Is using photoshop wrong?

[flowerforever7]

Hi, I am a Christian, and would like to know if you think using photoshop to alter an image is decietful and wrong? I mean in the general sense, and then also in the sense of saying to people "hey this is my photography", and then showing them images that were altered in photoshop. Do you think that is decietful? I am contemplating on this issue, and want to know what other people think. Thanks

 

[PresbyDane]

I would consider it untruthfull aka a lie

 

[Qyöt27]

Doing image processing through an editing program like Photoshop is a basic tenet of being an amateur or professional photographer. In normal print works (i.e. magazines, books, newspapers) or photography expos, I would be very doubtful that any of those on display are the raw image as it stood from the camera - aside from the whole 'you know everybody gets airbrushed' point when it comes to models appearing in advertising or other types of photography. There's almost always something done to them, but that doesn't make it somehow 'less' of the artist's work.

But if what you're thinking of doing is taking other people's photos, 'shopping them, and then passing them off as your own...that is highly unethical.

 

[flowerforever7]

Yeah, what I am talking about is taking photos of people (portraits, model photos acting photos) and using photoshop to retouch them (making the skin look smoother, the colors more intense etc) I'm aware that in the photography industry it is common to photoshop images. However, I am wondering if just because it is a commonly held and accepted practice if that makes it okay for a Christian to take part in it. I'm not sure where the line is drawn. I mean does retouching images and making it known that images are retouched make it okay, if it really is? Or is it not okay for a Christian to do overall because of it being practicing deciet and promoting it by nature (i.e., photograph someone, and you photoshop their images, and then they go take their photos to other people and say "hey, here is my photo" and though it is them in the photo the image seen is decietful in that it is kind of quietly implying that is just how the photo turned out of that person.) It is an untrue representation of the individual in the photo. See what I'm saying? I am not trying to be contentious, I am just trying to tease this out myself by getting input from other people about the issue.

 

[Qyöt27]

I don't see anything wrong with it, although there are some things I know I don't like to see (it's very obvious at times when something's been airbrushed or smoothed...either that or my eyes are very acutely trained to pick it up - either way, I think it looks tacky, but I don't hold a moral objection to it). I could see how some might come to the conclusion that it's 'deceit', but then there's also the artistic element here - the artist's vision trumps what may constitute reality just like an actor playing a part in a movie is subject to the artistic whims of the director and editor.

And there does come a certain point where the piece wouldn't be what it is except for the alterations, because the alterations enhance the image or make it plainly obvious that it's not the raw image (like matteing, black and white photography, film effect, or so on). Those are artistic decisions.

Ultimately I think if morality has to come into play here, that there's a line involved - is it so far removed, and the adjustments so obvious, that it's a simple artistic choice, or is it being done so subtly (and not of a fairly necessary nature, like red-eye removal) that it starts to bother you morally? I don't think that line is the same for everyone. Don't betray your convictions, but know exactly what and where those convictions are, rather than constantly casting doubt on yourself because you aren't sure where that line is and whether you've crossed it or not.

 

[James109]

I think Photoshop only enhances the image that you made. It doesn't lie by itself.
Of course, if you use Photoshop to create something that you use for wrong then that is bad.

 

[sfs]

I'm no expert at photography, but I don't think there is a simple, pure alternative to manipulating photos.. Any photograph is an imperfect representation of what was there, and every photographer manipulates to some extent, by what's included and what's left out, by choice of lens or aperture, by lighting. Just the fact that you're turning a three-dimensional scene into a 2-d picture with limited color gamut, dynamic range and field of view means that you're manipulating reality by taking the picture.

So I think the question has to be, what are the viewers' expectations about what you're doing to the scene? In some cases, this is pretty clear. Photojournalism has strict rules (at least in theory) that permit only minimal post-processing of images; breaking those rules is wrong and can get you fired. Abstract photographic art may bear little resemblance to reality, and no one expects it to, so anything goes as far as manipulation is concerned. For landscape photography, I do whatever I feel like. If I take a shot of a nice scene and there is an inconvenient pedestrian or street light in the middle, I will not hesitate to remove it. That's because my goal is to make a picture that I like to look at, not to document anything, and I make no claims to be providing a faithful representation of what was there. For example, this was a decent looking scene

But I liked it better after I'd cleaned it up a little:

Portrait or candid photography is where it can get tricky. I have no qualms about removing a pimple or razor burn from someone's face. (Other than a slight ick factor from working on skin blemishes.) I think that's what people expect from such photography, and that's what portrait photographers and painters have been doing since before there was digital photography, or photography at all. On the other hand, the amount of manipulation that gets done now to lots of magazine photos strikes me as absurd. Here is a relatively tame example. Such manipulations not only misrepresent the individual being photographed, but create an impossible (and potentially harmful) view of what humans are supposed to look like.

 

[Qyöt27]

Here is a relatively tame example. Such manipulations not only misrepresent the individual being photographed, but create an impossible (and potentially harmful) view of what humans are supposed to look like.

That's just flat-out scary in terms of manipulated source, and that's a tame example?

Although it does provoke an interesting question: how aggressive, on that level or above, are what we're seeing in printed works on a routine basis? It's something I'd never really pondered before.

 

[lisah]

I don't think it is wrong, if used honestly. Even with film there is some manipulation of images with burning and dodging and other touch ups.

I do think people go overboard in touching up photo's, but Photoshop is a great tool for creating more imaginative works of art.

 

[SirKenny85]

I do think people go overboard in touching up photo's, but Photoshop is a great tool for creating more imaginative works of art

Couldn't agree with you more on that statement. The only thing that can be kinda a bummer about airbrushing/touching up an image is how it is perceived by the younger generations (ala teens.) If they start to look at the images in the media and view that as perfection, then they will start developing disorders and such...Oh man, but that's a whole new topic for a different time

 

[Rainer.]

Facial/body retouching?

Only if it's also wrong for Christians to wear makeup.

As far as I'm concerned as a photographer, when I do facial retouches, I'm just a digital makeup artist.



As far as general use of Photoshop, it's a tool of the trade. Any photographer who doesn't use Photoshop is like a car mechanic who doesn't have a toolbox. It's almost silly to think about digital photography without any means of manipulating it.

 

[OneGodforMe65]

I'm no expert at photography, but I don't think there is a simple, pure alternative to manipulating photos.. Any photograph is an imperfect representation of what was there, and every photographer manipulates to some extent, by what's included and what's left out, by choice of lens or aperture, by lighting. Just the fact that you're turning a three-dimensional scene into a 2-d picture with limited color gamut, dynamic range and field of view means that you're manipulating reality by taking the picture.

So I think the question has to be, what are the viewers' expectations about what you're doing to the scene? In some cases, this is pretty clear. Photojournalism has strict rules (at least in theory) that permit only minimal post-processing of images; breaking those rules is wrong and can get you fired. Abstract photographic art may bear little resemblance to reality, and no one expects it to, so anything goes as far as manipulation is concerned. For landscape photography, I do whatever I feel like. If I take a shot of a nice scene and there is an inconvenient pedestrian or street light in the middle, I will not hesitate to remove it. That's because my goal is to make a picture that I like to look at, not to document anything, and I make no claims to be providing a faithful representation of what was there. For example, this was a decent looking scene


But I liked it better after I'd cleaned it up a little:



Portrait or candid photography is where it can get tricky. I have no qualms about removing a pimple or razor burn from someone's face. (Other than a slight ick factor from working on skin blemishes.) I think that's what people expect from such photography, and that's what portrait photographers and painters have been doing since before there was digital photography, or photography at all. On the other hand, the amount of manipulation that gets done now to lots of magazine photos strikes me as absurd. is a relatively tame example. Such manipulations not only misrepresent the individual being photographed, but create an impossible (and potentially harmful) view of what humans are supposed to look like.

I liked the first photo better...jmo though. I think it's an awesome shot and looks bland when it's edited.
As far as using photo shop? It's art. Nothing more...nothing less. If you are editing the tar out of your work, then maybe you should consider getting photography classes so you don't have to edit so much. But taking out blemishes here and there or editing the lighting or color is harmless. It's YOUR photo to do with what you want. If you lie about it and say you didn't edit it? Now that's wrong.

 

[jwu]

I think it depends on the purpose of the photo itself. I think documentary-style photos ought not to be manipulated beyond that which is required to overcome technical limitations of the camera, such as enhancing the contrast a little, and sharpening.

If the goal of the photo is just to be visually pleasing, then fire away!

Digital postprocessing happens under all circumstances already in the camera or at latest during the converstion from RAW to the final format, so that by itself is nearly unavoidable. And given that using digital methods of image enhancement are commonly known to be tools of the trade of photographers, i do not find it deceitful at all to claim it to be one's photography without further notice that it has been retouched. That such images may have been retouched is the default position and need not be explicitly announced, IMHO.

 

[Annmarie Raite]

I can see where you are coming from with this question it is one I ask myself alot. On one hand I hate photoshop, and on the other I love it. But I am also a huge believer that less is more and the more you tweak something the less it looks like what you had originally shot anyway and thus has lost the essence of what you tried to capture in the first place.

Annmarie Raite,
Author of Graces' Hope, available on smashwords website.

 

[danielcartoon]

It is not really wrong to cartoonify yourself. It is just an expression of your self or probably a hobby so nothing is wrong with it. It is also an art.

Get more info here..Its a good website

cartoonifyyourself.org

 

[contango]

Hi, I am a Christian, and would like to know if you think using photoshop to alter an image is decietful and wrong? I mean in the general sense, and then also in the sense of saying to people "hey this is my photography", and then showing them images that were altered in photoshop. Do you think that is decietful? I am contemplating on this issue, and want to know what other people think. Thanks

Not at all. If you present a picture as being unaltered when really you altered it then you've got a few ethical issues to consider.

If all you've done is applied a few level and curve adjustments to bring out the details then there's little difference between that and what the camera does anyway if it saves in JPG format rather than RAW.

I've got a few pictures where I've taken multiple long exposures, overlaid them to bring out detail selectively and then slightly toned the whole thing. A friend of mine asked me directly if the colours were natural so I told him they had been slightly enhanced. Other friends who have seen the picture have simply expressed how beautiful they thought it was.

Nobody complains about an artist painting with a brush using a little artistic license, so it's a little bizarre that they expect photographers to show everything exactly as it was.

As an aside, the classic example I like is the perfect landscape but with a few pieces of trash littering the foreground. You can do one of four things:

1. Take the picture anyway, trash and all
2. Take the picture anyway, using a focal length that removes the trash from view
3. Move the trash, then take the picture
4. Take the picture anyway and remove the trash in Photoshop later.

If options 1-3 are acceptable, why does 4 require special disclosure?

 

[Tim Myers]

Using Photoshop is not wrong, but lying about the photo you retouched is.........

 

[contango]

Yeah, what I am talking about is taking photos of people (portraits, model photos acting photos) and using photoshop to retouch them (making the skin look smoother, the colors more intense etc) I'm aware that in the photography industry it is common to photoshop images. However, I am wondering if just because it is a commonly held and accepted practice if that makes it okay for a Christian to take part in it. I'm not sure where the line is drawn. I mean does retouching images and making it known that images are retouched make it okay, if it really is? Or is it not okay for a Christian to do overall because of it being practicing deciet and promoting it by nature (i.e., photograph someone, and you photoshop their images, and then they go take their photos to other people and say "hey, here is my photo" and though it is them in the photo the image seen is decietful in that it is kind of quietly implying that is just how the photo turned out of that person.) It is an untrue representation of the individual in the photo. See what I'm saying? I am not trying to be contentious, I am just trying to tease this out myself by getting input from other people about the issue.

What's wrong with touching up someone's skin? If someone put a little makeup on and you took their picture how is that different from you taking their picture and then smoothing the skin in Photoshop?

I shot a friend's wedding some months back. The bride had a couple of skin blemishes on her arm which were very noticeable. She asked if I could get rid of them in Photoshop, so I did. One of the bridesmaids had a pimple on her face so I smoothed that out as well. If the wedding had been a week earlier or a week later she might not have had the pimple.

In one of the pictures the bride had leaned forward, which had made her cleavage a little too prominent. Aside from that she loved the picture so I used Photoshop to tone down the cleavage.

In a few other pictures I did far more extensive work. Do I have any moral issues about it? No, not at all. The focus of the day was on the couple and their guests, the focus of the pictures was on the couple and their guests, and everybody is happy.

I wouldn't say the statement "this is my photo" carries any implication at all that it's completely unaltered. If you're presenting your picture as a piece of journalism or criminal evidence then it needs to be an accurate portrayal of the scene, as seen. If you're presenting your picture as a piece of artwork it can be altered as far as you want it.

If anything the best Photoshop work is done so that it's not obvious that anything has been changed.

 

[Michael Snow]

I have never worked with photoshop, don't own it, or other programs But would like to see what someone could do with this nightshot...it is too green.

 

[contango]

This is the result of about 2 minutes in Photoshop, shifting the colour balance and bringing a little detail out of the shadows, and flattening the contrast a little.