Is photoshop for fakes?

Question: Is photoshop for fakes!?

I got called a "fake" today because I told a client that I use Adobe Photoshop to sometimes brighten up pictures/ adjust temperature/ remove unwanted marks on the photograph/ etc!.

How many of you professionals out there use photoshop a lot!? What uses do you find it has for your work!?

Thanks for the answers!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Do you think it's cheating to do any post-production work on a musical recording!? Do you agree with the people who say that George Martin was the sixth Beatle or do you agree with the people who say that Billy Preston deserved that title!?

I think that the MOST IMPORTANT PART of photography is getting it right in the camera in the first place, but I quickly add that using Photoshop to fine-tune an image is not cheating!.

If Photoshop existed when Ansel Adams was doing his "landmark" darkroom manipulations, you can bet he'd be the first in line to buy a copy!.

In the olden days, when film purists were all that there were (no digital = film purist), there were probably more books sold about darkroom technique than photographic technique!.

Did anyone ever wonder where those tools in Photoshop with weird names like "Burn" and "Dodge" got their names from in the first place!? These are basic darkroom techniques that I learned before I was ten years old!. EVERYONE DID IT!. Everyone still does!. It's just that some do it with Photoshop and some still do it in the darkroom!.

Photoshop to fine tune an otherwise acceptable image is not cheating!. Even the best of our photographer friends remark frequently that they create the images and then pay someone to do the post-processing in Photoshop!.

Putting your head on Carmen Electra's body and then posting that on MySpace is cheating!.

See this question and read the answers: http://answers!.yahoo!.com/question/index;!.!.!.

I could be [whatever] and say that – by definition – "photographers" do not clean up images!. They use the camera to capture images!. A LOT of "legitimate" photographers do accomplish what you are seeing in the camera!. I'd be foolish to say that nobody does any work in Photoshop or it's kind to enhance the final image, as many do!. Even "legitimate" photographers may make some small adjustments to compensate for the inability to capture exactly what they want!.

Even the best sensors with the cleanest pixels can benefit from some sharpening!. DSLR's are softer than they could be and allow in-camera sharpening!. Some photographers increase that setting and leave it as their default!. I'm just as happy to do the final tweak on the computer, when I think it is a desirable improvement!. This leaves the option of not having a sharpened image!.

Viewing an image on a monitor is somewhat like viewing a transparency, also!. The monitor is a light source so things will appear brighter!. A print uses reflected light, so it might not be as bright!. This is one reason why the prints you have seen in photo books don't "pop" quite as much as those that you view on a monitor!. When I want to get a print of a slide, I do NOT view the slide on a light box or projected!. I hold it over a piece of white paper and view it with light reflected off of that paper!. This gives you a better idea of how it will looked when printed!.

There may be some debate about whether "real" photographers alter images or not and I'd rather not go there!. I'd rather just see someone admit when they couldn't get what they wanted and let the world accept that!.

Check this out!. http://www!.flickr!.com/photos/samfeinstei!.!.!.

This is actually two "untouched" images merged into one!. You just can't get the leaves, which are about 8-10 feet away, and the moon in sharp focus at the same time!. I took two shots from almost the same spot, using a tripod, and combined what I needed from each image to come up with the final product!. I dropped the sharp image of the moon right where the blurry one was in the shot of the leaves!.

In fact, here you go!. I just went through and added a "NoPhotoshop" tag to the appropriate images on my Flickr site!. http://www!.flickr!.com/photos/samfeinstei!.!.!. When I say, "NoPhotoshop," I admit that up to 50% sharpening has been allowed for this tag, but I have done no sharpening in the camera!. If I altered levels, contrast or saturation, that disqualified the image from this tag!. If I cropped an image, or if I cloned out dust or fingerprints from a scan, I did not consider that to be "alteration" in Photoshop and left it in the group!. Some are very boring snapshots, but some are images that I am proud to show!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I'm not a professional, just a keen enthusiast, but my opinion is no, you're not a fake, unless just about everyone who uses a digital camera is also a fake!.
There are three ways to use Photoshop (or its rivals):
1) The way you (and I) do, to add a bit of sparkle or correct a very minor blemish!. That sort of thing could have been done either in-camera or in the darkroom in days gone by - it's just much quicker and easier in the digital era!. It's only cheating if you're entering a competition which expressly forbids it!.
2) To create images which would be totally impossible without manipulation software!. Again, this isn't cheating, because it's so obvious what you've done!.
3) Somewhere in between!. Of course, there is a grey area, but there it depends on the context and your level of honesty!. So if you're trying to sell a picture of a tiger crossing a fallen log, be honest and say "The tiger was in the zoo, the log was in Albania and I added the snow myself"!. You might lose a small percentage of sales, but many people would just buy it because it looks good, and they would appreciate your truthfulness!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Correcting digital images in Photoshop or similar programs is absolutely no different than a film photographer spending hours on a print to make it perfect except it doesn’t take as long or as much equipment!.

Many of the tools in photoshop come from the dark room!. Even the use of layers adding aspects from several images can be created in the darkroom!.

Photoshop can be used to fake images or create digital artwork, but it is also a tool for professionals to create the absolute best images!. Advancements in the industry open us up to criticism!.

A Photographer using a high quality digital camera and photoshop is equal to a farmer using a john Deere to plow the fields instead of walking behind a horse!. The extra work and hours in the field do not make the food grown taste any better no more than spending days in a dark room makes a photo better than if it takes 5 minutes in photoshop!. Whatever the latest tool is purists will be against it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I use Photoshop because the camera can't capture everything all the time, it's limited by it's own technology!. Besides, there are times that a photographer doesn't catch things (I had to edit a bra edge out of a photo for a client)!.

I also have used it on work for a very reputable men's magazine where the original photo had discoloration and uneven skin tone!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

IMO it all depends on what you do and how much you do!. No offense but most of the young people on this site go way overboard with Photoshop!. If you are using it to remove the pimple on a brides face or to clean up a stain on a child's shirt there is nothing wrong with that!. also if you are using it to imitate typical darkroom work then this is what it was made for!. There is a difference between correcting things and making something new from the photograph!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

They were joking or ignorant!. Of course it's a fake, it's a photograph!. The real image no longer exists, it has been photographically recorded!.
I'll give them the benefit of doubt, maybe they only believe transparencies are real photographs!. Did they explain this accusation!?
Photoshop is the digital equivalent of a darkroom!. It doesn't matter if you use Photoshop or a darkroom, only how you manipulate the image!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

airbrushing over a mole or pimple is different than compensating for the photographers error in setting up the camera for proper exposure, speed, etc!.

photoshop has its place and is useful but should not be used to replace the talent of a good photographer!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

A lot of what you can do in PS, can be done in a darkroom by changing chemicals, so you are a more eco friendly photographer, and definately NOT a fake!.

Hope this helps!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Considering the same things were done in the darkroom before digital photography was invented I don't see how using Photoshop is for fakes!. Anyone who thinks that photography consists of point, shoot & print is the real fake!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

It's the industry standard!. Maybe they are calling you a fake for doing excessive retouching, even though it doesn't sound like you are doing it in excess!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

In my opinion once touched up the photo then becomes art!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

photoshop is not for fakes i use it loads to get rid of spots or unclear skinWww@QuestionHome@Com

i am a photoshop user!.!.!.and i love it! may be he is not into the arts!.

photoshop enhances your photos -- it becomes a masterpiece!

i design posters and web ads using photoshop!.Www@QuestionHome@Com