markEdwardPhoto wrote:
BUT! for you photographer who overuse the Gausian Blurr it still looks like Shit!!!!

You mean like this?



Took this photo while screwing around over at Stan's.  ISO 1600, natural light (of which there was almost NONE) and a couple of lamps.  It's pretty noisy...come on, it's 1600!  All I did was edit a scratch a few fly away hairs, and some blemishes.  Then some little 20 y.o. shit that in his MySpace profile claims he's better than you at Photoshop (so deal with it) comes in and does this shit.  Which I didn't mind, this was not a "shoot" but rather friends hanging around shootin' the shit.  BUT, I made a comment under the photo that if she liked the amateur plastic banana look, all she had to do was ask me and I'd have cleaned it up for her.  Boy did that set him off.  Calling me an unprofessional asshole and if I had taken the photo properly to begin with, he wouldn't have had to clean up all the noise for me.  DUDE, it's ISO 1600 in SHITTY light with friends hanging out having fun...who gives a shit about noise?!  If I cared, I'd have gotten a tripod and made her hold still for a moment to get the correct exposure.

Anyhow, I stood by my claim that the work was amature quality (or lack of).  The transition from her eyebrows to the skin...SCREAMS photoshop.  It's a HORRIBLE job.  If you're going to fix someone ELSE's photo, at least be good at it!

Black Ricco wrote:
The final image is all that matters. Doesn't matter if the image was 5% photoshopped, 95% photoshopped, or untouched... a great image is a great image. It doesn't matter how it was achieved. I've always been a little wary of "purists" of any type. They tend to be rigid, uncreative, and sexually repressed.

Yeah, he's back!

More, I beg of you, say more unrestrained shit designed to incite a riot and cause my ears to bleed.

MMDesign wrote:

Christ! Another one, eh? I started out doing paste-up, setting headlines on a typositor and shooting halftones in a type shop. Boy, was I glad when computers came along.

I should hate the two of you. My ex-demon from hell wife was t keyline paste up type kerner setter upper.

markEdwardPhoto wrote:
Then you used too much!!!

I see lots of images out there that have plastic skin and ultra bright eyes. If you are going to edit in Photoshop then do it so it doesn't 'look' like you used photoshop.

Again, don't put out crap just to put something out....

M

What a waist of bandwidth this post of yours is....

tomkatproductions wrote:
Or why not just have every shot accompanied with a symbol denoting that PS was used "to some degree"...kind of a truth in pictorial honesty??  Hahaha!  But even that has issues:  case in point, a photojournalist covering Bush's fuckup in the Middle East was recently fired.  His transgression?  Manipulating/altering some shots....basically enhancing smoke clouds from a recent explosion.

ok, ONE of us needs to get our stories straight.  But I believe that was a photo of an Israeli airstrike and has NOTHING to do with United States or our President.

The "rules" have all changed now.  There are NONE!  It's down to core esthetics:  you either like the shot or not...be it "too much" PS, not enough, or just hate the shot- irregardless of the software.  SO WHAT?

In journalism, it's not "down to core esthetics" but ethics, and Reuters, lucky to be knowledgable about the alterations, chose fidelity to the recorded moment over dramatization.  It's not the first time photojournalists have been called out on desktop editing decisions and it won't be the last, but the newspaper community, and as a community, seems to want to say it tells the truth as best it can, and while it cannot achieve objectivity, that not being in the nature of the tools, including the humans who observe events and deliver copy or pictures, it believes in reporting facts before delivering opinions, and it believes in verifiable information over cant, supposition, and speculation.

Artists, on the other hand, have always the choice of "telling it like it is" or dressing it up according to taste.  The choice just got a lot easier over the past few years.

commart wrote:
Ansel Adams, who knew, and not by accident, when to be where made as deliberate, experiment, inquisitive, and repertorial a project as any of exploring the photo technology if his era.  I've got an instructional book or two of his somewhere around (fear moving, fear it very much, lol, especially if you're carrying a library of more than 2,000 volumes) as well as a popular softcover copy of the portfolios.  I don't think he'd have the slightest problem with computers and related elements emulating light-sensitive materials and processes; I do think he'd have a problem coming up with baselines or ideals for computer-generated images because there's little intrinsic in compution that begs for optimization or encourages such as other than a matter of audience/client demand, culture, and taste.  The close contenders, if any, may be dynamic range and gamut, and software users are  progressing oddly on those with cheap tricks while manufacturers and software developers are the ones to really address both of areas.

Ansel Adams, in "The Negative", 1981 wrote:
I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.

markEdwardPhoto wrote:
Then you used too much!!!

I see lots of images out there that have plastic skin and ultra bright eyes. If you are going to edit in Photoshop then do it so it doesn't 'look' like you used photoshop.

Again, don't put out crap just to put something out....

M

I love it when people use too much PS. It helps differentiate my work: "Oh, that guy has taste."

There are a ton of model's portfolios on OMP with the over-PS'd look. I guess a lot of them like it. But from my point of view, it's "I can't tell what she looks like." That's a problem, because when you're looking for a model to work with, you kinda need to know what the model really looks like, and how she photographs.

Michael LaPolla wrote:
If someone is doing something wrong with photoshop let them do it! What do you care....is it taking money out of your pocket?Probably not...

Because as someone who cares about making good images I think that it is important to  let others know. I has nothing to do with money, but maybe it will let someone know that they have to do better at what they do. Its about caring for photography and helping to raise the tide of talent. As a Photography Professional I feel obligated to help where I feel I can so that some may get better at their craft. Did I come across a little rough? Sure, but maybe more photogs will remember for next time.

M

Brian Stewart Photog wrote:
This sounds more like an argument between people who don't know how to use PS and people who do.

Succinct.

Still leaves off the difference in intended result, but certainly covers the most common complaint.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:

I should hate the two of you. My ex-demon from hell wife was t keyline paste up type kerner setter upper.

Now Bob, you can't blame us that you chose the wrong "layout" the first time around.

markEdwardPhoto wrote:
All my images are Photoshopped.

I believe I did a good job. Lots of blemishes, wrinkles, and adjustments. Everyone her on MM have been PS'd.

I believe my work should be the bear minimum when it comes to using it in a practical sense. No?

M

no. now with this very statement it is a big fckn no.

no for you didnt do a good job but not bad.

no for the bear minimum should be like your work. it should be less or more.

before you try to set some standarts be aware of your skills. or just do your thing and let everybody else do theirs.

markEdwardPhoto wrote:
All my images are Photoshopped.

I believe I did a good job. Lots of blemishes, wrinkles, and adjustments. Everyone her on MM have been PS'd.

I believe my work should be the bear minimum when it comes to using it in a practical sense. No?

M

WG Rowland wrote:
Photoshop is for LOSERS!

Look at the name in the lower left corner. LAHUU  ZEHER, LOSER!

markEdwardPhoto wrote:

Because as someone who cares about making good images I think that it is important to  let others know. I has nothing to do with money, but maybe it will let someone know that they have to do better at what they do. Its about caring for photography and helping to raise the tide of talent. As a Photography Professional I feel obligated to help where I feel I can so that some may get better at their craft. Did I come across a little rough? Sure, but maybe more photogs will remember for next time.

M

Star wrote:
.

?