Can Photoshop Improve Art ?

[Fulk]

But no matter, a l little tweak improves the exposure and shows pretty much what I saw with my own eyes (which to me, at any rate, is totally acceptable).

 

[Fulk]

Another point to bear in mind is the limitations of the medium. I did a lot of photography using film, and became very aware of how poor film is at showing all that the eye can see. In this respect, I don't think that digital has improved much – a digital picture is still limited in what it can portray, so if I take a snap and some areas are too dark, it's often easy enough to alter ('correct') this (not quite so easy for burnt-out areas) – again, to see what I actually saw when I was there.

 

[pwhole]

When I bought my APS-C DSLR in 2010, the RAW format was 12-bit - it's now 14-bit, which represents a huge increase in dynamic range - probably beyond the latitude of film stock now. I can generally capture sky and ground in one shot now,.with little need for fakery.

 

[Fulk]

But really, is it 'fakery' when what one is doing is trying to replicate what one actually saw – eyes, of course, being much more sophisiticated than any old photo-mechanical device – by overcoming (or at leat minimizing) the inadequacies of the medium? That (in my opinion) is a completely different thing from (to misquote the Old Ruminator) taking a picture of oneself togged up in climbing gear and setting oneself down on top of Everest.

This reminds me of some people in the old days of photography whose proud boast was that 'They never cropped a picture' (They always got it right at the pressing-the-button stage). So they were constrained by what some lens designer in far-away Japan thought was an appropriate focal length?

 

[Brains]

Having used UV underground and seen some UV and IR renditions from above and below, there is much beyond the human visible spectrum that I find interesting and wish I could see in the flesh as it were. The other direction of surrealism can also be thought provoking. Knowing what you are looking at, and why, goes a long way to satisfy the ideal of reality and truth

 

[RegisteredRopeCutter]

the main distinction that needs to be made is between using photography to document something and using it as art. Photoshop or manipulating film can be done to the photographers hearts' content if its art ( thats the point of art) but any manipulation done to photographs that would be use for documentation should only be done to make the photo closer to what the author saw originally ( like the editing of the elephants earlier).

 

[JonP]

I think my point was what do we recognise as real any more ? All photography is moving into an area where everything is edited. Maybe reality becomes distorted and when we are faced with how things really are we can be disapponted. Having read my own obituary on an AI search I have become rather distrustful of it. Nearly all images on Google Image of the Northern Lights have been " improved " by editing. Same with rainbows and sunsets. The latter you can actually add on later. If you visited Wookey Hole show cave you will see how lovely it all is. In truth its rather drab and the effect is done with coloured lighting. Can we actually believe anything we see in glossy magazines any more ? In truth Estate Agents have been doing it for years by using wide angle lenses. I believe the same is done to create that " eye " in the roof of a large chamber. Would you see that if you went there ? Descent 306 has a remarkable image on the front cover. Would we see it that way if we went there ? How much is down to lighting and editing? Of course I don't know and I condemn no one for doing it that way. As a purely natural image I prefer the one on the inside of the front cover. To me its far more realistic and says more about the subject. I suppose there is no right and wrong way with photography if you look at it as artistic expression. How far you go with it is the question. I rather think cameras will become more intuitive with onboard editing ultimately learning what the photographer likes to see. Editing gives you the view that the photographer want us to see. Its his perspective. It shies away from reality though. So is it art or a fair representation of what we can expect to see when we go caving ? If its art it becomes easier with editing programmes. The human input becomes less. The AI programme can sort it out. My old fashioned view is that an image should tell a story. ( " worth a thousand words " ). The best images of the past don't rely on editing because they tell that story. Capture something that cannot be repeated. Well thats long gone as I could construct an image of me sat on the top of Mount Everest. So where does my drivel leave us ? Hopefully not to be lured down that path where all reality is gone. I rather think magazines go for the impact rather than the story. It waivers from the truth though. I will never get a photo award or a Descent cover shot . I prefer reality and stories and unadulterated records. Old school I suppose. I have only been doing it for 60 years perhaps I have been left behind.
I hope you like my philosphical discussions. Like my photography they remain rooted in the past.

Manipulating images is nothing new. By "new" I mean all the famous portraits (paintings) of the past were manipulated to make people look better/flawless, to a point where some people were almost unrecognisable! Notably Queen Elizabeth (16th century) who was made to look forever youthful...

This goes the same for photographs. Ever since it's creation (1825), people have been manipulating images, whether it's done in the darkroom or the image itself is staged (done in caving) it's some form of manipulation. We've just evolved as has everything else around us. Digital cameras have only been about for 20 years, analogue has been around for 200 years, so we're still in the pioneering stages really.

Take a look at the link below, which will give a good insight to how some of the most iconic images of the past 70yrs were made.

Magnum photographer - Darkroom manipulation

 

[mrodoc]

Manipulating images is nothing new. By "new" I mean all the famous portraits (paintings) of the past were manipulated to make people look better/flawless, to a point where some people were almost unrecognisable! Notably Queen Elizabeth (16th century) who was made to look forever youthful...

This goes the same for photographs. Ever since it's creation (1825), people have been manipulating images, whether it's done in the darkroom or the image itself is staged (done in caving) it's some form of manipulation. We've just evolved as has everything else around us. Digital cameras have only been about for 20 years, analogue has been around for 200 years, so we're still in the pioneering stages really.

Take a look at the link below, which will give a good insight to how some of the most iconic images of the past 70yrs were made.

Magnum photographer - Darkroom manipulation

So true. People just don't understand how many historic images were manipulated. Nothing new under the sun!

 

[pwhole]

The photographer Emett Gowin once designed an 'auto-dodging and burning' tool for repetitive printing of complex scenes, by creating a 'contour map sandwich' of acetate layers, of varying thicknesses, which he inserted into the enlarger head, and which would automatically control the exposure on every part of the print - there was sufficient blur to soften the edges and make it invisible. There are direct software derivatives of that sort of technique in Photoshop and similar, and I can save a mask out for doing exactly the same thing - though I'm rarely doing the same image twice, and the 'negative' here can be saved as the updated version, unlike analogue photography.

Interestingly, Pentax seem to be selling plenty of their new 35mm film camera, specifically aimed at the 'youth market', so it will be fascinating watching what happens over the next few years. Ilford are partnering with them to shift more film stock. They (and other camera manufacturers) are also now bringing out very high-end monochrome digital sensors, which out-perform colour sensors due to the lack of filters necessary to separate the RGB.

https://pentax.eu/products/pentax-17

https://pentax.eu/products/pentax-k-3-mark-iii-monochrome

 

[The Old Ruminator]

Mrs C. had the gap in her front teeth " filled " in for our smiling wedding photo over 50 years ago. As a photo historian I see many instances of studio " corrections " going back 100 years plus. Fake snow for the Australian soldiers here in WW1. Montages of planes in the air. All basically subtle and mostly studio techniques with skilled technicians. Now its so differant we can all do it at home and create anything we like. My original thought still stands. What can we believe any more ?

 

[Fulk]

The fact that Oliver Cromwell (is alleged to have) said that he wanted his protrait done 'Warts and all' implies that portrait-painters would frequently 'improve' their sitters' looks.

 

[ZombieCake]

The fact that Oliver Cromwell (is alleged to have) said that he wanted his protrait done 'Warts and all' implies that portrait-painters would frequently 'improve' their sitters' looks.

Audrey Hepburn said the following when asked by a photographer of he could Photoshop out some wrinkles: ‘Don’t you dare touch any one of those wrinkles, I earned every single one of them.’

 

[Lankyman]

The key to photography is light. Getting good light for your subject is probably the single most important thing. Take these two pictures of me for instance. Which one would you say had the best lighting and which do you think I've put on my dating profile?

 

[Cantclimbtom]

Whenever I see a poster advert, and using the Tube (London Underground) that's frequent, there's often a very close up of a face, not one person has any blood vessels in the white of their eyes. "Perfect" featureless white (sclera) with no capillaries. Not a single picture of a close up of a face is unedited.

There's a lot of automated stuff, a lot of phones have the eye whitening built in, so people often don't even know that AI editing happened in their pics.

 

[ZombieCake]

The key to photography is light. Getting good light for your subject is probably the single most important thing. Take these two pictures of me for instance. Which one would you say had the best lighting and which do you think I've put on my dating profile?
View attachment 24167
View attachment 24168

The first one has clearly been Photoshopped - sky is too blue with the boats. 2nd one is just a normal non-descript photo of the average Mendip caver

 

[The Old Ruminator]

My photographic skills were learned during the Vietnam War. Nigel my assistant behind.

 

[Fulk]

Apropos of war photography, one might think that a battlefield is the last place for 'fudging' photographs. However, even in the case of the iconic 'Flag-Raising on Iwo Jima' all is not what it seems. Apparently the GIs who fought their way to the ridge really did raise a flag, using as a flag pole a length of old pipe that they found lying round (an event that was photographed), but the flag wasn't a very big one, and so a big wig decided that a bigger flag would be better, as it would be visible from a greater distance and thus raise the morale of those troops who saw it. So they re-enacted the flag raising with a bigger flag (and a thicker bit of old pipe as a flag pole), the photos of which became the iconic image that was beamed round the world in about 17 hours – a remarkable feat at the time.

 

[ZombieCake]

This popped up on some social media thing: