Why PSing isn't evil?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah, May 3, 2007.

  1. I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?

    --
    <?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
    Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/
    R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah, May 3, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    imagejunkie Guest

    "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    > community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?
    >
    > --
    > <?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
    > Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/
    >


    Perhaps for the same reason that film photographers never took an oath to
    NOT make a print after exposing a piece of negative film. Making the
    exposure is just the beginning of the process. What you do with that raw
    data and the tools and techniques you use to transform that into a final
    product will determine your ability to properly convey your vision to
    others - exactly like in the old days when someone had to work hard in the
    darkroom to produce a final print that truly represented what the
    photographer saw.
    imagejunkie, May 3, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    Guest

    On May 3, 7:06 am, "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah"
    <> wrote:
    > I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    > community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?



    Photographers have always manipulated images, from choice of film
    stock, to lense choice, to choosing what time of day they shoot, as
    well as using myriad developing and printing materials and
    techniques. PS is just another tool. If someone chooses to put a
    parrot's head on a giraffe, or show George Bush playing bridge with
    Osama bin Laden, so what, you're not oblidged to believe it or even
    look at it. If you want forensic evidence there are methods (using
    software programs) to help insure evidence reliability and that is a
    particular subset of photography. IMHO.
    , May 3, 2007
    #3
  4. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    Wayne Guest

    "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    > community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?
    >
    > --
    > <?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
    > Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/
    >

    Ever use a filter on a film camera? Ever reach down and pull a weed next to
    that flower you are shooting? Ever use a soft focus filter for a film
    portrait? Same thing, just done before shooting, instead of after.
    Wayne, May 3, 2007
    #4
  5. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    =\(8\) Guest

    Why should they have to? If they do then back in the day in the wet darkroom
    people should have had to take the same oath. Many of the things done to
    images today were started in the wet darkroom. People have a right to adjust
    their images to get what they want. The only area that this is a problem is
    for those that are documenting history and expect their images to be used in
    a historical perspective. And, even then they have a right to make basic
    adjustments to sharpness, saturation, exposure, etc. They do not have a
    right to clone things in or out, but creative cropping is fine.

    Get over it!

    =(8)
    =\(8\), May 3, 2007
    #5
  6. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On May 3, 6:06 am, "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah"
    <> wrote:
    > I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    > community?


    Heh heh, well, as I see it, the ethics and legality of the touching
    depends on where the touching is done and whether it is consensual
    touching between adults.

    ;>)

    --
    YOP...
    Nervous Nick, May 3, 2007
    #6
  7. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    Charles Guest

    "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    > community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?


    "Evil" is a bit strong but some find overdone post-processing less than
    pleasing to look at. To each his own. Photography is about expression and
    communication and the post processes are fair game just as are exposure,
    DOF, and composition.
    Charles, May 3, 2007
    #7
  8. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    ASAAR Guest

    On 3 May 2007 13:55:49 -0700, Nervous Nick wrote:

    >> I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    >> community?

    >
    > Heh heh, well, as I see it, the ethics and legality of the touching
    > depends on where the touching is done and whether it is consensual
    > touching between adults.


    It'll never get to that stage at least for budding photographers,
    since the initial touching stage will weed them out of the photo
    capturing community by causing them to go blind.

    -- --

    There once was a young man named Nick
    Who wished he could fondle his . . . stick
    He instead learned to pose
    Young maidens and those
    Who think PS'ed self portraits are slick.
    ASAAR, May 3, 2007
    #8
  9. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    babaloo Guest

    If God did not want you to use Photoshop She would not have allowed it to be
    invented.
    babaloo, May 3, 2007
    #9
  10. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    Yoshi Guest

    "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    > community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?
    >



    Unless you are a photojournalist who is representing his photographs as an
    an honest account of the actual event, why would using Photoshop be "evil"?
    For other purposes, the use of editing software is "artistic license" and is
    up to the judgment of the individual photgrapher. I've seen photographs
    "ruined" by over editing, in my opinion. Regrettable, and perhaps bad
    taste, but certain not "evil"
    If you meant "photojournalist" instead of "photographer", you should have
    said so.

    Yoshi
    Yoshi, May 4, 2007
    #10
  11. On May 3, 4:06 pm, I wrote:
    > I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    > community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?


