Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Photoshop or no photoshop


KevSB 10 1.5k 5 United Kingdom
10 May 2013 7:44PM
Came across this earlier, about using photoshop in the media, I found it quite interesting that even mainstream news need to enhance images. Not so much the reportage methods that made news photography. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/growing-concern-that-news-photos-are-being-excessively-manipulated-a-898509.html

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

scottishphototours 10 2.6k 2 Scotland
10 May 2013 8:12PM
Photoshop has spoiled photography...it's quite clear that this article now points to the work of the processor as giving the picture merit rather than the way it should be, where the photographer gets the plaudits for capturing the image.

Take the Salgado exhibition as a good example. When he exhibited his "mining" series in the 80's, the world gasped at the images and his ability with a camera. For his most recent exhibition, this site and others revel in how he goes to extraordinary lengths to get his post-processors to make his images look like they were taken on Tri-X, like he used to do in the 80's!!

Absolute madness if you ask me...and HDR is the worst of the lot!
10 May 2013 8:20PM
I think the article is an interesting one, but its only going to lead to more of the confusion over the difference between processing and manipulation.

Personally, i think we are at a time now where we have 'seen it all' on tv or in newspapers/magazines. A decade or two ago, a picture of a dramatic scene or event would have been enough to stand out. Now the image itself has to be just as dramatic as the scene/moment its capturing. If that takes some post processing to enhance an image then why not?

That said, i dont think an image (for the news) should be 'faked' to sell a story - as in, i don't believe an image should be manipulated into something its not (whether through compositing in photoshop or setting up a re-enactment)
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
10 May 2013 9:06PM

Quote:Photoshop has spoiled photography...


Really - And why is that?
llareggub 4 756 United Kingdom
10 May 2013 9:23PM
It's a story born of a sack of horsesh........... The news is manipulated on a daily basis by the intonation of voice or the placement of a comma or a full stop and in many cases it is completely changed by the omission of well known facts. If the "sexing up" of an image is the final straw then to be honest people need to hang their head in shame! News stories are never and have never been "reportage" they have always had an editorial spin, it is just a great deal easier today to see that editorial spin, images whether moving or still are no different!

To claim that "photoshop has ruined photography" is the sort of statement that only someone with a very narrow definition of "photography" would make and one that can only stand up if you define photography in a very specific and narrow way.
lemmy 7 2.0k United Kingdom
10 May 2013 11:42PM
As someone who earned their living from news phtography on national newspapers and magazines for may years, i find myself with a very definite opinion about manipulation of news pictures.

It is that news pictures should be documentary in character. My job was to be the eyes of the reader. They could not be there so I was there on their behalf.

Unfortunately, such is the narcisissm of journalists now that many are not content to use their skills to inform you, they want to manipulate you. The long term result will be that the documentary photographic image will be viewed with the same cynicism as a politician's speech.

Why anyone thinks that Photoshop is responsible for this is beyond me. You might as well blame the gun for a massacre or the car for dangerous driving. Was Photoshop to blame for Leni Riefenstahl's brilliant but flawed porrtayal of the 1936 Olympic Games?

We are too ready to blame problems on inanimate things. Photoshop does not manipulate or spoil anything, narcissists and blow-hards do.
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
10 May 2013 11:51PM
That image looks processed, not manipulated, there is a difference.
janeez e2
6 1.2k 8 United Kingdom
11 May 2013 12:00AM
I really can't see what the problem is. If elements of an image has been removed or added, then there is a problem. In a dark room you could easily create drama with dodging and burning so the fact that colour images have gone through a similar treatment with some tonal enhancement thrown in is not really the crime of the century. The only real crime I can see is the failure to use flash in image number 5 and then doing an excruciating lightening job on the blokes face. He looks like the living dead!
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
11 May 2013 12:15AM
I find embedded journalism a far greater crime Smile

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/308857-1
11 May 2013 12:25AM
Lets face it, Photoshop gets blamed a lot...

But is it just photoshop or ALL editing software?

Has it spoiled ALL photography or just certain types or aspects?

Should digital processing be outlawed where darkroom (analogue?) processing is accepted?

How many using a digital camera can honestly claim they dont process their images? Further to that, if you dont process, why not? Ive met a lot of folk who dont process 'out of principle', but what is the principle? You take a shot and do nothing with it (great if it doesnt need it, but realistically, could it be better?)

Finally though, newspapers are a business. Pictures sell papers. Its simple maths. I once filmed and photographed a local castle that was devastated by fire. I submitted 'original' pics and some processed files (not faked, just processed to give the scene more impact). What was used? The processed images. I have sold many other images from that night at local events and one comment keeps coming up...

"Thats what we saw!"

What we 'see' is not always what the camera captures, even if the camera doesnt lie, so what is wrong with offering an image that shows what you saw?
11 May 2013 12:39AM
Photoshop? What photoshop?
GazzaG2003 11 252 England
11 May 2013 12:59AM
excellent processing imho.
lemmy 7 2.0k United Kingdom
12 May 2013 1:07PM

Quote:That image looks processed, not manipulated, there is a difference.


Semantics. Process and manipulate come down to the same thing in my mind and the dictionary. Pointless to discuss it anyway.

When I went to a news event I saw it as essentially my job to be the eyes of other people. I should present things as objectively, unprocessed and unmanipulated as possible. That leaves it to the viewer to make of it what they will.

That general principle has been breached now and anything goes. I'd be happy with that since I could have increased my income a great deal had it been available in the past. As folk here have said, no-one sees any problem with it. I do think that once the principle of objectivity, that even the wish to be objective, has gone, it won't be long before changing colours for effect morphs into changing objects for effect. Then, news photography becomes pointless since you have no idea whehter what you are seeing happened or not

I remember once thinking when I was on an aircraft photographing an oil tanker disaster, that if I'd been able to be there a few hours later, the oil slick would have been much bigger and the situation looked much worse. But the weather closed in and I wasn't able to go out again. Today, I'd have been able to extend the oil slick in software. Not good for the conscience but excellent for my wallet. If I had felt confident that no-one would mind, as now, I think my wallet would have been very happy and I am pretty sure I could have reconciled my conscience Grin
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
12 May 2013 9:32PM

Quote:When I went to a news event I saw it as essentially my job to be the eyes of other people. I should present things as objectively, unprocessed and unmanipulated as possible. That leaves it to the viewer to make of it what they will


Like the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue Smile
779HOB 2 1.1k United Kingdom
13 May 2013 5:58AM
In my limited experience of the press I would say the manipulation happens long before an image is opened in Photoshop. I've seen photographers doing things like egging protesters to climb a fence at a nuclear power station, getting protester fired up and shouting louder etc....

One of the reasons I got into photography was the black and whites in the Guardian (back in the 80s I guess it was) - today I look at the press as a simple way to make pocket money.


Quote:When I went to a news event I saw it as essentially my job to be the eyes of other people. I should present things as objectively, unprocessed and unmanipulated as possible. That leaves it to the viewer to make of it what they will.


And that is how it should be.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.