Photoshopping, a good or bad thing to do?

faberryman · Jun 22, 2021

Algo después said:
It may be, we won't know for sure ... anyway, his mission was never to make a family album, it was a political task so it was hardly an innocent selection or simply in good taste.

That seems obvious. If Stryker sent Lange out on a shooting assignment to capture images of destitute migrant workers, and she came back with 20-30, any of them would satisfy the political objective of showing destitute migrant workers, and he would pick out the ones he deemed best. Of the half dozen photos of Migrant Mother, one of them was better than the others, at least after you got rid of the thumb. It is not like it was a big secret what the FSA photographers were suppose to be doing. The FSA photographers weren’t taking pictures of peppers.

It is no different today. If I send you out on a shooting assignment to capture images of the homeless in San Francisco, I am going to pick out the ones I deem best. You can take pictures of the mimes in Ghirardelli Square on you own time.

markjwyatt · Jun 22, 2021

If I am a photojournalist, and I do not like someone, so I bounce the flash off the floor and throw shadows into their face, I distort reality. If I shoot B&W, you could say I distort reality (I could say I captured from and tonal values). If I shoot a senior portrait and I delete a zit on a student's forehead, I distort reality.

If I photograph dancers at a seasonal festival and there are no clouds in the sky, but I add clouds from a standard cloud library, but those clouds would never occur in that region, nor those types of clouds during that the festival occurs, etc., I just screwed the picture up beyond just a distortion. Even if I have a PhD in meteorology, and my dissertation was that region, and I chose the correct clouds that conceivably be there in that season, the fact remains they were not there when the picture was taken. If five people that were there see the picture in a magazine and remember distinctly (or review their unaltered iPhone pictures) that there were no clouds that day, what will they think of the magazine?

grat · Jun 22, 2021

markjwyatt said:
If I am a photojournalist, and I do not like someone, so I bounce the flash off the floor and throw shadows into their face, I distort reality.

And that's part of the issue-- National Geographic expects it's photo submissions to be accurate documentary photographs. The news used to expect their photo submissions to accurately reflect what happened-- these days, I'm not so sure.

Me, I'm shooting photographs for me. If anyone else likes them, once I recover from the shock, that's entirely up to them. If I want to put a microscopic-sized Wally/Waldo somewhere in every photo I publish, that's up to me, and I really don't mind someone saying that's distorting reality.

removed account4 · Jun 22, 2021

markjwyatt said:
If five people that were there see the picture in a magazine and remember distinctly (or review their unaltered iPhone pictures) that there were no clouds that day, what will they think of the magazine?

they might think they mis-remembered and there were actually clouds, and maybe they didn't notice. People mistakenly confuse photography for memories all the time. Its like the DC Sniper years ago there was a photograph of a panel van so whenever there was a photograph taken at the scene they always talked about and showed a panel van... IDK memories are leaky, people believe what they want or told to lean towards and are reinforced by photographs, ... they don't want to be the jerky person to say "there were no clouds this magazine sucks!"

Pieter12 · Jun 22, 2021

jnantz said:
they might think they mis-remembered and there were actually clouds, and maybe they didn't notice. People mistakenly confuse photography for memories all the time. Its like the DC Sniper years ago there was a photograph of a panel van so whenever there was a photograph taken at the scene they always talked about and showed a panel van... IDK memories are leaky, people believe what they want or told to lean towards and are reinforced by photographs, ... they don't want to be the jerky person to say "there were no clouds this magazine sucks!"

It is more like, if they published this altered photo, what does that say about the integrity of the rest of the magazine (assuming it is a news or documentary magazine--a rare animal in today's media world). But there are plenty of publications and other media outlets online and otherwise who don't give a flying f**k about integrity as long as it supports their agenda.

faberryman · Jun 22, 2021

markjwyatt said:
If I photograph dancers at a seasonal festival and there are no clouds in the sky, but I add clouds from a standard cloud library, but those clouds would never occur in that region, nor those types of clouds during that the festival occurs, etc., I just screwed the picture up beyond just a distortion. Even if I have a PhD in meteorology, and my dissertation was that region, and I chose the correct clouds that conceivably be there in that season, the fact remains they were not there when the picture was taken. If five people that were there see the picture in a magazine and remember distinctly (or review their unaltered iPhone pictures) that there were no clouds that day, what will they think of the magazine?

Photographers have been putting clouds in their photos since the early years. The difference between now and then is that early photographers showed a little restraint. Now everyone’s clouds are apocalyptic. Seen one set of apocalyptic clouds you’ve seen them all. My limited PS skills keep me honest.

By the way, what’s a magazine?

removed account4 · Jun 22, 2021

Pieter12 said:
It is more like, if they published this altered photo, what does that say about the integrity of the rest of the magazine (assuming it is a news or documentary magazine--a rare animal in today's media world). But there are plenty of publications and other media outlets online and otherwise who don't give a flying f**k about integrity as long as it supports their agenda.

IDK Johnny Rotten's teeth aren't rotten anymore, the whole world has pretty much gone to hell.

markjwyatt · Jun 22, 2021

grat said:
And that's part of the issue-- National Geographic expects it's photo submissions to be accurate documentary photographs. The news used to expect their photo submissions to accurately reflect what happened-- these days, I'm not so sure.

Not sure if that is completely true. The bouncing flash off the floor technique was pretty popular in the first half of the 20th century.

grat said:
Me, I'm shooting photographs for me. If anyone else likes them, once I recover from the shock, that's entirely up to them. If I want to put a microscopic-sized Wally/Waldo somewhere in every photo I publish, that's up to me, and I really don't mind someone saying that's distorting reality.

If subtle that could be a watermark or avatar.

jnantz said:
they might think they mis-remembered and there were actually clouds, and maybe they didn't notice. People mistakenly confuse photography for memories all the time. Its like the DC Sniper years ago there was a photograph of a panel van so whenever there was a photograph taken at the scene they always talked about and showed a panel van... IDK memories are leaky, people believe what they want or told to lean towards and are reinforced by photographs, ... they don't want to be the jerky person to say "there were no clouds this magazine sucks!"

This is also true. No one may ever notice. That is also why I mentioned the iPhone pics.

Pieter12 said:
It is more like, if they published this altered photo, what does that say about the integrity of the rest of the magazine (assuming it is a news or documentary magazine--a rare animal in today's media world). But there are plenty of publications and other media outlets online and otherwise who don't give a flying f**k about integrity as long as it supports their agenda.

My point, exactly.

faberryman said:
Photographers have been putting clouds in their photos since the early years. The difference between now and then is that early photographers showed a little restraint. Now everyone’s clouds are apocalyptic. Seen one set of apocalyptic clouds you’ve seen them all. My limited PS skills keep me honest.

I know. Whenever I see a digital landscape on Flickr, even though it may be pleasant, I am skeptical. It is like Thomas Kincaid house paintings. Sure, they are dramatic, but they don't do much for me personally. I like real houses. I remember we rented a cabin in Oregon once and it looked a little like a Thomas Kincaid house. That was impressive to me!

faberryman said:
By the way, what’s a magazine?

Hypothetiweek

Sirius Glass · Jun 22, 2021

Pieter12 said:
It is more like, if they published this altered photo, what does that say about the integrity of the rest of the magazine (assuming it is a news or documentary magazine--a rare animal in today's media world). But there are plenty of publications and other media outlets online and otherwise who don't give a flying f**k about integrity as long as it supports their agenda.

If the journalist cannot make the point of the article without distorting the facts on any level, then the article and all the work is not worth reading nor discussing. Nor is the magazine nor the publisher. If you lie to present your case, you are not worthy of being considered anything above house breaking a pet.

grat · Jun 22, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
If the journalist cannot make the point of the article without distorting the facts on any level, then the article and all the work is not worth reading nor discussing.

Except that all journalists, no matter how well-intentioned, place their own bias on any article or report-- they choose what words to use, what parts to emphasize, which parts to downplay-- Unless you happen to have a Fair Witness handy, you're going to get bias in any recounting.

MattKing · Jun 23, 2021

markjwyatt said:
If I photograph dancers at a seasonal festival and there are no clouds in the sky, but I add clouds from a standard cloud library, but those clouds would never occur in that region, nor those types of clouds during that the festival occurs, etc., I just screwed the picture up beyond just a distortion. Even if I have a PhD in meteorology, and my dissertation was that region, and I chose the correct clouds that conceivably be there in that season, the fact remains they were not there when the picture was taken. If five people that were there see the picture in a magazine and remember distinctly (or review their unaltered iPhone pictures) that there were no clouds that day, what will they think of the magazine?