    Many thanks for everyone for the reply. Before buying D70s, I'd
    thought that all professional photographers wouldn't touch the photos;
    but later came to know that most of the photographers touch the
    photos. I was then wondering how the photographers are been awarded
    (what skill is been measured here)?

    FWIW, if there is any cult for not to use PS, I'd prefer to join as
    I haven't yet touched any photos, even though many of them are too
    dark.

    --
    <?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
    Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/
    R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah, May 4, 2007
    #11
  12. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    Guest Guest

    In article <>,
    says...

    > FWIW, if there is any cult for not to use PS, I'd prefer to join as
    > I haven't yet touched any photos, even though many of them are too
    > dark.


    Such strict standards, what would you have done in the days of film when
    retouching, and certainly exposure compensation in printing, were
    entirely common?

    --
    is Joshua Putnam
    <http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
    Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
    <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>
    Guest, May 4, 2007
    #12
  13. On 4 May 2007 08:44:43 -0700, "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah"
    <> wrote:

    >On May 3, 4:06 pm, I wrote:
    >> I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    >> community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?

    >
    > Many thanks for everyone for the reply. Before buying D70s, I'd
    >thought that all professional photographers wouldn't touch the photos;
    >but later came to know that most of the photographers touch the
    >photos. I was then wondering how the photographers are been awarded
    >(what skill is been measured here)?


    Taking and producing a good photo. You think film photographers don't
    retouch.
    >
    > FWIW, if there is any cult for not to use PS, I'd prefer to join as
    >I haven't yet touched any photos, even though many of them are too
    >dark.
    Oliver Costich, May 4, 2007
    #13
  14. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    The Bobert Guest

    In article <>,
    "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <> wrote:

    > I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    > community?

    Retouching has been a part of photography since the advent of film. Maybe
    before.


    >IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?
    >


    Folks who are are anti-PhotoShop probably are too young to remember the
    dark ages when we would crop and enlarge photos in the enlarger and, when
    necessary, airbrush a printed photo and re-shoot it.

    Think of all the stills from Hollywood. Too much cleavage? Pass the
    airbrush. Wrinkles? Pass the airbrush. etc,etc,etc. Ever wonder why the
    nudes in Playboy didn't have pubic hair, but had "perfect skin"? Pass the
    airbrush.

    There is nothing wrong with using PS, or any image editor for that matter,
    to bring out the best of the image. (remember when images were
    photographs?)

    Hmm. where did I put that airbrush?
    --

    There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a
    suitable application of high explosives.

    Bob in Central CA
    The Bobert, May 5, 2007
    #14
  15. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    Scubabix Guest

    "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On May 3, 4:06 pm, I wrote:
    >> I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    >> community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?

    >
    > Many thanks for everyone for the reply. Before buying D70s, I'd
    > thought that all professional photographers wouldn't touch the photos;
    > but later came to know that most of the photographers touch the
    > photos. I was then wondering how the photographers are been awarded
    > (what skill is been measured here)?
    >
    > FWIW, if there is any cult for not to use PS, I'd prefer to join as
    > I haven't yet touched any photos, even though many of them are too
    > dark.
    >

    What of the best film photographers in history, did not adjust exposure,
    touchup negatives etc. The practice has been around since the beginning of
    photography. It's just quicker and more capable now.
    Rob
    Scubabix, May 7, 2007
    #15
  16. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:
    > I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    > community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?


    For what kind of photographs?

    Everybody always did density corrections in the darkroom, and color
    corrections if the pictures were in color. Today, that's "PSing".

    For anything except cheap machine prints, selective exposure ("dodging"
    and "burning") were used in the darkroom to improve the prints. Today,
    that's done by "PSing".

    Advertising photos used airbrushed retouching on the print a lot. Today
    that's done by "PSing".

    Portraits nearly always had retouching to soften facial features, either
    on the negative or on the prints. (Also various softening filters were
    often used over the lens.) Today, that's mostly done by "PSing".

    People even did multi-image composites, cut people out from the
    background and put them into different photos, etc., before Photoshop.

    Why should we want to give up those valuable artistic techniques just
    because there's now a program called 'Photoshop'?
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 7, 2007
    #16
  17. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    Wayne Guest

    "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:463f8b94$0$273$...
    > R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:
    >> I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    >> community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?

