Did Photoshop ruin photographs?

[swoll1980]

When I was little, a picture was worth a 1000 words. Since the new age of digital photo editing, when we see a photo of something amazing, we automatically blow it off, and say "It was Photoshoped" Did Photoshop ruin photographs?

[Skripka]

No. Most people just don't know the differences between what a good photo is or should be-and what an overdone photoshop job is.


An amazing and artful photo is still just that. Photoshop cannot make up for someone who is inept behind the shutter.

[LowSky]

Way before photoshop there was photo doctoring. Airbrushing and cropping have been used for ages.

[cariboo]

Photoshop has just made it easier for everyone to alter photographs. Before digital pictures it took an artist in a darkroom to alter photographs to the extent that some pictures are photoshoped.

[swoll1980]

Way before photoshop there was photo doctoring. Airbrushing and cropping have been used for ages.

Yeah, but it was usually easy to tell. Can you tell if this was photo shopped, or not?

[Skripka]

Yeah, but it was usually easy to tell. Can you tell if this was photo shopped, or not?

Real image taken from a camera, probably with some color doctoring....possibly some HDRing.

[starcannon]

When I was little, a picture was worth a 1000 words. Since the new age of digital photo editing, when we see a photo of something amazing, we automatically blow it off, and say "It was Photoshoped" Did Photoshop ruin photographs?

I don't think completely; I think we as a planet have become more skeptical of "photographic evidence", but we've know all along that pictures can be doctored, even back in the days of darkrooms.

I think the skepticism is a bit over played as well, just because everyone has access to image manipulation tools, does not mean everyone is willing or even capable of doing good image manipulation. Anyway, I think I hear ya, were all a little more jaded than we use to be.

[starcannon]

Yeah, but it was usually easy to tell. Can you tell if this was photo shopped, or not?

Mmm, yeah, a photo like that would be hard to tell; its got all the stuff to make a collage easy. But then, on a photo like that, the picture is still worth 1000 words; what a panorama eh?

[MaxIBoy]

Pictures are still worth a thousand words. It's just that sometimes, the words are fiction.

[days_of_ruin]

Pictures are still worth a thousand words. It's just that sometimes, the words are fiction.

+1. Photos are no longer as trustworthy as evidence.

[shadylookin]

I don't think so a beautiful picture is still a beautiful picture

As for using a picture as evidence I think it gives a healthy skepticism. People will now do more research on a picture before accepting it at face value.

[starcannon]

Pictures are still worth a thousand words. It's just that sometimes, the words are fiction.

+1
I like the way you put it.

[swoll1980]

Mmm, yeah, a photo like that would be hard to tell; its got all the stuff to make a collage easy. But then, on a photo like that, the picture is still worth 1000 words; what a panorama eh?

This is what I'm talking about. I see a picture like this, and think "It's to perfect" to be real,(as did someone else) but it could be for all we know. I will never know if this beautiful scene ever really existed.

[.Maleficus.]

Yeah, but it was usually easy to tell. Can you tell if this was photo shopped, or not?
Real photo, wide angle lens, probably took multiple pictures with different shutter speeds and merged them for the HDR look.


Edit: Though I wouldn't be surprised if some post-processing was done in Photoshop.

[starcannon]

This is what I'm talking about. I see a picture like this, and think "It's to perfect" to be real,(as did someone else) but it could be for all we know. I will never know if this beautiful scene ever really existed.

Ah, I don't worry about those details; whether it "exists" in some geographical location that I could hypothetically travel to, or whether it exists in some creative imagination somewhere, its still real; the only difference is I probably could never travel into someones imagination, though I can occasionally peek through a window. :D

And as posted earlier, its likely a "real" photo, just been doctored up to look its best; or the version of its best in the eyes of the photographer; again, another window, now I get to see things as he/she sees them, or how he/she would imagine them.

[drawkcab]

Photoshop has so radically transformed our experience of photography that we might as well call it a new medium.

[hessiess]

It is almost always possible to tell if something was photoshoped if you have even a small amount of experience with raster computer graphics. Look at the lighting and for errors around high detail arias, i.e. hair.

Photoshop has not ruined photography.

[chucky chuckaluck]

not for me. i used to be obsessed with photography, but being a slob in the darkroom cured me. with digital photo editing, i can now do the things i never had either the skill or anal retention to pull off.

[juancarlospaco]

Gimp don't :)

[koshatnik]

When I was little, a picture was worth a 1000 words. Since the new age of digital photo editing, when we see a photo of something amazing, we automatically blow it off, and say "It was Photoshoped" Did Photoshop ruin photographs?

