Photoshopping, a good or bad thing to do?

[mtjade2007]

@RPC I have a huge respect for how you're doing it. It's the same principle to me: our satisfaction is tied to effort, and sticking to 100% manual pipeline is a great way to keep the effort at a desirable level.[/QUOTE
To be honest I did wet printing for some years when it was the only way. I had all the equipments to do it including a table top paper processor, densitometers and color analyzers. But I quickly switched to film scanning in early 2000's when film scanners appeared in the market. Good film scanners (Nikon and Minolta for example) reveals a whole new world to film photography. One may want to stick to the old way but why not keep an open mind toward the digital way of post processing?

 

[removed account4]

I never allow myself to add or remove any thing from my shots, except removing dusts. That is not the art of photography. It is in my opinion only done by con artists.

How is someone conning someone if they retouch a photograph? Con artist implies they are gaining someone's con(fidence ) to in turn rip them off. The image you showed earlier in the thread isn't reality it is the light reflected off of the subject mediated through a lens, and interpreted by whatever cocktail of chemicals was in the film, and then processed by the lab ( or you ), and then mediated again by your scanner ( a film or print camera), and the scan mediated by your processing program. None of it has to do with reality, and personally I think people that claim such things are conning people into believing photography is a different operation than it actually is. LOL

Photoshop is just one of the tools in „the box“. I have also noticed people despising it. What is their stance on gradations, dodging and burning?

. it shouldn't be allowed !

 

[RPC]

Photoshop is just one of the tools in „the box“. I have also noticed people despising it. What is their stance on gradations, dodging and burning?

Dodging and burning are often used to simply compensate for the deficiencies of print materials, not to alter reality. For example, to bring in highlight and shadow detail that was recorded by the film but would not appear in the paper due to the dynamic range limitations of the print paper. Therefore, you are making the print reflect more the reality of the scene, not alterating away from it.

But of course, it can also be used to alter reality in any way the user wants.

 

[removed account4]

Dodging and burning are often used to simply compensate for the deficiencies of print materials, not to alter reality. For example, to bring in highlight and shadow detail that was recorded by the film but would not appear in the paper due to the dynamic range limitations of the print paper. Therefore, you are making the print reflect more the reality of the scene, not alterating away from it.

But of course, it can also be used to alter reality in any way the user wants.

photography has nothing to do with reality.

 

[mtjade2007]

I never allow myself to add or remove any thing from my shots, except removing dusts. That is not the art of photography. It is in my opinion only done by con artists.

How is someone conning someone if they retouch a photograph? Con artist implies they are gaining someone's con(fidence ) to in turn rip them off. The image you showed earlier in the thread isn't reality it is the light reflected off of the subject mediated through a lens, and interpreted by whatever cocktail of chemicals was in the film, and then processed by the lab ( or you ), and then mediated again by your scanner ( a film or print camera), and the scan mediated by your processing program. None of it has to do with reality, and personally I think people that claim such things are conning people into believing photography is a different operation than it actually is. LOL[/QUOTE]
Allow me to explain. I am talking about removing a tree, a car, an object then adding a cat, a dog or even a human to a picture and present it as a work of art. I don't do it. I regard that as fake art, a con artist's work. They mostly appear in social media by speculators of jokes or fake news. I stay far far away from such practices. But it's my opinion. You don't have to agree.

 

[RPC]

photography has nothing to do with reality.

It does if you want it to.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If someone asks you if you photoshopped your picture and you get a queasy feeling in your stomach or stop to think about your answer or explain it, then you've gone too far.

 

[removed account4]

It does if you want it to.

not really sure how that is true but OK if you say so ... my reality is not in black and white, grainy, or manipulated colors or in fractions of seconds, or variable depth of fields maybe yours is ?

Allow me to explain. I am talking about removing a tree, a car, an object then adding a cat, a dog or even a human to a picture and present it as a work of art. I don't do it. I regard that as fake art, a con artist's work. They mostly appear in social media by speculators of jokes or fake news. I stay far far away from such practices. But it's my opinion. You don't have to agree

you didn't really explain anything, you just called people names, not really sure how someone presented an image as "art" which means the hand of (wo)man intervened is fake art or a con artists work.
So you are suggesting Jerry Uelsmann, Ansel Adams, Yusuf Karsh, Fox Talbot and the endless list of photographers who did combination printing are/were con artists???
is there a specific film and lens, camera ir scanner type, printer, paper, chemistry, enlarger head, light source burning and dodging tools that a non-con artist fake art maker uses ? I don't really understand your opinion and don't agree with what you have written.

