Photoshop

[the_travel_diva]

Just recently I spoke with an editor about the lost art of photography since the advent of digital enhancing software like Photoshop. He suggested I look at a certain UK Photography Magazine's 2006 Photographer of the Year Award as he felt it laughable as there was nothing natural left in the photo after it had been digitally enhanced. Of course I felt the need to assure the editor that competitions at that level usually require unadulterated, untweaked RAW images to be submitted and that any changes would be instantly uncovered result in exclusion. He persisted that I look at the image before making such statements. Anyway, I Googled the magazine and found the image. It was a good photo for sure but got me to wondering of the rules have changed across the board or is it now appears acceptable to submit enhanced photos to esteemed competitions like this. Wonder if there is a Photoshop'er of the Year award knocking about somewhere.

[sblais]

There should be one. Photoshopping is an art in itself. There is nothing wrong with it. I just wouldn't call a heavily photoshopped image a "photograph" afterwards though. But at that point, it's only a question of semantics and it's getting more and more accepted to have digitally-enhanced photographs.

[In2Photos]

Interesting first post. Seems a lot like some political type statement from out of the blue.:rolleyes: I certainly hope this isn't some sort of publicity statement for you to get people to read your blog.

[the_travel_diva]

Mike, I've been lurking for months but never had anything worthwhile to contribute.

Political statement, not at all, just a question I'd like to know the answer to and could think of no better place to pose it than on this forum. And as for a 'publicity statement', if its publicity I was after surely I would have directed you to my website instead of someone elses?

Now, back to the question... do you have any thoughts on this?

Take care,

[Pugwash]

Most of the work that can be done with Photoshop is exactly the same as would be done in a wet darkroom with film and chemicals.

So, would you have excluded photographs in the past that individuals had altered the exposure, cropped, dodged and burnt, etc. etc. etc. in the darkroom? No, of course not and that's why no one should expect digital photo entries to be just the RAW file straight from the camera.

Using Photoshop simply allows you to use an electronic darkroom as opposed to a chemical one and it can't make a bad photograph good. In fact the opposite is often the end result when inexperienced hands are at the controls - just the same as a chemical darkroom.

I agree that photos that are overdone and 'over-Photoshopped' are no longer photographs as such but, as in the previous statement, this is no different to what was often done in a chemical darkroom.

Why the prejudice against digital enhancing when the complaint should really be about people who over-process by whatever means? In fact, when I think about that, why shouldn't people over-process - it's up to them and if we don't like the result we should move onto another display?

And just to clarify - I don't enter photos into competitions as I don't believe I'm good enough but I do enjoy using Photoshop in the same manner as I used to use a chemical dark room but without the wrecking of my bathroom and the need to store chemicals etc.