As in doctored images of dramatic scenes? Dunno. I don't think so. I shoot alot of live event and photojournalistic stuff, and I never touch photoshop for anything. Its hard to massively doctor images of dramatic scenes without it looking obvious.

If you are referring to people constantly "correct" their pictures in photoshop, then they should probably stop taking pictures. I've never understood the mentality of "thats ok, I'll correct it in photoshop later"... why not just get it right when hit the shutter release instead of dicking about for hours in some crappy app?

As for photos being a work of fiction, well, yeah they are. As soon as you frame a subject and take a picture, it becomes art, regardless of what you are shooting. You've chosen the frame, you have chosen the subject, you have chosen the moment to take the picture. Photographs do not document or record reality. Even if they've never been through photoshop, the image, even straight from the camera, is already doctored. The photographer already beat the app to it.

[Tipped OuT]

Yeah, but it was usually easy to tell. Can you tell if this was photo shopped, or not?

Fake. The give away is the clouds. They curve into a spherical shape.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2681/ohioriver1024x768.png

I've never seen clouds that curve like that.

[Incense]

Photoshop didn't ruin photographs. If anything, the ability for anyone to take as many good or bad pictures as they want, and share those blurry pictures with bad light of something that happened someplace, with everyone ruined photographs. I will admit there is a LOT of great stuff out there, both 'shopped and right from the camera, but there is also a lot of rubbish.

It's already been said, but I was in the darkroom, painting negativities, dodging, burning, finding white's and blacks with test strips, a long time ago. While I miss the darkroom, it's so nice to use an eyedropper to target a white point, and slider to increase your contrast. Dust spots are gone with one click, that's such a big thing.

[Incense]

Fake. The give away is the clouds. They curve into a spherical shape.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2681/ohioriver1024x768.png

I've never seen clouds that curve like that.

It looks like a wide angle lens shot to me. They can distort landscapes like that.

[starcannon]

as for photos being a work of fiction, well, yeah they are. As soon as you frame a subject and take a picture, it becomes art, regardless of what you are shooting. You've chosen the frame, you have chosen the subject, you have chosen the moment to take the picture. Photographs do not document or record reality. Even if they've never been through photoshop, the image, even straight from the camera, is already doctored. The photographer already beat the app to it.

+1

[koshatnik]

Fake. The give away is the clouds. They curve into a spherical shape.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2681/ohioriver1024x768.png

I've never seen clouds that curve like that.

Fisheye will. I've seen 8mm lenses do that.

[gnuvistawouldbecool]

Fisheye will. I've seen 8mm lenses do that.

As will a pinhole camera, too. Not immediately obvious, but it's there.

(image mirrored and used negative effect to get it right, otherwise original. Oh, and shamelessly originally used MS photo editor 4 years ago to do that, resized in GIMP today...)

[MasterNetra]

As will a pinhole camera, too. Not immediately obvious, but it's there.

(image mirrored and used negative effect to get it right, otherwise original. Oh, and shamelessly originally used MS photo editor 4 years ago to do that, resized in GIMP today...)

I noticed the curving right off the bat. ^.^

[lisati]

Don't tell anyone, but the scene in "Stand by me (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092005/)" where the boys are being "chased" by the train on the bridge uses a trick of the zoom lens to make it look as if the train's closer.

[chucky chuckaluck]

Fake. The give away is the clouds. They curve into a spherical shape.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2681/ohioriver1024x768.png

I've never seen clouds that curve like that.

that red line's real, though, right?

[starcannon]

that red line's real, though, right?

Yeah its a jet contrail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory), one of the rare red ones, to catch one on film is incredible. :D

[tom66]

I can tell if a photo is photoshopped:



thomas@orion:~$ strings Ohio_river1024x768.jpg --bytes=8
Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0 Macintosh
2008:09:08 23:03:52


Is that cheating...?

[starcannon]

I can tell if a photo is photoshopped:



thomas@orion:~$ strings Ohio_river1024x768.jpg --bytes=8
Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0 Macintosh
2008:09:08 23:03:52
Is that cheating...?

No thats perfect.

[Warpnow]

Photography in and of itself distorts reality by manipulating light. Pictures can be taken in ways to appear much more beautiful, detailed, or to exhibit a single quality to hyperbole.

In addition, there is accidently skewing of reality in photography. Light is not captured by a lense exactly as it is by our eye.

