my photography pet peeve

[freybear3]

I have a petpeeve that i recently found out lol.

I hate people who photoshop their photos. I think a photo should be all natural, and if any editing at all should be done, it should only be cropping.

Yes, it some cases photoshopping a photo makes it look better. But it isn't REAL!
It reminds me of a chick getting breast implants, all fake!

What is the point of photography if your going to distort the photo?

Does anyone else agree?

[fletch]

Originally Posted by freybear3

Does anyone else agree?

Doubt it!

You will probably get lots or responses saying Photoshop is only the digital darkroom and that everybody does it, you just don't realise.

I say why worry about it, if you like the photo you like the photo.

[Jim Poor]

I swing wildly on this depending on what I'm photographing.

For wildlife work I try to be the purist and only "develop" the photos rather doing any adding or taking away from the subject. I try to not even crop.

For pet work just about anything goes.


As for "real" even an untouched image straigt from the camera isn't "real" in terms of what we see matching what the camera can capture.

[compleks]

I bet you like fake boobs before you find out they're fake

[FoG]

I think the difference these days between a truly talented photographer and an upand coming one is the amount of PP they use ... the gifted natural/pro can almost do none and the up and coming will have to do more ...

I love the effects that are available but I am with you on the A PHOTO should be just that if they are going to do some PP it should be said on the page so we do not make the mistake.. I kknow in the days of Film many darkroom trickery was used .... just nowadays it is available to all to use... The gift is to do it well.

A well taken sunset will always look better and more natural than a tweaked one.

Swings and roundabouts. tomato tomatoe etc etc


My Pet peeve is "pro" who like to kick down newbie's... or what I call the HUGE gap between constructive critism and DEstructive crtitism. Sadly seom get a kick from the latter thinking it makes them superior.. I know which I prefer and which I'd choose as a Mentor

FoG

[fletch]

Originally Posted by FoG

A well taken sunset will always look better and more natural than a tweaked one.

Err - No they won't.

Sunsets are probably one of the most photoshoped subjects ever. SOOC sunsets look dull and uninspiring leaving the photogrpaher disapointed that it did not match the spectacle they saw with their eyes. Luckily Adobe gave us photoshop so it now looks like we imaginged it!

HAHAHAHAH!!! I love this conversation!! Such entertainment for me.

I find that most people who think photoshop is "unnatural" or "fake" usually suck at photoshop and are jealous

[oldwolf]

I'd have to make a guess that even Ansel Adams pictures were not SOOC and he did a lot of darkroom work (post processing) to get them to look the way they did.

[AnnaV]

Originally Posted by freybear3

Yes, it some cases photoshopping a photo makes it look better. But it isn't REAL!
It reminds me of a chick getting breast implants, all fake!

Photography itself isn't real. You don't capture everything exactly as it is. For example, using flash, zooming in, pretending the photographer isn't there, changing white balance, all these things and more.

We're all here because we want more than just a captured image, but to create something better, surely?

[Swisstony10]

When I studied photography at college, back in the days of film, we processed our own film, and printed our own shots. We learned all kinds of techniques - variations in processing to achieve different results, how to increase/decrease contrast during printing, and so on. Photographers have been doing that since the birth of photography - using Photoshop to process digital images is exactly the same thing.

I attended a workshop at the Royal Photographic Society at the weekend, where some Society experts gave advice and feedback on submitting portfolios for their various Distinction award panels. There was just as much attention paid to the way an image had been processed and printed as to the way it had been taken, with the most important factor (for them) being the overall appearance of the finished image, and not how it got there. If an image of a bird in flight is a good image, then it's a good image. It doesn't matter if it's been tweaked to within an inch of its life to get there, so long as that tweaking hasn't mangled the picture and caused umpteen defects and digital processing artefacts.

If using Photoshop to do anything other than cropping an image is wrong, someone really needs to tell the Royal Photographic Society, before they get any more carried away. I think I'm just going to order the latest version of Adobe Photocrop CS3, to eliminate the temptation to make minor alterations to brightness or contrast, or colour balances...

Russ.