PDA

View Full Version : Photoshop Overload


Chocochick
07-10-2006, 03:20 PM
I have this little mini-rant and was wondering who was in dis/agreeance with me.

In a recent thread on General Cosplay Discussion, I said "Not to hate on American cosplay photoshoppers, but in comparsion to the Japanese photography world, we're like the KISS of photoshop." And it got me thinking about how true this is. So often do I hear cosplayers say "Oh well, I'll fix that in photoshop!" When I upload a photoshoot I definitly enhance the colors a little (I don't even have photoshop anymore), but I never think about fixing something on someone's costume or adding something in to the photo that wasn't originally there.

What do you think? Would you be annoyed if someone took your photo and shopped it to their content? Do you think people tend to rely on photoshop to "enhance" a presentation too much?

EJ Shin
07-10-2006, 03:39 PM
Well, I see it this way, if you're going to post a picture of someone up, you should make it as flattering as possible. I usually tweak contrast and remove blemishes. I don't think anyone wants to see their own picture and see a giant zit they never noticed somewhere on their face.

That's as far as I ever take it. However, I know there are some people who actually physically trim down bodies and reshape the entire body in photoshop. In that case, yes, I think that's taking it a little too far. If you're going to do that, I say it's easier to find a better model than playing digital frankenstein. I myself don't care about "imperfect" bodies. If they have a cool costume, I shoot it.

jtnishi
07-10-2006, 04:00 PM
I have this little mini-rant and was wondering who was in dis/agreeance with me.

In a recent thread on General Cosplay Discussion, I said "Not to hate on American cosplay photoshoppers, but in comparsion to the Japanese photography world, we're like the KISS of photoshop." And it got me thinking about how true this is. So often do I hear cosplayers say "Oh well, I'll fix that in photoshop!" When I upload a photoshoot I definitly enhance the colors a little (I don't even have photoshop anymore), but I never think about fixing something on someone's costume or adding something in to the photo that wasn't originally there.

What do you think? Would you be annoyed if someone took your photo and shopped it to their content? Do you think people tend to rely on photoshop to "enhance" a presentation too much?
This does pose a very interesting conundrum. From a photographer's perspective, it's easy to presume that as artists, we work only within our own constraints when making photographs, and not the constraints of the subjects. That would mentally leave the issue of touching up to the photographer straight up, with only his/her ethics and opinion controlling the issue. For example, I view cosplay photography as closer to portrait, artistic photography, and feel free to touch up within my own constraints as needed for aestetic reasons. Other photographers will view cosplay photography as journalistic photography, with the need for purity that it entails (global corrections, localized touchups ONLY for reasons of compensating for equipment issues, such as dust, if that).

But I suppose as a cosplayer, it could be an interesting question. Would cosplayers be okay with seeing touched-up pictures of themselves on the 'net, or do they have a belief that they wish to see themselves exactly as they were. The opposing question could be even more interesting: would cosplayers prefer to see themselves in as ideal a fashion as possible, over the sometimes harsh realities that some photographers prefer? While the simple perspective of leaving it as the photographer's artwork may work, I know at least a few people who like having a quantity of creative input on how their images are displayed publicly.

Arguably, most of the photography I see here, which mostly comes with a westernized bias because the site mostly deals in English content, seems to often portray a closer to realistic view than some of the idealized cosplay photography I've come to see out of many Japanese cosplay sites. Admittedly, I try to aim my style somewhere between the two, just out of preference of the Japanese style, but unwilling to push that far. As such, I do on occasion go some distance with touchups, though rarely anything that exceeds my pain threshold for work. :-P

As photographers, it should certainly remain the question of who pushes the button, whether that opinion is to touchup as much as wanted, or to leave images untouched. It does pose that interesting question of how cosplayers would prefer to see it, however.

staereo
07-10-2006, 04:27 PM
I wont argue the professional end of this discussion either way. Jason does a good job at covering that topic.

I will just say it like this: It's my job to make a photo pleasing. I do no more than I must to make that happen. I also do no less. Do I fix seams? YEP. Would I fix seams if my photographs were being used as a technical review of a cosplay/fashion? OF COURSE NOT.

BUUUUUUT, as I said, I wont get into that aspect.

What I want to touch on, is the discussion of the rant.

As a photographer, I work hard at making my camera do my work. The idea is to record a top tier image, and make that image STELLAR by photoshop. What irritates me, is that people correct photographical errors in photoshop.

Certain photographers out there, that many people recognize and admire, get their results by taking a camera, shooting some pictures, loading them on their machine, load on the saturation, play with the contrast, add a hell of a lot of gaussian blur, then sharpen em up. Hey, to me that makes you a digital artist, not a photographer. And people unknowingly buy into this sort of thing. "ooooo those are awesome pictures....." as i sit here and stare at halos that scream "IM A GOOD PICTURE BECAUSE IVE BEEN OVERPROCESSED". And its not just an occasional style, its the photographer's trademark. Soooo many people are using photoshop to make themselves look like photographers, and from that end, as a photographer, I get irritated. But..... I keep my mouth shut.

I guess my goal is to be a normal sized fish in a big pond. So I'm not going to worry how certain fish get so big in a small pond. More power to them.

Bruce

Chocochick
07-10-2006, 04:46 PM
Certain photographers out there, that many people recognize and admire, get their results by taking a camera, shooting some pictures, loading them on their machine, load on the saturation, play with the contrast, add a hell of a lot of gaussian blur, then sharpen em up. Hey, to me that makes you a digital artist, not a photographer. And people unknowingly buy into this sort of thing. "ooooo those are awesome pictures....." as i sit here and stare at halos that scream "IM A GOOD PICTURE BECAUSE IVE BEEN OVERPROCESSED". And its not just an occasional style, its the photographer's trademark.

Funny how I know which certain photographers you're talking about. And trust me, I share your irritation. I'm not a "serious photographer" I just started getting into it, and I really enjoy it, but I too get a bit upset when someone goes "Wow, stunning photo!" on something that's so obviously been visited by the Blur Fairy.

Again, I do *some* color enhancing, but I try to correct my photos WHILE I'm at a shoot, not when I get home. I'm more interested in taking an awesome picture with ideal conditions than uploading and correcting them to become those conditions.

I think my main issue with this dependance on photoshop is that I do photoshoots for free, and I know many other photographers who do so as well, so, its disheartening to hear someone displeased with a photo I took because of something about their costumes they aren't satisified with. I feel as though a photographer should be concerned about the capturing, not the construction.

Trelyon
07-10-2006, 06:07 PM
I teach digital photography at a community college. Eventho it is called digital "photography"... it's basically a photoshop 101 course. IMHO: Photoshop is a tool.... use for good or for evil. ::grins::

EVIL: I had a client who hate her aunt so much that she hired me to remove her aunt from all the wedding pictures. As a sane person, I wanted to tell her just deal with it and save some $$$ . As a business person, I took her $$$ to the bank.

Many student took my class because they recently purchased a low end digital camera. They use PS to fix noovie/n00b mistake. As I walked around AX2006 I noticed that several cosplayers with both digital and analog were shooting directly into sunlight... and heard "I'll just photoshop it" I just smiled and walked away.

~*~*~*~

What do you think? Would you be annoyed if someone took your photo and shopped it to their content?

For cosplaying, no... not really. 90% of the pictures taken... never reached the cosplyers. When my g/f dressed in skimpy outfit, she had tons of pics taken. When she dressed in elaborate well designed costume, she have less than 50 taken.

Also, I've seen some of the 'pro' photographers at the cosplay cons... I DON'T want to know what they do with the pix. During cosplay, pictures taken ended up public domain... thus *I* don't worry too much what happen to my pic afterward.

Do you think people tend to rely on photoshop to "enhance" a presentation too much?

Yes I do... but not in a negative light. (pun intended)

Manga example:
If you are a rank 10 photographer, and no photoshop your end product will be around 10.
If you are a rank 5 photographer, and you are rank 7 photoshoper, your end product will be around rank 12.
If you are a rank 2 photographer and a rank 2 photoshoper, your end product will be around 4.

IMHO: There are a lot of unskilled photographers out there and thus the overload of photoshoping.

~*~*~*~

here's my baby picture...

http://images.cosplay.com/gallery.php?member=24042&cat=501

staereo
07-10-2006, 06:17 PM
its disheartening to hear someone displeased with a photo I took because of something about their costumes they aren't satisified with. I feel as though a photographer should be concerned about the capturing, not the construction.

HEH... I'll do a shoot with anyone, and Ill even either retouch body parts, or have my retoucher do it. But what I find humorous is when I am going through proofs with a subject, and they notice their frizzy hair, tummy hang, or other imperfection.

Now, no matter what, Ill be retouching the selected images to fix the problem, but I think its hilarious when a subject is mad because their body is imperfect.

Just about everyones body HAS imperfections, and poses, light, and angles can only fix so much. The rest is done AFTER image capture. And proofs dont yet have those.

FURTHERMORE, for people that arent interested in becoming models, theres nothing wrong with not having a cover girl/guy shape. But I do find it hilarious when a model points out THEIR imperfection in the image.

I have not said 'maybe you should consider a different career choice', but I have said "I'm a photographer, not a plastic surgeon." Usually, however, they get the final images and they get all happy about how they look.

bleh.

As you say, as the subject, they also carry responsibility for an output. ^^

I just need to push them past their potential.
Bruce

staereo
07-10-2006, 06:22 PM
here's my baby picture... can you tell it's been photoshoped? ::snickers::

http://images.cosplay.com/gallery.php?member=24042&cat=501

Picture doesnt show for me. ; ;

As far as pro, when I did walk around/event photography at AB, as well as the studio, I almost NEVER wore my staff shirt. So occasionally these professionals are actually working for the convention.

In addition, there are validated press passes given out to reporters at anime boston. I assume its this way at other places as well. Many of these reporters are also their own photographers. Needless to say, they dont give out official press passes to cosplay-upskirt-candids.comorgnet

Of course, Im leaning towards the optimistic view. I'm sure theres plent of those types walking around for less than honorable reasons.

Bruce

Oklahoma
07-10-2006, 07:52 PM
I usually only use photoshop to correct what I cannot in the raw. If at all possible I don't edit the pictures unless someone asks for something specific to be done. Yes those pictures look incredible but you also start to loose some of the reality of the picture when you do that much to it. In my mind those kind of pictures are the ones for avatars and things like that. Many times the background is just as important as the subject in the picture and I have seen many that the background makes the picture even that much better. Isolating the subject can create very nice pics but sometimes there is more to tell than just the subject.

Just remember you can only do so much with photoshop, what cannot be done must be done with actual technique. Photoshop cannot save what isn't there no matter how good you are with it, at some point you have to start creating stuff and most of the time it is just stuff. Yes the picture looks great but how much is photography and how much is art that you did.

For this is why all of my pics in the gallery are pretty much untouched except for contrast, brightness, levels, and curves. Well, that and not being that good with photoshop yet so not being able to do those things.

Digitallica
07-10-2006, 08:42 PM
I'd like to bring up two points for this argument:
1.) The quality of the camera.
Problem: I had a 3.0 megapixel digital camera for quite some time that limited me entirely, and produced obvious 'low-end' photos. Many photos would come out shaky or blurred, or with too much contrast. I would use photoshop then to fix that.

Solution: I recently saved enough money to purchase a dSLR, Olympus E500, 8.0 megapixel. My photographs come out just as I had framed and composed them. I don't edit my photos, unless it's in an actual photomanipulation.

Conclusion: Most people don't own the more expensive dSLR cameras, and are limited to the automatic results of a cheaper, and more affordable digital camera. Photoshopping in that case, if not dramatic, isn't as bad to me.

2.) The Subjects.
Problem: Now, many cosplayers in question, that are getting their photos taken...haven't a clue how to be a model. Some just don't understand that they need to be as -still- as possible. Other times, the photos could be taken later in the day, when a person's outfit may not be up to par with what it was at the beginning of the day.

Solution: Option: Photoshop. Photographers can fix the errors that their models may cause. Slight blurs, make-up problems, whatever it is. If I was getting my photograph taken, and wasn't aware of something with my outfit, or make-up, I would personally like for the person to smooth it up, or remove the picture entirely. I'm sure no one has their photo taken and goes 'if this photo comes out horribly, I hope the person still uses it." If a few flaws can be touched up, that -may- not have been there otherwise, then I'm sure that person would prefer it.

Conclusion: I believe that the model can be a very direct cause of whether or not a photo comes out flaw or perfect. And since the cosplays themselves are in question, it's even more obvious.

My notes: Now, I do portrait photography...and I won't lie, aesthetics are important, but it's -portraits-, not costume. A portrait is to show the way a person is, not how they should look. Therefore, I don't edit.

But for cosplay, which is to show a character, and effort put into a costume, certain imperfections should be able to be fixed up, but only if the change isn't so dramatic...that others are able to notice it.

That's the problem with those who photoshop their photos. They do it so much, that it's obvious that it was edited. A good photo-editor is one who's final product, isn't too horribly distracting.

natsukoarts
07-10-2006, 08:44 PM
oklahoma and digitallica, agree with you 100% - hands down

staereo
07-10-2006, 08:53 PM
I agree completely about camera being a bottleneck, but its hard to say.....

This is my first digital camera, I bought it back in 2000. I still have it in fact. It was 3.1mp. It got my feet wet in the digital world, and I would be happy to dig it out for a picture test. Or, you can visit here to see picture samples taken by the camera over at dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/kodakdc4800_samples/

I think equipment can raise the potential of a photographer, but I dont necessarily believe that a camera is the way to a better photograph, inherently.

Bleh, who knows, really. Im exhausted, and oddly enough, im very tired of typing shop for the night.

Ultimately, photoshop should be a helpful tool, not a crutch. I think thats what everyone is agreeing on.

Bruce

Chocochick
07-10-2006, 09:19 PM
I'm reading some very good points and counterpoints, but I'd like to bring up the subject of motivation too.

You can give a 5 year old an 8.0 Megapixel Digital and they can take a good "picture", but unless this kid's a Bach of Photography, it's not going to be a good photograph. Its what separates "Films" from "Movies".

I don't mind natural enhancements of photos, I mind the point blank changing of photos, and to hear that photographers do that makes me question their motivation of taking the picture in the first place. Are you taking pictures of things that could be aesthetically pleasing with photoshop, or are you taking something that already is aesthetically pleasing and enhancing?

If its the former, you're a digital artist in my mind. I would hate to see what I try to accomplish with a camera be confused with what my best friend does with a Comp Pen-Pad. Same motivation? Maybe sometimes, but different tools.

Digitallica
07-10-2006, 09:38 PM
^Incase that was directed at me, though I'm not sure if it was or not:
I take pictures of people who I feel are aesthetically pleasing in themselves. That doesn't mean they're drop-dead gorgeous, but certain features about those people I find to be beautiful. It could be their eyes, their smile, their apparent personality, things of the sort.

Now, I said before, I -don't- edit my portrait photographs, unless I absolutely feel the need to. I did photoshop them when I was using my lower-grade quality camera, because textures would come out looking strange to me, and the pictures would look...like a digital camera picture. There was enhancing done to improve the general quality, nothing more. But now that I have my new camera, there's -very- little enhancing needed to be done.

Now, I am a digital artist as well, because a hobby of mine is photomanipulation. Photomanipulation and photography, I feel, are two entirely different things. Though I don't believe that this turns what is a photographer, into a digital artist. I do both, photography without the use of photoshop, and photomanipulation with the use of photoshop. To call myself a photographer would be half-right, calling myself a digital artist would be half-correct as well. I don't believe a label should be deciding on whether or not the motivation is the same.

Many people might believe a painter has much more motivation than a photographer, but if there's more time typically put into photomanipulation than normal photography, is that to say that the digital artist has more motivation?

deleriumx
07-10-2006, 09:50 PM
All professional fashion photographers use photoshop. And they use it a lot. It doesnt make them less talented at photographers. Because no matter how good you are at photoshop, you can not recreate good lighting, composition, depth of field, etc.

As far as what things should be photoshopped.. well, i have a different opinion than most. Things like brightness, contrast, curves, etc. Aren't necessary if the photo was taken at the correct exposure and with sufficient lighting to being with. I usually never do any of these things to my photos unless i am converting to black and white or something. In my opinion i think these are the things that good photography should eliminate in the photo process.

I use photoshop for things that my photography can not fix... stray hairs that are distracting, huge zits on the person's forehead, a thread hanging down from someone skirt. And for my more artistic photos i will do some whitening of teeth and eyes. because it's art. i want it to look as polished as possible. Obviously for a candid or street photography this wouldnt be necessary. But honestly, all this talk about whether or not photoshopping one's photos makes you a lesser photographer.. hell do what you want. The better you become, the less you will reply on photo fixing techniques (brightness, contrast, saturation, etc..) and the more you will concentrate on polishing an already great photo.

jtnishi
07-10-2006, 10:33 PM
Manga example:
If you are a rank 10 photographer, and no photoshop your end product will be around 10.
If you are a rank 5 photographer, and you are rank 7 photoshoper, your end product will be around rank 12.
If you are a rank 2 photographer and a rank 2 photoshoper, your end product will be around 4.
Okay, so I'll nitpick just a hair. If you're a rank 1 photographer, and a rank 10 photoshopper, I heavily doubt you're going to be able to crank out rank 11 photographs. You might, in theory, be able to crank out rank 11 products, but I doubt what comes out would be anything like a photograph. If I passed on to a top level photoshopper what amounts to junk data from a photograph, they're probably going to slap me if I try to tell them I want a beautiful photograph. Strength of Photoshop cannot completely match strength of photography and come out with what could still be interpreted as a photograph. The best Photoshoppers still need some semblance of real data to work on.

