Too much Photoshop by David Stuart

I say NO to photoshop … but then I don’t own a digital camera either right now…

Seems to be two types of people in photography, (a) those that place a lot of importance in the process, and (b) those that focus on the end results. Being in the second camp, I place far more value in the end result and care little for what camera/techniques produced the image.

That said, I understand people who really appreciate the process, (just as walking to the top of Mt Everest is different to catching a helicopter up there). Process is important, just dont get too hung up on it.

In terms of “false images”, all photography is the capture of ambient light, interpreted through a machine (either a camera or a computer). Shoot some Velvia (great for landscapes) and then try to argue the film captured what was actually “there” and not a colour enhanced representation of what you saw.

I find myself lucky to have been taught the “old-school” way (darkroom, own processing etc) and introduced to the digital side just as it was taking off (camera wise and computer wise). I have to say that not all images have potential, but some do more than others. Sometimes they need no tweaking, and sometimes a few changes make it into something it may have never been. You can tell when someone clings to nothing but PS and fiddling (usually obviously and badly at that) and if that’s the way they wish to do their work, fine. Sometimes that’s THEIR learning curve. I know we get pissed off when we see people making sales and getting attention for work that’s, well, not up to OUR standard, but that’s life, and that’s art-Taste’s can be so varied and strange!!!
Good on ya Andro for bringing this up :)

while I agree with what Betelnut is saying is accurate, (last par), it ignores the spirit of the statement and that is – trying to capture what you see. If you see life through a violet filter or your eye sees a mirrored image but it doesn’t come out in the print, then why not. I suppose it’s just one aspect of making art that seems to overwhelm all others at the moment and I think without that balance we are losing the opportunity to capture truly remarkable things without them needing to be embelished (kind of like an over-use of exclamations!!!!!)

I haven’t even contemplated using photoshop with my shots, one because I’m a Learner, but basically because to me a photo is what you capture through the lens, Adding to or changing this makes it art.
Don’t get me wrong I appreciate the stunning finished products, some are absolutely awesome, and they should be proud to display such works of art on this site, But maybe they should tag them as such.
Mind you I have been asked if a couple of my shots have been enhanced, Lucky for me we have the most stunning Sky’s and colours here and am lucky to sometimes capture it on film sometimes.
Love it all, Appreciate it all!!
:)

yep, I’m hearing you. I very rarely alter the images i take, but then I dont call myself an artist. i just like to take the best photo that i can. there is so much beauty and “wow” in real life, i am content just to stick to that. And while i really admire a lot of the work on RB, i find it’s the more natural images that i keep going back to.
I do admit to removing the occasional beetle poo from a perfect rose, or a pimple from a gorgeous face, but dont add colours or filters to my shots. But of course, when it comes to printing up the image, then tweaking does become necessary often, just to more accurately reproduce what was really there.
Aint it great that there is so much diversity of taste out there? It means there’s a chance for us all!!

Photoshop is just another tool, and just like all tools it can be used really well or really badly.

I use photoshop every day in my day job (advertising photography) so I reallly enjoy going back to the basics in my own private work.

I thought the very idea of nature photography was being on location and waiting for the natural changes of light and shadows to occur and then having the skills to capture them. Not to add brilliance to what otherwise was an average image. Where does one draw the line in creating the end product? Do we ad some colourful birds cut from another image? To my mind it becomes abstract art and not photography.

I think Anne hits the nail on the head with ‘’fair disclosure" If someone titles their piece ’’sunset at such and such’’ It leads me to believe the colours were caught through patience and skill on location rather than computer manipulation.

When a photographer does catch the perfect light and shadow do we then just presume it’s been layered and shopped thus stealing the artists brilliant originality?

Like I said, just my opinion. I am interested in what others think so thank you for sharing.

Hmmm… What about if PS is allowing someone to recreate their own artistic visions?
Is seeing something in the mind then producing it (enhancing it) digitally unacceptable?
Art is subjective and that’s the way it should stay but can you imagine the cavemen when they used to paint with their fingers and all of a sudden someone said why don’t you use a brush! I wonder what their reaction was?
Digital art is a “newish” medium, it is out there to be question but not to be mocked or scorned.
Our artist taste may all be different but does that make us “well educated judges”?
Does art only equal a stroke of a brush or a snap of a shutter?
Cannot art equal a click of a mouse?
Or am I the just holding up a paint brush to the cavemen? :p!!

