 David M. Berry |
Real photographs Vs. photoshopped photographs This isn't so much of a question that I want answered as it is an open discussion of what you think about photoshopping images. What I think of photoshopping: When you take a photograph that has too much yellow and not enough contrast, for example, it's a good idea to upload it into photoshop and then remove the yellow cast and add contrast. Some will say as soon as you do this it becomes a "photo illustration" and it's not real. For one thing, photographs aren't real to begin with and what you've done to the photograph makes it look like what your eye saw in the first place. What you think:
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig Paulsen |
If I have my clothes altered does that mean they're not real anymore. If a photographer uses special film to get a certain effect, is that not real beacuse that's not the color you saw through the viewfinder If a painter has a blank canvas and puts color on it, is that not real I could go on forever
|
|
|
|
||
|
David M. Berry |
well said, thanks for the response
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig Paulsen |
If I substitute dirt for chocolate, then it's not going to be a chocolate cake (that would be fake)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jay A. Grantham |
What if it looks like chocolate cake and you take a picture of it and title it Chocolate Cake?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig Paulsen |
If you try to sell it or say that it is chocolate cake then you are not being truthful and it will catch up with you sooner or later
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Fake cakes but mud pies are real. This really belongs in the frequently asked questions area. Except for the part about photographs not being real. Psuedo-profoundness belongs in the same place cakes and pies end up.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michelle Ochoa |
How many photographs of hamburgers, selling you a hamburger at Carl's Jr. or Denny's, do you think is real? They don't use real anything - lettuce and tomatoes would wilt, do you thinkt he cheese would stand out that well under all those lights? So what does it really matter what you did with the photograph to achieve the look you want? If you want a photo of chocolate, and it looks like chocolate, then who cares what it was to begin with? The only time you can go too far is when you state the photograph depicts reality, when it doesn't. LIke when you're selling something (and it shows no defects because you've cloned them out), or when putting celebrity's heads on another body, etc.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
Most would agree that adding or deleting elements of a photo-journalistic subject would be considered taboo. I remember just after 911, a bunch of "photos" of the World Trade Center Towers with a jet heading toward them began showing up. These extreme examples have obviously gone too far. Enhancements to a photo...like increasing contrast, sharpness or color correction are considered acceptable standards of practice in today's photographic world.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig Paulsen |
did you ever have a burger that didn't taste like a burger? I've done lots of restuarant promotions and the food in the pictures was real (looked bad after about 30minutes), but the chef just made another plate...ez
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Altering colors in Photoshop = changing filtration in the darkroom. Same thing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
who makes your favorite hamburger?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig Paulsen |
Mooby Burger
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Love the Granny mini pic, Gregory LOL!
|
|
|
|
||
|
jean ray |
"Photoshopping" is so often used as a derogatory term, but as many on these thread have already mentioned, it is basically just a new way of doing an old thing-- cropping, dodging, burning, adjusting contrast, saturation, etc. Many in-camera effects also alter what the naked eye perceives-- filters, multiple exposures, long exposures, etc. No one "sees" either silky water or a wave frozen by a fast shutter speed. No one "sees" in black and white or sepia, either. I think the ethical line is crossed when the photographer purposely misleads the viewer, whether for the purpose of creating a "National Enquirer" type of image to sell cheesy tabloids or to create digital art but does not present it as such. The latter, I don't have a problem with so long as it is clearly stated that digital imaging has gone far beyond what could be done either in camera or in the traditional darkroom. This would include adding items, and, for the most part, deleting them, although personally I don't have a problem with getting rid of a power line or a soda can in an otherwise beautiful landscape shot.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||