You tell me. What should I do as a photographer?
What you see isn't always what was really happening so to speak.
Take the flower with the morning dew or rain drops glissening on its soft petals. Are they real dew or rain drops? Or are they there because the photographer added them from a spray bottle to give the impression that it is early morn or just after a rain shower? Should I as a photographer only capture what is really there? The flower with its dry petals or the water drops making it look like something has happened which has not. Should I forego the appearance of early morn or the rain shower which never really happened or enhance the photo visually so you see a vision which I created for your eye to see?
Should I take the photo of say a cloud which looks washed out or as it is called "Photoshop it" to bring out that which the human eye may not see? It is really a cloud that I took a photograph of only it looked washed out before I "Photoshopped it". Should I not lie to your eye and only show that which is really what your eye would see if you were looking at the cloud in real life?
I have the original photo of the cloud which looks washed out, the sky isn't all that blue to the eye, not that dark. But it does cause your eye to see the contrast of the cloud against the sky after it is enhanced. It is sometimes called washing the color to get what is there but unseen by the eye normally. The original isn't so dramatic, rather dull and ordinary. Of course I am also an artist so I see the potential of what it could be if enhanced. Quandry...do I or don't I?
What is the object of photography? Is it to betray only what is there visually to the human eye or show what the eye can't see normally. Should the photo be labeled enhanced for the pleasure of your eye? Should art and photography remain separate? Should we never "Photoshop" an image?
I for one will continue to use my spray bottle to show you what the flower would look like if I could get out there before the dew dryed up. Or the rain drops had fallen from never ending dry skies. My artists eye says enhance what is there for others to see more. Should I add "Enhanced for the viewers pleasure" though? If you use a filter on the end of your lenses, say a polorizing filter are you cheating by showing the sky darker than the eye sees it? If you use any filter on the end of your lenses you are prePhotoshopping it before you develope the film. So post developement is wrong using Photoshop to recreate that which a polorizing filter would have created is wrong?
Is it still photography? Or only a form of art? Is it trickery or lying to the eye? If I never told you would you really know? And since tellling you will you call me a liar, a cheat? I can only be honest with you and say to me Photography is a form of art. It is painting with a lenses and Flash Card and the use of Photoshop and a spray bottle filled with water to show what might have been. If I bring out features which are hidden behind under exposed photos by Photoshopping them is that a lie? The details were and are there but we could not see them without the use of a filter within Photoshop. Is that a lie to your eye? Should I only show the darkened barely discernable image? Or should I use the filter within Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro to enhance it to show what is there but unseen to the naked eye?
Those who are Photoshoppers would say hey go for it. Those who are purists would say you are cheating and lying to those who view your work.
No not all photos are photoshopped to bring out that which is not visible to the normal human eye. But can you tell the difference? Would you want to know which is "not fixed" and which are "fixed"?
Should they be labeled? Not labeled? Do you want to know? Or just enjoy what your eye sees on the computer screen? Will you from now on question is it real or "Photoshopped"? Or will you not care? Are you outraged or shrug your shoulders and say whatever? In todays world do we know what is real or only make believe? Should we live in a fantasy world? Or only see what is really what our eyes can capture not what is unseen to them?
Ah, what will you think of me now? Delete me from your friends list, never want to see my photos ever again or go on but wondering is it real or faked? What is faked? If it is there but unseen by the naked eye is it faked? You tell me.
Do I Photoshop or is this just a what if moment?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
Spartan, I agree photojournalism should be what is there and nothing more so people know it is true to life. I use my artist's eye to see what is there then with Photoshop I enhance it to be what is there like with filters. I beta test for a friend who developes plugins for Photoshop, he has developed one that is called B/W Styler, it can do things I only dreamed of in the darkroom.
I've always felt that photography is an art form when it isn't being used for photojournalism. I "play" with what I have photographed just for fun sometimes other times I'm looking for a result which isn't there in the original. And yes, for a long time filters were used on the end of the lenses as Photoshop is today. I can take the photo in the field and get that shot, but it lacks the punch so using PS I bring out what the camera captures but we can't see. The information is there it just takes working with the image to bring it out.