Unfortunately this is one of those ever happening discussions and debates between the purists and the digital artists… There is no right or wrong or right answer. It comes down to personal preference.

I am a photoshopper… i take my images and always process them straight up… BUT if an image grabs me and it strikes the artistic chord in me then i WILL photoshop it… Is that wrong? No i dont believe it is. I use photoshop as my medium of preference these daysm rather than paint and a brush, i also take alot of pride in what i do.

I accept your opinions happily and repect your right to have them, But i LOVE photoshop and photography and while i can mix the two i will continue to enjoy doing so!
Thanks for listening to my 2 cents worth!
xx Sam

funnily enough, I agree…and disagree. When I began my photographic career, it was analogue only. The best way to get results, I reckon, is in camera. Especially for landscapes. When I use PS, it’s minimally. And for my own landscapes, if I can use none, I do. The only thing I would use it for is to remove telegraph poles etc. I find people assume more PS has been used than actually has. (I have tried to illustrate this in some of my recent work) But yeah, heavy handed PS looks unnatural and yet, done well, a great tool.

Ooh I love a good debate. Well I am a photoshopper too. And I have no worries ‘owning up.’ I grew up with film camera and spent a fair few hours in the darkroom which was a great learning curve. I’ve gotta tell you I think photoshop is no different to the darkroom. It’s just a digital version. People have been manipulating photos since photography began. Indeed you could argue photography is a manipulation in itself. Freezing time-is that manipulative? Yes. It’s all about preference. But hey, loving the debate!

Well, you’ve got us all going with this one andromada! I can see how it might irk those of you that are seriously into “pure” photography (which is indeed beautiful and I love to admire) but I don’t think those that use PS are trying to fob off their finished work as photography but rather as an artwork. I myself dabble indeed in playing around with images I have originated with my camera, this is because I am fascinated in experimenting and creating a final vision that satisfies my eye – I can spend hours doing this with diligence and integrity much the same as a wonderful photographer will poise and watch and wait for their desired shot. I guess I’m just trying to convey that we are not trying to pretend to be great photographers with fake photos or steal the thunder from those that most certainly are great photographers, but merely using a camera as a medium towards an end result. With technology at our fingertips we’re all curious humans. All’s fair in love and art!

Interesting debate!

A lot of what is done in photoshop could be done in a darkroom (dodging / burning / increasing saturation). Fuji even produces colour film (velvia) that creates the most amazingly saturated scenes.

I don’t think photoshop has really changed anything, just given us a different tool to achieve the result we strive for. There will always be people who argue against that though.

I find it interesting that many of those who argue against the use of photoshop as they like the purist attitude of the ‘natural’ shot, also often like black and white photography. Yet you rarely find a true black and white scene in nature, our world is surrounded by colour. So therefore, does the purist argument also encompass that all Black and White photography isn’t good?

Yes, the use of photoshop can be overdone, but what one person sees as overdone, another person falls in love with. That is why photography is classified as an ART.

I personally, don’t like works by Picasso, but does that mean that all those who think he was a great master were wrong? It is all about individual interpretation and accepting that we all see things differently.

Photoshop used well can be a great tool, just like a dark-room, or a brush on a canvas, but its our interpretation that makes it great (or bad) for each of us, individually!

andromada does it really matter if the person you’re refering to has been using photoshop in their recent work? i would hope people here feel comfortable or inspired by what they see on RB to try out new creative techniques not have their work put down for being fake or bogus, as you say.

some people simply can’t afford photoshop training & over time their p/s use often becomes more sophisticated but i certainly wouldnt point out the title of a work. i can see where your coming from but unless that person specifically asked to be critiqued what you write may indeed be quite hurtful.

I had a similar dilemma HERE

I think I came to the conclusion that no amount of PS can make a bad shot good. But there’s nothing wrong, I think, with using PS per se – it’s a tool much like a filter on a lense, or a flash gun, or studio lighting.

What a great debate. I love this one everytime i hear it. My father is a real film man and considers that i’ve defected to the dark side of digital.
Well i’ve been using PS for years now and beleive that you can’t make a bad photo good but you can make a good photo better.
You still need the ground work and apply all the in camera skills to capture the shot you want. The darkroom was always another means of manipulation. weather it’s increasing the contrast by dodge and burn or whatever THE OLD SCHOOL did !
I try not to manipulate my work so that the real image is lost and i want to do as much as i can as i said in camera. The advances in digital photography over recent years has given everyone the chance to get out there with a camera and learn.
Photoshop along with other maipulation software has given the same people the ability to create there own art. There are some who believe that photography isn’t art !
In digital photography as you may know it is very difficult to create the right exposure for landscape and alike. digital has given us the raw file. Creating two images then merging them together in photoshop overcomes this problem. So the image manipulation software is a tool to use to great results.
I understand that over processing can lead to really bad images, but done well it’s a tool to learn and create some amazing PHOTOGRAPHS. that’s why we are here and to help all that want to learn. Not to chastise those who can’t process there own work in there own darkroom.

I shoot with the intent of getting it right in the camera and do minimal photoshop enhancement.
I’m now working at builing my photoshop skills, I feel some photography that I have seen here at redbubble with painterly aged effects are very attractive and have a lot of buyer appeal.
I think a good photographers work can certainly present very well with PS. enhancement.
However if the photographic skill is lacking in the first place then trying to fix in PS will potentially look like a fix.

This is a great debate. I am a pro at photoshop but i know where to draw the line when it comes to landscapes. Because its so easy for an image to turn into an animation, rather than a natural shot. Its evident in magazines everyday when a celebrity looks like a cartoon cos of too much airbrushing.

Another thing is that if photoshop is used too much, then it takes away the spirit of the picture. Sometimes the flaws create the image. Perfection to the extreme creates a soulless picture.

Thats my take on it anyway.

I, as a photoshopper dont see the argument.

Lets use a musical analogy -

It’s like accusing someone like Hendrix of not being a true artist because of all the electric guitar effects he used.

I use a camera the same was someone would use a guitar and Photoshop the same way someone would use an amplifier. You cant say one is better or more pure than the other, it’s just different.

Yes some do it well – some dont. Those that don’t, eventually get over that phase the same way we all get over taking countless pictures of our kids and puppies when we get our first cameras.

I’ve used a variety of mediums to express my ideas visually over the years…Multi-media ( PS being part of that experience) is my latest medium to explore…my moto would be…IT’S NOT WHAT YOU USE IT’S THE WAY THAT YOU USE IT" surely there is room for all forms of artistic expression…photoshop is just another tool…use it well and and know when less is more…or even perhaps more is good…lots of cliques I know but that’s my way…of saying..if it works ..it works..

I was just having this discussion with a few classmates.

We were talking in regard to the APPA photo competition. and the winnng entries have a fair bit of ps. One of the rules is you cannot do anything to the photo that you cannot do in the darkroom. Composite images (e.g. replacing the sky) is something that you CAN do but noone does it because its too hard. Personally I think a good image is a good image. PS can give it more WOW. I do not do much PS because I’m not that good. I’m better in the darkroom

I don’t believe any analogy can truely describe what is going on. It is the transition or progress of photography. The more I learn about digital photography, the more I like traditional processes. I like both. The end result is an image. Just look at the image and enjoy it

Q :what is the difference with a purist photographer $$expensive filters, lenses, and cameras, films, and then dark room/pro processing

and a digital photographer using Photoshop?

A : as much difference as the DJ that spins vinyl/turntables to the DJ that uses CD/ decks

:)

A: About $10000

agreed with webgrrl.
both the same if you do it well.

its the well part thats ultimately subjective, the arguement, debate at hand here.

there is artwork here many people love, that others hate!! & vice versa…& on & on it goes.

Belenet – A: About $10,000

Touche! Nicely put, and a interesting argument.

Well this is certainly interesting, thanks for your contributions everyone.

