Are Post-processed (using Photoshop, etc.) Photos still considered Photography?

[HybernaTe]

---

@szichri

the moment you press the shutter of your camera (may it be film or digital) it clearly undergo post processing inside the camera before you see the captured images...

i think there is no such post processing in this level yet! as still the image had just been created!
while "multi-exposure" is the time wherein the medium is subjected to different level of light +-.

"post processing" it self is a big discussion. ~ the degree of image manipulation relates "photoshopping".

[basikoncept]

Isn't the challenge of manipulating/controlling/studying/learning your camera and its features minimized since you only need to do it on Photoshop... If so, why buy an expensive camera, when you can just buy an ordinary digicam and edit in Photoshop then... What do you think guys?

[basikoncept]

@HybernaTe: Good points taken bai.

[HybernaTe]

Isn't the challenge of manipulating/controlling/studying/learning your camera and its features minimized since you only need to do it on Photoshop... If so, why buy an expensive camera, when you can just buy an ordinary digicam and edit in Photoshop then... What do you think guys?

now you have pointed a very solid stand! buying a P&S and do more on the photo manipulation. results are same!
50mm F1.4 ~ soft bokeh can be acquired by an ordinary P&S but have to do extensive PP
(many many many layers ~ you know what i mean or apply 3rd party filters)

--- edit ---
let me also point out of buying expensive lens not only the camera!

[pnoize]

Technically, when you create a JPG it is already manipulated by the camera. it compresses the information it takes in from the sensor and converts it to JPG. All the more when you convert RAW to JPG. Post processing is an integral part of photography.

Ansel Adams admits to doing some amount of post processing of his prints, Helmut Newton and Richard Avedon also does it David Lachapelle and Dave Hill does a lot of it. So are you about to call the works of these people not photographs?

As for buying expensive lenses, I'll also have to beg to differ. Expensive lenses are not the end all of photography. It may help BUT your photography should NEVER depend on it. But that's a whole different thread....

In the end, it doesn't really matter if you do a certain amount of post-processing or you do "straight" photography. What matters is how it connects you to your viewer. After all, the reason we are all into this hobby is to show people what we see behind the lens.

Photography as an art form is subjective.

[basikoncept]

Ansel Adams admits to doing some amount of post processing of his prints, Helmut Newton and Richard Avedon also does it David Lachapelle and Dave Hill does a lot of it. So are you about to call the works of these people not photographs?

They are still photographs I think but I don't know about the photography part. I think even if these people are famous for their works, that does not necessarily mean that they can't be wrong or are 100% pure "honest" of their works, right? After all, we thought Pluto (now a "dwarf planet") was a planet but it wasn't right?>THOUGH that's also another topic hehe...

Good points taken though. Thanks.

[nemmo723]

Isn't the challenge of manipulating/controlling/studying/learning your camera and its features minimized since you only need to do it on Photoshop... If so, why buy an expensive camera, when you can just buy an ordinary digicam and edit in Photoshop then... What do you think guys?

yeah, this is a very good point. How can you differentiate a really realistic looking "photoshopped" image from the one directly from a camera not undergoing any of those "photoshopping" techniques? Unless you knew the process behind the creation of those images, one cannot really tell any difference (especially with our technology nowadays). what is important in photography, the process or the end result?

[szichri]

@szichri
i think there is no such post processing in this level yet! as still the image had just been created!

i beg to disagree there is post processing happening there, the moment the light hits the negative or the sensor of your camera it is processing the image you see on your viewfinder..

while "multi-exposure" is the time wherein the medium is subjected to different level of light +-.

i agree with you on this but "multi exposure" cannot exclusively just mean for different level of light +-( i guess its more appropriately called "bracketing") but it can also be with a different subjects thus calling it "photo manipulation"...

Technically, when you create a JPG it is already manipulated by the camera. it compresses the information it takes in from the sensor and converts it to JPG. All the more when you convert RAW to JPG. Post processing is an integral part of photography.

Ansel Adams admits to doing some amount of post processing of his prints, Helmut Newton and Richard Avedon also does it David Lachapelle and Dave Hill does a lot of it. So are you about to call the works of these people not photographs?

As for buying expensive lenses, I'll also have to beg to differ. Expensive lenses are not the end all of photography. It may help BUT your photography should NEVER depend on it. But that's a whole different thread....

In the end, it doesn't really matter if you do a certain amount of post-processing or you do "straight" photography. What matters is how it connects you to your viewer. After all, the reason we are all into this hobby is to show people what we see behind the lens.

Photography as an art form is subjective.

I agree... :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[edwin_sn]

here are my points:
- photography is the process of capturing pictures.
- photo manipulation is a process of changing the pictures characteristics.


Let's define PHOTOGRAPHY and PHOTO MANIPULATION.

Photography is the process of recording pictures by means of capturing light on a light-sensitive medium, such as a film or electronic sensor. Light patterns reflected or emitted from objects expose a sensitive silver halide based chemical or electronic medium during a timed exposure, usually through a photographic lens in a device known as a camera that also stores the resulting information chemically or electronically.

while PHOTO MANIPULATION is the application of image editing techniques to photographs in order to create an illusion or deception (in contrast to mere enhancement or correction), through analog or digital means. Its uses, cultural impact, and ethical concerns have made it a subject of interest beyond the technical process and skills involved. Photo manipulation is as old as photography and has been regularly used to deceive or persuade viewers, or for improved story-telling and self-expression.

Thus in conclusion post processing of pictures (photoshopping) is NOT PHOTOGRAPHY for me

please dont confuse yourself with the two...
PHOTO MANIPULATION & POST PROCESSING

PHOTO MANIPULATION, as you pointed out is a totally different animal and i agree with you that is not photography... as the phrase itself says "photo manipulation"

PHOTO PROCESSING (POST PROCESSING), is part of photography itself... because if you dont process what you captured in your camera, you dont have a photograph. the extent of processing now differ form one photographer to the other... thus this matter now become subjective. as i've said earlier, unless you take out or add something in the original photo (which is already photo manipulation in my opinion) post processing is part of photography.

[kalanrakas]

please dont confuse yourself with the two...
PHOTO MANIPULATION & POST PROCESSING

PHOTO MANIPULATION, as you pointed out is a totally different animal and i agree with you that is not photography... as the phrase itself says "photo manipulation"

PHOTO PROCESSING (POST PROCESSING), is part of photography itself... because if you dont process what you captured in your camera, you dont have a photograph. the extent of processing now differ form one photographer to the other... thus this matter now become subjective. as i've said earlier, unless you take out or add something in the original photo (which is already photo manipulation in my opinion) post processing is part of photography.

I agree. Post-processing is totally different from photo manipulation. In photo manipulation, the one who manipulates need not necessarily be a photographer.

Anyway, if by post-processing a photographer is taken from the art of photography, then I guess the great Ansel Adams was not engaging in photography. Because while he did not use Photoshop for obvious reasons, his images underwent post-processing. Wa pa diay ta na-produce nga master photographers kun mao na. Ka-faet.

BTW, nganong nabalik na man sad ni nga klase sa thread uy. Nagkainitay baya to sa una ang thread nga nasugdan ni Ian of almost the same topic, notwithstanding that Ian and most of those who contributed are great fotogs.