 

[mtjade2007]

So you are suggesting Jerry Uelsmann, Yusuf Karsh, and even Fox Talbot are/were con artists???
is there a specific film and lens, camera ir scanner type, printer, paper, chemistry, enlarger head, light source burning and dodging tools that a non-con artist fake art maker uses ?

How did you get such an idea? You have used too much of your imagination. If you take a shot of a city scene then add an Eiffel Town image to it. I will say that's a con artist's work. You won't do that, will you? But it's only my opinion. That's you right if you insist that's art.

 

[removed account4]

How did you get such an idea? You have used too much of your imagination. If you take a shot of a city scene then add an Eiffel Town image to it. I will say that's a con artist's work. You won't do that, will you? But it's only my opinion. That's you right if you insist that's art.

you suggested that adding and subtracting things from images ( car people &c ) is con artists work, I was just pointing out that since 1839 people have been doing just that. im not insisting anything. You on the other hand are calling people names because you don't like their photographs. if someone wants to make a collage or photo montage why should I care? if the person you just described was a photojournalist and was saying that was something he witnessed and was providing to us as honest evidence of what was allegedly reality, that is something different than "art". you seem to think there are rules in photography or making art. There aren't. As I said before reality and photography are 2 different things.

 

[mtjade2007]

I wonder why you could not see I was talking about cheap puzzling of object pieces into a picture for maybe a purpose of speculating some causes on the social media. As far as the names you mentioned It's your imagination by connecting my words with them. OK, I apologize if I made a call too broad. But I personally dislike fake photos produced by using photoshop excessively to add/remove objects without the effort in capturing the real things through one's own camera. Those are fake photos, not real photos. I will still call those photographers (not including the names you mentioned) con "artists".

 

[removed account4]

I wonder why you could not see I was talking about cheap puzzling of object pieces into a picture for maybe a purpose of speculating some causes on the social media.

its because its the same tired argument others on this website use to claim photography isn't "pure"

 

[Craig75]

you suggested that adding and subtracting things from images ( car people &c ) is con artists work, I was just pointing out that since 1839 people have been doing just that. im not insisting anything. You on the other hand are calling people names because you don't like their photographs. if someone wants to make a collage or photo montage why should I care? if the person you just described was a photojournalist and was saying that was something he witnessed and was providing to us as honest evidence of what was allegedly reality, that is something different than "art". you seem to think there are rules in photography or making art. There aren't. As I said before reality and photography are 2 different things.

But yet you are just busting ops balls for his own thoughts and opinions... with a load of prescriptive rules of yr own.

 

[Foto Ludens]

I was just pointing out that since 1839 people have been doing just that.

Exactly. Photographic images have been manipulated from the very start. Take, for instance, Richard Jones Calvert's Capuchin Friars (1846), where a person was bleached from the negative to enhance the composition.

But it is worth pointing out that photography has always had an uneasy relationship with manipulation. As a medium it lends itself to documentary/evidentiary practices, since it records images based on light reflecting from or shining through "what was actually there." This creates a certain expectation of realism on the part of the viewer, and that expectation affects their interpretation/reception/experience of the photograph. This understanding of photographic realism is why we tend to think of photographic evidence as more reliable than a sketch of a crime. I would argue that this belief in photographic realism carries over into the reception of photographic art as well -- I react differently to your (jnantz's) images because I believe that they are photographs. If I believed that they were water-colors or oil paintings I would have a different experience of them (even if they looked exactly identical). I "read" Roger Fenton's The Valley of the Shadow of Death very differently after being given reason to believe that he (or his assistant) moved the canon balls around to create the final composition, but I would read it very differently still if I believed that those canon balls had been painted on the negative with ink and bleach. In one case we have a staged photograph -- but still a photograph. On the other we have a work of mixed media -- photography and illustration. Knowledge that an image has been manipulated undermines that belief in photographic realism, and creates a kind of cognitive dissonance on the part of those viewers that associate photography with realism. I think mtjade2007's name calling is a result of that kind of cognitive dissonance. If one is given something they think is documentary in nature and find that it has been heavily manipulated, one feels cheated, or lied to.