Photography is an art form. The art is fiction whether its been manipulated or not. The camera was intentionally set up somewhere to capture a certain scene. The camera settings were manipulated to make it appear different than it was.

Photoshop makes it easier to do things in post, but all its done is expand on Photography as an art form.

[Arup]

I still shoot Fuji Velvia slides with my ancient SLRs, I prefer to do my editing while taking the pics, not after that.

[winjeel]

Fisheye will. I've seen 8mm lenses do that.

That's what I was going to say, fisheye, and perhaps an a full frame camera (if digital). Before they "PhotoShopped" pictures, the used to "darkroom" pictures, now they "Gimp" them. That landscape image can be done pretty closely on film and should print out very similar. You'd need slide film, perhaps Velvia100, a good polariser and a fisheye lens, and you'll probably nail it. Then, in the dark room adjust the chemicals to the right mix for good colour saturation, and expose it so that the highlights are blown out, and the shadows aren't too dark. It's normal photographic process. Photographers just carried on with the digital equivalents, adjusting the shadows, highlights, levels, curves and saturation.

Remember, to "photoshop" something, it takes time, and with digital camera, you can easily shoot anywhere between double to quadruple what you would on film, and with that massive amount of pictures, who has the time to 'photoshop' them all? Simply, film or digital, a good photographer would go to pains to make sure the shot is going to be perfect before they push the shutter button, so minimal processing (time spent later) is needed. Good practice will save time later. I'd much rather shoot, add copyright info in to the photo file, upload, and shoot some more, it's quick and efficient.

No, I think photoshop hasn't ruined photos, there'll always be xxxx's who xxxx-around with pictures because they are trying to make up for the talent they don't have. If you don't have genuine photographic talent (nor aspire to have it), then you must rely on cheap tricks and gimicks.

[RPG Master]

I found that photo on a wallpaper site where the photographer explained how it was taken. He used a fisheye lens and its a HDR photo. :P

[RPG Master]

Photographers just carried on with the digital equivalents, adjusting the shadows, highlights, levels, curves and saturation.

No, I think photoshop hasn't ruined photos, there'll always be xxxx's who xxxx-around with pictures because they are trying to make up for the talent they don't have. If you don't have genuine photographic talent (nor aspire to have it), then you must rely on cheap tricks and gimicks.

Exactly! I don't do anymore then adjust the colors and contrast in my photos :)

...well, there have been a few times when someone had walked into the corner of a great shot, so I just clone them out :P

[HappinessNow]

When I was little, a picture was worth a 1000 words. Since the new age of digital photo editing, when we see a photo of something amazing, we automatically blow it off, and say "It was Photoshoped" Did Photoshop ruin photographs?
People have been "Photo-Shopping" Photography since the very beginning of Photography history.

Once you learn a bit more history of photography you will come to realize this. Terms like "dodging" and "burning" were actually done in the film photography darkrooms long before digital photography was even conceived.


This is what I'm talking about. I see a picture like this, and think "It's to perfect" to be real,(as did someone else) but it could be for all we know. I will never know if this beautiful scene ever really existed. Likewise a camera could never accurately capture "reality", unless you shot an image with a Grey Card and apply Grey Card Corrections you are limited to even coming close to representing "reality". In fact the closest we can come to reality is with High Dynamic Range (HDR) Photography, but an even more accurate picture of reality would be to combine HDR and DOF Merge (Depth of Field Merge).

[lisati]

For videos, I do a degree of editing in the camera as I shoot - the basics of things like composition and exposure haven't really changed over the years.

[Tipped OuT]

People have been "Photo-Shopping" Photography since the very beginning of Photography history.

Once you learn a bit more history of photography you will come to realize this. Terms like "dodging" and "burning" were actually done in the film photography darkrooms long before digital photography was even conceived.

Likewise a camera could never accurately capture "reality", unless you shot an image with a Grey Card and apply Grey Card Corrections you are limited to even coming close to representing "reality". In fact the closest we can come to reality is with High Dynamic Range (HDR) Photography, but an even more accurate picture of reality would be to combine HDR and DOF Merge (Depth of Field Merge).

Don't they use DOF in movies?

[HappinessNow]

Don't they use DOF in movies?
I think you may be confusing this with Depth-of-field adapter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth-of-field_adapter

Depth-of-field Merge in photography is quite different.

