Photoshopping comp/assignment entries

[5T3R30TYP3]

I read a couple of comments on the photoshoppery of the comp entries the other day and wanted to find out what everyone thinks of it. I don't know if everyone involved in the comps has had their say, so I think it would be good to hear from everyone.

I say there's nowt wrong with doing anything you'd do in a traditional darkroom. All photographers do darkroom manipulation. Not manipulating is akin to leaving the camera on auto. I suppose it's good to say what manipulations you've made, but I don't think it's very important. After all, for me it's about the end result more than anything else - I couldn't care less if someone cropped their picture or adjusted the levels, as long as the end result looked great.

What say ye?

 

[mauvais]

Pretty much that; just to add that if you're not competent enough to get the right exposure or composition in the first place, your attempts to make up for this will obviously degrade the image quality. Often this is unnoticeable, but it will betray anyone who pays no regard to the actual photography bit and thinks they can correct everything later.

 

[wordie]

I agree that digitally speaking, the end result is what counts. If you would manipulate your analogue image in a lab, then it's acceptable to manipulate your digital image using software.

And let's be quite frank, these days, there aren't too many images that are in the public domain, either analogue or digital, that haven't had some form of manipulation done to them.

 

[snadge]

Well, as the offending winner of the competition I think you already know my answer.

The thing is, it's not always that cut and dried.

95% of my photo's have only manual version of in camera sharpening and saturation.

I would not class this as post processing as I'm only replacing the in camera processing to an alogorithm of my own choosing.

Now the other 5%, that's a different story.

Now the lighthouse picture was a good example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my exposure technique, it's pretty much bang on, trouble is, the lighting is terrible, an awful day coupled with weak sun and a pasty sky.


It's very good source material for a photoshopping though which is one of the reasons I took it, I knew I was going to have to "do" something to it to make it stand out on it's merits of a photograph as well as the obviousness of the photoshop work.

photoshopped

In the competition it should be mentioned what has been done to the pic though

 

[eco-tart]

some of us dont manilpulate our images at all unless of course you mean dodging & burning during the printing stage - i must say to be a good photographer there's nothing like getting it right in camera straight off instead of spending hours touching up an otherwise average image - you just cant beat gatting it right or wrong in camera - digital is just for lazy talentless ameuturs imo - may the pictoriolists rule coz were the real thing

 

[zenie]

some of us dont manilpulate our images at all unless of course you mean dodging & burning during the printing stage - i must say to be a good photographer there's nothing like getting it right in camera straight off instead of spending hours touching up an otherwise average image - you just cant beat gatting it right or wrong in camera - digital is just for lazy talentless ameuturs imo - may the pictoriolists rule coz were the real thing

amen to that

<gets coffee>

<thinks about smoking again>

 

[snadge]

some of us dont manilpulate our images at all unless of course you mean dodging & burning during the printing stage -

yes we do mean that dodging and burning, check my examples, only dodging and burning been done to that


which is exactly what we use photoshop for


so

digital is just for lazy talentless ameuturs imo - may the pictoriolists rule coz were the real thing

means that dodging and burning or any PP ( which is what darkroom "tweaking" is ) is only permissable to the film photographers, digital photographers must compete with images that have been printed straight from camera?

 

[eco-tart]

i've expressed my opinion i dont rate digital fullstop.

in a wet darkroom you are working from scratch not a preprogrammed toy that gives you effects - you chose to use a digital camera.

I choose to work with film and the chemical process i.e. a real camera.

 

[Addy]

I think the fear is really who has the best photoshop skills
A good photo is just that.. a capture of something special and unique regardless of any impurities.
I thought the untouched picture of the lighthouse was a brilliant capture, but i also thought that the photoshoped version took away the reality of it being a photo.
2 excellent pictures in their own rights, but 2 different types of skill used.

 

[Crispy]

i've expressed my opinion i dont rate digital fullstop.

in a wet darkroom you are working from scratch not a preprogrammed toy that gives you effects - you chose to use a digital camera.

I choose to work with film and the chemical process i.e. a real camera.

Thing is, with the sort of edits Snadge used, they're just as hands-on and adjustable as the darkroom techniques. Nothing pre-prgrammed about it really. I have all the same tools at my fingertips, but I'd probably make a right dog's dinner of Snadge's original.

