Note: This is the third, and final, installment in a three-part series titled, “Is It Real or Is It Photoshop? Does It Matter?” The other installments are The Purist and Anything Goes.
The Argument
Is it okay to "Photoshop" your images or is it the ultimate photographic sin?
I have already written about “The Purist” and "The Anything Goes". I conclude the series with “Everyone Else” but before I get into that I want to discuss something I forgot in the first installment; Photojournalism.
It is never okay for a photojournalist to manipulate an image - in fact, many (most? all?) news agencies will not allow something as minor as color correction.
Everyone Else
Then we get to the other 99% of us (I am one of you now) who use the computer editing tools to fine-tune our image and make it represent what inspired us to make it. We don't have a problem with adding a touch of magenta to a sunset sky or getting rid of a garbage can in an otherwise beautiful landscape. Yes, I have done both and more. We are the folks
Conclusion
It wasn't until I was having a discussion with a friend (thanks Chris!) that I changed my outlook. He made me look at Photoshop as the digital darkroom that it is. I have come to use the phrase,
WWAD -
What Would Ansel Do? - to describe my attitude change. Lightroom and Photoshop are nothing more than electronic darkrooms. When I was young and just learning photography I had an old-timer tell me I couldn't call myself a "photographer" until I was able to handle myself in a darkroom. Why does that same mindset now scoff at the electronic equivalent?
In the "Old Days" of analog photography the only "straight from the camera" images were slides (transparencies) and the image was influenced by the film manufacturer and, to some extent, the lab processing the roll. When you shot negatives you had the same influences of the film and the added aspect of interpretation in the printing process. The black & white photographer would dodge and burn his images to get the tonality he wanted - the same for the color photographer but they also had the ability to tweak colors. Then there were the characteristics of the paper used to make the print.
I now shoot in RAW format and edit each of my "keepers"; first in Lightroom and then, if needed, Photoshop. I don't usually go terribly heavy with the edits and very seldom will I remove something from an image. I try to get everything "right" before squeezing the shutter - exposure and composition - but there are times when distractions just cannot be avoided. I don't see any reason why a rogue branch, or other distractions, cannot be removed in post.
While I have no problem with the "Anything Goes" mindset, I have one caveat - if you created something that didn't exist, tell people! Now, I don't mean that you have to explicitly tell people that the collage was "shopped" or anything else that is blatantly obvious. I am talking about when you take two different images and create something - for example, you take an incredible shot of a full moon with an 800mm lens and put it rising behind a shot of the Statue of Liberty. I believe in this instance you should divulge that it is a composite.
I am okay with focus-stacking and exposure blending but some other techniques are a bit more "gray" for me. I have recently heard about "focal length stacking" where you use two different focal lengths and combine to a single image. For instance, if you are hiking thru the mountains and find a peak beautifully framed by trees but it appears a bit small in the composition - you shoot a frame of the peak with a telephoto and the over-all shot with a wider lens - then you composite it in Photoshop. Is this okay to present without explanation? If it is not a dramatic difference, I don't think you have to - what do you think? The same with running water - I have seen photographers take a long exposure to get the silky smooth water but then take a few more at higher shutter speeds to freeze some of the water, and then they combine the images in post. Is this something that should be divulged to your audience? Once again, I think I am okay with presenting the image without explanation.
So, we have come to the end of the series. What do you think? Where do you fall in this spectrum? I would love to hear your thoughts - leave me a comment below.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting!