Real Photos vs. Photoshopped Photos

Netaddict

I saw a post in a photography forum that I left 4 years ago that said "photoshop has reduced the quality of photos taken" because quite a few people don't bother with proper lighting or composition because they "shoot now and photoshop later"

When I see a scene that is hard to believe, I don't shoot because people won't believe it's a true picture, they'll say it's Photoshopped.

Jumong · Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:33 am Post subject:

I believe that the work of a great photographer can be misconstrued as Photoshopped photo..

even if it is a real image..

Auieos · Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:49 pm Post subject:

I can't agree. If anything i would think photographers could use PS as a tool to identify what they can improve in their photos.

Who wants to take bad photos and spend hours on the computer making them good.

thehermit · Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:09 pm Post subject:

I work with a lot of photographers and they don't fall into easy categories, such as; no Photoshop, little Photoshop and all out Photoshop.

I have clients that insist that I get no credit (usual) and change nothing but exposure and maybe lens dust, others want a little more and some others want the full works and will give credit. It is a very individual matter and is fluid in my opinion.

Shoot what turns you on, if you use Photoshop fine, if you don't fine - just keep shooting!

seaco · Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:19 pm Post subject:

Ok let's get real here, there is hardly ever a time after seeing a photo on screen that you realise Photoshop can't improve it...

It's sods law that something no matter how small will be wrong with the pic and can be improved and yes I used to use film cameras and I was employed in dark rooms Photoshop is now my dark room work with it not against it!

Netaddict · Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:47 am Post subject:

seaco Said "there is hardly ever a time after seeing a photo on screen that you realize Photoshop can't improve it"

I totally agree. So much so that most people's perception of beauty is distorted, I'm talking about aitbrushing skin, sculpting a model's figure digitally to produce a picture of a person that does not exist yet is visually appealing.

Look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omBfg3UwkYM

Auieos · Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:44 pm Post subject:

Damn your real world Seaco.

Galleries still advertise 'Photos have not been touched by Photoshop'
Portraying the application as a kind of cheat.

YourOnlySin · Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:46 pm Post subject:

You could look at it in a couple ways though. By stating that someones photographs are not photo-shopped in any way, does that imply that Photoshop is "cheating" or does it simply mean the photographer has an exceptional knack for creating an image that looks almost too good to believe?

I don't consider photoshop cheating unless your manipulating something that is being sold to someone else with the intent of deceiving them. If the picture looks pleasing, who cares if it was edited in photoshop?

Netaddict · Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:18 am Post subject:

Auieos, "Photos have not been touched by Photoshop" sounds to me like food that has "no coloring or preservatives" written on it.

I agree with YourOnlySin that if a photo is visually pleasing, it shouldn't matter how it was made. After all, I can have an image that was wholly created in Photoshop and say that it is "pure photography and photoshop free" and I wouldn't be lying, how? I'll simply shoot the photoshop created image off the computer screen

Auieos · Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:26 pm Post subject:

That's pretty clever in theory Netaddict.

Everyone knows that the colours and preservatives give you cancer. Uh Oh

I think we all have valid points.

Copyright © 2003-2016. PhotoshopForums.com, iFroggy Network. All Rights Reserved. Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. phpBB SEO. Privacy Policy. We are in no way affiliated with Adobe. Photoshop, Adobe and related marks are registered trademarks of Adobe.