Poll: Is that photoshopped?

[swifty]

Call me cynical but i reckon there's a percentage of viewers who are just jealous.
Asking whether you 'photoshopped' the image and expecting (hoping for) a yes but not sticking around to find out more screams of someone who's insecure about their own work not looking anywhere as good as yours. ie. "yea it only looks great cos of photoshop"

[Geoff79]

I've been using Faststone a lot lately for my post processing, so I could answer "no."

I can understand the frustration, though, Dylan, not being given opportunity to answer the question properly to a person who is just looking for a 'yes' or 'no' to make up their mind. As others have said, I personally love your shots and as the saying goes, "you can't polish dogsh*t." If the actual raw shots weren't already excellent in the first place no amount of photoshop help could make them that way. All you're doing is making something already delightful a little more delightful.

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks geoff i wonder though, how we could get that perception to the public who have had so much bad press dealt to them regarding photoshop. Can you remember the last time that the word was used synonymously in mass media with something positive?

[Charmed]

I find if you're asked "is that PS?" and you answer "yes", the next question is often "how do you do it ?"
So I selected "They are wondering how to maximise the impact of their own images"

[Dylan & Marianne]

Simone - I wish that were the follow up question I've had! I'd love to discuss that topic with them
More often than not, I've been dealth the 'No further questions' response. (ie. photoshopped image, therfore no longer interested)

[cbourke]

Eh, every image I have is photoshopped. Standard levels and curves adjustment. I rarely get asked as my main prints I display anyone can tell its photoshopped to the hilt lol. On the rare occasion I do get asked I just reply with yes, it is, every image at the very least gets a curves adjustment for a touch of contrast .

[Charmed]

From where I sit, there is PS (the basic level adjustments etc) & then there is PS (ps to death where it is no longer the original image)
I'm in the 1st camp.

[Boo53]

Dylan, I wonder whether, in the context of the exhibition that you were at, and given that you thought a lot of people were just there for the munchies, the majority knew next to nothing about photography but felt obliged to make some comment that gave the impression that they really did and "photoshop" just happened to be the only photographic term they could use vaguely in context, and having used it they move on.

[Pine]

In my opinion PS is part of the new digital technology and as such acceptable.
Most cameras enhance the photo taken under JPG anyway.
However PS needs to be used in such a way that the pict stays natural.

I would have said yes.

Regards

[ricktas]

I got asked this very question today, and decided to try a different tack. So my reply was "actually it was done in an digital darkroom". The questioner then said "Oh, well its a very nice photo"..

Baffle em with Bull and you will overcome, every time

[Xenedis]

In my opinion PS is part of the new digital technology and as such acceptable.

Processing was and is also part of the old technology.

Unfortunately the general public's perception about digital post-processing is negative and uniformed, and people seem not to realise that many types of post-processing were performed in the wet darkroom.

People don't understand that film-based photography is not as 'pure' and unaltered as they think it is.

Most cameras enhance the photo taken under JPG anyway.

That's another crucial fact that many people fail to understand.

[Xenedis]

I got asked this very question today

Coincidentally, I did too.

A colleague spotted a print I'd put up in my work area, and asked about it.

Invariably the question of "Is it Photoshopped?" came up, and when I said yes, he almost deflated, as though the use of Photoshop tainted the image and made it less real.

I said it was very real, and proceeded to give him some education about post-processing.

It does sometimes get waring trying to defend post-processing against those who don't understand it and hold a incorrect perception about it.

[soulman]

...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.

When was the last time you went to a gallery and saw a list in the catalogue of the brushes, paint & canvas used by the artist? I have never seen a painter do it. I think you invite such questions to some degree by listing EXIF data. It's probably the last thing most prospective buyers want to know and they're the ones you should be targeting with the catalogue.

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.

Absolutely. Questions like this are an excellent opportunity to sell yourself and your work, so I think it's important to consider them beforehand and work out your message - what it is you want to say to people. Selling yourself doesn't have to be dishonest and there is nothing wrong with putting your best foot forward.

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.

Indeed. If your images aren't realistic, then you have to somehow make it clear that that they're impressions rather than records. I think space in the catalogue would be much better used to put that across, rather than listing shutter speeds and apertures.

[Dylan & Marianne]

soulman - might I remind you again that the title itself is called 'Otherworlds' and in it, a description of the intention (ie. something similar to your wording of bringing our 'impression' of the scene to the viewer : The quote on the SALA's page is "Surreal landscape impressions capturing the ethereal beauty of our world and celebrating the magnificence of nature in all its glory" ) but John R is probably right - most of the people there were not there for photographic appreciation but just as a social outing and probably in hindsight, were just asking to make conversation.
I was more after a general opinion of the topic not a specific response to this particular exhibition.
By EXIF data, I simply mean camera,aperture iso, shutter speed - something that is not uncommon to photographic exhibitions and publications (albeit it's more info that just a one word 'Acrylic' or 'Pastel' )
Lastly, I think Rick's suggestion to give a baffling answer is a good tactic for me to adopt in the future. I did not hesitate to say yes but to be honest, I am poor at a hard sell and so once the conversation evaporated after that initial yes, I didn't push on.
Thanks again for all the insights - no doubt , if I want to push myself as a photographer as a primary profession in the future, I will have to consider all of these issues with much more dedication just mere observation.

[jim]

Oddly enough nobody has ever asked me that question. (Is it Photoshopped?)

Erm. Is that good or bad, d'you think?

[Dylan & Marianne]

jim, if your target audience is happy with your product , then it can only be a good thing can't it?

[swifty]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...ic_cheat.shtml

[sonofcoco]

I think it's probably just a case of most people having never been near a darkroom and therefore not understanding that Photoshop is essentially the same thing. I'd include myself in this group a few years back (and I've still never been in a darkroom). I had no idea what Photoshop was used for before I started getting into photography with a dSLR and, like many others, assumed it must be used to make artificially produced photos that didn't reflect the true nature of the scene. Now that I've used it and understand a bit more about it (with a long, long way to go) I have changed my opinion completely.

It is funny that it's viewed with so much suspicion though, I saw someone talking on morning TV this week about a shot taken where lightning was striking somewhere around the Eiffel Tower in Paris. The TV 'personality' was strongly of the opinion that it must have been photoshopped, seemingly without considering that maybe the person who took it sat there for hours and took a lot of photos to capture that exact moment. The automatic assumption that it must be photoshopped to get a shot like that was an interesting (and annoying) one.

Have had a friend say something similar about a shot at a National Geographic exhibition in Ulsan when I was there, because a white seal's tongue looked quite pink. It's funny when a fantastic photo can have doubts cast upon it by people who don't take photos at all because they think something looks a little brighter in colour than they think it should (without having seen the original scene).

Personally mate I wouldn't worry too much about people saying, "Has that been photoshopped" with regard to your photos. Having seen them I think they're fantastic and hope that one day I can take a shot that looks similar to the many you've shown us on here. I'd worry about the people who are into photography and understand what Photoshop and what you do is all about, and I wouldn't worry about the randoms who wander in to your exhibition and are automatically suspicious of anything that looks good.

As long as you're steering away from the horrible abominations that make it clear a photo has been photoshopped I think you're doing ok

[Sobriquet]

I am a proud photoshopper, lightroom fanatic and have a few select filters I use on camera. I find very few people I meet are against photoshopping or image manipulations. I am an artist who works in many mediums including photography, I am quite good at drawing, painting and mixed media. I have an insatiable curiosity and love seeing where I can take things. I call my portrait sessions designer portraiture and I photoshop them to artistic effect (and if requested to enhance the way the person looks). My response to any negative is simply, there are NO rules in art. Don't be ashamed, have a look at the winning images in the latest Canon Aipp book, just stunning and these images are manipulated. I doubt there would be many SOOC.

I have burned and dodged and toned in a real darkroom so I understand that many things were manipulated pre PS and I love liquify! a lot easier than airbrushing.

[sunny6teen]

I would just tell them that that is the scene as I saw it.
Keith.

this has to be my favourite and much maligned statement of recent...and boy, does it get overused by some of the best togs in the world.
I think it loosely translates as 'the light was too boring when I shot it'. either that or they saw the scene as an oversaturated long exposure with a vignette

I was recently asked if I used photoshop as well. I truthfully replied that the picture in question was shot on sheet film and developed in the darkroom. no computer work etc.
they were pretty satisfied/impressed with the response....then I added that I also replaced the boring sky with a better one and adjusted the light to suit the new sky.
It confused the hell out of them.

my point being...people are idiots
don't worry about them.