Photoshopping, a good or bad thing to do?

[Pieter12]

.. who has their own bias

So does everyone, and everything we read, see and hear is filtered through that.

 

[grat]

So does everyone, and everything we read, see and hear is filtered through that.

Naturally. When I'm trying to frame a composition, I'm choosing what to keep, and what to leave out-- I'm trying to capture light in a way that conveys what I'm seeing, or felt, or want to remember about a scene. The woman who wandered into the shot isn't really welcome, but if I wait, will the light still be there? Or should I just remove her from the picture? Or should I leave her, even though her being there will annoy me every time I see the photo-- and 90% of the people who look at that photo will never notice her.

Reality does not make good photographs.

 

[Algo después]

Using your logic it is still justifiable to enslave people.

difficult to dialogue when one of the parties raises fallacies instead of arguments. Here is one of them, the false equivalence.

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

Unfortunately a comparison out of the place

 

[removed account4]

difficult to dialogue when one of the parties raises fallacies instead of arguments. Here is one of them, the false equivalence.

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

it looks like you have met Sirus Glass. They are a master of nonsense, and no photography to look at.

 

[Pieter12]

Naturally. When I'm trying to frame a composition, I'm choosing what to keep, and what to leave out-- I'm trying to capture light in a way that conveys what I'm seeing, or felt, or want to remember about a scene. The woman who wandered into the shot isn't really welcome, but if I wait, will the light still be there? Or should I just remove her from the picture? Or should I leave her, even though her being there will annoy me every time I see the photo-- and 90% of the people who look at that photo will never notice her.

Reality does not make good photographs.

And I, on the other hand might welcome the woman's chance presence in the scene, feeling it adds a human subtext to the composition. To each his own.

 

[Algo después]

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I am pointing out how hollow John's arguments are an I had to stoup to his level to get the point across to him. If one is going to defend a point, use something more compelling than "well others threw bricks though your window, and that justifies me throwing more bricks now."

 

[removed account4]

for close to 190years it has been THE STANDARD PHOTOGRAPHIC PRACTICE to retouch photographs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For close to 190yearS it has been THE STANDARD to retouch photographs, how is that throwing a brick though a a window?
It seems that YOU are throwing the bricks through your own window,
that is my point.
you don't need to like it, but it is a valid well known documented fact that you refuse to accept as reality. ...

do you really live under a rock or are you just suggesting that minor retouching of people's facial flaws are equivalent to owing slaves???
maybe you are drunk when you type these comments, it is hard to believe that someone would suggest these things.
the fashion industry consistently breeches this stuff, not regular people ........

No where have I ever posted about touch ups. You are just distorting and outright lying about what I posted because you have been standing in quicksand with your hollow arguments.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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

I said a "good" editor.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

So does everyone, and everything we read, see and hear is filtered through that.

But a good editor can reject a photo that's obviously phony. They could require the original RAW file be submitted. It's all up to how much the newspaper and its editors care about truth. Would NatGeo and other magazines and newspapers maintain the respect of the public if they fudged the truth all the time with phony photos? Who would believe them? Today, people don't believe newspapers because they lie all the time or distort the truth to their own beliefs. How has that helped anyone? How does the public make informed decisions when they're being lied to all the time? It's one thing to Photoshop an art picture you're going to hang over your couch and another to do that in a newspaper.

 

[MattKing]

I have actually had a photograph published in a newspaper where the image was a composite between two different film negatives. Of course, it was included in a feature that satirized another publication .
It was over 40 years ago, and I've been looking for the tear sheet since this thread started.
I never expect a photograph to be free from modification or manipulation. If a photograph is presented as some sort of reportage, my expectation is that all modifications and manipulations will be such as to not materially mislead me.
If the face of someone is blurred in a photo because it isn't appropriate to identify them, I have no problem with that.
If a shadow is lightened to reveal otherwise hidden detail, or a highlight darkened for the same reason, I have no problem with that.
Photographs can reveal reality, but they inevitably manipulate and modify it too. Photo editors (humans, not software) have the job of controlling those manipulations and modifications so that they don't mislead. No lies are necessary.

 

[Algo después]

Perhaps the differences between those who practice paleophotography but defend the idea that it should not lose its "purity" and "authenticity" vs. those who use the full range of alternatives offered by this medium, never have a white smoke. Also today there are those who think that the world is flat and live convinced of it; They share their certainties in conventions with others who think the same and rejoice in it, unfortunately they sometimes dedicate themselves to discrediting those who do not think the same, and instead of opening up to the possibility of questioning their point of view (and see what else it must be said on the subject) blindly stagnate in their inconsistent arguments. I guess the world is wide enough for us to live together.

In any case, the controversy over whether to retouch a photo (a few pimples or the whole chicken pox) reduces the status of "purity" or "authenticity" to the photograph, takes us back to another contemporary photographic problem: Advertising models made with artificial intelligence. With a technique more or less similar to what a scanner does when it sews two photos of a landscape, one wonders, what would this be? a post-photography? While we try to agree, the discussion progresses on different levels.

 

[eddie]

When it comes to discussions of manipulation, a distinction needs to be made between photos for journalism/documentation and photos for any other purpose. A photojournalist who alters work in the manner described in this thread wouldn't be a photojournalist for long.