    >
    > For what kind of photographs?
    >
    > Everybody always did density corrections in the darkroom, and color
    > corrections if the pictures were in color. Today, that's "PSing".
    >
    > For anything except cheap machine prints, selective exposure ("dodging"
    > and "burning") were used in the darkroom to improve the prints. Today,
    > that's done by "PSing".
    >
    > Advertising photos used airbrushed retouching on the print a lot. Today
    > that's done by "PSing".
    >
    > Portraits nearly always had retouching to soften facial features, either
    > on the negative or on the prints. (Also various softening filters were
    > often used over the lens.) Today, that's mostly done by "PSing".
    >
    > People even did multi-image composites, cut people out from the background
    > and put them into different photos, etc., before Photoshop.
    >
    > Why should we want to give up those valuable artistic techniques just
    > because there's now a program called 'Photoshop'?


    I remember seeing an Adams photo (Ansel, not Samuel) and a description of
    some of the things Adams did to the print. (It may have been taken somewhere
    on the Mist Trail). Adams remarked that the photo was not too bad, but he
    was annoyed that there was a tree off to one side that was tilted. I'll bet
    that if Adams had Photoshop.....that tree would no longer be tilted!
    Wayne, May 8, 2007
    #17
  18. Wayne wrote:
    > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    > news:463f8b94$0$273$...
    >> R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:
    >>> I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    >>> community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?

    >> For what kind of photographs?
    >>
    >> Everybody always did density corrections in the darkroom, and color
    >> corrections if the pictures were in color. Today, that's "PSing".
    >>
    >> For anything except cheap machine prints, selective exposure ("dodging"
    >> and "burning") were used in the darkroom to improve the prints. Today,
    >> that's done by "PSing".
    >>
    >> Advertising photos used airbrushed retouching on the print a lot. Today
    >> that's done by "PSing".
    >>
    >> Portraits nearly always had retouching to soften facial features, either
    >> on the negative or on the prints. (Also various softening filters were
    >> often used over the lens.) Today, that's mostly done by "PSing".
    >>
    >> People even did multi-image composites, cut people out from the background
    >> and put them into different photos, etc., before Photoshop.
    >>
    >> Why should we want to give up those valuable artistic techniques just
    >> because there's now a program called 'Photoshop'?

    >
    > I remember seeing an Adams photo (Ansel, not Samuel) and a description of
    > some of the things Adams did to the print. (It may have been taken somewhere
    > on the Mist Trail). Adams remarked that the photo was not too bad, but he
    > was annoyed that there was a tree off to one side that was tilted. I'll bet
    > that if Adams had Photoshop.....that tree would no longer be tilted!


    Maybe, but he may have been against making that sort of change to the
    actual appearance of the site. I'm fairly sure he didn't believe in
    breaking off branches that were in the way, for example.

    (In his book _Examples_ he goes into detail on his thought process, as
    best he can recall and reconstruct it, on making 40 different photos,
    including some of the very famous ones; I don't have it on this floor to
    quickly check for that photo, so I don't know if that's actually your
    source. But it's a great book, for anybody at all interested in that
    sort of photogrpahy.)
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 8, 2007
    #18
  19. R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah

    Wayne Guest

    "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:4640e434$0$966$...
    > Wayne wrote:
    >> "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    >> news:463f8b94$0$273$...
    >>> R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:
    >>>> I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
    >>>> community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?
    >>> For what kind of photographs?
    >>>
    >>> Everybody always did density corrections in the darkroom, and color
    >>> corrections if the pictures were in color. Today, that's "PSing".
    >>>
    >>> For anything except cheap machine prints, selective exposure ("dodging"
    >>> and "burning") were used in the darkroom to improve the prints. Today,
    >>> that's done by "PSing".
    >>>
    >>> Advertising photos used airbrushed retouching on the print a lot. Today
    >>> that's done by "PSing".
    >>>
    >>> Portraits nearly always had retouching to soften facial features, either
    >>> on the negative or on the prints. (Also various softening filters were
    >>> often used over the lens.) Today, that's mostly done by "PSing".
    >>>
    >>> People even did multi-image composites, cut people out from the
    >>> background and put them into different photos, etc., before Photoshop.
    >>>
    >>> Why should we want to give up those valuable artistic techniques just
    >>> because there's now a program called 'Photoshop'?

