Comments on: Photoshop: Art or Artifice? http://www.smashandpeas.com/photoshop-art-or-artifice/ Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:30:14 +0200 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Ramsey Kent http://www.smashandpeas.com/photoshop-art-or-artifice/#comment-7253 Ramsey Kent Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:06:05 +0000 http://www.smashandpeas.com/?p=3303#comment-7253 I think you are crazy to believe that the landscape photos that you referenced in your article are not manipulated. And unless it's a polaroid it has manipulation. In the darkroom many changes happened before Ansel Adams walked out with his masterpieces. Why should photoshop be any different. Generally the people that don't like photoshop are the ones that can't and don't use it. Art is and will always be impossible to define. That my friends is the beauty of it. I think you are crazy to believe that the landscape photos that you referenced in your article are not manipulated. And unless it’s a polaroid it has manipulation. In the darkroom many changes happened before Ansel Adams walked out with his masterpieces. Why should photoshop be any different. Generally the people that don’t like photoshop are the ones that can’t and don’t use it. Art is and will always be impossible to define. That my friends is the beauty of it.

]]> By: BlueRose http://www.smashandpeas.com/photoshop-art-or-artifice/#comment-7215 BlueRose Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:05:10 +0000 http://www.smashandpeas.com/?p=3303#comment-7215 The question I always want to ask (and have never really received an answer) is "where does PS cross the line and become digital art" I see nothing wrong with subtle 'enhancements' or cleaning up an image, tweaking colour, sharpening etc. Its when you dont see the photograph first (or at all) its when you see the photoshopping that I have a problem with it. I recently saw an exhibition of a national photographic competition, and I would have LOVED to see the original untouched RAW image next to the ones that were on display, cos I bet hardly any of them had any resemblance to the originals. I have no problem with digital art, but I think there is a clearly defined line that gets crossed. Trouble is, everyone seems to have their own view as to where its drawn. Me? I use PS like I apply makeup :) to enhance the overall image 'hopefully' The question I always want to ask (and have never really received an answer) is “where does PS cross the line and become digital art”

I see nothing wrong with subtle ‘enhancements’ or cleaning up an image, tweaking colour, sharpening etc.

Its when you dont see the photograph first (or at all) its when you see the photoshopping that I have a problem with it. I recently saw an exhibition of a national photographic competition, and I would have LOVED to see the original untouched RAW image next to the ones that were on display, cos I bet hardly any of them had any resemblance to the originals.

I have no problem with digital art, but I think there is a clearly defined line that gets crossed. Trouble is, everyone seems to have their own view as to where its drawn.

Me? I use PS like I apply makeup :) to enhance the overall image ‘hopefully’

]]> By: lopaka holmberg http://www.smashandpeas.com/photoshop-art-or-artifice/#comment-6760 lopaka holmberg Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:48:00 +0000 http://www.smashandpeas.com/?p=3303#comment-6760 I think that the beautiful part about art, is that were are all allowed to express our opinions in are own way, through are own mediums. I'm grateful for all contributions to sites just like this one, no matter what level or format they come in; whether HDR'd to all hell or a split toned film scans. I hope that we can hold everyone up on this site as a community of artists rather than a collection of differing opinions....I'm sorry about all of the rambling, I've just seen so many negative comments towards the P.S. jockies pictures that I felt they needed a level playing field; heck ,if someone verbally stomped on my work I might start getting a complex...and then add a quick mask layer to it. I think that the beautiful part about art, is that were are all allowed to express our opinions in are own way, through are own mediums. I’m grateful for all contributions to sites just like this one, no matter what level or format they come in; whether HDR’d to all hell or a split toned film scans. I hope that we can hold everyone up on this site as a community of artists rather than a collection of differing opinions….I’m sorry about all of the rambling, I’ve just seen so many negative comments towards the P.S. jockies pictures that I felt they needed a level playing field; heck ,if someone verbally stomped on my work I might start getting a complex…and then add a quick mask layer to it.

]]> By: Ritchie http://www.smashandpeas.com/photoshop-art-or-artifice/#comment-6754 Ritchie Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:18:51 +0000 http://www.smashandpeas.com/?p=3303#comment-6754 I'm a newbie in photography and I love the original result of what I've captured in the scene, only for landscape. I don't like to edit the shot I got when it comes to landscape coz I think of it as a fiction if the landscape photo is edited in photoshop. When capturing portrait; I love editing the photo to make it more lively and cool but there are times I don't edit the photo if I really love the result of my capture. I’m a newbie in photography and I love the original result of what I’ve captured in the scene, only for landscape.

I don’t like to edit the shot I got when it comes to landscape coz I think of it as a fiction if the landscape photo is edited in photoshop.

When capturing portrait; I love editing the photo to make it more lively and cool but there are times I don’t edit the photo if I really love the result of my capture.

