Photoshopping, a good or bad thing to do?

[grat]

https://www.life.com/history/v-j-day-kiss-times-square/

 

[Pieter12]

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?

No. And neither do I care that Robert Doisneau wandered about Paris staging his kiss photo, either. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20170213-the-iconic-photo-that-symbolises-love

 

[removed account4]

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

the thing is, in the end it does not really matter, it is an image. my grandfather was in the war, and the first one, and the expeditionary forces to Mexico, I am sure it was mainly an image to him too. it wasn't news, and even if it was, it didn't and doesn't matter. most situations if they aren't news taken at the moment by a witness, are staged they are fake, they are just and editorialized image, a portrait. they are as photoshopped as photoshop even in the 1850s and 1860s when war correspondent photographers staged images ( in the crimean and american civil wars ) .. does it matter? maybe, does it really matter? probably not.

 

[Algo después]

There is a quote that unfortunately I cannot find (I would believe it is by Barthes), where he spoke of the singular situation: when someone take a photo of you from an angle in which you do not recognize yourself, nor do they recognize you, although you know that it is you, but you cannot explain. The objectivity of photography can also fail, right?


What is a photograph?
“The type of consciousness the photograph involves is indeed truly unprecedented, since it establishes not a consciousness of the being-there of the thing… but an awareness of its having–been–there. What we have is a new space-time category: spatial immediacy and temporal anteriority, the photograph being an illogical conjunction of the here-now and the there-then.”[1]

[1] Roland Barthes, “The Rhetoric of the Image,” reproduced in Image, Music, Text, trans. Stephen Heath, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1977), 44

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor.../4-ideas-photographic-writings-roland-barthes

 

[Algo después]

most situations if they aren't news taken at the moment by a witness, are staged they are fake, they are just and editorialized image, a portrait. they are as photoshopped as photoshop even in the 1850s and 1860s when war correspondent photographers staged images .. does it matter?

Godard would say it:
Ce n'est pas une image juste, c'est juste une image.
(This is not a just image, it is just an image.)

 

[removed account4]

Godard would say it:
Ce n'est pas une image juste, c'est juste une image.
(This is not a just image, it is just an image.)

C'est vrais!
Merci beaucoup
Jean Luc Godard était un génie, et il savait de quoi il parlait. Il était photographe, cinéaste et conteur. Il ne fait aucun doute dans mon esprit que s'il regardait ce fil, il serait étonné.

 

[Algo después]

they are as photoshopped as photoshop even in the 1850s and 1860s when war correspondent photographers staged images

you know, this is funny, you remind me that in my last trip to Argentina almost I bought this old set from Kodak.
If they hadn't disappeared, maybe the kodak guys would have blushed with this thread.

In any case, they understood early on that when you photograph something can go wrong

 

[removed account4]

you know, this is funny, you remind me that in my last trip to Argentina almost I bought this old set from Kodak.
If they hadn't disappeared, maybe the kodak guys would have blushed with this thread.

In any case, they understood early on that when you photograph something can go wrong


View attachment 278332

the problem is there are some people that might accept the fact that images are and have always been retouched &c and there are others who say it was only OK when Ansel Adams did it,
and no one else is allowed because .. well just because...
and if someone does that sort of thing, they are some sort of diabolical sheep with no morals and it is the same as being a slave owner ( as seen by odd people in this thread ). and the strange thing is these same people who do "straight photography" that is as pure as ( fill in the blank ) manipulate all of their images, intrinsically, because that is what photography is, but they refuse to even understand that. its like talking to a brick wall, .. doesn't matter. People believe what makes them feel good about themselves, ( whatever )...
I find it unfortunate that conversations on these subjects ( retouching and manipulation ) that are as old as the 1840s .. seem to be ignored and refused on this website just like conversations about aesthetics ( they are similar conversations ) because ignorance is bliss .. and people would rather talk about their Hasselblad or Nikon or other gear, and how wonderful their cameras and lenses are. Its too bad, because these are interesting and important subjects that relate to every aspect of photography and photographic image making. The knowledge and ability to retouch a negative or print used to be sacred, whether it was a portrait or something else ... now its just something that is common and over done ( and sometimes not overdone in a good wayl ). Even though I was trained to retouch with leads and a knife, I very rarely do photo shop work other than levels, and maybe burn and dodge ( and crop? ). I am more Paul Strand / Disfarmer than Karsh. I don't really see the point...unless it is obvious I am trying to make a point .. but that's not something I do too often ..
I hope you bought the ROC retouching desk ! https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2510209.m570.l1313&_nkw=retouchin+desk&_sacat=0

 

[Algo después]

Well said John, I totally share your words and at a certain point also your discomfort.
I can get it that there are plots to divide these interests such as tabs A, H and D. but It is as if those who work only with material analogue would see the devil when these issues are discussed, what's more, the decision to move this thread to the hybrid forum was slightly authoritarian just because it addressed retouching problems, which would be read as blasphemy among connoisseurs of the analog world.