    >>
    >> I remember seeing an Adams photo (Ansel, not Samuel) and a description of
    >> some of the things Adams did to the print. (It may have been taken
    >> somewhere on the Mist Trail). Adams remarked that the photo was not too
    >> bad, but he was annoyed that there was a tree off to one side that was
    >> tilted. I'll bet that if Adams had Photoshop.....that tree would no
    >> longer be tilted!

    >
    > Maybe, but he may have been against making that sort of change to the
    > actual appearance of the site. I'm fairly sure he didn't believe in
    > breaking off branches that were in the way, for example.
    >
    > (In his book _Examples_ he goes into detail on his thought process, as
    > best he can recall and reconstruct it, on making 40 different photos,
    > including some of the very famous ones; I don't have it on this floor to
    > quickly check for that photo, so I don't know if that's actually your
    > source. But it's a great book, for anybody at all interested in that sort
    > of photogrpahy.)


    I stand corrected....he would have cropped it out :)

    Seriously, I am constantly amazed at his skill. I took a photo of Mt.
    Williamson? (near Manzanar) from nearly the same spot as Adams. After
    getting home, I compared mine with Adam's, and threw mine away.
    Wayne, May 9, 2007
    #19
  20. Wayne wrote:
    > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    > news:4640e434$0$966$...
    >> Wayne wrote:


    >>> I remember seeing an Adams photo (Ansel, not Samuel) and a description of
    >>> some of the things Adams did to the print. (It may have been taken
    >>> somewhere on the Mist Trail). Adams remarked that the photo was not too
    >>> bad, but he was annoyed that there was a tree off to one side that was
    >>> tilted. I'll bet that if Adams had Photoshop.....that tree would no
    >>> longer be tilted!

    >> Maybe, but he may have been against making that sort of change to the
    >> actual appearance of the site. I'm fairly sure he didn't believe in
    >> breaking off branches that were in the way, for example.
    >>
    >> (In his book _Examples_ he goes into detail on his thought process, as
    >> best he can recall and reconstruct it, on making 40 different photos,
    >> including some of the very famous ones; I don't have it on this floor to
    >> quickly check for that photo, so I don't know if that's actually your
    >> source. But it's a great book, for anybody at all interested in that sort
    >> of photogrpahy.)

    >
    > I stand corrected....he would have cropped it out :)


    Yes, that's certainly something he'd happily have done.

    > Seriously, I am constantly amazed at his skill. I took a photo of Mt.
    > Williamson? (near Manzanar) from nearly the same spot as Adams. After
    > getting home, I compared mine with Adam's, and threw mine away.


    He was certainly a master. He knew *all* the tricks for getting
    information into his film, *and* for getting information off the film
    into a print just the way he wanted it. Those are technical skills; he
    also had a superlative artistic vision -- by which I mean I WANT to see
    the world the way he wanted to show it :).

    The importance of "printing" (by which I mean, these days, adjusting the
    image from the camera to make the image shown to people) is being
    forgotten by a lot of people. I need to work harder at seeing really
    good prints when they're in the area (traveling shows and such); I find
    it helps remind me.

    One of my most surprising "wake-up calls" on the importance of printing
    was when Ctein asked to borrow some snapshot negs of mine, years ago
    now, so he could make prints for himself; and offered prints for me
    while he was at it. The difference between his prints (and these were
    just what he makes for his own snapshot collection, not exhibition grade
    or anything fancy) and the ones from a local pro lab from the same
    negatives was *HUGE* (and his were the better ones :)).
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 9, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. William W. Plummer

    HTML Considered evil, but why?

    William W. Plummer, Feb 8, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    507
    Moz Champion
    Feb 10, 2005
  2. mhaase-at-springmind.com

    Why isn't this working?! Auuuughhh!

    mhaase-at-springmind.com, Sep 24, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    346
    mhaase-at-springmind.com
    Sep 24, 2005
  3. Teddi
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    417
    Teddi
    Oct 4, 2003
  4. Mike
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    1,097
    Vanguard
    Sep 5, 2005
  5. verity

    Less isn't more - it just isn't

    verity, Oct 7, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    679
    Bill Funk
    Oct 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page