Photoshopping, a good or bad thing to do?

[Algo después]

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

Pure algorithm (a bit creepy, by the way). a bit similar to photos of non-existent people made with A.I. Some authors refer to these images as post-photographs and, beyond adherence or not, they are still phenomena doomed to our times. One would wonder, is there to worry about this? Well yes, and no. Also painters in the nineteenth century had to have come into conflict since the first image could be fixed; in fact, circa 1839-1840 Paul Delaroche, a traditional academic painter when observing a daguerreotype for the first time is credited with the phrase: "The painting is dead." Almost 200 years have passed and to date perhaps the most important thing that has happened is that the ways of representing reality have diversified or, failing that, evade it.

I do not know if it is similar with photography, but since the advent of digital photography, everything indicated that analog would soon die out, but hey, we see how things have turned out.

. I already took the red pill so ...

Regarding the red pill, as you said, there are theories that in the future there will be people who live installed in the cloud, and there will be other people who still prefer to talk and do things the old-fashioned way. So even that I prefer to continue dancing in the dark room.

 

[janew]

the funny thing is it was talked about in repo man back in 84.

And by Arthur C. Clarke in Childhood's End about 8000 years ago.

 

[gone]

I don't think that photoshopping is a bad thing, but it can be habit forming. One day you're playing w/ the levels on a B&W scan, the next day it's something stronger, like a color negative. Before you know it you're photoshopping Kodachrome slides, and there are no more of those to shoot! Then it's off to rehab, and making sun prints in the yard with the cat.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

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

There's a pretty big difference between propaganda and documenting/changing history vs producing art. For example, if you're a shooter for a newspaper or news outlet, what is in the original camera file should stay there. If you're out shooting landscapes to print and hang on the wall, do what you want to get the vision you had. It's just not that complicated.

 

[faberryman]

I don't think that photoshopping is a bad thing, but it can be habit forming. One day you're playing w/ the levels on a B&W scan, the next day it's something stronger, like a color negative. Before you know it you're photoshopping Kodachrome slides, and there are no more of those to shoot! Then it's off to rehab, and making sun prints in the yard with the cat.

Is there a problem photoshopping black and white negatives, color negatives, and Kodachome slides? After scanning, they still exist. Is PS really a gateway drug? Do we need to update Reefer Madness? And is there a problem making sun prints in the back yard with the cat? You make it sound like a bad thing.

 

[Foto Ludens]

Is there a problem photoshopping black and white negatives, color negatives, and Kodachome slides? After scanning, they still exist. Is PS really a gateway drug? Do we need to update Reefer Madness? And is there a problem making sun prints in the back yard with the cat? You make it sound like a bad thing.

I think his post was tongue-in-cheek, or at least I read it that way.

 

[faberryman]

I think his post was tongue-in-cheek, or at least I read it that way.

Perhaps. Sometimes it is difficult to tell.

 

[Robert Maxey]

My only complaint with post-processing the results of scans is when people do so, and then turn around and use the result as basis to make judgments about the characteristics of the originating film.
Digital tools are what one uses to deal with digital files.
Just as darkroom tools are what one uses to deal with negatives or, with some materials, transparencies.

Yup. Back in the day, we did quite a few things to solve problems. Before PS, we had a PS mentality. When photographs arrived at the art director's desk, out came the retouching tools and airbrush. In the darkroom we used a variety of tools to fix things. Tissue paper on the contact printer to mask this and that as well a specifically chosen developers to handle issues we knew were a real problem.

We analog folks used the same tools and ideas the modern digital users applies to his or her images. If a color 4x5 was being printed, masking was often essential. We could retouch color negatives as well. Putting images together via stripping was common and tricky. Kodak abrasives, spot tone, other dyes and such.

In retrospect, I think nothing has really changed much. I remember seeing some of our early work where we used time to eliminate the people in the scene. Simply used very long exposures so moving objects were never recorded.

These days, one must forget about the past (Trust me, I am, really trying) and simply understand old farts like me had to use old fart ways because we had no digital.

Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

LOL!
I'm making fun of it a bit, but in a way, @Old Gregg is right of course. Only very few people shoot CN exclusively for wet printing.

Is this because the cost of great color prints is high, or is it because photographers do not have the darkroom chops? Back in the day, color negatives were usually printed. I shot very little CN stock, opting for Kodachrome.

When I printed color negs, it was Panalure all the way.

Just asking.

Bob

 

[MattKing]

Is this because the cost of great color prints is high, or is it because photographers do not have the darkroom chops?

It is because for most people, easily accessible, good quality and inexpensive optical prints from colour negatives (or even RA4 prints from digital scans) aren't available any more.