 

[markjwyatt]

Perhaps the differences between those who practice paleophotography but defend the idea that it should not lose its "purity" and "authenticity" vs. those who use the full range of alternatives offered by this medium, never have a white smoke. Also today there are those who think that the world is flat and live convinced of it; They share their certainties in conventions with others who think the same and rejoice in it, unfortunately they sometimes dedicate themselves to discrediting those who do not think the same, and instead of opening up to the possibility of questioning their point of view (and see what else it must be said on the subject) blindly stagnate in their inconsistent arguments. I guess the world is wide enough for us to live together.

In any case, the controversy over whether to retouch a photo (a few pimples or the whole chicken pox) reduces the status of "purity" or "authenticity" to the photograph, takes us back to another contemporary photographic problem: Advertising models made with artificial intelligence. With a technique more or less similar to what a scanner does when it sews two photos of a landscape, one wonders, what would this be? a post-photography? While we try to agree, the discussion progresses on different levels.

Really the issue is two issues

1. "what is done" and
2. "what is it called".

Nothing is really outside the bounds of art. But there are some narrower expectations when an image is called a photograph, and even those expectations are flexible. The controversy is at the intersection of "1" and "2".

 

[Algo después]

Really the issue is two issues

1. "what is done" and
2. "what is it called".

Nothing is really outside the bounds of art. But there are some narrower expectations when an image is called a photograph, and even those expectations are flexible. The controversy is at the intersection of "1" and "2".

Nice shot. To this I would add for now, how we reposition ourselves ( and how many times ) when the whole floor seems to move ?

 

[markjwyatt]

Nice shot. To this I would add for now, how we reposition ourselves ( and how many times ) when the whole floor seems to move ?

Standards. Standards are not absolutes, just current understanding, like words in a dictionary (that change meaning over time).

 

[markjwyatt]

Standards- no one wants them yet we argue over them incessantly!

https://www.photrio.com/forum/groups/photrio-photographic-arts-standards.154/groupinfo

#[PHOTRIO: monochrome silver gelatin print; DR, <Content added significant, clouds>], (DR = digital representation, e.g., scan)

 

[grat]

In general, I think a photograph's job is to convey meaning.

Ansel Adams, as a landscape photographer, decided that some rocks that had nothing to do with the natural beauty of a landscape were unacceptable, and removed them his prints-- but at the same time, that didn't really change the nature of the photograph. He was photographing nature, not man's influence on nature.

National Geographic wants unedited photos that document the world around us-- so a bit of color tweaking, lightening, darkening isn't going to be an issue-- but they've had problems in the past with photos being manipulated (See https://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic/ which, ironically, was done by the NatGeo editor at the time), so they're pretty hardcore about requiring photographers to demonstrate that they didn't alter the fundamental photograph.

Photojournalism is about capturing a moment-- and some of the most famous in-the-moment photos have turned out to be fake, but at the same time, accurately conveyed what was happening, and some of them have just been fakes, period. And some have truly captured the moment. And some are real, and yet fake at the same time-- the raising of the flag over Iwo Jima, being a good example-- it actually happened, but the famous photo is the second flag being raised. The first flag that was raised was smaller, and the image isn't nearly as dramatic visually, but it was still a significant moment.

 

[urnem57]

Look up the story of The LA Times Photographer fired for removing people from one of his photos.
He lost his career (as a photojournalist at least) as a result of this.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am pointing out how hollow John's arguments are an I had to stoup to his level to get the point across to him. If one is going to defend a point, use something more compelling than "well others threw bricks though your window, and that justifies me throwing more bricks now."

I reduced John's argument with reductio ad absurdum* and now he has had to go to outright lying to hide his embarrassment.

Now we are finally at the point we should be with ethics and standards of journalism, professional and amateur photographers.

*Reductio ad absurdum
In logic, reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum, apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.Wikipedia

 

[Pieter12]

the raising of the flag over Iwo Jima, being a good example

On the flag raising...although it was the second flag, it was not staged and the caption did not claim it was the first...

 

[grat]

On the flag raising...although it was the second flag, it was not staged and the caption did not claim it was the first...

Exactly. Yet, if you ask the average person if they're familiar with the photo, if they are, chances are, they don't realize it's the second flag. So while it's totally legitimate, it's not actually the first flag, yet people assume it is. Because of the dramatic nature, it's what symbolizes the war in the Pacific-- although the first flag going up was far more symbolic to the troops on the ground at the time.

 

[Algo después]

We could also end this conversation with a soccer game. But first, a photo (with the technique of your preference) with all the teams

 

[faberryman]

Exactly. Yet, if you ask the average person if they're familiar with the photo, if they are, chances are, they don't realize it's the second flag. So while it's totally legitimate, it's not actually the first flag, yet people assume it is. Because of the dramatic nature, it's what symbolizes the war in the Pacific-- although the first flag going up was far more symbolic to the troops on the ground at the time.

Which got me thinking about Alfred Eisenstaedt’s photograph entitled V-J Day in Times Square and wondering whether that was the first girl the sailor kissed or maybe the second? What if the photographer thought the girl was the first one the sailor kissed, but she was really the second? If she were the second, maybe it wasn’t as symbolic to the sailor as the first? On the other hand, if she were the second, maybe she was better looking and better at kissing than the first, so maybe she was the one the sailor remembers more fondly. What about if he kissed identical twins and can’t remember who he kissed first and second. At some point, you might ask yourself whether you are overthinking it. We are not there yet because I still have some questions, like what happens if the girl didn’t tell the truth when she said she was a dental assistant but was really an actress off-Broadway, but said she was a dental assistant because that’s what she told her parents she was doing in New York and they might read the article accompanying the photo? Kind of makes you want to reserve judgment about the truth of the photo until you nail down all the facts. Anybody else think the sailor hat looks fake?