Can you say "photoshop"?

HTF III · Apr 27, 2013

I'll let the following link speak for itself.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/sony-world-photography-awards/

Brian C. Miller · Apr 27, 2013

... ah ... which?

darkosaric · Apr 27, 2013

As new in Hamburg was looking for some new photo stores and one that was recommended to me is:

http://www.photohaus.de/index.php?id=63

And when you go to gallery of photohaus:

http://www.photohaus-galerie.de/

you can see old historical photos (that are great):

http://www.photohaus-galerie.de/index.php?id=74

and new photos (that are heavy photoshoped and no good) - any other link in gallery part.

I think people over photoshop their work because they want to hide emptiness and meaningless with shining technique. It works for masses but not in apug .

Marc B. · Apr 27, 2013

Yes, of course!
Sure...many of those photographs have received their fair share of post-processing manipulation.
Why, not?
Those submitted entries are basically art contest submissions, and therefore, are not bound
to the constraints of photo journalistic realism.

Marc

HTF III · Apr 27, 2013

I do Photoshop every day in my business. Here's a sample. When I do photography, it is honest work.

David Brown · Apr 27, 2013

What's your point?

HTF III · Apr 27, 2013

I've discovered that the link presents different pictures in different orders each time you click on it. When I first opened the thread it was because I had seen a string of multiple nature and scenic photos that were obvious photoshop jobs. It's just dirty pool to me, in words that I can't gather.

ColdEye · Apr 27, 2013

So, is Lightroom and Elements okay? Or is editing in general not "honest"?

removed account4 · Apr 27, 2013

burning and dodging in the darkroom
and dodging while exposing
using slow or fast shutter speeds
or fast / slow films
apertures
developing the film ( or paper negative or glass plate &c)
a certain way ... in a certain developer because it may do something
"extra special" ( or not )
toning bleaching

... its all manipulation

who cares what awards are given out for mastery of their process ...
its a process just as much as the traditional ones ...

EASmithV · Apr 27, 2013

I agree with JNanian. I've starter running my color scans through lightroom.

After first spending so much time on APUG, i was extremely reluctant to do this at the least.
But I found, that by using the simple tools provided, I was able to create a better image.
Now, maybe i'm conservative with any "modifications" I do to the images.
But in the end, the image content is king, and by going completely hybrid for my LF color neg work, It gives me a better image overall.
And in the end, that's all that matters, to me. Sure, some over-do it, but this high-falutent sense of purity only goes so far, when your perfect pure photograph is of a damn rock and a stick or a tree.

jp498 · Apr 27, 2013

OP, you must quickly stop to learn caring who wins photo contests and their styles.

Dinesh · Apr 27, 2013

jp498 said:
OP, you must quickly stop to learn caring who wins photo contests and their styles.

Op needs to stop trolling.

HTF III · Apr 27, 2013

Looks like I've been resoundingly thrashed on this one, huh? Oh well.As for me, I'll keep on using my film and not mix it with a computer. Maybe it's because I've got to put my label jobs together on a computer before making the plates. And regular photography is where I can make pictures and stay away from the blasted computer.

pstake · Apr 27, 2013

HTF III said:
Looks like I've been resoundingly thrashed on this one, huh? Oh well.As for me, I'll keep on using my film and not mix it with a computer. Maybe it's because I've got to put my label jobs together on a computer before making the plates. And regular photography is where I can make pictures and stay away from the blasted computer.

I agree with you, HTF. And with Darko.

I think the journalist's "creed" is that any manipulation should be to help the photo better reflect what is actually there.

And the chief gripe you're making is that photoshop has been used to make photos that are, whatever — pretty, I guess — but don't actually reflect what was there.

As someone said, these are not journalists and likely don't give two boots about the ethics of photography.

It's very, very simliar to karaoke night at ye olde pub.

Poisson Du Jour · Apr 27, 2013

My major concern with the Sony Award is plagiarism, especially the Australian Waterpolo Team pose during an Australian 2012 Olympic Games portrait session. This image smacks of [Australian photographer] Max Dupain's work at Bondi decades ago. There are some very good images worthy of attention. The surrealist depiction of The Matterhorn is not a product of Photoshop, but a product of chance and preparedness. In the right conditions this is as real as an aurora at that altitude and relatively easy to photograph. A high ISO (4000-6000) and 30 second Tv is all that is needed, and many alpinists come away with much the same image.

Sirius Glass · Apr 27, 2013

EASmithV said:
I agree with JNanian. I've starter running my color scans through lightroom.

After first spending so much time on APUG, i was extremely reluctant to do this at the least.
But I found, that by using the simple tools provided, I was able to create a better image.
Now, maybe i'm conservative with any "modifications" I do to the images.
But in the end, the image content is king, and by going completely hybrid for my LF color neg work, It gives me a better image overall.
And in the end, that's all that matters, to me. Sure, some over-do it, but this high-falutent sense of purity only goes so far, when your perfect pure photograph is of a damn rock and a stick or a tree.

However some of the photographs no longer reflect reality on planet Earth. That is the point of the OP. If one is offended because they also invent reality, the problem is really in them. The OP did not complain about touchups.

bobwysiwyg · Apr 27, 2013

jnanian said:
burning and dodging in the darkroom
and dodging while exposing
using slow or fast shutter speeds
or fast / slow films
apertures
developing the film ( or paper negative or glass plate &c)
a certain way ... in a certain developer because it may do something
"extra special" ( or not )
toning bleaching

... its all manipulation

who cares what awards are given out for mastery of their process ...
its a process just as much as the traditional ones ...

Couldn't agree more. Not worth getting one 's knickers in a knot over.

Blighty · Apr 28, 2013

bobwysiwyg said:
Couldn't agree more. Not worth getting one 's knickers in a knot over.

+1

Philip Taylor · Apr 28, 2013

Do you use a lens which has more contrast than others? You're manipulating reality. Do you choose a certain film for it's colour, tonality, sharpness? Yep, thought so.

They're all just tools, use the ones that appeal to your target audience. No one's wrong here.

blansky · Apr 28, 2013

All photography, all paintings, all sculpture is manipulated reality.

Every time a person creates/or puts forth an art creation he is using it to reflect the world as he sees it or wants others to see it.

There is no such thing as reality.

There is only your reality and my reality and 8 billion other realities.

The fun/joy/emotion in seeing "art" is to experience other people's realities.

And seriously, thinking analog photography is somehow pure is just nonsense.

MartinCrabtree · Apr 28, 2013

^^^^
Stop making sense.

LiamG · Apr 28, 2013

blansky said:
And seriously, thinking analog photography is somehow pure is just nonsense.

Couldn't have said it better. What relationship exactly does this synthetic creation of a photograph have to the concept of reality; the connection is tenuous, possibly illusionary; we must not become the watchers in Plato's cave confusing images with reality.

batwister · Apr 29, 2013

Nearly all colour film photographers today worth mentioning use Photoshop. That so few are in the Sony competition is just a sign that you need to look elsewhere for good work.

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 29, 2013

blansky said:
There is no such thing as reality.

There is only your reality and my reality and 8 billion other realities.

Aye, blansky... I'd be willing to sit down over pizza and debate that one with ya'. I'd even pick up the tab. Unfortunately, however, that discussion would quickly veer far off-topic from the limited scope of this thread.

Ken

Poisson Du Jour · Apr 29, 2013

batwister said:
Nearly all colour film photographers today worth mentioning use Photoshop. That so few are in the Sony competition is just a sign that you need to look elsewhere for good work.

True. And the number is growing and growing. I once considered PSP passé. Truth is the gallery-quality hybridised printing needs a step-one interface before gettign anywhere. We make use of it a little for colourimetrics (profiling) post-scan from film. The way to go is that everything on the film should be just right and correct especially with transparency, exposure-wise or neg to essentially minimise the need for introducing artifice. Whether it reflects reality or imagination is a personal choice. Interpretations of reality differ greatly, but bad work is easily spotted. Darkroom manipulation of prints is on a par with working in Photoshop or any other image software. There is no difference. Just the moral ethos and dogma that bubble surface from the pond of purity.

Can you say "photoshop"?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency