Post processing and "unoriginal"

[pasoviennese]

What's your take on the idea of photos that have been post processed being unoriginal?

I run through all selected photos through GIMP, adjust levels but no more than 10%, run an unsharp mask (amount 0.5, threshold 0) and a 2:3 crop for printing.

Now I don't think that affects the originality of my photos, and I still call the product "Photography". But one of my friend said that what I'm doing is not called photography, and everything is photoshoped so it doesn't count. Which I'm upset about.

Would you still call what I do photography and my photos original?

[teaking]

It depends what your trying to capture if your trying to capture what is there and how you saw it then Curves, Colour, Saturation adjustments I see no problem with. Lets be honest we have all had colour casts removing them and colour correction is needed and even improves what we consider our best photos. Sharpening is a must that really can make or break a picture in my opinion anyway.

If your trying to capture whats in your minds eye then theres a whole world of PP solutions... and I like some of them the bleach bypass look is pretty cool

I think in your situation theres nothing wrong with what your doing infact you could possibly do a little more

[irieness]

I've come across many people that complain about photoshopping of my pictures, usually decrying that it's not photography. This is something you would have to learn to deal with. These photoshop dissenters actually believe that whatever picture that comes out of their point and shoot camera is unedited, unaware that post processing is done to their pictures within the camera. You can either ignore them, or try to clarify that everything is edited or enhanced (photography and other arts).
I would just say, focus on the style you like, building a personal style and therefore enjoy what you do.

[jdepould]

What you do is toning, I'd hesitate to really even call it post-processing. It's not even pixel editing.

[Sterling]

Your friend is an idiot. I'm sure they'd agree that a classic Ansel Adams shot is photography, despite the fact it has had all the color information drained out. It kills me how so many uninformed dolts consider "editing" a sin yet have no problem with black & white.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by Sterling

Your friend is an idiot. I'm sure they'd agree that a classic Ansel Adams shot is photography, despite the fact it has had all the color information drained out. It kills me how so many uninformed dolts consider "editing" a sin yet have no problem with black & white.

That and he dodged and burned prints within in inch of their lives.

[capturedbybrooke]

Just call it art then. It takes talent and creativity and the result is pleasing to the eye. I call it photography + art. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

[Canonball]

As in everything there is a grain of truth,what i personally consider as original photography is images captured at the time on film cameras and film,then there's the modern take of photography which i belong to,called digital photography which photoshop is the equivalent darkroom of old film photography.

[Japaslavian]

Most basic Photoshop editing capabilities are simply digital versions of darkroom techniques. Dodging, burning, toning, unsharp masks, bleaching, contrast, cropping, coloring, etc... all came from the darkroom, it's just far less involved, so to say it's no longer photography just shows how little your friend really knows about it.

[GadgetRick]

Photographers have been processing their photos afterwards forever. They did it with film (just a little harder to do) just as much as we do it with other tools now. If you're looking at a photo in a nice magazine somewhere you can bet it's been worked on. Same goes for magazines from 40 years ago.