Looking for design inspiration? Browse our curated collections!
Discussion
9 Years Ago
Hey, I have only recently joined this site and it's going slowly, very slowly, and i only have a few images up at the minute, i dont know that i can justify the cost of paying to put more up if i dont even know if im going to sell anything at all. so hoping slow and steady will win the race...
aaaaanyway....
It seems there is a whole bunch of photography on here that has been photoshopped to hell and back, and to my mind this makes for some really disgusting images... does this stuff really sell??? None of my photographs I have put on so far have been photoshopped at all, and I am very proud of that fact, and have started to put up some of my scanned 35mm and 120mm film photos too.
Is anyone else Photoshop free??
Reply Order
9 Years Ago
you mean editing free? because photoshop is a program. i use photoshop as a tool. while some people crunch as much stuff as they can, i don't know if theirs sells or not, but i know mine do. everyone should edit their images. though i don't think i would have placed a sunset below the train.
---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com
9 Years Ago
Glad you are proud you do not use photoshop...
... I am proud that I am able to bring out the best of my images using photoshop - now that I no longer need to use a darkroom.
Each to his own.
9 Years Ago
This, if you read the description, is in no way photoshopped, edited or anything, the only thing i did is scan the 120mm negative so that i could actually upload it. It is what's called a double exposure. two images exposed onto a single frame of film.
If you need to crop or straighten an image, then fine, but pushing them so far beyond reality like some appear to be is just so ugly to me.
9 Years Ago
Charlie....the choice of how an image is edited is very personal and not a lot different from saying only realism paintings are good and everything else is ugly. This is how your post is coming across. Different buyers and collectors are going to like different styles. That's all this is, a choice of different styles. You may not like one, but not a good idea to bash all the others. You may enjoy or learn from this thread.
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2206032
9 Years Ago
im just trying to figure out how far people take it and see what the different approaches are to using it as a tool
9 Years Ago
The fact that one can do something does not mean that one should. As an example i suggest that random double exposures such as your photo might be best left on the darkroom floor and one can also make monstrosities with photoshop. It is merely a tool to used or abused as befits the taste of the artist.
Welcome to the site, you made an impressive introduction.
Bob V
9 Years Ago
guys, all i am trying to do is open a discussion on the use of such a thing, i think it is a bit harsh and unnecessary to make direct personal attacks on specific works. I have been on this site just a few days and am putting up a bunch of totally different things just to see what happens and to try to get a feel for the audience that looks at this site and might be interested. This wasn't opened up by me to make anything personal and i would appreciate it not being redirected on me in such a way.
9 Years Ago
I shoot RAW. My files need to be edited, as the camera does not do it for me such as it does when one shoots JPEG.
Being able to edit a photograph is all part of the artistic process IMO.
And mine sell.
9 Years Ago
yeah, but a double exposure is no different than layering it in photoshop. you can't say you don't edit and then do it a different way. no one is attacking you, however the fact your telling us that there is a lot of bad work done, is an attack on any of us. i use it a lot - are mine over done?
---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com
9 Years Ago
Disgusting images? Sounds like you're too smart for this 'place'................sigh! Thanks a lot ! (what's that you're drinking?)
9 Years Ago
Charlie, the decision to edit, whether with wet processes or digital, is up to the artist. Here are a couple of examples. Do you find the edited ones ugly, or somehow worse than the originals?
Both images above have sold, by the way.
And, this one was shot on black and white negative film. I colorized it in the darkroom using liquid toners and dyes. No Photoshop used, because digital photography hadn't been invented yet:
9 Years Ago
Ladies and Gentlemen..
The top post says
It seems there is a whole bunch of photography on here that has been photoshopped to hell and back, and to my mind this makes for some really disgusting images..
Please note it was personal feeling only, which we are all allowed and, please note that he said some, NOT all
Many people here have said the same thing.
Welcome Charlie :) Glad to see you have made an impression and got everyone talking.
Good luck
9 Years Ago
It seems there is a whole bunch of photography on here that has been photoshopped to hell and back, and to my mind this makes for some really disgusting images...
With this being in your OP, it's easy to take it personal!
edit, typing when Abbie was
9 Years Ago
I really don't know why talking about religion is banned, I mean really, is this different? ;)
9 Years Ago
Well, Charlie, my 'personal feeling' is...........................nah.............why bother.
9 Years Ago
In the "olden days" of silver chemical BW photography, I used to enjoy working with lithographic film, inter-negatives, and prints. That's not much different from using Photoshop to process your image in a similar way. Likewise, "finishing" a print by spotting was a normal process for that era. Likewise, you would choose film like agfa for rich greens, or other films for better reds. Likewise contrast management, burning, dodging, and a host of other adjustments. Those same aesthetic issues are handled in the digital age with Photoshop, and tools of that ilk.
Yes, some (like people who shot slides) preferred the more "direct" approach of that medium. However, many of those would sandwich slides, and use other manipulations to achieve the desired result. A notable example would be to underexpose slides to produce more saturated colors. Others like the look of Cibachrome prints, for similar reasons. The decision to manipulate "only" in camera is a personal decision which is, in my opinion, more technical than aesthetic. Many artists prefer to limit their choices and tools to provide a greater challenge and to assist in a style that they like. However, my somewhat snarky response is that if you don't use only a Holga camera and film, perhaps you haven't gone far enough. But don't expect all of us to pawn our DSLRs and buy Holgas instead!
I admire your commitment to your personal aesthetic/ethic. Good for you. Quite a few people here sympathize or practice similar methods. But don't expect all to acknowledge your self-imposed limits as the pinnacle of artistic choices. I'll even say that you're right, photoshop is often used in a doomed attempt to try to make an inferior photo work, often by the simplistic application of some novelty effect. But many the artists here recognize how common a pitfall that is. That said, I should probably cull my portfolio to a much smaller size. Perhaps your perception is the result of too many artists who don't cull their portfolio adequately, rather than an argument over technique.
}:-D
9 Years Ago
Mr. Bloom, Happy Thanksgiving and I will say over again, Bravo! Fisheye Shops is what great, profesional editing is all about, fantastic!
9 Years Ago
Photoshop is a brilliant medium/tool. I've been using it for years in my graphic design work. Poor choice of words to call anyone's work "disgusting" especially on Thanksgiving ))
9 Years Ago
If you are interested in what sells, check out the recently sold page. Be proud of what ever you want, doesn't make it better or worse than anyone else's art.
"Photoshop is not a verb. It is a noun. It is the means to an end, not the end itself. Photoshop is not the reason you take a picture, it is a tool to help you realize your vision." -- Vincent Versace
Big Skip
This is a very popular discussion with 122 responses. In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts. Everything in the middle has been skipped. Want to read the entire discussion? No problem: click here.
9 Years Ago
Hi Charlie,
Not having made use of any editing software, did you calibrate your scanner and monitor before scanning? Load the correct film profile or set the settings manually? Adjust brightness or contrast, or adjust colour for any colour bias? To get the most quality, due to scanning technology limitations, multi-sample your image? Convert to the correct colour space so that the photograph would print as it's seen?
Peter
9 Years Ago
It's all a matter of taste. There are so many buyers out there, what one loves, another does not. So my suggestion is to do what you love. And then work at it both from the artistic end and business end. David, you have the right idea!
9 Years Ago
Interesting article, HW. I used to work at a place called Gordon Professional Color Lab where I made prints for some of the best photographers of the day (1970s). Burt Gordon, who owned and ran the shop, was an acerbic little tyrant of a man, but also the best photographic technician that I've ever met. I learned more about color and color printing from him than from any other individual. We would mark up prints similar to what was in the article, but with the addition of local color correction. The guy was a genius, and if he corrected a print and it wasn't perfect on the next run, it was your fault, not his. Most of what we did was destined for magazines, catalogs, and fine art.
9 Years Ago
Yes, I sell.
$1200+ worth in November alone.
Ever since cavemen, new art forms have been dissed by those who prefer their old ways. That's OK, there is room for all of us in the art world.
http:/www.haldanecreativeart.com (my FAA site)
9 Years Ago
Sorry to hear that, Dave. Good luck wherever you end up.
Happy Holidays to you, too.
John
9 Years Ago
....duh, I use Photosharp all da time. :)
Hiya Charlie,
I agree with you and I disagree with you. (My Ma told me that I should have become a politician.) :) Yes, I have seen many images that have been overly butchered by SOME people who just discovered what Photoshop can do and go overboard with it. Then I have seen Some, such as Mike Savad, Murray Bloom and Jessica Jenney who have mastered this very valuable tool. Like my good buddy, Murray Bloom, I have also spent a few years in a darkroom working and reworking my photographs but now that I have photoshop I would never spend another minute in a darkroom, it's a waste of time. IMHO it's the same thing as rubbing two sticks together to start a fire or just flicking a cigarette lighter to accomplish the same thing. But the bottom line is, it's a matter of taste, as has been mentioned here many times.
BTW Charlie, welcome to this very unique bunch of people who will go out of their way to help you.
9 Years Ago
Harold,
That is the truth people will go out of their way to help.
I think he disappeared anyway.
Dave
9 Years Ago
Jim Wolf,
What's up with all the blank responses? I've see this in more than 1 thread. You have 1 pic uploaded, no bio and several blank posts - what gives?
9 Years Ago
he started a thread of his own about those two sunsets - why those were removed as well i haven't a clue.
---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com
9 Years Ago
I will say I use several editing tools, paintshop pro x6, lightroom 5, photoshop cc2014: but over the course of my ventures I have figured out which to use on a photo basis. As with many others here I shoot raw format and some editing is a must. Feel free to check my art work out and tell me if you think they are disgusting. By the way most are done with photoshop and LR5
http://william-bentley.artistwebsites.com/featured/charlotte-lights-william-bentley.html
9 Years Ago
Melany...he gave me some uncalled for 'lip' earlier, but it was easy to ignore him........
9 Years Ago
There's another one in a recent post (I think the one about stolen paintings on art GaGa.
It just seems weird to me.
9 Years Ago
its like a way to say anything you want, but not being brave enough to leave your words there. so its erased so your not caught. i consider it a troll tactic.
---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com
9 Years Ago
I thought the OP was going to say something like the site is turning into deviant art and here he is talking about photoshop.
9 Years Ago
"Jim Wolf
10 Minutes Ago
Wow a real conspiracy theory...LOL! "
is this going to be erased soon too?
---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com
9 Years Ago
as we thought jim is another troll, probably sooner with little else to do. but as an interesting social experiment in my favor it was interesting how people responded automatically calling him mike - because of the avatar.
---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com
9 Years Ago
seems so, they've banned every ip including the last one when he was in lowes. i guess he's in a wendy's or something with free wifi. kind of sad though.
---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com