Just say 'Yes'

P

petemc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,504
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
No
I'm currently reading this great article on Luminous Landscape about how to deal with people who ask you if you've edited your pics. I know its a question I often get asked and I always explain to them that I do, just as people did with film. In this day and age Photoshop does seem to have a bad image. I think people forgot that photographers used a dark room.
 
So that'll be Pete ... the man of fewer words in future then ... :D


Looks to be a good read btb ... ;)




:p

 
Hmmm - not that many photographers were that gifted to produce the kind of effects photoshop can give. There were/are some talented printers around but short of a bit knifing and airbrushing most photographers just dabbled in dodging and burning.

To me it's an irrelevance if an image has been edited. If it looks good then that's the end of it! If there has been too much editing then it tends to show and degrade the image.

The devil in me says, "mind your own business - if you like it buy it!" :lol:
 
I read that article a couple of days ago and found it quite interesting. I really cannot see why people need to know and why they think it should influence their opinion of an image or whether they should buy it.

If you like a picture, you like it and whether it has been enhanced, either digitally or in the darkroom, should be irrelevant.
 
Hacker said:
I read that article a couple of days ago and found it quite interesting. I really cannot see why people need to know and why they think it should influence their opinion of an image or whether they should buy it.

If you like a picture, you like it and whether it has been enhanced, either digitally or in the darkroom, should be irrelevant.
Click to expand...


exactly
 
I agree with everything you guys are saying, however recently I've met a lot of people who ask me this. I guess with HDR it looks more obvious. I always feel like people are trying to take something away from my work when they say "Have you edited this?" Its like they're saying "Aw, can't you take a good photo direct from the camera? See, this guy can" and then they point to someone's photo thats clearly been edited in PS but only noticeble to other photographers cos they know its not possible without PS.
 
If a view of somewhere was depicted both in oils, pastels, watercolour and a photograph, they would all look quite different representations of the same thing. You can put oil onto canvas with a brush or a palette knife.....they will look very different but does that matter? If the picture pleases the viewer, will they really care how it was acheived? Tweak away guys........you are the artist and it's your interpretation. How boring art would be if everyone used the same techniques.
 
Exactly, but there are plenty of togs around who feel that because a camera captures a scene as it was, that they shouldn't then edit it. Which imho is stupid. A famous guy once said that photographers have a harder life than other artists as we only have reality to play with. The rest are only limited by their imagination. We have to bend reality to our whims. Its tough :) I think a lot of people do forget that because anyone can just take a photo, but not everyone can paint.
 
See, there are a lot of decent articles on Luminous Landscape but as long as they insist on using that site design, all of them hurt my eyes after one or two paragraphs.

It's most noticeable when switching straight back to a site with a light-coloured background and dark text, such as this.
 
Strange isn't it , in my opinion when people look at a black and white photograph they never see any manipulation and yet what could more un-natural to us than no color what so ever.
 
fingerz said:
See, there are a lot of decent articles on Luminous Landscape but as long as they insist on using that site design, all of them hurt my eyes after one or two paragraphs.

It's most noticeable when switching straight back to a site with a light-coloured background and dark text, such as this.
Click to expand...

There might be a way to fix that via Firefox. I was watching TV last night and I looked up to see giant scan lines on the box from reading their site.

BALDYMAN said:
Strange isn't it , in my opinion when people look at a black and white photograph they never see any manipulation and yet what could more un-natural to us than no color what so ever.
Click to expand...

Haha an excellent point. I've got to remember that when arguing with people about HDR. "Well, do you see the world via red channel black and white?"
 
petemc said:
Haha an excellent point. I've got to remember that when arguing with people about HDR. "Well, do you see the world via red channel black and white?"
Click to expand...


:lol: Yeah, next time when they ask if your image hs been edited...you can point to a B&W and say, yes, but not as much as that one. :D

or just say, yeah, I’ve edited all three of them ...that'll fox them. ;)
 
petemc said:
I agree with everything you guys are saying, however recently I've met a lot of people who ask me this. I guess with HDR it looks more obvious. I always feel like people are trying to take something away from my work when they say "Have you edited this?" Its like they're saying "Aw, can't you take a good photo direct from the camera? See, this guy can" and then they point to someone's photo thats clearly been edited in PS but only noticeble to other photographers cos they know its not possible without PS.
Click to expand...

Ha, Yup, agreed mate, 100% Ignorance is bliss is it not?
 
LMAO at the black and white argument...very good point!

When I 'started' getting into photography a few years ago with my P&S, I used to be one of those that decried photoshoppery, and I preferred to show a scene as it was.

Now I'm completely the opposite. While I'm not necessarily a fan of the cliched photoshop stuff (like something thats been done with the standard ps filters with no tweaking etc), I don't denounce it.
As for proper manipulation (IE tonal adjustments, doging and burning, cloning etc), I agree, it's perfectly fine, and I expect most shots now to have it done.

If I produce a pleasing photo, without doing any photoshopping at all, then I will say so, because that pleases me. But how often can we do that? We have sensor dust to contend with, limited tonal range sometimes, and some other limitations. But on the other hand, we have all these new tools to play with and enhance our photos?
Why shouldnt we? It's natural progression? Was there the same uproar when somebody used 'flash' back in the day? We shouldnt be ashamed to say we've manipulated a photo.

I think it boils down to whether you see yourself as someone who captures a scene and represents it exactly as it was, or you are an artist who wants to convey a thought, emotion, or a feeling, with a finished work of art.
 
The simple fact is that cameras can't capture life as we see it so we'll always need to use something extra to tweak it so it fits our view of the world. I used the BW argument on someone, and it shut them up nicely :D
 
Agreed... Anyone who thinks an image is ever perfect straight out of the camera has obviously never tried it for themselves.
 
To be fair, most shots that involve lighting (whether in a studio or on location) will be 95% perfect straight from the camera, provided you know what you're doing with lights and spend time getting the output from the various positions to be just right.

But when it comes to natural/ambient light photographs, people who think that images should be perfect straight from the camera don't know what they're talking about.

And people who can process an image to look as if it was perfect straight from the camera are the ones to look up to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top