I have taken sometimes several shots of the same subject mostly to be sure I have it in focus :o) and found that by combining the two or more shots I get the result I was after to begin with. And no I don't feel it is cheating. It is just a question I see being asked every day. "Is using Photoshop to correct or alter a photo wrong?" I took the photo, I worked on it in PS, so no it isn't cheating to me. Only a question for others to decide on their own. I see some who say they don't want PSed images on their groups, how do they know when it has been PSed? Bet most of the ones I have PSed would pass their test and never be challenged. The photo is there bringing out the final result is up to the photographer to do with his artistic ability if he or she has them.
If I didn't capture the right stuff to begin with would my photos even PSed look the same? No it has to be there to begin with or nothing you do will make it what you were after in the begining. I've been a photographer for many years, I don't just take snap shots. I may not be paid for what I do but does that change that I'm a photographer? Nope...I capture what others see sometimes but aren't able to capture and they wonder why didn't I get that shot I saw. I see differently from most what is there. I see the whole 726' of falls but there is more to it than that there are the little ones which are hidden in the whole, I bring them out for all to see.
I love photography, guess it shows. I'm not the best but hey even the best don't always get what they were trying to capture in that one shot. I was trained to see the whole but to capture what makes the whole beautiful and it may be only one small section of the whole...
Again thank you all you understand what I was after in my article...
Nope, don't care. That which is beautiful is art, and I appreciate it. Makes no difference whether it was man's work or god's, as it were. You're the artist, do what you feel best.
I also think that a photograph should not be something that you make happen like telling everyone to look at you and say cheese, It's best to capture stuff that's is already happening like when they are relaxed and having fun...
I also think that flash also ruins a picture so I try not to ever use flash, It may be good for when you are documenting something but its never what you really see...
The purists who think we should not rely on chance are full of it. Let them try sending a chimp out with a camera and see if art develops without the intervention of the artist. I don't care if you took 200 pix of a scene to get what you want. No chimp can do that. I suspect the purists think it ought to be harder, so they make up hoops to jump through and discredit photographers who don't want to jump through them. The result is what counts. A good photographer will have a number of great shots; a lucky photographer (or a chimp) might have one or two. And that's the difference.
Sometimes I take a picture that doesn't come out and instead of sending it to the trash I will photoshop it but that's a different story then trying to get a photograph, I see alot of corporate photography which is when the only purpose of getting a picture is for money...
I seen a large paper around here that appeared to have put up the shots that didn't come out so now I have to look a bit harder at the 'bad' shots to see if it might fall under 'abstract photography', I guess if you let some three year old fingerpaint on a cereal box then you call that art and sell it but I have a different purpose when I take pictures and that's to capture on film what I'm seeing...
I don't think adjusting the brighness or sharpening it up is a major problem but when you start trying to photoshop out the nose hairs of the groom then it crosses into art, It seems alot of people are afraid of reality and want to stage everything and when something real comes along then its brushed off as lame...
I mainly take pictures of bands and I am the chimp that takes two hundred pictures and then look for the good ones, I would rather do that then take one or two pictures and then just make them work...
I also take pictures because not many people take pictures of 'bands' which is all the other musicians other than the main person, You rarely see pictures of the band in local publications and most times it's just a close up of the singer...
I can swallow all the edited and staged photographs so maybe more people can swallow the real ones too, Sometimes I do photoshop stuff and truly prefer the unedited and uncropped photos but I do not consider myself a purist...
What you say is true about taking shots of bands. The same can be said of what Spartan said. What I mostly do is touch up the exposure on shots since not every shot can be perfectly exposed when you are not on your own time, but on friends time which they so graciously provided you with. You take shots that any other time you would take the time to make sure they were right.
There are also those shots which I play with in PS to get something other than just a photograph and yes, those are art no longer photography. Like with any medium what ever tools you have available you use. I use brushes, fingers, smudge sticks, airbrushes or what ever the medium calls for to use when I do art. The same with photography. I don't have a polarizing filter to use with my lenses, can't afford one these days, if I had one would use it. So when I take a washed out shot of the sky I use PS to correct what the filter would have normally done and within PS I usually use ColorWasher a plugin to correct such or B/W Styler both developed by the same person both are nothing more than tools to get the results I was after to begin with.
So in a perfect world there should be room for you, Spartan, me and lots more to take photos and be creative while doing so in our own way. None of us are perfect but we all strive to be in our own part of photography. We see something take a photo of it and each will get a different result taking the same subject because we each see it a different way. Hey, that is what makes it so much fun!
Keep taking photos and let's share them with each other... :o)
Thank you