Masters of Photography or Photoshop?

[iCe]

I took quite a bit of time to look at all of the images on display at Imaging USA yesterday. Quite a few of them were visually stunning. As you would expect for award winning "photographs". But, after looking most of them over more than once, it occured to me that a disturbingly high percentage of them were intensely photochopped. It bothered me. It still bothers me. I actually called Fran (she's a former contest judge) and asked her when photography became photoshop.

Don't get me wrong, I like Photoshop, I will continue to use photoshop, and I look forward to seeing and using the improvements that Adobe will likely make to Photoshop. But... When I take the time to look at an exhibition of photographs I expect to see a much higher percentage of photographs than graphic arts images where the original image is buried under "special effects". I can't help but wonder if the original image was so bad that it needed something to cover it. Is this the way of the future for photography?

On another note it was nice to be there when Shelby Lane found her image (one of the minority that actually looked like an image). If you looked through the gallery, hers was the one of the two little boys dressed in shirts that looked like a Texas flag. Awesome work Shelby.

[ttusa]

Hi Michael,
I still shoot film (feeling like a dinosaur), and the images I display on my web site and here are very pure. With nature photography, especially, I have the same concern as you. I hope photography displays more of the skill of the photographer and not editing programs. I still enjoy the challenges slide fim presents!
Hmmmmm.....interesting topic...

[iCe]

Correction: You shoot film very well Therese Don't feel like a dinosaur... There's nothing wrong with shooting film if that's what you want to do.

I like digital. I like not having to worry about developing slide film (I still have some prepaid envelopes and some Provia and Velvia around here somewhere). Moving to digital increased the amount of photography that I do exponentially. And I have learned more in the last year than I did in 10 years of shooting slide film simply because I can see the mistake seconds after I make it and that has supercharged my passion for pushing the shutter button. But... it disturbed me when I realized that the majority of the "master photography" that I saw on display was actually "master photoshop work" AND it was judged to be master photography...

[my3peas]

On another board that I'm on with much less experienced photographers than here, they use photoshop to make up for the lack of skill. I get so frustrated because these people don't even seem to take the critiques and use them to their advantage as far as shooting goes. Now, I don't even call myself a photographer(aspiring, yes), but I take everything in, read all of your comments and critiqes and apply it to learn more. They'll just "fix it" in photoshop. I just don't get it. Why spend $$$ on a nice camera if they aren't using it to the best of it's (and their's) capability? Almost as if they are too lazy to learn the craft.

[kenw]

So if you are a purist in film, you don't crop, rotate, dodge, burn, or do any of those evil chemical edits in the darkroom, right?

or is it that darkroom edits are somehow ok but using a computer aren't? Meaning if you have access to a darkroom you are qualified but if you don't, you aren't?

Oh, my, the unwashed plebian masses! How dare them to pretend to have talent!

[venchka]

Originally Posted by ttusa

Hi Michael,
I still shoot film (feeling like a dinosaur), and the images I display on my web site and here are very pure. With nature photography, especially, I have the same concern as you. I hope photography displays more of the skill of the photographer and not editing programs. I still enjoy the challenges slide fim presents!
Hmmmmm.....interesting topic...

That's photography as I know it.

It's a darn shame that juried competitions don't make a distinction between photographs and computer graphics. Each can be stunning.

As for the "I blew the shot. I'll fix it in Photoshop." syndrome, don't people realize that if you don't get it right the first time, you can't really fix it? I admit that I use Adobe Lightroom sparingly to correct the scans I get from the minilab or Dwayne's Photo. I figure that's ok because I'm working on a copy of my original. I'm not doing any more nor any less than I would do in the darkroom with different papers, dodging, burning, etc. In fact, I can't dodge & burn in Lightroom. Therefore, I find my exposures are getting better knowing I can't fix it in the darkroom.

People who have never known anything but digital full auto photography have missed something. They are completely unaware of the history of photography. That's a shame.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it," I always say. Unfortunately, too many people today don't recognize an image that is broke and think they can fix it. Or even worse, "fix" a perfectly good photograph with the latest "plug in." What the heck do plug ins have to do with a photograph? Except maybe remembering to plug in the enlarger or the coffe pot.

Y'all be safe in this nasty weather!

[iCe]

Originally Posted by kenw

So if you are a purist in film, you don't crop, rotate, dodge, burn, or do any of those evil chemical edits in the darkroom, right?

or is it that darkroom edits are somehow ok but using a computer aren't? Meaning if you have access to a darkroom you are qualified but if you don't, you aren't?

Oh, my, the unwashed plebian masses! How dare them to pretend to have talent!

Nice words. Did you see the exhibition?

<edit> If you had... you would get what I am saying. Some of my favorite images (mine) have had CS2 work. That's 1/2 the fun of digital... But... a lot of the images in the exhibition did not resemble a photograph...

[iCe]

Originally Posted by venchka

That's photography as I know it.

It's a darn shame that juried competitions don't make a distinction between photographs and computer graphics. Each can be stunning.

As for the "I blew the shot. I'll fix it in Photoshop." syndrome, don't people realize that if you don't get it right the first time, you can't really fix it? I admit that I use Adobe Lightroom sparingly to correct the scans I get from the minilab or Dwayne's Photo. I figure that's ok because I'm working on a copy of my original. I'm not doing any more nor any less than I would do in the darkroom with different papers, dodging, burning, etc. In fact, I can't dodge & burn in Lightroom. Therefore, I find my exposures are getting better knowing I can't fix it in the darkroom.

People who have never known anything but digital full auto photography have missed something. They are completely unaware of the history of photography. That's a shame.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it," I always say. Unfortunately, too many people today don't recognize an image that is broke and think they can fix it. Or even worse, "fix" a perfectly good photograph with the latest "plug in." What the heck do plug ins have to do with a photograph? Except maybe remembering to plug in the enlarger or the coffe pot.

Y'all be safe in this nasty weather!

One of the things that I love about digital is the semi-instant gratification... but the thing that I am REALLY loving is shooting in M... I've made it my mission to eliminate any of the auto modes. But I am soooooo much a chimper now

[ttusa]

Okay, so what's a chimper????

[Daniel Bates]

http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/chimping/

[iCe]

Take the shot... look at the LCD... go oooh ahhhh

[ttusa]

Oh, I guess that makes me a delayed Chimper???

[kenw]

Michael, I know exactly what you are saying. I'm referrring to an attitude in general held by some, not necessarily your post. But you DID say: ".....when photography became photoshop".

What we have to be careful with is how we define "photograph" and realize that "straight-out-of-the-camera" is rarely the end result.

A photo only begins with the camera. It ends when the artist says it is finished using whatever tools he chooses.

[Lax]

Originally Posted by iCe

I took quite a bit of time to look at all of the images on display at Imaging USA yesterday. Quite a few of them were visually stunning. As you would expect for award winning "photographs". But, after looking most of them over more than once, it occured to me that a disturbingly high percentage of them were intensely photochopped. It bothered me. It still bothers me. I actually called Fran (she's a former contest judge) and asked her when photography became photoshop.

I also have to agree. I was pretty disappointed with the print display. Many of the photos were overally photoshopped with a fantasy theme or something extreme. (Just not my cup o' tea) To me Photoshop can compliment a photo although some of the time people go to far. I enjoy the photographer's "vision", not their computer skills. To each their own though.

[iCe]

Originally Posted by kenw

Michael, I know exactly what you are saying. I'm referrring to an attitude in general held by some, not necessarily your post. But you DID say: ".....when photography became photoshop".

What we have to be careful with is how we define "photograph" and realize that "straight-out-of-the-camera" is rarely the end result.

A photo only begins with the camera. It ends when the artist says it is finished using whatever tools he chooses.

Ken, We are probably not that far apart on this. When the image is no longer discernable as a photograph... then it shouldn't be on display as a photograph much less represented as a Master Photographer's work.

Nick- Exactly...