[Snoops27]

Sorry for being an old fogey (whatever that means), but am I the only one out here who feels that something is wrong with today's view of photography. Apart from on the "newbies" forums on photog sites it has become almost impossible to find an image which has not been digitally manipulated and distorted by photoshop or similar; and I omit to used a capital "p" on purpose as in my lonely opinion photoshop is used to ridiculous extremes and is being hauted far beyond its actual real life value to photography and its roots. What happened to the real images that the photographer saw through the viewfinder? What has happened to the challenge of going out in foul weather to capture the dark threatening clouds that gathered broodily before a thunderstorm? Do we really think it better to take an "ordinary" shot and digitally turn it into something a lifetime away from what the camera actually saw? These images I see posted on the vast majority of websites definitely have something to say, are without a doubt extremely artistic and have a place in todays Artistic society, but are they REALLY photographs? That's todays assignment - DISCUSS !!! LOL.

[Kerrowdown]

By the sheer nature of the digital medium, all images require a wee tweak in post to contrast and sharpening, but I guess your referring to the more heavily "shopped" images one sees.

For me... it's a why not and each to their own, but in journalism it's not allowed, so that's really the purest form of photography currently in everyday usage.

[Rimfiredude]

I agree with you on most of what you say. But I remember in the days of film, getting my pictures back from the lab and saying to my friends "The pictures are not accurate, you should have been there." With the modern programs in the digital world you can enhance the photo to represent more accurately what you did see through the lens, or what you thought you saw. I think trying to represent what you see is not wrong, but correct. The camera/lens can't possibly capture what your eyes/mind does. Use the modern tools to HELP not CHANGE. Saying all that, HDR can be a lot of fun.

[Snoops27]

I agree with you on most of what you say. But I remember in the days of film, getting my pictures back from the lab and saying to my friends "The pictures are not accurate, you should have been there." With the modern programs in the digital world you can enhance the photo to represent more accurately what you did see through the lens, or what you thought you saw. I think trying to represent what you see is not wrong, but correct. The camera/lens can't possibly capture what your eyes/mind does. Use the modern tools to HELP not CHANGE. Saying all that, HDR can be a lot of fun.

I'm in the camp where I have no problem with basic image editing to improve brightness, contrast, sharpness etc. and cloning out unwanted objects/blemishes such as a discarded drinks carton for example. But I am opposed to excessive manipulation. I want the image to remain a reasonably true and fair reflection of the scene and colours originally photographed.

[manntax]

I ticked Photoshop is overused by professionals because this is what I observe .. in professional area people are being modified, plasticized and adjusted so that they serve the selfish purpose of campaigners, product manufactures or sellers. Sadly this is very influential and especially young people, heck ! whole young generation !! are being contaminated with sick untrue and idealized view of people or their bodies.

[Tom S.]

Moved to proper area. General Talk is specifically for Non Photography topics only.

[flaviopetrone]

I think that Photoshop is overused.
I have it installed in my computer but I never use it.
I am not a good photographer at all, but my rule is one and very easy : if I can't fix a picture by Lightroom, that picture is a bad one.
I prefer to improve my skills and try to get better pictures. It is very difficult, but I want to be a photographer one day, not a graphic.

[Snoops27]

I think that Photoshop is overused.
I have it installed in my computer but I never use it.
I am not a good photographer at all, but my rule is one and very easy : if I can't fix a picture by Lightroom, that picture is a bad one.
I prefer to improve my skills and try to get better pictures. It is very difficult, but I want to be a photographer one day, not a graphic.

Thanks Flavio, I agrre with every single word.. At least someone sees things the way I do!!!

[FantasticMrFox]

It's the ages old debate. Even in the film days elaborate manipulations were being done in the darkroom.

In the end, everyone has to find their own philosophy. I personally try to produce something that comes close to what my eyes saw, and as my eyes have a much better dynamic range than any camera on the market, that naturally involves some post processing (mostly via LR though). I don't like what some people do to their pictures, especially when HDR goes wrong and the picture turns into a Walt Disney nightmare, but again, it all comes down to personal taste.

[JimC1101]

I use Photoshop rarely on occasion but I do use Lightroom extensively for processing with RAW files. I don't know if you include Lightroom as Photoshop since it is called Photoshop Lightroom. Just wanted to clarify.

[Marktax]

"Photoshop" (and its analogs) are the necessary "develop" pathways of our time. But yes, they are overused many cases. People have a right to do what they want with their images, but with respect to landscape and nature photography, eye-candy processing can mislead viewers into thinking the environment is still loaded with unexplored expanses, and in better shape than it is. I still admire photographers who make the effort to be in the right place at the right time for the light and scene at hand, with the right idea in mind.

[Snoops27]

"Photoshop" (and its analogs) are the necessary "develop" pathways of our time. But yes, they are overused many cases. People have a right to do what they want with their images, but with respect to landscape and nature photography, eye-candy processing can mislead viewers into thinking the environment is still loaded with unexplored expanses, and in better shape than it is. I still admire photographers who make the effort to be in the right place at the right time for the light and scene at hand, with the right idea in mind.

If you check out post #4, you'll see what my opinion is in the reply to the post. Beautiful shot btw, where did you take it??

[lochness]

I'm in the camp where I have no problem with basic image editing to improve brightness, contrast, sharpness etc. and cloning out unwanted objects/blemishes such as a discarded drinks carton for example. But I am opposed to excessive manipulation. I want the image to remain a reasonably true and fair reflection of the scene and colours originally photographed.

I agree with the above.

At a recent meeting of my Photographic Society we had an "Amateur" Photoshop Expert as a speaker. He showed some excellent pictures but, from his comments, one gained the impression that the idea of taking a picture which would require little or no manipulation (as opposed to simple and basic tidying and exposure modification as above) was foreign to him. This positiveness of view may have been slightly coloured by the fact that he had created a number of DVD's on Photoshop Techniques available to buy, but I did however leave the meeting thinking that the DVD's were the egg and not the chicken!

[tvdtvdtvd]

I've always felt the art of photography was a two step process. Composing the image and snapping the shutter is the first step.
developing/processing that raw negative/digital file into a viewable image is the second step. You can't display a negative,
(well, not in most cases), and you can't display a computer file without first 'processing' it in some fashion.

I too selected Photoshop is over used because I feel that is truly the case. Digital PP offers a great deal of ease and power to
manipulate the final image, and at least for the present, there is a certain Wow! factor in all those hyperreal images. Trouble is,
the internet allows for the dissemination of a great deal of mediocre efforts for all to see, perhaps leading to the conclusion
that PP is bad for photography.

This same argument could be made for painting. Did abstraction ruin painting? Certainly many painters of the late 19th and
early 20th century thought so. There have even been a number of Realism revivals within the medium as a reaction.

Post Production is the modern dark room and Photoshop is a tool in that dark room, not unlike Rodinal in the analog age.
You can't get away from it but you can decide for yourself which tools you want to use and how you want to use them.

[micromacro]

But I am opposed to excessive manipulation. I want the image to remain a reasonably true and fair reflection of the scene and colours originally photographed.

I really don't mind. Sometimes it's an amazing job, sometimes not that amazing, but that's how it is these days. Only one kind of photoshopping annoys me: sweet/cute pics edited to the point that lightning is terrible. Have you seen paintings when the artist has no clue about proper lightning? When I see the same in photography, it's annoying.