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.
Further Reading:
- Landscape Photography Tips Video: Creative Composition
- Amazon is Selling Lightroom 3 for $119 Today!!!!!
- How to use spot metering for portraits
- Mastering the Digital Age of Photography (By Dustin Olsen)
Didn’t Ansel Adams say “The negative is the score, the print is the performance “?
I’m constantly in this argument with my girlfriend, as I will show her a photograph she likes, but then her smile falters when I tell her I’ve retouched it slightly in PS. Great site BTW…
As an old graphic designer, selling advertising through manipulated images has always been the norm (and one constantly debated over). After all, we are selling the ideal, not the reality. But if you want to get technical, a camera NEVER captures a scene as we see it. Neither film nor sensor has the dynamic range to capture all the detail in both light and shadow areas as our eye does. So by default due to technical limitations, straight out of the camera is a lie. Even in the old ‘film’ days, all professional photos were manipulated, albeit in a darkroom using chemicals and light. Otherwise they would just be amateur snapshots. All Photoshop does is package the tools used in a darkroom into a digital format. However, with technical advancements we have better, more complex tools than 20 or 30 years ago. Photo retouching is photo manipulation, wether it be in a darkroom or in a computer. The means justify the end and that is dictated by final use and that is a very broad field.
Look, we note that you takes short time shooting. Not so long ago, before the digital age, for many photographers it was important to capture the moment, or reflect reality as closely as possible. On the other hand there were also artistic photographers took pictures. Today it is sometimes indistinguishable from photos that reflect the reality of retouched photos, which can have an artistic look, but no photographic value. I think a photographer should make clear its intentions and whether the picture was retoucheded or not. Nor did for so many slides, magnificent. Which you abuse of Photoshop you change the reality when images are sometimes minim.
Whilst I do agree that each of us have individual ideas on this subject . I am not so sure of the argument.I do agree that anyone should be allowed to manipulate a picture to their own desire for personal or
even commercial use. I do find it totally disgusting that today’s “photographic society”, not only permits, but actively encourages photographers to utilise photo “enhancing software” in photography competitions ! Is this really a fair and just way to find the “best” photographers ?
I’m sorry but I, personally think not !!!
To put this into perspective ………
“What happens to an athlete using performance enhancing drugs” ?
Do they win the competition ?
or do they get disqualified ?
All photography competitions should be decided upon “photographic skills”….. not “computer editing skills”.
I often wonder how many of these “competitions” have been awarded to “professional editors” who don’t even “understand” the concept of photography !
Also (in my opinion) these programs tend to breed many “sloppy” and “lazy” so called “professional photographers” that rely to heavily on usage of the software.
This certainly is not a significant help to the Industry as a whole but thankfully there are also a great many “professional photographers” that utilise the software appropriately and within proportion.
Another thing is “photography” is a time relative “art” form ( unlike sculpture, painting etc ). Changing the image (duller, brighter) sometimes takes away the “time factor” thereby taking away the very fabric of what this “art” is to achieve.
Well that is my “bitch”…
And just for the record I have never entered a photo “contest” …. so No I am not just a sore loser ….hehe.
You can rub on a turd all you want – It’s NEVER going to turn into a diamond. If you’re not making something decent in the camera, then all the post processing in the world isn’t going to save you.
I suggest people learn how to use their cameras BEFORE they learn how to ruin photos in post processing.
I’m just wondering…. Is everybody that are so against enhancing a photo also against women wearing makeup. That is basically the same thing in my book.
Ok for a start. Enhancing/changing a photo is not wrong. In the late 1800′s photography in general was considered NOT to be a legitimate art form as any one could buy a camera and take a photo if they had the patience for it.
Also Ansell Adams in his series of books, shows how one can make an equivalent HDR shot with black and white film in a darkroom. I use both film and digital in my works and can assure you that a HELL of a lot can be done to an image with a little creativity and some black ink thinned out with water.
If people would just get over the fact that technology has changed the idea of WHAT a photo is then we could all move on happily. This idea of ‘cheating’ in computer was completely wiped out of me when I learned how to ‘cheat’ in a darkroom.
I have to say that I’m impressed with how civil (and sometimes funny) the above comments are considering how strong some opinions can be.
I completely agree with the original article. What’s the definition of reality? How granular are we willing to get about it? What are ‘white lies’, deception, or eloquence? Should there be a law that indicates what’s acceptable in art?
Visions are like beauty: in the eye of the beholder, sometimes debatable, sometimes controversial – just don’t make them unremarkable. We are simply talking about tools that help us express our unique point of view, of a very specific moment in time, a moment not experienced by anyone else. Am I supposed restrict my ‘reality’ by limiting myself to some tools (camera) and not use others (dark room or Photoshop)?
