Is it alright to PS?

[newtoforums]

Post-Processing/Psing is part & parcel of the Digital Photography era..

In the days of B&W photography, one has to dodge shadows to see details & burn-in highlights which were burn-out during printing..think about that..

Now do you see a Dodge tool & a Burn tool in PS??
I rest my case..

 

[fisheye]

if you talked to a purist, he'll tell you that PS-ing is tempering with a photo. My lecturer used to be a purist and he won't even hear of photoshopping.

But I think times have changed and we need to move along with technology and keep up with the standards. Digital Imaging will one day become an integral part in photography.

 

[Deceased]

Personally i don't quite like overdone PS photos.

Just abit of cropping and contrasting is quite alright i guess.
Even photo competitions do allow minimal editing.

Guess it boils down to individual preferences.

:think:

 

[afbug]

I prefer my photos to remain true as it is when taken by a camera. No photochopping for me. I am just a newbie but i prefer my pics to have those orginal look and feel as what i see in the viewfinder/LCD. No point trying to make my pics look nicer or pro. I am what i am, my capabalities are only at a certain level. To me its just like music. Either you perfer to listen to a dedicated CD, pre-amp/power-amp and speakers set-up or a boom box with all the frills, lights and the 'stoomps' 'stoomps' stuff!

But everyone's photochoppin their photos these days, this is what technology can do for you!

 

[Pablo]

To me, photographs are art; photographers create art.
Thats just my look at it.
There are purists though; such that will argue that Red Bordeaux is not a wine. :think:
If I see a photo of a model near a car at a show and her mouth has been PS'ed to appear upside down. That to me is not art.
The same way a drawing of a persons face where the eyes nose and mouth are jumbled, to me is not art.

If the car the model was standing next to had been PS'd to a different colour, that to me is art.

Whats more, I rather like a glass of Red Bordeaux. :bsmilie:

 

[zhangyb]

hmm to me, the ability to distort facts through photos can be much better done when the photo was taken rather than PSing... it all boils down to the photographer's integrity. If the meaning was the same, and editing serves to enhance the picture in ways pleasant to the eye, i believe PSing has no evil in it.

 

[Tzuen]

There is no such thing as SOOTC (straight out of the camera) the closest thing to that is a Polaroid.

 

[singscott]

There no reason to go digital if there no PS. It is the new darkroom. Even in film people like me have been "ENCHANCING" picture in the darkroom. Why do you think pro photog picture look good. There a lot of control involved. If fact PS brought stuff only pro could do in the pass to the masses. There only ethic problem if you shoot the picture for the news media and change the context of what picture were mean to be. Who is film greatest echancer of his era "Mr Ansel Adam". I dare to say he will love PS

 

[authmn]

if u post this question years ago, ppl will say u r a cheater if u use any things to meddle with the picture.

But since u post this now, it is necesarry to meddle, changing this and that, too much exposure etc etc... change to b/w photo... remove red eyes... it is just the norm. I would only it is NOT OK to PS when u copy another person's photo and change their head or body!!!!

 

[RonTheMan]

I feel that it is alright to ps your photographs to make them look better. There is no right or wrong about it. People have always wanted their photos to look better and ps is one of the way to do it. In the past, when ps was not so readily available, some photographers even resort to using paint to touch up the photos by hand!