Modified Photos

[sonalidalal]

I have recently started photography. So I make it a point to visit various photo sharing websites and look & study photographs on view. Majority of the photos on these websites are digitally modified,corrected,re-worked. I love to go through photographs of some of the old well known photographers of India and all over the world and I appreciate what they have produced without help of computers and softwares. which photos should be valued more? One which are modified or photos which are non-modified. Both are form of art,I agree. But personally speaking,I find photos which are untouched(I am not taking into account minor modifications) have more soul into it. Too much working around with photos make them look clinical sometimes.

I would appreciate views of DPS team.

[anfanglove]

what about dodging and burning? are those classified as modification? im new too so im not sure whether theyre considered modification or not. Im still learning about those two, esp for monochrome photography.

[PhotoPatzer]

Originally Posted by sonalidalal

I have recently started photography. So I make it a point to visit various photo sharing websites and look & study photographs on view. Majority of the photos on these websites are digitally modified,corrected,re-worked. I love to go through photographs of some of the old well known photographers of India and all over the world and I appreciate what they have produced without help of computers and softwares. which photos should be valued more? One which are modified or photos which are non-modified. Both are form of art,I agree. But personally speaking,I find photos which are untouched(I am not taking into account minor modifications) have more soul into it. Too much working around with photos make them look clinical sometimes.

I would appreciate views of DPS team.

Welcome to DPS Sonalidalal!

Your post addresses one of the many debates in photography these days. This very topic was discussed maybe a week ago in this very forum. It ended up with links to a crazy kid/baby beauty pageant retouch artist. YUCK!

Nonetheless, you may find many to share their opinions with you, and other times, I've seen where nobody chimes in.

Here is what I say... WHO CARES! Yes, heavily retouched images are out there. Some people get paid big money for their craft and their art. Some person out there is making money in retouching bad portraits with bad photoshop techniques. Are the photographers of decades ago better because they didn't have photoshop? Are we any less of a photographer today because we do? I say, look and feel free to appreciate and learn, but don't judge. You can appreciate it, or not, but who are we to say what is better, or who is better. The argument is a waste of precious time. Be concerned with your own photography, seek good critics and not fanboys. Develop your art, don't waste your time judging others. Life is too short and we need to photograph it.

Just my .02 cents

EDIT: i just got done reading this and realized that it may feel a bit harsh, and I apologize for that Sona. It was not meant to beat you over your head with my opinion, but to urge on the evolution of photography. Not dwell on senseless arguments. Sorry if it offended.

[OsmosisStudios]

This has been done to death. Digital photos are just as much photos as are film or any other medium. Validity has nothing to do with any kind of "modification" or "editing". Film images are often (and have in the past) severely altered in the same way that digital is now.

This is either a troll, or a genuine newcomer. Either way, the search feature should help you find something you might need.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by sonalidalal

which photos should be valued more? One which are modified or photos which are non-modified.

Everything is "modified", the computer has simply replaced the darkroom. And going earlier in the process, the choice of framing, what you leave out of the photo, is a form of "modification". So it doesn't really help to say "edited" vs. "unedited".

But I think we all know that there's a difference between cropping, exposure adjustment, WB adjutsment, etc. and more drastic digital editing. What should be valued more? Can any of us relaly answer that? I don't want to tell someone else what they should value. But I think there's room in the world for people who like heavily processed "digital art" and for people who like minimally processed photos. Shoot and process how you want to and let your audience decide for themselves.

There's another side to this too. I'm not great at processing and using Photoshop (actually GIMP here). I'm still learning how to work with selection tools and really properly use layer masks. And before I had even the minimal knowledge I have now, it was easy for me to say that I didn't want to process my photos much -- because I couldn't. I'm still not going for a highly processed look, but I do a lot more editing than I used to, or than I expected to. So, don't fall into the trap of refusing to learn processing just because it's difficult and using purity as an excuse.