Now, the fact that many of us have such beliefs in photographic realism (a belief I would bet is less prevalent in folks born after the rise of photoshop, which led to heavy manipulation becoming more widespread) does not mean that those beliefs are justified. I think that the physical and chemical processes of analogue photography support those beliefs for those who have a reasonable grasp of how film photography works, but the "black box" nature of digital photography (where one cannot know what changes have been made between the image sensor and the file recorded by the camera) does not support it (though if you knew precisely how the file was recorded -- i.e. had a competent understanding of the firmware/software in question -- it would once again support it).

In the end, does any of this matter? I would argue that it does, since the belief in photographic realism enriches the interpretation of the photo (in fact, this was a central argument in my doctoral dissertation -- read it at the risk of severe boredom!), even when it is a work of art and not primarily documentary in nature.

Incidentally, above I suggested Errol Morris' book, which is indeed quite good, but I think I was actually thinking of Faking It, the book companion to the Met Museum's exhibit by the same name. I think everyone in this thread would enjoy that book.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, When I moved to NY from NYC with my projector and slide trays, I found that the projector broke. By that time I had been scanning film. So I decided to scan all my old slides that I wanted to keep and found that displaying them on a TV is just great. Now I have a 75" UHD 4K TV and the images are superb. I can't compare against a slide projector because I don't have it any longer. But I can tell you that the TV being back lit just makes the photos pop. Take a look yourself and let me know what you think. Here's my Yotube page. You'll have to be able to use a smart TV to connect to YouTube. The Scuba slide show are photo's from 35mm film scanned. The Scuba photos are not my best because they were the first ones I scanned. But you'll get the idea. The other "Shows" are from digital cameras.
(5) Alan Klein - YouTube or
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDzogShfhgCHh2rVvEsFOJQ

Alan,
I certainly have displayed scanned files on 2K HD TVs, and seen files displayed on 4K TVS, and they can look quite nice.
A well projected slide - particularly a well projected medium format slide - looks better.
The "pop" on the TV is part of the problem.

 

[Algo después]

...one of the things that I love about working with film is having to deal with the contradiction of its own materiality. Otherwise, its circulation would be restricted to too limited contexts. Beyond a purist perspective or the atmosphere of authenticity that is attributed to the film as a "real" document (perhaps because of how delightfully slow or challenging the process is), it is the character it has, although this affects the idea of " objectivity "that is sought.

Also, in my opinion, this debate could be transferred to any digital file and the almost imperceptible style that devices have to capture reality. Regarding this, Godard said to a cameraman in the middle of an interview: it is not you who films me, it is Sony. In that sense, from the ra4 paper or the outputs from an ink printer they can be read as part of the palette we have to work with. Cheers for that. Let us leave objectivity to objects.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Photoshop is a wonderful tool. Personally, I use it only when making a digi neg for alt processes... adjust contrast, and crop, resize, just like we do in the darkroom. It's also a great way to make separation negatives for tri-colour gum printing. In graphic design, I teach my students how to draw using photoshop. It's an amazing tool.

 

[Pieter12]

As far as altering a photo goes, what is considered altering by this elite, esteemed group of experts? If a photographer burns part image to minimize or obliterate it, is that an adulteration of the photo? If I ask someone to move from their original position to one that I dictate, or ask them to move their hands, take off a hat or pick up or let go of an object, is that alteration?--this is no how they were until I altered their location to suit my purpose. If I replace the face of someone who's eyes closed during one of a multiple number of shots of a group of people, is that conning the viewer? The person was actually there along with the others, the reality of the photos is intact, just merged.

 

[MattKing]

As far as altering a photo goes, what is considered altering by this elite, esteemed group of experts? If a photographer burns part image to minimize or obliterate it, is that an adulteration of the photo? If I ask someone to move from their original position to one that I dictate, or ask them to move their hands, take off a hat or pick up or let go of an object, is that alteration?--this is no how they were until I altered their location to suit my purpose. If I replace the face of someone who's eyes closed during one of a multiple number of shots of a group of people, is that conning the viewer? The person was actually there along with the others, the reality of the photos is intact, just merged.

A photograph is itself an alteration of reality.
It isn't useful to have defined terms like altered and not altered.
It is useful to approach the issue in a purposive way.
If your purpose is to make an objective recording of something, for something like a news story, an instruction manual, a court proceeding or a "mug" shot, then the purpose needs to be served. You do that both by not adding or subtracting things, and by choosing photographic elements that do a good job of accurately showing the subject - good light, appropriate angle of view, appropriate separation of subject and background and appropriate choice of illumination. If your goal is to make the photograph look very similar to the reality (in a two dimensional way) then make the choices and either do make or refrain from alterations that support that goal. In most cases one wouldn't make alterations, but even in this case some would be permitted - as an example, cropping to remove an item unconnected with that part of the scene you wish to document.
If your purpose is to create a photograph that is less reportage and more art, you can take any step that you wish. Having an internal set of constraints to what you will or won't do is entirely appropriate. If you prefer to make photographs that are not manipulated in a particular way, then follow your instincts.
It only really matters if you do one thing, but represent it to others as something else.
I can think of lots of examples where a strong photograph was marred because there was no way to avoid a distracting element, not important to the subject, but having a disproportionate affect on the viewer. Unwanted power lines are a common example. Our brains can filter them out when we are there, but it doesn't work that way in a photograph. I see no philosophical problem with editing them away, when the tool is available to do so, and their presence is inconsistent with the photographer's purpose.

 

[Pieter12]

If your purpose is to make an objective recording of something, for something like a news story

Even then, the photographer's choice of angle and what to include or exclude from the frame makes it subjective.

 

[removed account4]

Exactly. Photographic images have been manipulated from the very start. Take, for instance, Richard Jones Calvert's Capuchin Friars (1846), where a person was bleached from the negative to enhance the composition.

But it is worth pointing out that photography has always had an uneasy relationship with manipulation. As a medium it lends itself to documentary/evidentiary practices, since it records images based on light reflecting from or shining through "what was actually there." This creates a certain expectation of realism on the part of the viewer, and that expectation affects their interpretation/reception/experience of the photograph. This understanding of photographic realism is why we tend to think of photographic evidence as more reliable than a sketch of a crime. I would argue that this belief in photographic realism carries over into the reception of photographic art as well -- I react differently to your (jnantz's) images because I believe that they are photographs. If I believed that they were water-colors or oil paintings I would have a different experience of them (even if they looked exactly identical). I "read" Roger Fenton's The Valley of the Shadow of Death very differently after being given reason to believe that he (or his assistant) moved the canon balls around to create the final composition, but I would read it very differently still if I believed that those canon balls had been painted on the negative with ink and bleach. In one case we have a staged photograph -- but still a photograph. On the other we have a work of mixed media -- photography and illustration. Knowledge that an image has been manipulated undermines that belief in photographic realism, and creates a kind of cognitive dissonance on the part of those viewers that associate photography with realism. I think mtjade2007's name calling is a result of that kind of cognitive dissonance. If one is given something they think is documentary in nature and find that it has been heavily manipulated, one feels cheated, or lied to.

Now, the fact that many of us have such beliefs in photographic realism (a belief I would bet is less prevalent in folks born after the rise of photoshop, which led to heavy manipulation becoming more widespread) does not mean that those beliefs are justified. I think that the physical and chemical processes of analogue photography support those beliefs for those who have a reasonable grasp of how film photography works, but the "black box" nature of digital photography (where one cannot know what changes have been made between the image sensor and the file recorded by the camera) does not support it (though if you knew precisely how the file was recorded -- i.e. had a competent understanding of the firmware/software in question -- it would once again support it).

In the end, does any of this matter? I would argue that it does, since the belief in photographic realism enriches the interpretation of the photo (in fact, this was a central argument in my doctoral dissertation -- read it at the risk of severe boredom!), even when it is a work of art and not primarily documentary in nature.

Incidentally, above I suggested Errol Morris' book, which is indeed quite good, but I think I was actually thinking of Faking It, the book companion to the Met Museum's exhibit by the same name. I think everyone in this thread would enjoy that book.

