Over-Photoshopping = Pet peeve of mine

[PhotosbyHollyWood]

Originally Posted by dreemes

Monica,
I understand what you are saying and I have to agree. I like for the ladies in the photos to look real and that I'd want to meet them and hold them in my arms. I don't want them to look like one of Bud Bundy's toys.

Bud Bundy Toy..... lmao

[110240]

explanation: if all your doing is simple stuff why do you need very expensive and complicated software to do it.

If its free.. keep on rocking - i think all software should be free - to individuals...

[cacheshier]

Originally Posted by brad

I am by no means a "plastic surgeon fanatic" and have commented a number of times over there that a particular image's skin was too retouched for my personal tastes..... BUT there is a market for that particular skill, including but not limited to the models themselves. I understand that there is a market for it... and its just simply not my personal tastes... but it does not make their work any less valid and it does not mean they should be targeted with veiled insults like "plastic surgeon fanatic."

Photoshopping like that should be used when it is needed for a particular goal. The OP was not someone who wanted that done to her images... but honestly, that should be between her and her photographer. Lack of communication between a subject and photographer leads to just this kind of rant.

Personally, I take a realistic approach to retouching and if the client wants more, I can add it...

As long as there is a market for it. As long as there is a market for it. As long as there is a market for it. There are a lot things that there is a market for that we could all do without! They weren't targeted with anything, that comment wasn't intended to question the validity of their work because after all we all know there is a market for it! It was stated that way because any criticism of one their kind will result in a barrage of defensive attacks from the other cronies. This thread is not just about one person's problem with her image. It is about "over-photoshopping" just as the title says. Speaking of veiled comments, I would hardly call an attempt to start a discussion about a worthwhile topic a "rant".

[Detonate]

Originally Posted by dreemes

I am not trying to say that photoshoping isn't art but at what point does it stop being photographic art and become digital art?

I am going to submit to you that photographic art and digital art is two different forms of art within the graphics field. Just because a person can take a great photo doesn't mean they can use Photoshop and just because someone is a master at Photoshop doesn't mean they can take a great photo. If a person takes a bad photo and manipulates it in Photoshop to make the photo look different the artistic value of the photo has been lost in the digital art and we can't see if the person is a good photographer.

And yes there is a market for both.

But at what point does using PS turn from photographic art into digital art? Where is the line drawn? This sort of parallels the art vs port debate. If heavy use of PS is considered photographic art then perhaps there is no such thing as porn. Maybe it is all photographic art?

Oh and yes I do use PS to adjust exposure, white balance and remove bruises.

WHO CARES!

There does NOT have to be a line.

Jeeeeeez, some of you guys are so anal it's embarrassing. And it's not just about Photoshp, it's about PC or MAC, Nikon or Canon, Artificial Light vs Natural Light.

Get over it!

[cacheshier]

Originally Posted by Detonate

WHO CARES!

There does NOT have to be a line.

Jeeeeeez, some of you guys are so anal it's embarrassing. And it's not just about Photoshp, it's about PC or MAC, Nikon or Canon, Artificial Light vs Natural Light.

Get over it!

Stop for second and think about what you are saying. If you really don’t care then why are you wasting your time trying to antagonize those of us who do care? Go find a topic that you do care about!

[110240]

Originally Posted by cacheshier

Stop for second and think about what you are saying. If you really don’t care then why are you wasting your time trying to antagonize those of us who do care? Go find a topic that you do care about!

is my joint second favourite smiley with

after...

(my favourite) ...such an awesome smiley!!!

[luis_relampago]

Why can't we all just get along? or we just going to keep the party going?

[dreemes]

Originally Posted by Detonate

WHO CARES!

There does NOT have to be a line.

Jeeeeeez, some of you guys are so anal it's embarrassing. And it's not just about Photoshp, it's about PC or MAC, Nikon or Canon, Artificial Light vs Natural Light.

Get over it!

With all due respect you need to calm down. And I expect an apology. Your behavior is unappreciated. Please try to be civilized and have respect for others that have a different opinion then you.

BTW, I find your avatar very distasteful. There is nothing humorous about someone setting themselves on fire. Stick figure or not, it still represents a human being. Fortunately, I found a way to block it on my computer. But to the unsuspecting person that happens on here that may have witnessed a love one burn to death it could be very hurtful.

/thread

[brad]

Originally Posted by cacheshier

Speaking of veiled comments, I would hardly call an attempt to start a discussion about a worthwhile topic a "rant".

People don't get on and off soapboxes to have a "discussion." They do it to have a rant.

[Serrator]

Originally Posted by cacheshier

We call ourselves photographers not photoshoppers.

Depending on what hat I am wearing at the time will determine what I am called. Now if you want to limit yourself to just a photographer more power to ya. I tend to like being called photographer/shopper but that's me just trying to expand my horizons and tool set.

Photoshop is simply a tool that we use in the processing of our photos, not necessarily to try and create the photo.

Last time I checked a camera is simply a tool to capture the world the way we want, whether it is in B&W, panned shots, zoom blurred or some other way. You may choose to use a fisheye lens, double exposure or flash, bottom line it is a distortion of reality...even if you do nothing to the picture the resulting image is still just a 2d representation of a 3d world if you really want to get picky. Who are you to dictate exactly what PS is to be used or not used for?? If a person chooses to completely alter/fabricate/manipulate an image to their hearts content...why do you care and by what authority do you decree such statements that folks shouldn't?

However, as mhuebner has already pointed out there is definitely times when the later is in fact the case and is a valid one. That is NOT what we are talking about here. We are talking about taking a picture of a human being and attempting to photoshop out ever single "perceived" flaw in their appearance and then TRYING, vainly I might add, to pass the photo off as something REAL or unaltered.

I gotta ask again says who? You? Why is your stance any more valid than that of the PS artist creating a different image...just because you don't like it? Not very authoritative or convincing.

Both do not “require” skill to be successful, most of the world's greats never used it once.

Correct neither needs skill all of the time, sometimes luck can play into an photo where as in PS luck doesn't factor in much. Also as a small point on the "greats" if you ever read anything about their work they take many many shots to try and get the few "keepers"....kind of diminishes the "skill" aspect don't you think?

It is unfortunate that it has become such a crutch. I don't know how many times I have heard a photographer say "Oh well, I'll just fix it in photoshop!"

It is unfortunate that flash/filters/tripods/light meters/histograms/previews have become such a crutch! How many times have we seen photographers using these tools, I mean crutches...it's just awful.

There are no mundane photographs, there are just mundane photographers. It is our job to make the mundane into something interesting, worthwhile and meaningful.

So according to you again the only way to create interesting images is from the camera only...wow! Wrong, just look around to see this fallacy.

One last important thing, just as you already stated, you are entitled to your own viewpoint on the matter, but it’s definitely not mine.

Fair enough, but yours is not so much of a "viewpoint" as it is a directive to anyone not following your perceptions.

Now back to my point is that both photography and PS take skill to create successful images...now to how much or little skill is dependent on many things for each. Whether the PS artist fixes a few pimples, lightens the eyes or does major PS liposuction who are you to care? Unless you are paying for the work and setup guidelines to your exact PS limitations, you have no say that matters.

[Serrator]

Originally Posted by canoflan

I think at the end of the day, from a business perspective, if people want to pay for this sort of thing, the market will drive it.

I usually offer properly developed version of photos to my clients, and a few "modified" versions to let them see what can be done; all in good taste of course. I have had more than not choose some of the variations. It really takes experience to know what looks good under what modification.

Frankly, other people's method do not affect me one bit since I will always find my niche and market to who wants what I provide.

If others are doing things I don't like, I stay away from them like the plague since I only want to emulate those that are more successful and create better images than me.

Pat

Very true Pat.

One thing I might add is that others such as myself sometimes just do PS for fun and or learning. A good way to learn new methods is just by pushing things to their limits.

[Serrator]

Originally Posted by barP

i think you understood him correctly.

he's right.

in the computer illustration field, photoshop is the more necessary skill, but this is photography.

Actually this is the "Post Processing Central" group. We are not limited to just photography here but actually all sorts of neat stuff.

it was here before there was a computer. a good shooter with no photoshop option will outperform an average shooter with a computer every single time.

Okay....and you have some statistics to backup this claim? It sure is easy to make such broad statements, now produce the facts to prove this.

[Serrator]

Originally Posted by six_o_seven

wow. Everyone seems to have forgotten "airbrushing" which has been around almost as long as photography. It seems there has always been a market for this type of photo retouching.

Ha...great point! There was also colorization and all sorts of deviations from the original imageries back in the good old days.

[Abel]

this thread has ran its course...

closed