It is as if flirting with this possibility would mean imminent deportation from the analog country and not understanding that, as Faberryman pointed out, the moment you press start to scan your negative your photo already is a digital file.

Don't get me wrong, I respect the old school technique very much, but as important as listening to the most experienced in this, it would not be too much to recognize and review the contradictory history of this medium. Either way, surely there must be, lost in some library, missives between photographers discussing this dilemma as if it were the APUG of the nineteenth century.

I also stay with what Mark said, perhaps everything is about the standard where I seek to legitimize my photos. because, beyond you want to turn your back on this fact, the technical experimentations will continue to kick the definitions on the board.

 

[Algo después]

I hope you bought the ROC retouching desk ! https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2510209.m570.l1313&_nkw=retouchin+desk&_sacat=0

... certainly a curious evolution of the easel of the ancient painters

 

[Les Sarile]

the problem is there are some people that might accept the fact that images are and have always been retouched &c and there are others who say it was only OK when Ansel Adams did it,
and no one else is allowed because .. well just because...

It's interesting that I now work for a company whose original founders were apparently friends with Ansel Adams and so there are photos scattered around the place that were taken by Ansel Adams. No doubt reproductions including portraits of the founders also taken by Ansel Adams.

 

[removed account4]

what's more, the decision to move this thread to the hybrid forum was slightly authoritarian just because it addressed retouching problems, which would be read as blasphemy among connoisseurs of the analog world

nah. its not like that at all, its just the way the site is indexed/organized/catalogued. this thread has both analog ( film ) and digital ( scanning/retouching aesthetic ) which is hybrid... personally I would have put this thread in the aesthetics and philosophy area which is "work flow does not matter" because retouching of all types has been mentioned in this thread, (it seems less about scanning and scanners and more about esoteric things that are hard to describe). but then again, perhaps the moderators put it in the right spot, because most people are not comfortable talking about aesthetics and philosophy, they are more comfortable talking about tech and technique ( but then again, none of these things have been talked about)

 

[markjwyatt]

nah. its not like that at all, its just the way the site is indexed/organized/catalogued. this thread has both analog ( film ) and digital ( scanning/retouching aesthetic ) which is hybrid... personally I would have put this thread in the aesthetics and philosophy area which is "work flow does not matter" because retouching of all types has been mentioned in this thread, (it seems less about scanning and scanners and more about esoteric things that are hard to describe). but then again, perhaps the moderators put it in the right spot, because most people are not comfortable talking about aesthetics and philosophy, they are more comfortable talking about tech and technique ( but then again, none of these things have been talked about)

The issue is that anyone who picks "analog only" will not see this discussion (and I may be wrong, but i think that is how it works), and it is just as relevant to them as it is to hybrid and digital photographers. One of the small challenges we face on this site (certainly does not overshadow the overall usefulness of the site). I guess putting "Photoshopping" in the title did not help!

 

[faberryman]

The knowledge and ability to retouch a negative or print used to be sacred, whether it was a portrait or something else ... now its just something that is common and over done ( and sometimes not overdone in a good wayl ). Even though I was trained to retouch with leads and a knife, I very rarely do photo shop work other than levels, and maybe burn and dodge.

I am no good at retouching prints. It is easier to blow the dust off the negative and reprint. That is what I am going to end up doing after I botch the retouching job anyway, so I have found it more efficient to just skip the retouching stage. And that is just dust spots. I wouldn’t have the slightest idea how to remove that thumb in Migrant Mother. It is easy to remove dust spots from digital images in PS, but I never have dust spots in my digital images. Removing dust spots from scans is important. Scanners are dust magnets, which is one of countless reasons I try to avoid them. If I want a digital image I use a digital camera. You are going to end up with a digital image anyway and it is going to look worse than if you took it with a digital camera. I know there are some people who would rather have their images look worse than use a digital camera. Everybody is different. I just wish they wouldn’t make doing analog some sort of categorical imperative. I think you are better off being more flexible than Kant, at least when it comes to photography.

 

[Algo después]

nah. its not like that at all, its just the way the site is indexed/organized/catalogued. this thread has both analog ( film ) and digital ( scanning/retouching aesthetic ) which is hybrid... personally I would have put this thread in the aesthetics and philosophy area which is "work flow does not matter" because retouching of all types has been mentioned in this thread, (it seems less about scanning and scanners and more about esoteric things that are hard to describe). but then again, perhaps the moderators put it in the right spot, because most people are not comfortable talking about aesthetics and philosophy, they are more comfortable talking about tech and technique ( but then again, none of these things have been talked about)

no problem John, I agree with almost everything you said during this thread. Nor do we have to agree on everything. Let's agree that the thread also inevitably became hybrid in its themes, in that sense, as Mark points out, the discussion tends to be restricted to a territory that would problematize other specialists more akin to the analog world. Another possibility would be that the thread is tagged in more than one item.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The issue is that anyone who picks "analog only" will not see this discussion (and I may be wrong, but i think that is how it works), and it is just as relevant to them as it is to hybrid and digital photographers. One of the small challenges we face on this site (certainly does not overshadow the overall usefulness of the site). I guess putting "Photoshopping" in the title did not help!