Ange, the titles and descriptions I gave were fiction(Unless there really is a works titled sunset over oogiboogy) and certainly not aimed at anyone in particular, rather a collective of a few different works from a few different artists I’ve seen.

I have no objections at all to the use of photoshop to enhance a photograph, it’s a wonderful medium. My point is, when someone is selling an image that raves about the wonderful colours, lighting, and shadows in the description, it leads us to think that this was caught naturally when it’s obviously been heavily shopped.

Then the artist goes on to except comments such as.

‘fantastic shot’ ’you’ve caught the colours wonderfully’ etc, etc.

I just think it’s a little deceptive.

Once again I’m certainly not attacking anyone in particular, this is just my opinion.

I no longer use digital for my landscape work because fuji slide film gives me a better result. (shame I can’t upload any) .But for weddings and commercial work I prefer digital.

No amount of money that you dump on lenses and no amount of time you spent on PS will give a good image without VISION

I have been asked if sorrento sunset #1 and #2 were PSed. No they have not :)

i see…cool andromada:) i guess the viewer based experience (or understanding technically or otherwise) of a peice will vary no matter what. would certainly be nice if people cleared misconceptions instead of taking credit for something created p/s wise passed off as a conventional shot!

at the end of the day most people aren’t entirely fooled. hell i teach photoshop & you wouldnt beleive what students have tried to get away with.

Daijiro that is an amazing piece !! Having a background in meterology I can just tell what sort of day that was, and yes, totaly natural.

Ange said

‘would certainly be nice if people cleared misconceptions instead of taking credit for something created p/s wise passed off as a conventional shot!’

Spot on Ange, that’s all I was getting at.

Now I’m going to have a nose through some of these portfolio’s…just love this place.

I don’t have Photoshop, any one want to share? I can sense what andromada is talking about. When I first saw some of the pictures, I questioned it too, but then figure “can’t beat them, join them!” So, anyone with Photoshop and want to share, please?

Actually, andromada, if you’re referring to my photo “Sunset over Oogyboogy” I’m mortally offended and shall never post here ever again! ;-D

hi bubblers ! the photoshop[ question is a minfield amongst serious ( so called ) photographers, & causes many heated discussions at the photographic club i am a member of. most annoying in my view are the competition judges. It seems to me that your view may well be determined by the type of image that you hope to achieve. Now using a very broad net you could fall into one of these categories. my points are not judgmental or meant to be in any way critical.

Amateur old school film photographer
newbie digi snap shooter
artist
blind & or with no artistic flair or skill ( that’s me )
Pro photographer with yrs of Experience

old school photographers… Amateurs that is.. those that have never set foot in a pro darkroom. These guys tend to make the same comment, over & over. …. it’s easy with a computer & you can do anything with photoshop……. well if only that was true. The fact is that 99.9% of all images we have seen will have been heavily manipulated in a variety of ways. lens filtration, colour correction,
polarisation,Neutril density long Exp. push processing, colour tinting, dodging & burning & many many more. So in most cases these guys tend to post the fillm off to get the prints. what they end up with is a ‘Machine print’. Based on this machine print, they then form an opinion that any image that is more popular or has a more dramatic feel to it must have been produced on a computer. ?

Newbie Snap shooter ( digi ) every body has to start somewhere. small .JPG image files & big computers can be a recipe for disaster

Artist… the artists eye.. is not the same as a photographers. the artists product may not be an ‘actual reality’. so the use of photoshop to an extreem may not be such a bad thing , as long as the effect is what is desired.. art is ……… art. form my point of view an object of art makes you feeel something
if it hits the right spot .

The Blind & or no artistic skill… Thats Me ! i take photo’s because i like doing it, & i use photo shop.
most of my images are ( to be honest ) boring & uninspiring. and as i have no artistic flair at all, i find it quite difficult. but i do know how my camera works & i have worked in a darkroom for many years.
but i’m still rubbish

the pro photographer with Yrs of experience. these guys are so good that you dont even know when your looking at a photshop image. It’s True ( read the amateur point again ). if you dont really agree have a look at
www.dove.co.uk skip the intro then click the ‘campaign for real Beauty’ link.
you will be amazed, after watching this you get the feeling that photo shop has been around for many years & has shaped that way we look at each other.

would be interesting to see how this vid goes with you Redbubblers. please send me message with your comments.. cheers everybody the standards are really high on Redbubble

Lol, Durotriges you stirrer !!! :O) …for a brief moment I was mortified !!

