T
Timothy K
Guest
I believe that yes, photo editing with programs such as photoshop is just as much the art of taking a photo.
What do you think?
What do you think?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do you think photo editing/manipulation is an art that connects with photography?
J
Jim M
Guest
Actually, it seems to me that they're two very different things - different in form, substance and technique.
Photography - as an art form - is about mastery of light and form.
Image manipulation is about collage, or graphic design, or some other process that takes advantage of the tools available in Photoshop or similar programs.
It's always going to be a tricky line to draw ... but there IS a difference.
I can't define it exactly. But let's just say I know it when I see it.
Each of us chooses our mode of expression and the tools we will use. And as long as we use them with skill and integrity, we can call it whatever we want to.
Photography - as an art form - is about mastery of light and form.
Image manipulation is about collage, or graphic design, or some other process that takes advantage of the tools available in Photoshop or similar programs.
It's always going to be a tricky line to draw ... but there IS a difference.
I can't define it exactly. But let's just say I know it when I see it.
Each of us chooses our mode of expression and the tools we will use. And as long as we use them with skill and integrity, we can call it whatever we want to.
G
gatewaycityca
Guest
I'm going to disagree with you, and I know I'm going to get voted thumbs down...but that's fine.
Real photography is about taking an interesting and meaningful photograph with your CAMERA. The problem is that people already depend WAY too much on image editing and manipulation. They manipulate the colors or use lame gimmicks like selective coloring to try to make a dull snapshot look more interesting than it actually is. Look on the Photography catagory and see how many questions you will see, asking "how do you make a black and white picture with one thing in color?"
I saw a question from one girl who wanted a critique of her pictures. Of course, she didn't really want an honest critique and constructive criticism. She just wanted a dozen people to say "kewl pics!" But every single one of her pictures were just dull snapshots, which she had manipulated on a computer to try to make them look more interesting. There was one picture of her shoes, and all she did was just manipulate the color temperature and saturation until the picture looked completely orange. If it wasn't for all that, it would just be a snapshot of her SHOES. Wow.
So here's my question...if you were to take away all the doctoring you did to a picture on a computer, would it still look interesting? Or would it just be a snapshot? That's the difference.
Also, when most people edit pictures on a computer, and adjust the contrast, color saturation, color temperature, etc, they don't understand what those things mean on a basic, conceptual level. They're just clicking buttons and moving sliders until the picture looks "cool."
For example, a lot of people like to use vignetting, but they have absolutely no idea what it really is. They don't understand that it's an optical DEFECT, caused by a lens not lining up an image correctly on the focal plane in a film camera. Most photographers would try to AVOID it. A lot people add that effect because again, they just think it's "cool."
There is nothing wrong with editing and minor adjustments to IMPROVE a picture. But the problem is that too many people use image manipulation as a crutch to cover up a bad picture. Or they think that Photoshop can "fix" anything. Look how many questions there are on YA asking "how do u photshop a blurry pic?"
So, NO, photo editing is not part of real photography. Making minor adjustments to improve a picture is fine, but you shouldn't have to depend on it. Now, graphic arts is an entirely different thing. If someone wants to create a computer generated image and call it "graphic arts" that's ok. But just don't call it "photography."
And like I said, I know I'm going to get voted thumbs-down. Go right ahead. But I love photography, especially landscape photos. I take pictures with a completely manual film camera. I develop my own film and pictures and I DON'T NEED to edit my photos.
*****
EDIT: Joe, you are completely mistaken about Ansel Adams. His pictures were already good to begin with, from the camera. Otherwise, why did he put so much care into using large format view cameras, using apertures as far down as f/32 and long exposures to get the sharpest landscape photographs possible. He may have improved his prints by using contrast filters and "dodging" and "burning"...but he did NOT "seriously manipulate" his pictures. Look at Ansel Adams' landscape photos. They all look natural. Whatever darkroom work Ansel Adams did to his prints was absolutely nothing like the rediculous "photoshopping" of digital images that you see today.
Ansel Adams believed you had to start with a good picture to begin with. You had to have a good negative. He wrote a lot just about that...including the books "The Camera" and "The Negative." If all he had to do was "photoshop" his pictures, then why did he take a large format field camera to capture beautiful landscape photos when he could have just taken some cheap point and shoot camera and "photoshopped" his pictures??
Ansel Adams is often misquoted and people wrongly try to use him as an an example of image editing. And frankly, I'm tired of it.
Real photography is about taking an interesting and meaningful photograph with your CAMERA. The problem is that people already depend WAY too much on image editing and manipulation. They manipulate the colors or use lame gimmicks like selective coloring to try to make a dull snapshot look more interesting than it actually is. Look on the Photography catagory and see how many questions you will see, asking "how do you make a black and white picture with one thing in color?"
I saw a question from one girl who wanted a critique of her pictures. Of course, she didn't really want an honest critique and constructive criticism. She just wanted a dozen people to say "kewl pics!" But every single one of her pictures were just dull snapshots, which she had manipulated on a computer to try to make them look more interesting. There was one picture of her shoes, and all she did was just manipulate the color temperature and saturation until the picture looked completely orange. If it wasn't for all that, it would just be a snapshot of her SHOES. Wow.
So here's my question...if you were to take away all the doctoring you did to a picture on a computer, would it still look interesting? Or would it just be a snapshot? That's the difference.
Also, when most people edit pictures on a computer, and adjust the contrast, color saturation, color temperature, etc, they don't understand what those things mean on a basic, conceptual level. They're just clicking buttons and moving sliders until the picture looks "cool."
For example, a lot of people like to use vignetting, but they have absolutely no idea what it really is. They don't understand that it's an optical DEFECT, caused by a lens not lining up an image correctly on the focal plane in a film camera. Most photographers would try to AVOID it. A lot people add that effect because again, they just think it's "cool."
There is nothing wrong with editing and minor adjustments to IMPROVE a picture. But the problem is that too many people use image manipulation as a crutch to cover up a bad picture. Or they think that Photoshop can "fix" anything. Look how many questions there are on YA asking "how do u photshop a blurry pic?"
So, NO, photo editing is not part of real photography. Making minor adjustments to improve a picture is fine, but you shouldn't have to depend on it. Now, graphic arts is an entirely different thing. If someone wants to create a computer generated image and call it "graphic arts" that's ok. But just don't call it "photography."
And like I said, I know I'm going to get voted thumbs-down. Go right ahead. But I love photography, especially landscape photos. I take pictures with a completely manual film camera. I develop my own film and pictures and I DON'T NEED to edit my photos.
*****
EDIT: Joe, you are completely mistaken about Ansel Adams. His pictures were already good to begin with, from the camera. Otherwise, why did he put so much care into using large format view cameras, using apertures as far down as f/32 and long exposures to get the sharpest landscape photographs possible. He may have improved his prints by using contrast filters and "dodging" and "burning"...but he did NOT "seriously manipulate" his pictures. Look at Ansel Adams' landscape photos. They all look natural. Whatever darkroom work Ansel Adams did to his prints was absolutely nothing like the rediculous "photoshopping" of digital images that you see today.
Ansel Adams believed you had to start with a good picture to begin with. You had to have a good negative. He wrote a lot just about that...including the books "The Camera" and "The Negative." If all he had to do was "photoshop" his pictures, then why did he take a large format field camera to capture beautiful landscape photos when he could have just taken some cheap point and shoot camera and "photoshopped" his pictures??
Ansel Adams is often misquoted and people wrongly try to use him as an an example of image editing. And frankly, I'm tired of it.
P
pinkEqueen
Guest
well someone has to do it right?
I mean it is the art of manipulation.
Fooling someone into seeing what once was not there.
If that's not a kind of art what is?
I mean it is the art of manipulation.
Fooling someone into seeing what once was not there.
If that's not a kind of art what is?
A
avinue
Guest
It's not just as much the art of photography, in my opinion.
It does however tie into what photography has become, and into graphic design.
Speaking about photography, I think darkrooms, manual cameras and chemicals, safelights, filters, and fu_k-ups.
But as digital as photography has become, it is pretty amazing on an artistic level what people can do with programs such as Photoshop and I'm all for it as an art form.
On the other side of the boat, I 100% agree with what the guy above me said. Manipulating photos to make them ART is amazing, manipulating them to make the subject look better is complete sh_t and is NOT photography, nor does it mean a person is a photographer, nor does it mean they deserve any credit (spammed comments of some girl with procelain skin and eyes the color of the sky blue crayons, on myspace IS credit) for the "art" they created.
It does however tie into what photography has become, and into graphic design.
Speaking about photography, I think darkrooms, manual cameras and chemicals, safelights, filters, and fu_k-ups.
But as digital as photography has become, it is pretty amazing on an artistic level what people can do with programs such as Photoshop and I'm all for it as an art form.
On the other side of the boat, I 100% agree with what the guy above me said. Manipulating photos to make them ART is amazing, manipulating them to make the subject look better is complete sh_t and is NOT photography, nor does it mean a person is a photographer, nor does it mean they deserve any credit (spammed comments of some girl with procelain skin and eyes the color of the sky blue crayons, on myspace IS credit) for the "art" they created.
P
Pooky
Guest
Yes, I have seen some really amazing photos with it. Popular Photography magazine holds a contest yearly on digital manipulation. The winner said it took (him) > 30 or so hours to work on his piece.
I think it helps to have a Wacom board, too.
But if you are referring to trying to turn a bad photo into a good one, then I don't think it is.
I think it helps to have a Wacom board, too.
But if you are referring to trying to turn a bad photo into a good one, then I don't think it is.