Poll: Is that photoshopped?

[I @ M]

This is NOT an anti photoshop rant.
Any image development program name could be inserted but photoshop is the name that is burned into peoples brains.

But.

Photographers in particular ( remember that PS was originally developed for graphic artists and expanded into photo editing ) are simply victims of a hugely successful marketing campaign.
Camera companies advertise and tell the masses that their (insert brand here) camera will give them stunning "pro" images.
The masses adapt to the new technology and cameras in all shapes and forms are suddenly found in greater numbers than a bus full of Japanese tourists at Ayers Rock could ever hope to muster.
A huge percentage of the newly found technology users are disappointed that their ( insert brand here ) camera doesn't do what they expected the advertising said it would.
A very smart marketing person at Adobe recognises a way to extract huge amounts of money from disappointed camera users and says to the Adobe R&D team something like " hey guys, can you make that graphic arts program work on digital photos?".
The answer as we all know is a resounding YES, and so photoshop evolved ( extremely well ) to develop, enhance, manipulate and distort pixels.
Of course, to make the program a true success it had to not only be able to do the job, it had to be marketed so a few skilled users of the program appeared in 30 second ads telling those people that were disillusioned with their (insert brand here) camera and that to get the best images possible they needed to buy photoshop. These ads ( all 30 seconds of them ) of course showed before and after examples of PS at work.
The result was that (history shows it to be so ) huge numbers of people went quack and bought the program and from there a small percentage overall learned how to use it well.
Some of these went on to start and continue to this day to offer you everything from $2.50 video tutorials to multi thousand dollar graduate degree courses to be come a member of the institute of photoshop professionals. The program itself created an entirely new industry that of course needed more marketing.

Fast forward to today and we have skilled photographers using a heavily featured and excellent performing program to create their artworks.
We also still have those dissatisfied camera users that couldn't manage to take a photo who went on to buy an expensive bit of software to fix their shortcomings and failed even further.
These people I feel are the ones who started the "is that photoshopped" question and proceeded to denounce any image that had been enhanced simply because they can't produce the goods. It also doesn't help that there are so many plainly horrible images out there on the net with the inevitable words of " this shot was a bit blurry so I tried to make it look good in photoshop " further adding fuel to the fire of those who simply know nothing about photography in general and image development in particular.
In short, due to advertising, those vast number of people that know zip about photography and even less about image development ( many of those same people tried and failed at both ) have been conditioned by that advertising to accept the image in front of their eyes was created purely by photoshop.

To all those who are asked that question I would say that you are simply a victim of that programs (marketing) success.

And in answer to Dylan's original questions, my internal response is to simply accept it because I know that I will never be able to overcome the power of advertising applied to a gullible brain and my external response is to say that the program I use doesn't have the ability to successfully clone out the sixth finger on the grooms left hand at a Tasmanian wedding but it does a pretty fair job of developing a negative to the point where I am satisfied with the appearance.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Keith, the problem is , I would be lying if that's the response !
For reference, the title of the exhibition is 'Otherwolds', we have a short bio, and in it, there is mention of fine art landscape photography . In the brochure, all the technical details are there for the viewer to see in terms of EXIF.
We are presenting our interpretation of the scene based on a style of image which we have taken - the images very rarely look exactly as shot (especially with long exposures, wide angle distortions etc).
I would love to talk post processing with the enquiree if the question about photoshopping was one of 'how did you get that effect?'
But when the undertone of the question is one of somehow cheating - it makes it harder to come up with a polite yet informative response in that setting (thanks for the great suggestions from everyone above though!)

Lastly, as an anecdote, before we visited Cradle Mountain for the first time in 2004, we had seen so many of the classic pictures taken with a wide angle lens. Cradle Mountain looks pretty small and way off in the distance. When we arrived at the scene, we were amazed with how close and how much larger the mountain looked. ie. nothing like the images we saw. Isn't it strange how we accept 'untruths' like wide angle distortion or the articial compression of planes from long lens images or bokeh from using small depth of field (all the in camera aspects of reality distortion for artistic reasons) - yet struggle to accept the 'untruths' of post processing (I suspect largely through ignorance). I guess the disappointment that drove me to ask this question was that only 1 or 2 questions were asked of us all night that weren't to do with 'photoshopping'.

[Steve Axford]

I think that we just have to get over worrying about questions like that. Most times the asker is just amazed that his photos don't look like that and is wondering why. Other times they might really be interested. Whatever it is, the fact that they ask a question shows that they are interested in the photo and you should take it as a compliment AND an opportunity to talk about the photo. Talk about any aspect you like as the question is very unlikely to be anything more than just an opening.

[triptych]

When people see photo's of my son, they automatically assume that Ive photoshopped his eyes, he has very very blue eyes, and I dont actually edit them at all as I dont need to....and an example of this is when a friend first met my son in person the first thing she said to me was "oh my god, look at his eyes, so you dont actually photoshop them".

The assumption is already there.

[Michaela]

I think that, rather than just say yes or no, I'd be tempted to ask them why they're asking.

Also, if they like the image, would they change their opinion if they knew it HAD been photoshopped?

Why is it that they could like a painting, which is simply an artist's interpretation of how they saw a particular scene, and not a photograph where a photographer has used his digital "palette" to craft an image that represents his/her unique visualisation?

[ApolloLXII]

Honesty is always the best policy, in my opinion. If somebody asks me if a pic I took was Photoshopped, I always say yes. Generally, it's only the ignorant ones who know little about photography and nothing about Photoshop who say it's cheating or they are just people who like to try to rain on your parade.

[ving]

this has been asked before but I guess it begs the question... what is a photograph and what is digital art? if you have a collection of heavily modified images taken with a camera can you call it a photographic exhibition?

[ApolloLXII]

this has been asked before but I guess it begs the question... what is a photograph and what is digital art? if you have a collection of heavily modified images taken with a camera can you call it a photographic exhibition?

To my way of thinking Ving, if your image contains elements that are edited (and by edited I mean those elements were placed, reshaped, colourised, warped, transformed etc.) heavily then it should be classed as digital art. If you are only making visual enhancements to an image (levels, curves, white balance, saturation etc.) then you are, in a sense, developing a print of a whole single image that was captured by your camera which is what a photograph should be.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I would like to add that the main reason I put this thread up isn't because I was offended by the actual question. It was more that after an honest answer of yes, there was this sudden lack of engagement to ask anything else.
They could like the image as much as they want before the question, but if the honest answer changes the way the viewer looks at it, then it defeats the intended purpose of the exhibition both for the viewer (to appreciate landscapes of fine art photography) and for Marianne and me (to sell some of our work). I genuinely hope that most people who do not ask questions at least get something out of viewing the images because if the main 'take home' message they experience after their visit is that they've been cheated by a 'photoshopper' , then it's a lose-lose situation and it makes me reluctant to exhibit again in the future.
This would probably be a question better asked in a non photographic forum and I'm sure there would be a different response to the one received here so far.

[Tannin]

What you really need, Davin, is a good snappy answer - something completely ridiculous and a little bit shocking.

Example: sometime I'm out birding in a public location - on a mangrove boardwalk, say, where people walk past quite often. The big 500mm lens always gets a lot of attention and people want to comment on it. I don't mind that, it's a great conversation ice-breaker, but not when I'm working! Drives me spare if they want to hang about and ruin my concentration, not to mention scare the birds away.

Very often, they say "Is that a camera?"

So I have learned to lookup and smile and say, with a twinkle in my eye, "No, it's a tactical nuclear weapon - don't tell anyone!" and then quickly look away again and seem busy (even if there ain't a bird in sight yet and I'm only waiting). Sometimes I say something different, but it's always something absurd - by the time they figure it out I'm back on the job and they are reluctant to intrude a second time.

Edit: the absurd part is the key - if it's an obviously sensible answer, you don't get that vital pause while they figure it out.

[BecdS]

A lot of people throw the term "photoshopped" (and derivatives of) around without really having any idea what it is. For the general population, their only association is the negative press about the air-brushing of this actress or that model. However, they don't realise that those couple are only the very tip of a very big iceburg and that there are no (or very very very very few) untouched images in any magazine or book they pick up. I'm tempted to say that a lot of the moving picture media is also touched up, but I don't know very much about that at all. Anyway, back to the subject... most people don't even really know what they're talking about and as has been said, just throw the term around because it's an "in" word. Poor old Photoshop gets lumped with all the blame, when there's Gimp, PaintShop Pro and even Picnik available to do different levels of editing.

In my own experience - I was once told that photographers are not artists because they're simply recording an image as it is before them. (Obviously not from someone who knew squat about photography, lol) It seems to me, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't when it comes to editing.

[Dylan & Marianne]

hmmm, how about 'you don't need to photoshop pictures from Mars?' *wink*

[Tannin]

^ Perfect! Absolutely right.

[James T]

I'm with Mark and Zollo. Ask them what makes them ask / what exactly do they mean.

Most people are probably just trying to engage you, and as they know very little about photography; "is it Photoshopped?" is an easy starter question for 10. Just like "what lens/camera did you use?" that you see on forums all the time from beginners. And, "That's a biggun!" from people in the street.

I wouldn't be defensive, people are showing an interest in your work - so start a conversation with them. After you say "yes" and they don't have any follow up questions, maybe it's because they don't have any follow up questions. Did you try saying "no" to anyone? I wonder how many people would've had more questions then.

[BecdS]

I wouldn't be defensive, people are showing an interest in your work - so start a conversation with them. After you say "yes" and they don't have any follow up questions, maybe it's because they don't have any follow up questions. Did you try saying "no" to anyone? I wonder how many people would've had more questions then.

Thinking further, I agree with this. Perhaps they think that there is less skill involved if you "shopped", or they think that Photoshop skills are beyond them. Maybe they just don't have any interest in learning how they can take their work further with the digital darkroom. If they're coming to see your work / photo's, they must be interested in photography and perhaps by asking, they're trying to find an opening to discuss different photography techniques.

[geoffsta]

I have just come back from the Australian Photographic Society exhibition, held in Bairnsdale. It also had local photographers work in as well.
I think that all but 4 of the shots were all photoshopped. But I think there was about 5 - 6 that were standout manipulated.
Clearly some fantastic shots including a few from a member of AP.
To the untrained eye many looked as if they were straight from the camera. But it's was easy to see that a lot had some sort of lens correction, sharpening, saturation and contrast done to them.
Whether done in Photoshop, ViewNX, or any other editing program. Or even taken in a JPG format with the Vivid, landscape or portrait setting. They are all photoshopped. (In a fashion)
So if someone says "No" Well they would be technically telling porky pies.

Geoff.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Thinking further, I agree with this. Perhaps they think that there is less skill involved if you "shopped", or they think that Photoshop skills are beyond them. Maybe they just don't have any interest in learning how they can take their work further with the digital darkroom. If they're coming to see your work / photo's, they must be interested in photography and perhaps by asking, they're trying to find an opening to discuss different photography techniques.

Actually, it was an opening night and I think alot of people were just there for free food and drinks lol

[Scotty72]

I'm pretty sure ALL pics are photoshopped.

If you shoot JPG, well, your file has been massaged.

Most programmes will somehow manipulate a RAW file - such as sharpen, adjust colours etc.

So, saying you don't photoshop is a bit dodgy. Unless, you shoot RAW and disable ALL default enhancements, then you do 'photoshop'

Even if you go to this extent. It is a bit like saying that brushing your hair, tucking your shirt in and smiling at a camera (to improve your looks) is misrepresenting your real looks.

We all photoshop : get over it : stop pretending you don't

[Scotty72]

Apologies to those without the necessity of brushing hair

[James T]

..
So, saying you don't photoshop is a bit dodgy. Unless, you shoot RAW and disable ALL default enhancements, then you do 'photoshop'
..

Not that it's important, but you can't see a raw file, you have to allow a program to render its own interpretation of the raw data before you can see anything.

This is starting to go a long way off topic though, down a well-worn and boring path.