Lightmonger you make some fantastic points.

I never realised this topic was such a sensitive issue.

Hi it’s not an issue for me, but i try not to make it obvious when i use it. but then as i mentioned i am no artist. take a look at that web site.. it will change the way look at photographs

i love photoshop. i don’t see what the big deal is. if i see someone’s photo and i like it, i say “that’s a great photo”, whether it was photoshopped or not.

hmmmm i wish i had a photoshop thingee….just an ametuer here! if i had it tho….i’d deffinantly give myself some bigger cahoonas!! LOL
it’s kinda like a fiction story and a non fiction story….just whichever you prefer i guess~
good for you for knowing what you want!
:)

Photoshop is a great tool for those skilled enough to use it. But there is a fine line between a photograph and a Photoshop creation. Once you cross that line, I no longer feel it’s truly a photo. I’ve used image editing software in a few of my shots, but mainly as a tool to draw the eye away from that extra something that I didn’t mean to capture in the picture. But since Redbubble is a forum for artists, and digital editing is in some ways an art form, we have no right to tell others not to do it. However, I do agree with those who say that there is often more beauty in the original shot prior to all the editing. Just because the artist may not see it, doesn’t mean someone else won’t.

good photography is always interesting but some nature shots are fricken boring…

so do what ya gotta do to make it more interesting…

some stuff on the bub is so stale it makes me wanna throw up!

hmmm…thats a bit harsh…ok “dry reach”

Still watching this great debate and checking out some of the great portfolios, and WOW some of the collaborations on site are amazing, It must be like seeing what you’ve captured through someone else’s eyes !!!

:)

Hey Andro, I reckon this debate comes pretty close in popularity to my rant on “Stuck Up Artists…” :) And no, that’s not an ivitation to go look at it!!! ;)

I quite like the mystery of not knowing whether a photo has any PS work or not. And I do think it’s a photographers prerogative to, or not to say if he/she does not want too… after all at the end of the day it’s the image; not the technique that grabs ya attention.

In my experience, Art buyers aren’t to concerned how the image is produced as long as it is of a high standard and (in most cases) matches their drapes.

I have to admit I use PS but for very limited purposes and when I do it’s obvious.
I might crop a photo or put in a border, apply a filter, desaturate, or do a montage and these are purely for effect. If I have a photograph of nature and it’s substandard I don’t bother to do anything to enhance it. If I can’t use the whole then I might cut some of it out to make a different type of picture but that’s about it.
I have been astounded at the amount of post processing used on a lot of photos on the Bubble, but I certainly have no strong objection to them. I love the fact that they make me strive to get better at capturing what I want. I am lucky enough to live in a place where nature is so vibrant and gives great colour anyway without having to manipulate much.
I also have to say that even though the use of PS is so obvious in a lot of pics, the end result is supposed to be “art” and it is in the eye of the beholder as to whether they like it or not. You don’t have to like every pic here, and you certainly don’t have to buy it but you should respect that fact that everyone has a right to express themselves through their art and in a manner that makes them happy regardless of whether or not they expect it to be liked by others.

Note: “You” is a generic address, not pointed at any one person.

i think its normal for people to be ‘sensitive’ about this (ive seen many version of this in many diff forums) – and its a good thing to have these discussion, cuz thats how we learn and be more wise :)

but i thought id just point out to all with the capture of RB frontpage below.. Theres no mention of Photography.

If this was a ‘photography’ site – then yah, understandable.

Well put, Webgrrl, I’ve scrolled all the way down to say exactly that, this is an ART site, not a photography site alone…..art is what we make it

Webgrrl pretty much sums up what I think too. My camera is a means of capturing the bare bones of a vision I have in my head .. no different to an artist using a pen or pencil or crayon or brush …

As I saw on a signature once …. “Does anyone care what brushes Picasso used?”

