That’s PHOTOSHOPPED!
February 24, 2011 
65 Comments
HDR Porsche - by Jim Harmer
Snore! I’ve heard it before… people turn up their noses at my photography because I Photoshop my images. The ignorant remarks lack an understanding that there are extremely few professional photographers who don’t use digital image editing techniques. If you’re ever faced with these whiners, consider arming yourself with the following arguments.
First, no photograph is realistic. Was that sunset really that vibrant? No, the photographer changed the white balance in the camera to make it look more colorful. Was that lion really 3 feet away from the camera? No, the photographer used an extremely long lens to make the lion seem close to the camera. Was that football really frozen in mid-air while making that catch? No, the photographer used a fast shutter speed to freeze the action. You get the idea… everything photographers do is about creativity–not reality.
The natural response you will receive from this argument is “Well, those changes are made in the camera, not the computer!” How do you answer that? Repeat after me: “So what!” What difference does it make whether the photographer makes them in the camera (which really IS a computer) or on a desktop? None, really. What your opponent really means by saying you made the changes in camera instead of the computer is that it takes skill to make them in the camera, but not the computer. This is a good time to educate your foe about Photoshop. It takes several years for anyone to really master this program and is arguably just as difficult or more difficult than making in-camera changes.
No one would fault Leonardo da Vinci for making the painting of Mona Lisa more beautiful than she was in reality. Why then is it such a big deal for a photographer to do the same? No one would fault a painter for making up a landscape instead of painting an exact replica of a real landscape, but for some reason, people fault landscape photographers for doing the same thing. A photo frame is a photographer’s canvas. Put in it whatever you choose.
Obviously, there are some types of photography that should not include image editing. For example, photojournalism. The key here is not to deceive the viewer because the photo is a part of a fact-dissemination effort. In this case, the antidote is transparency. If a news image is manipulated, the news organization is responsible for reporting the manipulation to viewers.
What do you think? Comment below and let me know if you think I’m wrong (or right).
Buy this book on Amazon.com to learn Photoshop Elements 9.
Buy Photoshop Elements on Amazon.com for around $70.
if you have ever shot a model wearing makeup then the image is not real… but who would ever complain that a woman wears makeup… or gets her hair done, or buys a special outfit for a photoshoot… the photographer creates an image using whatever skills and/or talents he/she has to say something to the audience (or sell something to the audience). it is not intended to “fool” anyone, you are simply using a visual medium to communicate.
Great! straighforward and honest.
Photoshop allows me to make the photo look the way it did in my mind when I shot it. Period. I love it. Love it.
Sounds like the conflict that arrose in the world of painting when impressionism came into being. Imagine today criticising Monet for his style?
Don’t forget the camera cannot record the same range of tones as the human eye. Some digital manipulation is therefore entirely acceptable to compensate for this. Since the camera is not recording the scene exactly as we see it then the end result of photoshopping may well mean that the image is more realistic looking than it would be otherwise.
I have often found that if I can use Photoshop tools to improve any of my images, that it is only other photographers that complain. The clients LOVE it. Everyone likes to look like the best version of themselves. I am not doing photojournalism so I don’t think the need for gritty realism applies. People are smart enough to know the difference between enhancements that improve an image versus complete alteration i.e. models/celebrities that are anorexic and plastic. People know the later is fake. I have MANY clients that request that I make “improvements” with Photoshop. I can take a priceless shot of a child, and even with their perfect baby skin, they can end up with dirt on their face or a runny nose… I can fix that with Photoshop and give the client a lovely image of their child! What is wrong with that? And isn’t this all about opinion anyway? My first comment about it usually being other photogs that are the complainers hits at the core… If I can take an average shot and make it look better post process, then it makes the anti-photoshop guy nervous about losing business. Right?
I couldn’t agree with you more! I had this very debate a little while back with an aquaintance, who is very against photoshopping. Your article had basically the same points I made to him, with a tad more detail.
I believe that if you use Photoshop to manipulate your photo it no longer becomes your photo. Anything you did with the camera is okay because that is something you use to take the picture. But if you change the picture after you take it, it is no longer the picture you took. Painter are able to paint whatever they want because it is what they paint. It is an art just like photography. They can change it as much as they want until they are finished. Photographers are finished after they shoot the pic. No i do agree that Photoshop can be helpful in some cases to get ride of dirt or scars and stuff that makes the picture mot attractive to a person. But in cases of competitions it is not fair for some to use Photoshop and others not to. I do not use Photoshop on my photographs because as i said before it is no loner my picture then. I take some pretty good photography but when you are going up against a computer generated image it isn’t fair. A person can take a horrible picture and turn it into something great on Photoshop. When i can go out a take a great picture but they win with their fake picture because they perfected it on the computer. Actually taking pictures and then changing pictures on the computer should be two different arts.
I agree completely! One thing you didn’t mention in here and I believe that it is an important point to make, is that Photoshop is to digital photography what the dark room was to film photography. In the dark room, you used different fluids and processing methods to adjust the contrast and colours in the image. Which is exactly what photographers do in Photoshop (obviously minus the chemicals). Just like the film camera has been upgraded, so too has the accompanying technology that photographers use after they’ve pushed the shutter release.
It can therefore be said that Photo-shopping an image is merely the next step in the photography process. Whether you embrace it or ignore it is up the photographer.
Our eyes are amazing creations that can see such a dynamic range of tonal variations,that makes it is difficult for artificial technology to keep up. Photoshop, just like a camera, is another piece of technology that exists to help photographers close the gap between what our eyes can see and what technology can preserve.
Just like a painter no longer uses paint and a brush to paint an image, there are now thinners and varnishes etc. (I don’t know much about painting) which a painter uses to enhance their painting. The same can be said for photography. A photographer no longer uses just a camera and film to capture an image.
The fact of the matter is that Photoshop is here to stay. There will always be those opposed to it and those for it. Fortunately for the photo-shoppers the majority of our ‘global village’ is in favour of Photoshop. They have embraced and welcome the diversity it brings to our photographs.
I learned photography from my father and then used it for Law Enforcement. You have to take the best quality photo everytime. Now that I am retired from that I still use very little digital enhancements. It has always been my belief that if a novice photographer can’t tell its a photo by looking at it. It becomes art based on photography.
You’ll never find an answer to this question. Do what you do and enjoy it. Hope that others also enjoy your work, what more could you want.
Using any program like Photoshop or Lightroom or anything is just about using a better program(than in-camera) for manipulating the data captured by your camera and maybe using more processing power. Because the small in-camera processor has its limitations of processing the captured data which can be overcome by using photoshop.
So there is nothing to fool anybody of that.
‘Do what you do and enjoy it.’ now that’s got to be the most important thing…
I’m in two minds on this as I use photoshop everyday for work and there is a mass of things that a good photoshop user can do, if he/she can draw and have a wacom pen another level once again.
I suppose it depends on if you count the final image as a photo or a digital manipulation / Illustration, and how far you take the shot / editing…
Wow, this paragraph is pleasant, my younger sister is analyzing these things, thus I am going to let know her.%7
First off I want to say excellent blog! I had a quick question that I’d like to ask if you do not mind. I was interested to find out how you center yourself and clear your mind prior to writing. I have had a difficult time clearing my thoughts in getting my ideas out there. I do enjoy writing but it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes are lost just trying to figure out how to begin. Any recommendations or tips? Kudos!|