]]> By: diana http://www.smashandpeas.com/photoshop-art-or-artifice/#comment-6750 diana Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:29:33 +0000 http://www.smashandpeas.com/?p=3303#comment-6750 Well that is where people will have to agree to disagree. I think using even the advancements in the camera is more purist in general if you look at the traditional definition of "photography". It's using the camera as a tool to do the work as opposed to using a software computer program after the fact. But I'm not a person who is elitist about it, it's just my humble personal opinion in a sea of others. :) I still use my old Minolta X-370 and very much enjoy film *and* I still use Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom etc to create digital art. On sites like Flickr I do make a point of differentiating which items were done via camera only and which were post-processed. Well that is where people will have to agree to disagree. I think using even the advancements in the camera is more purist in general if you look at the traditional definition of “photography”. It’s using the camera as a tool to do the work as opposed to using a software computer program after the fact. But I’m not a person who is elitist about it, it’s just my humble personal opinion in a sea of others. :)

I still use my old Minolta X-370 and very much enjoy film *and* I still use Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom etc to create digital art. On sites like Flickr I do make a point of differentiating which items were done via camera only and which were post-processed.

]]> By: lopaka holmberg http://www.smashandpeas.com/photoshop-art-or-artifice/#comment-6728 lopaka holmberg Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:06:38 +0000 http://www.smashandpeas.com/?p=3303#comment-6728 My point was that we have managed to distance our selves from the digital art community by undermining and belittle ling their concept and choice of art medium, all the while, toting that the digital features that we exploit in our cameras everyday to enhance are shots, are somehow more purist in form because we did it in the camera. There aren't many photographers out there shooting with a leica argus or a twin reflex anymore. Our romanticized ansel adams back trekking adventure shoot are forever altered with the technology that most of us embrace. All I'm saying is that post processing can be an art form. Does that make the outcome art...that's never for us to decide. Plus the fact that most of the digital concepts came from film postprocessing makes the entire subject a little mute. So, unless your still dodging and burning manually in your development cave (yup, that is P.P.) grab your canon g11, slap that digital neut. grad filter on, f22 club the crap out of it, and welcome to the elitist club. My point was that we have managed to distance our selves from the digital art community by undermining and belittle ling their concept and choice of art medium, all the while, toting that the digital features that we exploit in our cameras everyday to enhance are shots, are somehow more purist in form because we did it in the camera. There aren’t many photographers out there shooting with a leica argus or a twin reflex anymore. Our romanticized ansel adams back trekking adventure shoot are forever altered with the technology that most of us embrace. All I’m saying is that post processing can be an art form. Does that make the outcome art…that’s never for us to decide. Plus the fact that most of the digital concepts came from film postprocessing makes the entire subject a little mute. So, unless your still dodging and burning manually in your development cave (yup, that is P.P.) grab your canon g11, slap that digital neut. grad filter on, f22 club the crap out of it, and welcome to the elitist club.

]]> By: diana http://www.smashandpeas.com/photoshop-art-or-artifice/#comment-6721 diana Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:04:13 +0000 http://www.smashandpeas.com/?p=3303#comment-6721 Alissa pretty much said what I would say, only I'll expand on my view. I have training in graphic design and am not anti Photoshop/editing programs whatsoever. However, I'm also trained in photography and I do see a difference between the two forms of art. Many cameras, both point and shoots and DSLRs, have advanced settings that can make an image pop straight off the camera provided you learn how to use the settings. Factor in composition (and the right lenses sometimes) and you have great *photography*. Photo corrections/enhancements in a program such as Photoshop or Lightroom is fine in photography, my beef is with people who do just use their cameras to shoot anything and then rely heavily on post-processing to get a good photo instead of learning what the camera does. Or the photo looks very fake. Those people *are* creative and talented...but at digital art, not photography. I can't call it true photography, but I don't sneer at it, I've seen some great stuff. I have a Canon DSLR and sometimes use their picture style options to control saturation, contrast and sharpness, tone. I went out one snowy day recently with a 50mm 1.8 lens and used the "wrong" white balance setting to create a bluish glow. The photos did not require any post processing and were picked up off of Flickr by some local websites to post, people loved them. Why post process when you can just use the camera to do what you want in many instances? Being creative with the camera is different than being creative with a program, the camera is a tool beyond just grabbing snapshots, learn it. To me, photography is about using your eye and camera to make people see what it is you saw in that moment...the slant of light, a shadow, a juxtaposition of color, etc - making people see everyday objects as interesting subjects, the beauty in our everyday world. Much of that can be done with just the camera. :) Alissa pretty much said what I would say, only I’ll expand on my view. I have training in graphic design and am not anti Photoshop/editing programs whatsoever. However, I’m also trained in photography and I do see a difference between the two forms of art. Many cameras, both point and shoots and DSLRs, have advanced settings that can make an image pop straight off the camera provided you learn how to use the settings. Factor in composition (and the right lenses sometimes) and you have great *photography*.