Most likely they won't notice or care - they were paying attention to the dancers, and they are looking at the dancers in the photo.
You would probably have to add a rainstorm and lightning before most people would start to wonder.
Photographers and editors and philosophers and ethicists - they would notice and care.
If adding the clouds affected the significance of the photo in any material way, the philosophers and ethicists would be right if they were concerned.
It would be fine if the editors were concerned, provided the addition broke their rules.
I equate the addition of clouds to burning in the corners to heighten the drama - if the corners don't matter to the story told, that is fine.

faberryman · Jun 23, 2021

markjwyatt said:
I know. Whenever I see a digital landscape on Flickr, even though it may be pleasant, I am skeptical. It is like Thomas Kincaid house paintings. Sure, they are dramatic, but they don't do much for me personally. I like real houses. I remember we rented a cabin in Oregon once and it looked a little like a Thomas Kincaid house. That was impressive to me!

I didn’t know who Thomas Kincaid was so I looked him up. I wish I hadn’t.

faberryman · Jun 23, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
If the journalist cannot make the point of the article without distorting the facts on any level, then the article and all the work is not worth reading nor discussing. Nor is the magazine nor the publisher. If you lie to present your case, you are not worthy of being considered anything above house breaking a pet.

When you read a magazine and are looking at the photos, how do you determine if a few clouds were added over on page 38, and so the magazine isn’t worth reading. I am interested in the level of due diligence you exercise in arriving at your judgment.

I think house breaking a pet is an important skill to master, particularly if you have a pet.

Sirius Glass · Jun 23, 2021

grat said:
Except that all journalists, no matter how well-intentioned, place their own bias on any article or report-- they choose what words to use, what parts to emphasize, which parts to downplay-- Unless you happen to have a Fair Witness handy, you're going to get bias in any recounting.

That still does not justify adding or deleting people or objects that change the photograph.

removed account4 · Jun 23, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
That still does not justify adding or deleting people or objects that change the photograph.

tell that to every portrait photographer who took a portrait from the 1840s until present day. LOL. its always justified. photography is a fantasy, even when its not.

Sirius Glass · Jun 23, 2021

jnantz said:
tell that to every portrait photographer who took a portrait from the 1840s until present day. LOL. its always justified. photography is a fantasy, even when its not.

Doing something wrong in the past does not justify continuing to do, no matter how many times you point out that it was done in the past. Using your logic it is still justifiable to enslave people.

faberryman · Jun 23, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
Doing something wrong in the past does not justify continuing to do, no matter how many times you point out that it was done in the past. Using your logic it is still justifiable to enslave people.

There are a couple of different schools of thought on this. For example, I like the warts and all portraits that Avedon and others are known for. On the other hand, I think there is a place for retouching out a zit on your son’s and/or daughter’s face in the family portrait. I think you can maintain some flexibility on the issue without condoning slavery.

Craig75 · Jun 23, 2021

jnantz said:
tell that to every portrait photographer who took a portrait from the 1840s until present day. LOL. its always justified. photography is a fantasy, even when its not.

so its always justified for any journalist to add or remove anything from any photograph ? jesus...

and no its not always justified because there has been very strong evidence to suggest that doctored photographs of models leads to mental health issues in young women which is why france insists on doctored photographs being labelled.

Pieter12 · Jun 23, 2021

faberryman said:
When you read a magazine and are looking at the photos, how do you determine if a few clouds were added over on page 38, and so the magazine isn’t worth reading. I am interested in the level of due diligence you exercise in arriving at your judgment.

I think house breaking a pet is an important skill to master, particularly if you have a pet.

No, but allowing seemingly minor post-altered images opens the door for other, more egregious alterations. Of course, there are still point-of-view and cropping that can alter the rendering of a scene.

faberryman · Jun 23, 2021

Pieter12 said:
No, but allowing seemingly minor post-altered images opens the door for other, more egregious alterations. Of course, there are still point-of-view and cropping that can alter the rendering of a scene.

This sort of reminds me of this Photoshop course I was taking a while back. In one class, the instructor was teaching us how to swap heads in engagement photos. It is a little known fact that when you are shooting engagement photos with a digital camera, it is impossible to take a photo where both of the persons have their eyes open. So what you have to do is take a bunch of photos and then swap the head of say the guy with his eyes closed with the head of the guy with his eyes open from another photo. Sure, it is an egregious sin akin to condoning slavery, but if you want to make a living as an engagement photo photographer, you just have to man up and do it. Nobody is going to buy an engagement photo if one of the persons in it has their eyes closed. Either that or you have to shoot film because the problem never arose back when photographers shot film. This is what I mean about the need to remain flexible on these issues.

