So in effect... the photo is computer fakery.

[azulejo]

Is a photo put through Photoshop fake ?
I took a photo at a concert last month, and someone wanted to use it on his site (not a photographic site but one dedicated to the subject matter). I was asked for details about the photo. I relayed the EXIF data and explained the processing I had done in Photoshop. Photo on site & had some nice comments.
However, one comment reads " So in effect... the photo is computer fakery. Nice job anyway."
Now, if I'd put little stars & wispy clouds all over the picture....yes that would be fake However, that which I did in Photoshop to cut a long story short was : cropped it; removed some noise; adjusted the colour saturation & tone (by using an action, & then combining the result of that with the original image, using HDR). I'm certainly no expert, but I do like to experiment to see how I can optimise an image, but yet keep it true to what was conveyed emotionally when taken.
I suppose processing is something that can be argued about till doomsday and there will be no agreement. Sure I read a quote once from Ansel Adams saying something developing the image as being part of the creative process, and did he not foresee the World of digital ?
If I hadn't compensated for exposure in camera & had to correct this in processing, would that also be fakery ?
If one shoots film the result still depends on type of film; paper; and processing. To my mind getting the optimum tonality & colour in Photoshop is no different. It's just that have more control.

[Rrdjserv]

Originally posted by azulejo
I suppose processing is something that can be argued about till doomsday and there will be no agreement.

Truer words were never spoken. --Rick

[ncredneck]

I second Rick's comment.

In a sense, all photography is fakery. No photographic image, whether digital or film, is "real". The sensor or film doesn't capture exactly what exists in life. The camera engineers made decisions on how to process the digital data, even in RAW files. Film engineers decided how to adjust the spectral response of the emulsion. Photo printers (digital or photographic) further process the image. Then you have darkroom and/or Photoshop manipulations. it goes on and on.

As a photographer it is your choice what your final image looks like. If you like it, no other opinion matters (unless you're trying to sell your work).

That's my 2 cents worth.

Bob

[RTaylor]

Stumbled on this forum post, although 2 years old its relevant to what we do now.
The steps you took to improve upon an already good image was not making your photo fake by any means. Just about all the pros in past years who have shot in film and developed their own work, would always take different processing steps to be sure their photo was the best it could be. Many have dodge and burn in needed areas, including Ansel Adams. Knowing how to effectively process your images whether film or digital files is all part of process of creating your masterpiece

Maybe some members can share their tips on photo processing and we can place them in a separate forum for easy access by all.

[JPope42]

Fake? I think not. Coming from the film days, we used to spend hours in the dark room "optimizing" photos with enlargers & chemicals instead of pixels. Maybe it's more accurate to discern this as the difference between a photograph & a snap shot. Neither one is necessarily better than the other, just different.

[NikonMagic]

Here is my $345.678.345.23 worth of opinion, errrr what were we on about,,, oh yeah

The camera takes a basic image of what you want to see as the final result. It may be a building behind which the sun is setting, and there are clouds but they are not very noticeable, but you imagine what it could look like if the sun was a bit lower, or the clouds a bit thicker. PS allows these dreams to become a reality for what you saw in your imagination. If you start sticking ocean liners in a photo of a puddle in the middle of a field then yes it will look stupid, but things like HDR processing can bring out stunning colours and images that we can only imagine in our minds eye.

[Kyotie]

A photo is a fake only when you claim it to be something it is not. A ship in the middle of the sky may be "out there" but unless you claim that it is what you saw with no post processing then it is not a fake.
Some contests ask that you do not layer or erase existing stuff, but do allow some minor post processing, if you violate that, then, yes it is a fakery in that setting.

[Michelle]

I have seen some photographers proudly claim that their photos are "straight out of the camera/ no photoshop!" and that bugs me a bit, because it's like they're saying they're better than those who do choose to use photoshop. And I look at their photos and think 'oh this would've been so much nicer if they would've just used the healing tool to remove that person's blemish, or if they would've cloned out the garbage can behind the couple, or if they would've used photomatix to make those trees really pop...etc' ...But I guess, to each his own

[JoeMc]

Ansel Adams himself did a lot of photo manipulation in the darkroom..... from what I understand he was the king of "dodge and burn"

Photoshop is no different in that aspect....

The real question is to "when" we dismiss it as a photograph and appreciate it as digital art?

My definition of this is simply (does not make me right).... a photo needs to represent the real scene..... Taking meaningless clutter away to me is fine (coke can, garbage can, blemish etc........) but never would I add something to a image without disclosing that I did.

Just my .02 cents worth

Cheers, joe