Back to the main thread, I have no reason to believe any of the photographic touchup philosophies here or anywhere are right or wrong. Ethically, it might depend on the situation. But outside of the journalistic realm, to each his or her own. I'm certain each person has developed their philosophies based on their own tastes. The only requirement is that one's happy with their own results, before it can be considered "good" or "bad". Irregardless of what the end product looks like to the viewer, most of the photographers I know still call it a "bad photograph" if they hate it, and a "good photograph" if they like it. Tis' the nature of the artist. If to the photographer, a photograph is great without Photoshopping it, then the photograph is good. Other times, a photograph might require an obscene amount of touchup work before the photographer will acknowledge the photograph as good. Ignoring the ethical question for a second, artistically, to the photographer, if that's what is needed, then that's what is needed.

The reference to the strong-handed digital manipulator, if I'm thinking of the same person, is kind of obvious to me, though I actually know a few photographers who might fall in there (self included at times). But last time I checked, that person also produces output that is well loved by the subjects who are in the photograph, and he's apparently happy enough with his output too. It might not live up to some of our tastes, but guess what: to others, they like it, a lot.

Chocochick
07-10-2006, 11:00 PM
Like jtnishi pointed out, I mean when your journalisticly taking photos, changing the image is, in my mind, highly undesirable. Makes the photo virtually worthless from a documenting point of view.

Digitallica, that wasn't directed at you and I understand to each his own in terms of "beauty". The fault is with me, I worded my point poorly. The motivation for an artist of any kind could be the same as another with a different medium or not. What separates a photographer from a writer is the tool, so do you think that in the future Digital Artistry and Photography should be classified together or separated? I'm not attacking you at all, but since you have experience with both, I'm wondering where you propose a line should be drawn between the two (since I'm no digital artists by any means -_-). Should it be based on the original composition, the tool, or the finished product?

DeleriumX, I'm not saying that using Photoshop is an evil and that all photographers who use it aren't really photographers, that would be a load of BS. What you said about more experience is absolutely true. So, if you take, in your opinion, a so-so photo but then fix it to your liking in Photoshop, is it Digital Art or Digital Photography?

I'm not bashing photoshop in any way, its a great tool, but where's the line between Digital Photographer and Digital Aritst?

And especially in terms of cosplay, should I assume that I should be fixing a cosplayer's grievances with aspects of the photo that pretain to their outfit or make-up?

To each his own? Absolutely. I've taken photos I've hated but had other people love, so that's what matters.

Digitallica
07-10-2006, 11:19 PM
Ah, all right. I wasn't sure or not.

As for putting a line between the two, I see no real need to do so. Some artists specialize in many different mediums. I know a jack-of-all-trades who can produce beautiful pictures, paintings, drawings, and then go and create breath-taking realistic sculptures.

Perhaps like on deviantart, the only real classification should go on the finished product. 'Photography' 'Manipulation' 'Digital Art' 'Traditional,' etcetera. If a person takes a digital photo, unless it's enhanced to the point of being obvious, they can place it under digital photography.

Now that I think on it, there should be some sort of difference in titles, but it seems it's become accepted for digital photos to be somewhat touched up, while a digital manipulation must be somehow drastic.

Chocochick
07-10-2006, 11:29 PM
Ah, all right. I wasn't sure or not.

As for putting a line between the two, I see no real need to do so. Some artists specialize in many different mediums. I know a jack-of-all-trades who can produce beautiful pictures, paintings, drawings, and then go and create breath-taking realistic sculptures.

Perhaps like on deviantart, the only real classification should go on the finished product. 'Photography' 'Manipulation' 'Digital Art' 'Traditional,' etcetera. If a person takes a digital photo, unless it's enhanced to the point of being obvious, they can place it under digital photography.