Photo corrections/enhancements in a program such as Photoshop or Lightroom is fine in photography, my beef is with people who do just use their cameras to shoot anything and then rely heavily on post-processing to get a good photo instead of learning what the camera does. Or the photo looks very fake. Those people *are* creative and talented…but at digital art, not photography. I can’t call it true photography, but I don’t sneer at it, I’ve seen some great stuff.

I have a Canon DSLR and sometimes use their picture style options to control saturation, contrast and sharpness, tone. I went out one snowy day recently with a 50mm 1.8 lens and used the “wrong” white balance setting to create a bluish glow. The photos did not require any post processing and were picked up off of Flickr by some local websites to post, people loved them. Why post process when you can just use the camera to do what you want in many instances? Being creative with the camera is different than being creative with a program, the camera is a tool beyond just grabbing snapshots, learn it.

To me, photography is about using your eye and camera to make people see what it is you saw in that moment…the slant of light, a shadow, a juxtaposition of color, etc – making people see everyday objects as interesting subjects, the beauty in our everyday world. Much of that can be done with just the camera. :)

]]> By: lopaka holmberg http://www.smashandpeas.com/photoshop-art-or-artifice/#comment-6714 lopaka holmberg Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:25:34 +0000 http://www.smashandpeas.com/?p=3303#comment-6714 yeah, I can't stand all of the time it took me to learn the craft of digital photography, and to compose shots in camera only to be outdone by a wacom jockey. They should respectfully decline the help of modern instruments like exposure metering, hyper realistic picture style saturation, contrast, and sharpness settings, auto white balance options, low noise iso to increase our exposure stops, "is" lens to reduce blurring and ghosting....no wait, that would mean that technology has helped all of us in our own pursuit of art in whatever medium we so choose to display it. The crime is not the use of PS in photography, it's the hyper elitist stance that we've taken to classify what our peers and ourselves consider art. If everyone is purchasing an HDR, overprocessed, noisy, grainy, high contrast image over yours, what does that say about your "art".....the day we start telling people that their creative medium is crap, is the day I stop doing this completely. yeah, I can’t stand all of the time it took me to learn the craft of digital photography, and to compose shots in camera only to be outdone by a wacom jockey. They should respectfully decline the help of modern instruments like exposure metering, hyper realistic picture style saturation, contrast, and sharpness settings, auto white balance options, low noise iso to increase our exposure stops, “is” lens to reduce blurring and ghosting….no wait, that would mean that technology has helped all of us in our own pursuit of art in whatever medium we so choose to display it. The crime is not the use of PS in photography, it’s the hyper elitist stance that we’ve taken to classify what our peers and ourselves consider art. If everyone is purchasing an HDR, overprocessed, noisy, grainy, high contrast image over yours, what does that say about your “art”…..the day we start telling people that their creative medium is crap, is the day I stop doing this completely.

]]> By: Holly http://www.smashandpeas.com/photoshop-art-or-artifice/#comment-6657 Holly Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:57:05 +0000 http://www.smashandpeas.com/?p=3303#comment-6657 Just like with any tool, PS can be used to enhance photography or overwhelm it. For myself, a lot of times the photo is good but the conditions it was shot under are less than ideal so PS can help improve that. Many photographers use reflectors, or light meters, or remote control systems, is that wrong or fraudulent? Or what about the fact that digital cameras don't use film? To say that PS is cheating is like saying that felling trees should still be done with an axe. We have better tools now, why not use them? Just like with any tool, PS can be used to enhance photography or overwhelm it. For myself, a lot of times the photo is good but the conditions it was shot under are less than ideal so PS can help improve that. Many photographers use reflectors, or light meters, or remote control systems, is that wrong or fraudulent? Or what about the fact that digital cameras don’t use film? To say that PS is cheating is like saying that felling trees should still be done with an axe. We have better tools now, why not use them?

]]> By: Ruby Divine http://www.smashandpeas.com/photoshop-art-or-artifice/#comment-6653 Ruby Divine Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:50:30 +0000 http://www.smashandpeas.com/?p=3303#comment-6653 Shaun, I agree with your point about the fact that there is a problem with lying about the use of Photoshop. I would not see a need to lie anyway as there is no shame in using a programme like this - it is in fact a great benefit. And as Appu raises, the photograph is not usually judged on a scale as such unless in the case of a competition. Do you believe it is fair to use a programme such as Photoshop in a competition? As I am pro photoshop I agree that it is fair, but I'm sure individuals who do not own or use the programme may disagree. Shaun, I agree with your point about the fact that there is a problem with lying about the use of Photoshop. I would not see a need to lie anyway as there is no shame in using a programme like this – it is in fact a great benefit.

And as Appu raises, the photograph is not usually judged on a scale as such unless in the case of a competition.

Do you believe it is fair to use a programme such as Photoshop in a competition? As I am pro photoshop I agree that it is fair, but I’m sure individuals who do not own or use the programme may disagree.

]]>