Depth-of-field merge is achieved in Photography by taking more then one depth of field and merging them. Lets say you have a statue of an eagle in front of water fountain with a building behind it, a normal picture would only focus on one aspect but if you take multiple pictures each focused on a different aspect, in this example; The eagle statue, the water fountain the building in the background and even points in between you would then combine these all into one image to more accurately display the scene in the photograph. If you then combine this with HDR Photography you will come closer to how the human eye observes "reality".

Of course HDR Photography (& DOF Merge) has many more artistic benefits then just representing 'reality'...like this picture:


http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=123797&d=1249540314http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/226973591

and these images:


http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=123798&d=1249540502http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/953669278/


http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=123799&d=1249540808http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/3410783929/

[bryncoles]

I agree with the OP's supposition (assuming i read it right): photoshop has ruined photography.

yes, I accept that someone, somewhere has always buggered about in a darkroom with their photographs, to make the photo's show whats not there. the point though is that you needed time, patience, skill, and a darkroom. now you just need a computer.

I went to a public photography exhibition in a local gallery not so long back, wanted to see what (amateur) photographers were up too in my area (oo-er!). alas, the only pictures which were not photoshopped (and i mean really obviously photoshopped) were those taken by the under-16's, using actual honest-to-God analogue camera's, where you have to take the film to be processed!

so, no access to digital photography = no access to photoshop. and not every tom, ****, harry and his wife seems to have a darkroom handy.

now some of the photoshopped pictures looked good, but damn, adobe should have set up a stall in there!

and every second picture was of a poor person, in black and white. just like we see on TV! yes it makes a high impact picture, you think 'wow, look at the conditions they live in. ill pop in Oxfam on the way out' but come on people, there are more things to photograph! several hunderd almost identical photo's next to each other does not a high impact make!

actually, i think monochrome poor people have ruined photography.

[koshatnik]

Ugh, sorry, I hate HDR images. They look so lame.

HDR has been around long before digital too. Most techniques thought of as digital are as old as photography itself, as some others have pointed out. I think digital just gives convenience more than anything.

Photography is made up with stages before a final image is produced. Photography is the art of reduction, as opposed to painting which is the art of addition. A painter starts with a blank canvas and builds his image, adding as he goes along. A photographer starts with a full canvas, and reduces - cropping, framing, changing the angle, until the image he desires is reached. Each photographer decides how many stages of reduction he wishes to use for each picture he makes. Sometimes I use just one stage, and take a picture and thats it - its a print. No adjustments. Other times I purposely overexpose a portrait and then go through several stages of post-processing to get the effect I desire.

I think photoraphy its best thought of in that context really. This idea that photographs are only pure if they come straight from the camera is a misguided one. The image, at all stages of its life, is artificial. Its just down to the photographer to decided how many stages is needed to realise his vision.

[winjeel]

Let me say it again, it's not PhotoShop at fault, it's the user. See this wikipedia page with an old and famous example of photo-manipulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation), that was back before colour was invented, I think. Where there's a will, there's a way.

A similar discussion was had over 100 years ago, but it was roughly framed around this question "Did photography ruin art?"

However, photo manipulation is an art to itself, there's some very nice work done in photo manipulation, and some horrid stuff (very poor work, aesthetically speaking). But, where photo manipulation is not wanted, for ethical reasons, is in journalism. We need pure, unadulterated truth.

Here are, what I think, are excellent examples (http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/06/40-examples-of-incredible-photo-manipulation/) of art, a Grace Jones Album cover (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/image/0,,1672997,00.html), all of which have used photos as a foundation; aesthetically these are pleasing, I think. However, compare those to this (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9580853).

I think, in summary,
- For ethics, especially in photojournalism, Photoshop isn't wanted
- For art, modicum, care, and pure skill and it's great.

[koshatnik]

I think, in summary,
- For ethics, especially in photojournalism, Photoshop isn't wanted


It's always a tricky one in photojournalism, because the photographer is in the process of reduction when taking a picture. The angle, framing and timing of a shot can change the emphasis, impact and meaning of the picture - which is a form of manipulation, one I would argue is of greater importance than digital manipulating an image afterwards.

The upshot is, you can never document an event, and you can never objectify an event. A photo is always art, regardless of the intent.

[winjeel]

It's always a tricky one in photojournalism, because the photographer is in the process of reduction when taking a picture. The angle, framing and timing of a shot can change the emphasis, impact and meaning of the picture - which is a form of manipulation, one I would argue is of greater importance than digital manipulating an image afterwards.

The upshot is, you can never document an event, and you can never objectify an event. A photo is always art, regardless of the intent.

That is true.

[swoll1980]

People have been "Photo-Shopping" Photography since the very beginning of Photography history.

