When you see a photo you don't like, do you dislike it more ....

[jtm6]

The rub is in calling it a photograph if it has been photoshopped.
...
In my view digital captures are just as much photographs as film captures but photoshopping changes the photograph into phtographic art and when presented it should be presented as such.

I used software named Digital Darkroom before Photoshop existed. Maybe that's why I don't think modifying photographs digitally is much different than selecting different papers, chemicals, dodging and burning, etc. The only time something becomes "Photoshopped" to me is when it gets overly absurd, but just the use of Photoshop doesn't automatically make anything more or less valid to me.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

No anchovies v. anchovies.
Thin v. thick.
No pineapple v. pineapple.

This is going to devolve into pure chaos.
But pizza chaos is far better than digital v. film arguments when we all know that wet plate is better. 😀

Phil Forrest

 

[68degrees]

No anchovies v. anchovies.
Thin v. thick.
No pineapple v. pineapple.

This is going to devolve into pure chaos.
But pizza chaos is far better than digital v. film arguments when we all know that wet plate is better. 😀

Phil Forrest

What is the definition of Pizza? Is it so hard to have definitions for things and call things according to their respective definitions? I have a problem with digital photographic art encroaching on photography by calling itself photography which it is not. That is not to take away from digital photographic art, only to distinguish it as a separate unrelated art. Whats captured by the digital camera is no doubt photography that is not in question its the non photographic processing of it after it has been captured that disqualifies it from being photography. I think this is reasonable and I dont see the justification of anger and indignance.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Another vote to shut it down.

Phil Forrest

 

[swoop]

What really upsets me is when I see a photo I like by a photographer I hate.

 

[68degrees]

My problem is that I don’t trust any photo to be a real photo unless I know the photographer. By real, I mean a scene or slice of life that was recorded on film or sensor. I often see interesting imagery touting an amazing photo –only to find that it was a Photoshop job.

I think some film users may have an advantage in this area. But, I’ve seen digital work printed to look like a film image, grain, sprocket holes and all. I just never know any more.

http://www.petapixel.com/2013/01/11...p-of-a-fireball-zipping-across-the-night-sky/

Thats right. And all the while its called "photography". The pictures are cool but lets call them digital pictures and not photos. I dont know why the photoshop crowd is so hellbent on callling them photos thats my only point of contention. The fact they hang on to the word photo is very telling indeed. Why not let go of it? I have tremendous respect for digital artists and their work. I love seeing a giraffes head in the window of an airplane flying at 5000 feet, but its not a photograph even though it looks like one. In this case its obvious but what of all the other digital art masquerading as photography? It used to be that you could believe in a photograph. A photograph proved facts. It was evidence. Now its just more fantasy and make beleive which is fine unless it calls itself a photo aka reality.
Part of the wow factor of a great photo was "Wow , this really happend, this is how it actually looked like" Frozen in time. Thats the magic of photography to me.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

This has now become absolutely ridiculous.
Now photographers who don't shoot film aren't even photographers? what about the ones who shoot film then scan? How about folks who only work in cyanotype? They must not be photographers as well.
All complete BS.
Can't we get a mod in on this before it gets uncivilized?

Phil Forrest