PS – Top analogy with the guitar thing Flamejob!!

i see what you are saying completely. it’s a tricky one, i have also fallen a little into the web of ps, where i started out with plain photogaphy, i have now ventured into more digitaly composed images, maybe because they are quite dominant in this website over a lot of others, i almost didn’t notice it at the start, but on reflecting back on my work, the progress is definitely there. i’ve also thought it a shame that there isn’t more raw natural beautiful work on RB, but there still is here and there and ultimately it is up to us to produce it and put it out there…thanks for bringing this up

Andromada, this is an interesting conversation and people have posted good replies.

In my opinion, photography can be “photography”, pure and (almost) unedited, or “art”, which is a photoshopped result of the original photo.

I have struggled myself with where to draw the line, where people think it’s “overdone” or edited too much. For a while I kept my photos less edited, or after editing, toned it down to half as much editing again… But after a period of doing that I decided that I should just make the end result the way I like it, and if it becomes “art” instead of “pure photography”, then it will be art instead.

So I think its just the photographer/artists style that decides how the end result should be seen. :)

As a newbie to this site and having come from another photography site where digital manipulation is frowned upon, I must say that I have found the acceptance here exceptional. I love that all types of art are accepted here including digital art – NOT just traditional photography (which I admit is an art in itself).

I have to admit that I have learnt a lot about photography through using PS and processing each photo digitally. That knowledge I have been able to take out with me when I am taking photos knowing what I want them to look like on the screen. So working in PS has actually improved my traditional photography.

I dont have photo shop yet, I’m not sure i want it because it could become yet, another addiction urghhh! I edit my pics with windows photo gallery, I have added either glow,saturation,shadow or highlights. i try to use it sparingly ,is that considered the same thing as photo shop? Just wondering:]

Oh and I’m not a professional artist of any sort, I cant seem to make up my mind what i want to pursue Urghhhh…. painting,clay,jewelery,photography, you name it .Maybe while I’m here at red bubble I’ll be inspired and have some sense of direction :]

I like everyone’s work. :)

Each to there own I say
I am I be I am I see
Just as long as you can sleep easy at night ay!

Hmmm, I would’ve thought that webgrrl’s post would’ve finally put an end to this! (EXCELLENT point webgrrl) yet here I am, myself dragging it on…! Hehe…

NOOOOOO!!!!

It’s still going !!!!

This is doing my reputation as a fun loving cartoonist no good at all. :O)

I thought this was interesting until in turned into a pro or anti PS debate, which was never my original gripe.

Yes I think Webgirrl made a great point.

Think I’ll just stick to my silly little doodles :O)

Hey Andy!

I read your original entry and thought ‘I applaud you for having an opinion and expressing it’.
We are all so afraid to to rock the boat, offend, upset, but the people i like best have opinions, i might not agree with them all but i like that they state them and don’t apologize for their contribution. Advice and opinion can be debated, rejected, agreed with or ignored – as long as it is heard.

This applies to all of the above :)

Hey and your ‘doodles’ are fab’ (suppressing smutty comment here for fear of offending)!

awww come on Lisa …no suppressing :)

Ok blushing like a fool and laughing…still no comment, you are the funny guy not me!

Ok………Well maybe i can ask your partner….

Did i go to far? See now I’ve caught it….AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!

hehehe,no not at all hon.

I think as artists we reserve the right to flirt market ourselves as much as possible :)

Now laughing again…….I know life is so serious eh, besides who doesn’t like having their ego stroked!!! (More laughter!)

I know mine responds very well to a decent stroking :)

Some folks don’t like having their’s stroked, it makes them uncomfortable and suspicious.

I tried a serious life once….didn’t care for it a bit

Much happier with selective immaturity :)

Here, here!

Didn’t mean that as a pun….but it works quite well.

Do you think anyone else is reading our now funny version of the ‘once caused outrage’ PS debate….perhaps it could stand for ‘Pseudo Sexual’ debate and could be read in a completely different light.

Do you think they hate me yet? Hey there’s a club to join…most loathed on line…perhaps its my chance to shine!

+<;0)

Well to be frank Lisa or Lisa frank it was boring the pants off me and I was secretly hoping it would fade away like a once pugnant fart that done it’s dash.

I’m enjoying it much more now we’ve made it silly and slightly naughty :)

Why would you be hated and who are they ….we are they and we’re ok.

Are you still up or is it only me ploughing the corridors of the bubble at 1 am ?

Morning Andy! Nice to hear a fart joke first thing in the morning :)

They…..oh the serious commenter’s – thought they might want to continue hashing it out and see this banter as an afront to their well thought out arguments.

This is much more fun! When you going to rock the boat again i cant wait to infiltrate another hotly debated thread.

Have you noticed everyone else has since bailed out (laughing again), there is a comical side to everything and even better if its cheeky. Hope you found your way out of those corridors early this morning.

Such a big topic. I’m for anything that helps the photo look like what our eyes saw. There is a difference. Most of the new technologies coming out are enabling people to recreate beautiful visions no matter what the limitations of the light, film, or paper it is printed on. Seeing something live adds an emotional charge to what we remember seeing later. Photos often don’t capture that emotion except at twilight, which is a shame because the world is always beautiful no matter how dark or bright it is. Negatives straight from the camera rarely are beautiful by themselves, they just provide the information the artist needs to recreate what the artist felt they saw.

oh man i totally agree. Some images are passed off as real when they were totally enhanced with photoshop!

Can i add an idiotic comment yet?

By all means Lisa, go for it!

Somebody passed on a saying to me the other day.

‘depression is anger without enthusiasm’

Love it !

Ohhh what a ripper! So true. sayings lets switch to sayings, hows this beauty?

“Never miss a good oppurtunity to shut up” I say this to myself the most.

Some landscapes are ruined for me because the colours are over-enhanced and the natural beauty is lost. This is particularly so for many pictures taken in England where the light can be very gentle. I’ve seen photos of the Lake District that have colours that I’ve never seen in the mountains in 25 years of walking them!

Well, I USED to feel guilty about only using Photoshop, but I’ve grown out of it. I’m just a crap photographer, have been for DECADES, and Photoshop just does it for me sweet, and I can stuff around with photos going back for ages. I also love using Illustrator and Painter with some of these images.

If I want to screw a bolt into a wall, I’ll use a cordless screwdriver, not a hammer. Horses for courses. (As long as they’ve had their equinine flu shots, that is!)

I think the whole discussion is irrelevant.
When it comes down to it, it’s all in the eye that see.
Me I only own a digital camera so I don’t have much of a choice. But I find myself using my setup (with Photoshop) as if it was a conventional setup. I follow very much the same process as you would i a darkroom.
But sometimes I get ideas and can do stuff that would be impossible in the “old” way,and then again I often suffer from lack of detail in my flix, due to digital camera (I have a Canon 300D) not having as good resolution as a film could give you. So it’s all down to prize and convenience. And digital camera together with Photoshop and a good laptop is a killer when it comes to convenience, and aloud you to do things conventional methods never could. Both when it comes to motives and work flows. And Photoshop is a must I find, when shooting digital. It extends your cameras range with miles….
So like I said, it is a question of taste and convenience. Not a matter of discussion as far as I am concerned…

Peace and love to you all, and happy shooting

hmmmm. after reading all that phew! i must be the odd one out of this red bubble business, as i create something from scratch onto canvas or some plain paper, and then take my best shot of what i have produced, i can, but cant do PS manipulatation, as what if someone wants to buy my original art work!!

oh im i really the odd one out, i feel lonely now…….

generally I hear two very similar arguments against photoshop and digital photography.
1) photos are meant to capture reality
2) using digital is manipulating and therefore not pure photography
Firstly, photography has always been about manipulation to often enhance the reality; manipulation of light through slow shutter speeds, the use of framing to cut out unwanted aspects of the scene, chemicals in the darkroom to create the desired effect etc. These manipulations are what generally distinguishes artistic photography from amateur snapshots. Photoshop only advances the ability to manipulate so as to create a striking image. Sure, it can also be used to create extremely manipulated and changed works, but this is called graphic design and photo manipulation… a different category of art.