbot was another. In the modern day, jerry uelsmann did combination printing 30 years before Photoshop was even a twinkle of a thought. I could name many more. Photoshop in nothing more than a tool. Given to the hands of someone who knows how to use the tool, it offers great results. Given to someone who is clueless of how it works, well, enough said.

Well said new guy. And I like your hat.

MLKstudios wrote: Is this "too much"?

lockerz.com/s/111989483

nah i just think its hideous

Scotty wrote:

MLKstudios wrote: Is this "too much"?

lockerz.com/s/111989483

nah i just think its hideous

I think these are the classic examples of a photographer trying to SAVE something that shouldn't be saved. That's just my humble opinion.

That was made by JPC who also did these:

www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/gallery/scroll.php

Like a few Nat Geo photogs, they are working with an iPhone and the apps that you can get for it. In other words, an image taken, "manipulated" and print ready on the spot with an iPhone.

Do you think photographers go over board with Photoshop these days?

Define "photographers" and "go over board".

The answer is most likely yes, because obvious there are "photographers" who will "go over board".

MLKstudios wrote: That was made by JPC who also did these:

www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/gallery/scroll.php

Like a few Nat Geo photogs, they are working with an iPhone and the apps that you can get for it. In other words, an image taken, "manipulated" and print ready on the spot with an iPhone.

It's still hideous.

Hey everyone,
Far be it me to judge or degrade anyones art work. There are times when a photographer can go overboard, I do it myself. I sometimes like to hear the envelope rip as I push at its sides. Then are times when I say .......I will leave well enough alone, it looks fine. "Artist" have there way of expressing themselves , this is just another way of letting there emotions be felt ........So with all of my BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, Yes and No .. It can be used to extremes or not enough, or, Hit that Sweet spot !
Just my two cents,

Be safe Be Well

The problem I have is when a photo is doctored so much that it can no longer be called a photo any longer and needs to be called an Illustration.

Trying to pass off photos that has been edited, composite, and manipulated in a way that no longer represents what was there or what it looked like when the photo was taken becomes a bit much.

I am all for tweaking a photo to make a photo represent what the photographer saw when taking the pic but come on...

I guess Alex posted this on Facebook again.

Welcome Facebook people! Stick around!

euphoria wrote: The problem I have is when a photo is doctored so much that it can no longer be called a photo any longer and needs to be called an Illustration.

Trying to pass off photos that has been edited, composite, and manipulated in a way that no longer represents what was there or what it looked like when the photo was taken becomes a bit much.

I am all for tweaking a photo to make a photo represent what the photographer saw when taking the pic but come on...

Really depends on the application.