 

[Robert Maxey]

It is because for most people, easily accessible, good quality and inexpensive optical prints from colour negatives (or even RA4 prints from digital scans) aren't available any more.

I figured as much.

Here in Salt Lake City, there are far fewer wet labs these days. A few, but not like it once was. Some died when one-hour finishing arrived and digital killed off a few more or went to digital printing. I am not sure if I would ever build a darkroom aimed at making prints for others, but I'll sure as all heck patronize the lab that does a good job.

Bob

 

[removed account4]

Regarding the red pill, as you said, there are theories that in the future there will be people who live installed in the cloud, and there will be other people who still prefer to talk and do things the old-fashioned way. So even that I prefer to continue dancing in the dark room.

exactly!

And by Arthur C. Clarke in Childhood's End about 8000 years ago.

as long as a mankini and thigh high manboots aren't involved. .....

thanks for the link, I'll have to read that !

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yup. Back in the day, we did quite a few things to solve problems. Before PS, we had a PS mentality. When photographs arrived at the art director's desk, out came the retouching tools and airbrush. In the darkroom we used a variety of tools to fix things. Tissue paper on the contact printer to mask this and that as well a specifically chosen developers to handle issues we knew were a real problem.

We analog folks used the same tools and ideas the modern digital users applies to his or her images. If a color 4x5 was being printed, masking was often essential. We could retouch color negatives as well. Putting images together via stripping was common and tricky. Kodak abrasives, spot tone, other dyes and such.

In retrospect, I think nothing has really changed much. I remember seeing some of our early work where we used time to eliminate the people in the scene. Simply used very long exposures so moving objects were never recorded.

These days, one must forget about the past (Trust me, I am, really trying) and simply understand old farts like me had to use old fart ways because we had no digital.

Bob

I think your experience of "old" does not represent many of the regular photographers back then who didn't have a darkroom, like me. We relied upon sending our film out to labs. Chromes came back mounted for projection without any changes. Even prints were basically what we photographed. I suppose the printer automatically adjusted exposures that were off. But there was nothing else done beyond that. You got what you shot.

The point is that for most photographer back then, a photograph pretty much depicted what they shot. Interestingly, I belong to a photo club in a 55+ community. Everyone here is a senior who lived with film most of their lives. Yet, they've taken over PS like ducks to water. All they talk about is cloning this and cloning that, hazing, and all sorts of stuff you can do with PS. Unlike me, all the rest only shoot digital. Most don't care about depicting what was necessarily there as long as they can get "hurrahs" for their work. Times have changed although I'm not sure for the better.

 

[Robert Maxey]

You might be

I think your experience of "old" does not represent many of the regular photographers back then who didn't have a darkroom, like me. We relied upon sending our film out to labs. Chromes came back mounted for projection without any changes. Even prints were basically what we photographed. I suppose the printer automatically adjusted exposures that were off. But there was nothing else done beyond that. You got what you shot.

The point is that for most photographer back then, a photograph pretty much depicted what they shot. Interestingly, I belong to a photo club in a 55+ community. Everyone here is a senior who lived with film most of their lives. Yet, they've taken over PS like ducks to water. All they talk about is cloning this and cloning that, hazing, and all sorts of stuff you can do with PS. Unlike me, all the rest only shoot digital. Most don't care about depicting what was necessarily there as long as they can get "hurrahs" for their work. Times have changed although I'm not sure for the better.

You might be surprised at what it was like back then. There were many home darkrooms around. Most of what I did, was certainly not what most back then did. For the professional, however, nothing special, just what had to be done because we had no other choice. I'll be the first to admit if computers and PS existed in 1920, most would have embraced the technology. Time was/is money, then and now.

Advertising used many of our services; indeed many ad agencies had full art departments and retouchers who made images that did not exist in real life.

I would expect many of those with an active interest in digital photography to know their way around PS. Especially since film is getting to be a problem.

Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

There's a pretty big difference between propaganda and documenting/changing history vs producing art. For example, if you're a shooter for a newspaper or news outlet, what is in the original camera file should stay there. If you're out shooting landscapes to print and hang on the wall, do what you want to get the vision you had. It's just not that complicated.

Do not forget evidence photographs. Nothing should be changed.

Removing an errant wrinkle and 20 pounds from a model, is propaganda.

Bob

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You might be


You might be surprised at what it was like back then. There were many home darkrooms around. Most of what I did, was certainly not what most back then did. For the professional, however, nothing special, just what had to be done because we had no other choice. I'll be the first to admit if computers and PS existed in 1920, most would have embraced the technology. Time was/is money, then and now.

Advertising used many of our services; indeed many ad agencies had full art departments and retouchers who made images that did not exist in real life.

