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

[szichri]

---

@kalanrakas

OT: this is what forums is all about, to discuss something, to debate about something, to talk about something (kaluoy ni something )
dont you think nga boring kaau discussion kung everybody would agree with whatever some people would say(pareha sa skol boring kay usually students agree man sa teacher)

discussions like this gives us additional knowledge or change the way we look/know on something we believe in..

back to the topic:

there are some "Photo manipulation" that can be done in-camera as what i said before that is "double exposure"/"multiple exposure"... people just making a big deal of it today because it can easily be done via computers(photoshop or photo editing programs) ... but in reality "photo manipulation" is done a long time ago...

[ethanmayer]

To those who are against, ever done any work in the darkroom? I highly recommend it, most of the time these questions (about digital photo manipulation or about post processing) and almost identical ones are posted by the people who don't have the background. Post-processing didn't began with Photoshop.

Post processing is not new at all, and a great deal of the fuss being made about digital manipulation is just IGNORANT of the facts about film processing.

There are no lines between tasteful and excessive post processing. There are no purists. No photographs accurately depict the subject.

Look at the image. Does it work for you and your purposes? That's all that matters.

you should be happy those who started photography now, you have more control on what your photos would be. its digital age, if you can't cope with it, sorry but you have to live with it.

CHANGE is constant, nobody and no one can stop that.

PEACE

[szichri]

To those who are against, ever done any work in the darkroom? I highly recommend it, most of the time these questions (about digital photo manipulation or about post processing) and almost identical ones are posted by the people who don't have the background. Post-processing didn't began with Photoshop.

Post processing is not new at all, and a great deal of the fuss being made about digital manipulation is just IGNORANT of the facts about film processing.

There are no lines between tasteful and excessive post processing. There are no purists. No photographs accurately depict the subject.

Look at the image. Does it work for you and your purposes? That's all that matters.

you should be happy those who started photography now, you have more control on what your photos would be. its digital age, if you can't cope with it, sorry but you have to live with it.

CHANGE is constant, nobody and no one can stop that.

PEACE

AMEN......... :mrgreen:

[Ian]

Just a fact, Photography by definition doesnt include film processing, darkroom stuff or even "Post processing". Ever heard about the "Art of Printmaking"?? Film processing or Darkroom and "Post processing" are all forms of Printmaking... not Photography. Don't get confuse!

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?

Technically, yes!
Photographs are the product of photography but it doesnt mean as being generally "Photography"! Again, take note about Printmaking. Photographs are done with printmaking! The concept is photography. Printmaking is an art form. A different craft.
The masters youve mentioned above are all great photographers and at the same time, all great printmakers!

[nemmo723]

Just a fact, Photography by definition doesnt include film processing, darkroom stuff or even "Post processing". Ever heard about the "Art of Printmaking"?? Film processing or Darkroom and "Post processing" are all forms of Printmaking... not Photography. Don't get confuse!

Technically, yes!
Photographs are the product of photography but it doesnt mean as being generally "Photography"! Again, take note about Printmaking. Photographs are done with printmaking! The concept is photography. Printmaking is an art form. A different craft.
The masters youve mentioned above are all great photographers and at the same time, all great printmakers!

yeah, agree ko ani.
a photograph can be fabricated, which means na no photography ever took place. but its still called a photograph, right?
hehehe..

[sheka]

enhancing the image maybe

[adjong]

For us, "photography" has significantly evolved these last few years. Although we studied with the old school, we did not practice what most started up as doing. Instead of shooting portraits and weddings, we worked on darkrooms and lighted tables. Back in 1987 we were extremely experimental - multiple exposures, trying out all available filters, darkroom manipulations that takes days, etc. In late 1989 we were able to use the newer enlargers and then on to the newer photocopiers with enlargers. We used everything available to make our creations then.

In 1991 we got our hands on the computer and got hooked ever since. We were also lucky enough to have worked for a company using all the latest macs with all the latest graphics programs. In 1996 we switched to painting or using traditional mediums. Two years after that, we were already creating and selling digital art prints. During this time, we were in contact with all the art disciplines including the purists and artists who paint so little but just talk about art and other artists all day based on theories they got from books, the academe and just from anywhere else. We are the opposite of this last group as we are not the equal to being hypocrites nor ingorants when it come to our art and imagery. In 1999, We started to manage the oldest running art group in the Philippines and in 2002 produced the biggest art festival this country ever had.

In 2002, we were introduced to better digital photography equipment thus our significant turn to digital photography started. For us, the term 'digital photography' is just the general term we use to call the process of using a digital camera and shooting so we can then process these to create the images we show. Through the years after that, we have generally improved our work and equipment and have produced even finer images that we ever had before. We have to disagree with some comments here. Image quality using p&s with photoshop compared to a dlsr will never be the same. Image quality from someone who "know" processing compared to a professional practitioner will never be the same. Images from someone who just own and uses a camera - any camera compared to a professional who knows and uses his/her camera as if its second nature will difinitely never be the same. For us there's no such things as 'straight' or 'skill' or 'sense' re photography or photo, there simply are good and bad images.

Yes, we believe it could still be photography even with processing. And re processing, even if its just party pictures you only need to resize for the web or an art piece you work on for a whole month - for us its the same banana

Now, we simply call all our photos, art, creations, etc - IMAGES - whether it was taken with a camera, video, scanned, captured, made, manipulated, processed, fabricated, etc. and whether we output in soft copy, web, file, print, ad, art, design or any other form. Of the half TB of images we have, everything is processed. We use the best cameras we can afford (given the chance, YES we will use the best and most expensive cams and lenses), We use all the newest software from cs3 to all availabe pluggins, graphics, photo and animation programs just to make something significant. Something we havent done or achieved before. We are in our 40"s and with regards to making our images better, we will never stop using what the present and the future offer.

At the end of the day, we dont tie ourselves with words and theories and meanings. Whatever you call or consider or term the process - its always the resulting images that matter so just shoot, show or share and better earn.

[splendid moonlight]

The camera cannot really capture what the mind sees. Post-processing helps the end result (photograph) to be how the photographer saw it or how he wants it to look. If you have a so- so camera and you want to capture the reflection of the clouds on a lake at past dusk, ang resulta ana lahi ra gyud nuon kaayo sa imong nakita tinuod. Hence, photo processing may be considered to help your picture communicate what YOU saw. The tools that we have now are simply there to help us. Kung walay post-processing, meaning pirmi ra ta dawat unsay pirmirong resulta unya mao na dayun nay photography. If photography is simply the means of taking photos (recording), then halos tanan photographer na. Karong panahona, daghan na kaayong naay camera.

Pero tutol gyud ko anang pananglitan, kuhaon ang poste, or usa ka building, in a photograph (now I know it's called photo-manipulation and that it's not the same as photo processing). Pero natingala ko, nganong okay ra man nako kung pimple ang kuhaon sa picture? Isn't that taking out something?

[basikoncept]

Pimple lage haha.

[szichri]

Pero tutol gyud ko anang pananglitan, kuhaon ang poste, or usa ka building, in a photograph (now I know it's called photo-manipulation and that it's not the same as photo processing). Pero natingala ko, nganong okay ra man nako kung pimple ang kuhaon sa picture? Isn't that taking out something?

Gusto man gud sa mga tao nga gwapo or gwapa sila tan-awon :mrgreen:

FYI diay... in the film days negatives are retouch directly para pahamison ang nawong sa mga piktyurs (i think there some who still does this practices today)...