The Kitsch Factor in Photoshopped Photos

[tbob]

I foresee two problems here. One, that I would have to become proficient enough at post processing to successfully challenge the brilliant others on the site. I would say more proficient but that would be easy as I am starting from essentially zero.

Two; Can you imagine the horror of dredging through thirty or more travesties trying to pick the worst? Would be like having someone smack you in the face with a dead fish and trying to determine which is the most telling blow.

[Colin Southern]

Maybe we should have a little competition in this vein; everyone should submit an image shot and processed to be their ultimate nightmare of their favorite genre. Mine might be an oversaturated, vilely done HDR of an old barn with an overly dramatic sky photoshopped in with the light on the clouds coming in from the opposite direction to the light on the buildings.

Oh - you mean a normal Photomatix image?

[lightdrunk]

Now, William Eggleston deals with kitsch in a really revealing way. But he's outside looking into the culture of the velvet Elvis, etc. http://www.egglestontrust.com/images...s_alamos_s.jpg

[lightdrunk]

Here's an overphotoshopped self portrait I did when I was investigating photoshop's menus:

[tbob]

Interesting Doug; Did you realize that viewing this while under the influence of psychogenic drugs that it looks like a normal image?

[Tim Bond]

I was given the book "Focus on Flowers" by Allen Rokach and Anne Millman this past month. It was published in 1990. They discuss the pre-visualization method of photography. Inner vision of what we want to produce and using manipulation of film and camera to accomplish the vision. No photo-shop. That might be fun. Photography has always been interesting.
Tim

[lightdrunk]

Ha ha ha ha

The sixties have been over for a while. Unlike Bill Clinton, I inhaled.

[lightdrunk]

Tim, I think originally that was Ansel Adams term. I agree heartily with that method, although I don't do much zone work with 35 mm.

[gilliebg]

A very interesting thread. What has stayed with me from the replies is the thought that someone can claim that they are a photographer, not an artist, which seems as absurd to me as saying they are not an artist but a sculptor. The camera is a tool to produce the photographer’s vision for he and maybe others to enjoy; the darkroom, be it digital or physical is just another tool to help in that production. Naturally it is important to master the technical features of the camera before being let loose in Photoshop, just as it is important for a painter to learn how to mix colour before being let loose with a palette of oils. However, a technically perfect photograph can sometimes lack soul or emotion, and the magic of post processing can, in the right hands, add what it is that is missing. Of course people go over the top, and of course all work does not appeal to everyone. It is well nigh impossible to find anything new, and through trying what has been done before, be it fluffy water, or a cat’s eye, experience is gained and methods learned. The artist/photographer should produce work for himself, primarily; then, if he is worried that others are not as enraptured as he, that should be the time to take another look and learn where he might be going wrong, in their eyes. It is his choice, as it is the choice of the viewer to pause, criticise, admire or move on.

[Tim Bond]

Lightdrunk
The book gives credit to Edward Weston as first articulating this concept. I am sorry that I did not include this. The book is full of exciting ibids.
Tim

[OldFrank]

Am I wrong in saying that all digital images are "post processed" technically. The lens post processes a landscape into the size of the camera image detector, which processes it into bits/pixels, which is post processed/corrected by the camera computer. The result is post processed by the computer for viewing on screen or printer.

So all Photoshop does is introduce a variable into the chain of evens that can be controlled by the photographer. The real issue here is how the photographer manipulates the whole chain to produce what he/she has visualized.

By the way the human eye does a lot of post processing in the brain. I'm sitting here at my desk with a sun lit image outside the window, and the dark image under my desk. I can see them both at the same time but one or the other is out of my lighting range. However, if I deliberately look around a bit my brain puts them together into a useful image. If I were to photograph this scene, I would need to make a decision how to deal with this range. No matter how I post process it even with wide range techniques, there is no paper or monitor that can handle the actual scene. So it is up to me to decide what I want you to see.

I'm new in the forum, but decided I would leap in and see what happens. I like criticism so feel free to have at it.

[Tim Bond]

Old Frank
You are correct. CIC also has a wonderful set of tutorials on these issues. It is really great reading. It was the information in the tutorials that got me interested in the forums.
Tim

[OldFrank]

Thanks, I'll check them out. I'm an electronic engineer and tend to look at things this way!

frank

[Colin Southern]

Thanks, I'll check them out. I'm an electronic engineer and tend to look at things this way!

Hi Frank,

Great to have you with us

Just remember though - as you gain an understanding of the technology side of digital photography - that there can well be a BIG difference between how something might appear initially, and how that physical characteristic translates into real-world images.

Perhaps a good example might be the comparison between an 8MP camera and a 24MP camera; the initial assumption might be that "3 times as many pixels must be 3 times as much information - and the more information you have to work with, the better" ...

... but delving a little deeper you might discover that we only use 1MP in most online images (so both may be considered "more than adequate"), but the 8MP camera may be capable of recording a higher dynamic range due to the larger photosites on the sensor - and in turn THAT might make it capable of producing a better landscape image.

Sean's tutorials are truly world-class - but I think it's also important for folks to take advantage of the opportunity to have us help good folks such as yourself in applying that knowledge in the real world via these forums (which Sean also provided -- helpful chappie isn't he!).

[lenelg]

What has stayed with me from the replies is the thought that someone can claim that they are a photographer, not an artist, which seems as absurd to me as saying they are not an artist but a sculptor.

Taking photos - and processing them - is a craft, which can be practised for a lot of reasons other than "artistic" expression, while still caring about and taking pride in your craftmanship. I have no artistic ambition, but I take pride in preserving my family memories to the best of my ability..

[OldFrank]

I sure agree to the comments. Don't worry about me, technology, and creativity. Back in the 60's I fought the Zone System battle and still have a notebook of curves for films and papers. I also still remember what it is like to come home from the darkroom smelling like a pickle factory.

Collin, you raised the question of dynamic range in hi pix count camera's. Something I've wondered about is whether the dynamic range is regained if you use the camera (or maybe even post processing raw) at reduced resolution. It would seem that each pixel in a lower res photo could be an average of multiple pixels of the original, which reduces noise, and gives the effect of more light gathering area/pixel.

How's that for an engineer? Am I missing something?

[Colin Southern]

Collin, you raised the question of dynamic range in hi pix count camera's. Something I've wondered about is whether the dynamic range is regained if you use the camera (or maybe even post processing raw) at reduced resolution. It would seem that each pixel in a lower res photo could be an average of multiple pixels of the original, which reduces noise, and gives the effect of more light gathering area/pixel.

How's that for an engineer? Am I missing something?

Hi Frank,

It's called pixel binning, but most manufacturers are keeping quiet as to if they do it or not (loose translation: "they probably don't").

The problem as I see it is that adjacent pixels in a bayer CIA camera are red, blue, and two green.

[jcuknz]

What gets me is the way you all talk about Photoshopping when I always, except for here :-), call it editing.

[Donald]

What gets me is the way you all talk about Photoshopping when I always, except for here :-), call it editing.

I think you'll find that this is possibly the only thread on CiC where the term 'photoshopping' has been used and it is so because that is how the thread was started. I'm not sure that everyone contributing to this thread has used that term.

The usual terminology that you will find used on here is 'post-processing'.

Edit - In fact apart from yourself, the term 'photoshopped' has only been used once in the whole thread, other than, of course, in the title.

[gcowan]

It seems to me that everyone is feeling the way with this technology

In the film days solarisation was over used, but it is just technique to use in some circumstances to say something interesting or challenging, that can't be done some other way. But until you have used the technique and played with it you can't learn enough about it to master its use.

I think you have to make some images and do the post processing using whatever techniques you have learned and take the risk that you will offend taste including your own. I still haven't come to terms with HDR technique or tone mapping but I have seen some very lovely and subtle images people have made using them, as well as some horrors; and I won't work out what to do unless I take the risk of offending the viewer with Kitsch.
Graham