I would expect many of those with an active interest in digital photography to know their way around PS. Especially since film is getting to be a problem.

Bob

Bob You're describing professionals what with ad agencies and art departments. Most people were just amateur photographers who did not have darkrooms. There was a lab on every corner in NYC where I lived. I'd say 90% of people didnl't have a darkroom. Especially when it came to Kodachrome and color slides and color film and prints.

 

[Robert Maxey]

Bob You're describing professionals what with ad agencies and art departments. Most people were just amateur photographers who did not have darkrooms. There was a lab on every corner in NYC where I lived. I'd say 90% of people didnl't have a darkroom. Especially when it came to Kodachrome and color slides and color film and prints.

 

[MattKing]

Interestingly, I belong to a photo club in a 55+ community. Everyone here is a senior who lived with film most of their lives. Yet, they've taken over PS like ducks to water. All they talk about is cloning this and cloning that, hazing, and all sorts of stuff you can do with PS. Unlike me, all the rest only shoot digital. Most don't care about depicting what was necessarily there as long as they can get "hurrahs" for their work. Times have changed although I'm not sure for the better.

Back in the day, when a lot of photo clubs projected transparencies, a meaningful segment of the most dedicated discovered a workflow where transparencies could be digitized, the earlier versions of software could be used to edit the resulting files, and film recorders could be used to write the edited result back on to projection slide material, to be oohed and awed at by the club members, and suitably awarded with colourful ribbons.
Nothing is particularly new you know.
Our darkroom Group runs a regional Print Competition every (non-Covid) year with entries arriving from all around the province. Very few come from darkroom work, but there certainly are some fine prints which, most likely, reflect a refined and experienced use of all sorts of tools, including Photoshop.
Our cub is small, and it is a lot of work, but we want to help support the pastime of making photographic prints. Far too many people are only viewing photographic work on electronic screens.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Back in the day, when a lot of photo clubs projected transparencies, a meaningful segment of the most dedicated discovered a workflow where transparencies could be digitized, the earlier versions of software could be used to edit the resulting files, and film recorders could be used to write the edited result back on to projection slide material, to be oohed and awed at by the club members, and suitably awarded with colourful ribbons.
Nothing is particularly new you know.
Our darkroom Group runs a regional Print Competition every (non-Covid) year with entries arriving from all around the province. Very few come from darkroom work, but there certainly are some fine prints which, most likely, reflect a refined and experienced use of all sorts of tools, including Photoshop.
Our cub is small, and it is a lot of work, but we want to help support the pastime of making photographic prints. Far too many people are only viewing photographic work on electronic screens.

The club I belong too now is mostly electronic although we do make prints now and then and post them in the community's clubhouse. My photo club back in Queens NYC did regular photo prints that were judged unlike the club now that only judges the electronic versions projected on a screen digitally.

 

[removed account4]

These days, one must forget about the past (Trust me, I am, really trying) and simply understand old farts like me had to use old fart ways because we had no digital

and some of us are not old farts and used the same tools or were trained on them. funny thing is there is a contingent on this site, from the old guard of apug where digital was frowned upon and digital ways never talked about &c who have brought that way to this site and claim that photographers who use the tools of retouching and image manipulation, like combination printing or using a knife and leads to remove &c aren't photographers but fakes. its kind of funny and sad at the same time. these tools are as old as the calotype and daguerreotype but ... today its pretty much the same thing, and like 30 40 or 60 years ago there were people who dabbled and were heavy handed and there were those who really knew what they were doing embraced it and you'd never know what was done.. like burning and dodging in the dark or using artificial light .. skillful make it look like it was never even done.

Do not forget evidence photographs. Nothing should be changed.

tell that to WEEGEE, Matthew Bradley, Alexander Gardiner, and Roger Fenton .. they'd probably laugh.

 

[PerTulip]

.... photographers back then who didn't have a darkroom, like me. We relied upon sending our film out to labs. Chromes came back mounted for projection without any changes. Even prints were basically what we photographed. ....

- Is getting an accurate depiction of "what we photographed" the goal in photography?
- Correct, most people didn't have darkrooms. So, with photoshop and other digital tools, it's easier to have a similar capability. Having a darkroom meant: space, water, etc. RIght now, I can't fit a darkroom into my apartment (a proper one, enlager, etc.), but a printer/scanner fits.
- Yes, they/we were at the mercy of labs. I recall the discussions "don't go to that lab, go to that one, you get better prints".
IMHO PS is just another tool. Yes, it can be overused and overdone, but it can also help you get better results. The argument "people didn't have darkrooms" should lead to the question: but would they have liked to do some corrections?