Interesting article by Rob Haggert in September's "Outside Magazine" asserting that overuse of photoshop (and attendant digi-rationalization) is harmful to photography and essential notions of what is real in nature. The article is "This Photo is Lying to you."
http://outside.away.com/outside/cult...ography-1.html
Good writing...and pretty well open to both sides of the issue.
Thanks for posting the link.
I enjoyed the article too, and it does make an effort to be open and fair – but did anyone else notice all the uncritical and often conflicting assumptions about “reality”?
If the author had better managed the key word – that is, paid more attention to the rudder – I think the article would have drifted less, and been even better.
Still, an article worth a glance.
[Bold emphases mine:]
1) “Like so many seemingly impossible shots you see these days, it's a digital creation—which is bad for photography and even worse for our concept of reality.”
2) “I'm interested in creating great pictures, not documentary images. I couldn't care less if they're ‘real’ or not.”
3) “They devalue the work of photographers with the skills and patience to capture awing images in real time.”
4) “Even worse, modern photo manipulation is seriously screwing up our concept of reality and our willingness to believe what we see in magazines like Outside.”
5) “Our reactions to a photo—amazement, delight, excitement—are, Schafer says, ‘intimately tied with its impact as a record of a real event.’ "
6) "The biggest satisfaction I get," he says, "is when people ask me if a picture is real, and I say, ‘Yes, it is.’ "
7) “He noted in an e-mail that he spends hours taking photos—then spends many more crafting ‘seamless images that are very real.’ ”
8) “The result of the race among photographers and magazines to create a better, brighter (or darker) version of reality is that ‘our relationship with photography is changing,’ says Hany Farid.”
9) “Too many published photographs are unhinged from reality, morphed by a few mouse clicks into slick advertisements for perfect moments in time.”
Concerning documentary/journalistic photography I agree that alteration of a photo to construe a deceptive recoding of reality is problematic and not acceptable.Originally Posted by Toyon
Any other use or intent of a photo is up to the photographer and is acceptable for me, though I may not enjoy or agree with manipulated or synthesized work.
Don Bryant
Then there is the "other side" to photoshop:
http://www.worth1000.com/contest.asp...play=photoshop
...he says with a big wide, silly and evil grin on his face...
joe
eta gosha maaba, aaniish gaa zhiwebiziyin ?
I think this link sums it all up...
Real photoshopping...
http://www.topsocialite.com/the-15-w...will-ever-see/
And then there are those who want to ban Photoshoping in some adds:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/photoshop_laws/
<quote>The Photoshop wars are heating up again, with politicians in the UK and France calling for legislation to regulate digital nipping, tucking, and smoothing of images in ads and elsewhere.
The reasoning behind the moves to police fantasy Photoshopping is - as is all too usual in such cases - to protect those delicate flowers: impressionable youth.
"When teenagers and women look at these pictures in magazines, they end up feeling unhappy with themselves," Liberal Democratic Party MP Jo Swinson told The New York Times.
Swinson has convinced her party to adopt her proposal to institute a labeling system for digitally altered ads and to ban them altogether in ads targeted toward children under 16.
French parliamentarian Valérie Boyer is fighting the good fight at the other end of Le tunnel sous la Manche as well. "These photos can lead people to believe in realities that very often, do not exist," she has said.
</quote>
Just what we need - more government to promote the Nanny State.
Sure, ban Photoshop. Give us back our reality!
While you're at it, ban lighting - the Sun is the only true source of light, all man-made lighting is fake.
Ban framing - what truth are you hiding with your selective cropping?
Ban live models - they put on fake expressions for the camera.
Ban color - oh, I don't know why, but it's clearly not Godly.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go outside to shoot a dead person with my wet plate camera, before the collodion dries... and the flies collect.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks