Photoshopping comp/assignment entries
- Thread starter 5T3R30TYP3
- Start date
snadge
metal alchemist
aurora green said:Trolling? Ha, you're the one who reckons they get 55mpg out of their 4X4
yep I do, it's an audi 80 quattro 1.9 tdi estate, the reason I like to wind the greenies up is cos' it is one of the most economical td's available today.
so fuck off idiot, you seem to have the annoying habit off trawling for past posts to prove something that you really don't have a clue about.
it isn't the first time that's been done to me and it probably won't be the last.
but it just shows that you know nothing
wiskey
Albatross Admirer
mauvais mangue said:
ummm
well i dont think this debate is digital over film actually, its how much you then enhance and edit your picture.
isnt it?
it doesnt matter if its film or digital cos once youve got it scanned in and photoshopped to within an inch of its life who knows the difference?
there is a part of me thats saddened by the thought that (and this is nothing to do with snadge who has always been above board imo) someone could win the comp with a pic that they entirely fabricated in photoshop. its the really good photoshop people you have to beware.
wiskers
aurora green
Tectonic
This is complete and utter bollocks and it shows you up for how little you know about photography.eco-tart said:
It also comes across that you are completely ignorant and sanctemonious.
If you want to know why then I will gladly tell you why; however I can't be arsed as I'm enjoying the Red Stripe effect at the moment. Easy Vibe!!!!
I was only expressing an opinion as your thread asked for opinions - mine obviously an ill thought out reactionary one i was only surprised so many people took the bait.
In all honesty i do prefer film over digital - but photoshop can be handy and a lot of fun - but as i said in an earlier post these are the same arguements that come about when photography was first invented between the painters and photographers - the painters had to redifine their role as artists as now anyone choosing to stick with film and paper is becoming a more specialised craft market .
I'm happy as long as they continue to manufacture film and photographic paper.
I'm not really that conceited i was only being arguementative i thought that was obvious.
In all honesty i do prefer film over digital - but photoshop can be handy and a lot of fun - but as i said in an earlier post these are the same arguements that come about when photography was first invented between the painters and photographers - the painters had to redifine their role as artists as now anyone choosing to stick with film and paper is becoming a more specialised craft market .
I'm happy as long as they continue to manufacture film and photographic paper.
I'm not really that conceited i was only being arguementative i thought that was obvious.
Excuse me it's NOT me!!!!!!!! 
soz Wordie NOT I!
soz Wordie NOT I!
Not that anyone is prolly interested but this the second or third time I've logged in here in the last couple of months(proper>>>access denied/no net etc...not for trying tho')...so I haven't been on Urb if you see what I mean....I've been most learning howto todo CSS and more Linuxy stuff in Penzance...NOT Shuuuureditch
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnd everyone KNOWS by now I dunt care if you do it with a piece of charcoal and a fag packet...jus aslong as you do it to enjoy it...innit?...I've NEVER really really said you MUST do it this way or THAT...like this Eco_CUnt...whaddeva!
...by the by you're wrong about the shitty misquote about Duchamp and u_naaaaaaaa_naaaaaaaaaaaffffffffin' about Amateurs...bleeeeeurght...Eco_twat! 
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnd everyone KNOWS by now I dunt care if you do it with a piece of charcoal and a fag packet...jus aslong as you do it to enjoy it...innit?...I've NEVER really really said you MUST do it this way or THAT...like this Eco_CUnt...whaddeva!
...by the by you're wrong about the shitty misquote about Duchamp and u_naaaaaaaa_naaaaaaaaaaaffffffffin' about Amateurs...bleeeeeurght...Eco_twat! 
tribal_princess said:oi squelch you raasclaat, where the fuck you been?
Seeing nice seaviews, exploring nice places in Penwith and listening to nice Music with nice people in nice pubs...NICELY!!!!
And takinge nice pickees with me nice moby.
Anyone want to buy some nice Nikon lenses or a Mamiya C330Body, 3 lenses and a prism head..I fancy meself so nice new digi_cam.
wordie
What's in a word?
Well I apologise if it wasn't you squelch, but this:squelch said:Excuse me it's NOT me!!!!!!!!
soz Wordie NOT I!
.. does look very much like your webspeak!eco-tart said:
Different opinions are'nt the problem, it's the unnecessary abuse and intolerance that pisses me off!
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
there used to be a time when photoshoping wasn't allow in the photo comp tbh i think that this time shoudl return...
there are those photographers who produce some stunning images which have not been shopped and they are often beaten by better presented and shopped images even though the actual image is not as good (imho)...
tbh there's part of me which says that it becomes a graphic competition when you allow photoshopping and the images are really paintings not photos anymore...
there are those photographers who produce some stunning images which have not been shopped and they are often beaten by better presented and shopped images even though the actual image is not as good (imho)...
tbh there's part of me which says that it becomes a graphic competition when you allow photoshopping and the images are really paintings not photos anymore...
I've got an idea. All of us must use the same cameras, and we must all have the same in-camera sharpening level, but no in-camera saturation level. Everyone who uses film must use the same film and that film must record EXACTLY the colours that were present in the scene. Therefore no Velvia or anything like that.
A question to all the antiphotoshop photopurist people: Do you think that you're not manipulating your images?
Because the truth is that if you shoot digital without using photoshop, you are still manipulating your images, even if you are not controlling the manipulation yourself, the camera is doing it for you unless you turn off all in-camera sharpening and saturation settings. If you did turn off all the in-camera manipulation, would this make you a better photographer than someone who takes control of the image manipulation rather than sticking to what the camera decides? Should we ban in-camera manipulation? WHat about the people whose cameras don't allow them to turn it off? Ban them from entering?
If you shoot film, you're manipulating your images before you even take them simply by choosing the film. How is choosing Velvia instead of Astia for landscapes, any different from increasing the saturation and changing the colour balance of a RAW image from a digital camera? With film you're not controlling the level of manipulation yourself. The people who designed the film's spectral response decided it for you. And what about printing. The appearance of the image depends on the paper that you printed it on. Let's say you chose matt instead of gloss, would that be fair? Or how about scanners, they all have different colour profiles and gamuts, and scanner software no doubt does manipulation to the image. Should we ban people from choosing between films? Should we ban people from using different scanners? Should we ban people whose prints were colour corrected by the minilab technician (i.e. pretty much everyone's prints)?
Do you use flash? Should that be allowed? After all, you're just adding artificial light to a scene and that truly is manipulation. Should we ban flash too?
What about filters, they're manipulation. I don't see why it matters whether you apply a real filter before you take the picture or in PS after you take the picture. Should we ban them too?
A question to all the antiphotoshop photopurist people: Do you think that you're not manipulating your images?
Because the truth is that if you shoot digital without using photoshop, you are still manipulating your images, even if you are not controlling the manipulation yourself, the camera is doing it for you unless you turn off all in-camera sharpening and saturation settings. If you did turn off all the in-camera manipulation, would this make you a better photographer than someone who takes control of the image manipulation rather than sticking to what the camera decides? Should we ban in-camera manipulation? WHat about the people whose cameras don't allow them to turn it off? Ban them from entering?
If you shoot film, you're manipulating your images before you even take them simply by choosing the film. How is choosing Velvia instead of Astia for landscapes, any different from increasing the saturation and changing the colour balance of a RAW image from a digital camera? With film you're not controlling the level of manipulation yourself. The people who designed the film's spectral response decided it for you. And what about printing. The appearance of the image depends on the paper that you printed it on. Let's say you chose matt instead of gloss, would that be fair? Or how about scanners, they all have different colour profiles and gamuts, and scanner software no doubt does manipulation to the image. Should we ban people from choosing between films? Should we ban people from using different scanners? Should we ban people whose prints were colour corrected by the minilab technician (i.e. pretty much everyone's prints)?
Do you use flash? Should that be allowed? After all, you're just adding artificial light to a scene and that truly is manipulation. Should we ban flash too?
What about filters, they're manipulation. I don't see why it matters whether you apply a real filter before you take the picture or in PS after you take the picture. Should we ban them too?
5T3R30TYP3 said:
Ban the moany cunts I say!
wordie
What's in a word?
I understand your sentiments Garf, but I think you'd kill the comp! I think less people would enter for one thing. (But I could be wrong... I often am!GarfieldLeChat said:
)And to be honest Garf, you're suggesting that the people who vote for a "shopped" winning image in a competition, are somehow less able to judge a good image than you are! (As you acknowledge...)
Surely people judge what they see, and a good pic is a good pic, regardless of PShopping. And good presentation is vital to any visual art. Isn't the key to using PShop to enhance the image rather than re-engineer it and make it look like a painting? That sort of suggests that the best use of PShop is undetectable.... Whilst overuse, would negate the object of the exercise.
And it's somewhat naive to think that PShop (or similar software) isn't used extensively in virtually every image you see entered for even the most prestigious photo competitions - even if they were originally shot on film. It's just that you don't see it's use... you marvel at the image!
What you could do is have a "film" photographic comp, but even then, we're in a digital medium and once your paper print has been scanned, it can be PShopped! In the end you're relying on the integrity of the entrant. Try it, then maybe we could see some of eco-tarts images, and judge them for ourselves!
GarfieldLeChat said:
Link?
wordie said:
Shit apology.
eco-tart said:
What a load of shite. You can't even spell half the stuff you hate!
Everything which can be done in the darkroom can also be done in photoshop (and a heck of a lot more), take a look at the work of Winston Link, Ansel Adams, Annie Leibovitz et al, each one of them would spend hours on a single print, carefully crafting clouds and trees from other shots, or dodging and burning, blurring parts and sharpening others. I used to do it myself in the wet darkroom, and I miss doing photograms, but I don't miss the red light and clothes full of holes.
Photoshop and other programmes like it have made it easier for amateurs to use, and the saturation of piracy has seen that anyone can own it. All snadge did do exactly what he'd of done in a wet dark room.
This was taken in 1956, do you think this was not enhanced or manipulated in anyway
With regards to snadges' photo, I thought he just took that with a slow shutter speed TBH. It is common thing to do with waves and water, as you get a nice soft blurred effect, like he achieved.
IME the people who whinge about film being better than digital are either ignorant, or don'thave the skills in the first place to use a camera never mind photoshop. I used to scan in negatives at 200mg and fiddle with them in photoshop. Cropping, blurring, dodging and burning, and that is about it really.. may fiddle with the channel mixer, saturation and levels a bit.
At the same time the traditional photographer does just as much manip as 'us', you choose a film, a film speed. Then once you've taken the photo you're off to print, how dark should you make it, should I use matte or ultragloss, maybe i should make the bottom part slightly out of focus... all questions I used to ask myself in the darkroom.
I am still waiting to hear a good argument for the old school of 'digital sucks'.
Photoshop takes years to learn too, and I think that is what scares many people!
Similar threads