Now that I think on it, there should be some sort of difference in titles, but it seems it's become accepted for digital photos to be somewhat touched up, while a digital manipulation must be somehow drastic.

So glad you brought up DevianArt since I think that's where my questions about all of this started. I have such a difficult time classifying things on there. Very true though, a jack of all trades, or even someone who writes and paints is an artist, so to try to say they're one type moreso than another is a bit ridiculous (I just got schooled XD)

I guess in my mind there should be a writer/editor type relationship with Photographers and Editing Programs. You can certainly be both, but when does one take over the other? That's also why I make sure to specify when I see a movie wether or not the Acting or Script was bad. The acting could be superb, but the script could absolutely bite so I think its important to distinguish between them. I've seen great photos with horrible editing, but Photographers seem to have taken on the role as both and it makes it harder for me to distinguish a style versus a bad decision.

Ollie
07-11-2006, 07:14 AM
I'm going going to agree with the point raised already that photoshop shouldn't be used in place of good photography. Post processing should enhance a photo, not make up for lack of care while taking the pictures. That being said, I'll admit to having saved a few photos with photoshop because I was in a hurry or otherwise not fully concentrating on the camera at the time.

As far as editing goes, though, my rule of thumb is that it's okay to do a little touching up so long as it doesn't change the gross appearance of the photo. The camera can be a bit harsh, bringing a lot of attention to parts of the photo that one just doesn't see until after exposing. Fixing up teeth and eyecolor a bit is fair, as is cloning out an occasional stray hair or skin blemish. The human eye will look over such things subconsciously, but that makes them look over-emphasized in photos sometimes. Of course, the better answer to this is good lighting, makeup, and composition. But we don't like in a perfect world, unfortunately.

As for the original topic of Japanese vs western photography, I think there's two cases to look at. A lot of the convention photos I see at Japanese events don't look photoshopped at all from what I can tell, other than probably a relatively beneign white balance fix or contrast adjustment. On the other hand, when I see cosplay idol photos, they look extensively photoshopped. (Hey, where did their nose go?!) Over all, I think anything goes as long as there's no intent to decieve with the photo. It is, after all, an art form.

staereo
07-11-2006, 07:36 AM
........ I have no reason to believe ............... It might not live up to some of our tastes, but guess what: to others, they like it, a lot.

I agree with this 100 percent. I'm also sure we are thinking of the same one (we tend to hover in the same ballpark a lot), though I agree, many many people do it. It's easy just to think of popular ones. And like you said, interest is subjective.

What I can honestly say I do tire of, is listening to people rave about this person as being the 'omgwtfbbq best evar photographer love-love-love' to me, on and on, when I find it to be not so much photography as processing. But, alas... I wouldn't appreciate people putting me down publically, so when they say these things to me, I usually just agree and move on. No sense in saying anything about it, because all youre going to do is make waves and drama.

The part that Im not sure I like is how I sometimes wonder if I should just manipulate the heck out of my images to get that cosplayer-loved output. Of course I remind myself that I follow my own road to my output, which gives me my own style (something very important in any artistic success), but it doesnt change the fact that I have been tempted to do it in the past. It is not me, and not the way I create my art.

Then again, I would be offended if someone called me a great digital artist as opposed to decent photographer, since I put most of my effort into capture.... or photographing. I'm not sure why digital artists aren't more sensative about being called a photographer, when the bulk of their workflow towards their pieces is in the computer.

Who knows... Like Jason said... The directed audience likes it, thats all that matters. I could only hope to be so lucky some day.

Bruce

skypirate
07-11-2006, 02:20 PM
But, alas... I wouldn't appreciate people putting me down publically, so when they say these things to me, I usually just agree and move on. No sense in saying anything about it, because all youre going to do is make waves and drama.
Something we should all keep in mind and strive for.

Trelyon
07-11-2006, 05:15 PM
standard Photoshop assignment... is to merge 4-7 pictures and make it one photorealistic pix... most of the time i ended up with 7 focus points from the students... ::laugh:: BUT... i've seen photochoppers/digial artist created photorealistic products out of a 'blank' canvas... i have digitally drawn open eyes when i've been given a picture of the subject blinking... once again... it would have been more cost effective for my client to just take another picture with the subject's eye being open... ::shrugs::

photographers have been doing image manipulation in the darkroom without the aid of photoshop...

