Poll: Is that photoshopped?

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks James - the original issue I was trying to raise isn't the age old debate about photoshopping vs not - it was how we handle the public's perception of what we do to images

[ricstew]

.......standing looking at an image .......beautiful young woman with a mermaid tail..........bloke next to me says.......so do ya think its been photoshopped?

[Tannin]

.......standing looking at an image .......beautiful young woman with a mermaid tail..........bloke next to me says.......so do ya think its been photoshopped?

Of course it has been, you fool! Seriously, did you really think those breasts were real?

[kipp]

As a newbie to photography, other than just happy snaps.

I have recently started to record in RAW and am learning how to adjust contrast, white balance, etc..
And it is my opinion that the public expect to see an image that could be achieved with the best of possible conditions, skills, gear, etc...(things that can be physically changed when taking the image).
Therefore changing these things afterwards in post processing is acceptable.

The issue that people have is when the image is not achievable in a non digital environment.
Eg. Removing sticks, powerlines, pimples etc...
HDR, or laying images over each other (i don’t know what to call this)
Digital liposuction


As to the original question i think you have to say yes, but if the process is then explained/demonstrated to the inquirer, they will then be more informed, the next time they look at an image. I understand this takes time but i think that 99% of photographers will have had somebody explain/show them this at some stage in their development.

And really the only way for people to have an informed opinion, is for someone to give them the information unbiased in the first place.

[Scotty72]

As a newbie to photography, other than just happy snaps.

I have recently started to record in RAW and am learning how to adjust contrast, white balance, etc..
And it is my opinion that the public expect to see an image that could be achieved with the best of possible conditions, skills, gear, etc...(things that can be physically changed when taking the image).
Therefore changing these things afterwards in post processing is acceptable.

The issue that people have is when the image is not achievable in a non digital environment.
Eg. Removing sticks, powerlines, pimples etc...
HDR, or laying images over each other (i don’t know what to call this)
Digital liposuction


As to the original question i think you have to say yes, but if the process is then explained/demonstrated to the inquirer, they will then be more informed, the next time they look at an image. I understand this takes time but i think that 99% of photographers will have had somebody explain/show them this at some stage in their development.

And really the only way for people to have an informed opinion, is for someone to give them the information unbiased in the first place.

But that is like, and many photographers may take it this way, demanding your date remove her make-up so you can see the real deal underneath.

Now, in my life, I have done some stupid things but, not even I am dumb enough to have said to my lovely date across the dinner table, "Please, sweety, could you tell me how much make-up you have used tonight and how you applied it?"

Scotty

One dumb question I once asked of a former, female workmate who I had not seen for about 6-8 weeks (she had take long-service): "Hey, congrats! When is it due?"

[Scotty72]

But that is like, and many photographers may take it this way, demanding your date remove her make-up so you can see the real deal underneath.

Now, in my life, I have done some stupid things but, not even I am dumb enough to have said to my lovely date across the dinner table, "Please, sweety, could you tell me how much make-up you have used tonight and how you applied it?"

Scotty

That is the advantage of being ugly! No - one asks me embarrassing questions about my beauty regime.

[kipp]

But that is like, and many photographers may take it this way, demanding your date remove her make-up so you can see the real deal underneath.

Now, in my life, I have done some stupid things but, not even I am dumb enough to have said to my lovely date across the dinner table, "Please, sweety, could you tell me how much make-up you have used tonight and how you applied it?"

Scotty

One dumb question I once asked of a former, female workmate who I had not seen for about 6-8 weeks (she had take long-service): "Hey, congrats! When is it due?"

But the question has already been asked scotty.
So do you (the date) say
A. yes i've got a bit of lippy on
B. yes a whole lot but i've also had the lightpost that was sprouting from the top of my head removed
C. no because your not wearing any
D. no because you cant be bothered explaining to the person who is interested in you/your photo

Then as the bloke asking the question which answer would you prefer to hear? Dont forget you might wake up with her on your loungeroom wall the next morning

[Dylan & Marianne]

kipp , as far as I'm concerned, using exposure blending is just as legitimate a technique as using filters in the field for certain situations but that's kind of straying again.
if the asker is interested in hearing an explanation (which one was - and we had a great discussion thereafter), then it's all fine. But if after you say yes, the asker turns away and doesn't say another word, I don't feel it's up to me to do the hard sell to educate them in a topic they clearly don't want to hear about. I shouldn't take it as an affront but then as I said before, if that is the majority of people's response, then the exhibition becomes a lose-lose situation for both viewer and exhibitor. Another factor driving this topic for me is that in the past, when (in my opinion) our images looked far less polished with many more technical imperfections (dust spots, grain, bad choice of depth of field , blown highlights etc), the question about photoshop was never asked (ironically since my photoshopping was just worse!) and we actually sold more images that looked worse (once again in our eyes)

[Mark L]

^ ah. I've had a lifetime of getting used to what the "general public" like differing to what I like. Do you create to your taste, or create to what will sell?
Back on topic, I would still ask, "why do you ask." Their response then may allow the conversation to continue.

[GTP 290]

For me personally, I can honestly say that 99% of my photos are NOT photoshoped and as such I would answer the question as a solid NO. I use Lightroom 3.0 to process my images and only ever use photoshop if I need to remove a blemish on someones skin or remove a stain from a shirt etc.. but most of my customers don't want that as they prefer to see the image as they were at the time. Sometime people ask a few questions on how I get a certain effect on an image and I tell them how I did it through processing and go through the whole processing vs editing debate. Basically I'll only ever process an image in a wa that would be possible t be made in camera or in a darkroom.

[kipp]

Don't get me wrong i'm not saying that there is a right or wrong way to display an image.
But i think that the average person is exposed to so many edited images (usualy for advertising purposes) that a lot of people are looking for a beautiful yet "true" image.
I think that education as to what/why you have done to an image is the best way to encourage people to consider new ways/ideas.
There are always people who will make a decision before they have all the information avaliable to them. I question if it is worth bothering with them tho?
If you are showing your images because you like them, then others dismissing them for whatever reason shouldn't matter.
However if you are showing them to sell, then as i said above people are sold so much idealised bull...# nowadays, that lots are looking for something that is more "true". And therefore "Is it photoshopped?" is a valid question in there purchasing decision.

As a few others have already said to try and cultivate a discussion with a stranger, i find that if you are able to ask a question back and show interest in their answer you will usualy get a good response.

[bricat]

Why not do as politicians do"Yes I took this shot and I had to wait 6 hours for the right light blah blah.....4 hour trek into the wilderness blah blah......" You have answered "yes" but now they don't know what the "yes" was referring to. K.I.S.S. keep it simple as they are stupid. And honestly does anyone know someone who does not PP for an exhibition? They would be the exception rather than the rule...cheers Brian PS Keep up the good work you two

[mongo]

In answer to your first question, Mongo normally thinks 2 things - one, they are relatively naive about photography including the part that PP plays in it OR they are genuinely trying to estimate their chances of ever hoping to encountering natural conditions which come close to the ones they are now looking at. Mongo feels nothing about the question being asked of him

In the exhibition/competition setting, unless there are rules that apply which require no manipulation , Mongo fails to see the relevance of the question to begin with.

The short answer is - “the finished product is my work by whatever available means I have achieved it.”

If someone wants only relatively unmanipulated work, then, let them go to an exhibition or competition that one permits slide film. Mongo says “relatively” because it is his understanding that even slide film can be slightly manipulated in the development stage by varying chemicals, temp etc.

[Tannin]

One way to think of the question is to ponder what is going through the head of the person asking it. Very often, that is going to be something like:

"Is this real? Could I go to that place and see this?"

• If the answer is "yes, easily", then it is an honest landscape image and all is well.
• If the answer is "yes, but you'd have to be there at exactly the right moment", then it is still an honest landscape image and all is well.
• If the answer is "no", then it is a dishonest image. There is no law against these. (But there should be.)
• If the answer is "of course not, this is a fantasy image and I'm surprised you even have to ask" then it is an honest fantasy image and all is well.

It's all very well for photographers to get on their high horse and ramble away saying "everything is processed in some way, deal with it", but this attitude fails to deal with the fundamental issue lying behind this question and behind public distrust of photographs - people, perfectly reasonably, think that they might be being lied to. "Is this photoshopped?" can be just a way of saying "can I trust you?" and "are you honest?" This real question is a genuine and important one. People are entitled to an honest answer.

(None of which is to contradict Dylan's "no it's from Mars" answer - that is an excellent answer as it deftly indicates that (a) these images are essentially fictional, and (b) so let's have some fun and enjoy them!)

[Dylan & Marianne]

can I just stress that our exhibition is called "Otherworlds" lol
*hint*

[JM Tran]

can I just stress that our exhibition is called "Otherworlds" lol
*hint*

should have mentioned that in the beginning

Also, if only people on here know what the usual SALA crowds are like - from my experiences, artistic, creative minds who love art and alternative forms of art to those who just like to mingle and free-loading on the food and drinks and dont really care. Photographers.......not so much.

Photos without an artistic expression or manipulation is sometimes rare at SALA.

[Xenedis]

To my way of thinking, when a person asks a photographer if his or her image has been 'Photoshopped', it is somewhat offensive.

It's not too dissimilar to "Nice image. I bet you have a really good camera!" in mentality.

It would be nice if people looked at an image for the image's offering, without consideration of the tools that were used to create it.

We don't look at the hand-made coffee table built by someone we know, and ignorantly state "You must have a really good lathe".

Post-processing, as most of us know, is one of the tools that goes into image creation. The term 'Photoshopping' has an inherently negative vibe about it, as opposed to "Was that image processed?", for example.

Much like the rolls of 35mm film you used to take to the pharmacy, yes, the image has been processed.

I cannot say I get many people asking me the blunt, ignorant question we're discussing, but I have a policy of being honest. Given I also like to share what I know and what I have learned from others, I'd be more inclined to give people an insight if they are willing and interested.

Educating the uneducated is always a good idea.

As photographers we need to destroy the mostly inaccurate perception in the minds of the uninformed public that the use of Photoshop is a bad thing. If people were to understand why post-processing is necessary, and how it can really enhance an image in a non-deceitful way, their opinions about the tool may change for the better, and that may concentrate more on what's in front of them than what's on the photographer's desk and/or in his/her camera bag.

[Xenedis]

But SOOC is a total con job. (based on something I've posted before)

Totally agreed.

My view on SOOC is not based on something I've posted before; it actually is what I've posted before. :-)

From http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...=1#post800326:

People need to understand that there are technical limitations cameras cannot overcome, such as extreme dynamic range in a given scene.

People also need to understand that cameras apply varying levels of processing to the raw data they capture. If someone's camera is set to shoot in JPG mode, then there is processing going on in the camera. I'm not sure why 'straight-from-the-camera' purists consider it acceptable for a small CPU to apply processing (largely beyond the user's control) to images, yet don't consider the use of Photoshop on a far more powerful CPU to be acceptable.

The least-processed image a camera can produce is a raw file, and even then, it still needs to be converted, which is a very basic form of post-processing. At bare minimum, a white balance setting is applied and the bit depth is dropped to 8-bit for exporting to JPG format.

On Flickr you'll see some people tagging their images 'SOOC' or adding them to so-named sets.

SOOC stands for 'straight-out-of-camera', and it seems that in the minds of some, producing a contrast-deficient, unsharp, white balance-locked, camera-processed JPG is something about which it is worth bragging.

[zollo]

after having another think about this "What's your internal reaction to a stranger askin you, "Is that photoshopped""
i would have to say it depends on what i was exhibiting. If i was exhibiting docu photos of a war the images would be unshopped, but obviously raw processed, and therefore would be quite irate with them for asking. if i were exhibiting fine art landscapes, and it was advertised as such, i would expect people to understand what that term means, and therefore would also be quite irate at the stupid question. would you rock up to a vincent van gogh exhibit and ask him if its a painting or a colour pencil sketch? if i had advertised "australian landscape photography exhibit" i would be keeping the photos unmanipulated, but processed for light colour, to the way i remembered the scene. processing raw images does not = photoshop manipulation.

oh and i dont mean to hijack the thread with pictures, but SOOC means absolutely nothing these days, illustrated by my photo below. Taken today, raw processed in camera, had a blur filter applied, converted to sepia, cross filter added, and resized all done by my clever little d7000 without coming anywhere near a computer.

ZOL_0053.JPG

[enduro]

I must admit that it initially comes to mind to tell people to f' off, I do share the experience that it's worth asking why people are asking the question and in resolution it is found that they really want to know more about what you do and how. Sometimes it's just because they want to tell you that they "don't Photoshop theirs" at looking and their images I can tell why they might look lifeless and flat.

I do use Photoshop to a degree, bright/contrast, levels, sharpen, saturation. Sometimes I clone out some splotches that are visible where they oughtn't be. I rarely add anything (except for a once recent comedic and poinent examplification purpose) or subtract items from an image. Nowdays, I'm a Lightroom and Nik convert. So yes I do digitally edit my images. Nowadays I'm experimenting with masks.

As indicated above, people normally just don't understand the digital (nor analogue) technology or processes and I don't blame them entirely.