 

[eco-tart]

hmmn looked at images and i cant help thinking what it would have looked like taken with film - nice images and all but they dont look like photographs even the first - the moving waves look like they've been photoshopped - i'm not saying they have - i often take images using slow shutter speeds & no flash as risky as it is digital just cannot compete with the results i'd say your images look more like paintings than pictures.

 

[wiskey]

i dont enhance my pictures very much and i dont expect others to. i hope that its the content not the quality, at least thats what it used to be. you could use a disposeable £1.99 camera if you wish and scan in the result, thats not going to be as polished as a something tinkered with in photoshop but its still a valid entry.

if you do want to photoshop then i think cropping and levels are ok but you should say if you've done any major reconstruction work. things shouldnt be erased form the image, if you didnt want it there dont take the photo.

maybe its just because i'm not very good with photoshop. maybe if i was i'd win more.

wiskers

 

[snadge]

hmmn looked at images and i cant help thinking what it would have looked like taken with film - nice images and all but they dont look like photographs even the first - the moving waves look like they've been photoshopped - i'm not saying they have - i often take images using slow shutter speeds & no flash as risky as it is digital just cannot compete with the results i'd say your images look more like paintings than pictures.

well the waves weren't, check the exif, I used a slow shutter speed with a ND filter and the smallest aperture available F36 so I could capture the "throw" of the waves, a standard technique for capturing moving water.

I would agree that the finished one looks like a painting which Is what I was trying for , in a way


BTW I use film as well.........

what would you say to people who use film but have to rely on commercial developers for their developing and printing, wouldn't they have the same argument about your "dodging and burning" in the darkroom....

 

[wordie]

snadge, I think you've done an excellent job of your original. (IMO of course....)

It's easy to condemn the use of digital images and PS, but whether you like it or not, it's commonplace today, and whilst there will always be those that prefer the technique they used before the advent of digital, the fact of the matter is they are increasingly becoming the minority.... (Which is not to be scorned BTW...)

It's such a subjective call that the digital camera makers and Adobe et al, simply can't please all of the people all of the time..

I agree though that the ideal would be to get the shot in camera. The fact of the matter is that, certainly in this case, even if film had been used it would have been a fluke to get anything close to what snadge has created. And that image is the one people will admire. Not the original!

However, I don't think that snadge's original would look that much different if shot on film. What he's subsequently done to it is a demonstration of creative use of the tools available to him.... which is nothing more than many famous film photographers have done for many, many years in the recent past.....

It would be interesting to hear what the purists thought of snadge's picture if it had been printed, mounted and framed but without revealing that it was a digital shot....

On a different tack, I would like snadge to reveal which/what lens he was using. I mean manufacturer and if it was a prime 135mm or a zoom...

 

[eco-tart]

cor dear you lot not alf go on i can only think your being defensive because you know us purists are right ( and have more talent )

and when i use colour i use slide no burning no dodging just real photography.

if your happy with your results continue playing - why you need our pictororilists point of view only illustrates your inadequecies

But too become a great photographer when you know you can turn up take your pics and leave confident but curious is in my opinion a whole different league..................

....................AMATEURS

 

[snadge]

cor dear you lot not alf go on i can only think your being defensive because you know us purists are right ( and have more talent )

and when i use colour i use slide no burning no dodging just real photography.

if your happy with your results continue playing - why you need our pictororilists point of view only illustrates your inadequecies

But too become a great photographer when you know you can turn up take your pics and leave confident but curious is in my opinion a whole different league..................

....................AMATEURS

lets have a look at a gallery of your pictures then, personally I don't care whether a picture was taken digitally or on film, I find your arrogance disgusting.

LUDDITE

 

[snadge]

On a different tack, I would like snadge to reveal which/what lens he was using. I mean manufacturer and if it was a prime 135mm or a zoom...

It was taken on a canon 20d and a canon 28-135 IS lens, tripod mounted with IS disabled.

 

[wordie]

cor dear you lot not alf go on i can only think your being defensive because you know us purists are right ( and have more talent )

and when i use colour i use slide no burning no dodging just real photography.

if your happy with your results continue playing - why you need our pictororilists point of view only illustrates your inadequecies

But too become a great photographer when you know you can turn up take your pics and leave confident but curious is in my opinion a whole different league..................