Sadly... even photo journalists... who have a legal and moral obligation to keep the picture 'real'... this was done great deal during the civil war... where they have friends dressed up in confederate uniform... and pretended to be dead... the most famous one... both on photo as well as on film... is people inducing lemmings into jumping off a cliff... and into the sea in order... to document their supposedly suicidal behavior.

~*~*~*~*~

"I'm not sure why digital artists aren't more sensative about being called a photographer, when the bulk of their workflow towards their pieces is in the computer."

digital art is easier... photography is harder... if i messed up... i can always go to my last 'saved' point... if a photographer messed up... they have to come to the digital artist... ::evil grins::

being a commercial photographer and not an artistic photographer... as long as i am paid... i dun care if they called me a photographer or a digital artist... more $$$ for cosplaying ::winks::

Shiro MS08th
07-12-2006, 02:17 AM
hmm...
To me I just use photoshop to do minor tweaking, like brightness/curves, contrast, saturation and sharpness.
Unless i'm trying to acheive some mood for the picture, then I will change to sepia/black & white, etc...

My main aim is to take the best quality shot the moment I pressed the shutter.

When I get home to do the editing and etc...
When I see pictures of mine that is too lousy, I just straight delete it.
Only those usable ones I do the minor tweaking.
And I usually leave it original, unless for rare cases like.
If my friend all the time the face is alright, and just suddenly, he/she has a big pimple pop out, that will photoshop it off.
Otherwise like the person have pimples or scars all along, I won't do any photoshopping.

To me, I want to be a photojournalist, like travelling countries, going to villagers, taking kids pictures there, as real as possible.

Well i'm just a beginner photographer, not paid by any means, other than a rare few times, friends giving me a small sum of appreciation.

cosphotog
07-13-2006, 03:20 PM
WoW, this is going to be a ongoing argument for years. there is no answer as to whether or not PS is good or evil, or if a photog is good or bad. But with PS or Film SLR's. if it is film pictures, you can do "almost" anything photoshop can do in a darkroom. And one other thing, the difference between a good photog and bad photog, is all in the composition. i mean if you have rank 1 photog taking a photo, and rank 10 taking the same photo. i would bet to say that the rank 10 photog's picture is going to come out 10 times better if they did the same amount of work in PS or not, Due to experience. So in ending this statement, PS will fix a badly taken photo, but not fix a overall bad to photo to begin with. This kind of refers back to the one post up there somewhere that said, "they were taking photos into the sun and saying i will fix it in ps" photos into the sun arent easily fixed. glares suck, ruins color of the image. pictures like that are almost beyond photoshop. lolz

Maboroshi
07-14-2006, 01:00 AM
Funny how I know which certain photographers you're talking about. And trust me, I share your irritation.

OH SNAP! :eek:

Yeah, I know what "certain photographers" you're talking about too! It IRKS me!! They stink! I hate that awesome photoshop crap. In fact, I hate this whole convenient digital thing. Boo! ......where's my K1000, I wanna go outside and get some dull, lifeless, drap pics that I can't (and don't want to) fix.

WOOT!! :cheers:

Maboroshi
07-14-2006, 01:04 AM
Learn to "live and let live" a little more. You'll enjoy things a bit more. ~_^

(Eddie Izzard says) "Ciao" :skidude2:

staereo
07-14-2006, 06:04 AM
rofl...

on a side note, one of my personal favorite photographers, Jill Greenberg (also known as the manipulator), has one of the most distinctive styles of photography today.

It is said that she is a master of light, but she openly admits to using photoshop to complete her look.

http://manipulator.com/

I suppose by putting her on the pedastal like I do, I can easily be debunked. She is considered a photographer, but says that she really got much of her own distinctive feel from her skill in photoshop. She (very) rarely contracts a retoucher to touch her works, and far prefers doing her own digital editing.

She talks about how its a key part of her workflow.

(There is an article from a DPP issue last year that talks about this in detail.)

Anyways, by the admiration and respect I give to this woman, I suppose todays lines between photography and digital art have become blurred.

Who knows. Like I said, "The directed audience likes it, thats all that matters. I could only hope to be so lucky some day."

Bruce

EJ Shin
07-14-2006, 06:13 AM
Wow, some of Jill's pictures look creepy. Though very cool stuff. Digital surgery seems like a pretty cool art, though I don't think I'll ever do any more than color, contrast, or blemish removal. I think, for myself, it's best to just improve my lighting and composition skills as best as I can.

jtnishi
07-14-2006, 12:55 PM
OH SNAP! :eek:

Yeah, I know what "certain photographers" you're talking about too! It IRKS me!! They stink! I hate that awesome photoshop crap. In fact, I hate this whole convenient digital thing. Boo! ......where's my K1000, I wanna go outside and get some dull, lifeless, drap pics that I can't (and don't want to) fix.