Once you learn a bit more history of photography you will come to realize this. Terms like "dodging" and "burning" were actually done in the film photography darkrooms long before digital photography was even conceived.


Yeah, but how many people had the ability to do these things? 20 years ago when someone showed you a photo chances were it came strait from their camera. I know people have been doctoring photos since the photograph was invented, but I think my point is being missed. Say my buddy shows me a picture of him with some famous person, 20 years ago "wow that's cool" now I would have to stare at it for 2 minutes trying to figure out if it was real, or not. You guys are acting like 20 years ago everyone was sitting in a dark room with an airbrush, or something.

[HappinessNow]

Yeah, but how many people had the ability to do these things? 20 years ago when someone showed you a photo chances were it came strait from their camera. I know people have been doctoring photos since the photograph was invented, but I think my point is being missed. Say my buddy shows me a picture of him with some famous person, 20 years ago "wow that's cool" now I would have to stare at it for 2 minutes trying to figure out if it was real, or not. You guys are acting like 20 years ago everyone was sitting in a dark room with an airbrush, or something.The problem is they have been "Photo-Shopping" since the beginning of Photography,...more then 100 years ago!!!!

Perhaps people were just more gullible back then.

[swoll1980]

The problem is they have been "Photo-Shopping" since the beginning of Photography,...more then 100 years ago!!!!

Perhaps people were just more gullible back then.

I think your still missing the point. They have been photoshoping since the first photo was taken. They would use pencils, and makeup to enhance the image, but that's not what I'm talking about.

[CJ Master]

The problem is they have been "Photo-Shopping" since the beginning of Photography,...more then 100 years ago!!!!

Perhaps people were just more gullible back then.

His point is it was not nearly as common as it is now.

[HappinessNow]

I think your still missing the point. They have been photoshoping since the first photo was taken. They would use pencils, and makeup to enhance the image, but that's not what I'm talking about.You are mistaken they would not only use pencil, they would also splice together negatives, it was not uncommon for photographers to have a file full of cloud negatives, they would "Photo-Shop" a particular cloud when ever needed. Hence you could have a New York skyline with a Berlin cloud scene, Photography has not changed at all with Adobe's CS4 or previous photoshop releases, they have only mimicked what has been going on in the darkroom since the beginning of photographic history.

It is time to wake up and smell the "Fixer".

[koshatnik]

His point is it was not nearly as common as it is now.

Well, photography is more accessible now than it was say 60 years ago. It was rare for people to own cameras back then. Its obvious that with a massive increase in camera use, there will be a massive increase in people post-processing digital images. But like I've already stated, what exactly is manipulation? Images are manipulated at every stage of its life, so I don't think it really matters how many photoshopped pictures there are. PS hasnt ruined photography as an artform, poor photography has. And with more and more people accessing and using cameras, and posting their results instantly on the interweb, the proportion of terrible photographs increases.

In my opinion, poor photography ruins photographs, not digital manipulation software.

[HappinessNow]

Well, photography is more accessible now than it was say 60 years ago. It was rare for people to own cameras back then. Its obvious that with a massive increase in camera use, there will be a massive increase in people post-processing digital images. But like I've already stated, what exactly is manipulation? Images are manipulated at every stage of its life, so I don't think it really matters how many photoshopped pictures there are. PS hasnt ruined photography as an artform, poor photography has. And with more and more people accessing and using cameras, and posting their results instantly on the interweb, the proportion of terrible photographs increases.

In my opinion, poor photography ruins photographs, not digital manipulation software.
true and PS could NOT even help 90% of the garbage out there.

[koshatnik]

true and PS could NOT even help 90% of the garbage out there.

It still amazes me that people think that PS will save a crap shot. It's like HDR. People take a picture of something dull (so why shoot it to start with??) and then turn it into a HDR because they think that will make the shot more interesting. Nope, you now have a dull shot in HDR.

[HappinessNow]

It still amazes me that people think that PS will save a crap shot. It's like HDR. People take a picture of something dull (so why shoot it to start with??) and then turn it into a HDR because they think that will make the shot more interesting. Nope, you now have a dull shot in HDR.

LOL! you are 100% correct!

In reality Photoshop did not ruin photography as much as cheap mass produced cameras have, distributed in the hands of the masses.

It's like asking did YouTube ruin making videos, nope again cheap mass produced Video Cameras distributed in the hands of the masses, then enabled them to share them on the internet.

It is not so much the software as it is user error in the first place.