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).
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.
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.
Absolutely, positively RIGHT!! Well said!
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.
Okay, if after using Photo shop the photo is no longer your photo…. who’s is it? Of course it’s your photo! Your art! You still created it! I know, I know… I’ll never convince you to see things my way… but I just want you to know that you don’t have to limit yourself to what your camera can do! You can continue to create long after the photo was snapped, and yes, it’s STILL your art! It’s yours!! 🙂 I understand what you’re saying too… I just wanted to present that point of view to you.
Be the artist that you are! That’s all! 🙂
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…
If a photograph looks fake then it means it has been heavily photoshopped. I have seen landscape photographs straight from the camera with no interesting sky, no beautiful light and crap composition and then seen them again once they have been photoshopped – they are nothing like the original image. The enjoyment of photography for me is to keep trying to find that fantastic sky, beautiful light, great perspective and good composition. I agree with Lizzy.
This is like which is better Nikon or Canon. I take a shot because of what I see. My camera sometimes does not give justice to the real thing, hence touchups. I want to give you the closest thing to what I saw, and felt. I want you to be there with me.
The public is being fooled…. into what??? Believing that one day…. one year or twenty years ago….. a photo was taken and it was beautiful? When in reality it was boring, and not so pleasing to the eye? WHO cares? Really? WHO CARES? If you care, perhaps you have huge issues. I don’t care if you create fantastic photos and never use Photoshop! That’s awesome… but we probably have different eyes for art. That’s okay!! I will always tell you if this image is a composite… but I don’t believe it really matters all that much. Is the photo you’re looking at beautiful? Is it something you enjoy looking at? Then why would you even give a second thought to whether or not that photo was “shopped” or not? I don’t take photos…. I create them! And I make a lot of money doing it. From people who find it beautiful, and don’t have time to care if it was photo shopped or not! My art on my terms! Your art on your terms! It’s really simple! 😉