....................AMATEURS

You may be a good photographer, I wouldn't know because we haven't seen any of your works of art, however, you are not in any position to judge anyone else's talent, or professional competence, simply because they use different techniques than the ones you prefer.

But I guess you're blinkered to a modern concept like that aren't you....?

 

[snadge]

You may be a good photographer, I wouldn't know because we haven't seen any of your works of art, however, you are not in any position to judge anyone else's talent, or professional competence, simply because they use different techniques than the ones you prefer.

But I guess you're blinkered to a modern concept like that aren't you....?

I think it's a regular with another login

 

[eco-tart]

yup i am a ludditte proud of it too - so cant show you gallery of work via this elektrickery - a gallery of my work is available to see from this friday in shoreditch but according to urbs rules i'm not allowed to tell you am i !

 

[mauvais]

Heh, if it is someone else, then that last post gave it away

 

[snadge]

Heh, if it is someone else, then that last post gave it away

or maybe not as the case maybe....

 

[wiskey]

It was taken on a canon 20d and a canon 28-135 IS lens, tripod mounted with IS disabled.

y'see this is kinda where i think me and the photo comp part company a bit. cos i just point and shoot with the resonable digital i got for my birfday, if i get a good shot good, thats what i was trrying for, but i dont have equipment that makes my shots even better.

i just dont have the time/money to invest in taking serious photos cos its only a hobby. and sometimes this can be a little daunting when surrounded by professionals or serious ameteurs.

 

[mauvais]

Anyway, I find this recent re-emergence of the film vs. digital debate really, really tedious. If you want to go and climb a mountain with half a dozen glass plates, you go and do that.

If I painted or drew a picture, I'd keep making corrections until I was generally satisfied. I don't see why you wouldn't do the same with a photo, given the opportunity.

You can't make a shit photo good in Photoshop, and like I've said before, if you fuck up the exposure or composition then it'll show in your attempts to correct for it. If it was film, you could get more colour by shooting Velvia, or colour tints with lens filters. It's all the same in the end, it's just a bit easier.

It seems to me, and this is only conjecture, that most old school fanaticism stems from a jealousy that photography has become far more accessible with the digital age, and easier in terms of the time & effort you need to invest.

 

[eco-tart]

On the contrary i'm glad more people are taking piccies and experimenting - it just puts the old fogies like us in a more specialised field and is bringing the price down on enlargers and old cameras - there will be a time soon when people will see the difference between chemical prints & digital prints & they will choose what one they'll want.

This is the same arguement that come about when photography was first invented and all the artists had to redifine their work and we all know it started with a toilet in the lourve .............so bring it on

 

[snadge]

y'see this is kinda where i think me and the photo comp part company a bit. cos i just point and shoot with the resonable digital i got for my birfday, if i get a good shot good, thats what i was trrying for, but i dont have equipment that makes my shots even better.

i just dont have the time/money to invest in taking serious photos cos its only a hobby. and sometimes this can be a little daunting when surrounded by professionals or serious ameteurs.

what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter, a good photo is a good photo whatever was used to take it, I love photography so I bought digital SLR equipment.

this is actually the 2cnd comp I've won, the first one was won with a " cheap" digital point and shoot


it is the attitude of eco-tart that fucks it, not the equipment or what medium is being used, the U75 competition is great for this outlook, the actual picture wins, not the person or the medium.

I'm glad that I won with that picture, just for this healthy debate and also to expose eco-tarts hypocrisy with the darkroom techniques....

 

[snadge]

It seems from the paranoia illusrated in a few of these messages that you are indeed a lot of dopesmokers on this here webthingy - but i have left a clue somewhere so spark up another , dont look for it and you might just find it..

yep I know

 

[aurora green]

yup i am a ludditte proud of it too - so cant show you gallery of work via this elektrickery - a gallery of my work is available to see from this friday in shoreditch but according to urbs rules i'm not allowed to tell you am i !

Your 12 Angry Photographers show at 7, Plough yard, sounds great.
What are the galleries opening hours?

 

[eco-tart]

this friday 6 till v. late after not too sure probably 12 till 8 weekdays later weekends

 

[snadge]

this friday 6 till v. late after not too sure probably 12 till 8 weekdays later weekends

so in actuality your outcome of your trolling is to get get free plugs for your exhibition.



typical