Andre
I understand and agree with most of what you are saying, but the way I see it is one should always look at photographs with a degree of skepticism. When I was teenager my grandmother told me to believe none of what I heard and 1/2 of what I saw, that was as true when she was a kid ( she was born in the 1890s ) as it was when I was a kid. Yes, as you noted they have been manipulated since the beginning, and just the fact that someone can change the lens/angle of view and create a mob scene out of 3 people manipulates a scene and in turn the viewer's relationship with the image. The problem with photography and people's interpretation with photography is they think because it is a photograph it has something to do with memory, truth or reality, when photography's only truths aren't in the final image but that maybe camera was there, that's about it. Lied to, cheated? conned? The idea that someone would care that much to think these things collage / photo montage work, or any sort of photographs to be the truth is strange. The instant a tripod is spread, a camera is put to someone's eye or shutter speed or f stop is decided upon the image is manipulated, and whether it is done then or with a knife, leads or photoshop with a mouse makes no difference. I mean does someone really think using a polarizing, red, yellow,, green or UV filter to enhance the sky or coloration of various things in a photograph is unmanipulated? There is no difference between those things and using photoshop other than an arbitrary line that was drawn to suggest some sort superiority. but this is not new either ... this superiority complex with photographers is as old as the medium itself.

 

[Pieter12]

The idea that someone would care that much to think these things collage / photo montage work, or any sort of photographs to be the truth is strange.

The Soviet regime and Stalin in particular, regularly had people removed and signs changed in photographs when they fell out of favor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union

 

[Pieter12]

Interestingly enough, Adobe has also started developing tools that can both detect when an image has been manipulated, and reverse the changes to reveal the original, for faces at least.

 

[Foto Ludens]

Andre
I understand and agree with most of what you are saying, but the way I see it is one should always look at photographs with a degree of skepticism. When I was teenager my grandmother told me to believe none of what I heard and 1/2 of what I saw, that was as true when she was a kid ( she was born in the 1890s ) as it was when I was a kid. Yes, as you noted they have been manipulated since the beginning, and just the fact that someone can change the lens/angle of view and create a mob scene out of 3 people manipulates a scene and in turn the viewer's relationship with the image. The problem with photography and people's interpretation with photography is they think because it is a photograph it has something to do with memory, truth or reality, when photography's only truths aren't in the final image but that maybe camera was there, that's about it. Lied to, cheated? conned? The idea that someone would care that much to think these things collage / photo montage work, or any sort of photographs to be the truth is strange. The instant a tripod is spread, a camera is put to someone's eye or shutter speed or f stop is decided upon the image is manipulated, and whether it is done then or with a knife, leads or photoshop with a mouse makes no difference. I mean does someone really think using a polarizing, red, yellow,, green or UV filter to enhance the sky or coloration of various things in a photograph is unmanipulated? There is no difference between those things and using photoshop other than an arbitrary line that was drawn to suggest some sort superiority. but this is not new either ... this superiority complex with photographers is as old as the medium itself.

Keep in mind that I was not supporting the name calling, only trying to explain where I think he was coming from!

And I fully agree with you that there is no difference between putting on a filter to alter contrast and adjusting the contrast digitally. But I would argue that neither practice necessarily destroys the realism of the photo (though if taken to extremes both can). I have in mind Kendall Walton's notion of a realism of transparency: the view that we can look through photographs at the thing photographed, rather than merely looking at an image of a thing. This is why I can say that I'm watching a motorcycle race right now, rather than say that I'm looking at a movie which depicts such a race. My experience is that I'm looking through the television and at the race itself.

Kendall Walton's book is worth reading for his explanation of that concept, but for the sake of our conversation (and since I haven't read the book in 5 years!) here's a quick paraphrase from my diss:

As Walton puts it, “photographs are counterfactually dependent on the photographed
scene even if the beliefs (and other intentional attitudes) of the photographer are held fixed.”
275
In other words, despite the various ways in which the photographer’s beliefs, choices, and
agenda may affect the appearance of final product, what a photograph shows depends primarily
on what lies before the lens. By adjusting his point of view, the contrast of the image, and by
timing his photograph just so, a photographer might make a person look menacing, or comical,
or terrified, when in fact that person would not have come across as such to someone looking at
them with the naked eye. But if the photograph does indeed make the person look menacing,
then it is only by subtly altering the presentation of what was there, before the lens, and not by
inventing things that were not actually there (or deleting things that were).

So, I agree with you that there is a lot of arbitrary posturing regarding the superiority of completely unmanipulated photography, but I'd argue that there is a non-arbitrary line (though often a blurry line) that is worth observing: the line past which the realism of transparency is compromised. But these are things about which intelligent people can disagree. The name calling and posturing about these things is unfortunate.

 

[Algo después]

...about the objectivity of photography: A photoshop from the early 20th century. The case of the Kallikak family

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kallikak_Family