Pieter12 · Jun 23, 2021

faberryman said:
This sort of reminds me of this Photoshop course I was taking a while back. In one class, the instructor was teaching us how to swap heads in engagement photos. It is a little known fact that when you are shooting engagement photos with a digital camera, it is impossible to take a photo where both of the persons have their eyes open. So what you have to do is take a bunch of photos and then swap the head of say the guy with his eyes closed with the head of the guy with his eyes open from another photo. Sure, it is an egregious sin akin to condoning slavery, but if you want to make a living as an engagement photo photographer, you just to man up and do it. Nobody is going to buy an engagement photo if one of the persons in it has their eyes closed. Either that or you have to shoot film because the problem never arose back when photographers shot film. This is what I mean about the need to remain flexible on these issues.

Portrait and engagement photos are not usually held to the same standards as photojournalism or documentary photography. I (and most probably the client) would expect moderate retouching of those photos. By the way, in the ad trade, we used to call those head replacements "zipper heads" and body doubles are very often used for entertainment ads.

removed account4 · Jun 23, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
Doing something wrong in the past does not justify continuing to do, no matter how many times you point out that it was done in the past. Using your logic it is still justifiable to enslave people.

retouching blemishes and crows feet is the same thing as enslaving people???
if you are a portrait photographer ( as some of us have been for 30+ years ) it is expected.

Wallendo · Jun 23, 2021

faberryman said:
This sort of reminds me of this Photoshop course I was taking a while back. In one class, the instructor was teaching us how to swap heads in engagement photos. It is a little known fact that when you are shooting engagement photos with a digital camera, it is impossible to take a photo where both of the persons have their eyes open. So what you have to do is take a bunch of photos and then swap the head of say the guy with his eyes closed with the head of the guy with his eyes open from another photo. Sure, it is an egregious sin akin to condoning slavery, but if you want to make a living as an engagement photo photographer, you just have to man up and do it. Nobody is going to buy an engagement photo if one of the persons in it has their eyes closed. Either that or you have to shoot film because the problem never arose back when photographers shot film. This is what I mean about the need to remain flexible on these issues.

Your instructor seems to be of the "those who can't do, teach" school. Most digital cameras, as well as later film cameras, allow you to take multiple shots in rapid sequence.. You are bound to get lucky on a least one of them

I am not a photojournalist or documentarian, and have no qualms about digitally manipulating my images. My scanning workflow involves having my scanner software automatically open the images in PhotoShop where I can remove dust and scratches, adjust the levels control and reduce to 8 bits per channel and save the image. I then open in Lightroom and make further adjustments (since Lightroom doesn't change the original file). On one occasion I have merged two images into one for a large family portrait, but rarely do that.

I mostly use photoshop to correct scanner limitations and issues with the goal of making the images not look photoshopped. I believe that I am a better judge of how an image should look than the scanner manufacturers, scanner driver authors, and scanner software authors: decisions are being made for me at every step, and it requires PhotoShop to correct these.

When I shoot color, I usually use Velvia 50. The world is not as bright and happy a place as it appears on Velvia. I grew up shooting that film about which we generally don't talk, but about which Paul Simon sang:
"Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
Give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah"
The point of that song, as far as I can tell, is that our memories, and the photographs with which we support them, although authentic and "real" do not necessarily represent "reality".

My photographs, although generally not "doctored" do not really represent a documentary of my life.
I take photographs at weddings, but not at funerals.
I photograph street performers, not the homeless.
My albums are full of happy memories, not painful events.

Alan Edward Klein · Jun 23, 2021

grat said:
Except that all journalists, no matter how well-intentioned, place their own bias on any article or report-- they choose what words to use, what parts to emphasize, which parts to downplay-- Unless you happen to have a Fair Witness handy, you're going to get bias in any recounting.

That's where a good editor comes in.

grat · Jun 23, 2021

Alan Edward Klein said:
That's where a good editor comes in.

... who has their own bias. And frequently, an agenda.

Photoshopping, a good or bad thing to do?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency