When you can produce these THEN you are a photographer

Somebloke wrote in post #17791741
I thought it was pretty evident the OP is raising the distinction between graphic artist due to the lack of photoshop used in the pics.

Lack of photoshop? Is more like the OP couldn't tell if shots from being photoshopped or not. Not sure what kind of photographer are you if you can't tell if something is normal and natural looking vs photoshopped...hehehe

Oh, an airliner flying over Time Square....Hahahahaha..​.I live in NYC for all of my life and I don't remember if airliners ever making passes over the Time Square, especially not after 9/11. And the Toothy Sea? If you have never been to a beach, I guess the shot may appear natural to you. Beaches around here aren't like that....Nothing uniform as such. Should I go on????

koala yummies wrote in post #17791798
The thread title should have just been 'link to slideshow of someone's opinion of the 100 best photos without heavy manipulation'. That would have avoided much of the discussion of the way the original post is worded.

It's an extremely valid and completely accurate point.

Photographers were making composite images, on film, long before digital photography and photoshop (late 19th century) and they were called photographers. They developed many techniques still used today. Developing an entirely new photographic technique is much more valuable to the field of visual imagery than stating that you don't think that what they do is photography or that you don't think they are photographers.

https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Compositing
https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Georges_Méliès

One might hold the opinion that bird photography is of less value than say photojournalism, but that doesn't mean that those shooting birds are not photographers. Just because someone takes two separate photographs with their camera and then combines them later doesn't mean they're not a photographer.

Lol it's funny how sensitive people are on this topic.

Ahh well i guess then I can just sell all of my camera equipment and sit at home and put together composite pictures I've pinched from the net in Photoshop and call myself a photographer without never having touched a camera. Sure will be a darn sight cheaper....plus I can do it in my underwear! Nice

Maybe the thread title should be changed "when you can spot photoshopped images THEN you are a photographer"

I didn't come close to looking at all of them but the one with the mountain in the background and some swath of red at the bottom looks way too desaturated in the mountains.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17791906
Maybe the thread title should be changed "when you can spot photoshopped images THEN you are a photographer"

I didn't come close to looking at all of them but the one with the mountain in the background and some swath of red at the bottom looks way too desaturated in the mountains.

I guess it depends on what the given understanding of the term 'photoshopped' is.

For my mind it is alteration of the physical scene-adding,removing or distorting key components. I wouldn't classify saturation, exposure, clarity etc as photoshopping. But I would classify adding in clouds, a moon etc as photoshopping...Think North Korea pics of Kim and hover feet lol

Mehhhh

Somebloke wrote in post #17792000
I guess it depends on what the given understanding of the term 'photoshopped' is.

For my mind it is alteration of the physical scene-adding,removing or distorting key components. I wouldn't classify saturation, exposure, clarity etc as photoshopping. But I would classify adding in clouds, a moon etc as photoshopping...Think North Korea pics of Kim and hover feet lol

Mehhhh

FINALLY! somebody understands.

Somebloke wrote in post #17791810
Lol it's funny how sensitive people are on this topic.

Ahh well i guess then I can just sell all of my camera equipment and sit at home and put together composite pictures I've pinched from the net in Photoshop and call myself a photographer without never having touched a camera. Sure will be a darn sight cheaper....plus I can do it in my underwear! Nice

Now I know why women on the street grab their children and stare when I shoot street! Thanks.

I disagree, firstly with the idea that you're not a photographer - you take photographs and have a very active interest in doing so. Your photographs are considered and intentional. You're a photographer.

Secondly, how does one surpass another in photography?

Regarding the link: some great photographs, undoubtedly, but almost no black and white, or street photographs, and surely some of those must be among the 100 Best Photographs taken without Photoshop?

And this sort of leads to what Somebloke said and the OP agreed with; most famous Black and White photographs had work done in the darkroom to enhance the photograph. There was a link posted here maybe a year ago about the darkroom technician at Magnum and the work he did on some of their most famous photographs - dodging and burning mostly - and the difference it made to the final image (the one we know) compared to the negative (still the same photograph but with a bit less visual impact). Enhancing but not manipulating ... and definitely not Photoshop, due to it being done manually by a man in a darkroom.

That said, both retouching and composite images existed long before Photoshop as well. There was the example of Ansel Adams touching out some graffiti from a landscape. That's manipulation of the scene, right? Not Photoshop (which has become a synonym for image manipulation, it seems) though.

As usual, I don't even know what I'm saying anymore. Peace out!

EDIT: I'm also fairly sure I've missed the point, at least of the link.

The photographs there show various important parts of photographic practice. Understanding of light, colour, exposure. Great composition and timing. Choosing your subject and seeking it out; going to whatever lengths necessary to photograph it. ("If you want to take more interesting pictures, stand in front of more interesting things.") Getting yourself into the right position, at the right time, to take an amazing photograph.

None of these things rely on either a darkroom or a computer ... some of them did require a helicopter, though. But even if we don't have a helicopter (I don't even have a car) we can still push ourselves to get up for the sunrise; hike up that mountain; or get out into the streets and push ourselves to take photos.

Just to muddy the water a little more... There were several ways to combine images long before PS came along.

We talk about "taking a photograph". But I remember when people used to say they were "making a photograph." (Ansel Adams)

Owain Shaw wrote in post #17792441
As usual, I don't even know what I'm saying anymore.

Me, either. Discuss.  ; )

Actually, I think you got to what I was saying in those paragraphs. Discuss.

As an example of what PhotosGuy says:

1857 - Oscar Gustave Rejlander's The Two Ways of Life ... combination print of 32 different images.

TooManyShots wrote in post #17791788
Nah..some shots are photoshopped...the big moon, and the cloud over the bulldozer..looking for uniformity in a natural environment that does not exist....clearly photoshopped.

^^^ with a radiotelescope in profile you ordinarily will see the triangular antenna support structure, as clearly visible in this photograph! The moon was -- without any doubt -- PLACED into the photo in the OP link!!!

http://splash.abc.net.​au …Servlet/profile​2/ABCSC534

...but, without any disputable discussion, the supermoon shot clearly required a computer with a graphic editing program for the photo to 'be made by a 'graphic artist' sitting at a computer and monitor, ' rather than 'composed by a 'photographer' in-camera' with additional shot tweaks in post processing, or else we would SEE the antenna receiver support structure superimposed over the moon's surface.

Wilt wrote in post #17792628
...but the supoermoon shot clearly required a computer with a graphic editing program for the photo to 'be made by a 'graphic artist' ' rather that 'in-camera' with additional shot tweaks in post processing

Sure, we can focus on that one shot out of the 100, and maybe find a few others as well if we really want to.

Or we can go out and try to shoot some great images, using whatever methods we see fit - including the ones I mention above the part of the post you quoted, and to which the quoted section refers: understanding of light, colour and exposure; composition and timing; choosing your subject and seeking it out; going to the required lengths to get the shot - getting into the right position at the right time. These are the things that don't require a darkroom or Photoshop ... that and getting out there, wherever it may be.

The images in the linked article inspired me to do the latter, rather than look for reasons why they're not valid ... and with that, I'm done with this discussion, because whether or not that moon and satellite dish were photoshopped doesn't really bother me. Peace.

Owain Shaw wrote in post #17792441
That said, both retouching and composite images existed long before Photoshop as well. There was the example of Ansel Adams touching out some graffiti from a landscape. That's manipulation of the scene, right? Not Photoshop (which has become a synonym for image manipulation, it seems) though.

Let us not forget that Matthew Brady was manipulating photographs 40 years before Ansel Adams was born. My guess is he wasn't the first.

Owain Shaw wrote in post #17792650
Sure, we can focus on that one shot out of the 100, and maybe find a few others as well if we really want to.

Or we can go out and try to shoot some great images, using whatever methods we see fit - including the ones I mention above the part of the post you quoted, and to which the quoted section refers: understanding of light, colour and exposure; composition and timing; choosing your subject and seeking it out; going to the required lengths to get the shot - getting into the right position at the right time. These are the things that don't require a darkroom or Photoshop ... that and getting out there, wherever it may be.

The images in the linked article inspired me to do the latter, rather than look for reasons why they're not valid ... and with that, I'm done with this discussion, because whether or not that moon and satellite dish were photoshopped doesn't really bother me. Peace.

You sound rather defensive/offended in response to what I posted...yet I was in agreement with what you said in post 23!

Owain Shaw wrote in post #17792441
I disagree, firstly with the idea that you're not a photographer - you take photographs and have a very active interest in doing so. Your photographs are considered and intentional. You're a photographer.

Secondly, how does one surpass another in photography?

Regarding the link: some great photographs, undoubtedly, but almost no black and white, or street photographs, and surely some of those must be among the 100 Best Photographs taken without Photoshop?

And this sort of leads to what Somebloke said and the OP agreed with; most famous Black and White photographs had work done in the darkroom to enhance the photograph. There was a link posted here maybe a year ago about the darkroom technician at Magnum and the work he did on some of their most famous photographs - dodging and burning mostly - and the difference it made to the final image (the one we know) compared to the negative (still the same photograph but with a bit less visual impact). Enhancing but not manipulating ... and definitely not Photoshop, due to it being done manually by a man in a darkroom.

That said, both retouching and composite images existed long before Photoshop as well. There was the example of Ansel Adams touching out some graffiti from a landscape. That's manipulation of the scene, right? Not Photoshop (which has become a synonym for image manipulation, it seems) though.

As usual, I don't even know what I'm saying anymore. Peace out!

EDIT: I'm also fairly sure I've missed the point, at least of the link.

The photographs there show various important parts of photographic practice. Understanding of light, colour, exposure. Great composition and timing. Choosing your subject and seeking it out; going to whatever lengths necessary to photograph it. ("If you want to take more interesting pictures, stand in front of more interesting things.") Getting yourself into the right position, at the right time, to take an amazing photograph.

None of these things rely on either a darkroom or a computer ... some of them did require a helicopter, though. But even if we don't have a helicopter (I don't even have a car) we can still push ourselves to get up for the sunrise; hike up that mountain; or get out into the streets and push ourselves to take photos.

exactly look at the quote in my sig below, as an artist you do not just capture the image you see it in your mind's eye and then capture it with your technical skill I do not care if it is manipulated in photoshop anyway