WOOT!! :cheers:
Ouch, BURN! XD

Art's a lovely thing: we can yell at each other about what we dislike about everyone's style, but in the end, we all hopefully have some level of respect for each other.

PS: Stop lurking so much. I'm sure there's more than a few people who'd love to chat with you about your work on here. ^^

Chocochick
07-14-2006, 01:33 PM
Learn to "live and let live" a little more. You'll enjoy things a bit more. ~_^

(Eddie Izzard says) "Ciao" :skidude2:

Oh trust me I do, If cosplay was SERIOUSBUSINESS we'd all be dead from drama. I don't like your style, plain as that. I know people who hate mine. It's all in the eye of the beholder and I feel no reason to hold back my opinions.

Especially from someone who quotes Eddie Izzard.

deleriumx
07-14-2006, 03:49 PM
Ah.. Jill Greenburg is the one that has recently been accused of resorting to child abuse in order to get those photos of children crying and then using the images to gain sympathy and further her career. I am not saying i share this view, just saying she is very controversial right now.

staereo
07-14-2006, 06:15 PM
LOL... I dont know, its my understanding thats rumored, and just spouted from people's interpertation of that series of images. She typically goes out of her way to make her subjects feel great, to the point of hiring DJs, catering, etc....

I dont know... ive just heard a lot of bad rumors come about from people that are wanting the same results.

Of course, I don't know her personally, nor have I been to any of those shoots, but it would be my undereducated guess.


Bruce

skypirate
07-14-2006, 06:32 PM
WoW, this is going to be a ongoing argument for years.
Yeah, welcome to another episode of, "How many cosplay photographers does it take to screw in a light bulb?*".

We all mean well, but things can get pretty heated as we debate the merits of mamma mia's, hasselhoff's and digital yaks.

*gnithgil larutan esu srehpargotohp 'laer' ,oreZ

Maboroshi
07-16-2006, 07:06 PM
I don't like your style, plain as that.

Good. The more photographers that think that way, means the fewer that will copy me. As already stated here, that's the only thing about my photos that's any good/unique/whatever. ~_^

No biggie.

Maboroshi
07-16-2006, 07:11 PM
PS: Stop lurking so much. I'm sure there's more than a few people who'd love to chat with you about your work on here. ^^

I wish that were even possible. My tendonitis prevents me from typing as much as everyone else. Which is why I have so few posts.

Maboroshi
07-16-2006, 07:43 PM
BTW Jason, you've got some nice photos!

jtnishi
07-17-2006, 02:16 AM
BTW Jason, you've got some nice photos!
Thanks. ^^

Trelyon
07-31-2006, 08:12 PM
Ah.. Jill Greenburg is the one that has recently been accused of resorting to child abuse

photographic manipulation... without darkroom or photoshop

"children in pain"... she gives young children candies and take it away... they cried... she snaps a pix... and calls it something political

hmm... wonder if this will work with cosplayers... giveth them candies... and taketh away... ::laugh::

staereo
08-01-2006, 03:19 AM
yep.. heaven forbid we make funny faces that encourage a happy response. We shouldnt ever do anything that might modify the mood of our subjects.

She gives the children the pops right back and their fine. I have a 3 year old little girl, and I honestly dont find this to be child abuse at all.

^^
Bruce

antilogicgirl
08-02-2006, 04:28 PM
Ah, Photoshop. The bane of some, the saviour of many. For me, I only remove a couple blemishes here and there. If any heavy editing is done, it's when I make avatars or other graphics from cosplay photos. Heck, my digicam is so cheap and bad that most of my pics turn out pixellated or too dark. Suppose that's what I get for going cheap. Anyway. My take on this is if you're not satisfied with your costume in a photo, and you're planning on adding to the costume itself, it might not be such a good idea. Polish on a photo for artistic purposes...that seems like it might be okay. But if you're changing too much stuff, then you're maybe going too far. Meh. I guess that's my two cents.

:juggler:
-----------------
Costumes in progress
Haku (Naruto)--75%
Lulu (Final Fantasy)--10%
ANBU (Naruto)--80%