The word Photoshop with a big P is a noun and a product that belongs to Adobe. It is just one of many editing programs. However, the word photoshop with a little p has now become a verb that is used by many people that means just to edit a photograph. In my opinion, that could apply to analog as well as digital.

 

[Algo después]

If I want a digital image I use a digital camera. You are going to end up with a digital image anyway and it is going to look worse than if you took it with a digital camera. I know there are some people who would rather have their images look worse than use a digital camera. Everybody is different.

An old saying went something like this: the cloud wants to be a bird, the bird wants to be a cloud. Indeed, the shortest way is to go digital, but the adventure of analog is not wasted. Nor can I explain why there is an internal satisfaction in slowing down the whole process. While some erase the imperfections in the final image, be it a dust particle or a tiny fluff, others celebrate them as evidence of their previous materiality. I belong to the second group

 

[faberryman]

Nor can I explain why there is an internal satisfaction in slowing down the whole process.

That makes no sense to me. Do you not have the self-control to slow yourself down when working in digital? Besides, given the amount of time some digital photographers spend futzing with their images in PS, doing analog may actually be faster.

 

[Algo después]

That makes no sense to me. Do you not have the self-control to slow yourself down when working in digital?

so that's it. I can't explain it haahah. Maybe it's because I have very little mileage in the analog world so for now I find myself relishing how relatively steep the learning curve is at least for me. That is why I am here, to learn from you guys.

Add for now, that the whole process is relatively more physical. Isn't it tedious to sit for hours in front of your computer using PS?

 

[removed account4]

no problem John, I agree with almost everything you said during this thread. Nor do we have to agree on everything. Let's agree that the thread also inevitably became hybrid in its themes, in that sense, as Mark points out, the discussion tends to be restricted to a territory that would problematize other specialists more akin to the analog world. Another possibility would be that the thread is tagged in more than one item.

haha
maybe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
makes sense ..
personally im for no restrictions,
and if I were the duke of the thread,
if someone wanted to talk about something else I would grant them that wish

 

[Helinophoto]

I believe post processing with Photoshop after films are processed and scanned is a common thing to do. It is common the initial scan of the film yields images requiring some editing, cropping, density and color adjustments. But there are people who insist in not photoshopping or only do it at a minimum degree. I personally usually only photoshop to adjust the overall density (like adjusting exposure), color balance. I almost never do sharpening nor color saturation boosting, etc..

I would not consider this "photoshopping" at all, just common adjustments, adjustments that is the basic standard of any scanning-software.
I do most of my adjustments in Lightroom, it is non-destructive and can be reversed at any time, I use photoshop rarely for analog scans, because photoshop as a tool is more of a photo-manipulation software.
(I did create an automated heavy dust removal action in photoshop once, when some BW scans had massive fixer/old silver embedded into the emulsion).

Other than that, I may use Photoshop to remove power-lines and objects that are not supposed to be in the photo, I do that and I have absolutely no problem doing it either. I may do it to some, while not with others.
I may prefer to scan and print a difficult negative, which cannot separate highlight-details on paper, no matter what contrast-range I print them in.

etc

Based on the inconsistency and difference between what I get with my Epson v750 and the differences and inconsistencies between prints from the stores, I know that my scans, as well as prints from the store are a complete toss-up, in terms of representing the inherent differences in negative, between film-brands.
Actually, to the point where any negative can be made to look like any other negative and most often, it does, no matter if I do it,
Or the stores do it for their prints/scans.

 

[nmp]

Since you all have done such a great job discussing Photoshop - how about PhotoFactory:

https://fstoppers.com/landscapes/next-ansel-adams-going-be-nvidia-gpu-568424

(back to lurk mode)

:Niranjan.

 

[removed account4]

niranjan
they say the next version of the internet is going to be a virtual world so maybe that is the beginning of the things to come. .. we'll never have to leave our seats, and we will invent our own CG world we live in .. I already took the red pill so ...

 

[faberryman]

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

Where is that? Who is “we”?

 

[removed account4]

Where is that? Who is “we”?

Its called the metaverse ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaverse
its pretty much already here if you are under 30 LOL
shared reality of people. there is/will be money, and work
and relationships just like life but you know .. better
and it seems there will be great art.
I can't wait to live in a cy twombly painting.
the funny thing is it was talked about in repo man back in 84.