Is it alright to PS?

[TRiShnDaisy]

...but that doesn't mean I won't do it! :angel:
As a matter of fact, I need some help to edit a picture. Ain't got no PS yet and even if I do, I dunno how to use it!
Any kind volunteer? :embrass: Please PM me.

 

[tmc17479]

For me, I rather not to touch up my pictures at all besides cropping and slight color correction.. I would prefer to stick with film photgraphy but digital photography is more convenient and saves me time and money

My personal opinion is that a picture is the cumulation of the photographer's effort to capture the moment. If there's distraction element, so be it. So people go through the process of waiting for hours just to capture a moment, no point doing that if you can just photoshop it. For me that the beauty of photography.

Please don't flame me bcoz of this and this is not a criticism to others either.

 

[Minoxman]

A friend of mine who recently saw some of my (lousy) photos, asked me "are they original?" ... took me a while to understand that he was asking if I used Photoshop to edit them. Well, I did ... for some of them.

What I was wondering was "is it not ok to PS photos?". So this poll is to find out how many of you guys out there are for / against using PS.

Does PSing photos make them "not original"?

Is this like a film/digital debate?
Short answer yes, long answer why not?

 

[SniperD]

sigh... here we go.... :think:

even professional bridal pics have touch-ups........
it IS alright to do PS-ing

 

[Minoxman]

Very possibly a purist (and overly so) who does not fully understand digital imaging/photography? :devil:

(No offence intended)

Regards
CK

e.g If I understand PS but I think it's not ok , does it mean my views are not acceptable?

 

[marcwang]

Well it depends, but I'll probably agree that editing is fine. Let me state first, that even professional photographers who use black and white film edits their own pictures in the dark room. Processes such as dodge and burn are delibrate attempts to improve the image.

But of course, a badly taken picture will not be brilliant even after some form of editing. I refrain from touching up, but sometimes we need editing to achieve the kind of effect that we want to portray. Like grain. Like less saturation.

Editing does not make a bad picture good. The basis of photography is still the same, composition, exposure etc etc. Just that the processes have changed through time.

This is controversial, and this line will blur even further with rise of digital technology. Film users must accept that digital images seem easier to achieve. I dont think the best film users give a crap about the changes in the world of photography. They just take good pictures, one after another. The best film users equal the best digital photographers.

Am I makin any sense ? *shrugs*

 

[leonzhu]

i'm not choosing any option, because i can't agree totally with any of the options. It really depends on your industry and purpose. A photojournalistic photo will have to abide by the ethics of photojournalism, and its guidelines on image editing. A fine art photo may or may not be radically changed, for a certain effect.

I think it's generally acceptable to do exposure control and some dodging and burning in all industries (though i may be wrong). Radical changes like removing a structure or something in the photograph may be frowned upon in certain industries. Other techniques like hand-painting, masking and toning may be permissible in other industries.

For me, i tend to limit my digital darkroom work in accordance to the kind of photo i want it to be. i.e. photojournalistic photos will be minimal PS except sharpening and exposure manipulation, and fine art photos may be subject to contrast enhancement, tonal change, etc.

So my answer would be Yes, No. At the same time.

 

[alexj]

like it's been said, it's all subjective and is up to you to decide.

as far as possible, i try not to touch up at all, so i can roughly (depends on how the lab does the print; conversion from one colour space to another, etc) judge how the shots i took came out.

i've seen some of the colour saturation lost due to conversion from sRGB to Adobe RGB, plus i have to take note of my own monitor calibration and room lighting... etc, the whole colour management shabang. frankly, i'm still quite lost.

coming back, I'll do the PSing when the pic has to be on display or such, otherwise, it's good to learn from my mistakes so I can have a better original picture to begin with, whether or not it's gonna be edited later.

 

[Minoxman]

If you are printing on a printer, PS away. Thw way you want, the way you want your viewers/clients to see. Nothing wrong with that.

If you are printing in the darkroom, there's a limit to what you can do to the prints. So PS is out like it or not.

I never believe any photo PS or darkroomed portrays reality. Not even close. Cropping, framing, compositions , exposures etc are all forms of manipulations.

Why is PS being singled out is beyond me.

 

[gladz]

Depends on whether you are editing the colour or manipulating the photo.

it's definitely okie to adjust the colour the make your photo looks nicer.

i read streat 2 months back , it talks about manipulating. there was once a person took a pic with 2 pyramids.. then he feels the pyramids too far apart, and he shifted one of the pyramid to be nearer to the other one. it was posten on the newspaper and caused political issues.. because it is not supposed to be like that... just for sharing..

 

[JLLJ]

I see photography as a way to convey a message. So it depends whether the content on the photo convey what you mean to express. For some who say no-no to insurance claim/detective work etc; I believe you'll still need to change the brightness (if underexposed), enlargment etc to see what you want to know. Others as Art work depends how close your 'photo' eventually turn out as you have in mind. Whether you edit or not, the first thing is still to get the photo taken right. No amount of editting can change the fact of a poorly taken photo.

 

[tokrot]

Not to mention that Pics in the DC/DSLR are already processed using their built in logarithm unless you are shooting RAW or TIFF. PS is just other software post processed which is something your hardware logarithm processing has missed or unable to do.

 

[semota]

i think its quite sad if you are to rule out PS or any photo editing software in the digital photo taking process...

its the karma of the digital aspect of photography.

you dont go to a western restraunt and ask for chopsticks...nor do you go to a chinese restraunt for a fork and knife....no point comparing..cos they are just different.

But bottomline is, PS should not be a good excuse to shoot lousy photos!!

 

[lemonlogix]

For me, it is a Must to Psed. My photo is not complete until it is digitally processed.

But eh...still learning lah.. :embrass: :bsmilie:

 

[reno77]

Yes its ok. "The data in the CF card is comparable to the composer's score and the PSed image to its performance." -- Ansel Adams 2004.

 

[HeWolf]

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/cloning-the-can.shtml

 

[willyfoo]

Just to share with everyone the experience a few of us had when we had the joint photography trip with the indonesian photographers. They held their captures in such high regards that it does not do the photos justice if they were not PSed..

 

[jbma]

I think PS is part of a process in digital as darkroom work is to film. Like was mentioned most wedding photos and model shots are manipulated before going on teh billboard.

 

[insomia]

Why does the opinion of this friend matter so much ? You are the author , the creator you have the duty to be true to your vision to use the tools , methods to realise that. It is immaterial what anyone says. Of course if this was the client then the situation changes some what - if you are working for hire you have to respect the guideline your client sets or turn down the job.
It is not possible to take the job and disregard instructions of the client.... not if you want to get paid.

 

[aaron001]

Sometimes i'll have less than 3secs to capture the "moment", if I can fine tune and do a perfect setting, including taking into account every single detail which will make up the composition, then i'm pretty much "perfect", but i'm not so I say PS is a complimentary tool to my work.

I can understand why some think that a good pic should be "original". Coz an original pic tells you alot about how technically inclined the photographer is. But personally i feel that there is also a creative and artistical perspective behind photography (not talking abt composition only) and to communicate that "feeling & idea" doesn't have to be original.....sometimes its not even visible in the real world.