When you consider post-processing ‘impure’ you’re basically taking away other options and possibilities. Why would you be so religious about results straight out of the camera? Is that somehow the absolute tool? What makes it so? Its imperfections or limitations created by manufacturers of specific brands? Cameras can generate the same crap as tasteless alterations in Photoshop, just move the camera while shooting at slow speeds, overexpose the shot, or shoot at night with the fastest exposure! But if your aim is produce a pure abstract of a ‘black night’ who am I to say that your work is wrong regardless if I like it or not?!? Same with post-processing – something overdone will probably not be appreciated by most viewers. The ‘beholders’ are the great equalizer
I’ve seen a couple of comments referring to post processing as drug-enhancements for athletes. Same premise, why wouldn’t you consider post processing as intense training? You need significant knowledge, sensibility, and experience gained over quite some time
My preference: express yourself the best way you can, with whatever is available to you
Love Tom’s, Angel’s, Duck’s and Paul’s comments
It’s all matter of preference, my problem is when either side get’s nasty on the other!
I’ve written my own two cents on the issue too…
http://burnt-feather.blogspot.com/2011/11/edited-photos-vs-unedited-photos.html
I remember when it was argued that a musician was cheating when they used samples of other music to make new music.
People eventually began to realize it still takes a talented artist to make a good song, even if he/she isn’t striking each note with his/her own fingers.
Digital manipulation, regardless if it is performed in audio or visual, is all the same as far as artistic ethics go.
People are just resistant to change. They’ll come around.
Though you must admit, it’s a rich feeling when you pull up a shot to see what needs to be adjusted and you can’t find anything. It doesn’t even need to be cropped.
You’re like, “That’s right. I’m bad.” 8)
@Kelly – No doubt
I love it when that happens.
Photo manipulation goes as far back as photography does, most people don’t realize that. Some of the worlds most famous photographs and portraits were “airbrushed”. It doesn’t matter weather it comes from a airbrush or a computer. There is such a thing as SOOC photography, it’s a unique style of photography that some people love and I don’t judge them. I don’t have any negative criticism about your style of photography saying that it’s not “good” photography so don’t knock ours. Just open your minds a little people, or better yet buy a copy a Elements and give it a chance.
And Jim, your wrong, several years? I have been using Photoshop for 15 years and I still haven’t mastered it…how can you, they come out with a new version every few years…lol
Oh I have been here and done that. First there was a cave man and he took a lump of burnt wood and drew a picture of a bison. A short time latter at a cave down the way another caveman while fixing a dinner of berries find his finger stained. Ah he says and takes the berries and draws a picture of a bison. One day the first caveman visit the second who has invited him to see his discover. They enter the cave and the second caveman says “Look at my art.” The second caveman says “thats not art it in berries and bison ain’t that color. Real artist draw in burnt wood.” What I think I am trying to say is that we are all artists and what we give is our emotions and feeling in what we present. “Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it” Michelangelo. I take a photo and sometime don’t know why. Something just caught my eye. As I look at the image that is there I try to see what it’s trying to reveal. Sometime its just print me let me live.
I just like playing around with the photos and seeing peoples reactions at the end result. Also a good hobby to keep your imagination going and your brain active.
There is so much to learn in so little time 
I think it is ok to use photo editing. It can create a piece of art that your camera is simply not able to do. Esp when someone paid you for a product, it is important to deliver something that is quality. Lets face it we all take bad shots occasionally (or a lot haha) if an image can be “saved” with an editing technique then sometimes that is the best option. That being said, I don’t think photoshop should be used as an excuse for not learning how to operate a camera in manual, ESP if you are billing yourself as a professional. You can photoshop all you want but in most cases you can still tell someone who knows good photography from someone who just got a new camera and downloaded some free photoshop actions. Also I think as photographers we should still strive to get a great images right out the camera, ones that don’t need any editing. I think there are some awesome photographers/photo editors out there who create amazing art, but lets face it the photoshop actions are being coming incredibly popular and almost the standard. For my business though I use minimal corrective editing, I do not use photoshop actions (like the vintage look for example). Many of my clients and clients friends and family have commented on how my photos stand out in the crowd because they are different from what so many professionals in my area are doing. there is nothing wrong with photoshop, but there is also nothing wrong with not using it
I go by deviantart rules:
slight touch ups and color/contrast adjustments are still “Photography”. Anything more and you are crossing into “Photo Manipulation”. There’s is nothing more “wrong” or “right” about one or the other. But call a spade a spade. This is why I fully agree that photo manipulated images should be labeled in magazines when it comes to real people the same way a doctored image would have to be reported in photojournalism. Celebrity gossip, trashy as it may be, is still journalism. And it should be following the same rules of transparency. You image above is a photo manipulated, digitally enhanced image. But it is not a “photograph”. Not anymore than the sketch I scan in to CS5 and then spend hours vectoring over as my base is still just a “sketch” when it’s complete.